Relationship one of lexical and you may phonological functions
Next we examined relationships among the lexical and phonological properties of the signs in ASL-LEX to gain insight into how phonological, lexical, and semantic factors interact in the ASL lexicon. s = –0.14, p < 0.001. Although it is possible that this inverse correlation is driven by the relatively higher frequency of closed-class words which may be lower in iconicity than other signs, the negative correlation remains when closed-class words (i.e., words with a “minor” Lexical Class) are excluded (r s = –0.17, p < 0.001). This result is compatible with the early proposal that with frequent use, signs may move away from their iconic origins, perhaps due to linguistic pressures to become more integrated into the phonological system (Frishberg, 1975). Interestingly, the direction of this relationship was the opposite of that found for British Sign Language; that is, Vinson et al. (2008) reported a weak positive correlation between frequency and iconicity: r = .146, p < .05. Alternatively, the different correlations might be due differences in stimuli selection. Vinson et al. (2008) intentionally selected stimuli that had a range of iconicity values which resulted in a bimodal iconicity distribution while we did not select signs for inclusion in ASL-LEX based on their iconicity.
Frequency and iconicity z-results (SignFrequency(Z) and you will Iconicity(Z)) was in fact somewhat negatively correlated along (discover Table 1), with repeated signs rated while the reduced legendary; however, that it dating try poor, r
Loads of phonological attributes are highly synchronised plus in of many instances it is because the way they try defined (look for Desk step 1). Such, for https://datingranking.net/dog-dating/ every single big area features no less than one small towns-high-frequency minor towns tend to thus nearly invariably be found within the high volume big locations, and you may handshape volume is actually likewise related to chose little finger and you will flexion regularity. As well, most of the around three tips away from Society Density is actually highly correlated which have one several other partially since they are also laid out and you can partly while the one locals you to display four of your five sandwich-lexical services (Maximum Neighborhood Occurrence) commonly always and additionally show one of four sub-lexical properties (Limited Society Occurrence). Eventually, all of the three Society Occurrence procedures is actually coordinated with every of your own sub-lexical volume procedures. This will make experience as of the meaning, prominent sub-lexical properties come in of numerous signs.
Interestingly, the basic sub-lexical frequencies are completely uncorrelated with each other, with the exception of selected fingers and minor location which are significantly but weakly correlated (r = .10, p < .01). This finding suggests that the space of possible ASL signs is rather large as each sub-lexical property can (to a first degree of approximation) vary independently of the others. This property contrasts with spoken languages where phoneme frequency is correlated across different syllable positions. For example, using position-specific uniphone frequencies from Vitevitch and Luce (2004) we estimate that in English monosyllabic words, vowel frequency is negatively correlated with the frequency of the preceding consonant (r = –.07, p < .001) and positively correlated with the following consonant (r = .17, p < .001), and that onset consonants have highly correlated frequencies (r = –.51, p < .001). We speculate that the relative independence of ASL sub-lexical features is related to both the motoric independence of the manual articulators (e.g., finger flexion is unaffected by the location of the hand in signing space) as well as the relative simultaneity of manual articulation (as opposed to serial oral articulation). We note that these non-significant correlations are for sub-lexical frequency only; specific sub-lexical properties have been argued to co-vary systematically (e.g., signs produced in locations far from the face may be more likely to be symmetrical, two-handed, and have larger, horizontal, and vertical motions; Siple, 1978).