Handshape contrasts in sign language phonology

Goldin‐Meadow

2017

Annu. Rev. Linguist.

Self Cite

Language emergence describes moments in historical time when nonlinguistic systems become linguistic. Because language can be invented de novo in the manual modality, this offers insight into the emergence of language in ways that the oral modality cannot. Here we focus on homesign, gestures developed by deaf individuals who cannot acquire spoken language and have not been exposed to sign language. We contrast homesign with (a) gestures that hearing individuals produce when they speak, as these cospeech gestures are a potential source of input to homesigners, and (b) established sign languages, as these codified systems display the linguistic structure that homesign has the potential to assume. We find that the manual modality takes on linguistic properties, even in the hands of a child not exposed to a language model. But it grows into full-blown language only with the support of a community that transmits the system to the next generation.*

Section: Homesign Compared With Emerging and Established Sign Langsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Homesign Compared With Emerging and Established Sign Langmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Homesign Compared With Emerging and Established Sign Langmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Language Emergence

Goldin‐Meadow

2017

Annu. Rev. Linguist.

Self Cite

“…Eccarius (2008) and Brentari and Eccarius (2010) demonstrated using archival data and grammaticality judgments that Object-CLs and Handling-CLs differ in their distribution of finger complexity. Object-CLs have a larger set of finger distinctions and more finger complexity than Handling-CLs in three historically unrelated sign languages—ASL, DSGS and HKSL, as shown in Figure 4.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

Coppola

Mazzoni

et al. 2011

Self Cite

132

137

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.

“…Data from other languages were also collected for cross-linguistic comparison (see Eccarius 2008;Brentari & Eccarius 2010), but because of space issues, we do not include those analyses here. Despite the iconic potential for using the stacked feature, not all sign languages exploit this type of iconicity in the 'by-legs' classifier.…”

Section: The Modest Asymmetry Case: Distribution Of the Feature [Stacmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Eccarius

2010

SL&L

Self Cite

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.