The phonology of sign language

1
The phonology of sign language

• COGS 524 Linguistic and Cognitive aspects of
  sign language
• spring semester 2007
• Annette Hohenberger

http//www.weckt-die-lebensgeister.de/frame-index.
html
2
In the early days...

• ...people thought that signs were expressive,
  mimetic, iconic pantomimes, holistic without
  internal structure such as words.
• ...only in spoken languages, there was duality
  of patterning (i.e., meaningful words are made
  up of meaningless elements)

www.radivoj.de/gfx/fotos/pantomime-02.jpg
3
Pantomime vs. Sign

• The pantomime and the sign of egg have
  different characteristics

pages.slc.edu/ebj/IM_97/Lecture15/L15.html
4
The history of ModernSign Language
ResearchWilliam C. Stokoe (1919-2000)

• 1960, William C. Stokoe, Professor of English at
  Gallaudet University, publishes his seminal book
• Sign Language Structure , where he first analyzed
  signs having an internal, i.e., phonological
  structure. According to Stokoe, a sign is
  composed of three internal constituents
• 1.tabula --gt position of the sign
• 2. designator --gt hand configuration
• 3. signation --gt movement or change in
  configuration (McBurney 2006)

5
The Stokoe transcription

• Stokoe also proposed a transcription system which
  was based on his phonological analysis. Before
  that time, there hadn't been any such
  transcription systems around.
• A Dictionary of American Sign Language on
  linguistic principles (DASL) by Stokoe and his
  colleagues (1965) was also based on this
  notation.
• In 1960, contemporary Sign Language Linguistics
  had started.

6
The Stokoe system (Ceil, Valli 200127)
7
The Stokoe system (Ceil, Valli 200127)
8
Example

• ?
• IDEA
• 1.? location at the forehead
• 2. handshape pinkie finger
• 3. upward movement
• Stokoe held that all information in the sign was
  available simultaneously.

http//www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-signs/i/idea
.htm
9
Slow acceptance enduring impact

• However, Stokoe's radical claim that ASL signs
  had a compositional phonological structure was
  not readily shared by other linguists.
• 1. The departure from the standard view of signs
  as wholistic gestures was too big
• 2. By that time, structuralism (of which Stokoe's
  system was based) came out of fashion and
  generative grammar took over
• Only in the late 60ies/ 70ies the picture
  changed.
• Today, Stokoes revolutionary thesis is an
  unquestioned standard in Sign language research.
  It has laid the foundation to and inspired all
  subsequent research.

10
Cherology vs. phonology

• Stokoe coined the terms cherology and chereme
  which correspond to phonology and phoneme.
  They had been derived from Greek cheiros
  (hand).
• However, those terms did not catch on.
  Cherology was superseded by phonology which
  is used in an a-modal way. Instead of phoneme ,
  one speaks of phonological features classes or
  phonological parameters.

http//www.wissenschaftwissen.de/Bilder/Gebaerden.
png
11
http//www.handspeak.com
This is the space that the inter- locutor attends
to most intensely

• The phonology of sign languages unfolds in
  signing space
• _
• and is represented as a cognitive system in the
  mind/brain of a signer

This is signing space
http//www.handspeak.com/byte/index.php?bytesigna
rea
12
Phonological parameters

• 1. Handshape e.g., fingerspelled handshapes
• 2. (Hand Orientation) not highly distinctive,
  therefore often subsumed under hand configuration
  which embraces handshape and
• orientation
• 3.Place of Articulation head, cheek, temple,
  chest, arm, hand, etc.
• 4.Movement straight (upward, downward, left,
  right), arc, curved, etc.
• 5. Non-manual behaviors facial expressions, body
  leans, mouth gestures, head movements, etc.

13
Minimal pairs in ASL (Valli, Ceil 200120)
--gt In minimal pairs, one of the phon. parameters
gets changed whereas the others do not change.
Place of articulation
Handshape
14
Minimal triplet, Location(Sandler 2003)
15
Minimal pairs in ASL (Valli, Ceil 200120)
Hand Orientation
Movement (1 vs. 2 movs)
16
Minimal pair, location(Sandler Lillo-Martin
2006)
17
Where to locate Minimal pairs in the phonological
representation of sign language? (Brentari 2006)

• Sign Sign
• x x x x
• autosegmental segmental tier
• HS HS HS
• x x

The left representation incorrectly indicates 2
instances of the same handsahpe, while the right
R indicates only one which is aligned with two
x-slots (timing slots, onset and offset) of the
sign on the segmental tier.
18
Handshape

• Handshape is the most arbitrary and categorical
  of those parameters. It accommodates most easily
  to a hierarchical, binary representational
  system.
• Psycholinguistic evidence In production errors,
  phonological slips of the hand, handshape is more
  frequently affected than the other parameters.

19
Evidence for the psychological reality of
phonological featuresphonological slips of the
hand
Source DRINK_COFFEE (F-hand)
Correct SIT (bent V-hand)

• Error SIT
• (F-hand)

Hand orientation of DRINK_COFFEE (onset) is also
taken over (Leuninger et al. 2004)
20
Sequentiality vs. Simultaneity in signs(Sandler
and Lillo-Martin 2006, chapter 9)

• Signs have both sequential and simultaneous
  aspects
• Sequential The hands move from 1 location to
  another
• Simultaneous The hand configuration (handshape,
  orientation) is present throughout the entire
  sign.

21
Evidence for sequentiality in signs

• 1. Signs can have identical start locations but
  different end locations in simple signs
• CHRISTIAN vs. COMMITTEE, ASL
• 2. Different start and end locations in
  morphologically complex signs (agreeing verbs)
• 1-ASK-a vs. a-ASK-B

Sandler Lillo-Martin 2006 (Encyclopedia)
22
Evidence for sequentiality in signs

• 3. Methathesis start and end locations can be
  swapped, depending on the context
• FATHER DEAF vs. MOTHER DEAF

23
Movement metathesis (Valli/Ceil 2001 45)
FATHER DEAF
MOTHER DEAF
http//www.universalbrain.co.jp/image/sign-mother.
jpg
http//www.universalbrain.co.jp/image/sign-father.
jpg
24
Evidence for sequentiality in signs

• 4. A change in manner of movement is restricted
  to the end of signs only.
• FLY (continuous) vs. FLY-THERE (hold)

25
Evidence for sequentiality in signs (SL-M 2006
126)

• 5. Various forms of verbal aspect (iterative,
  durative, continuative, habitual, facilitative)
  change various parts of the sign onset,
  movement, offset
• LOOK-AT protractive
• LOOK-AT durational
• LOOK-AT incessant
• LOOK-AT habitual
• LOOK-AT continuative
• In the Delayed completive aspect (Finally, I
  verb-ed) there is reference to the first Place
  of articulation POA by an added wiggling of the
  hand or wagging of the tongue and to the
  movement by adding the mouth gesture op to it.

26
Delayed completive (Brentari 1998198-9)

• Input RUN-OUT-OF delayed completive verb
  stem
• prefix, trilled mov op
• Finally I ran out of...

27
Delayed completive (Brentari 1998198-9)

• Input FOCUS delayed completive verb
  stem
• prefix, tongue wagging op
• Finally I focused on...

28
Delayed completive (Brentari 1998198-9)

• Input UNDERSTAND delayed completive verb
  stem
• prefix, tongue wagging op
• Finally I understood

29
Evidence for sequentiality in signsSL-M 2006
127)

• 6. Slips of the hand In an ASL corpus of slips
  of the hand, the offset of two adjacent signs can
  become swapped, as in
• CAN'T SEE
• where SEE ends in the location of CAN'T

30
The Movement-Hold Model of Liddell (Valli, Ceil
200137)
Liddell distinguished between 2 kinds of
segments movements (M) and holds (H). Signs are
made up of Ms and Hs, as spoken words are made up
by Vowels V and Consonants C. Liddel equated M
V and H C
31
Signs may have various MH sequences (syllable
types)(Valli/Ceil 2001 37)
32
The Movement-Hold Model (Valli, Ceil 200137)
33
Example IDEA (ASL)
M straight
H
H

• a. handshape
• b. point of contact
• c. proximity
• d. spatial relation
• e. major body area
• f. facing of palm
• g. surface plane
• h. base hand
• i. base hand plane

Io- PDFI p ahead iFH PA SP BA HP
Io- PDFI c - iFH PA SP BA HP
3 segments HMH Movement does not have features
on its own, it is related to the two Hs.
34
Criticism of the MH model

• It overgenerates features, e.g. 150 handshapes,
  18 major POAs.
• It is inherently redundant. For IDEA, the Hs have
  largely redundant information, only 2
  specifications change
• contact c --gt proximal p
• - --gt ahead
• --gt For theories it is important to posit only
  necessary specifications, not too many. If the
  occurrence of handshape is restricted in
  principle, as in IDEA, it need not and therefore
  must not be stated explicitly at the 2nd H.

35
The Hand Tier model

• In the Hand-Tier Model, Hand Configuration and
  place are autosegments that are associated with
  the segments L (location), M (movement)
• HC
• L M L
• place

Since HC is now associated with all 3 segments,
LML, redundancy is avoided Place, too, has a
1-to-many association with the segmental
level. L and M are organized in a sequence,
while HC is simultaneous.
36
Hand-tier representation of IDEA
http//asl.ms/()/images2/abcslideshow.htm

• HC
• L M L
• o Place
• head
• o Setting
• ipsi
• hi
• contact proximal

LOCATION
http//www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-signs/i/idea
.htm
37
ASL-manual alphabet
www.iidc.indiana.edu/cedir/kidsweb/a-z.gif
38
DGS manual alphabet
http//www.gehoerlosenverband-hamburg.de/sprache_k
urse/bilder/Finger_DGS.JPG
www.ac.shuttle.de/.../Bilder/Fingeralphabet.jpg
39
A variant of the DGS manual alphabet
40
Selected Finger Constraint

• In signs with a handshape change, actually only
  some selected fingers change. These are
  selected for the entire sign.
• Expl SEND all 5 fingers go from closed to open
• Expl LIKE the selected fingers (thumb, middle
  finger) go from open to closed.
• In such signs, the relationship between the first
  and the second position are largely predictable.
• This is against Liddell's earlier claim.

41
HC as autosegment

• Hand-Configuration can also have morphological
  status, as in Classifier constructions.
• A classifier handshape stands for a whole set of
  objects (which it resembles in form)
• Classifiers are morphologically autonomous, they
  can be specified for HC according to the class of
  objects to be referred to.

http//www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/lip/24/LIP24.pdf
Pfau and Steinbach 2004
42
HC in compound formation

• In compound formation, HC assimilation frequently
  occurs, i.e., the handshape of the first part of
  the compound assimilates to (becomes the same as)
  the handshape of the second part of the compound.
  Alternatively, the first HC is deleted and the
  second HC spreads onto the first sign.

43
Compound THINKMARRY (BELIEVE)
L1 M L2 L3 M L4 ? L2 M
L4 prox contact medial contact
contact contact
http//www.deafmissions.com/?PageID18SubpageID7
head non-dominant hand head hand

• THINK MARRY BELIEVE

44
Major body area

• The other feature that mostly remains constant
  througout a monomorphemic sign is the major body
  area, POA.
• Place constraint (Battison 1978)
• There can be only one major body area specified
  in a sign.
• Place is also multiply associated with the ML
  tier.

45
Prosodic templates

• Prosodic templates are abstract skeletons that
  mark the position, length, and quality of
  segments. Into these templates the root and the
  inflectional or derivational morphology are
  inserted.
• Such templates exist for morphological processes,
  such as aspect durational, resultative, etc.

46
Expl Morphological templates
SICK SICK resultative SICK durational
L M L LL M LL L M L
(redup)
x y z x y z arc
M gets specified for arc
Additional timing slots are created by
doubly associating features to the first and last
L
http//www.handspeak.com/abc/index-hand.php?abc8-
open
47
Summary

• Inflectional templates are evidence for
  sequential structure in signs.
• Both signed and spoken languages have linear and
  non-linear components. In sign language, the
  non-linear ones are more pronounced.
• In phonology, the simultaneity is evident in the
  HC parameter which has the status of an
  autosegment and multiply associates with various
  segmental units (LHL).

48
Phonological universals

• With the establishment of a sign language
  phonology, the search for phonological universals
  has reached a new dimension.
• Phonological universals emcompass not only spoken
  languages but also signed languages.
• This allows us to see which aspects are truly
  universal and a-modal and which are
  modality-dependent and particular to the
  information channel through which they are
  conveyed and the bodily articulators through
  which they are expressed.

49
Phonological Universals

• Autonomous prosodic hierarchy syllable, prosodic
  word, phonological phrase, intonational phrase
• In sign language, the acquisition of phonology
  passes through the same milestones as in spoken
  language (babbling with the hands)
• Sign languages exhibit regional dialects and have
  a language history
• There is language contact between various signed
  and spoken languages

50
Differences between spoken and sign language
phonology (Brentari 2006)

• Spoken language
• Segments dominate features
• /p/ labial,-voiced, plosive, etc.
• Segment order is relatively free, e.g. neat vs.
  teen

• Sign language
• Features predict and dominate segments
• Order of handshapes is restricted (open-close)

51
Differences between spoken and sign language
phonology

• Sign language
• Most syllables are monosyllabic (93)
• Only few phonological processes make use of the
  syllable, but it is the domain where the timing
  of handshape and movement is coordinated (HS
  changes on the M-nucleus of a syll)

• Spoken language
• More reliance on the syllable binary metrical
  foot, stress,

52
Differences between spoken and sign language
phonology
2 ms are enough to distinguish 2 events in
audition but we need 25 ms to see 2 separate
pictures
A visual stimulus is registered at the retina
(peripheral), whereas an auditory stimulus is
inferred from temporal and intensity differences
of the signal between the ears.
Vertical processing simultaneous processing --gt
sign language Horizontal processing sequential,
linear processing --gt spoken language
53
Hand Configuration(Sandler Lillo-Martin)

• Hand Configuration is the most complex one of the
  3 parameters (hierarchical, binary branching,
  categorical)
• Sign languages differ in their HC inventory (ASL,
  DGS, TID, etc.)
• However, SL-M only adopt those features for
  which there are phonological generalizations in
  the language.

54
The architecture of hand configuration

• Orientation
• aperture
• joints
• finger position
• fingers thumb unselected
  fingers
• selected fingers
• HC

55
Feature geometry

• In a feature-geometric account of HC features are
  organized in classes according to their physical
  articulators. Features are independent in
  principle, but cluster together due to the
  physical architecture of the articulators
• Furthermore, they adopt Dependency Phonology
  which takes relative markedness of phonological
  elements and parsimony in the feature inventory
  into account.

56
Temporal independence of HC

• HC is temporally independent of L and M in
  compounds, H can assimilate whereas L and M are
  deleted.

Reduplication gets deleted
LM gets deleted
THINK SELF ? DECIDE ONESELF Brentari
1998 20
57
Counter-example to the generalization that HC
order is mostly predictable signs with opposite
meaning --gt segment order has morphological use
ASL TAKE-UP DROP (Brentari 1998 31 2006
341)
58
Central claims

• HC is made up of handshape and hand orientation
• Shape consists of finger selection and their
  position
• Orientation is a subclass of handshape/selected
  fingers

59
Handshape

• Every morpheme has only 1 set of selected fingers
  which may move but may not be changed.
• Hand configuration
• Selected fingers
• Finger position

Evidence that Sel. Fingers dominates
Fing Position In a morpheme with HS change,
only the position changes, not their selected
fingers
60
Internal movement

• Internal hand movements are represented by a
  branching finger position node or orientation
  node
• position orientation
• open close radial ulnar
• The branching is comparable to a contour tone in
  tone languages (rising, falling)
• Handshape Sequence Constraint (HSQ)
• If there are 2 finger positions in a sign, then
  one must be open or closed.
• --gt bent-curved, curved-bent

61
Evidence for theHandshape Sequence Constraint
(HSC)

• In compounding, total assimilation of HC includes
  finger position, independent of L and M segments.
• In MINDDROPFAINT, DROP has a change in
  handshape which also spreads onto the first part
  of the compound, MIND.

62
HC assimilation(Sandler 2006191)
63
Orientation assimilation

• Orientation is not a fully independent
  phonological feature. It is subsumed under HC.
• In ASL compounds, orientation alone may
  assimilate, but if fingers and their position
  assimilate, orientation must assimilate, too.

64
Orientation assimilation in compounds
Input signs Compound the orientation
of SLEEP has been assimilated to that of SUNRISE.
However, HC has not
Sandler Lillo-Martin 2001
65
Assimilation of Orientation
HC HC SF SF all
one position position
open closed closed orientat
ion orientation in contralat
eral
SLEEP
SUNRISE
66
Total assimilation

• If selected fingers assimilate overall, position
  and orientation of the hand both change

67
Compounding, 2 versions of LOOKSTRONG
(RESEMBLE), Valli/Ceil 200162
68
From Pfau, Steinbach 2006
69
Verb-Noun alternation (Valli/Ceil 200156
70

• Brentari, 1998, 26

71
References

• Brentari, Diane (1998) A prosodic model of sign
  language phonology. Cambridge, MA MIT Press.
• Brentari, Diane (2006) Sign language Phonology.
  Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Keith
  Brown, ed., 338-343. Amsterdam Elsevier.
• Sandler, Wendy. (2003) Sign Language Phonology.
  In William Frawley (ed.), The Oxford
  International Encyclopedia of Linguistics.
• Sandler, Wendy (2006) Phonology, phonetics and
  the nondominant hand. In Louis Goldstein, Douglas
  H. Whalen, and Catherine T. Best (eds.), Papers
  in Laboratory Phonology VIII, 185-212. The Hague
  Mouton de Gruyter.
• Sandler, Wendy, and Lillo-Martin (2006) Sign
  Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge
  Cambridge University Press.
• Leuninger, H., Hohenberger, A., Waleschkowski,
  E., Menges, E. und Happ, D. (2004) The Impact of
  Modality on Language Production Evidence from
  Slips of the Tongue and Hand. In T. Pechman
  Ch. Habel (Eds.) Multidisciplinary approaches to
  language production. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam
  Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 219-277.
• Valli, Clayton, and Ceil, Lucas (2001)
  Linguistics of American Sign Language. Gallaudet
  University Press.

72
Handshape