The signs B and B‐bent in Israeli sign language according to the theory of Phonology as Human Behavior

Abstract

The purpose of the present research is to examine which of the two factors: (1) the iconic-semiotic factor; or (2) the human-phonetic factor is more relevant in explaining the appearance and distribution of the hand shape B-bent in Israeli Sign Language (ISL). The B-bent shape has been the subject of much attention in sign language research revolving around the question of its status as a phoneme. The arguments supporting the phonemic status of the B-bent hand shape have been primarily based on the semiotic opposition between the hand shape B and the hand shape B-bent. It has been claimed that in Italian Sign Language the hand shape B is perceptually distinct from the hand shape B-bent, i.e. in opposition to the general, neutral, unmarked meaning of the hand shape B, the iconic hand shape B-bent has a more narrow, specific and marked meaning: DELIMIT. The B-bent hand shape appears in spatial-temporal signs such as "a little before, ahead, postpone or behind". In these signs the iconic structure of the hand shape B-bent is utilized to mark borders in space and time. The arguments opposing the perceptual/phonemic distinction between these hand shapes is based on the human-phonetic factor, i.e. the need to reduce the effort on the part of the wrist joints in specific phonetic environments. We performed a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the distribution of the basic units of 560 lexical signs taken from a stratified random sample from the ISL dictionary. The results were analyzed in the framework of the sign-oriented linguistic theory of the Columbia School including the theory of Phonology as Human Behavior. Our data revealed that the B-bent hand shape--as all the "building blocks" of the ISL--is a morpho-phonemic unit. We found that there is not only a phonemic distinction between hand shape B and hand shape B-bent in ISL (based on minimal pairs), but there is also a perceptual distinction between them. The qualitative analysis shows that the distribution of the B and the B-bent shapes in the lexicon of ISL is not random but rather motivated by a specific iconic meaning attached to each one of them. The results of our research lead to the conclusion that iconicity is the dominant explanatory factor in the Phonology of ISL.

Phonological and morphological faces

“…The manual parameters of handshape, location, and movement, regarded as the discrete meaningless units of sign language phonology, behave like independently meaningful morphemes in classifier constructions (Sandler 2009: 261), and the distribution of certain handshapes within the lexicon has been shown to be better explained by their meaning (i.e. their morphological potential) than their form (Fuks & Tobin 2008). Evidence cited in Blevins (2012) indicates that for spoken languages, too, there are cases in the lexicon in which duality of patterning is not found -that is, there exist morphemes that cannot be further broken down into meaningless units.…”

Comparing and Contrasting Natural Phonology, Optimality Theory and the Theory of Phonology as Human Behavior

“…for NP: Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and Przedlacka 2005; Dziubalska- Kołaczyk and Weckwerth 2003;Grunwell 1987;Ingram 1990;Wrembel 2005; e.g. for PHB: Tobin 2006, 2007;Fuks and Tobin 2008;Green and Tobin 2008a-b;Halpern and Tobin 2008;Reid 1991;Tobin 1995Tobin , 1997. OT, alternatively, may be viewed as being both formal and ecological in the sense that it, too, has branched out into developmental and clinical applications (e.g.…”

Looking at Sign Language as a Visual and Gestural Shorthand

“…Sign language is based on units that represent a combination of hand-shapes and gestures which have an orientation and movement to various parts of the body -all of which not only possess meaning -but are iconic rather than arbitrary in nature. Thus sign language is fundamentally visual and iconic (Fuks 2008;Fuks and Tobin 2008). Therefore it is our contention that the traditional concepts of spoken language are neither appropriate nor suitable for sign language and a different approach to analyze sign language will be suggested in this paper.…”