The ASL-LEX 2.0 Project: A Database of Lexical and Phonological Properties for 2,723 Signs in American Sign Language.
Zed Sevcikova Sehyr, Naomi Caselli, Ariel M Cohen-Goldberg and 1 others
PMID 33598676WHAT IT FOUND
Frequent American Sign Language signs were rated less iconic and shorter in ASL-LEX 2.0, a database of 2,723 signs that may help SLPs choose assessment or teaching targets.
Key findings
01ASL-LEX 2.0 contains 2,723 sign entries.
02Frequent signs were rated less iconic than infrequent signs, and higher frequency signs were shorter.
03Only 3% of signs in the transparency subset were guessed correctly by a majority of participants.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a database description, not a clinical trial, so it does not show that using ASL-LEX improves patient outcomes. Frequency norms come from 129 deaf adults who were college-educated and included native and early-exposed signers, so they may not represent all deaf signers. Sign duration was based on one signer's production, so it may not match how different signers produce signs in conversation. The phonological coding system does not capture every sign feature, and simultaneous morphology such as depicting signs and numerical incorporation is not reflected. The database does not include a representative sample of complex constructions or fingerspelled signs, and it lacks natural context and co-articulation information. Transparency data cover only 430 signs, and deaf iconicity data cover only the original 993 signs, not all 2,723 signs.
Declared interests
The supplied text lists NIH extramural and U.S. government non-PHS research support. It does not include an author conflict-of-interest declaration.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that ASL-LEX-based sign selection improves therapy. The paper describes sign properties and suggests possible clinical uses, but it does not test those uses with patients.