1932

Abstract

Comparing phonology in spoken language and sign language reveals that core properties, such as features, feature categories, the syllable, and constraints on form, exist in both naturally occurring language modalities. But apparent ubiquity can be deceptive. The features themselves are quintessentially different, and key properties, such as linearity and arbitrariness, although universal, occur in inverse proportions to their counterparts, simultaneity and iconicity, in the two modalities. Phonology does not appear full blown in a new sign language, but it does gradually emerge, accruing linguistic structure over time. Sign languages suggest that the phonological component of the language faculty is a product of the ways in which the physical system, cognitive structure, and language use among people interact over time.

[Erratum, Closure]

An erratum has been published for this article:
Erratum: The Challenge of Sign Language Phonology
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034122
2017-01-14
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/3/1/annurev-linguistics-011516-034122.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034122&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Anderson SR. 2016. Synchronic versus diachronic explanation and the nature of the language faculty. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2:11–31 [Google Scholar]
  2. Archangeli DB, Pulleyblank DG. 1994. Current Studies in Linguistics 25 Grounded Phonology Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  3. Aronoff M, Meir I, Padden C, Sandler W. 2003. Classifier complexes and morphology in two sign languages. See Emmorey 2003 53–84
  4. Aronoff M, Meir I, Sandler W. 2005. The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81:301–34 [Google Scholar]
  5. Battison R. 1978. Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language Silver Spring, MD: Linstok
  6. Berent I. 2013. The Phonological Mind Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  7. Blevins J. 1993. The nature of constraints on the nondominant hand in ASL. See Coulter 1993 43–62
  8. Blevins J. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  9. Bloomfield L. 1933. Language New York: Holt
  10. Boyes-Braem PK. 1981. Features of the handshape in American Sign Language PhD thesis, Dep. Psychol., Univ. Calif., Berkeley
  11. Brentari D. 1990. Theoretical foundations of American sign language phonology PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ Chicago, Chicago:
  12. Brentari D. 1998. A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  13. Brentari D. 2002. Modality differences in sign language phonology and morphophonemics. See Meier et al. 2002 35–64
  14. Brentari D. 2011. Handshape in sign language phonology. See van Oostendorp et al. 2011 195–222
  15. Brentari D, Goldsmith JA. 1993. Secondary licensing and the non-dominant hand. See Coulter 1993 17–41
  16. Browman C, Goldstein L. 1992. Articulatory phonology: an overview. Phonetica 49:155–180 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bybee J. 2001. Phonology and Language Use Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  18. Carr JW, Smith K, Cornish H, Kirby S. 2016. The cultural evolution of structured languages in an open-ended, continuous world. Cogn. Sci. In press
  19. Channon R, van der Hulst H. 2011a. Are dynamic features required in signs?. See Channon & van der Hulst 2011b 229–60
  20. Channon R, van der Hulst H. 2011b. Sign Language Typology 3 Formational Units in Sign Languages Berlin: de Gruyter
  21. Chomsky N. 2007. Of minds and language. Biolinguistics 1:9–27 [Google Scholar]
  22. Chomsky N, Halle M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English New York: Harper & Row
  23. Clements GN. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonol. Yearb. 2:225–52 [Google Scholar]
  24. Corina D. 1993. To branch or not to branch: underspecification in ASL handshape contours. See Coulter 1993 63–94
  25. Coulter G. 1982. On the nature of ASL as a monosyllabic language Presented at Annu. Meet. Linguist. Soc. Am., San Diego
  26. Coulter G. 1993. Current Issues in ASL Phonology 3 Phonetics and Phonology San Diego: Academic
  27. Crasborn OA. 2011. The other hand in sign language phonology. See van Oostendorp et al. 2011 223–40
  28. Dachkovsky S, Healy C, Sandler W. 2013. Visual intonation in two sign languages. Phonology 30:211–52 [Google Scholar]
  29. de Boer B, Sandler W, Kirby S. 2012. New perspectives on duality of patterning. Lang. Cogn. 4:spec. issue251–59 [Google Scholar]
  30. de Boer B, Zuidema W. 2010. Multi-agent simulations of the evolution of combinatorial phonology. Adapt. Behav. 18:141–54 [Google Scholar]
  31. de Saussure F. 1983. Course in General Linguistics transl. R Harris London: Duckworth (from French)
  32. Dingemanse M, Blasi DE, Lupyan G, Christiansen MH, Monaghan P. 2015. Arbitrariness, iconicity and systematicity in language. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19:603–15 [Google Scholar]
  33. Edmiston P, Perlman M, Lupyan G. 2016. The fidelity of iterated vocal imitation. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (EvoLang 11) SG Roberts, C Cuskley, L McCrohon, L Barceló-Coblijn, O Fehér, et al. pap. 182. http://evolang.org/neworleans/papers/189.html [Google Scholar]
  34. Emmorey K. 2002. Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  35. Emmorey K. 2003. Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Language Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  36. Emmorey K, Corina D. 1990. Lexical recognition in sign language: effects of phonetic structure and morphology. Percept. Mot. Skills 71:1227–52 [Google Scholar]
  37. Evans N, Levinson SC. 2009. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behav. Brain Sci. 32:429–48 [Google Scholar]
  38. Fay N, Lister CJ, Ellison TM, Goldin-Meadow S. 2015. Creating a communication system from scratch: Gesture beats vocalization hands down. Front. Psychol. 6:78 [Google Scholar]
  39. Fernald TB, Napoli DJ. 2000. Exploitation of morphological possibilities in signed languages: comparison of American Sign Language with English. Sign Lang. Linguist. 3:3–58 [Google Scholar]
  40. Fuks O. 2014. Gradient and categorical: handshape's two semiotic dimensions in Israeli Sign Language. J. Pragmat. 60:207–25 [Google Scholar]
  41. Goldsmith JA. 1976. Autosegmental phonology PhD thesis, Dep. Foreign Lang. Lit., MIT, Cambridge, MA
  42. Grosjean F. 1980. Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Percept. Psychophys. 28:267–83 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hamano SS. 1986. The sound-symbolic system of Japanese PhD thesis, Univ. Fla., Gainesville
  44. Hockett C. 1960. The origin of speech. Sci. Am. 203:88–96 [Google Scholar]
  45. Israel A, Sandler W. 2011. Phonological category resolution in a new sign language: a comparative study of handshapes. See Channon & van der Hulst 2011b 177–202
  46. Jackendoff R. 2011. What is the human language faculty? Two views. Language 87:586–624 [Google Scholar]
  47. Jakobson R, Fant G, Halle M. 1952. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: The Distinctive Features and Their Correlates Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  48. Johnston T, Schembri A. 1999. On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Lang. Linguist. 2:115–85 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kegl J, Senghas A, Coppola M. 1999. Creation through contact: sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization, Diachrony, and Development M DeGraff 197–237 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  50. Kisch S. 2008. “Deaf discourse”: the social construction of deafness in a Bedouin community. Med. Anthropol 27283–313 [Google Scholar]
  51. Klamer M. 2001. Expressives and iconicity in the lexicon. Typol. Stud. Lang. 44:165–82 [Google Scholar]
  52. Klima ES, Bellugi U. 1979. The Signs of Language Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  53. Kyle JG, Woll B. 1984. Sign Language: The Study of Deaf People and Their Language Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  54. Ladd DR. 2014. Simultaneous Structure in Phonology Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  55. Lepic R, Börstell C, Belsitzman G, Sandler W. 2016. Taking meaning in hand: iconic motivations in two-handed signs. Sign Lang. Linguist. 19:37–81 [Google Scholar]
  56. Liddell SK. 1984. think and believe: sequentiality in American Sign Language. Language 60:372–92 [Google Scholar]
  57. Liddell SK. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  58. Liddell SK, Johnson RE. 1986. American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 8:445–513 [Google Scholar]
  59. Liddell SK, Johnson RE. 1989. American Sign Language: the phonological base. Sign Lang. Stud. 64:195–277 [Google Scholar]
  60. Lillo-Martin D. 2009. Sign language acquisition studies. The Cambridge Handbook of Child Language EL Bavin 399–415 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  61. Mak J, Tang G. 2011. Movement types, repetition, and feature organization in Hong Kong Sign Language. See Channon & van der Hulst 2011b 315–37
  62. Mandel M. 1981. Phonotactics and morphophonology in American Sign Language PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Calif., Berkeley, CA
  63. Meier RP. 1991. Language acquisition by deaf children. Am. Sci. 79:60–70 [Google Scholar]
  64. Meier RP. 2002. Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. See Meier et al. 2002 1–25
  65. Meier RP, Cormier K, Quinto-Pozos D. 2002. Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  66. Meir I. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 20:413–50 [Google Scholar]
  67. Meir I. 2010. Iconicity and metaphor: constraints on metaphorical use of iconic forms. Language 86:865–96 [Google Scholar]
  68. Meir I, Padden C, Aronoff M, Sandler W. 2013. Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cogn. Linguist. 24:309–43 [Google Scholar]
  69. Meir I, Sandler W. 2008. A Language in Space: The Story of Israeli Sign Language Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  70. Mielke J. 2008. The Emergence of Distinctive Features Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  71. Miller C. 1994. Simultaneous constructions in Quebec Sign Language. Word-Order Issues in Sign Language, Working Papers M Brennan, G Turner 89–112 Durham, UK: Int. Sign Linguist. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  72. Napoli DJ, Sutton-Spence R. 2010. Limitations on simultaneity in sign language. Language 86:647–62 [Google Scholar]
  73. Nespor M, Sandler W. 1999. Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Lang. Speech 42:143–76 [Google Scholar]
  74. Newport EL, Meier RP. 1985. The acquisition of American Sign Language. The Cross-Linguistic Study of Language Acquisition DI Slobin 881–938 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  75. Nilssen A. 2007. The non-dominant hand in a Swedish Sign Language discourse. See Vermeerbergen et al. 2007 163–85
  76. Ohala J. 1996. The frequency code underlies the sound symbolic use of voice pitch. Sound Symbolism L Hinton, J Nichols, JJ Ohala 325–47 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  77. Padden C. 1988. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics: Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language New York: Garland
  78. Padden CA, Meir I, Hwang SO, Lepic R, Seegers S, Sampson T. 2013. Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture 13:287–308 [Google Scholar]
  79. Perlman M, Dale R, Lupyan G. 2015. Iconicity can ground the creation of vocal symbols. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2:150–52 [Google Scholar]
  80. Perlmutter DM. 1992. Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguist. Inq. 23:407–42 [Google Scholar]
  81. Perniss P, Thompson R, Vigliocco G. 2010. Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Front. Psychol. 1:227 [Google Scholar]
  82. Pierrehumbert J. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure J Bybee, P Hopper 137–57 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  83. Prince A, Smolensky P. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  84. Risler A. 2007. A cognitive linguistic view of simultaneity in process signs in French Sign Language. See Vermeerbergen et al. 2007 73–101
  85. Roberts G, Lewandowski J, Galantucci B. 2015. How communication changes when we cannot mime the world: experimental evidence for the effect of iconicity on combinatoriality. Cognition 141:52–66 [Google Scholar]
  86. Sandler W. 1986. The spreading hand autosegment of American Sign Language. Sign Lang. Stud. 50:1–28 [Google Scholar]
  87. Sandler W. 1987. Assimilation and feature hierarchy ASL. Papers from the Chicago Linguistics Society Parasession on Autosegmental Phonology A Bosch, B Need, E Schiller 266–78 Chicago: Univ. Chicago [Google Scholar]
  88. Sandler W. 1989. Phonological Representation of the Sign: Linearity and Nonlinearity in American Sign Language Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris
  89. Sandler W. 1993a. Hand in hand: the roles of the nondominant hand in sign language phonology. Linguist. Rev. 10:337–90 [Google Scholar]
  90. Sandler W. 1993b. A sonority cycle in American Sign Language. Phonology 10:243–79 [Google Scholar]
  91. Sandler W. 1996. Establishing evidence for major phonological categories: the case for movements in sign language.. Lingua 98:197–220 [Google Scholar]
  92. Sandler W. 1999. Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language. Studies on the Phonological Word T Hall, U Kleinhenz 223–54 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  93. Sandler W. 2006. Phonology, phonetics, and the nondominant hand. Papers in Laboratory Phonology: Varieties of Phonological Competence L Goldstein, DH Whalen, C Best 185–212 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  94. Sandler W. 2010a. Prosody and syntax in sign language. Trans. Philol. Soc. 108:298–328 [Google Scholar]
  95. Sandler W. 2010b. The uniformity and diversity of language: evidence from sign language. Response to Evans and Levinson. Lingua 120:2727–32 [Google Scholar]
  96. Sandler W. 2011. The phonology of movement in sign language. See van Oostendorp et al. 2011 577–603
  97. Sandler W. 2012a. Visual prosody. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 37 Sign Language. An International Handbook R Pfau, M Steinbach, B Woll 55–76 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  98. Sandler W. 2012b. The phonological organization of sign languages. Lang. Linguist. Compass 6:162–82 [Google Scholar]
  99. Sandler W. 2012c. Dedicated gestures and the emergence of sign language. Gesture 12:265–307 [Google Scholar]
  100. Sandler W, Aronoff M, Meir I, Padden C. 2011. The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 29:503–43 [Google Scholar]
  101. Sandler W, Aronoff M, Padden C, Meir I. 2014. Language emergence: Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language. The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology J Sindell, P Kockelman, N Enfield 250–84 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  102. Sandler W, Lillo-Martin D. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  103. Sandler W, Meir I, Padden C, Aronoff M. 2005. The emergence of grammar: systematic structure in a new language. PNAS 102:2661–65 [Google Scholar]
  104. Stokoe WC. 1960. Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. Stud. Linguist. Occas. Pap.8. 78
  105. Stokoe WC, Casterline DC, Croneberg CG. 1965. A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles Washington, DC: Gallaudet Coll. Press
  106. Strickland B, Geraci C, Chemla E, Schlenker P, Kelepir M, Pfau R. 2015. Event representations constrain the structure of language: sign language as a window into universally accessible linguistic biases. PNAS 112:5968–73 [Google Scholar]
  107. Supalla T. 1986. The classifier system in American Sign Language. Noun Classes and Categorization C Craig 181–214 Philadelphia: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  108. Taub SF. 2001. Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  109. Ultan R. 1978. Size–sound symbolism. Universals of Human Language J Greenberg, C Ferguson, E Moravchik 2525–68 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  110. van der Hulst H. 1993. Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology 10:209–41 [Google Scholar]
  111. van der Hulst H. 1996. On the other hand. Lingua 98:121–43 [Google Scholar]
  112. van der Kooij E. 2002. Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: the role of phonetic implementation and iconicity PhD thesis, Leiden Univ., Leiden, Neth.
  113. van Oostendorp M, Ewen CJ, Hume EV, Rice K. 2011. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology 2 Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
  114. Verhoef T, Kirby S, de Boer B. 2014. Emergence of combinatorial structure and economy through iterated learning with continuous acoustic signals. J. Phon. 43C:57–68 [Google Scholar]
  115. Vermeerbergen M, Leeson L, Crasborn OA. 2007. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 281 Simultaneity in Signed Languages. Form and Function. Amsterdam: Benjamins
  116. Wedel AB. 2006. Exemplar models, evolution and language change. Linguist. Rev. 23:247–74 [Google Scholar]
  117. Wilbur RB. 1993. Syllables and segments: Hold the movement and move the holds. See Coulter 1993 135–68
  118. Wilbur RB. 1999. Stress in ASL: empirical evidence and linguistic issues. Lang. Speech 42:229–50 [Google Scholar]
  119. Wilbur RB. 2000. Phonological and prosodic layering of non-manuals in American Sign Language. The Signs of Language Revisited: An Anthology to Honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima K Emmorey, H Lane 215–44 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  120. Wilbur RB. 2008. Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar?. Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research J Quer 217–50 Hamburg, Ger.: Signum [Google Scholar]
  121. Wilbur RB, Patchke C. 1999. Syntactic correlates of brow raise in ASL. Sign Lang. Linguist. 2:3–30 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034122
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034122
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error