Relationship certainly one of lexical and phonological attributes
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.
Volume and you may iconicity z-score (SignFrequency(Z) and you will Iconicity(Z)) was basically rather adversely synchronised together (look for Desk step 1), with frequent signs rated since quicker renowned; although not, this relationships is poor, r
A great amount of phonological functions is actually extremely synchronised plus of many instances it is because how they is outlined (select Desk step 1). Instance, for every single significant venue contains no less than one lesser metropolitan areas-high-frequency lesser metropolitan areas will thus almost usually be discovered for the highest volume biggest cities, and you will handshape frequency are similarly regarding picked hand and bending volume. On the other hand, all of the three strategies from Society Density is actually very correlated having that other partially because they’re also discussed and werkt vgl you may partially since any locals one to share five of the four sandwich-lexical qualities (Maximal People Thickness) commonly fundamentally plus display certainly four sub-lexical services (Restricted Area Occurrence). Fundamentally, all of the around three Neighborhood Thickness measures was synchronised with each of sub-lexical frequency tips. This makes experience since from the definition, prominent sub-lexical attributes can be found in of several cues.
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).