Lexicalisation in British Sign Language: Implications for phonological theory (BSL)
Several phonological models have been proposed (e.g., Brentari, 1998; Sandler,
1989; van der Kooij, 2002)) that aspire to account for all the possible phonological
contrasts within a given (or multiple) sign language(s). These models have typically been
applied to the core, native lexicon but have been extended to show how signs from the
non-native lexicon (i.e., fingerspellings; Brentari & Padden, 2001; Cormier, Schembri, &
Tyrone, 2008) and non-core lexicon (i.e., classifier constructions; Eccarius & Brentari,
2007) largely fit the same phonological patterns as the core, native lexicon. However,
these phonological models have yet to be used in practice within a large dataset
representing the core lexicon of a sign language (i.e., a lexical database that has been
consistently lemmatised). Here, we outline an ongoing attempt to identify the minimal
features required for an adequate phonological description of a sign language lexicon
within a lemmatised lexical database of British Sign Language (BSL), and we describe
some issues that arise when attempting to apply phonological categories from existing
models to a sign language lexicon. In particular, we explore the phonology of signs which
are part of the core, native lexicon but have been lexicalised from classifier constructions
and/or fingerspelling.
The BSL lexical database, adapted from the Auslan lexical database (Johnston,
2001), consists of 2500 lexical signs (in their citation form) lemmatised from a BSL
lexical frequency study (Cormier et al., 2011) and an earlier dictionary of BSL (Brien,
1992). To provide a basic phonological description of all these entries in the BSL lexical
database, phonological categories from Johnston’s database (Johnston, 2003) have been
modified using modern phonological models proposed for other sign languages as a guide
(e.g., Brentari, 1998; van der Kooij, 2002). However, these phonological models do not
always lend themselves neatly to an overall description of the core lexicon within a
lexical database, particularly for core signs that have been lexicalised from classifier
constructions or nativised from fingerspelling. For example, the BSL sign GOAL is
difficult to describe using conventional phonological categories traditionally applied to
the core lexicon because categories used to describe the location of the dominant hand
with respect to the non-dominant hand cannot be applied (i.e., no phonological model
specifies the space between the extended index and pinky fingers on the non-dominant
hand as a place of articulation). Additionally these signs may or may not adhere to
phonological constraints proposed for lexical signs (e.g., Battinson, 1978). Thus, the
‘horns’ handshape used on the non-dominant hand in BSL GOAL is a violation of
Battison’s dominance constraint. Nonetheless, this sign is conventionalised in form and
meaning and is regarded as a fully lexical sign. Similar issues arise when considering
signs that have been nativised from fingerspelling. We describe how these entries are
accounted for within a phonological description of BSL’s core lexicon. In doing so, we
show how theory (via phonological modelling) is applied to a lexicon (which relies on
phonological contrast) and how this practice can then help inform theory, in an iterative
process.
References
Battinson, R. (1978). Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring:
Linstok Press.
Brentari, D. (1998). A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press
Brentari, D., & Padden, C. (2001). Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign
Language: a lexicon with multiple origins. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Foreign
vocabulary in sign languages. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Brien, D. (Ed.) (1992) Dictionary of British Sign Language/English. London: Faber and
Faber.
Cormier, K., Fenlon, J., Rentelis, R., & Schembri, A. (2011). Lexical frequency in British
Sign Language conversations: a corpus-based approach. In P. K. Austin, O. Bond,
L. Marten & D. Nathan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Language
Documentation and Linguistic Theory 3 (pp. 81-90): London: School of Oriental
and African Studies.
Cormier, K., Schembri, A., & Tyrone, M. E. (2008). One hand or two? Nativisation of
fingerspelling in ASL and BANZSL. Sign Language & Linguistics, 11(1), 3-44.
Eccarius, P., & Brentari, D. (2007). Symmetry and dominance: a cross-linguistic study of
signs and classifier constructions. Lingua, 117, 1169-1201.
Johnston, T. (2001). The lexical database of Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Sign
Language & Linguistics, 1(2), 145-169.
Johnston, T. (2003). Language standardization and signed language dictionaries. Sign
Language Studies, 3(4), 431-468.
Kooij, E. van der. (2002). Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands:
the role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. (PhD dissertation), Leiden
University.
Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign. Dordrecht: Foris.