The Iconicity of Scalar Verbs Across Semantic Fields
As research into sign language (SL) lexical semantics and iconicity develops,
methodologies are required allowing claims to be tested across Lexicons to both avoid
under-/over-generalizations, and identify new research questions. The strategy proposed
here includes developing an inventory of semantic fields (S-fields) of distinct cohesive
meanings. Under certain constraints, some meanings are lexicalized as verbs (V), but as
S-fields are diverse, Vs are naturally distributed unevenly across them. By sampling Vs
from a range of S-fields, the accuracy of a lexical semantic claim can be systematically
tested to reveal problems or gaps in coverage. Using a sample of 353 lexical SL Vs from
36 S-fields (Table 1) we test the notion that scalar meanings in V may be iconic. Scales
(or event paths) are ‘used up’ as an event progresses, and are distinct from telicity.
Beginning with 221 V from 26 S-fields (Group A) closely associated with scales in the
literature, based on representations of scales in classifier predicate constructions, scales
are treated as iconic in a V, if the V denotes a scale (VS), including a scalar process or
resultant state, and if its form includes a single hand shape or orientation change, or a
single movement to or from contact. Additionally, provided that VS are iconic, other
forms associated with non-scalar V (VN) are also treated as iconic. Vs from S-fields in
Group C, lacking appropriate dynamic scales, are used for comparison. Citation forms of
3 V from Group A violated the claim, as VS with non-iconic forms (EAT, BUILD,
DEVELOP). Other variants of these V roots conform to the prediction, raising questions
regarding apparent violations of lexicalization constraints. For V from the more abstract
Group B, 32 V with metaphorical or abstract apparent scalar meanings (FORGIVE, LEARN,
SCARE, MARRY) had forms associated with scales in Group A, despite differences in
associated argument roles (Experiencers vs. Patients), and the ‘unbound-able’ nature of
the denoted scales. In some cases (i.e. MARRY), the V form can be treated as a
metaphorical extension of scalar meanings from an S-field from Group A (COMBINE &
ATTACH), but this treatment is problematic for other S-fields in Group B. All VN from
Group B behaved as expected. Based on these data, despite important differences in
behavior, V denoting changes in psychological and social status are similar to, or are
lexicalized as similar to, concrete scales such as locomotion, transfer, creation and
consumption. We discuss how this raises questions for the treatments of scales, and
analyses that depend on a notion of scale, such as event structure, and propose a unified
analysis that resolves these issues. Across all S-fields, Vs denote both scalar and nonscalar, events that elapse in time. Within an S-field, scales may be iconic, but similar
forms outside the S-field may be associated with non-scalar meanings. Thus, the
iconicity of scalar meanings, and other types of lexical iconicity, can only be understood
with reference to S-fields.
.
Table 1
Group A Semantic Fields (Concrete)
S
N
PUT 7 3 REMOVE SEND & CARRY 3 1 HOLD/ KEEP EXERTION of FORCE & THROWING 2 3 CONCEALMENT/ AVOIDANCE CONTACT & CUTTING 10 3 CREATION & TRANSFORMATION POSSESSION & CHANGE-­of-­POSSESSION 18 2 DESTRUCTION COMBINGING & ATTACHING 7 3 INGESTION SEPARATING & DISASSEMBLING 2 -­‐ IMAGE CREATION S
N
9 -­‐ -­‐ 7 2 2 9 3 4 3 1 -­‐ 1 6 17 3 MOTION 7 22 KILLING 2 1 LINGERING/ RUSHING -­‐ 2 EMISSION 2 3 (Body) POSITIONING 3 3 The BODY 9 7 GROOMING & CARE -­‐ 5 SEARCHING -­‐ 3 PERCEPTION 2 6 -­‐ 9 4 3 6 6 14 16 CHANGES-­in-­STATE APPEARANCE, DISSAPPEARANCE & 4 -­‐ EXISTENCE OCCURRENCE Group B Semantic Fields (Abstract)
LEARN 2 1 JUDGMENT & ASSESSMENT PSYCH/EMOTION 10 33 COMMUNICATION DESIRE -­‐ 4 SOCIAL INTERACTION DESCRIPTION & CHARACTERIZATION 4 16 Group C Semantic Fields (No Dynamic Scale)
MEASURING WEATHER 4 (LEXICAL) ASPECT 7 S- Scalar; N- Non-scalar
2 Selected References:
Emmorey, K. (2002), Language, Cognition and the Brain. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hohenberger, A. (2008), The Word in Sign Language: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Controversies.
In: Linguistics 46(2), 249–308.
Levin, B. (1993), English Verb Classes and Alternations: a Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Padden, C. (1998), The ASL Lexicon. In: Sign Language & Linguistics 1, 39–60.
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. & Vigliocco, G. (2010), Iconicity as a General Property of Language: Evidence
from Spoken and Signed Languages. In: Frontiers in Psychology 1:227.
Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B (2010). Reflections on Manner/Result Complementarity. In Rappaport
Hovav M., Doron, E. & Sichel, I. (eds) Lexical Semantics, Syntax and Event Structure. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006), Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Wilbur, R. B. (2003), Representations of Telicity in ASL. In: Chicago Linguistics Society 39, 354–368.