Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners

  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sign languages display remarkable crosslinguistic consistencies in the use of handshapes. In particular, handshapes used in classifier predicates display a consistent pattern in finger complexity: classifier handshapes representing objects display more finger complexity than those representing how objects are handled. Here we explore the conditions under which this morphophonological phenomenon arises. In Study 1, we ask whether hearing individuals in Italy and the United States, asked to communicate using only their hands, show the same pattern of finger complexity found in the classifier handshapes of two sign languages: Italian Sign Language (LIS) and American Sign Language (ASL). We find that they do not: gesturers display more finger complexity in handling handshapes than in object handshapes. The morphophonological pattern found in conventional sign languages is therefore not a codified version of the pattern invented by hearing individuals on the spot. In Study 2, we ask whether continued use of gesture as a primary communication system results in a pattern that is more similar to the morphophonological pattern found in conventional sign languages or to the pattern found in gesturers. Homesigners have not acquired a signed or spoken language and instead use a self-generated gesture system to communicate with their hearing family members and friends. We find that homesigners pattern more like signers than like gesturers: their finger complexity in object handshapes is higher than that of gesturers (indeed as high as signers); and their finger complexity in handling handshapes is lower than that of gesturers (but not quite as low as signers). Generally, our findings indicate two markers of the phonologization of handshape in sign languages: increasing finger complexity in object handshapes, and decreasing finger complexity in handling handshapes. These first indicators of phonology appear to be present in individuals developing a gesture system without benefit of a linguistic community. Finally, we propose that iconicity, morphology, and phonology each play an important role in the system of sign language classifiers to create the earliest markers of phonology at the morphophonological interface.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aronoff, Mark, and Wendy Sandler. 2009. Al-Sayyid Bedouin sign language: an autochthonous sign language of the Negev Desert. Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, February, 2009.

  • Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, Carol Padden, and Wendy Sandler. 2003. Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages. In Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, ed. Karen Emmorey, 53–86. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, and Wendy Sandler. 2005. The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81: 301–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedicto, Elena, and Diane Brentari. 2004. Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 1–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyes Braem, Penny. 1981. Distinctive features of the handshapes of American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Branson, Jan, Don Miller, and Gede Marsaja. 1996. Everyone here speaks sign language, too: A deaf village in Bali, Indonesia. In Multicultural aspects of sociolinguistics in deaf communities, ed. Ceil Lucas, 39–57. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brentari, Diane. 1990. Theoretical foundations in American Sign Language phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

  • Brentari, Diane. 1995. Sign language phonology: ASL. In Handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 615–639. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brentari, Diane. 2002. Modality Differences in sign language phonology and morphophonemics. In Modality in language and linguistic theory, eds. Richard Meier, David Quinto-Pozos, and Kearsy Cormier, 35–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brentari, Diane. 2011a. Handshape in sign language phonology. In Companion to phonology, eds. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice, 195–222. New York/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brentari, Diane. 2011b. Sign language phonology. In Handbook of phonological theory, eds. John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan Yu. New York/Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brentari, Diane, and Petra Eccarius. 2010. Handshape contrasts in sign language phonology. In Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, ed. Diane Brentari, 284–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brentari, Diane, and Carol Padden. 2001. A language with multiple origins: Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language. In Foreign vocabulary in sign language: A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation, ed. Diane Brentari, 87–119. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Robert. 1981. Semantic aspects of some Waris predications. In Syntax and semantics in Papua New Guinea languages, ed. Karl J. Franklin, 93–123. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, G. Nick. 2001. Representational economy in constraint-based phonology. In Distinctive feature theory, ed. Tracy A. Hall, 71–146. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppola, Marie. 2002. The emergence of grammatical categories in home sign: Evidence from family-based gesture systems in Nicaragua. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.

  • Coppola, Marie, and Elissa L. Newport. 2005. Grammatical Subjects in home sign: Abstract linguistic structure in adult primary gesture systems without linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102: 19249–19253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppola, Marie, and Ann Senghas. 2010. Deixis in an emerging sign language. In Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, ed. Diane Brentari, 543–569. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppola, Marie, and Wing Chee So. 2005. Abstract and object-anchored deixis: Pointing and spatial layout in adult homesign systems in Nicaragua. In Proceedings of the Boston University conference on language development, Vol. 29, eds. Alejna Brugos, Manuella R. Clark-Cotton, and Seungwan Ha, 144–155. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuxac, Christian. 2005. Le langage à la lumière des langues des signes. Psychiatrie Française 36: 69–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobrin, Lise. 1997. The morphosyntactic reality of phonological form. In Yearbook of morphology 1997, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 59–81. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccarius, Petra. 2008. A constraint-based account of handshape contrast in sign languages. PhD dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

  • Eccarius, Petra, and Diane Brentari. 2007. Symmetry and dominance: A cross-linguistic study of signs and classifier construction. Lingua 117: 1169–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccarius, Petra, and Diane Brentari. 2008. Handshape coding made easier: A theoretically based notation for phonological transcription. Sign Language and Linguistics 11: 69–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmorey, Karen. 2003. Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmorey, Karen, and Melissa Herzig. 2003. Categorical vs. gradient properties in classifier constructions in ASL. In Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, ed. Karen Emmorey, 221–246. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, Sarah, Bruce Morén, Robert Hoffmeister, and Brenda Schick. 2003. The acquisition of classifier phonology in ASL by deaf children. In Vol. 1 of Proceedings of the 27th annual Boston University conference on the development of language, 252–263. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flemming, Edward. 2002. Auditory representations in phonology. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortune, Reo F. 1942. Arapesh. Publications of the American Ethnological Society, no. 19. New York: J. Augustin.

  • Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51: 696–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fusellier-Souza, Ivani. 2006. Emergence and development of signed languages: From a semiogenetic point of view. Sign Language Studies 7: 30–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2003. The resilience of language. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Cynthia Butcher, Carolyn Mylander, and Mark Dodge. 1994. Nouns and verbs in a self-styled gesture system: What’s in a name? Cognitive Psychology 27: 259–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Carolyn Mylander, and Cynthia Butcher. 1995. The resilience of combinatorial structure at the word level: Morphology in self-styled gesture systems. Cognition 56: 195–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, Susan, David McNeill, and Jenny Singleton. 1996. Silence is liberating: Removing the handcuffs on grammatical expression in the manual modality. Psychological Review 103: 34–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Carolyn Mylander, and Amy Franklin. 2007. How children make language out of gesture: Morphological structure in gesture systems developed by American and Chinese deaf children. Cognitive Psychology 55: 87–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

  • Goldsmith, John. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groce, Nora E.. 1985. Everyone here spoke sign language: Hereditary deafness on Martha’s Vineyard. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Tracy A.. 2001. Distinctive feature theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara, Daisuke. 2003. A complexity-based approach to the syllable formation in sign language. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

  • Hinton, Leanne, Johanna Nichols, and John Ohala. 1994. Sound symbolism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, Wynn. 1992. Morphosyntax of the ASL verb phrase. PhD dissertation, SUNY, Buffalo, NY.

  • Jung, Ashley. 2008. Retelling of events: Responses from native signers and hearing gesturers. MA thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

  • Kegl, Judy. 1990. Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the ASL lexicon. In Sign language research: Theoretical issues, ed. Ceil Lucas, 149–175. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kegl, Judy, Ann Senghas, and Marie Coppola. 1999. Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. In Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development, ed. Michel DeGraff, 179–237. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. New York: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. In-Seok Yang, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liddell, Scott, and Robert Johnson. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64: 197–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma Newman, Roxana. 1971. Downstep in Ga’anda. Journal of African Languages 10: 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoni, Laura. 2008. Classificatori e impersonamento nella lingua dei segni Italiana. Pisa: Plus.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John. 1979. Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

  • Meir, Irit. 2002. A cross-modality prespective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20: 413–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff, and Wendy Sandler. 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43: 531–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden, and Mark Aronoff. 2010. Emerging sign languages. In Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, eds. Marc Marschark and Patricia E. Spencer, 267–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napier, John R.. 1956. The prehensile movements of the human hand. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 38B: 902–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nobile, Luca. 2008. The grammatical monophonemes of Standard Italian. Cognitive Philology 1: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyst, Victoria. 2010. Sign language varieties in West Africa. In Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, ed. Diane Brentari, 405–432. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padden, Carol. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, Mark Aronoff, and Wendy Sandler. 2010. The grammar of space in two new sign languages. In Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, ed. Diane Brentari, 570–592. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, Jaye. 2003. The emergence of contrastive palatalization in Russian. In Optimality theory and language change (studies in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 56), ed. Eric Holt, 307–335. Secaucus/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, Wendy, and Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, Wendy, Irit Meir, Carol Padden, and Mark Aronoff. 2005. The emergence of grammar in a new sign language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102: 2661–2665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, Wendy, Mark Aronoff, Irit Meir, and Carol Padden. 2012. The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(1).

  • Schembri, Adam, Caroline Jones, and Denis Burnham. 2005. Comparing action gestures and classifier verbs of motion: Evidence from Australian Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language, and nonsigners’ gestures without speech. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10: 272–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schick, Brenda. 1987. The acquisition of classifier predicates in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

  • Senghas, Ann. 1995. Children’s contribution to the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

  • Senghas, Ann. 2003. Intergenerational influence and ontogenetic development in the emergence of spatial grammar in Nicaraguan sign language. Cognitive Development 18: 511–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senghas, Ann, and Marie Coppola. 2001. Children creating language: How Nicaraguan Sign Language acquired a spatial grammar. Psychological Science 12: 323–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senghas, Ann, Sotaro Kita, and Asli Özyürek. 2004. Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science 305: 1779–1782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singleton, Jenny, Jill Morford, and Susan Goldin-Meadow. 1993. Once is not enough: Standards of well-formedness in manual communication created over three different timespans. Language 69: 683–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In Handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 114–174. Cambridge: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Supalla, Ted. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language, PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.

  • Supalla, Ted. 2008. Sign language archeology: Integrating historical linguistics with fieldwork on young sign languages. In Sign Languages: Spinning and unraveling the past, present and future, ed. Ronice Müller de Quadros, 574–583. Petrópolis: Editora Arara Azul.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Hulst, Harry. 1993. Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology 10: 209–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Hulst, Harry. 1995. The composition of handshapes. University of Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics: 1–18.

  • van der Hulst, Harry, and Els van der Kooij. 2006. Phonetic implementation and phonetic pre-specification in sign language phonology. In Laboratory Phonology 8, eds. Louis Goldstein, Douglas H. Whalen, and Catherine T. Best, 265–286. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van der Kooij, Els. 2002. Reducing phonological categories in sign language of the Netherlands: Phonetic implementation and iconic motivation. Manuscript, LOT (Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics) Utrecht, The Netherlands.

  • Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1989. Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Zheng. 2007. Inflectional morphology in optimality theory, PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Stony Brook.

  • Zwitserlood, Inge. 2003. Classifying hand configuration in Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Manuscript, LOT (Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics), Leiden, The Netherlands.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago, 1010 East 59th Street, Chicago, IL, 60637-1512, USA

    Diane Brentari

  2. Departments of Psychology and Linguistics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

    Marie Coppola

  3. Linguistics Department, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

    Laura Mazzoni

  4. Departments of Psychology and Comparative Human Development, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Susan Goldin-Meadow

Authors
  1. Diane Brentari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie Coppola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laura Mazzoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susan Goldin-Meadow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diane Brentari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Mazzoni, L. et al. When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 30, 1–31 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9145-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9145-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation