1999 On Defining Lexeme in A Signed Lan

UBJECT "SL&L 2:2"
ORDS ""
EIGHT "240"
"170"
O O K M A R K " Jo h n s t o n &
i">
On Defining Lexeme in a Signed Language
Trevor Johnston & Adam Schembri

Renwick College
(Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children & The University of Newcastle)
In this paper we attempt to define the notion of ‘lexeme’ in relation to signed languages.
We begin by defining signs as a distinct kind of visual-gestural communicative act, different
from other communicative uses of gesture. This is followed by a discussion of the most
important categories of productive forms in signed languages, referred to simply as signs.
The close relationship between the formational aspects of these signs and their meaning is
also discussed and exemplified. We then describe the criteria for recognizing lexemes as a
subset of signs, and distinguishing variant and modified forms. The paper concludes with
a discussion of the implications the notion of lexeme has for our understanding of the
lexicon of signed languages and for signed language lexicography.
1. Introduction
Any list of the “essential ingredients of a satisfactory dictionary” must begin with
an understanding of the notion of the ‘headword’ or ‘lemma’ (Burchfield 1991:
168, cited in Stokoe 1993). Thus, in order for a dictionary of a natural deaf sign
language to be constructed, it is necessary to define what constitutes the lexicon of
such a language. This paper defines which linguistic units in Auslan (Australian
Sign Language) are best entered in a dictionary and which are best treated in a
grammar. In the first instance, one needs to discriminate between nonlinguistic
visual-gestural acts (gesticulation, gesture and mime) and linguistic visual-gestural
acts (signs).1 The lexicographer is concerned with the latter. In the second instance,
one needs to discriminate between meanings which are ‘generated’ by discrete units
of the language in more or less predictable ways and those meanings which are
conventionally ‘given’ to discrete units of the language. In other words, one needs
to articulate the criteria according to which a visual-gestural act is deemed to be a
sign (i.e. a possible or actual linguistic unit of the language) and a sign, in its turn,
deemed to be a lexeme (a linguistic unit with a ‘given’ rather than a ‘generated’
meaning). Once again the lexicographer is primarily concerned with the latter.
Once the lexicon of a language has been identified, the lexemes of such a
1. Throughout this account of the Auslan lexicon the term ‘sign’ will be used as a rough
equivalent to ‘word’ in spoken language.
Sign Language & Linguistics 2:2, 1999, 115–185. ISSN 1316–7249.

© 1999 by John Benjamins. All Rights Reserved.
116 TREVOR JOHNSTON & ADAM SCHEMBRI
language can then be listed as headwords in a dictionary. Naturally this should be

done in some ordered, principled and consistent way, such as ‘cheremic’ order (an
ordering principle based on handshapes).2
As with the terminology surrounding representation and signification in
semiotic theory (e.g. the linguistic ‘sign’, symbol, index etc.), there is some
imprecision and even confusion regarding the various categories into which visual-
gestural acts may be divided. Various semiotic typologies and terminologies
compete with each other and coexist with folk categories of semiosis. Similarly,
terms referring to visual-gestural acts, such as mime, gesture or sign, are everyday
words with imprecise, overlapping and sometimes even conflicting meanings. In
this paper, types of visual-gestural acts are isolated and defined in so far as these
relate to sign language lexicography.
Bodily actions Gesticulations, gestures & mime

Interactives Signs
Numbers
(productive signs)
Deictics
Semi-established signs
(General signs & institutionalized signs)
Manual
Lexemes codes
Semantic handshapes
(established signs) Fingerspelling
Monomorphemic
lexemes
Figure 1: A hierarchy of lexicalization in signed languages
Figure 1 is a visual representation of the gestural hierarchy and sign typology

explicitly addressed in this paper and implicit in the selection and organization of
2. An explanation of an ordering principle used to sequence signs in a sign language dictionary,

based on the formational features of signs, can be found in Johnston (1989a, 1998b).
ON DEFINING LEXEME IN A SIGNED LANGUAGE 117
entries in Signs of Australia, a new dictionary of Auslan in CD-ROM and book

format (Johnston 1997, 1998a, 1998b).
2. Gesticulation, gestures and mimes
The communicative visual-gestural acts of nonsigners can be grouped into three

categories: gesticulation, conventional gesture and mimes. These visual-gestural
acts do not appear to be linguistically patterned.3 Gesticulation refers to the
spontaneous gesturing that occurs as people speak. These gestures may be repre-
sentational in nature, but recent empirical studies have shown that gesticulation is
highly context-dependent, lacks standards of form, and is rarely used to produce
sentence-like patterns (Singleton, Goldin-Meadow & McNeill 1995).
Conventional gestures (or ‘emblems’) have a more sign-like form and
meaning, but are limited in number and function, and, like gesticulation, are rarely
combined into gestural phrases or sentences (McNeill 1992). Mime involves the
imitation of real-life activities without the objects and people normally involved
(Brennan 1992). It thus falls outside the constraints of well-formed signs, since it
may involve the independent use of lower legs and lower torso, including
displacing the body itself (e.g. by walking). Mime is also too inefficient to serve as
an everyday system of communication since it may involve the relatively time-
consuming performance of complex actions using long sequences of precise
movements. It is also limited in expressive power and only useful for the depiction
of concrete actions or the expression of emotional responses.
3. Signs
3.1. The componential nature of (productive) signs
A sign is defined as a relatively stable, identifiable visual-gestural act with an

associated meaning which is reproduced with consistency by native signers and for
which, consequently, particular agreed values can be given for handshape,
orientation, location and movement (including lack of movement). Signs may also
include nonmanual features (such as a particular facial expression, mouth pattern,
3. Some researchers, such as Kendon (1980), McNeill (1992) and Webb (1996) demonstrate that
a degree of language-like patterning does, in fact, exist in the gestural communication of
nonsigners. In particular, Webb (1996) suggests that we may need to recognize a limited
degree of componentiality in some forms of gesture.
or movement of the head and/or trunk). The component aspects of handshape,

orientation, location and movement (as well as nonmanual features) are often
individually meaningful in sign languages (Brennan 1990; Engberg-Pedersen 1993,
1996; Armstrong, Stokoe & Wilcox 1995; Wallin 1996). Indeed, it has been
argued and exemplified in Johnston (1989b) that these component aspects in
Auslan, both individually and in various combinations, are best thought of as being
simultaneously phonemes and morphemes. For want of a better expression or
label, we will refer to these component aspects as ‘phonomorphemes’ throughout
this paper.4 By this we simply mean that the minimal identifiable emic units of
the language — handshape, location, orientation, movement and nonmanual
features — are the substantive building blocks and are themselves meaningful. This
is not to disregard the frequent instances of signs in which these phonomorphemes
do not appear to act as individual meaningful units (see our discussion of mono-
morphemic signs in Section 4.3, below).
As mentioned above, those gestures produced by users of spoken languages
which are highly conventionalized, both formationally and semantically, could
actually be classed as signs in the sense defined here (cf. ‘semantic gestures’,
Brennan 1992). The point, however, is that for the users of a spoken language the
overwhelming majority of their visual-gestural acts are not signs at all, whereas for
the users of a sign language the opposite is true. This is because signs are composed
of smaller meaningful units. This is one of the crucial linguistic distinctions
between conventional gestures, on the one hand, and signs proper, on the other.
In a sign the meaning potential of a visual-gestural complex is often compo-
nential in that it can be built up from the meaning of some or all of the compo-
nent aspects in a predictable way. When the meaning of a sign is componential in
nature the citation meaning is basically as general or as specific as can be predicted
from its component aspects, as shown in the following.5
4. We do not like the label and are only using it to avoid tiresome circumlocutions. This may be
an argument to return to and then extend Stokoe’s original observation and labeling of the
minimal emic units of ASL and other sign languages — namely ‘chereme’, and extend it to
‘kineme’, ‘topeme’ and so on — to see if a more autonomous mode-specific terminology leads
to a more satisfactory, sympathetic and accurate description of sign language structure.
5. For conventions regarding the transcription and glossing of Auslan examples refer to Johnston
(1991a).
(1)
‘below long narrow thin object’ /

‘long narrow thin object over a flat surface’
The sign shown in example (1) does not have any of the meanings of, say, ‘rung’,
‘footrest’, ‘handrail’, or ‘boom’ (and so on), regularly and conventionally associated
with it. It simply means something like ‘below long narrow thin object’ or ‘long
narrow thin object over a flat surface’. In this sign the relevant componential
aspects on the dominant hand of the signer (the hand on the left side of the
illustration) include an open flat hand, with palm down, moved horizontally in a
plane left to right in neutral space (below the subordinate hand). The relevant
componential aspects on the subordinate hand include the extended index finder,
with palm down, held in neutral space (above the dominant hand).
These components clearly contribute language-specific meanings to the sign.
Though clearly motivated and often transparently iconic, the components are
nonetheless conventional associations of form — such as handshape, location and
movement — with meaning. For example, at this first level of conventionaliza-
tion, relatively thin upright entities are associated with an upright index finger, flat
wide objects are associated with the flat hand (the whole hand with fingers held
together), mental processes with locations on the forehead, emotional states with
locations on the chest and heart, the lateral movement of an open flat hand is
associated with flat surfaces, and so on. (This level of conventionalization is
represented in Figure 1 as the outer bold ellipse that separates gesticulations,
gestures and mime from productive signs.)
3.2. The semantics of the handshape component
Despite the fact that the existence of the five aspects of a sign is necessary for there
to be a sign at all, there is nonetheless no component of a sign which is perhaps
more salient than the handshape. Even though all the five constituent aspects of a
sign often carry a meaning or semantic value which can individually, or collective-
ly, contribute to the resultant meaning of a sign, particular significance is often
attributed to handshapes in themselves. This salience has been reflected in a focus
in the sign linguistics literature on the role of handshape. Most taxonomies of
productive signs have been based on this aspect (McDonald 1982; Brennan 1992).
One reason for the emphasis on handshape may be that in a visual-gestural
language it is easier to imagine a handshape in isolation than any other aspect in

isolation. In reality, though, a handshape has no ‘independent’ existence — it is
always realized as part of a sign.
This analytical preoccupation with handshape is also due to debate about the
linguistic status of the other formational aspects, especially movement and location.
Some have suggested that the meaningful use of location in signs is based on
nonlinguistic gesture (Johnston 1991b; Liddell 1995), or involves some fusing of
linguistic and extra-linguistic elements (Casey 1996). The relationship between the
use of mimetic movement in signs representing the motion of people and objects
and the imitative gestures of nonsigners has also been the source of some conten-
tion (Supalla 1982; Schick 1990; Singleton, Goldin-Meadow & McNeill 1995;
Armstrong, Stokoe & Wilcox 1995).
Another reason for the salience of handshape is that experientially, and even
analytically, the making of a sign is essentially the act of doing something with a
given hand configuration. It could be argued that the articulators can in effect only
do one of two general things — they can perform some action and interact with
the world in some way (whether that be the real world or an imaginary one of
congruent or scalar dimensions); or they can create or present an image through
placement or displacement of the hand or hands (once again that image may be of
congruent real world dimensions or scalar). In any given sign the hands are thus
likely to assume one of two types of handshapes: those instinctively used for
interacting manually with the world, and those that are not.
In the interacting type, the handshape represents the hand itself as it either a)
grasps, handles, or manipulates objects of certain shapes, or b) touches and strokes
the surfaces, or traces the edges or other physical features of some real or imaginary
object. Across sign languages there is a degree of similarity in interactive hand-
shapes since they involve and represent human hands interacting with objects in the
world in some way.6 The constraints for such actions are essentially biological in
nature and are thus shared, culture notwithstanding. Not surprisingly, when signers
and nonsigners are presented with handshapes that are typically formed to grasp and
handle objects that is precisely what the handshape conjures up — the type of object
typically handled in such a way, or that act of handling. A classic example is the
‘cup’ handshape — — which suggests, amongst other things, a drinking vessel
or the act of drinking. Importantly, though the handshapes are normally used to
interact with or describe objects in the real world on a human scale, they can also be
used to metaphorically interact with or describe objects which are far too large (and
6. Compare, for example, the inventory of ‘classifier’ handshapes in Brennan 1990; Corazza 1990;
Collins-Ahlgren 1990; Matthews 1996; Moody 1983; Schick 1990; Wallin 1996; Zwitserlood
1996.
sometimes far too small) to be manipulated in the real world. The signer scales the
object appropriately in order to simulate interaction with it.
There are several distinguishable handshape subtypes of the non-interacting
category. The handshapes of one major type often iconically represent or stand for
objects and form part of signs which describe their real, imaginary or metaphorical
displacement through, or location in, space. They display slightly more diversity
in form-meaning relationship across sign languages than interactive handshapes
because often a range of handshapes and orientations can be recruited to iconically
represent any given image. For example, in some varieties of ASL a plane is
represented with (the fuselage and two wings of a plane) rather than , as
in Auslan. In Danish Sign Language, a person may be represented with , while
in Thai Sign Language, may be used (Engberg-Pedersen 1993; Suwanarat et
al. 1990). These handshapes may be used instead of, or in addition to, the hand-
shape, which is found in Auslan. As with interactive handshapes, these handshapes
may represent objects in a real or imaginary (congruent or scalar) space, though
this group of non-interactive handshapes is ideally suited to representing the
relative positions and displacements of large scale objects.
The remaining non-interactive handshapes have meanings that may be quite
abstract and general (such as ‘good/positive’ and ‘bad/negative’), numerical (as in
handshapes for numbers such as ‘one’, ‘two’, ‘three’, and so on); and alphabetic (as
in handshapes used in one-handed manual alphabets for ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, etc., and the
letter ‘c’ in the two-handed alphabet).
The first of these other non-interactive handshapes are known as ‘semantic
handshapes’ by some researchers (Brennan 1992) and we will adopt this terminolo-
gy here. In Auslan, some hand configurations have particular meanings in ways
that appear to have little or nothing to do with mimetic interaction or shape
iconicity. For example, each of the following handshapes is associated with a
meaning or meanings as shown: as ‘good’, as ‘bad’, and as ‘nothing’. The
Auslan lexicon includes many forms with an underlying ‘negative’ sense in which
the ‘bad’ handshape appears (SUSPICION, SWEAR, TASTE–BAD, WRONG, ILL,
GUILT, FIGHT, and so on). While Auslan has clearly borrowed the positive or good
value of the fist with an up-turned extended thumb from the surrounding culture,
the negative or bad value of the fist with the extended little finger appears to be
unique to those signed languages which are related to, or have been influenced by,
BSL. Further examples of semantically loaded handshapes in Auslan can be found
in Johnston (1989a) and Schembri (1996) (cf. Brennan 1990, 1992).
The second, numerical handshapes, refer to those handshapes used in number
signs in Auslan. The handshapes used in the Auslan forms for 0–9 often act as
meaningful units in their own right, being incorporated into other signs to
represent specific ages, measurements, or lengths of time (THREE–YEARS–AGO,
FIVE–YEARS–OLD, TWO–DAYS–AGO, and so on).
The third, alphabetic handshapes, refer to those handshapes used in one-

handed manual alphabets, such as those used in Irish or American fingerspelling,
which may be used in processes for creating new signs (we discuss two-handed
fingerspelling in Section 4.5, below). There are a number of signs in Auslan, for
example, which use handshapes from the American manual alphabet but do not
appear to be borrowed from ASL (e.g. PROFESSIONAL, ACTOR, COMPUTER). The
use of such alphabetic handshapes has also become particularly common in
producing name signs in Auslan.
Figure 2 provides a representation of this typology of handshapes. We have
used single quotation marks around the term ‘classifier’ in Figure 2 to underline
the fact that there is a degree of analytical uncertainty in this area, even though this
terminology has been used for some time in the analysis of some of these types of
handshapes (and the signs they appear in). We have some problems and reserva-
tions about the appropriateness of this terminology and its implied analysis, each
for our own reasons (e.g. Johnston 1991a; Schembri 1998). In this paper we
continue the practice of referring to those ‘classifier’ handshapes which are typically
used to represent or substitute for various classes of entities and their locations and
movements within the signing space as ‘proforms’ (Johnston 1991b; Woll 1990;
Engberg-Pedersen & Pedersen 1985). With respect to this paper the only point that
needs to be made for the moment is that ‘classifier’ signs (however defined) are
simply signs (i.e. productive signs) some of which may or may not be lexicalized.
Handshape
semantics
Interacting Non-interacting
handshape handshape
Trace Handle Proform Semantic Numerical Alphabetic

’classifiers’ ’classifers’’ ’classifiers’ handshapes handshapes handshapes
Figure 2: The semantics of the handshape component aspect of a sign
When a potential visual-gestural act can be characterized (but not fully specified)
primarily in terms of handshape (and perhaps orientation and potential movement
relative to these parameters), we are dealing with particular types of mimetic,
iconic and semantically charged handshapes and potential rather than actual signs
(i.e., only a gestural instantiation of a particular handshape is a sign), and potential
rather than actual lexemes (i.e., a lexeme is a sign with a meaning which is ‘more’
or ‘different’ than its components would suggest, see Section 4.1 below). Conse-
quently, neither type of handshape as such, nor the non-lexicalized signs they
appear in, are listed in the Auslan Dictionary or in Signs of Australia as separate
entries because they have no real citation form. Rather, each handshape section of
the dictionary is preceded by a discussion of the handshape itself, its potential
semantic value and its relationship to other handshapes.
3.3. The meaningfulness of actual and potential sign forms
Now, to return to our discussion of signs as a whole, it should be clear that

example (1) is thus not a gesture or a mime. Used in context with fingerspelling
and/or specification using other signs it could, moreover, take on more specific
meanings such as ‘rung’, ‘footrest’ and so on. However it could only take on this
‘local lexicalization’ for the duration of the text — it is not a lexeme as such (once
again, defined below in Section 4.1).7 A potential sign in Auslan is thus not as
meaningless as most potential words in English because the combination of
component aspects of a sign usually results in some minimally meaningful visual-
gestural act.8 Further examples may help clarify the point.
Example (2) has the minimal meaning of ‘the hand or some flat object
moving down or covering the surface of the upright arm or some extended
vertical flat surface’, even when produced out of context. Performed in an
appropriate context the sign could mean ‘water pouring down a surface’, ‘coats of
paint’, ‘wall hangings and tapestries’, ‘wall paper’, ‘various gases and flames
sheeting down the side of the space shuttle as it takes off ’ and so on.
(2)
‘on vertical surface’
7. We have adapted this terminology from Brentari (1995) who uses it to refer to phonological
processes which result in a fully fingerspelled lexical item being produced in a reduced manner
in connected signing.
8. Though constant reference is made throughout this paper to Auslan and English it should be
understood that many of the observations being made may apply equally to a number of sign
languages and the spoken language of their surrounding or host communities. To fully qualify
each mention of Auslan and English by circumlocutions such as “Auslan and other sign
languages” or “English or whatever the spoken language of the surrounding community”
would be unnecessarily long-winded and repetitive.
Similarly, the following sign has the componential meaning, as described.

(3)
‘a finger or small implement dipped into a container and then wiped on the
face’
Performed in an appropriate context the sign could mean ‘face paint’, ‘warrior’,
‘mascara’, ‘make-up’, ‘Cowboys and Indians’, and so on. However, it does not
specifically mean any one of these things (i.e., it is not lexicalized). In Auslan, this
process of sign ‘innovation’ (or construction) is enormously productive in the
range of meanings that can be generated during the production of a text. Indeed,
as shown for ASL (Newport 1990), the facility with which signers exploit the
components of the system is often symptomatic of the age at which they acquired
sign language and, hence, the degree to which their signing skills are like that of
a native signer.
By way of comparison with the basic componentiality of signs, a phonologi-
cally potential word-form in English is usually not so minimally meaningful; it is
simply ‘sayable’ or well-formed according to the phonology of English. The vast
majority of potential but unrealized well-formed English words are of this type,
even though smaller sets of potential English words may be said to have some
minimal meaning component. They achieve this through a) association with other
actually occurring and similar sounding words (e.g., ‘crevisse’ was borrowed into
Middle English from Old French but, through association with other English
words, became ‘crayfish’); b) phonaesthesia (e.g., ‘slem’ is potentially the name of
some thing or some act which is disgusting or unattractive, as in ‘slag’, ‘slug’,
‘sluggish’, ‘slinky’, ‘slut’, ‘slovenly’ etc.); c) onomatopoeia (e.g. ‘zhing’ is potential-
ly the sound a computer or television screen makes as it is turned on); and d)
‘sound symbolism’ (e.g., it has been claimed that in English and many other
languages high front vowels conjure up notions of small things and low back
vowels evoke large things). The vast majority of potential signs in Auslan are like
these smaller sets of potential English words. Indeed, it is this very phenomenon
that may partially explain why language planning and development in Auslan is
relatively difficult — virtually every potential sign which one may wish to
standardize in production and lexicalize in a certain way is pregnant with other
competing possible meanings or interpretations. Signers often find it difficult to
suppress or ignore alternative interpretations, especially when they have not
personally ‘invented’ or ‘coined’ a sign for a particular meaning but are instead
presented with an assigned meaning as a fait accompli.
Signs such as (1) ‘below long narrow thin object’, (2) ‘on vertical surface’, and
(3) ‘finger-paint face’ are not entered in the dictionary because they are not
lexemes. Entering signs such as these without restriction in the dictionary would
create two problems. First, the number of entries would become very large
indeed, if not virtually infinite (e.g., not only would ‘below long narrow thin
object’ have to be entered, but so also would ‘a good distance below a long
narrow thin object’, ‘below long narrow thin object which is at a 45° angle’, and
so on ad infinitum). In other words, all slight modifications of any given sign
should also qualify for inclusion where a change of meaning is definable. In
principle, there is a potentially infinite number of signs in Auslan made possible by
the countless combinations of the five aspects in all their various instantiations.9
Second, the exclusion of a vast number of potential signs in an attempt to limit the
lexicon would be quite arbitrary if entry status were not, in fact, constrained by
some principle other than pragmatic considerations of space limitations.
We would suggest that there are two subsets of signs — lexemes and deictics
(both of which are defined and illustrated in Section 4, below). With a few
exceptions (again discussed below), only one of the instances of these subsets —
lexemes — should normally qualify for entry as headwords in the dictionary. No
other principle appears to be available or viable.10
9. There may be an argument for including non-lexicalized signs as lemmas in a dictionary. Like
deictic reference points, attested combinations and instantiations may be far less numerous than
imagined, but still numbering in the tens of thousands. Provided signs and lexemes are clearly
identified and defined appropriately, there seems to be no good reason why a dictionary of a
sign language should not be able to deal with tens of thousands of entries. Many spoken
language dictionaries are much larger than this. The only problem with this approach is that
entries of this type would not be very informative in a monolingual sense. The user of the
language would learn very little, if anything, from the related ‘definitions’ because they would
convey nothing more than the sense a user would ‘generate’ anyway. However, in a bilingual
context in which there were example translation equivalents in the second language, such a
format could be very useful for second language learners.
10. Brien & Turner (1994) make the interesting suggestion that signed language lexicographers
ought to look to dictionaries of spoken languages, such as Swahili, which also have a complex,
dense morphological structure. In dictionaries of Swahili, affixes used to form multimorphemic
forms are entered separately along with their meanings and grammatical roles. They admit that
this analogy is limited by the fact that sign linguists are as yet unable to exhaustively list all the
meaningful units of handshape, orientation, location, movement and nonmanual features used
in a particular signed language, let alone the rules for their possible combination.
4. Lexemes
4.1. Distinguishing lexemes from signs
A lexeme in Auslan is defined as a sign that has a clearly identifiable and replicable
citation form which is regularly and strongly associated with a meaning which is
(a) unpredictable and/or somewhat more specific than the sign’s componential
meaning potential, even when cited out of context, and/or (b) quite unrelated to
its componential meaning potential (i.e., lexemes may have arbitrary links between
form and meaning). That is to say, a lexeme is a sign that achieves its meaning
through a second level of conventionalization. (This level of conventionalization
is represented in Figure 1 as the inner bold ellipse that separates productive and
semi-established signs from lexemes). Thus, unlike the crosslinguistic similarities in
many productive signs mentioned earlier, lexemes may have widely divergent links
between form and meaning across different dialects of the one signed language, as
well as across different signed languages.
Lexemes also appear to exhibit a number of other features which make them
a distinctive subset of signs. Phonologically, there appear to be a number of
constraints on the form of lexemes in addition to those that operate on all signs. It
is well known, for example, that different signed languages do not exploit all
physically possible hand configurations. The set that is used in lexemes, however,
appears to be a subset of all those that are used in a particular signed language.
Recent analysis has suggested that 34 handshapes are used contrastively in Auslan
lexemes (Schembri 1996). The handshapes found in productive signs, particularly
tracing and handling forms, are more numerous because the number of extended
fingers, their distance from each other and their degree of constriction may work
contrastively (Corina 1990). In addition to this, the productive use of simultaneous
sign constructions (see Section 6.3.3, below) often produces forms which do not
obey the dominance and symmetry conditions first identified by Battison (1978).
In addition to this, research indicates that features such as eye contact with
the addressee and the use of spoken language mouth patterns also may reflect
differences in the lexical status of a sign. While using a productive sign, a signer is
less likely to make eye contact with the addressee, and may instead look at the
hands. It also appears that a signer is less likely to accompany a productive form
with the mouth pattern of a spoken language lexical item (Engberg-Pedersen
1993; Schembri et al. 1998).
Our focus here, however, will be on the semantics of lexemes. As already
explained, lexemes have specific, less context-dependent meanings. Examples of
such signs include BUTTER and TAKE–TABLET.
(4)
BUTTER
Example (4) has the actual meaning ‘butter’ and a potential componential meaning
that could be rendered in English as something like ‘stroke a palm or flat surface
with the fingertips of the other hand or the end of a flat flexible object, or an
object or action directly or indirectly associated with such an act’.
(5)
TAKE–TABLET
Example (5) has two separate, but related, lexical meanings. In Auslan it is
lexicalized as TAKE–TABLET (‘take a tablet or pill’ or ‘a pill or tablet’) and, for some
religious groups, as COMMUNION (‘holy communion’ or ‘take communion’). Its
componential meaning is something like ‘pick up a small object from a surface or
the hand and put it in one’s mouth’ or ‘a small object which is picked up from a
surface or the hand and put in one’s mouth’. In (4) and (5) when the signs are
cited they are clearly conventionally associated with the narrower lexical meanings
rather than the broader componential meanings. For a user of Auslan there is a
relationship (usually iconic and/or metaphoric) between the lexical meaning and
the componential meaning potential of these signs. These lexemes are not
experienced by signers as arbitrary even if they are completely conventional.
Naturally, a sign may be lexicalized in one sign language but not in another.
For example, compare the two signs above with the one below.
(6)
‘pairs of upright objects in file’ / ‘couples in a procession’

This sign does not have any of the possible meanings of, say, ‘school assembly’,
‘debutantes’ ball’, ‘funeral’ or even ‘Noah’s ark’, explicitly and conventionally
associated with it in Auslan. In all these instances ‘procession in pairs’ is a salient
feature that could easily have lead to a regular, culturally and linguistically specific,
association. It just happens not to be the case in Auslan. It can, of course, be used
to refer to any one of these in context. In ASL, on the other hand, there is a
regular form/meaning association and the sign specifically means ‘funeral’ in that
language (Valli & Lucas 1995). The relevant componential aspects of the sign, in
both languages, are the two extended fingers held upright on each hand, one
slightly behind the other, and the repeated outward movement.
4.2. Lexicalization
Any instantiation of sign components (i.e. any sign) can similarly be lexicalized,
even if they are clearly motivated in some way. Consider the following examples
of lexicalized signs which exploit tracing, handling, proform, numerical, alphabetic
and semantic handshapes respectively. In all of these examples the general potential
componential sense of the sign (in lower case at the bottom of the example) has
given way to a specific, though often related, lexicalization.
((7)
) = trace (8) = handle (9) = proform
PICTURE LOCK MEET

‘square shaped in vertical ‘turn small object in ‘two people approach
plane’ vertical surface’ each other’
(10) = numerical (11) = alphabetic (12) = semantic
PARTNER–SWAPPING COMMUNICATE BLAME

‘two sets of couples ‘two things being ex- ‘something bad or nega-
change relative to each changed between two tive directed at someone
other’ people plus the letter C’ or something’
In many other lexemes the components are essentially experienced as arbitrary

with very little, if no, componential significance.
(13)
SHOP
Example (13) has the meaning ‘a place where one buys things’ or ‘the act of
buying things’ which is quite unrelated to its potential componential meaning of
‘strike the palm or a flat surface with the fist or an object’, ‘the fist or an object
used to or associated with striking the palm or a flat surface’, or even in any
apparent way with ‘any object or action that can be associated with this’.
(14)
SISTER
Example (14) has the meaning ‘sister’ which is quite unrelated to its (in principle)
potential componential meanings of ‘tap the nose with a finger or narrow bent
object, or some object associated with such an act’ or ‘a line, mark or crease on a
nose or nose-like object, or some object or act associated with such’. Evidence of
the evolution of signs, see for example Frishberg (1975), suggests that most signs
have some initial iconicity which often becomes lost either though historical,
cultural or technological changes or through phonological processes of simplifica-
tion or symmetricalization (i.e., SISTER may well have originally had some
relationship with its componential meaning or the componential meaning of its
original form which it may no longer actually resemble).
The meaning of a lexeme is thus not necessarily predictable from the meaning
of its components (though it may actually be consistent with them), nor is the
meaning of a lexeme always motivated since it may bear no apparent relation to its
components. In lexemes the component aspects of the sign are, thus, often more
like phonemes (or distinctive features) than morphemes. Nonetheless, most sign
forms which are lexicalized may still be used or performed in context in such a
way as to foreground the meaning potential of one or more of the component
aspects (i.e. be treated as signs rather than lexemes).

In other words, there is a residual iconic persistence in lexemes in that they
inherit the semantic value of the sign’s individual components and the real or
imagined iconicity of the overall sign itself. Indeed, this affects the way signers use
the language. As Brennan (1990: 13) observes for BSL “what may appear to be
‘dormant’ iconicity may be ‘revitalized’ by the signer to create novel forms”. In
Auslan, for instance, the following lexeme WRITE–OFF (i.e. of a vehicle, to be so
badly damaged that it is not worth repairing) could be ‘revitalized’ by changing the
dominant hand orientation slightly and incorporating a fist handshape (as if holding
a very large and thick pen or drawing implement) to mean ‘complete write off ’,
‘write off completely’ or even ‘of anything, completely damaged and worthless’.
(15) (16)
WRITE–OFF WRITE–OFF–COMPLETELY
The semantic inheritance evidenced in lexemes thus gives them two faces: the one
as discrete and conventional, even arbitrary, units of meaning; the second as
generalized componential signs or even visual-gestural acts that signify themselves
as acts (i.e. mimes). In the second case lexemes can be said to be ‘de-lexicalized’ —
they can become signs or even mimes. Even though it may be very difficult to use
some signs with arbitrary lexical meanings, such as SISTER, in this way, the point
is that it is always possible. One can create a context in which a sign, identical in
form to the lexeme SISTER, is performed with the clear meaning of ‘I was tapped
on the bridge of the nose with the handle of his walking stick’.
It might be tempting to dismiss the significance of this phenomenon as
nothing more than an instance of two synchronically unrelated homophones in
Auslan, the putative relationship between the two forms being merely a visual pun
on the same level as ‘cargo’ and ‘car go’ in English. However, the similarities may
only be superficial and potentially misleading. It may be valid for only a small set
of Auslan sign examples. Three facts about Auslan and other sign languages should
urge us to avoid downplaying the differences, as if the existence of an apparently
parallel phenomenon in spoken languages should ‘normalize’ the situation. First,
it is difficult to think of any lexeme that does not have a companion ‘sign homo-
phone’ which is potentially meaningful. Second, lexicalized signs represent a subset
of the meaningful signs regularly found in any text. Thirdly, as discussed later in
this paper, it appears that lexemes form a relatively small inventory in signed
languages when compared to most spoken languages.
Naturally, this process of ‘revitalization’ is easier to see in signs which are still
clearly iconic. For example, TAKE–TABLET could be signed in context to mean ‘eat
a peanut from a small tray’ or even ‘pick up a small object from a surface or the
hand and put it in one’s mouth’. TAKE–TABLET could also be signed to ‘mean’ the
act itself as a mime (i.e., ‘hold the subordinate open flat handshape, palm up, in
front of the body and then, with the finger and thumb of the dominant okay hand
initially touching the upturned palm of the subordinate hand, move the dominant
hand up towards the mouth as it turns’).
4.3. Lexemes as the established or frozen lexicon
The distinction being made here is similar but not identical to that between the
‘established’ (or ‘frozen’) and ‘productive’ lexicon in sign languages (cf. Supalla
1982; McDonald 1982; Brennan 1990). The difference is partly terminological and
partly analytical.
In the ASL literature it is generally maintained that the ‘frozen’ lexicon
consists of single morpheme signs (i.e., the sign itself is the only relevant meaning
unit) while the ‘productive’ lexicon consists of signs made up of several mor-
phemes (Wilbur 1987: 52–53). According to Supalla (1982), the productive
lexicon exploits classifier handshapes and morphemes of movement and location,
which are particularly exemplified in verbs of motion and location.
In this analysis of Auslan, however, and somewhat in line with Brennan
(1990), we regard the ‘frozen’ lexicon as precisely that — the lexicon. It is that list
of stable forms and stable meanings (i.e. the lexemes) which is known only to a
user of any particular sign language.11 The ‘productive’ lexicon represents the
potential signs of the language created through a) ‘novel’ combinations of phono-
morphemes which are not lexicalized or b) the selective modification of one or
more of the phonomorphemes of an already established lexeme. (Sign modifica-
tion and lexicalization is discussed later in this paper.)
We suggest here that all signs are fundamentally multi-morphemic (even if
the semantics or iconicity of some phonomorphemes may be said to be relatively
‘dormant’). Signs (lexemes) which show no obvious form/meaning relationship
are commonly referred to as monomorphemic signs in the literature, but, without
11. However, it is clear from the entries in the BSL Dictionary that Brennan et al.’s category of the
‘established lexicon’ is wider than that advanced here and includes many entries which we
would consider to be either non-lexicalized signs or entirely systematic and predictable (in
terms of meaning change) modifications of lexemes (this point is discussed later in this paper).
explicit qualification, such a label may obscure the apparent underlying compo-
nentiality of all signs in a sign language. An alternative terminology could be to
call these signs ‘unimorphemic’ (implying the dormant union of many into one)
rather than simply ‘monomorphemic’ (implying the existence of only one
morpheme in the first instance, rather than the ‘dormancy’ of several). The
standard term is acceptable provided one is clear about the similarities and
differences between spoken language words and sign language lexemes which are
monomorphemic, especially in terms of phoneme-morpheme relationships and
patterns of lexicalization.
Regardless of the understanding of what constitutes the ‘frozen’ and ‘produc-
tive’ lexicon in either perspective, or whether some lexemes are best described as
‘unimorphemic’ rather than ‘monomorphemic’, what is actually meant by
‘lexeme’ in sign languages still remains undefined in the literature. This is our
purpose here. Though, of course, not all signs are lexemes, all lexemes are
necessarily signs, by definition, in that the five constituent aspects of handshape,
orientation, location, movement and nonmanual features can be specified. With
the exception of some ‘general signs’ and a few citation-like deictics (see Sec-
tion 4.6), it is only lexemes which are entered in the dictionary.
4.4. The sign classes (‘parts of speech’) of Auslan lexemes
Lexemes themselves belong to at least five major classes of signs which are not
mutually exclusive. That is to say, many lexemes are able to function in at least
two ways (e.g. as nominals and verbals), if not more.
Nominals (nouns) are lexemes which refer to the participants (abstract or
concrete) of an utterance (e.g. TEACHER, HOUSE, MELBOURNE).
Verbals are lexemes which refer to the states and processes (actions, qualities,
attributes) that involve the nominated participant(s) (e.g. WALK, HIT, DISAPPEAR,
(BE) BLACK, (BE) UNDER). In the dictionary, therefore, any lexical sign which may
function as a ‘predicate’ (‘adjectives’, ‘verbs’ and even ‘prepositions’) is classified as
a ‘verbal’.
Interrogatives (question words) are lexemes which alone, or in combination
with other signs, are necessary and sufficient for marking an utterance as an
information question (e.g. WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY, HOW, HOW-
MUCH, HOW-OLD).
Modifiers and linkers (adverbs and conjunctions) are lexemes which fulfil any
other functions in an utterance such as modifying processes within the clause,
modifying the whole clause itself, or ‘modifying’ a clause by relating it to another
clause (e.g. AFTER, NEXT, BEFORE, THEN, FINALLY, AND, BUT).
Interactives (interjections) are lexemes that express reactions and judgments
of the signer to what is being said or done. They are usually used alone, much like
interjections and exclamations in English, often to interrupt or acknowledge the

comments of your interlocutor. They are lexemes and not just signs because they
do have a specific, if somewhat difficult to gloss, meaning (e.g. REALLY!, BI-
ZARRE!, WONDERFUL!, FINALLY!, DAMN!). When functioning as interactives they
cannot, however, be combined with other interactives (or gestures) to make
meaningful propositions, nor do they ‘combine’ with other classes of lexemes to
form groups, phrases or clauses or any other kind of functional unit.
Though many lexemes in Auslan are able to function as more than one
subtype of lexeme without any apparent or necessary change in form, sufficient
numbers of lexemes seem to be restricted in their function (primarily or exclusive-
ly nominal, verbal, interrogative, linking, or interactive in function) as to justify
the discrimination of at least the five ‘parts of speech’ (i.e. word or sign classes) listed
above. It is highly probable that further analysis or future investigations of Auslan
grammar will make additional finer discriminations between the types of sign classes
found in the language. For example, there are some arguments for a possible
separate adjectival class based on considerations regarding restriction on some verbal
signs appearing before nouns or by the restriction of the ability to modify all verbal
signs with signs such as VERY, MOST, MORE, etc. (Bergman 1986).
Some so-called ‘general signs’ (a label used to distinguish signs from lexemes
in the Signs of Australia dictionary) are treated as pseudo-lexemes because they
occupy an intermediate position between established and productive signs. For
most users of Auslan, such signs are as general (or specific) in meaning as context
and the componential nature of all signs will allow. However, for a significant
minority of signers, some ‘general signs’ have taken on unpredictable and particu-
lar meanings somewhat independent of context. Consequently they are semi-
lexicalized, or at least well on the way to becoming fully lexicalized for such
signers. Pending further research, they are entered in the dictionary as ‘general
signs’ because their status is indeterminate or intermediate.12 The following two
signs, for example, are the lexemes FAN BELT and SPEEDWAY respectively for many
signers who have an interest in mechanics and car racing. For most other signers
they are simply general componential signs that may have those specific senses only
if so constrained by context.
12. There may also be a case for another intermediate category of signs being included — those
that Bauer (1988) might describe as ‘institutionalized’. These are forms that are fully productive
but which are attested frequently and thus seem to occupy an intermediate lexical status. Many
dictionaries of English, for example, list the most common words which make use of the prefix
‘re-’, such as ‘renew’, ‘refilm’, and ‘redo’.
(17) (18)
FAN BELT SPEEDWAY

‘a circular or elliptical strip’ or ‘of a vehicle, to move sideways or
‘tracing a circular or elliptical strip’ to skid’
Similarly, the next sign appears to be lexicalized for a minority of signers as

POPCORN.
(19)
POPCORN
‘hold a vertical cylindrical object and pick up a small object from it and place
it in one’s mouth’
However, for the majority of signers, it really only has the general componential
sense, as described, and only when it is performed in an appropriate context could
the sign mean ‘sweets/eat sweets’, ‘thumbtacks’, ‘popcorn’, ‘chips/crisps’ and so
on. In particular, it does not specifically mean any one of these things (e.g.
popcorn) for most signers.
Sometimes other general signs are also entered in the dictionary because they
are essentially ‘stems’ upon which one or a number of lexical items are based. For
example, the general sign ‘under a flat surface’ is the basis of the lexeme PRIMARY
(‘underlying’, ‘fundamental’, ‘basic’), in which the handshape (signifying ‘p’)
has been substituted for the dominant flat hand, . The general sign ‘under a flat
surface’ is not a genuine lexeme (it is marked as a general sign in the dictionary,
not as a lexeme) and is found in the dictionary in order to act as a point of
reference for the ‘derived’ lexical form.
( )
(20) (21)
‘under a flat surface’ PRIMARY
Signs that do qualify for inclusion in the dictionary are entered at a location
predicted by the ordering principle used therein (i.e. alphabetic or an equivalent
such as ‘cheremic’ order). Table 1 summarizes the criteria for distinguishing
between lexemes (candidates for entry into a sign language dictionary) and signs
(treated in a grammar or the grammar section of a dictionary).
4.5. Lexicalized fingerspelling
In Auslan, many frequently fingerspelled items have become lexicalized and should
thus be considered part of the established lexicon of the language (Johnston 1989b;
Branson, Toms, Bernal & Miller 1995; Schembri 1996). As shown in Table 2
below, such fingerspelled items may involve reduplicated single letter signs, such
as D-D for ‘daughter’, K-K for ‘kitchen’ and T-T for ‘toilet’, acronyms such as
A-A-D (Australian Association of the Deaf ), abbreviations such as J-A-N for
January, T-U-E-S for Tuesday and A-D-V for ‘advertisement’, as well as whole
English words such as L-A-W, S-O-N and D-O. A lexicographer thus needs to
consider what role lexicalized fingerspelling should play in a signed language
dictionary. As with lexicalization in general, lexicalized fingerspelling appears to
exist on a continuum, with some items both phonologically and semantically
lexicalized, others only partially phonologically or semantically lexicalized, and yet
others being examples of nonce (‘one-off ’) borrowings which undergo only local
lexicalization for the duration of a particular signed exchange. Only those finger-
spelled items that fit into the first category are candidates for inclusion in the
dictionary.
The following sign (example 22, page over) is an example of a collapsed
lexicalized fingerspelling routine.
Table 1: Summary of criteria used for distinguishing between lexemes and (productive) signs
Lexemes (Productive) Signs
(candidates for entry into a sign language dic- (treated in a grammar or the grammar section
tionary) of a dictionary)
Phonological criteria
Have a citation form which uses a relatively Uses a relatively wider set of handshapes, ori-
smaller set of handshapes, orientations, loca- entations, locations and movements
tions and movements than productive signs
Allophonic variation in handshape, orientation, Small variations in handshape, orientation,
location, movement and nonmanual features location, movement and nonmanual features
may create a change in meaning
Obey particular phonological constraints, such May not obey all phonological constraints,
as the dominance condition, and the symmetry such as the dominance and symmetry condi-
condition tion found in lexemes
Morphosyntactic and semantic criteria

May be monomorphemic: the meaning of the Polymorphemic: the meaning of the sign is
sign is relatively arbitrary, or it is more specific componential, with the specific handshape,
than/unrelated to the sign’s componential orientation, location and movement each
(productive) meaning contributing to the sign’s meaning
Meaning is relatively clear out of context Meaning may be relatively context-dependent
Lexemes may fall into all sign classes: nominals, Productive signs are more likely to fulfil a
verbals, interrogatives, modifiers, linkers and predicate role in signed utterances, although
interactives they may also act as nominals in context
Relationship between sign form and meaning Relationship between sign form and meaning
varies across dialects and across different sign varies relatively less across dialects and across
languages different sign languages
Other criteria
While using a lexeme, a signer is more likely to While using a productive sign, a signer is less
make eye contact with addressee likely to make eye contact with addressee, and
more likely to look at the hands
While using a lexeme, a signer is more likely to While using a productive sign, a signer is less
accompany the sign with the mouth pattern of likely to accompany the sign with the mouth
a spoken language lexical item pattern of a spoken language lexical item
Table 2: Lexicalized fingerspelling

Fully lexicalized Lexicalized acronyms, Whole English words
fingerspelled items abbreviations and others
Common nouns: Common nouns: Common nouns:
D-D ‘daughter’ A-D-V ‘advertisement’ L-A-W
K-K ‘kitchen’ D-R ‘doctor’ S-O-N
T-T ‘toilet’ A-P-R-I-L
F-F ‘father’ Proper nouns: M-A-Y
M-M ‘mother’ A-A-D ‘Australian Association
I-I ‘insurance’ of the Deaf ’ Verbs:
D-R-A ‘Deafness Resources D-O
Verbs: Australia’
R-R ‘rather, prefer’ N-R-S ‘National Relay Ser- Linker
vice’ S-O
Proper nouns: B-W-K ‘Brunswick’ I-F
B-B ‘Brisbane’ R-I-C-H ‘Richmond’
P-P ‘Parramatta’ T-A-S ‘Tasmania’ Marginal functors (found only in
Q-Q ‘Queensland’ contact varieties of Auslan?)
Linker: T-O, D-I-D
A-T ‘about’ (see the example
below).
(22)
ABOUT
‘the letters a and t’
4.6. Lexicalized deixis
A deictic is a pointing sign which is indexically related to its referent (its referent
is that which it ‘points at’) which is usually a thing or location in the signing space.
The referent may be real, imagined or metaphorical in some way. In a deictic sign
the extended index fingertip is usually directed at or touches the referent. As a
class, deictic signs are either relatively simple using a widely understood human
pointing gesture — the index-finger pointing hand — or relatively complex using
more culture- and language-specific handshapes combined with an underlying
deixis.13 In Auslan the ‘simple’ deictics refer to, or specify, participants in the
text (‘pronouns’, ‘demonstratives’, ‘locatives’ and ‘parts of the body’). The
‘complex’ deictics combine participant reference with possession (‘possessive
pronouns’) or reflexiveness (‘reflexive pronouns’). The following two signs are
examples of ‘simple’ deictics.
(23) (24)
THEY/THEM THEY/THEM
As one can see from examples (23)–(24), in Auslan the pointing action in simple
deictic signs is made with the extended index finger or, especially in formal
situations or in public speaking, it can be made with the fingertips of the extended
flat hand (palm usually up).
Within simple deictics in Auslan, there is no formal distinction between
deixis which is used for person or pronominal reference and deixis which is used
for locative reference (Johnston 1991b). Indeed, since for all intents and purposes
the two meanings are fused in each act of deixis, they also function as determiners
or demonstratives (‘the’, ‘this’, ‘that’). Often, however, a pronominal, locative or
determinant reading is highlighted or foregrounded by context in any act of deixis.
Reference or pronominal deictics (‘pronouns’) point to the participants in a
discourse. Though pointing to participants necessarily involves spatial discrimina-
tion, the spatial location of a participant may or may not be relevant to the
discourse as such and, thus, the function of the deictic is often primarily referential
rather than locative. Locative deictics (‘locatives’), on the other hand, point to
locations in a discourse. The use of contrastive stress with deictics (involving
manual stress on the production of the sign and/or facial expressions such as raised
eyebrows and grimacing) often foregrounds the demonstrative meaning even
though this is also latent in the meaning of the unstressed form. The equivalent of
‘that there!’ or ‘this here!’ is not achieved by two separate lexical items. (Stressed
forms, though, may also involve repetition.)
Complex deictics differ from simple deictics in handshape and orientation.
13. This is not to ignore the fact that many cultures may have taboos against this type of pointing
gesture and/or that they may also favor other completely different and culture- or language-
specific deictic gestures. In some cultures, for example, pointing may involve pouting one’s lips
in the direction of the referent.
Complex deictics that involve possession (‘possessives’) do not use the extended
index finger handshape, they use only the flat or fist handshape. Possessives do not
point with the fingertips or the lateral extremity of the hand, instead they point
with the palm surface of a flat hand or fist (i.e. the palm surface of a flat hand or
fist is directed at or touches the referent), thus:
(25) (26)
YOUR/YOURS YOUR/YOURS
Complex deictics that involve reflexiveness display a change of handshape during

the production of the sign from the pointing hand — — to the open spread
hand — — with the palm of the final handshape directed at or placed on the
referent. For example,
(27)
YOURSELF
In essence, deictics do not have a citation form because their form is entirely
dependent on the real, imagined or metaphorical location of their referents.
Deictics are thus better dealt with in the grammar than in the dictionary and,
except for a small number of citation-like forms, they are not entered in the
dictionary.14 Citation-like forms of particular deictic signs are produced for some
meanings because there is a total predictability of the location of the referent. The
form and meaning of these signs are so stable as to justify their entry in the
lexicon. For example, the deictic sign for the first person singular is citation-like
(in terms of having a fixed location) for all signers. One simply points to oneself (at
the chest), thus:
14. The extent to which these forms are dealt with by the grammar is a matter of some debate in
the sign linguistics literature. Some argue that no specific forms other than the first person
pronoun are listable (Meier 1990; Engberg-Pederson 1993).
(28) (29) (30)
I/ME MY/MINE MYSELF
Given this across the board replication and the conventionality of pointing to
one’s chest for the meaning I/ME (rather than to the nose, neck or stomach) there
is reason for entering such first person forms in the dictionary. Similarly, the
second person singular is invariably made by directing the pointing gesture directly
at the interlocutor (usually in front of the signer), thus:
(31) (32) (33)
YOU YOUR/YOURS YOURSELF
Such second person forms are entered in the sign dictionary. Virtually all other
pronouns (i.e. ‘person reference deictics’) are so variable in form that treating them
as lexemes in the dictionary could be misleading. They are more appropriately
dealt with as an encyclopedic entry attached to a citation-like form (such as I/ME
or YOU) and/or in the grammar.
Similar observations could be made for the canonical locative ‘here’. Forms
are entered in the dictionary for this ‘lexeme’. For example,
(34)
HERE
Some other deictics are actually lexicalized (i.e., they are true lexemes). As can be
seen from the following examples, pointing to the ear is lexicalized as HEAR
whereas EAR is signed by grabbing the ear lobe.
(35) a. b.
HEAR EAR
Similarly, pointing to the chest is lexicalized as I/ME, as we have seen, whereas the
sign in which one places the spread hand on the chest is lexicalized as CHEST.
(36) a. b.
I/ME CHEST
Naturally such lexicalized deictics are entered in the dictionary as lexemes. Signs
for parts of the body are regularly achieved through simple deixis and, in principle,
their number is very large. Consequently, only a small subset of deictic body parts
(those that are also commonly lexicalized in non-technical English) are entered
separately in the dictionary. They are, however, marked as ‘deictics’ rather than
lexemes. Strictly speaking, deictic body parts should not be counted as distinctive
Auslan lexemes.
5. The lexicon
5.1. Citation and variant forms and the lexicon
The citation form of a lexeme is consistently given by native signers as the sign for
a particular meaning and/or a form of a lexeme consistently given by native signers
when asked to identify and/or repeat a sign which has been observed in context.
Though there is no complete agreement among all signers for all lexemes, a core
citation vocabulary can nonetheless be established.
Though it may be possible to elicit ‘citation signs’ for generalized meanings
such as ‘horizontal flat surface underneath a long narrow horizontal thin object’ (as
in example (1)), it is incorrect and misleading to think of signs, rather than
lexemes, as having citation forms and variants in this sense. One would expect to
see significant variation in the elicited sign equivalents for all but the most simple
meanings (as above). Moreover, each ‘variant’ of any sign is actually a bona fide
sign in itself, being of equal status to every other possible sign. This is because a
sign is the combination of independent meaningful units, each of which contrib-
utes equally to the overall meaning of the sign. It makes little sense to say one sign
is a citation form or that one is a variant of another.
The citation form is the simplest possible form of a lexeme which still
identifies it uniquely and which still conveys what is regarded as its core or
essential meaning. Modifications and complexities of movement, location,
handshape, orientation, and nonmanual features which often ‘embellish’ the
lexeme are usually simplified or stripped away when it is cited. A citation lexeme
tends thus to involve ‘simple’ movement patterns (including movement to or from
the normal locus of the interlocutor in directional signs), to be located in neutral
space or one of a limited set of locations on the body, to use less marked hand-
shapes and orientations, and to lack mandatory nonmanual features.
A variant is an alternative form of a lexeme which differs in only one or two
aspects from the standard form with minimal, if any, change in meaning. The
variant is essentially an alternative pronunciation. Instances of variation in citation
lexemes recorded in the database which served as the basis for Signs of Australia
suggest that this variation usually takes the form of a change in handshape and/or
orientation, rather than a change in movement or location. Variants are given
dummy entries in the dictionary. They are marked and glossed as variants and
cross-referenced to the most common citation lexeme for any discussion of
meaning.
5.2. Modified signs and the lexicon
Modified forms of lexemes need to be distinguished from variant forms. Unlike

variant pronunciations of a lexeme, modifications are made in order to convey
meaning differences in a systematic way. The modifications are precisely those
‘embellishments’ of a lexeme which are stripped away in the citation form. It is
these processes of systematic and meaningful modifications of the form of a lexeme
in a signed language that we will discuss here in so far as they relate to signed
language lexicography. It goes without saying that all lexemes are themselves signs
(i.e. visual-gestural signs) in the most general sense. Consequently, the ways in
which a lexeme can be modified in a signed language apply equally to the signs of
that language in general. However, it does not really make much sense to talk of
modified forms of non-lexicalized signs because, as with citation forms or variant
forms of non-lexicalized signs (see above), each new form of a non-lexicalized sign
can itself be treated just as much as a totally new sign as it can be treated as a
‘variant’ or ‘modified’ form of some other sign. Thus, even though the following
discussion is primarily about signs as lexemes, it will sometimes be more convenient
to say sign (meaning the visual-gestural units of a signed language in general)

rather than lexeme.
In languages with rich morphological systems, a single lexeme may corre-
spond to a great many different word forms. An extreme example of this has been
described by Kibrik, Kodzasov, Olovjannikova and Samedov (1977, cited in
Spencer 1991). In Archi, spoken in the Daghestan mountains in the Russian
Federation, a regular verb is capable of appearing in over a million forms. As a
result, a native speaker might live their entire life without hearing many of the
possible grammatical forms of certain words! Similarly, modifications of a lexeme
in Auslan may also produce a large number of different sign forms.
As with the words of a spoken language, the lexemes of a signed language
may be modified internally or externally, though Auslan shows a clear preference
for internal sign modification. There are basically two types of internal sign
modification that can be made in Auslan. The first primarily involves space and
movement, though it may also involve a change in orientation and expression and
also, in principle, handshape.
There is no ready analogy, or even equivalent, in spoken languages for the
second type of internal sign modification which involves a change in the number
and arrangement of hands in a lexeme from one-handed to double-handed or
two-handed, and from double-handed and two-handed to one-handed (Johnston
1989b).15
Internal sign modifications are essentially simultaneous coding strategies. A third
coding strategy is, of course, ‘external’ modification of the minimal units of a language
whereby meaningful units are added to or inserted into a stem. Though the sequential
modification of citation lexemes, through affixing and compounding, is also a
possibility in Auslan, only the latter, compounding (and blending), is common.
The existence of the processes of internal and external sign modification has
important, even serious, consequences for signed language lexicography. Impor-
tantly, as the following discussions of each in turn show, though Auslan can be
considered to be a morphologically rich language in that most lexemes are able to
be modified along the dimension of at least one of their component aspects, it is
nonetheless difficult to formally divide the morphology of Auslan into the
traditional categories of derivational or lexical morphology (e.g. nominalization),
on the one hand, and inflectional or syntactic morphology (e.g. number, aspect,
case etc.), on the other. This is not a problem unique to Auslan (see Engberg-
15. In the Auslan Dictionary (Johnston 1989b) and Signs of Australia (Johnston 1998b) lexemes are
sequenced according to handshape. Therefore the distinction between a double-handed sign
(a sign using two hands of the same handshape) and a two-handed sign (a sign using two hands
of different handshapes) is significant. Double-handed signs may be further subdivided into
symmetrical and asymmetrical subtypes. We have continued to use this terminology here.
Pedersen 1993, for a discussion of the problem of identifying inflections in Danish

Sign Language). The criteria used to distinguish between inflection and derivation
in spoken languages are not easy to apply crosslinguistically, and some linguists
working in contemporary morphological theory have simply discarded the
distinction completely (Bauer 1988). This creates a problem for dictionary-makers,
however, because a clear distinction between the two rests at the heart of lexicog-
raphy. Most definitions of lexeme depend on prior definitions of inflection and
derivation. The headword in a dictionary has to be the basic unmodified or
uninflected form, and only modified forms that actually generate new word classes
(usually involving a change in meaning) are given lemma status in dictionaries.
Even modified forms that do result in a change of word class are not entered
separately if they are systematic and predictable (e.g. the addition of ‘ly’ for adverb
in English).
There are several reasons for the indeterminacy between inflectional and
derivational processes in Auslan. As mentioned above, one reason may reflect the
fact that the component aspects of a lexeme are often themselves individually
meaningful (i.e., each phonological unit can also simultaneously be a morpheme
in Auslan). Since morphology is usually understood as referring to the combina-
tion or modification of the minimal units of meaning in a language (the mor-
phemes), which are themselves composed of nonmeaningful phonemes, an imme-
diate analytical problem is created for those lexemes of a signed language in which
each of the parameters of movement, location, handshape, orientation and
expression all contribute componentially to the meaning of the whole.
Another reason for the indeterminacy between inflectional and derivational
processes in Auslan is that the functional class (or ‘part of speech’) of simple
citation lexemes is sometimes itself indeterminate so that even though the resulting
sign modifications can clearly be seen to have a particular value and meaning in
context (e.g. ‘nominalization’ or ‘aspect’) there are no formal criteria for treating
the resultant modified form as an inflection or a derivation.
Related to this is the third and final reason for the indeterminacy between
inflectional and derivational processes in Auslan — often it is the very same
modification of a citation lexeme (e.g. repetition or reduplication) which can be
seen as inflectional in one context and derivational in another. In other words,
even identical modifications may have different functions.
6. Internal sign modification and the lexicon
Naturally, given the very structure of a sign, modifications may operate along any
one of the five component aspects, or phonomorphemes. With respect to the
movement parameter, modifications which make the sign more ‘complex’ (in
terms of the citation form) include repetitions, contours created by patterns of

tense and lax, or fast and slow movements, and directions created by altering
beginning and end points of movement. Complex locations involve the relocation
of a sign to ‘marked’ loci — left or right, near or far, high or low — in the signing
space or to marked loci on the body itself. Complex handshapes involve the
substitution of highly discriminated and minimally distinct marked handshapes for
simpler and maximally distinct ones or the ‘substitution’ of tensed or lax forms of
handshapes in concert with patterns of tense and lax movements (manual stress).
Complex orientations, often the result of handshape, location and movement
selections, involve the placement of the hand in a marked position relative to the
signer and/or the other hand. Complex nonmanual features involve movements
of the head as a whole, upper face movements based on the eyes, and lower face
movements based on the mouth — the latter often related to movement selections
related to manual stress (Johnston & Schembri 1996). Since modification of one
component of a sign often requires a modification of another, there is a certain
amount of interaction and interdependence between them all.
In its simultaneity, internal sign modification can be likened to the modification
of secondary features of articulation, such as tone, in spoken languages. In both signed
and spoken languages, single phonological features which do not form a ‘pronounce-
able’ form on their own, can act as meaningful units. Such single feature mor-
phemes are found in Japanese (see examples (37)–(38) below), for example, where
palatalization is used to indicate lack of control, or Hua, where the first person
inflection is signaled by adding [+back] to a word final vowel (Brentari 1990).
(37) poko-poko ‘up and down movement’
(38) pyoko-pyoko ‘jumping around imprudently’
These types of sign modifications in Auslan have been discussed and exemplified
at length in Johnston (1989a, 1989b, 1991a, 1991b) and Schembri (1996, 1998).
From the evidence it is clear that a distinction can be made between modifications
of a lexeme which involve manner of production, change of location and/or
direction (path or movement type) and change of orientation, and possibly
changes in the use of nonmanual features; and processes of modification that
involve change of tabulation or change of handshape. (Tabulation is here under-
stood as the name for locations on the signer’s body and in neutral space that are
distinctive or phonemic in the language — i.e., minimal pairs of lexemes can be
identified that differ only in terms of these ‘significant locations’ or ‘tabulations’.)
The former group do not appear to regularly generate separate or new lexemes,
the latter regularly or potentially do. This is perhaps surprising given that we are
talking about the modification of the very formational components of all signs.
One should expect not only new signs, but also new lexemes, to be created
equally frequently by any or all such modifications. However, the impact of
handshape and tabulation changes appears to be greater, in terms of lexicalization,

than the other parameters.
Locations (i.e. tabulations) on the body proper are usually part of the meaning
of the lexeme itself in its citation form (as are locations high or low in the signing
space). Even if one may argue that they are modifications of some pre-existing
stem (for example, because they are not purely componential in that their meaning
appears to ‘inherit’ the semantics of the citation lexeme), they appear to be
regularly cited with their ‘new’ tabulation intact. Consequently these modified
forms can also be considered to be potentially separate lexemes themselves. It may,
therefore, be somewhat difficult to decide on the lexical status of such signs.
However, the difficulty disappears when this lexical potential is realized and these
signs acquire their own specificity in meaning which is more than the new
location contributes. The following examples illustrate the point.
(39) a. b. c.
OPERATION OPERATION-LOC CAESARIAN

(operation on heart, chest, breast)
The signs on the left and right (OPERATE and CAESARIAN) are treated as distinct
lexemes in Auslan according to the principle of ‘specificity of meaning’. Out of
context example (39c) is usually reported as ‘an operation in which a baby is lifted out
of a woman’s womb through an opening cut in her abdomen’ not just ‘an operation
on the stomach’. On the other hand, (39b) cited out of context means ‘an operation
on the heart, chest, or breast’ and not something more specific, say, ‘open-heart
surgery’, ‘heart-transplant’ or ‘coronary bypass’. It is not a lexeme on this princi-
ple. However, (39b) is problematic if the citation principle is applied. (That is,
asked to describe, name, refer to or cite the sign which had previously been seen
used in context, it is more likely that signers will cite this relocated form than the
neutral form OPERATE.) Nonetheless, it is considered to be a modification of the
lexeme OPERATE and not a separate lexeme in its own right because the location/
tabulation appears to add nothing unpredictable to the meaning of the sign.
As for handshape, the simple substitution of one handshape for another in a
given lexeme, of course, creates another sign. It also creates a potential new lexeme.
First of all, if a sign which is created by handshape substitution is, of itself,
only componentially meaningful there is no objective basis upon which to claim
that the novel form is a modification of an existing lexeme rather than simply
being a well formed creation from the phonological and morphological resources
of the language. Indeed, if the substituting hand configuration can act as a
proform, handling or tracing handshape, this will probably often be the case.
Secondly, in other cases, an association with another pre-existing or well-
established lexeme may be so strong as to force a reading of a new sign as a
handshape modification of that lexeme. The strength of this association could be
due to the fact that there are few, if any, other signs in the lexicon with identical
movements, orientations and tabulations but having different handshapes, or it
could be due to iconicity — the associated lexeme may be highly motivated across
all its phonomorphemes. If the new sign inherits the lexical semantics of the
unmodified form and only adds that which is predictable from the semantics of the
substituting trace, handling, proform, semantic, number or alphabetic handshape
we have some basis for claiming that it is a handshape modification of another
(lexical) sign. Its meaning clearly derives from the unmodified form of the
associated lexeme and is thus not purely componential. In such cases, it is relatively
easy or unproblematic to speak of ‘sign modification’. Importantly, the new form
is only a potential separate lexeme itself. Nonetheless, the modified form may be
treated as a pseudo-lexeme (either a nonce sign or a new yet-to-be-established
lexeme) and would probably be cited with its new handshape, much as in the
example of the new tabulation being cited for the sign ‘operate on the heart, etc.’,
discussed above.
Thirdly, if, however, the ‘new’ form not only inherits some of the non-
componential specificity of the original lexeme and acquires, in turn, its own
particular semantic specificity, then we have grounds for claiming that we have
identified another (new or separate) lexeme. For example, TUTU is regarded as a
separate lexeme from SKIRT (and not just a handshape modification of it) because
the sign means not only ‘skirtness’, and not only ‘ribbed or gathered skirtness’, but
also specifically ‘a short skirt typically worn by classical ballerinas’.
(40) a. b.
SKIRT TUTU
Even though the lexical status of signs that appear to be lexemes which have
undergone handshape or tabulation modification is not always clear, criteria for
lexicalization can nonetheless be stated.
However, exactly what is lexicalized, and thus a candidate for lexeme status
and a separate entry of is own in a sign language dictionary, is even more prob-
lematic when modification or substitution involves the other sign parameters. In
reality and in practice, it appears that these types of sign modifications operate on
a second tier (‘above’ the formational) and modulate a given lexeme in a particular
way, without obliterating or overwhelming the stem. When these lexemes are
cited or quoted it is the unmodified form which is performed. Thus, for example,
lexemes which have been shifted left or right of, or near or far from, the signer are
simply shifted to new locations rather than acquiring new tabulations. The hand
or hands of these shifted lexemes still have ‘neutral space’ as their primary tabula-
tion and, if there are two hands involved, they still have a location on the
subordinate hand as their secondary tabulation. The unshifted form is given as its
citation form.
Similarly, repetitions, contours created by patterns of tense and lax, or fast and
slow movements, and changed directions created by altering the beginning and
end points of the movement parameter (as in verb ‘agreement’) appear to modu-
late an underlying simple movement parameter rather than substitute for it. That
is, when the citation form of such a modulated lexeme is given, it is the simple
unmodified form which is produced.
Nonetheless, the lexical status of some signs that have undergone ‘second tier’
modifications dealing with ‘manner of production’ remains problematic. The
situation is not so clear-cut despite the fact that what appear to be modifications
rarely seem to be included when a citation form of the sign is elicited. In particu-
lar, are these modifications clearly and unambiguously part of the derivational
morphology of signed languages? The situation does not seem clear in Auslan partly
due to the indeterminacy of the sign class membership of many Auslan lexemes.
We will now discuss two examples: nominal-verbal derivational processes and
the modification of nonmanual features.
6.1. Modification of movement in ‘nominalization’ and ‘verbalization’
The problem is seen with sign modifications involving manner of production (i.e.,
manual stress as manifested in muscle tension, speed of movement and lengths of
hold at onset and offset and/or the number of ‘cycles’ or repetitions) which clearly
seem to be associated with distinguishing or marking for nominal and verbal
meanings and forms.
Many lexemes in Auslan appear to generate nominal and verbal pairs of signs
in which the nominal form of the basic sign is produced with a restrained and/or
repeated movement and the verbal form of the basic sign is realized as a single,
continuous movement. However, although many lexemes do appear to follow this
patterning, many other lexemes which also have both nominal and verbal
meanings, do not appear to show any systematic modification (restrained and/or
repeated for nominal, continuous for verbal) for each meaning. If these latter
lexemes are to be taken verbally or nominally, as the case may be, it seems that the
discourse, semantic or syntactic context, rather than sign modification, determines
if the lexeme is to be interpreted nominally or verbally. Indeed, it is not at all clear
if the distinctive modification is regularly made in ‘connected’ signing even when
it is possible. On this basis alone many lexemes entered in the dictionary are not
labeled as fundamentally nominal or verbal, but both.
Where the opposition between nominal and verbal forms appears to be
distinguished solely on the basis of quality of the movement (restrained for nominal,
continuous for verbal) the pattern appears weakest. In the following example, the
lexeme (on the left) may be modified to highlight nominal or verbal meanings.
(41) a. b. c.
‘CHAIR’ ‘SIT’
It has been difficult to establish whether, in connected signing, this distinction is
in fact systematic. The opposition between these two forms of a lexeme is
sometimes only clearly seen when the two forms are cited in a minimal pair. Thus,
although the signs for ‘chair’ and ‘sit’ may sometimes be differentiated by modifi-
cations to their movement as shown above by some signers, the two signs (‘chair’
and ‘sit’) are not entered as two separate lexemes in the dictionary. They, and
other signs of this type, are treated as one and the same lexeme. Example (41a) is
a lexeme because it has the regularly associated narrow meaning of ‘an object for
sitting on’ (‘chair’) or ‘the action of sitting on something’ (‘sit’) rather than the
potential broad meaning of ‘a hand or flat object resting on another hand or flat
object, or an object associated with such an object’ or ‘the action of placing a hand
or flat object on another hand or flat object, or an action associated with that act’.
This lexeme is not ‘essentially’ a nominal and in the dictionary it is defined,
amongst other things, as both ‘chair’ and ‘sit’.
Where the opposition between nominal and verbal forms appears to be distin-
guished primarily on the basis of repetition there is some evidence for this observa-
tion, though the process does seem to be restricted to particular types of signs.
For example, it is clear that there exists a subset of noun–verb pairs that do
appear to be consistently differentiated in their citation form by most native
signers. These are connected with signs in which the movement is iconically or
mimetically related to concrete ‘bi-directional’ actions such as opening and
closing, turning on or off, or switching on or off some object or device. Repeated

movement is strongly associated with nominal meanings and single movements in
one or other direction are strongly associated with each particular verbal meaning
(i.e., open versus close, turn on versus turn off, or switch on versus switch off.)
Further research is required to confirm this pattern, its systematicity, and its
underlying motivation. It could be this very paradigm (repetition) which is in the
early stages of grammaticalization for nominalization in Auslan.
On the basis of these observations, noun–verb pairs such as WINDOW versus
OPEN–WINDOW (and CLOSE–WINDOW) or DOOR versus OPEN–DOOR (and
CLOSE–DOOR), are entered as separate lexemes.
(42) a. b. c.
WINDOW OPEN–WINDOW CLOSE–WINDOW
In many others cases, however, and without further research, separate entries for
nominal and verbal forms do not appear to be fully justified. For example, CLOSE–
UMBRELLA and OPEN–UMBRELLA fall into this pattern, but ‘umbrella’ is rarely
cited by native signers in a repeated or bi-directional form. It tends to be cited
indistinguishably from OPEN–UMBRELLA.
(43) a. b. c.
UMBRELLA CLOSE–UMBRELLA UMBRELLA?
Overall, it is the repetition of the underlying movement (opening/closing, turning

on/turning off, etc.) that appears to also give the nominal form the restrained
movement quality. However, once again, it appears that the opposition between
nominal (repeated and restrained) and verbal (single and continuous) forms of a
lexeme is sometimes only clearly seen when the two forms are cited in a minimal
pair. Phonological processes of deletion, which appear to act on all signs with a
repeated movement (not just noun–verb pairs), may result in nominal forms being
produced with a single movement in connected signing (Schembri et al. 1998).
As a further complication, it is possible to superimpose sign modifications,

one ‘over’ or ‘inside’ another. In the following example, one modified form of a
citation lexeme may be identified as involving both nominalization and pluraliza-
tion (e.g. ‘chairs’) and another modification of the same citation lexeme may be
identified as involving a ‘verbalization’ and an inflection for aspect (e.g. ‘sit and sit’).
(44) a. b. c.
‘CHAIR/SIT’ ‘CHAIRS’ ‘SIT AND SIT’

Of course, if the citation form — the lexeme, as we have defined it here — is
treated as fundamentally nominal then ‘chairs’ is an example of inflectional
morphology (inflecting the nominal lexeme for number) and ‘sit and sit’ is an
example of derivational and inflectional morphology (deriving a verb from a noun
and then inflecting it for aspect). Conversely, if the citation form is treated as
fundamentally verbal then ‘chairs’ is an example of derivational and inflectional
morphology (deriving a noun from a verb and then inflecting it for number) and
‘sit and sit’ is an example of inflection morphology (inflecting the verbal lexeme
for aspect). Thus, one modified form of a citation lexeme may be identified as a
pluralization (e.g. ‘chairs’) and another modification of the same citation lexeme
may be identified as an aspectual modulation (e.g. ‘sit and sit’) without it being at
all clear whether the citation form should be treated as a nominal or a verbal,
neither or both.16
To repeat, the two signs (‘chairs’ and ‘sit and sit’) are not entered as two
separate lexemes in the dictionary. They are treated, along with ‘chair’ and ‘sit’, as
further modifications of the one and the same lexeme.
There are many examples of lexemes in the dictionary that are given only
nominal or verbal meanings (or only modifier, interrogative or interactive
meanings) because at the lexical level there are signs that are clearly only able to
function in one way; say, as the name of a participant (e.g., TEACHER has only a
nominal sense).
16. Unlike Supalla & Newport (1978) we are not claiming that the base lexeme is an abstract
underlying form that has no surface realization.
(45)
TEACHER
Moreover, there are nominal lexemes that strongly resist a related verbal pairing;
they are essentially, even exclusively, nominal and to achieve the marked or forced
alternative verbal reading of the lexeme one must actually ‘decompose’ the lexeme
in some way. For example, a markedly continuous production of the normally
nominal lexeme HOUSE (i.e. a form which is potentially ‘verbal’), would — if
anything — suggest the action ‘move one’s hands as if tracing the pitched roof and
walls of a house’ and not an action called ‘to house’ which, in the language, could
potentially mean something like ‘to accommodate’, ‘to build a house’, ‘to design
a house’, and so on. In other words, the ‘verbal’ production of HOUSE produces
at best a de-lexicalization (i.e., the lexeme HOUSE is treated as a sign).
(46)
HOUSE
Similarly, there are lexemes that are essentially verbal in meaning which cannot be
nominalized by being produced in a restrained and tensed manner. For example,
a restrained (short and sharp) production of THIN would not be read as a nominali-
zation of THIN (‘thinness’) but would rather most likely be read as an intensifica-
tion (i.e., ‘quite thin’, ‘very thin’, ‘skinny’).
(47)
THIN
The distinction between derivational and inflectional morphology in Auslan is also
blurred not only because the underlying sign class of a basic pre-modified lexeme
is usually open to question, but also because some of the morphemes used in both
processes appear to be identical. For example, repeated movement may be used for
nominalization processes and for aspectual modifications. That is, repetition in situ
of a lexeme with a core verbal meaning can not only mark for aspect — it may
also nominalize (especially if the lexeme is strongly verbal in the first instance and/
or it is lexicalized as an attribute rather than simply a process).
For example, the modified lexeme CHAIR (‘sit and sit’) in example (44c)
could just as felicitously be translated as ‘sitting’ because, like its English equivalent
which can be used as a continuous form of the verb ‘to sit’ (‘He was sitting on the
stairs’) or as a nominalization of that process (‘Sitting on the stairs is not allowed’),
the repeated form of the lexeme could also represent the action ‘to sit’ as a
participant as well as the continuous aspect of the action ‘to sit’. Signs which are
primarily lexicalized as the name of an attribute, quality or state rather than an
action (i.e. process) as such, regularly use this kind of repetition for ‘nominaliza-
tion’. Similarly the repeated form of THIN could equally be read as the nominal
‘thinning’ or ‘thinness’ as it could be read as a modified form of the verbal
meaning — ‘becoming thinner and thinner’, ‘thinning out’ and so on.
Although English has similar cases in which the same phonological form may
function in both derivational and inflectional processes (e.g. ‘-er’ in deriving
‘teacher’ from ‘teach’, and inflecting ‘smaller’ from ‘small’), the part of speech of
the base word and its derived or inflected forms are much better understood.
Some of the problems associated with deciding if sign modifications related
to morphological processes are lexical or grammatical can thus be seen to be partly
caused by glossing practices that appear to inappropriately label some lexemes as
either fundamentally nominal, verbal or adjectival in the first place when, in fact,
a large proportion of lexemes appear to belong to more than one sign class in this
sense. Thus the criteria for deciding what is to be entered as a lexeme and what is
not (e.g. listed as a modified form of a lexeme) must be semantic rather than
formal in Auslan. That is, it is only when an unpredictable or uniquely specific
meaning arises from any of the processes of sign modification that a sign is given
a separate entry as a lexeme in its own right.
6.2. Modification using nonmanual features
We have seen that sign modifications involving manner of production (i.e. the
number of repetitions and manual stress as manifested in muscle tension, speed of
movement, and presence and length of hold at onset and offset) do not seem to be
lexically productive. The use of what have come to be called ‘nonmanual adverbs’
in the literature is another case in point. It has sometimes been claimed for some
signed languages that the facial component of a subset of lexemes is an obligatory
and contrastive (i.e. phonemic) feature. A well known example, found in both
ASL and Auslan is the following pair of signs.
(48) (49)
AGO LITTLE–WHILE–AGO/JUST RECENTLY
For some analysts these two signs represent two separate lexemes — AGO and
RECENTLY. However, in this analysis they are treated as examples of the one lexeme
with the change in the base form (‘ago’) creating a predictable change in meaning
through intensification. This is achieved through a combination of nonmanual
features, including tilting the head, grimacing, adding muscle tension, reducing and,
sometimes, repeating the path of movement. All of these behaviors, as in a host of
other signs, intensify the lexeme in the direction of ‘meaning attenuation’ (i.e. from
‘ago’ to ‘a little while ago’). The lexeme ‘ago’ could also be intensified in the
direction of ‘meaning augmentation’ (i.e. ‘long ago’, ‘ages ago’, ‘ancient’ etc.) by,
for example, increasing the amplitude of the sign and puffing the cheeks. Signs like
these are not entered in the dictionary as separate lexemes. Instead, they are treated
as modifications of lexemes with predictable changes in meaning.
Another group of signs, sometimes referred to as ‘multi-channel signs’ are
those that appear to be accompanied by obligatory, nonmanual features (e.g.
Brennan 1992). These appear to fall into two classes. Many in fact fit into a special
subcategory of lexemes we call ‘interactives’. These appear to be similar to
interjections and exclamations in spoken languages. Interjections and exclamations
form a problematic class of words for lexicographers, and several alternative ways
of analyzing these forms have been suggested: referring to them as forming ‘minor
sentences’, for example, or as constituting examples of ‘formulaic language’
(Crystal 1991). One thing does appear to be clear, however. With interjections
and exclamations in spoken languages, it is virtually impossible to imagine them
being used without appropriately congruent intonation and stress patterns. Try to
imagine ‘ahhh!’ (surprise) or ‘oooo’ (pleasure) being spoken in context without the
appropriate modulations. Thus, though it is correct to say that specification of
facial expression is necessary for interactive lexemes, it is unclear to what extent
these nonmanual features contribute to lexicalization patterns. Informants do not
appear to agree about whether or not the nonmanual features of these lexemes are
indeed compulsory. In many cases, we have not included such information in the
dictionary simply because we await further research.
The status of the remaining signs is unclear, but their number is not large. In
many cases, there appears to be little difference between the nonmanual features
which some informants describe as obligatory components of this group of multi-
channel signs and those which are optional means of modifying other lexemes.
These lexemes, too, require more extensive analysis.
Let us consider some more examples from Auslan in this vein.
(50) (51)
FEEL FEEL (‘have a hunch’)

The modified production of FEEL does not produce a separate lexeme. The
meaning of ‘have a hunch’ is directly and metaphorically linked to ‘feel’ because
in both English and Auslan (and probably in the latter because of the influence of
the former) ‘feel’ means both ‘touch’ and ‘mental impression’.17 Moreover,
modifying the lexeme FEEL to mean the rough equivalent of ‘have a hunch’ would
most probably involve repetition (‘(the) having of a mental impression’), restraint
or manual stress and tenseness (‘strong, clear, or intense mental impression’), and
a facial expression (not shown in the illustration) involving different regions of the
face and head (e.g. pouting the lips, tilting the head, nodding, or widening the
eyes) which together could convey various degrees of certitude or self-assuredness.
Leaving aside ‘quantitative’ aspects of the sign modification (i.e. repetition), the
qualitative modification of FEEL is not unlike a marked spoken production of the
English word ‘feel’ (and/or the phrase it occurs in) on a sharp falling then rising
tone, or simply a falling tone, with stress on the word ‘feel’. Given the meaning of
the English word ‘feel’ and the core meanings these intonation and stress patterns
have in English (cf. Bolinger 1989) ‘I feel such and such’ can convey a notion of
certainty, tinged with doubt because unsubstantiated, which is close to the
meaning encoded in the English lexicalization ‘have a hunch’. Just as a similar
marked pronunciation of ‘feel’ is not given a separate entry in an English dictio-
nary, likewise with this modification of FEEL in the sense of ‘have a hunch’. The
new meaning is more or less predictable and related to the unmodified lexeme
and, all things being equal, it would be unreasonable to enter a separate lexeme
HAVE–A–HUNCH in the dictionary; rather, it should be listed, at FEEL, as one
possible meaning of this particular modified form of FEEL.
By contrast, it seems reasonable to consider TELL (52) and ANNOUNCE (53)
as distinct lexemes. It appears that ANNOUNCE is a spatially modified form of TELL
17. The question of the relationship between the lexicons of English and Auslan, if not the
influence of the former on the latter, is discussed in Johnston (1996).
(a plural arc has been incorporated within the sign) which has acquired an extra,
specific layer of meaning which is more than the spatial modification contributes
to it (‘tell everyone publicly’, ‘make known publicly’, ‘notify publicly’ not just ‘tell
more than one person’). In other words, it is a separate lexeme as here defined, not
just an ‘inflection’. Interestingly, this pattern of lexicalization does not mean,
however, that ANNOUNCE cannot be used in the more general superordinate sense
of ‘tell more than one person’. It is simply that the sign is readily identified as
meaning ‘announce’ or is regularly produced in response to the English probe
‘announce’.
(52) (53)
TELL ANNOUNCE
‘tell someone’ ‘make known publicly’
‘the telling of someone’ ‘the public telling of…’
The fact that ANNOUNCE is given the status of a lexeme in the dictionary while
‘have a hunch’ is not, is not therefore based on a strict division or clear distinction
between inflectional and derivational morphology in Auslan.18 The criteria for
the entry of a given sign as a separate lexeme rather than its being left completely
unstated (but an implicitly possible modification of a base lexeme by the rules of
the grammar), or its being listed at the base lexeme as a possible modified form
with a certain meaning, are semantic, not ‘formal’.
The lack of historical records precludes certainty as to the direction or even
presence of ‘derivation’ in many potential examples as it is next to impossible to
secure attested earlier forms. It is often necessary to argue that the lexemes for core
concepts and objects (e.g. colors, family relationships, ‘simple’ actions, etc.) and/or
those displaying high frequency, easy to learn, maximally distinct unmarked
parameters (e.g. handshape) are the stems for derived forms. Moreover, two
semantically related lexemes can always appear to be derived the one from the
other (in either direction) because the very meaningfulness of the componential
aspects of a sign are likely to result in the two signs having several components in
common. It then is just a small step to see one as being produced by a change in
18. Strictly speaking, of course, if processes of sign modification cannot be said to change the
grammatical class of a sign (and thus be classified as derivational) then they must be said to be
inflectional.
the other, rather than both as being independently ‘derived’ from the general
resources of the language. Consequently the criteria for lexical status are semantic
and concern ‘specificity’ and/or ‘arbitrariness’ of meaning.
In summary, distinguishing between derivational and inflectional morphology
in Auslan is difficult because the original word class of the uninflected or un-
derived citation lexeme is often open to question. It is thus a moot point whether
the morphological process produces a change in word class or is a grammatical
inflection. The difficulty of defining underlying sign class means the usual
diagnostic principle of separating grammatical inflection from lexical derivatives
according to the word class they can be applied to remains problematic. Further-
more, the ability of a sign to incorporate or take on a particular morphological
process appears to be greatly influenced by the formational properties of individual
signs and not their putative sign class (i.e., whether the sign is anchored, has a
movement through the signing space, rather than its status as, say, a ‘verb of
motion and location’). Thus, though a number of classes of lexemes have been
identified (nominals, verbals, interrogatives, interactives, and modifiers and linkers)
many lexemes can function in more than one role depending on the textual,
interpersonal and real-world context and the modifications it has undergone from
its citation form.
6.3. Modification involving hand arrangement
Modification of hand arrangement involves changing from a) a one-handed

citation sign to a double-handed sign (‘doubling’) or to a two-handed sign
(‘subordinate incorporation’), b) a double-handed citation sign to a one-handed
sign (‘singling’) or to a two-handed sign (‘subordinate incorporation’), and c) a
two-handed to a one-handed sign (‘subordinate deletion’). Some of these modifi-
cations produce signs which are entered as separate lexemes, while others are listed
at the entry for the base lexeme as possible modified forms with a certain meaning.
The criteria for determining the lexical status of signs which have undergone
modification of hand arrangement are discussed below. Once again these criteria
are essentially semantic, rather than formal. Doubling and singling will be discussed
first, then subordinate incorporation and deletion.
6.3.1. Doubling and singling

In their analysis of ASL, Klima, Bellugi et al. (1979) observe that the use of one
versus two hands is inflectional rather than derivational. Even keeping in mind the
qualifications given above regarding what can, with confidence, be called inflec-
tional and derivational morphology in Auslan, it is certainly also true of Auslan
that doubling or singling alone appears not to be used to distinguish pairs of
lexemes. There are scores, if not hundreds, of examples in Auslan where the
singled and doubled forms alone of respective citation lexemes (i.e. without
accompanying nonmanual features or manual stress) show no discernible meaning
difference at all (examples are discussed in the next section). Indeed, only one
unambiguous example can be found in Auslan where the one- and double-handed
forms of the ‘same’ sign (all other parameters of the signs remaining the same)
represent two manifestly separate and unrelated lexemes. The two lexemes are
SCISSORS (54) and CRAB (55).
(54) (55)
SCISSORS CRAB
It is clear from the iconicity, etymology, or semantics of each lexeme that they are
actually completely unrelated to each other.
However, it should come as no surprise, given the reservations regarding the
distinction between inflectional and derivational morphology in Auslan and the
influence of patterns of lexicalization in English, that the situation is not unprob-
lematic. This issue is taken up again later in this paper.
6.3.1.1. Doubling. It is possible to double many citation one-handed lexemes to

produce a sign which is a symmetrical or near symmetrical version. Near symmet-
rical versions (as in LAUGH and TASTE–BAD below) are produced when the
citation form of the one-handed lexeme has a primary tabulation (e.g. centered on
the body) and/or movement (e.g. moving in circles across the center of the
signing space or body) that makes symmetricalization (as in RUDE and FEEL)
difficult if not impossible to achieve.19
19. Qualifications regarding sign class membership (e.g. nominal or verbal) mean that capitalized
glosses can be very misleading. The reader should not assume a sign is only a nominal or a
verbal on the basis of the glossing word. Where necessary, alternative glosses have been placed
in parentheses to underline this fact and to help illustrate the points being made.
(56) (57) (58) (59)
LAUGH LAUGH–DBL TASTE–BAD TASTE–BAD-DBL

(‘laugh’, ‘laughing’, ‘laughter’) (‘taste bad’, ‘bad taste’)
(60) (61) (62) (63)
RUDE RUDE-DBL FEEL FEEL-DBL

(‘rude’, ‘rudeness’) (‘feel’, ‘feeling’, ‘sensations’, ‘sense’)
Often doubling is of no significance (as in the following example) and the two
forms are essentially in free variation, even though signers regularly give the one-
handed form as the citation form of the lexeme.
(64) (65)
SHOW SHOW-DBL
Doubled forms of citation one-handed lexemes may also often be phonologically

conditioned. A doubled form of WHAT may be more likely after (or before) a
double-handed sign than a two-handed sign, and much less likely after (or before)
a one-handed sign than either a double- or two-handed sign. (Further text-based
research is needed to support these intuitions.) For example,
(66)
ANNOUNCE WHAT-DBL
‘What did they announce?’
(67)
STEAL WHAT-DBL
‘What was stolen?’
(68)
THROW WHAT
‘What was thrown?’
Doubling is also often an index of the stressed production of a sign which enables
prominence to be given to a particular sign in a stretch of text (e.g. a clause) with
various communicative effects. For example,
(69)
WHAT YOU SAY

‘What did you say?’
(70)
WHAT-DBL YOU SAY

‘What did you say?’
If appropriate to the semantics of the individual sign, doubling can also be an
index of ‘intensification’ of the sign’s meaning, but the vast majority of one-
handed citation lexemes also require the addition of internal sign modification
involving nonmanual features (such as ‘grimacing’ or widening the eyes) and/or
manual stress to unambiguously achieve the intensification of meaning. That is to
say, doubling alone is usually insufficient for intensification, despite the fact that it
is a regular accompaniment to facial expression or manual stress. In the following
examples, the one-handed citation lexeme (on the left) may be alternatively
produced with two hands (at center left), intensified with facial expression and
manual stress (at center right), or intensified with facial expression, manual stress
and doubling (on the right).
(71) (72) (73) (74)
ANGRY ANGRY-DBL (‘enraged’, ‘fury’, ‘furious’, ‘incensed’)

(75) (76) (77) (78)
SPOIL SPOIL-DBL (‘ruin’, ‘ruined’, ‘destroy’, ‘destruction’)

There are a number of examples of doubled forms of one-handed lexemes in which
the intensification of meaning appears to be achieved through doubling alone for
some signers, even though facial expression and/or manual stress are also regularly
exploited in both forms. For example, some signers report that the doubling of BAD
(79) implies ‘very bad’ (80) even without added expression or stress (81):
(79) (80) (81)
BAD BAD-DBL (‘very bad’, ‘appalling’, ‘horror’, ‘horrible’)

Similarly, for some signers, doubling SUCCESS (82, 83) is sufficient to shift the
meaning from ‘achieve’ to ‘succeed definitively’ or ‘be victorious’ even without
added expression or stress (84).
(82) (83) (84)
SUCCESS SUCCESS-DBL (‘successful’, ‘victorious’)

The doubled forms of lexemes such as BAD and SUCCESS have an ambiguous
status. In a ‘generous’ understanding of lexicalization patterns in Auslan, the two
forms would be seen as separate lexemes. In an economical analysis, they would be
treated as the same lexeme because of the lack of definitive evidence that modifi-
cation through facial expression and manual stress is not also necessary for most
signers to achieve the associated meaning change. The fact that the two meanings
are semantically related along some kind of gradable scale of intensity also argues
that they belong with other similar signs discussed above. In the Auslan dictionary
the doubled forms of signs such as BAD and SUCCESS are treated as two forms of
the one lexeme.
It is important for Auslan lexicography that many relatively common
everyday meaning distinctions involving intensification along some scale, com-
monly expressed in distinct lexemes in English, are coded in such a way in Auslan
as not to yield separate lexemes for the sign lexicographer.
In other one-handed citation lexemes, such as RING–BELL and LIGHT, the
effect of the doubling alone ‘pluralizes’ the basic lexeme in some predictable and
regular way (cf. Kyle & Woll 1985). These, too, are treated as single lexemes. For
example,
(85) (86)
RING–BELL RING–BELL-DBL
(‘bells’, ‘ring bells’)
(87) (88)
LIGHT LIGHT-DBL
(‘lights’, ‘illuminate brightly’, ‘brilliant
illumination’)
In the following examples, the plural sweep inherent in the one-handed form is
augmented and made exhaustive in the double-handed form.
(89) (90)
ANNOUNCE ANNOUNCE-DBL
(‘tell publicly lots of people’, (‘tell publicly everyone’,
‘the public telling of..’) ‘the public telling of…’)
(91) (92)
DISTRIBUTE DISTRIBUTE-DBL
(‘send or give out to more (‘send or give out to everyone’)
than one person’)
Potentially doubling lexemes, like ANNOUNCE and DISTRIBUTE, are entered in

the dictionary as single lexemes. The doubled form is cross-referenced to the one-
handed citation lexeme. In yet other one-handed citation lexemes doubling allows
for reciprocity to be expressed, as a kind of plural, as in examples (93) and (94).
(93) (94)
BET BET-DBL-VAR
‘bet’, ‘wager’ (‘bet each other’)
All doubled forms of one-handed citation lexemes are thus entered in the dictio-
nary as variants of the citation lexeme and crossed-referenced to the one-handed
citation form. The potential for the lexeme to be doubled and the type of meaning
change this produces in conjunction with facial expression and manual stress is
explained and exemplified at the citation entry. Lexemes for which doubling
pluralizes the one-handed form in some way, rather than or in addition to
intensifying the meaning, are similarly given separate entries with cross-referencing
to the one-handed citation form.20
6.3.1.2. Singling. Alternatively, it is possible to single some symmetrical or near

symmetrical double-handed lexemes to produce signs which use only the domi-
nant hand. However, in contradistinction to doubling, which is often associated
with intensification or plurality, the singled form of a double-handed citation
lexeme is not regularly associated with either meaning attenuation or singularity,
except in the ‘negative’ sense that when a lexeme is intensified through non-
manual features and manual stress the double-handed citation form is also much
more likely to be produced.
In the following examples, the singled forms of normally double-handed
lexemes do not represent a meaning attenuation (i.e., singled DEAD does not mean,
say, ‘sick’, ‘injured’ or ‘almost dead’, and singled MELT does not mean, say, ‘soften’
or ‘moisten’). Only one lexeme for each pair is entered in the dictionary.
20. Signs like ANNOUNCE and DISTRIBUTE often elicit a double-handed ‘citation’ sign in response
to an English probe partly because the English lexeme is exhaustive in range (‘give to all and
sundry’). In principle, then, it would be possible to think of such signs as double-handed signs
that can be singled. However, we prefer to treat them as one-handed signs which can be
doubled. Ultimately, in terms of the grammar of Auslan it actually makes very little difference
which point of view one adopts. One is still dealing with one Auslan lexeme.
(95) (96)
DEAD DEAD-SGL
(‘die’, ‘death’, ‘dead’)
(97) (98)
MELT MELT-SGL
(‘dissolve’, ‘melt’, ‘fade away’)
Quite a few double-handed citation lexemes which are able to be singled in
normal environments are actually iconic representations of objects which have two
equal parts (i.e. which are symmetrical). The citation of the double-handed form
is probably simply a desire for iconic verisimilitude on the part of signers. Consid-
er, for example, the following three pairs of signs.
(99) (100)
SMILE SMILE-SGL
(101) (102)
GOGGLES GOGGLES-SGL
(103) (104)
BRA BRA-SGL
As with doubling, the production of singled-forms may also often be phonologi-

cally conditioned. For example, the singled form of the normally double-handed
WHERE appears to be more likely after (or before) a one-handed sign than after (or
before) a two- or double-handed sign. (Once again further text-based research is
needed to support these intuitions.)
(105)
DOG WHERE-SGL
‘Where’s the dog?’
(106)
MONEY WHERE
‘Where’s the money?’
(107)
DRIVE WHERE
‘Drive to where?’
Singled signs are entered separately in the dictionary and cross-referenced to the
double-handed citation form. They are not given lexeme status.
6.3.1.3. Constraints on singling and doubling. The fact that some one-handed
lexemes may be doubled into symmetrical or near symmetrical signs does not
imply that all one-handed lexemes may be doubled; nor does it imply that all
double-handed symmetrical or near symmetrical lexemes can be singled. The
singling or doubling potential of each lexeme is related to basic formational
properties. For example, one-handed lexemes that have a centered and fixed
tabulation on the body tend not to be able to be doubled. The following one-
handed lexemes have no doubled forms.
(108) (109)
SISTER BOY
Nonetheless, some other similar lexemes (like LAUGH and TASTE–BAD above) are
able to double by ‘shadowing’ the dominant hand and producing a near symmetri-
cal version. If a one-handed citation lexeme is able to be doubled it must be
explicitly stated at the entry (it is cross-referenced to a double-handed form). It
must otherwise be considered a strictly one-handed lexeme.
Conversely, double-handed symmetrical or near symmetrical lexemes that
have alternating movement or a secondary tabulation, each on the other hand,
tend not to be able to be singled. The following double-handed lexemes have no
singled forms:
(110) (111) (112)
PLAN COWBOY INTERPRETER
However, under special conditions of ‘encumbrance’ lexemes like these may still
be able to singled. Singled forms of otherwise ‘exclusively’ double-handed lexemes
can be produced when one of the signer’s hands is involved in some constraining
nonlinguistic activity (e.g. holding a parcel). In the following example the
subordinate hand is encumbered with a book.
(113)
BUSY-SGL
Strictly speaking, BUSY is like PLAN, COWBOY, and INTERPRETER in that it has no
singled form. One must imagine the presence of the subordinate hand to recognize
a well-formed lexeme — the singling is only possible because of the encumbrance.
Only double-handed citation lexemes that can single in unencumbered environ-
ments are given a dummy one-handed entry. Naturally, of course, encumbrance
is another environment in which perfectly well-formed singled forms of double-
handed citation lexemes are regularly produced. For example,
(114)
DEAD-SGL
6.3.1.4. Doubling and singling in free variation. A number of lexemes have one- and
double-handed forms which are in free variation. Not only is it difficult to
establish which of the two forms is the basic citation form of the lexeme (both
versions are equally likely to be given as a citation form by native signers), it is also
difficult to establish any regular meaning change associated with the two forms
(e.g. intensification, plurality and/or ‘extent’, reciprocity). For example, the
following two forms of PICNIC are interchangeable — they are simply variants
without any real difference and without either form being essentially more basic
than the other. In the dictionary one form, usually the one-handed form, is
arbitrarily chosen to represent the base lexeme, with full entry status, while the
other is simply related to it as a variant.
(115)
PICNIC PICNIC-DBL
6.3.1.5. Summary of lexicalization and doubling and singling. For reasons outlined
above, signs that have undergone doubling or singling are not entered as separate
lexemes in the dictionary though doubled and singled forms are given dummy
entries at which they are cross-referenced to citation forms.
Though many lexemes that undergo doubling or singling do so as simple
alternative pronunciations, doubling is strongly associated with intensification,
plurality and/or the exhaustiveness of the range or extent of an action, and
reciprocity.
When associated with intensification doubling appears to also require the
stressed production of individual lexemes. Stressed production involves changes in
nonmanual features, muscle tension (sometimes manifested in handshape change),
and manual stress. Where semantically appropriate, such intensification augments
the meaning of the lexeme (e.g. ‘angry’ to ‘furious’; ‘spoil’ to ‘destroy’). Indeed,
the stressed production of lexemes (whether also doubled or not) appears to be
used systematically in Auslan to convey scalar or gradable meanings around a
central semantic core (which is realized by that single lexeme). For the purposes of
signed language lexicography, this has the consequence of dramatically reducing
the number of discrete lexemes that are able to be isolated in, and listed for, the
language in certain semantic domains.
Lexemes which have two equal alternate single and double forms (as citation
forms) are entered as one lexeme with the one form, usually the one-handed form,
entered as the base form. Naturally, one-handed lexemes that have no regular
doubled form and double-handed lexemes that have no regular singled form are
only given one entry with respect to hand arrangement in the dictionary, even
though under the very special circumstances of ‘encumbrance’ the latter may be
performed using only one hand.
Though singling alone is not associated with any semantic changes, a
common environment for singling occurs when the subordinate or dominant hand
of an erstwhile double-handed lexeme is co-opted to simultaneously articulate
another lexeme. This can have semantic consequences. The singling of signs in
such environments and other related phenomena are discussed in the next section.
6.3.2. Simultaneous articulation (‘co-articulation’) of signs and lexemes

The spatial nature of Auslan and the existence of two potentially independent
articulators (the two hands) makes possible the co-articulation of two lexemes.
Each of the two hands are able to simultaneously articulate a distinct lexeme. This
may occur because of the persistence on one hand of a handshape of a lexeme
which has just been articulated while the other hand continues to articulate a
second lexeme. The subordinate hand usually simply holds the final hand configu-
ration and position in space of the preceding lexeme without movement since
Auslan normally eschews complex independent movement on both articulators. In
many textual examples the persistence of the first lexeme adds very little, if
anything, to the meaning of the co-articulation. For example,
(116)
WHERE WHERE-SGL-SUB = GO
‘Where (are you, is she, etc.) going?’
Co-articulation can also occur when one hand deliberately articulates one sign as
the second hand articulates another. The following utterance involves the singling
of the normally double-handed lexeme DEAD and the simultaneous articulation on
the subordinate hand of the one-handed lexeme TWO.
(117)
TWO = DEAD-SGL
‘…two of them died.’
The resultant meaning is essentially the same as if the two signs had been articulat-
ed in sequence except for the obvious fact that the simultaneity robs that particular
stretch of text of any information prominence of one element over another. For
example,
(118)
THERE = BOY
‘The boy there…’, and/or ‘There’s the boy’
(119)
BOY THERE
‘The boy there…’
(120)
THERE BOY
‘There’s the boy’
Co-articulated signs are not entered in the dictionary because the simultaneous
production of these two forms does not create a new lexeme, even though either
of the two constituent signs may themselves be entered as lexemes. In examples
(116) and (117) the visual gestural acts actually consist of two signs or lexemes
which are simultaneously articulated, not single complex signs. Co-articulated
signs such as these need to be distinguished from simultaneous constructions which
represent a third strategy (after doubling and singling) used in modifying hand
arrangement.
6.3.3. Simultaneous sign constructions

Simultaneous constructions can be viewed as basic signs which are modified by an
incorporation of a second ‘sign’ on to the subordinate hand or as novel signs that
combine two or more signs (which may or may not be lexemes).21 In both cases
the result may be considered as one single complex sign. Unlike co-articulated
signs, a simultaneous construction produces a single sign which has a meaning of
its own in a given context. Furthermore, the two hands are articulated with
reference to each other. Often one hand (usually the dominant hand) interacts
with or moves with reference to the subordinate hand. Earlier cited examples such
21. Brennan (1990) refers to simultaneous sign constructions as simultaneous compounds. We use
construction and not compound because often the resulting sign is not simply a word but
a whole phrase or sentence. Only when a simultaneous sign construction is lexicalized is the
label compound appropriate.
as (1; repeated here as 121) ‘below long narrow thin object’, (19; repeated here as
122) ‘take a small object out of a cup-like object and eat it’ are actually simulta-
neous constructions.
(121)
PROFORM-G ‘horizontal long narrow thin object’

= HANDLE-B ‘move a hand over a flat surface’
‘below long narrow thin object’
(122)
HANDLE-C ‘hold a vertical cylindrical object’

= HANDLE-F ‘pick up a small object and place it in one’s mouth’
‘picking up something small from a container and eating it’
Simultaneous sign constructions may be created de novo by simply exploiting the
morphological and phonological resources of the language (especially by the use
of proform and handle constructions) or may be created by incorporating phono-
morphemes (once again especially handshapes) into a pre-existing (one-, double-
or two-handed) lexeme. The lack of virtually any historical records (written or
filmed) for all but a very small set of Auslan signs means that there are essentially
no attested early sign forms that might qualify as ‘basic’ signs (Woll 1983). The fact
that signs do become lexicalized does, however, incline one to give analytic, if not
historical, priority to already identified lexemes. For example, ‘below long narrow
thin object’ may be said to be created de novo from the basic spatial and compo-
nential resources of Auslan each time it is used because there is no relevant lexeme
in the language to which it can be directly related.
Conversely, the existence of the lexeme TAKE–TABLET (and possibly also
NIBBLE) inclines us to say that ‘picking up something small from a container and
eating it’, is not simply a meaning complex which has been created de novo from
the resources of Auslan. Instead, (122) could be accounted for as either a) the
incorporation of the handle form into the subordinate hand of the two-handed
lexeme TAKE–TABLET or b) the addition of the subordinate handle form into
the one-handed lexeme NIBBLE. Depending on the interlocutor’s or analyst’s point

of view, the sign in example (122) means three slightly different, but overlapping,
things: a) ‘picking up something small from a container and eating it’, b) ‘taking
(and eating) a tablet from a container’, c) ‘nibbling something which has been
taken from a container’. Whenever a simultaneous construction is not a lexeme
itself in Auslan, the context of utterance is especially important in determining
how the sign is to be understood (and analyzed).
Simultaneous constructions, as such, are not entered in the dictionary because
their number is potentially very large; rather, only those simultaneous construc-
tions which are also lexemes are found in the dictionary. Simultaneous construc-
tions are extremely common in fluent signing and, in fact, they appear to be the
source of a large number of two-handed (as opposed to double-handed symmetri-
cal or parallel) lexemes.
Like all signs, simultaneous constructions can become lexicalized and thus can
also be entered in a dictionary as lexemes. Already cited examples include TAKE–
TABLET and MEET. Others include:
(123) (124) (125)
ADDRESS SURROUND DOLLAR
In the lexeme ADDRESS the dominant traces two lines (representing the written
address) across the subordinate proform (the envelope); in SURROUND the
dominant proform is moved around (numerous upright objects/people) the
subordinate proform (an upright object/person); and in DOLLAR the dominant
forms the outline of the subordinate proform (a money bill).
7. External sign modification and the lexicon
External sign modification concerns the sequential modification of citation

lexemes. Though the sequential modification of citation lexemes, through affixing
and compounding, is also a possibility in Auslan, only the latter, compounding
(and blending), is common. Unlike spoken languages, it appears that affixing,
whether it be through prefixes, infixes, suffixes or circumfixes, is almost complete-
ly unknown in Auslan. The extent to which signed languages in general eschew
affixing is unknown at this time. Our understanding of this issue has been clouded
by the inappropriate use of terms like affix and root in the description of signed
languages. Some discussions of componential verbs of motion and location in
signed languages have, for example, referred to the movement aspect as the ‘root’
and the ‘classifier’ handshape as an ‘affix’ (Supalla 1982; Schick 1990; Wallin
1996). There is very little morphological evidence for this division between
movement as root and handshape as affix, and this terminology seems very odd
given the fact that neither the handshape nor the movement is in any sense basic.
Both are combined more or less simultaneously, and both are more or less
‘unpronounceable’ on their own. The distinction between notions like root and
affix becomes meaningless if the two terms are not used to describe crucial
differences in how each of these meaningful units combine with other units.
As with internal sign modification, compounding produces signs which are
entered as separate lexemes. The criteria for determining the lexical status of signs
which have undergone external sign modification are discussed below. These
criteria are formal and semantic.
7.1. Lexicalized compounds and blends
Compounding appears to be a universal feature of language, and in many languages

appears to be the principle way in which new words are formed (Bauer 1988).
The formation of new lexical items through compounding is also extremely
common in Auslan and a significant number of lexemes in the language are
derived from compounds. Many of these lexicalized compounds have a much
reduced phonological form, displaying phonological assimilation of the forma-
tional features of each of the constituent lexemes. Many are thus probably better
synchronically classified as blends. As shown by Perlmutter (1996), lexicalized
compounds must be differentiated from those compounds derived by productive
rules in the language, whereby a new compound may be formed simply by adding
a nominal lexeme to another nominal lexeme (e.g. AUSLAN TEACHER, SIGN
LANGUAGE RESEARCH, etc.).22 In most cases, these result in compounds which
appear to have been borrowed from English. For Signs of Australia we decided that
the latter should not be entered in the dictionary. This area requires further
research.
Lexicalized compounds sometimes have meanings clearly related to the
meaning of the two lexemes involved in the compound, while others show
surprising, even arbitrary, meanings. Due to the phonological reduction and
blending found in lexicalized compounds, it appears that many signs which are
now perceived as single lexemes by native signers were actually once compounds.
22. It is not yet clear if this rule is a recursive one in Auslan, as it is in English (Spencer 1991).
However, the lack of historical records makes it difficult, if not impossible, to

confirm this. The following are typical examples of Auslan lexicalized compounds,
with etymologies which have been suggested by native signers.
(126)
+ =
CAN’T BE DIFFERENT IMPOSSIBLE

(127)
+ =
RED BALL TOMATO

(128)
+ =
THINK HOLD BELIEVE

(129)
+ =
NOSE FAULT UGLY
Perhaps the only potential candidate in Auslan for the status of an affix is the
second and last element in some negative signs which involves the apparent final
addition of upturned hands and/or final spread fingers (e.g. NO–BOTHER, DISLIKE,
NOT–WANT, WITHOUT, USELESS). Though it may be possible to analyze the form
as an affix in such cases, the existence of the lexical sign DIDN’T in Auslan (‘not
do’, ‘not finish’, ‘not attempt’, ‘never’) and a very similar sign in BSL (Brennan
1992) suggests that some apparent cases of affixation should be analyzed as
lexicalized compounds, if not blends, as in DISAGREE.
(130)
+ =
AGREE DIDN’T DISAGREE

and not,
(131)
+ =
AGREE *NEGATIVE SUFFIX? DISAGREE
Naturally, lexicalized compounds and blends are given separate entries in the
dictionary.
8. The lexicons of signed and spoken languages
From our extensive discussion of productive and modified forms, it is apparent

that lexemes actually represent a subset of signs regularly found in signed texts.
Any given sample of sign usage will include not only lexemes in both citation or
modified forms (e.g. modified for location, direction, number and type of
movement contours, nonmanual features etc.), but also a large number of non-
lexicalized productive and semi-lexicalized forms that exploit the morpho-
phonemics of these languages in complex ways.
The number of sign lexemes, in the sense used here, seems to be extremely
restricted, numbering only a few thousand. According to our research, Auslan
appears to have between 3,000 and 4,000 such lexemes, depending upon how
rigorously one applies the criteria for lexicalization (Johnston & Schembri 1996).
The sign languages for which we have some documented research (i.e. dictionar-
ies) seem to have established lexicons of a similar size. The first edition of the
Auslan Dictionary appears to be comparable in size to the largest available generalist
dictionaries of Thai Sign Language, SLN (Sign Language of the Netherlands) and
DGS (German Sign Language). Native users of sign languages from larger deaf
communities, such as ASL and BSL, who have lived in Australia regularly
comment that these sign languages appear to have a relatively larger established
vocabulary, particularly in the non-core areas of the lexicon, when compared to

Auslan. This seems to be supported by some of the available literature (Caccamise
et al. 1982; Sutton-Spence, Woll & Allsop 1990; Woll 1994). This may reflect the
use of such signed languages in a wider range of settings (Australia lacks, for
example, large-scale university programs for the deaf, such as those at Gallaudet
University or the National Technical Institute for the Deaf and Bristol University,
and television programs with signing deaf presenters, such as Deaf Mosaic, See Hear,
and Sign On).
Whatever size the established lexicon in various sign languages eventually
reveal themselves to be (and research for Signs of Australia has documented many
previously unrecognized lexemes), it appears that either signed language lexicogra-
phy has so far failed to record the vast majority of sign lexemes, or that there is a
significant order of magnitude difference between the established lexicons of
signed and spoken languages as we know them. Of course, the size of the total
established lexicon in either a signed language or a spoken language like English
is notoriously difficult (if not impossible) to estimate (Crystal 1995). In many
languages, even settling on a definition of a word in a language (What is a root or
a stem? What is to count as a lexeme? and so on) that is adequate and able to serve as
a basis of comparison between languages remains problematic.
Putting these problems to one side, however, there are clearly tens or
hundreds of thousands of words in a language with a tradition of literacy and
lexicography and with a scientific and technological culture. The Webster’s Third
New International Dictionary has over 450,000 entries, while those in the Oxford
English Dictionary include some 500,000 headwords. Verbal lexemes in a typical
European language, according to one recent estimate (Viberg 1994), generally
approach 10,000 items. In addition to this, the existence of scientific nomenclature
can easily raise the estimate of words in a language to over a million (e.g. the
names for species of plants and insects).
These figures are not only true of communities in which science, technology
and literacy is fairly well established, because languages of small-scale traditional
societies also have huge inventories of lexemes that name things in the natural and
physical world, often running into many thousand or tens of thousand of terms.
These nomenclatures form large, if not vast, hierarchies. Basic level ethno-
biological terms rarely number anything less than 1,000–1,200 even in pre-literate
societies. Although some of these languages appear to have a very small established
lexicon in some semantic areas or in some word classes (e.g. commonly used basic
verbs in some Papuan languages can number as few as 25 simple root forms), many
of these have a large store of ethno-biological terms (Foley 1986).
It seems certain that no amount of additional lexicographical research on
Auslan will ever uncover previously unknown lexemes numbering in the tens or
hundreds of thousands. This apparent fact about the Auslan lexicon when
compared to that of a spoken language like English needs to be acknowledged.

Naturally, it must be stressed here that we are comparing spoken and signed
lexemes, not the size of the potential lexicon in signed and spoken languages,
which in both cases, is extremely large. Sign language users, of course, draw on
sources other than the established lexicon to expand their meaning-making
potential. Besides the obvious enormous role that the productive lexicon (includ-
ing proform, handle, and tracing signs) plays in meaning creation in sign languages,
account must also be made of the vast store of lexical items that can be borrowed
from the surrounding community’s spoken language through fingerspelling and
other means. Indeed, the core or basic vocabulary of the community spoken
language can be so well integrated into the language system of signers that ‘lexical
borrowing’ may be an inappropriate word to describe the phenomenon (Johnston
1991c, 1996).
Padden (1998), and Brentari & Padden (in press), not only distinguish
between native and non-native lexicons in a signed language but also between
core and peripheral elements. Fingerspelled routines may be so well integrated into
the lexicon that they are constrained by phonological processes effecting signs and
lexemes and are a part of the core but non-native lexicon. It seems to us that some
of these processes apply equally well to Auslan and it is thus still uncertain to what
extent these processes are mode- rather than language-specific.
Nevertheless, what is of interest here is the apparent difference between
signed and spoken languages in the size of their established sign-based lexicons.
This is an aspect of signed languages, especially those from smaller signing
communities, that needs to be recognized and which deserves further scholarly
attention. Research of this kind will no doubt cast light on the unique inter-
relationship which seems to exist between the signed language(s) used in deaf
communities and the spoken language(s) of the surrounding community (Johnston
1991c, 1996; Lucas & Valli 1992).
9. Implications for signed language lexicography
A number of researchers have pointed out that one of the most important
problems identified with dictionaries of signed languages has been the tendency to
take the spoken language of the surrounding community as the basis for a dictio-
nary of the signed language (Brien & Turner 1994; Brien & Brennan 1995; Stokoe
1993). Compilers of signed language dictionaries have often “…begun with a list
of what they regard as core meanings and then tried to find signs which express
these meanings within the particular sign language” (Brien & Brennan 1995: 314).
This sort of approach has produced dictionaries which often fail to capture the
complexity and richness of sign language lexicons on their own terms. It stands in
contrast to those sign language dictionaries compiled on linguistic principles which

have built on the seminal work of Stokoe, Casterline & Croneberg (1965).
Dictionaries in this tradition, such as those developed for Auslan, BSL, Thai Sign
Language, LIS (Italian Sign Language) and other signed languages, generally have
entries sequenced according to the formational features of the sign language in
question, do not have simple one word equivalents in the spoken language, and
include other information which reflects the grammatical organization and use of
the signed language rather than the spoken one (Johnston 1989c; Brien 1992;
Suwanarat, Ratanasint, Rungsrithong, Anderson & Wrigley 1990).
Many signed language lexicographers, however, have so far not fully grappled
with what one may call ‘the lemma dilemma’. Throughout this paper, we have
made it clear that our definition of lexeme has important implications for sign
language lexicography. We have stressed that only sign lexemes ought to appear
as headwords or lemmas in sign language dictionaries. This is nothing really new,
in the sense that it is the simple extension of traditional lexicographical principles
into the domain of signed language lexicography. Yet if this criteria were applied
to some recent dictionaries of signed languages, such as those by Brien (1992) for
BSL, Suwanarat et al. (1990) for Thai Sign Language and Costello (1994) for ASL, we
can see that even some of the more careful compilers of signed language dictionaries
(including those whose dictionaries are based on the sound linguistic principles
mentioned earlier) are not always consistent in their choice of sign headword.
The Dictionary of BSL/English (Brien 1992) is perhaps the most interesting
example. Amongst its team of editors are researchers who have published widely
on issues related to sign language lexicography. Not surprisingly, the BSL dictio-
nary has an extensive introduction which explores the notion of the established
and productive aspects of the lexicon in great detail, and provides a wealth of
examples in photographic and notated form. A table describing the role of
‘classifier’ handshapes in the productive lexicon is included (although the termi-
nology used is a little inconsistent), as well as a chart presenting various kinds of
meaningful nonmanual features. The dictionary proper attempts to concentrate on
established signs (lexemes), with each citation form being listed as a headword and
additional information provided about variations in its form and meaning, as well
as brief notes on the grammatical category. There is some inconsistency, however,
with what appear to be modified forms of the same lexeme (e.g. 1195: ANGER
versus 1196: FURIOUS), and variant forms which appear to differ only in orienta-
tion (e.g. 86, 97 and 114: CHAIR, SIT), being given separate entries with no
explicit reference to their relationship being made. A sample edit of the approxi-
mately 1,700 listed signs indicates that a number of other variants and apparently
semi-lexicalized forms are included. We estimate that strict application of criteria
for lexicalization might reduce the number of listings by as much as 20% to
approximately 1,400.
The signs in the Thai Sign Language Dictionary (Suwanarat et al. 1990) are
ordered according to so-called handshape roots. The first section, for example,
uses the Flat hand and its variants. This section, like all the others, includes both
productive uses of this handshape and established signs, mixing together relatively
arbitrary uses of the handshape in lexemes such as MALE 42.1, (lexicalized?)
compounds based on this form, such as MERCHANT 43.1 (MALE + SELL), forms of
lexemes modified for person and aspect, such as INVITE (13.1) including INVITE–
MANY (13.2) and INVITE–OFTEN (13.3), as well as productive ‘classifier’ forms (e.g.
ONE–VEHICLE–PASSES–ANOTHER, VEHICLE–MOVES–ON–ROUGH–BUMPY–ROAD
and VEHICLE–RUNS–OVER–PERSON). Despite its superficial resemblance to the
Dictionary of BSL/English, there appears to be little attempt to provide a head-
word, signs simply being listed in groups and according to their page number. A
sample edit of the 3,000 listed signs indicates that a number of apparent non-
lexicalized compounds, modified forms and variants are listed separately. Based on
the information presented, strict application of criteria for lexicalization would
probably reduce the number of listings by 40% to approximately 1,800.
Unlike the Dictionary of BSL/English and the Thai Sign Language Dictio-
nary, the Random House American Sign Language Dictionary by Costello (1994) is not
one of those that are based on linguistic principles. This dictionary makes no
attempt to structure the entries in a way that reflects the organization of the signed
language: signs in this dictionary are listed alphabetically according to the English
gloss. The focus here is, nevertheless, mostly on established lexical items, although
lexemes modified for person are sometimes entered as separate entries (e.g. GIVE,
GIVE–ME and GIVE–YOU on pp. 355–356, or TAKE and TAKE–ME on pp. 933–934),
and translations or phrasal equivalents are provided for English lexical units. Like
many signed language dictionaries of this type, this dictionary does not distinguish
consistently between translated units which are lexemes and translated explanations
which are not. It is doubtful whether the sign equivalents shown for ‘castle’ (p.
142), ‘orphan’ (p. 607) or ‘volcano’ (p. 1021) are actual compounds, or simply
explanations in ASL of the meaning of the English word. Mention is made of
classifier signs and the productive vocabulary in the introduction, but there is no
attempt to describe the productive phonomorphemes of handshape, orientation,
location, movement or nonmanual features that can be used to create these signs.
A sample edit of the 5,600 listed signs indicates that strict application of criteria for
lexicalization would reduce the number by at least 10–20%.
Brien & Brennan (1995) remark that many dictionaries of signed languages
which do not adopt a fully linguistic approach not only provide incorrect informa-
tion about the languages in question, but also oversimplify the representation of
the sign lexicon “…to an extent which is essentially distorting” (p. 314). We
would argue that this criticism could also extend to those dictionaries that do not
address the question of lexicalization and the implications this has for deciding
what should, and should not, count as a sign lemma. Beyond lexicography and
lexicology itself, there may also be serious implications for grammatical analyses of
sign languages which may have been based on potentially distorted and oversim-
plified views of the sign data.
Acknowledgments
Research towards this paper was supported by the Australian Research Council through a project grant
(Grant N° A59131903) and an Australian Postdoctoral Research Fellowship.
References
Armstrong, D. F., W. C. Stokoe & S. E. Wilcox (1995). Gesture and the nature of language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Battison, R. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok
Press.
Bauer, L. (1988). Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bergman, B. (1986). “A comparison between some static sentences in Swedish Sign
Language and in English.” In B. T. Tervoort (ed.), Signs of life: Proceedings of the Second
European Congress on Sign Language Research, pp. 52–56. Amsterdam: The Dutch
Foundation for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired Child, The Institute for General
Linguistics of the University of Amsterdam & The Dutch Council of the Deaf.
Bolinger, D. (1989). Intonation and its uses: Melody in grammar and discourse. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Branson, J., J. Toms, B. Bernal & D. Miller (1995). “The history and role of fingerspelling
in Auslan.” In H. Bos & T. Schermer (eds.), Sign language research 1994: Proceedings of
the Fourth European Congress on Sign Language Research, Munich, September 1–3, 1994,
pp. 313–338. Hamburg: Signum.
Brennan, M. (1990). Word formation in British Sign Language. University of Stockholm,
Sweden.
Brennan, M. (1992). “The visual world of BSL: An introduction.” In D. Brien (ed.),
Dictionary of British Sign Language/English. Faber and Faber: London.
Brentari, D. (1990). Theoretical foundations of American Sign Language phonology. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Chicago.
Brentari, D. (1995). “Prosodic constraints in American Sign Language: Evidence from
fingerspelling and reduplication.” In H. Bos & T. Schermer (eds.), Sign language research
1994: Proceedings of the Fourth European Congress On Sign Language Research, Munich,
September 1–3, 1994, pp. 39–52. Hamburg: Signum.
Brentari, D. & C. A. Padden (in press). “A lexicon with multiple origins: Native and
foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language.” In D. Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabu-
lary: A crosslinguistic investigation of word formation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brien, D. (1992). Dictionary of British Sign Language/English. London: Faber and Faber.
Brien, D. & M. Brennan (1995). “Sign language dictionaries: Issues and developments.” In
H. Bos & T. Schermer (ed.), Sign language research 1994: Proceedings of the Fourth
European Congress on Sign Language Research, Munich, September 1–3, 1994, pp. 313–
338. Hamburg: Signum.
Brien, D. & G. Turner (1994). “Lemmas, dilemmas and lexicographical anisomorphism:
Presenting meanings in the first BSL-English Dictionary.” In I. Ahlgren, B. Bergman
& M. Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on sign language usage: Papers from The Fifth International
Symposium on Sign Language Research, pp. 391–407. Durham: International Sign
Linguistics Association and the Deaf Studies Research Unit, University of Durham.
Caccamise, F., W. Newell, M. Mitchell-Caccamise, P. Naiman, L. Outermans, D.
Pocobello, N. Smith & B. Aron (1982). Technical signs manual 1: Project overview-
Videotape and print materials for sign words used in academic and career environments.
Indianapolis, IN: Special Materials Project.
Casey, S. (1996). “Agreement” in deaf children’s gestures. Paper presented at the Fifth Interna-
tional Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Montreal, Canada.
Collins-Ahlgren, M. (1990). “Spatial-locative predicates in Thai Sign Language.” In C.
Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, pp. 103–117. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
Corazza, S. (1990). “The morphology of classifier handshapes in Italian Sign Language
(LIS).” In C. Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, pp. 71–82. Washing-
ton, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Corina, D. P. (1990). “Handshape assimilation in hierarchical phonological representa-
tions.” In C. Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, pp. 27–49. Washing-
ton, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Costello, E. (1994). Random House American Sign Language dictionary. New York: Random
House.
Crystal, D. (1991). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Engberg-Pedersen, E. (1993). Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax
of the use of space in a visual language. International studies on sign language and
communication of the Deaf, 19. Hamburg: Signum.
Engberg-Pedersen, E. (1996). Review of Lars Wallin, Polysyntetiska tecken i svenska
teckenspraket and Polysynthetic Signs in Swedish Sign Language (English summary).
Nordic Journal of Linguistics 19(1): 87.
Engberg-Pedersen, E. & A. Pedersen (1985). “Proforms in Danish Sign Language: Their
use in figurative signing.” In W. Stokoe & V. Volterra (eds.), SLR’83: Proceedings of the
III International Symposium on Sign Language Research, pp. 202–210. Silver Spring, MD:
Linstok Press, & Rome: Instituto di Psicologia CNR.
Frishberg, N. (1975). “Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign
Language.” Language 51(3): 696–719.
Foley, W. (1986). The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Johnston, T. (1989a). Auslan dictionary: A dictionary of the sign language of the Australian Deaf
community. Sydney: Deafness Resources Australia.
Johnston, T. (1989b). Auslan: The sign language of the Australian Deaf community. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Sydney.
Johnston, T. (1991a). “The transcription and glossing of sign language texts.” International
Journal of Sign Linguistics 2(1): 3–28.
Johnston, T. (1991b). “Spatial syntax and spatial semantics in the inflection of signs for the
marking of person and location in Auslan.” International Journal of Sign Linguistics 2.1:
29–62.
Johnston, T. (1991c). “Autonomy and integrity in sign languages.” Signpost 1: 2–5.
Johnston, T. (1996). The representation of English in a native sign language: Implications for deaf
bilingualism and English literacy. Paper presented at the twelfth National Workshop on
Communication Development for Deaf Students, Griffith University, Brisbane.
Johnston, T. (ed.) (1997). Signs of Australia on CD-ROM: A dictionary of Auslan (Australian
Sign Language). Version 1.0 for Windows. Sydney: North Rocks.
Johnston, T. (ed.) (1998a). Signs of Australia on CD-ROM: A dictionary of Auslan (Australian
Sign Language). Version 1.0 for Mac OS. Sydney: North Rocks.
Johnston, T. (ed.) (1998b). Signs of Australia: A new dictionary of Auslan (Australian Sign
Language). Sydney: North Rocks.
Johnston, T. & A. Schembri (1996). Defining and profiling lexis in Auslan (Australian Sign
Language). Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Theoretical Issues
in Sign Language Research, Montreal, Canada.
Kendon, A. (1980). “Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of the utter-
ance.” In M. R. Key (ed.), Nonverbal communication and language, pp. 207–277. The
Hague: Mouton.
Klima, E., U. Bellugi, R. Battison, P. Boyes-Braem, S. Fischer et al. (1979). The signs of
language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kyle, J. & B. Woll (eds.) (1985). Sign language: The study of deaf people and their language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liddell, S. K. (1995). “Real, surrogate, and token space: Grammatical consequences in
ASL.” In K. Emmorey & J. Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, pp. 19–41.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lucas, C. & C. Valli (1992). Language contact in the American deaf community. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Matthews, P. A. (1996). “Extending the lexicon of Irish Sign Language.” In D. P. O’Baoill
(ed.), Teanga 16: The Irish yearbook of applied linguistics. Dublin: Irish Association for
Applied Linguistics.
McDonald, B. (1982). Aspects of the American Sign Language predicate system. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Buffalo.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Meier, R. P. (1990). “Person deixis in American Sign Language.” In S. D. Fischer & P.
Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research 1, pp. 175–190. Chicago: Universi-
ty of Chicago.
Moody, W. (1983). Introduction à l’histoire et à la grammaire de la langue des signes: Entre les
mains des sourds. Vincennes: Centre Socio-culturel des Sourds.
Newport, E. (1990). “Maturational constraints on language learning.” Cognitive Science 14:
11–28.
Padden, C. A. (1998). “The ASL lexicon.” Sign language & linguistics 1(1): 39–60.
Perlmutter, D. (1996). Compounds and lexemes in American Sign Language. Paper presented
at the Fifth International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Re-
search, Montreal, Canada.
Schembri, A. (1996). The structure and formation of signs in Auslan (Australian Sign Language).
Sydney: North Rocks.
Schembri, A. (1998). Rethinking the notion of predicate classifiers in signed languages. Paper
presented at the 1998 Annual Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, Brisbane.
Schembri, A., R. Adam, G. Wigglesworth, T. Johnston, R. Barker & G. Leigh (1998).
The test battery for Auslan morphology and syntax project. Paper presented at the Sixth
International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Washing-
ton, DC.
Schick, B. S. (1990). “Classifier predicates in American Sign Language.” International Journal
of Sign Linguistics 1: 15–40.
Singleton, J., S. Goldin-Meadow & D. McNeill (1995). “The cataclysmic break between
gesture and sign: Evidence against a unified continuum of gestural communication.”
In K. Emmorey & J. Reilly (eds.). Language, gesture, and space. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar.
London: Basil Blackwell.
Stokoe, W. C. (1993). “Dictionary making, then and now.” Sign Language Studies 79:
127–146.
Stokoe, W. C., D. C. Casterline & C. G. Croneberg (1965). A dictionary of American Sign
Language on linguistic principles. Silver Spring, MD: Gallaudet College Press.
Supalla, T. (1982). Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign
Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Supalla, T. & E. Newport (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.
Sutton-Spence, R., B. Woll & L. Allsop (1990). “Variation and recent change in finger-
spelling in British Sign Language.” Language variation and change 2: 313–330.
Suwanarat, M., A. Ratanasint, V. Rungsrithong, L. Anderson & O. P. Wrigley (1990). The
Thai Sign Language dictionary. Bangkok: National Association of the Deaf in Thailand.
Valli, C. & C. Lucas (1995). The linguistics of American Sign Language: A resource text for ASL
users. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Viberg, A. (1994). “Vocabularies.” In I. Ahlgren & K. Hyltenstam (eds.), Bilingualism in
deaf education. Hamburg: Signum.
Wallin, L. (1996). Polysynthetic signs in Swedish Sign Language. Stockholm: Stockholm
University.
Webb. R. (1996). Metaphoric gestures redefined: Standards of form and componentiality in gesture.
Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign
Language Research, Montreal, Canada.
Wilbur, R. B. (1987). American Sign Language: Linguistic and applied dimensions. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown and Co.
Woll, B. (1983). Historical change in British Sign Language. Deaf Studies Unit, University of
Bristol.
Woll, B. (1990). “Sign language.” In N. E. Collinge (ed.), An encyclopedia of language.
London: Routledge.
Woll, B. (1994). “The influence of television on the deaf community in Britain.” In I.
Ahlgren, B. Bergman, & M. Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on sign language usage: Papers
from the fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, pp. 293–301. Durham:
International Sign Linguistics Association.
Zwitserlood, I. (1996). Who’ll handle the object? An investigation of the NGT classifier. Master’s
Thesis, University of Utrecht.

1999 On Defining Lexeme in A Signed Lan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1999 On Defining Lexeme in A Signed Lan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UBJECT "SL&L 2:2"

Trevor Johnston & Adam Schembri

Sign Language & Linguistics 2:2, 1999, 115–185. ISSN 1316–7249.

language can then be listed as headwords in a dictionary. Naturally this should be

Bodily actions Gesticulations, gestures & mime

Figure 1: A hierarchy of lexicalization in signed languages

Figure 1 is a visual representation of the gestural hierarchy and sign typology

2. An explanation of an ordering principle used to sequence signs in a sign language dictionary,

entries in Signs of Australia, a new dictionary of Auslan in CD-ROM and book

2. Gesticulation, gestures and mimes

The communicative visual-gestural acts of nonsigners can be grouped into three

3.1. The componential nature of (productive) signs

A sign is defined as a relatively stable, identifiable visual-gestural act with an

or movement of the head and/or trunk). The component aspects of handshape,

‘below long narrow thin object’ /

3.2. The semantics of the handshape component

language it is easier to imagine a handshape in isolation than any other aspect in

The third, alphabetic handshapes, refer to those handshapes used in one-

Trace Handle Proform Semantic Numerical Alphabetic

Figure 2: The semantics of the handshape component aspect of a sign

3.3. The meaningfulness of actual and potential sign forms

Now, to return to our discussion of signs as a whole, it should be clear that

‘on vertical surface’

Similarly, the following sign has the componential meaning, as described.

4.1. Distinguishing lexemes from signs

‘pairs of upright objects in file’ / ‘couples in a procession’

PICTURE LOCK MEET

(10) = numerical (11) = alphabetic (12) = semantic

PARTNER–SWAPPING COMMUNICATE BLAME

In many other lexemes the components are essentially experienced as arbitrary

aspects (i.e. be treated as signs rather than lexemes).

4.3. Lexemes as the established or frozen lexicon

4.4. The sign classes (‘parts of speech’) of Auslan lexemes

interjections and exclamations in English, often to interrupt or acknowledge the

FAN BELT SPEEDWAY

Similarly, the next sign appears to be lexicalized for a minority of signers as

‘under a flat surface’ PRIMARY

4.5. Lexicalized fingerspelling

Morphosyntactic and semantic criteria

Table 2: Lexicalized fingerspelling

4.6. Lexicalized deixis

Complex deictics that involve reflexiveness display a change of handshape during

(28) (29) (30)

I/ME MY/MINE MYSELF

(31) (32) (33)

YOU YOUR/YOURS YOURSELF

5.1. Citation and variant forms and the lexicon

5.2. Modified signs and the lexicon

Modified forms of lexemes need to be distinguished from variant forms. Unlike

to say sign (meaning the visual-gestural units of a signed language in general)

Pedersen 1993, for a discussion of the problem of identifying inflections in Danish

6. Internal sign modification and the lexicon

terms of the citation form) include repetitions, contours created by patterns of

handshape and tabulation changes appears to be greater, in terms of lexicalization,

OPERATION OPERATION-LOC CAESARIAN

6.1. Modification of movement in ‘nominalization’ and ‘verbalization’

closing, turning on or off, or switching on or off some object or device. Repeated

WINDOW OPEN–WINDOW CLOSE–WINDOW

UMBRELLA CLOSE–UMBRELLA UMBRELLA?

Overall, it is the repetition of the underlying movement (opening/closing, turning

As a further complication, it is possible to superimpose sign modifications,

‘CHAIR/SIT’ ‘CHAIRS’ ‘SIT AND SIT’

6.2. Modification using nonmanual features