Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T18:32:16.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Think and Believe: Sequentiality in American Sign Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Scott K. Liddell
Scott K. Liddell*
Affiliation:
Gallaudet College
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the nature of the sublexical structure of signs in American Sign Language, and its relevance to various descriptive and theoretical problems. Data are presented which show that the currently accepted view of a sign as a simultaneous bundle of primes—handshape, movement, location, and orientation—is insufficient in several ways. Timing data are presented which show that the majority of signs are segmentable into movements and holds. A sequential underlying representation of signs is proposed which predicts the behavior of ‘non-contacting’ contact signs, gives a legitimate status to multiple movement signs, accounts for the three manners of movement (hold, continuous, and restrained), and allows a sequential representation of non-manual signals. It also describes in structural terms the changes which signs undergo in forming compounds, and it allows the incorporation of subject and object agreement markers into verb structure in a straightforward way. This framework allows an interesting parallel with spoken language phonology: both divide the sequential units which make up the words of the language into two major types of units. In spoken language, the units are consonants and vowels; in sign language, they are holds and movements.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , June 1984, pp. 372 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Battison, Robbin. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1958. A theory of pitch accent in English. Word 14. 109–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Accent is predictable (if you are a mind-reader). Lg. 48.633–44.Google Scholar
Chinchor, Nancy. 1978. The syllable in ASL: Simultaneous and sequential phonology. Brown University, MS.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lynn. 1975. Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language. Lg. 51.940–61.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lynn. 1977 (ed.) On the other hand. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, François. 1979. A study in timing in a manual and a spoken language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 8. 379–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kegl, Judy, and Wilbur, Ronnie. 1976. When does structure stop and style begin? Syntax, morphology and phonology vs. stylistic variation in American Sign Language. CLS 12. 376–96.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward. 1975. Sound and its absence in the linguistic symbol. The role of speech in language, ed. by Kavanagh, James F. & Cutting, James E., 249–70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cutting, James E., and Bellugi, Ursula. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lane, Harlan, et al. 1976. Preliminaries to a distinctive feature analysis of American Sign Language. Cognitive Psychology 8. 263–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott. 1983. Compound formation rules in American Sign Language. To appear in the Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Sign Language Research, Rome.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1979. Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Newkirk, Don. 1980. Rhythmic features of inflections in American Sign Language. La Jolla: The Salk Institute, MS.Google Scholar
Newkirk, Don. 1981. On the temporal segmentation movement in American Sign Language. La Jolla: The Salk Institute, MS.Google Scholar
Peng, Fred C. C. 1976. Sign language and its notational system. The Second LACUS Forum, ed. by Reich, Peter A., 188–99. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam.Google Scholar
Reich, Peter A. 1975. Visible distinctive features. The First LACUS Forum, ed. by Makkai, Adam & Makkai, Valerie, 348–56. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American deaf. (Studies in linguistics, occasional papers, 8.) Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1978. Sign language structure, revised edn. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C., Casterline, D.; and Croneberg, C. 1965. A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press. [Rev. edn., Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press, 1976.]Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted, and Newport, Elissa. 1978. How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. Understanding language through sign language research, ed. by Siple, Patricia, 91–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, James C Jr., 1974. Implicational variation in American Sign Language: Negative incorporation. Sign Language Studies 5. 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar