A usage-based alternative to “lexicalization” in sign language linguistics

Abstract

The usage-based framework considers linguistic structure to be emergent from how human languages are used, and shaped by domain-general cognitive processes. This paper appeals to the cognitive processes of chunking, entrenchment, and routinization to explore a usage-based alternative to the structuralist notion of lexicalization, as it has traditionally been used in sign language linguistics. This exploration shows that chunking, entrenchment, and routinization are useful for re-contextualizing three "lexicalization" phenomena sign language linguistics: multiword expressions, fingerspelled words, and morphologically complex signs. An advantage of the usage-based approach for linguistic theory and description is that it anticipates the existence of linguistic constructions that exhibit analyzable internal structure and holistic properties simultaneously. This alternate framing alleviates the burden for sign language linguists to determine whether or not linguistic constructions have become "lexicalized", and instead directs analysts to focus on the degree to which linguistic constructs are established in any language user's mental representation of their language.

The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments

“…In addition, signers may simply be more sensitive to the structural mapping in which the hand is construed as representing an object or object part (Emmorey, 2014;Wilcox, 2004), which would increase iconicity ratings for these signs. Further research investigating signers' and non-signers' iconicity ratings for entity signs that are derived from classifier forms (e.g., GARAGE) versus those that are not (e.g., BIRD) would provide evidence for these hypotheses (although we note that it would be difficult to make this categorical distinction; see Lepic, 2019).…”

Construction grammar for monkeys?

“…However, as pointed out by Liebal and Oña (2018), currently 'meaning' is operationalised quite differently in research on vocal vs. gestural communication. In addition, the methodologies in these two areas of research also are quite different.…”

“…In addition, the methodologies in these two areas of research also are quite different. This leads Liebal and Oña (2018) to the conclusion that "it is currently not possible to generalize findings across these modalities" and we should keep this caveat in mind. Just as with alarm calls, it is a crucial question to which degree the ontogenetic development of these repertoires can be said to be genetically channeled or whether and to what extent it is learned and socioculturally acquired (cf.…”

“…Usage-based, constructionist approaches to both sign languages (e.g. Lepic, 2019) and co-speech gesture (e.g. Zima & Bergs, 2017) represent a burgeoning field with a wealth of theoretical and empirical developments that promise to be highly relevant for studies of ape gestures.…”

“…Zima & Bergs, 2017) represent a burgeoning field with a wealth of theoretical and empirical developments that promise to be highly relevant for studies of ape gestures. This is especially so given that many models both in animal communication and linguistics treat vocal and gestural signals very differently (Liebal & Oña, 2018), a problem that might be overcome with the help of multimodal construction grammar.…”