Cover not available

Article published In: Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 27:1 (2024) ► pp.1–34

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Torso articulation in sign languages

ORCiD logo with link | Swarthmore CollegePA
ORCiD logo with link | Federal University of Santa Caterina
Published online: 9 January 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.22010.nap
Abstract
Torso articulation in sign languages is mentioned variably in the linguistic analysis of sign languages but is often ignored. The prevailing idea seems to be that detailed study of movement of the parts of the torso will yield little insight into linguistic matters – so mentions can be general and brief. The result is that torso articulations are an unmined area – perhaps one that holds treasures, particularly regarding the appreciation of creative sign language. We draw together the findings of other research regarding torso articulation, then give an inventory of possible torso articulations, exemplified with signs from dozens of the world’s named sign languages, and a brief overview of how annotation systems have approached torso movement in signs. We end with suggestions for how the study of torso articulation can open new avenues of sign language research.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and background
  • 2.Relevant findings of others on torso articulation
    • 2.1The torso in the lexicon
    • 2.2The torso in discourse
    • 2.3The torso in creative sign language
    • 2.4What’s missing
  • 3.Our data set and our method
  • 4.Toward an inventory of torso articulation
  • 5.Annotation of torso articulation
  • 6.Conclusion and potential areas of future investigations
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (132)
References
Aarons, Debra. 1994. Aspects of the syntax of American Sign Language. Boston: Boston University PhD dissertation.
Bahan, Benjamin & Laura Pettito. 1980. Aspects of rules for character establishment and reference in ASL storytelling. Unpublished manuscript, La Jolla, CA: Salk Institute for Biological Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Charlotte L. & Carol Padden. 1978. Focusing on the non-manual components of American Sign Language. In Patricia Siple (ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, 27–57. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker-Shenk, Charlotte L. 1983. A micro-analysis of the nonmanual components of questions in American Sign Language. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD dissertation. Open access: [URL]
Benitez-Quiroz, C. Fabian, Kadir Gökgöz, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Aleix M. Martinez. 2014. Discriminant features and temporal structure of nonmanuals in American Sign Language. PloS One 9(2). e86268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny. 1981. Distinctive features of the handshape in American Sign Language. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
. 1999. Rhythmic temporal patterns in the signing of early and late learners of German Swiss Sign Language. Language and Speech 42(2/3). 177–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny & Rachel Sutton-Spence. 2001. The hands are the head of the mouth: The mouth as articulator in sign languages. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bredeli, Johanne Helle. 2022. Framing of Constructed Action in elicited narratives and conversational narratives in Norwegian Sign Language. Oslo: University of Oslo, Department of Linguistic and Scandinavian Studies MA thesis. [URL]
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Sign language phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brock, Heike, Iva Farag & Kazuhiro Nakadai. 2020. Recognition of non-manual content in continuous Japanese Sign Language. Sensors 20(19). 5621. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caselli, Naomi, Corrine Occhino, Bruno Artacho, Andreas Savakis & Matthew Dye. 2022. Perceptual optimization of language: Evidence from American Sign Language. Cognition 2241. 105040. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy, Sandra Smith & Zed Sevcikova-Sehyr. 2015. Rethinking constructed action. Sign Language & Linguistics 18(2). 167–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno & Els van der Kooij. 2013. The phonology of focus in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Journal of Linguistics 49(3). 515–565. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuxac, Christian. 1999. The expression of spatial relations and the spatialization of semantic relations in French Sign Language. In Catherine Fuchs & Stephanie Robert (eds.), Language diversity and cognitive representations, 123–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. La langue des signes française (LSF). Les voies de l’iconicité. Faits de Langues (Evry) 15/161. 288. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Langue et langage: Un rapport critique de la Langue des Signes Française. In Christian Cuxac (ed.), Langue Française 1371, 12–31. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ćwiek, Aleksandra, Susanne Fuchs, Christoph Draxler, Eva Liina Asu, Dan Dediu, Katri Hiovain, Shigeto Kawahara, et al. 2022. The bouba/kiki effect is robust across cultures and writing systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 377(1841). 20200390. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916. Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Damián E. Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten H. Christiansen & Padraic Monaghan. 2015. Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19(10), 603–615. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dotter, Franz. 1999. Sign language “between” gestures (nonverbal behavior) and spoken languages? STUF – Language Typology and Universals 52(1). 3–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Most characteristic elements of sign language texts are intricate mixtures of linguistic and non-linguistic parts, aren’t they? Colloquium: New Philologies 3(1). 1–62.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Durden, E. Moncell. 2019. Beginning hip-hop dance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen, Robin Thompson & Rachael Colvin. 2009. Eye gaze during comprehension of American Sign Language by native and beginning signers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 14(2). 237–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick. 2009. The anatomy of meaning: Speech, gesture, and composite utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fenlon, Jordan, Kearsy Cormier & Diane Brentari. 2017. The phonology of sign languages. In Stephan J. Hannahs & Anna R. K. Bosch (eds.), The Routledge handbook of phonological theory, 453–475. Oxfordshire: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrara, Casey & Donna Jo Napoli. Submitted. “Let’s go!” “Which way?” Strategies for choosing starting point and direction of movement in drawing in the air. Available upon writing to the authors.
Ferrara, Lindsay & Gabrielle Hodge. 2018. Language as description, indication, and depiction. Frontiers in Psychology. 91. 716. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrara, Lindsay & Trevor Johnston. 2014. Elaborating who’s what: A study of constructed action and clause structure in Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(2). 193–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friedman, Lynn A. 1976. Phonology of a soundless language: Phonological structure of the American Sign Language. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD dissertation. Retrieved from [URL]. Accessed November 1, 2020.
Garcia, Brigitte & Marie-Anne Sallandre. 2013. Transcription systems for sign languages: A sketch of the different graphical representations of sign language and their characteristics. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva Ladewig, David McNeill & Sedinha Teßendorf (eds.), Body–language–communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, Vol. 1, 1125–1338. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerstin, Julian. 2004. Tangled roots: Kalenda and other neo-African dances in the circum-Caribbean. New West Indian Guide/Nieuwe West-Indische Gids 78(1/2). 5–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goswell, Della. 2011. Being there: Role shift in English to Auslan interpreting. In Lorraine Leeson, Svenja Wurm & Myriam Vermeerbergen (eds.), Signed language interpreting: Preparation, practice and performance, 67–92. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanke, Thomas. 2004. HamNoSys – Representing sign language data in language resources and language processing contexts. In O. Streiter & Chiara Vettori (eds.), Workshop proceedings: Representation and processing of sign languages, 1–6. Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hebert, Carolyn. 2016. Mini & macho, small & sexy: The perpetuation of heteronormativity, hegemonic masculinity, and femininity within the culture of competitive (jazz and hip-hop) dance. In Hellenic Centre of the International Theatre Institute (organizing body), Congress on Research in Dance Conference Proceedings. Cut and paste: dance advocacy in the age of austerity. Vol. 2016, 208–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herrmann, Annika. 2013. Modal and focus particles in sign languages. A cross-linguistic study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herrmann, Annika & Markus Steinbach. (eds.) 2013. Nonmanuals in sign language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hodge, Gabrielle & Lindsay Ferrara. 2014. Showing the story: Enactment as performance in Auslan narratives. In Lauren Gawne & Jill Vaughan (eds.), Selected papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 1 October 2013. Vol. 44, 372–397. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoiting, Nini & Dan I. Slobin. 2002. Transcription as a tool for understanding. In Gary Morgan & Bencie Woll (eds.), Directions in sign language acquisition, 55–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchins, Sharon Suzanne. 1998. The psychological reality, variability, and compositionality of English phonesthemes. Emory University PhD dissertation.
Jantunen, Tommi. 2007. The equative sentence in Finnish Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 10(2). 113–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Clausal coordination in Finnish Sign Language. Studies in Language 40(1). 204–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Constructed action, the clause and the nature of syntax in Finnish Sign Language. Open Linguistics 31. 65–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jantunen, Tommi, Birgitta Burger, Danny De Weerdt, Irja Seilola & Tuija Wainio. 2012. Experiences collecting motion capture data on continuous signing. In Onno Crasborn, Eleni Efthimiou, Stavroula-Evita Fotinea, Thomas Hanke, Jette Kristoffersen & Johanna Mesch (eds.), Proceedings of the LREC 2012 5th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between corpus and lexicon, 75–82. Paris: ELRA. [URL]
Janzen, Terry. 2004. Space rotation, perspective shift, and verb morphology in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 149–174. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri. 1999. On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2(2). 115–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor, Jane Van Roekel & Adam Schembri. 2016. On the conventionalization of mouth actions in Australian Sign Language. Language and Speech 59(1). 3–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kegl, Judy, Ann Senghas & Marie Coppola. 1999. Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. In Michel DeGraff (ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development, 179–237. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Languages as semiotically heterogenous systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 401. E59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keränen, Jarkko, Henna Syrjälä, Juhana Salonen & Ritva Takkinen. 2016. The usability of the annotation. In Eleni Efthimiou, Stavroula-Evita Fontinea, Thomas Hanke, Julie Hochgesang, Jette H. Kristoffersen & Johanna Mesch (eds.), Workshop proceedings: 7th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpus mining, 111–116. Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kipp, Michael, Alexis Heloir & Quan Nguyen. 2011. Sign language avatars: Animation and comprehensibility. In Hannes Högni Vilhjálmsson, Stefan Kopp, Stacy Marsella & Kristinn R. Thórisson (eds.), Intelligent Virtual Agents 11th International Conference, IVA, Reykjavik, 15–17 September 2011, 113–126. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro. 2003. Interplay of gaze, hand, torso orientation and language in pointing. In Sotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, 307–328. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köse, Hatice, Pınar Uluer, Neziha Akalın, Rabia Yorgancı, Ahmet Özkul & Gökhan Ince. 2015. The effect of embodiment in sign language tutoring with assistive humanoid robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 71. 537–548. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laban, Rudolf. 1956. Principles of dance movement notation: With 114 basic movement graphs and their explanation. London: Macdonald & Evans.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lackner, Andrea. 2017. Functions of head and body movements in Austrian Sign Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. Nonmanuals in sign languages: A research desideratum. Grazer Linguistische Studien 931. 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. & Melanie Metzger. 1998. Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30(6). 657–697. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loos, Cornelia & Donna Jo Napoli. 2021. Expanding echo: Coordinated head articulations as nonmanual enhancements in sign language phonology. Cognitive Science 45(5). e12958. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mather, Sue & Elizabeth Winston. 1998. Spatial mapping and involvement in ASL storytelling. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Pinky extension and eye gaze: Language use in deaf communities, 183–210. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Carol A. Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler. 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43(3). 531–563. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metzger, Melanie. 1995. Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mocialov, Boris, Graham Turner & Helen Hastie. 2022. Classification of phonological parameters in sign languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12072. Available at: [URL]
Monaghan, Padraic, Richard C. Shillcock, Morten H. Christiansen & Simon Kirby. 2014. How arbitrary is language? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 369(1651), 20130299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo. 2022. Stimuli for initiation: a comparison of dance and (sign) language. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 61. 287–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo & Casey Ferrara. 2021. Correlations between handshape and movement in sign languages. Cognitive Science 45(5). e12944. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo & Stephanie Liapis. 2019. Effort reduction in articulation in sign languages and dance. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 3(1). 31–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo & Rachel Sutton-Spence. 2023. The nature of torso articulation in human expression: Signing and dancing. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 71. 269 – 288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler. 1999. Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech 42(2–3). 143–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nilsson, Anna-Lena. 2016. Embodying metaphors: Signed language interpreters at work. Cognitive Linguistics 27(1). 35–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nyst, Victoria. 2007. A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Occhino, Corrine, Benjamin Anible, Erin Wilkinson & Jill P. Morford. 2017. Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder. Gesture 16(1), 100–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A. 1986. Verbs and role shifting in American Sign Language. In Carol Padden (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, 44–57. Silver Spring, MD: NAD.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pendzich, Nina-Kristin. 2020. Lexical nonmanuals in German Sign Language: Empirical studies and theoretical implications. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Josep Quer. 2010. Nonmanuals: Their prosodic and grammatical roles. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 381–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pizzuto, Elena & Virginia Volterra. 2000. Iconicity and transparency in sign language: A cross-linguistic cross-cultural view. In Karen Emmorey & Harlan Lane (eds.), Signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 261–286. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pizzuto, Elena, Paolo Rossini, Marie-Anne Sallandre & Erin Wilkinson. 2008. Deixis, anaphora and highly iconic structures: Crosslinguistic evidence on American (ASL), French (LSF), and Italian (LIS) signed languages. In Ronice Müller de Quadros (ed.), Theoretical issues in sign language research 91, 475–495. Florianopolis, Brazil: Arara Azul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prillwitz, Siegmund, Regina Leven, Heiko Zienert, Thomas Hanke & Jan Henning. 1987. HamNoSys. Hamburg Notation System for Sign Languages. An introduction. Hamburg: Zentrum für Deutsche Gebärdensprache.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Puupponen, Anna. 2018. The relationship between movements and positions of the head and the torso in Finnish Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 18(2). 175–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Puupponen, Anna, Tommi Jantunen, Ritva Takkinen, Tuija Wainio & Outi Pippuri. 2014. Taking non-manuality into account in collecting and analyzing Finnish Sign Language video data. In Onno Crasborn, Eleni Efthimiou, Evita Fotinea, Thomas Hanke, Julie Hochgesang, Jette Kristoffersen & Johanna Mesch (eds.), Beyond the manual channel. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages. 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2014), 143–148. Paris: ELRA. [URL]
Quinto-Pozos, David & Sarika Mehta. 2010. Register variation in mimetic gestural complements to signed language. Journal of Pragmatics 42(3). 557–584. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayman, Jennifer. 1999. Storytelling in the visual mode: A comparison of ASL and English. In Elizabeth Winston (ed.), Storytelling & conversation: Discourse in deaf communities, 59–82. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reilly, Judy. 2006. How faces come to serve grammar: The development of nonmanual morphology in American Sign Language. In Brenda Schick, Marc Marschark & Elizabeth Spencer (eds.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children, 262–290. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roemmich, James N. 2016. Height-adjustable desks: energy expenditure, liking, and preference of sitting and standing. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 13(10). 1094–1099. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russo, Tommaso. 2004. Iconicity and productivity in sign language discourse: an analysis of three LIS discourse registers. Sign Language Studies 4(2). 164–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russo, Tommaso, Rosaria Giuranna & Elena Pizzuto. 2001. Italian Sign Language (LIS) poetry: Iconic properties and structural regularities. Sign Language Studies 2(1). 84–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sallandre, Marie-Anne. 2003. Les unités du discours en Langue des Signes Française. Tentative de catégorisation dans le cadre d’une grammaire de l’iconicité. Paris: University of Paris 8 PhD dissertation. Available at: [URL]
Sanborn, Ian. 2017. Caterpillar. [URL]
Sanders, Nathan & Donna Jo Napoli. 2016a. Reactive effort as a factor that shapes sign language lexicons. Language 92(2). 275–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1929. The status of linguistics as a science. Language 51. 207–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmaling, Constanze & Thomas Hanke. 2001. Encoding manual aspects of sign language: HamNoSys 4.0. In Thomas Hanke (ed.), ViSiCAST Deliverable D5-1: Interface definitions, 26–41. [URL]
Siple, Patricia. 1978. Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies 191. 95–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I., Nini Hoiting, Michelle Anthony, Yael Biederman, Marlon Kuntze, Reyna Lindert, Jennie Pyers, Helen Thumann & Amy Weinberg. 2001. Sign language transcription at the level of meaning components: The Berkeley Transcription System (BTS). Sign Language & Linguistics 4(1/2). 63–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stokoe, William. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics Occasional Paper 8. University of Buffalo. [Re-issued 2005, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10(1), 3–37].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sutton, Valerie. 2014. Lessons in sign writing: Textbook. 3rd Edition. La Jolla, CA: Center for Sutton Movement Writing. [URL]
Sutton, Valerie & Adam Frost. 2008. Signwriting: sign languages are written languages. La Jolla, CA: Center for Sutton Movement Writing. [URL]
Sutton-Spence, Rachel. 2005. Analysing sign language poetry. New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Metaphor in sign language poetry. In Francesca Ervas & Elisabetta Gola (eds.), Metaphor and communication, 249–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Michiko Kaneko. 2016. Introducing sign language literature: Folklore and creativity. London: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Donna Jo Napoli. 2009. Humour in sign languages: The linguistic underpinnings. Dublin: Trinity College.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Anthropomorphism in sign languages: A look at poetry and storytelling with a focus on British Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 10(4). 442–475. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. How much can classifiers be analogous to their referents? Gesture 13(1). 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Bencie Woll. 1998. The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sze, Felix. 2013. Nonmanual markings for topic constructions in Hong Kong Sign Language. In Annika Herrmann & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Nonmanuals in sign language, 111–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thiessen, Stuart M. 2011. A grammar of SignWriting. University of North Dakota MA thesis.
Tomaszewski, Piotr & Michael Farris. 2010. Not by the hands alone: Functions of non-manual features in Polish Sign Language. In Barbara Bokus (ed.), Studies in the psychology of language and communication, 289–320. Warszawa: Matrix.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyrone, Martha E. & Claude E. Mauk. 2016. The phonetics of head and body movement in the realization of American Sign Language signs. Phonetica 73(2). 120–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Kooij, Els. 2002. Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Kooij, Els, Onno Crasborn & Wim Emmerik. 2006. Explaining prosodic body leans in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Pragmatics required. Journal of Pragmatics 38(10). 1598–1614. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Veinberg, Silvana C. & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 1990. A linguistic analysis of the negative headshake in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 681. 217–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waugh, Linda R. & Madeleine Newfield. 1995. Iconicity in the lexicon and its relevance for a theory of morphology. In Marge E. Landsberg (ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes: The human dimension, 189–221. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weast, Traci Patricia. 2008. Questions in American Sign Language: A quantitative analysis of raised and lowered eyebrows. Arlington, TX: University of Texas PhD dissertation. Available at: [URL]
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1999. Stress in ASL: Empirical evidence and linguistic issues. Language and Speech 42(2/3). 229–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Effects of varying rate of signing on ASL manual signs and nonmanual markers. Language and Speech 52(2/3), 245–285. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Phonological and prosodic layering of nonmanuals in American Sign Language. In Karen Emmorey & Harlan Lane (eds.), The signs of language revisited. An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 196–220. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. and Evie Malaia. 2018. A new technique for analyzing narrative prosodic effects in sign languages using motion capture technology. In Annika Hübl & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Linguistic foundations of narration in spoken and sign languages, 15–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Cynthia G. Patschke. 1998. Body leans and the marking of contrast in American Sign Language. Journal of Pragmatics 30(3). 275–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilcox, Phyllis P. 2000. Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman & Andrea Lackner. 2021. Language is an “activity of the whole body”: A memorial to Franz Dotter. Grazer Linguistische Studien 931. 225–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, John. 2015. Lift. [URL]
Winter, Bodo & Marcus Perlman. 2021. Size sound symbolism in the English lexicon. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1). 79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, Bodo, Marcus Perlman, Lynn K. Perry & Gary Lupyan. 2017. Which words are most iconic? Iconicity in English sensory words. Interaction Studies 18(3). 443–464. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, Bodo, Márton Sóskuthy, Marcus Perlman & Mark Dingemanse. 2022. Trilled /r/ is associated with roughness, linking sound and touch across spoken languages. Scientific Reports 12(1). 1035. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woll, Bencie & Jechil S. Sieratzki. 1998. Echo phonology: Signs of a link between gesture and speech. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21(4). 531–532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2004. Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Language 80(1). 7–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
video

Example 1a

Example 1b

Example 1c

Example 1d

Example 1e

Example 2a

Example 2b

Example 2c

Example 2d

Example 3a

Example 3b

Example 3c

Example 3d

Example 3e

Example 3e(2)

Example 4

Example 5a(1)

Example 5a(2)

Example 5b(1)

Example 5b(2)

Example 5c(1)

Example 5c(2)

Example 6a

Example 6b

Example 7

Example 8

Example 9

Example 10

Example 11

Example 12

Example 13

Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Choudhury, Shatabdi
2025. Adjunct Proceedings of the 25th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue