Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 1–31 | Cite as

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

  • Diane Brentari
  • Marie Coppola
  • Laura Mazzoni
  • Susan Goldin-Meadow
Article

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.

Keywords

Sign language Phonology Morphology Homesign Gesture Language evolution Historical change Handshape Classifier predicates 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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. Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, and Wendy Sandler. 2005. The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81: 301–344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyes Braem, Penny. 1981. Distinctive features of the handshapes of American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Brentari, Diane. 1990. Theoretical foundations in American Sign Language phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Google Scholar
  8. Brentari, Diane. 1995. Sign language phonology: ASL. In Handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 615–639. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Google Scholar
  9. Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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. Google Scholar
  18. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Cuxac, Christian. 2005. Le langage à la lumière des langues des signes. Psychiatrie Française 36: 69–86. Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Eccarius, Petra. 2008. A constraint-based account of handshape contrast in sign languages. PhD dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Google Scholar
  24. Eccarius, Petra, and Diane Brentari. 2007. Symmetry and dominance: A cross-linguistic study of signs and classifier construction. Lingua 117: 1169–1201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eccarius, Petra, and Diane Brentari. 2008. Handshape coding made easier: A theoretically based notation for phonological transcription. Sign Language and Linguistics 11: 69–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Emmorey, Karen. 2003. Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language. Hamburg: Signum Verlag. Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Flemming, Edward. 2002. Auditory representations in phonology. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  31. Fortune, Reo F. 1942. Arapesh. Publications of the American Ethnological Society, no. 19. New York: J. Augustin. Google Scholar
  32. Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51: 696–719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fusellier-Souza, Ivani. 2006. Emergence and development of signed languages: From a semiogenetic point of view. Sign Language Studies 7: 30–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2003. The resilience of language. New York: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
  35. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  40. Goldsmith, John. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  41. Groce, Nora E.. 1985. Everyone here spoke sign language: Hereditary deafness on Martha’s Vineyard. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  42. Hall, Tracy A.. 2001. Distinctive feature theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  43. Hara, Daisuke. 2003. A complexity-based approach to the syllable formation in sign language. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Google Scholar
  44. Hinton, Leanne, Johanna Nichols, and John Ohala. 1994. Sound symbolism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  45. Janis, Wynn. 1992. Morphosyntax of the ASL verb phrase. PhD dissertation, SUNY, Buffalo, NY. Google Scholar
  46. Jung, Ashley. 2008. Retelling of events: Responses from native signers and hearing gesturers. MA thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. New York: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  50. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. In-Seok Yang, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin. Google Scholar
  51. Liddell, Scott, and Robert Johnson. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64: 197–277. Google Scholar
  52. Ma Newman, Roxana. 1971. Downstep in Ga’anda. Journal of African Languages 10: 15–27. Google Scholar
  53. Mazzoni, Laura. 2008. Classificatori e impersonamento nella lingua dei segni Italiana. Pisa: Plus. Google Scholar
  54. McCarthy, John. 1979. Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  55. Meir, Irit. 2002. A cross-modality prespective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20: 413–450. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff, and Wendy Sandler. 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43: 531–563. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Napier, John R.. 1956. The prehensile movements of the human hand. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 38B: 902–913. Google Scholar
  59. Nobile, Luca. 2008. The grammatical monophonemes of Standard Italian. Cognitive Philology 1: 1–6. Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Padden, Carol. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland Press. Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  65. Sandler, Wendy, and Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  66. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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). Google Scholar
  68. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schick, Brenda. 1987. The acquisition of classifier predicates in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Google Scholar
  70. Senghas, Ann. 1995. Children’s contribution to the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  71. Senghas, Ann. 2003. Intergenerational influence and ontogenetic development in the emergence of spatial grammar in Nicaraguan sign language. Cognitive Development 18: 511–531. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Senghas, Ann, and Marie Coppola. 2001. Children creating language: How Nicaraguan Sign Language acquired a spatial grammar. Psychological Science 12: 323–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In Handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 114–174. Cambridge: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  76. Supalla, Ted. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language, PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Google Scholar
  77. 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
  78. van der Hulst, Harry. 1993. Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology 10: 209–241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. van der Hulst, Harry. 1995. The composition of handshapes. University of Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics: 1–18. Google Scholar
  80. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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. Google Scholar
  82. Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1989. Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  83. Xu, Zheng. 2007. Inflectional morphology in optimality theory, PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Stony Brook. Google Scholar
  84. Zwitserlood, Inge. 2003. Classifying hand configuration in Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Manuscript, LOT (Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics), Leiden, The Netherlands. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diane Brentari
    • 1
  • Marie Coppola
    • 2
  • Laura Mazzoni
    • 3
  • Susan Goldin-Meadow
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Psychology and LinguisticsUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  3. 3.Linguistics DepartmentUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  4. 4.Departments of Psychology and Comparative Human DevelopmentUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations