Skip to main content
Log in

A classification of compounds in American Sign Language: an evaluation of the Bisetto and Scalise framework

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Morphology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cross-linguistic comparisons of compounds are difficult because of the varied criteria and terms used by different linguists (Scalise and Bisetto 2009). To address this problem, Scalise and Bisetto proposed a universal three-level classification of compound types. Although several researchers have shown that American Sign Language (ASL) has compound signs, a classification of compound types in ASL has not been completed. All of the potential compounds in an ASL dictionary (Costello 1994) were identified, then verified as compounds with the help of a fluent deaf signer by applying standard tests for composition. These compounds were then classified using the Scalise and Bisetto classification. We found that Scalise and Bisetto’s three-level hierarchical classification successfully captured cross-category relationships among subtypes of compounds but fails to predict the existence of one type of compound attested in ASL. In our revised classification, a consistent set of criteria is used at each level, resulting in a classification that is both conceptually simpler and empirically more adequate. The second tier category for hierarchical compounds are bifurcated into the categories expressed predicate and unexpressed predicate, according to whether each predicate in a compound’s semantic structure is expressed by one of the overt constituents. The revision has the further advantage of allowing us to avoid any reference to word class/grammatical category in applying our taxonomy, a goal that we show to be desirable on both theoretical and empirical grounds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ann, J. (2001). Bilingualism and language contact. In C. Lucas (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of sign languages (pp. 33–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Arcodia, G. F., Grandi, N., & Wälchli, B. (2010). Coordination in compounding. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (pp. 177–198). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronoff, M., Meir, I., Padden, C., & Sandler, W. (2003). Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages. In K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 53–84). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Sandler, W. (2005). The paradox of sign language morphology. Language, 301–344.

  • Baker, M. C., & Fasola, C. A. (2009). Araucanian: Mapudungun. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 594–608). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battison, R. (2000). Analyzing signs. In C. Valli & C. Lucas (Eds.), Linguistics of American Sign Language: an introduction (pp. 231–242). Washington: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, L. (2001). Compounding. In M. Haspelmath, E. Konig, W. Oesterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, L. (2003). Introducing linguistic morphology (2nd ed.). Washington: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, L. (2009). Typology of compounds. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 343–356). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, L. (2010). The typology of exocentric compounds. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (pp. 167–175). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij, G. (2005). The grammar of words. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceccagno, A., & Basciano, B. (2007). Compound headedness in Chinese: an analysis of neologisms. Morphology, 207–231.

  • Costello, E. (1994). Random House American Sign Language dictionary. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Don, J. (2009). IE. Germanic: Dutch. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 370–385). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, cognition, and the brain: insights from sign language research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmorey, K. (Ed.) (2003). Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabb, N. (2001). Compounding. In A. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 66–83). Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frishberg, N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51(3), 696–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grandi, N. (2009). When morphology “feeds” syntax: remarks on noun > adjective conversion in Italian appositive compounds. In F. Montermini, G. Boye, & J. Tseng (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Decembrettes, Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinevald, C. (2003). Classifier systemes in the context of a typology of nominal classification. In K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives in classifier constructions in signed languages (pp. 87–109). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guevara, E., & Scalise, S. (2009). Searching for universals in compounding. In S. M. Scalise & A. Bisetto (Eds.), Universals of language today (pp. 101–128). Amsterdam: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Harley, H. (2009). Compounding in distributed morphology. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 129–144). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 210–231.

  • Inkelas, S., & Zoll, C. (2005). Reduplication: doubling in morphology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Isenhath, J. O. (1990). The linguistics of American Sign Language. Jefferson: McFarland & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kastovsky, D. (2009). Diachronic perspectives. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 323–342). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornfeld, L. M. (2009). IE, Romance: Spanish. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 436–452). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieber, R. (2009). IE, Germanic: English. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 357–369). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liddell, S. K. (1984). Think and Believe: sequentiality in American Sign Language signs. Language, 372–399.

  • Liddell, S. K., & Johnson, R. E. (1986). American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural language and linguistic theory, 445–513.

  • Liddell, S. K., & Johnson, R. E. (1989). American Sign Language: the phonological base. Sign Language Studies, 197–277.

  • Lucas, C., Bayley, R., Valli, C., Rose, M., & Wulf, A. (2001). Sociolinguistic variation. In C. Lucas (Ed.) The sociolinguistics of sign language (pp. 61–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, C., & Valli, C. (1992). Language contact in the American Deaf community. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, A. (1982). ReReduplication. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(3), 435–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: a synchronic-diachronic approach (2nd ed.). Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. Beckman, L. W. Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics: Vol. 18. Papers in Optimality Theory (pp. 249–384). Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Students Association (GLSA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meir, I. (2002). A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 20(2), 413–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, M. (1984). The evolution of noun incorporation. Language, 847–894.

  • Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Behan, B., & Lee, R. G. (2000). The syntax of American Sign Language. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padden, C. A. (1990). The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign language research: theoretical issues (pp. 118–132). Washington: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, W. (1918). In Tangkhul Naga grammar and dictionary (Ukhrul dialect). Shillong: Assam Secretariat Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, K. (2009). Athapaskan: Slave. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 542–563). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, M. (2007). Classification, headedness and pluralization: corpus evidence from French compounds. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 341–360.

  • Sandler, W. (1987). Assimilation and feature hierarchy of American sign language. In A. Bosch, B. Need, & E. Schiller (Eds.), Chicago linguistics society parasession on autosegmental and metrical phonology (pp. 266–278). Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign: linearity and nonlinearity. In American sign language, Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scalise, S., & Bisetto, A. (2009). The classification of compounds. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 34–53). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sexton, A. L. (1999). Grammaticalization in American sign language. Language Sciences, 105–141.

  • Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. In Studies in linguistics: occasional papers. Buffalo: University of Buffalo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Supalla, T., & Newport, E. (1978). How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American sign language. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp. 91–132). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valli, C., & Lucas, C. (2000). Linguistics of American Sign Language. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wälchli, B. (2005). Co-compounds and natural coordination. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wilbur, R. B. (1987). American sign language and sign systems. Baltimore: University Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiong, L., Xiong, W. J., & Xiong, N. (1992). English-Mong-English dictionary. Milwaukee: Xiong Partnership Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Lou Vercellotti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vercellotti, M.L., Mortensen, D.R. A classification of compounds in American Sign Language: an evaluation of the Bisetto and Scalise framework. Morphology 22, 545–579 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-012-9205-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-012-9205-1

Keywords

Navigation