A formal analysis of phonological contrast and iconicity in sign language handshapes

Abstract

This paper discusses the role of iconicity in sign language phonology by utilizing recently developed tools available in the areas of phonological contrast and feature distribution. In particular, we explain the degree to which iconic elements of handshape interact with the feature system of sign language handshapes in different components of the lexicon, by making specific reference to handshape features that specify joint position. We then discuss similarities and differences between signed languages and spoken languages and the implications for a theory of features that might adequately capture phenomena in both communication modalities. Although cross-linguistic data have been collected and analyzed in this regard, we focus on data from American Sign Language in this work.

Phonological reduplication in sign language: Rules rule

“… 3 The algebraic account is further challenged by the iconicity of signs (Ormel et al, 2009 ; Eccarius and Brentari, 2010 ; Thompson et al, 2010 ; Brentari, 2011 ), which has been shown to affect their on-line processing by adults (Thompson et al, 2009 , 2010 ), children (Ormel et al, 2009 ) and infants (Thompson et al, 2012 ; but see Emmorey et al, 2004 ; Bosworth and Emmorey, 2010 ). Iconicity implies that the representation of signs is continuous and analog, not discrete and digital, as required by the algebraic proposal.…”

“…However, the effects of iconicity are not specific to sign language (for a recent review of spoken language, see Schmidtke et al, 2014 ). Moreover, the encoding of phonetic and embodied aspects of signed and spoken words does not preclude the existence of a second format of representation that is algebraic, abstract and fully productive (Brentari, 2007 ; Mahon and Caramazza, 2008 ; Eccarius and Brentari, 2010 ).…”

Perceptual categorization of handling handshapes in British Sign Language

“…Handling handshapes tend to be highly analogue and less conventionalized, and the problem that these forms represent for linguistic analyses is how such forms, which may not be completely discrete, can be described (van der Kooij, 2002). Despite the apparent productive and analogue appearance of handling constructions, some researchers have asserted that DCs contain discrete handshapes that function as morphemes (Eccarius & Brentari, 2010; McDonald, 1982; Slobin et al, 2003; Supalla, 1986, 2003; Zwitserlood, 2003). Others have argued against such an analysis because depicting handshapes appear to vary in a non-discrete and analogue fashion (de Matteo, 1977; Mandel, 1977; for further discussion see Schembri, 2003).…”