Cover not available

In:The Typology of Physical Qualities
Edited by Ekaterina Rakhilina, Tatiana Reznikova and Daria Ryzhova
[Typological Studies in Language 133] 2022
► pp. 289–308

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

Chapter 10
The qualitative lexicon in Russian Sign Language from a typological perspective

 | University of Surrey
Published online: 25 May 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.133.10kyu
Abstract
The paper describes several expressions of physical qualities (namely, sharp, blunt, old, thick-wide, and thin-narrow) in Russian Sign Language (RSL) from a lexical typological perspective. This is the first study to analyse a sign language from the standpoint of the MLexT framework. The results show that RSL structures the aforementioned domains on the same grounds as spoken languages. This finding strongly supports the hypothesis that lexical systems are cognitively motivated. At the same time, RSL exhibits a number of non-trivial lexicalization strategies, which are not accidental but can be explained by the fact that this language is produced in the visual modality.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Iconicity and the word in sign languages
  • 3.Sign vs. spoken language lexicon: Previous studies
  • 4.Physical qualities in Russian Sign Language
    • 4.1Research methodology
    • 4.2Results of the study
      • 4.2.1Semantic domains with core signs only
      • 4.2.2Semantic domains with core and peripheral signs
  • 5.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (39)
References
Bellugi, U. & Klima, E. S. 1979. Language: perspectives from another modality. In Brain and Mind [Ciba Foundation Series 69], 99–117. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benedicto, E. & Brentari, D. 2004. Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of Classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(4): 743–810. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berlin, B. & Kay, P. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. F. & Christiansen, M. H. 2016. Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113(39): 10818–10823. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyes-Braem, P. & Sutton-Spence, R. (eds). 2001. The Hands are the Head of the Mouth: The Mouth as Articulator in Sign Languages. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, M. 1990. Word Formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: University of Stockholm Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. Conjoining Word and Image in British Sign Language (BSL): An Exploration of Metaphorical Signs in BSL. Sign Language Studies 5(3): 360–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burkova, S. & Kimmelman, V. (eds). 2019. Vvedenie v linguistiku žestovyx jazykov: Russkiy žestovyj jazyk [Introduction to Sign Language Linguistics: Russian Sign Language]. Novosibirsk: NSTUGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. & Herzig, M. 2003. Categorical Versus Gradient Properties of Classifier Constructions in ASL. In Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages, K. Emmorey (ed), 221–247. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grose, D. 2012. Lexical semantics: Semantic fields and lexical aspect. In Sign Language: an International Handbook, R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (eds), 432–462. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanke, T. 2004. HamNoSys – representing sign language data in language resources and language processing contexts. In Workshop Proceedings : Representation and Processing of Sign Languages, O. Streiter & C. Vettori (eds), 1–6. Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnston, T. & Schembri, A. 2007. Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An Introduction to Sign Language Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. 1980. American Sign Language Syntax. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, I. 2010. Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language 86(4): 865–896. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perlman, M., Little, H., Thompson, B. & Thompson, R. L. 2018. Iconicity in signed and spoken vocabulary: A comparison between American Sign Language, British Sign Language, English, and Spanish. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 132–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L. & Vigliocco, G. 2010. Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 1: 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfau, R. & Steinbach, M. 2006. Pluralization in sign and speech: Across-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology 10: 135–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pietrandrea, P. 2002. Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian sign language. Sign Language Studies 2(3): 296–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prillwitz, S., Leven, R., Zienert, H., Hanke, Th. & Henning, J. 1987. HamNoSys. Hamburg Notation System for Sign Languages. An Introduction. Hamburg: Zentrum für Deutsche Gebärdensprache.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rakhilina, E. & Reznikova, T. 2016. A Frame-based methodology for lexical typology. In The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shifts, P. Juvonen & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 95–130. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sagara, K. & Zeshan, U. 2016. Semantic fields in sign languages: A comparative typological study. In Semantic Fields in Sign Languages: Colour, Kinship and Quantification [Sign language typology 6], U. Zeshan & K. Sagara (eds), 3–41. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, W. 1989. Phonological Representation of the Sign Linearity and Nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, D. 2001. Natural Sign Languages. In Handbook of Linguistics, M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (eds.), 533–562. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. 1960. Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf [Studies in Linguistics: Occasional Paper No. 8]. Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Supalla, T. R. 1986. The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Noun Classes and Categorization, C. Craig (ed), 181–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taub, S. F. 2004. Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Vos, C. & Pfau, R. 2015. Sign Language Typology: The Contribution of Rural Sign Languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 265–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilcox, P. P. 2000. Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilkinson, E. 2009. Typology of Signed Languages: Differentiation through Kinship Terminology. PhD thesis, University of New Mexico.
Woodward, J. 1978. All in the family: Kinship lexicalization across sign languages. Sign Language Studies 19: 121–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeshan, U. (ed). 2006. Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeshan, U., Delgado, C. E. E., Dikyuva, H., Panda, S. & de Vos, C. 2013. Cardinal numerals in rural sign languages: Approaching cross-modal typology. Linguistic typology 17: 357–396.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, I. 2003. Classifying Hand Configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue