Uploaded April 2021 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Piotr Tomaszewski and Wiktor Eźlakowski. 2021. "Negative Affixation in Polish Sign Language." SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES 21 (3): 290-332.
This video may not be repurposed or incorporated into other works in any way without the express written consent of the signer and the authors.
Article Abstract
The article looks into the question of negative affixation in Polish Sign Language (PJM). Until today only one negative prefix and one negative suffix were recognized in PJM. Our research investigates further these two affixes looking into their etymologies, constraints, and new examples of their use. The negative prefix (NEG1–) results from PJM’s contact with spoken Polish, while the negative suffix (–NEG2) is an element native to PJM. Aside from a more in-depth analysis of the previously known affixes, our research uncovers new suffixes (–NEG3 and –NEG4), an interfix (–NEG1–), and a postfix (–NEG5). The interfix has the same origin as the negative prefix. The suffix –NEG3 comes from a sign meaning “lack of something.” The suffix –NEG4 originates from a natural gesture. The postfix is a result of a combination of a natural gesture and a sign.
Author Bios
Piotr Tomaszewski (ORCiD: 0000-0002-4083-067X; tomasz@psych.uw.edu.pl) is an assistant professor and scientist at the University of Warsaw (UW), Department of Psychology. His interests in research include sign linguistics and psycholinguistics. Wiktor Eźlakowski (ORCiD: 0000-0002-5107-8890; wiktor.ezlakowski@student.uj.edu.pl or w.ezlakowski@student.uw.edu.pl) is a PhD student at the Jagiellonian University in Kraków and the University of Warsaw where he studies sign linguistics, concentrating on the evolution of Polish Sign Language.
Article Abstract
The article looks into the question of negative affixation in Polish Sign Language (PJM). Until today only one negative prefix and one negative suffix were recognized in PJM. Our research investigates further these two affixes looking into their etymologies, constraints, and new examples of their use. The negative prefix (NEG1–) results from PJM’s contact with spoken Polish, while the negative suffix (–NEG2) is an element native to PJM. Aside from a more in-depth analysis of the previously known affixes, our research uncovers new suffixes (–NEG3 and –NEG4), an interfix (–NEG1–), and a postfix (–NEG5). The interfix has the same origin as the negative prefix. The suffix –NEG3 comes from a sign meaning “lack of something.” The suffix –NEG4 originates from a natural gesture. The postfix is a result of a combination of a natural gesture and a sign.
Author Bios
Piotr Tomaszewski (ORCiD: 0000-0002-4083-067X; tomasz@psych.uw.edu.pl) is an assistant professor and scientist at the University of Warsaw (UW), Department of Psychology. His interests in research include sign linguistics and psycholinguistics. Wiktor Eźlakowski (ORCiD: 0000-0002-5107-8890; wiktor.ezlakowski@student.uj.edu.pl or w.ezlakowski@student.uw.edu.pl) is a PhD student at the Jagiellonian University in Kraków and the University of Warsaw where he studies sign linguistics, concentrating on the evolution of Polish Sign Language.
Piotr Tomaszewski and Wiktor Eźlakowski. 2021. "Negative Affixation in Polish Sign Language." SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES 21 (3): 290-332.
This video may not be repurposed or incorporated into other works in any way without the express written consent of the signer and the authors.
Article Abstract
The article looks into the question of negative affixation in Polish Sign Language (PJM). Until today only one negative prefix and one negative suffix were recognized in PJM. Our research investigates further these two affixes looking into their etymologies, constraints, and new examples of their use. The negative prefix (NEG1–) results from PJM’s contact with spoken Polish, while the negative suffix (–NEG2) is an element native to PJM. Aside from a more in-depth analysis of the previously known affixes, our research uncovers new suffixes (–NEG3 and –NEG4), an interfix (–NEG1–), and a postfix (–NEG5). The interfix has the same origin as the negative prefix. The suffix –NEG3 comes from a sign meaning “lack of something.” The suffix –NEG4 originates from a natural gesture. The postfix is a result of a combination of a natural gesture and a sign.
Author Bios
Piotr Tomaszewski (ORCiD: 0000-0002-4083-067X; tomasz@psych.uw.edu.pl) is an assistant professor and scientist at the University of Warsaw (UW), Department of Psychology. His interests in research include sign linguistics and psycholinguistics. Wiktor Eźlakowski (ORCiD: 0000-0002-5107-8890; wiktor.ezlakowski@student.uj.edu.pl or w.ezlakowski@student.uw.edu.pl) is a PhD student at the Jagiellonian University in Kraków and the University of Warsaw where he studies sign linguistics, concentrating on the evolution of Polish Sign Language.
Article Abstract
The article looks into the question of negative affixation in Polish Sign Language (PJM). Until today only one negative prefix and one negative suffix were recognized in PJM. Our research investigates further these two affixes looking into their etymologies, constraints, and new examples of their use. The negative prefix (NEG1–) results from PJM’s contact with spoken Polish, while the negative suffix (–NEG2) is an element native to PJM. Aside from a more in-depth analysis of the previously known affixes, our research uncovers new suffixes (–NEG3 and –NEG4), an interfix (–NEG1–), and a postfix (–NEG5). The interfix has the same origin as the negative prefix. The suffix –NEG3 comes from a sign meaning “lack of something.” The suffix –NEG4 originates from a natural gesture. The postfix is a result of a combination of a natural gesture and a sign.
Author Bios
Piotr Tomaszewski (ORCiD: 0000-0002-4083-067X; tomasz@psych.uw.edu.pl) is an assistant professor and scientist at the University of Warsaw (UW), Department of Psychology. His interests in research include sign linguistics and psycholinguistics. Wiktor Eźlakowski (ORCiD: 0000-0002-5107-8890; wiktor.ezlakowski@student.uj.edu.pl or w.ezlakowski@student.uw.edu.pl) is a PhD student at the Jagiellonian University in Kraków and the University of Warsaw where he studies sign linguistics, concentrating on the evolution of Polish Sign Language.







![Ch 3. Research Methods with Deaf People in the Justice System
Harris, R. L., & Mertens, D. M. (2021). Research methods with deaf people in the justice system. In D. Guthmann, G. I. Lomas, D. Goff Paris, & G. A. Martin (Eds.), DEAF PEOPLE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (pp. 40-60). Gallaudet University Press. https://gupress.gallaudet.edu/Books/D/Deaf-People-in-the-Criminal-Justice-System
This video may not be repurposed or incorporated into other works in any way without the express written consent of the signer and the chapter author.
[Please note: There is no audio narration with this video.]
Transcript:
Chapter 3. Research Methods with Deaf People in the Justice System
Raychelle L. Harris and Donna M. Mertens
Raychelle Harris, Ph.D., was a professor in the Department of ASL & Deaf Studies
at Gallaudet University, Washington, DC. Dr. Harris has presented and published on topics related to research ethics and the cultural and linguistic aspects of teaching, interpreting, and researching with Deaf communities.
Donna M. Mertens, Ph.D., is a professor emeritus from Gallaudet University. Dr. Mertens’ main focus is on research methodology and social transformation; She has done an evaluation of a court access project for deaf and hard of hearing people.
Drs. Harris and Mertens explore the world of research with deaf people in the criminal justice system and give readers examples of how research with small populations can be done. Individuals who do research regarding deaf people within the criminal justice system will find this chapter beneficial in designing their research methods. This chapter is also relevant for researchers focusing on deaf people who are victims of crimes. While the processing of physical evidence is not different depending on the accused person’s hearing status, a multitude of linguistic and cultural issues arise when the person who is in contact with the criminal justice system is deaf. Those issues are relevant when considering doing research with deaf people and their experiences within this kind of setting.
One challenge for researchers in the deaf field is the small number of people in this group. This problem is magnified even further because most departments of corrections do not maintain a database of deaf prisoners. By using a Transformative Paradigm, and culturally appropriate ethical research guidelines that include the community during the research process, Harris and Mertens explore key principles to ethically conduct research with Sign Language Communities (SLC) and provide recommendations for conducting research on deaf persons within the criminal justice system. Ch 3. Research Methods with Deaf People in the Justice System](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hJ_0WflhRdo/mqdefault.jpg)


