title: Modality-dependent and -independent factors in the organisation of the signed language lexicon: insights from semantic and phonological fluency tasks in BSL.
abstract: We used fluency tasks to investigate lexical organisation in Deaf adults who use British sign language (BSL). The number of responses produced to semantic categories did not differ from reports in spoken languages. However, there was considerable variability in the number of responses across phonological categories, and some signers had difficulty retrieving items. Responses were richly clustered according to semantic and/or phonological properties. With respect to phonology, there was significantly more clustering around the parameters "handshape" and "location" compared to "movement". We conclude that the BSL lexicon is organised in similar ways to the lexicons of spoken languages, but that lexical retrieval is characterised by strong links between semantics and phonology; movement is less readily retrieved than handshape and location; and phonological fluency is difficult for signers because they have little metaphonological awareness in BSL and because signs do not display the onset salience that characterises spoken words.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology and Human Development, Institute of Education, University of London, 25 Woburn Square, London, WC1H 0AA, UK, c.marshall@ioe.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Chloë
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Marshall
authors.forename: Katherine
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Rowley
authors.forename: Joanna
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Atkinson
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003638:Deafness / Q000523:psychology*; D006801:Humans; D008037:Linguistics; D008875:Middle Aged; D012813:Sign Language; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Neurologia. 2004 May;19(4):153-9
references.pmid: 15131734
references.citation: Br J Clin Psychol. 2000 Jun;39(2):181-91
references.pmid: 10895361
references.citation: J Child Lang. 2013 Jan;40(1):193-220
references.pmid: 22717181
references.citation: Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005 Dec;20(8):1087-104
references.pmid: 16125896
references.citation: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2005 Aug;27(6):690-9
references.pmid: 16019645
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(3):856-65
references.pmid: 18656181
references.citation: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2000 Jun;22(3):370-8
references.pmid: 10855044
references.citation: Percept Mot Skills. 1990 Dec;71(3 Pt 2):1227-52
references.pmid: 2087376
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2010 Dec 31;1:227
references.pmid: 21833282
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1980 Oct;28(4):267-83
references.pmid: 7465310
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 1992 Jan;30(1):95-9
references.pmid: 1738474
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2004 Jun;89(3):499-502
references.pmid: 15120540
references.citation: Cognition. 1986 Nov;24(1-2):45-64
references.pmid: 3791921
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2005 Nov;16(11):856-60
references.pmid: 16262769
references.citation: Brain Lang. 1998 Jan;61(1):115-22
references.pmid: 9448935
references.citation: J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004 Mar;10(2):164-72
references.pmid: 15012836
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2004 Apr;89(1):192-202
references.pmid: 15010250
references.citation: Child Dev. 1984 Jun;55(3):944-51
references.pmid: 6734329
references.citation: Neuropsychology. 1997 Jan;11(1):138-46
references.pmid: 9055277
references.citation: Assessment. 2001 Sep;8(3):323-38
references.pmid: 11575625
references.citation: Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 1999 Feb;14(2):167-77
references.pmid: 14590600
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Nov;12(11):432-40
references.pmid: 18805728