Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Sign Language Handshapes: The Taiwanese Example

FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet 9/7/06 11:56 AM Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Sign Language Handshap...

Author: Jean Ann

136 downloads 626 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet

9/7/06

11:56 AM

Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Sign Language Handshapes

Page i


9/7/06

11:56 AM

Page ii


9/7/06

11:56 AM

Page iii

Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Sign Language Handshapes The Taiwanese Example Jean Ann

Gallaudet University Press Washington, D.C.


9/7/06

11:56 AM

Page iv

Gallaudet University Press Washington, D.C. 20002 http://gupress.gallaudet.edu © 2006 by Gallaudet University All rights reserved Published in 2006 Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ann, Jean Frequency of occurrence and ease of articulation of sign language handshapes : the Taiwanese example / Jean Ann. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-56368-288-5 (alk. paper) 1. Taiwan Sign Language. I. Title. HV2474.A55 2000 419'.51249—dc22 2006010157

⬁ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of 䊊 American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.


9/7/06

11:56 AM

Page v

To my mother, Marian Jeanne Savoca Griffin, and the memory of my father, Patrick Joseph Griffin. From the first time I insisted on reading them The Cat in the Hat all by myself, I have loved language. Their stoking of that fire eventually led me to become a linguist. And to my parents-in-law, Zhang Da-yin and Peng Jin-de, who teach me, ever so gently, about language and living in a foreign land with dignity and courage. I honor them all for what they have given me, and for what they keep letting me believe I can do.


9/7/06

11:56 AM

Page vi


9/7/06

11:56 AM

Page vii

Contents Acknowledgments

ix

Chapter One

Contextualizing this Book

1

Chapter Two

The Anatomy and Physiology of the Human Hand

Chapter Three A Model of Ease of

56

87

Handshape Articulation Chapter Four Ease and Frequency Compared

139

Conclusion

181

References

191

Index

205

vii


9/7/06

11:56 AM

Page viii


9/7/06

11:56 AM

Page ix

Acknowledgments About fifteen years ago, I read four things that rocked my world: a thenunpublished paper by David Corina and Elizabeth Sagey, Mark Mandel’s dissertation, drafts of Grounded Phonology by Diana Archangeli and Doug Pulleyblank, and some of the work of John Ohala. Since then, the idea of articulation of handshapes has bothered me night and day. I ended up writing a 1993 dissertation on the topic. Perhaps I should have left it at that, but I didn’t. This book is a much-revised and updated version of my dissertation. Doing this project gave me chances to live in places from southern Taiwan to central New York and to work with a delightful array of both linguists and regular people. The clearest way to express my gratitude to the many who have supported me as I wrote this book is to tell the stories of my encounters with each. But because those stories are another book, it will have to suffice to reduce the stories to names and a few words of thanks and praise. I hope I have thanked everyone who helped me; for anyone I have inadvertently left out, I offer apologies and thanks. At the University of Arizona, first and foremost, Mike Hammond gave me the space to try to think about functional questions in a formal department. If he had not let me be where I was, I would not have been able to begin this journey. Diana Archangeli’s careful attention to my writing and analysis was a gift. Sam Supalla’s insights about sign languages and his willingness to make time for me were invaluable. I was encouraged by Doug Saddy, Wendy Wiswall, Tom Bourgeois, Masahide

ix


x

9/7/06

11:56 AM

Page x

Acknowledgments

Ishihara, David Basilico, Raquel Mejia, Jorge Lemus, Lee Fulmer, Carol Braithwaite, Husni Muadz, Larry Hagberg, Steven Zepp, Chip Gerfen, Pilar Piñar, Laura Conway, Anna Ciszewska-Wilkens, Kyoko Yoshimura, Colleen Fitzgerald, Ken Drozd, Prapa Sookgasem, Cari Spring, Megan Crowhurst, Elizabeth Dyckman, Judy Linnane, David Bergheim, and Rosemary “interosseous” Emery. A special expression of thanks is due my friends Diane Ohala, Diane Meador, and Pat (Patep) Pérez who steered when I could not. I owe a debt to a few people outside the University of Arizona who also assisted me. Wayne Smith welcomed me to TSL research with open arms and freely shared his encyclopedic knowledge of the language and the people. Sandy Sasarita guided me gently through hand physiology and had unfailing enthusiasm for the project. Raquel Willerman shared her insights about ease of articulation in spoken languages. Yau Shun Chiu talked with me at length about the sign language of mainland China. Enriched with all of this, I left Arizona in 1992. In every place I have been since, as I have worked on this project sporadically, students and colleagues have helped with things from statistics, to computers, to linguistics, to publication, to writing, to physical and emotional well-being. At Purdue University, help came in the form of Ronnie Wilbur, Maggie Rolfe, Chen Nien-Po, Homayoun Valafar, and Jian Zhao. At National University of Singapore, K. P. Mohanan, Tara Mohanan, David Gil, and Bruce Long Peng started many enlightening and exciting conversations about understanding language from a formal perspective. Geraint Wong translated some written materials. At San José State University, Martha Bean and I discussed writing and staying sane in linguistics. At Gallaudet University, the inimitable Ceil Lucas encouraged me to share my work. At S.U.N.Y. Oswego, the “semi-linguists” in my writing group, Sharon Kane, Bobbi Schnorr, Chris Walsh, Bonita Hampton, Tania Ramalho, Barb Beyerbach, and Mary Harrell took on the task of helping me make the manuscript make sense to readers. I thank them all for the attention they paid to my work despite being much too busy with their own. Pat Russo and Pam Michel helped me to insist and persist. Theresa Bilodeau carefully worked on


9/7/06

11:56 AM

Page xi

Acknowledgments

xi

the frequency numbers. Sarah Mahan adapted and drew many of the pictures in this book. Wayne Smith and Ting Li Fen, who literally “wrote the book” on Taiwan Sign Language, allowed me to reproduce pictures of handshapes from their works Your Hands Can Become a Bridge, volumes 1 and 2. All pictures come from their work, unless otherwise noted. There were others, from here and there and from time to time, who assisted me, some of whom I have not yet met in person. First, the suggestions of an anonymous reviewer at Gallaudet University Press pushed me to rethink both the theory and the data in my dissertation by causing me to face the question of formalism versus functionalism in sign language linguistics. I hope what has resulted helps our field move forward. Shaun O’Connor, Isabel Davis, Susan Fischer, Richard Meier, Chiangsheng Yu, Jeff Davis, David Corina, Susan Duncan, Wendy Sandler, Joan Bybee, Mark Mandel, Bill Stokoe, Vincent van Heuven, Onno Crasborn, James Woodward, Els van de Kooij, and Harry van der Hulst all have amazing and useful insights into different areas of life, writing, and language, and they all helped me to have faith in the ideas and keep working on them. And Vera Baquet, Melinda Stone, Nan Uber, Terence Dulin, and especially Susan B. Brown helped me work on things much closer to home. I am so grateful to them for their excellent listening and for sharing their thinking with me. And for their embrace and their laughter through all the things that life brings, I thank my sisters Dorothy Mancuso, Audrey Gray, and Emmy Nelson and my brothersin-law Anthony Mancuso, Jim Gray, and Jim Nelson and all my kids, Andrea, Patrick, Marty, Matthew, Warren, Jimmy, and Brian. In the course of completing this book, I traveled to Taiwan four times. In the beginning, it was John D’Andrea, Zhang Shi, Zhang Da-yin, and especially Jane Tsay who kept me in touch, translating and interpreting correspondence, articles, and dictionaries. During my early visits, professional courtesies were extended to me by Chiang Ssu Nung and Chiang Jenn Tsyi from the Chiying School in Kaohsiung and by Shyue Jian Wu, Jennifer Song, D. J. Guan, and S. Y. Wang at National Sun Yat-sen University in Kaohsiung. By 2003, my colleagues and friends


xii

9/7/06

11:56 AM

Page xii

Acknowledgments

James Myers and Jane Tsay of the Graduate Institute in Linguistics at National Chung Cheng University in Chia-yi had invited me to Taiwan for an incredible event: the first international Taiwan Sign Language Linguistics Symposium. At that time, the three of us made a plan to help me finish the book. I am overwhelmed by and grateful for their longstanding encouragement of me and my work, ever since we were graduate students at Arizona, and it is absolutely clear that if they had not provided extensive help with the data, the book would never have been finished. Their graduate students, Chang Feng Ru, Lin Fang Yu, Su Shioufen, Tsou Ya-ching, Lee Yan-an, Chiu Cheng-hao, and especially Lee Hsin-Hsien deserve abundant thanks. Of all the experiences I have had connected to this book, the most fun has been to learn about language from members of southern Taiwan’s Deaf community. During my first trip to Kaohsiung, only one of the people I met had heard of the legendary work of Wayne Smith and Ting Li Fen years before in Taipei; most were unfamiliar with linguistics and linguists. And yet, somehow, they answered “linguist” questions, told me how things were said in their language, introduced me to their friends, and helped me make Kaohsiung home. For taking this leap of faith, I thank Lin Fang Shi, Wong Tzuu Pin, Wong Yeh Yeong, Tsay Jiazhen, Chung Ru Feng, and others who wish to remain anonymous. The small corpus analyzed in this book comes from conversational data of native signers Lu Jia-li, Cai Jia-zhen, Wu Su-li, and Wu Yi-san. A few words here will not begin to express my thanks to all of these people for their enormous contribution to my understanding of sign languages and of life. I can only hope that this book will, however indirectly, make a contribution to their lives as significant as the one they made to mine. Since the beginning of this project, I have been very fortunate to receive funding from important sources. In 1990, the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council with the Chiang Ching-Kuo Foundation awarded me a dissertation grant to go to Kaohsiung to collect data. In 1992, the American Association of University Women provided me with a grant that supported the final year of writing the dissertation. In 2000, I received a Scholarly and


9/7/06

11:56 AM

Page xiii

Acknowledgments

xiii

Creative Activities award from S.U.N.Y. Oswego that freed up some time to write. In 2001, 2003, and 2005, I was able to secure student help thanks to small grants from the Oswego chapter of United University Professions as part of the negotiated Joint Labor Management Professional Development and Quality of Work Life program. In 2003, I received an International Education grant from S.U.N.Y. Oswego to attend the TSL Linguistics Symposium. In 2005, I made the final revisions to this book during my sabbatical at National Chung Cheng University, which was made possible through a second grant from the Chiang Ching-Kuo Foundation. I am extremely grateful to all these funding sources. Their willingness to persistently fund this project indicates a great need to know what the study of Taiwan Sign Language and the people who use it might reveal. I am indebted to Deirdre Mullervy and Ivey Wallace at Gallaudet University Press who were patient and understanding of the many delays. Mary Gawlik, the copy editor, righted many wrongs. For any errors that remain, I take full responsibility. And at last, I offer unbridled gratitude to Bruce Long Peng. Adventures such as this one are even better when one has a home. Peng Long moves mountains to make ours a loving home where we can write, think, and laugh. He takes on all the burden of being my partner, favorite linguist, revered chef, most efficient travel agent, most constructive critic, loudest cheerleader, and dearest friend. He has been beside me every step of the way, and without his considerable and much cherished influence in my life as a linguist and as a human being, I cannot imagine having come this far.


9/7/06

11:56 AM

Page xiv

ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 1

Chapter One

Contextualizing this Book In the late 1960s, a surprising claim was made: the gestures that American Deaf people use in communication with one another actually had all the properties of a language (Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg 1965). Part of the evidence advanced to support this claim was that ASL signs, analogous to spoken words, were composed of parts that combined to form larger, meaningful units. These parts were originally proposed to be handshape, palm orientation, location, and movement (Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg 1965; Battison 1978). With this claim, American Sign Language (ASL) became a topic of interest to linguists. Indeed, from that time to the present, linguists have investigated many sign languages. This book is concerned neither with the totality of the unit we know as a sign nor with any linguistic unit larger than a sign. Rather, it examines the parameter of a sign that is known in the literature as handshape. The relationship between a handshape and a sign is that of part to whole. A sign is made up of one handshape (or more, depending on the sign) with the palm oriented in a particular way within a particular location and, perhaps, with movement of the fingers or movement of the hand along a path. Handshape refers to the configuration of the fingers as a sign is articulated, for example, the “thumbs-up” handshape or the “peace sign” handshape pictured in figure 1. Throughout this work, the handshape labeled figure 1a is described as having the thumb extended and the rest of the fingers closed to the palm. The handshape labeled figure 1b is

1


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Chapter One

2

a. Figure 1

Page 2

b.

Some handshapes

described as having the index and middle fingers extended while the thumb, middle, and ring fingers are closed to the palm. All other handshapes are described in similar terms. ASL and some of the sign languages of Europe, including SLN (Sign Language of the Netherlands) and SSL (Swedish Sign Language), are probably the world’s most studied sign languages. A gap continues to widen between the study of these and other North American and European sign languages, not to mention the sign languages in use on other continents. In this book, I focus on Taiwan Sign Language (TSL), an under-studied sign language, but one of the more studied sign languages of Asia. In a nutshell, this book examines the relationship between frequency of occurrence of handshape and ease of articulation of handshape. About fifty-six handshapes have been discovered for TSL (Smith and Ting 1979, 1984). The null hypothesis would predict that all fiftysix handshapes ought to occur with equal frequency in TSL. However, this conjecture is not the case; in fact, some handshapes occur with much greater frequency than others. Why should this variation occur? Linguists might hypothesize that ease of articulation has something to do with this phenomenon. In other words, the handshapes that are used most frequently are the easiest to articulate or make. This book examines that hypothesis.


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 3


3

APPROACHES TO LINGUISTIC STUDY One way linguists seek to understand the structure and function of language in general is by focusing on a specific phenomenon in one language. The questions that I examine concern the relationship between frequency of occurrence and ease of articulation with respect to handshapes in TSL. More precisely, how are easy-to-articulate and difficultto-articulate handshapes distributed in TSL? Do easy handshapes occur frequently and difficult handshapes occur less frequently? Or does some other relationship exist between ease of articulation of handshapes and frequency of occurrence, if a relationship exists at all? The context of these questions needs to be made clear at the outset to establish how answers might be reached. Because linguists have explored the ideas of both ease of articulation and frequency of occurrence largely in the context of an approach known as functionalism, and not in the context of an alternate approach known as formalism, I discuss these approaches to linguistic study first. In modern linguistics, researchers have taken diverse positions with respect to how to approach the task of understanding language. These positions are said to include two general approaches known as formalism and functionalism (Newmeyer 1998). The preoccupations of each approach are different, and as a result, each has divergent views on some rather serious issues, including (a) the facts about language that need to be “explained” (Newmeyer 1998, 96); (b) the domains worth exploring in search of “explanation” (Newmeyer 1998, 96); (c) what counts as an “explanation” (Newmeyer 1998, 96–97); and (d) the goals of linguistic analysis (Haspelmath 2000, 236). The task of fully describing formalist and functionalist perspectives on all of these issues is beyond the scope of this book and might even be impossible because one cannot always clearly distinguish one way of thinking in relation to the other, and overlap between positions certainly exists. Consequently, researchers who call themselves formalists do not necessarily agree about every aspect of formal linguistic analysis, nor do all who call themselves functionalists always agree on


4

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 4

Chapter One

a functional analysis (Newmeyer 1998). Nevertheless, it is possible to crystallize the basic ideas in each of these schools of thought in a way that clarifies how linguists from different perspectives try to understand human language. In general, formal linguists believe that languages are internally constrained. In other words, grammars have their own internal logic, separate from anything else in human cognition (Newmeyer 1998). Functional linguists take a very different view. They believe that the constraints on linguistic structure may arise from anatomy or physiology of the vocal tract; the perceptual system; general cognitive constraints; and psychological, psycholinguistic, or sociolinguistic concerns and aspects of how language is used. Newmeyer (1998) claims that too strict a dichotomization of these views results in oversimplification and suggests that formalists and functionalists seek both internal and external explanation. In addition to diverse views on the source of constraints, formal and functional linguists have differences of opinion on other matters. For example, formal linguists, following de Saussure (1916) and Chomsky (1965), distinguish the notions of linguistic competence (i.e., what a speaker knows) from linguistic performance (i.e., what a speaker actually does). Linguistic competence refers to linguistic knowledge that humans have even when they cannot actually act on that knowledge. For example, factors such as alcohol consumption or exhaustion affect, not competence, but performance in such a way that speakers might slur or have difficulty recalling words. Speakers who are affected in this way clearly have competence in their languages, but under adverse conditions, might be unable to perform in the optimal way. The research agenda in formal linguistics attempts to get at what speakers know, but considers what speakers actually do as relatively uninteresting (Newmeyer 1998; Bybee and Hopper 2001). Therefore, a formal linguist seeking grammaticality judgments might invent a sentence (e.g., Who does Grace know Sue saw?) without concern as to whether that sentence either has ever been said or is likely to be said.


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 5


5

In the thinking of many functional linguists, a sentence such as that one might be grammatical but, if it is rarely, if ever, uttered, then it becomes irrelevant because speakers choose other ways to get across the same idea (Newmeyer 1998). Those linguists question the theories that have been built on grammaticality judgments of those obscure sentences. To a formal linguist (who might well admit that sentences such as Who does Grace know Sue saw? are relatively rare in occurrence), the overriding issue is whether such a sentence could be said (and considered grammatical) in some situation. The fact that it rarely, if ever, is uttered is a matter of little importance. Functional linguists question the value of dichotomizing competence (what we know) and performance (what we actually say) (Bybee 2001b). After all, as Bybee and Hopper (2001) point out, “outside linguistics, it is widely held that cognitive representations are highly affected by experience” (1). Thus, for the functional linguist, the data of interest involve what is actually spoken, not what merely might happen to be spoken. In keeping with their approach, functional linguists tend to use as data corpora of sentences that have been spoken in natural speech. Clearly, formal and functional linguistics have different preoccupations and goals. As Newmeyer (1998) explains, [f ]unctionalist work, then, is not addressed to formulating grammarinternal principles characterizing the well- or ill-formedness of a set of sentences. Instead, a generalization about grammatical patterning might be attributed to the most orderly or efficient means of conveying information, the desirability of foregrounding or backgrounding events in the discourse, the speaker’s desire for economy, the hearer’s demand for clarity, or cognitive propensities not specific to language such as a general preference for iconic over arbitrary representations, and so on. (10–11)

To better understand the approaches of formalism and functionalism, we need to consider how both play out in specific areas of lin-


6

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 6

Chapter One

guistic study. Syntactic analysis has been conducted by both formalists and functionalists. Although proponents of each know the general character of one another’s work, they do not know much about one another’s philosophical positions and consequent research paradigms (Newmeyer 1998). In the 1990s, researchers became interested in articulating the differences between formalist and functionalist approaches as well as their respective advantages and disadvantages, particularly, in relation to syntactic questions (Newmeyer 1998; Darnell et al. 1999; Haspelmath 2000). Functional linguists have made a number of observations about syntax that most formal linguists accept as true. Despite this acceptance, these observations have not been made part of formal syntactic theories (Bybee 2001a). Despite efforts at understanding one another, a gulf between the two approaches clearly remains. In phonology, too, we find this sort of dichotomy between formal and functional approaches (Hayes 1999; Bybee 1999). Most phonologists accept the idea—a functionalist idea by its very nature—that the tension between the need to minimize articulatory effort and to minimize perceptual confusion results in human languages sounding the way they do (Passy 1891; Boersma 1998). It has long been tacitly understood that functionalism in phonology “is phonetic in character” (Hayes 1999, 243). Phonetic motivation (motivation from the articulation, acoustics, or perception of speech) has always been sought as motivation for phonological phenomena (that occur in the sound system overall) (Bybee 2001b). Yet the idea that understandings from phonology and phonetics are crucial to each other and very closely linked has a somewhat uneasy following, and many (e.g., Keating 1996; Lindblom 2000; Lindblom 1992; Ohala 1990; Myers 1997) have described a gulf between phonetics and phonology. This uncomfortable relationship, however, seems to be changing. Lindblom (2000) notes that relatively new theories of articulatory phonology (Browman and Goldstein 1990a, 1990b), laboratory phonology (Pierrehumbert, Beckman, and Ladd 1996), and


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 7


7

optimality theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) are connecting phonological and phonetic findings, as grounding theory (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994) had tried to do. More recently, an “effort-based” approach to understanding phonological phenomena (see Kirchner 2001) and “phonetically based” phonology (Hayes, Kirchner, and Steriade 2004) are gaining attention from phonologists. In this mildly chaotic context, then, this book tries to pave the way for talking about TSL phonology by focusing on aspects of the language (connected to ease of articulation) and aspects of the way that TSL is used (connected to frequency of occurrence). FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND FORMAL LINGUISTICS For formal linguists, word frequency is “a matter of linguistic performance rather than competence” (Pierrehumbert 2001, 138–9), consequently, the subject is not of much interest. Bybee (2000) explains that “structuralist and generative theories assume that the lexicon is a static list, and that neither the rules nor the lexical forms of a language are changed at all by instances of use” (14). Citing Pierrehumbert (1999a), Bybee (2000) notes that optimality theory (Hayes 1999; Prince and Smolensky 1993, 1997) “posits a strict separation of lexicon and grammar that makes it impossible to describe any of the interactions of phonology with the lexicon that are attested in the literature” (14). Nevertheless, though few would argue that frequency figures prominently into the problems or explanations of formal linguistic theories (Pierrehumbert 2001), formalists certainly make use of and rely on related ideas. The basic goal of formal linguistics is to answer the question What is a possible human language? To this end, formal phonologists find asymmetries in phonologies. Asymmetries can be discovered by ascertaining whether something is attested and something else is unattested where we might have expected it to occur. Under this scenario, the


8

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 8

Chapter One

possibilities are simply that some pattern or segment is attested or unattested. An example of this kind of a pattern is the occurrence of permissible “s-stop” clusters in English. Because we frequently find voiceless obstruents together and almost never find mixed pairs of obstruents, we say that [sp], [st], and [sk] are permissible clusters in English but that *[sb], *[sd], and *[sg] are not, as indicated by the asterisks. This pattern of obstruent sounds that are both voiceless is robust; in other words, it almost always works this way in English. And formal linguists—for example, those working in optimality theory—might encode these observations in the theory by positing a constraint such as ADJACENT OBSTRUENTS MUST AGREE IN VOICING. Not every linguistic pattern is this robust, however. Some patterns are attested but only to a certain degree. A gradient pattern is one that occurs not almost always, as described above, but only sometimes. At one time, little attention, if any, was paid to gradient patterns. Now, formal linguists are paying more attention to them. For example, Hayes (2001) describes the case of light [l] (the alveolar [l] in words such as leaf ) and dark [l~] (the velarized [l~] in words such as full) in English. The fact that there are environments where each of the allophones occurs is uncontroversial. But Hayes finds that there are also environments where either can occur in free variation. In other words, [l~] and [l] can freely vary (i.e., they occur gradiently). To date, formal linguists have ignored this scenario because it is neither attested (occurring) nor unattested (not occurring) but is, rather, a finer grained distribution. Hayes (2001) suggests that the problem of “gradient well-formedness may be one of the most pervasive overlooked-but-unsolved problem in linguistics” (118). Another sense in which formal linguists care about frequency to some extent is in the area of markedness. Markedness has to do with phenomena that occur across languages. Formal linguists note that there are languages with obligatory onsets and languages with optional onsets, but no languages where there are only onsetless syllables. They encode facts of this nature into theories of phonology. For example, phonologists working in optimality theory posit a constraint making it


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 9


9

costly to have codas with no onsets.1 I will have more to say about markedness later in the chapter. FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS When Zipf (1935) claimed that the most frequently used forms of a language are also the shortest, relative frequency of linguistic forms was correlated with the structure of language for the first time. Since this claim was made, frequency has not been talked about much in linguistics (Ellis 2002; Bybee 2001a). In related literature, however, some of which is reviewed in Ellis (2002), evidence is mounting that, generally, people pay attention to frequency in cognition and, specifically, to frequency in language behavior (Ellis 2002; MacDonald 1994; Hare, Ford, and Marslen-Wilson 2001). Consequently, frequency needs to be taken into consideration in theories of language. Kemmer and Barlow (2000), for example, point out that “because the system is largely an experience-driven one, frequency of instances is a prime factor in its structure and operation . . . [and] it has an indispensable role in any explanatory account of language” (x). And within linguistics, it is now understood that people “have an extraordinary sensitivity to frequency” (Labov 1994, 598). In fact, Newmeyer (1998) describes frequency of occurrence as central in the thinking of functional linguists. Pierrehumbert (1999b) explains that “language patterns are learned through statistical generalizations over numerous patterns” (112). Recent research has revealed many insights about how frequency interacts with linguistic behavior, for example, in the area of lexical access (Hare, Ford, and Marslen-Wilson 2001), sound change (Labov 1994; Bybee 2000; Phillips 2001), other phonological behavior (Bybee 2001a, 2001b), structural change (Hentschel and Mendel 2002), syntactic patterns 1. A syllable such as strain would look something like this transcribed in IPA: [strein]. In this sequence, [str] would be an onset and [n] would be a coda.


10

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 10

Chapter One

and discourse patterns (Bybee 2000), and second language acquisition (Ellis 2002). Bybee and Hopper (2001) summarize the literature by saying that there are frequency effects on words, on phrases and other constructions, in discourse, and in many other areas of language study. They add, These effects are (1) phonological reduction in high frequency words and phrases, (2) functional change due to high frequency, (3) frequency and the formation of constructions, (4) frequency and accessibility, (5) the retention of conservative characteristics and (6) the notion that a stochastic grammar is a result of linguistic knowledge based on experience. (3)

All of these findings lead to a conclusion stated by Bybee and Hopper (2001): “Linguistic material cannot accrue frequency effects unless the brain is keeping track of frequency in some way” (9). Having considered what frequency might explain, we now examine how frequency has been characterized. Two kinds of frequency are relevant for functionalist theories: type frequency and token frequency (Bybee 2001b). Different sorts of effects are associated with these two types of frequency (Bybee 2001b). Type frequency refers to “the dictionary frequency of a particular pattern e.g. a stress pattern, an affix or a consonant cluster” (Bybee 2001b, 10). For example, if we assume that every two-syllable English word has one and only one stress, then two relevant stress patterns emerge: (1) stress the first syllable and (2) stress the second syllable. In a given corpus, words such as knitting, staple, and quiver would be counted as exemplars of the first type because they all have initial stress. Words such as implore, allege, and descend would count as exemplars of the second type because they all have final stress. Which is the more frequent pattern in English? Calculating a type frequency requires counting how many times a particular pattern, not a particular word, occurs. Type frequency plays a role in constructing explanations for linguistic puzzles. For example, though some linguists disagree (Dressler


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 11


11

and Ladányi 2000), many assert that type frequency assists in determining productivity, namely, the “extent to which a pattern is likely to apply to new forms such as borrowings or novel formations” (Bybee 2000, 12–13). Novel forms in a given language have been shown to take morphology that has higher type frequency than lower type frequency. For example, Bybee (2001a) points out that “new verbs entering French are usually conjugated according to the pattern of the First Conjugation” (110). The second type of frequency that is important in functionalist theories is token frequency. Token frequency refers to the “frequency of occurrence of a unit, usually a word, in running text—how often a particular word comes up” (Bybee 2001b, 10). Bybee (2001b) explains that in Francis and Kucˇera’s (1982) corpus of English usage, “broke (the past tense of break) occurs sixty-six times per million words, while the past tense verb damaged occurs five times in the same corpus. In other words, the token frequency of broke is much higher than that of damaged” (10). Token frequency “has two distinct effects that are important for phonology and morphology” (Bybee 2001b, 11). The first effect is that phonetic change seems to “progress more quickly in items with high token frequency” (Bybee 2001b, 11). Examples include English contractions—frequent collocations such as can’t, couldn’t, won’t, wouldn’t, shouldn’t, don’t, didn’t that have become lexicalized in the writing system. Other examples such as wanna, gonna and gotta, though not accepted in the formal writing system, are said regularly by many if not most speakers (Bybee and Hopper 2001). Less-known examples in which a phonological change occurs include the loss of the schwa in frequent words such as every, camera, memory, and family, making them two-syllable words for many speakers. But the schwa remains in similar, though less frequent, words such as mammary, artillery, and homily, keeping them three-syllable words for many speakers (Bybee 2001b). Although words that have high token frequency seem to easily undergo phonetic change, a second effect found in words with high token frequency is that “they are more resistant to other kinds of change” (Bybee 2001b, 11). For example, English speakers tend to overgeneralize


12

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 12

Chapter One

the rules for forming the past tense of less frequently used verbs, producing weeped instead of wept, creeped instead of crept. Interestingly, similar high frequency verbs like sleep and keep do not become to sleeped or keeped. Clearly, then, high frequency irregular verb paradigms are also conservative. The same kinds of effects also show up in syntax. EASE OF ARTICULATION Many phoneticians and phonologists believe that languages develop their phonological character in response to the dual pressures of the principles of maximal clarity and least effort.2 In other words, with the least effort, the listener wants to be able to understand what is being said and the speaker wants to be understood (Passy 1891; Ladefoged 1982; Lindblom 1998; Lindblom 1990; Donegan 1985). The idea of least effort has been thought about in terms of segments and combinations of segments in spoken languages. The first problem with thinking of segments as easy or difficult to articulate is that under the scrutiny of phoneticians, the notion of segment itself is suspect (Öhman 1966, and many others) because the “same” segment is articulated differently depending on the sounds that surround it. The notion of segment is no more than a useful tool to talk about single sounds; “a convenience for the researcher attempting a rough organization of his observations” (Pierrehumbert 1990, 390). And yet, segment is a persistent idea. Its persistence notwithstanding, Browman and Goldstein (1990b) assert that “just as Pierrehumbert suggests that fine phonetic

2. Maddieson (1998) recasts “older formulations” of articulatory ease and auditory distinctiveness as a balance between contrastivity and connectedness. He notes that “contrastivity is the requirement that a language must show differentiation in sound, rather than being undifferentiated noise” (106). Maddieson’s notion of connectedness is that “a language needs to be produced as a continuous stream, its parts connected to each other just as essentially as they must be differentiated from each other. . . . The suggestion here is that it is the need to achieve connectednessrather than an explicit minimization of articulatory effort—that favors limits on the range of articulatory gestures, especially in adjacent parts of the utterance” (107).


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 13


13

transcription has no real status in phonetics, . . . there is no reason to assume that representations employing segmental transcriptions have any theoretical status in phonology” (418). All of this commentary suggests that the notion of segment is controversial and outmoded, if necessary for the time being. This situation is changing slowly. Westbury and Keating (1986) make the assumption that ease of articulation cannot be determined segment by segment but, rather, in consideration of the sounds adjacent to the segment in question. Current theories of phonology look at segments in context. The second problem concerns the characterization of ease of articulation. Despite its appeal as an explanation for linguistic phenomena, the intuitively pleasing notion of ease of articulation is extremely difficult to quantify. It is not surprising that linguists generally agree that the attempts to explain what makes a sound relatively easy or difficult to articulate have not yet adequately characterized ease of articulation in spoken languages (Ohala 1990, 1992; Lindblom 1990; Nelson, Perkell, and Westbury 1984; Keating 1985; Stevens 1971). Characterizing ease of articulation does look somewhat elusive. Ladefoged (1990) suggests that ease of articulation cannot be measured and that it would always end up being language dependent. For this reason, appeals to ease of articulation as an explanation would necessarily be unfalsifiable. Lindblom (1998) acknowledges that ease of articulation is “difficult to define” (250) and suggests that worries about “uncritical use of articulatory ease . . . [are] well taken” (Lindblom 2000, 304). However, Lindblom (1998) claims that these warnings “appear overly pessimistic” and suggests that “recent developments indicate that this situation (ease of articulation as difficult to define) is about to change” (250). This development is fortuitous because the absence of a way to characterize ease of articulation independently can lead to circular reasoning to explain certain linguistic puzzles. Properties such as markedness and ease of articulation are often linked in the literature. The persistence of this circularity is described in Willerman (1994) as “so striking that it is often difficult to tell whether markedness is proposed as an explanation or as something to be explained” (34–48).


14

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 14

Chapter One

Even if we had answers to these two problems, there is still the question of how ease of articulation might be incorporated into theories of phonology. In formal theories, phonologists express ease of articulation only indirectly, if at all, for example, when considering notions such as marked and unmarked. And in the phonological literature at large, Lindblom (1992), citing Anderson (1985), states that “the problem of how to represent naturalness of rules and segment inventories for example has largely disappeared from the literature . . . [though] most linguists would agree that . . . [these topics] still present . . . major unresolved problems” (182). This problem is one that phonologists are just beginning to work on (Lindblom 1992, 2000); thus, the status of ease of articulation as a theoretical construct is in question. These problems associated with ease of articulation notwithstanding, researchers have certainly appealed to it. In the next subsection, first I review the ways that ease of articulation has been characterized in the literature and, second, the linguistic phenomena that ease of articulation has been invoked to explain.

HOW EASE OF ARTICULATION MIGHT BE CHARACTERIZED To arrive at a definition of ease that can be independently motivated (Keating 1985; Lindblom 1983) would enable us to avoid a circular definition of ease of articulation.3 Various attempts have been made to show that certain sounds require more effort than others.

3. As Willerman (1994) explains, “A problem of circularity arises when the explanatory apparatus is built solely from the data to be explained” (37). Thus, the following reasoning is circular: the sounds that are easy to articulate are the ones that are acquired first (or marked across languages or marked within languages) and the sounds that are acquired first (or marked across languages or marked within languages) are the ones that are easy to articulate. This discussion owes much to a similar discussion in Willerman (1991), some of which also appears in Willerman (1994). In addition, I thank Willerman for helpful discussion of and comments on an earlier draft of this section.


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 15


15

Departure from the Normal–Neutral Position Makes a Sound More Difficult Two strands of research, the bite-block studies and studies of spontaneous voicing, point to the conclusion that sounds whose articulators depart from a normal or neutral position can be considered more difficult than sounds whose articulators remain in normal or neutral position. I briefly examine each in turn.

The bite-block studies. A bite-block is a device that is placed in the mouth to prohibit the jaw from moving normally. In the bite-block studies, speakers produced vowels under normal conditions and under the condition in which their jaws were restrained by a bite-block. Researchers found that the formant values for bite-block vowels correspond very closely to those of normal vowels (Lindblom and Sundberg 1971; Gay, Lindblom, and Lubker 1981). How is this correspondence possible? The researchers surmise that subjects compensate for the lack of mobility in one area (the jaw) by exaggerating a gesture in another area (the tongue). This response is known as compensatory articulation (Lindblom and Sundberg 1971), and these exaggerated gestures of the tongue are referred to as supershapes (Lindblom and Sundberg 1971; Gay, Lindblom, and Lubker 1981). When speakers’ jaws are prevented from assuming, say, a relatively closed position in the case of /i/ because of the bite-block, speakers produce /i/ by using an exaggerated gesture of the tongue to compensate. These exaggerated gestures of the tongue are referred to as “supershapes” (Lindblom and Sundberg 1971; Gay, Lindblom, and Lubker 1981). Lindblom and Sundberg (1971) find that “characteristic of the supershapes is the antagonism between the tongue muscles and the jaw muscles” (1178). The bite-block studies have implications for the study of ease of articulation. If speakers can produce the same vowel with either the normal shape or a supershape of the tongue, then why do they choose


9/5/06

16

9:57 AM

Page 16

Chapter One

the normal shape? The researchers conclude that it must be because the supershapes are simply too demanding. They reason that speech, like other motor behaviors, evolves according to minimum expenditure of energy or least effort (Lindblom 1983; Lindblom 1990; Lindblom 2000; Willerman 1991; Willerman 1994). Spontaneous voicing. The second strand of research relevant here concerns spontaneous voicing. Spontaneously voiced sounds include liquids (such as [l] and [r]), nasals (such as [m] and [n]), glides (such as [y] and [w]), and vowels (such as [a] and [u]). Two conditions must be met for voicing to occur: first, the vocal cords must be relatively close together, and second, air must be crossing over the vocal cords (Ohala 1983). Both conditions are met in the normal articulation of liquids, nasals, glides, and vowels; therefore, those sounds are considered “spontaneously” voiced. In contrast, stops (such as [p] and [t]) and fricatives (such as [f] and [s]) are spontaneously unvoiced because when they are produced, there is no airflow to set the vocal cords into vibration (Ohala 1983; Westbury and Keating 1986; Ladefoged 1975). Of course, it is possible to produce both unvoiced sonorants (such as [m]) and voiced fricatives (such as [v]) ˚ and stops (such as [b]), but producing those sounds requires more effort than the “natural” versions (Willerman 1991). Investigations have been conducted in this area. Westbury and Keating (1986) explicated an articulatory model within which the explicit hypothesis that voiced stops are less natural than voiceless stops could be examined. Higher Rates of Displacement Indicate Difficulty Higher rates of displacement of the mandible indicate more difficulty, and they are avoided. This conclusion was drawn on the basis of a study, which showed that moving an articulator the same distance in a shorter (versus longer) period of time requires an increase in velocity. An in-


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 17


17

crease in velocity is associated with greater force, or more effort. Nelson, Perkell, and Westbury (1984) found that subjects attempted to reduce the time it took to say “sasa” by trading the use of greater velocity (more effort) for shorter distance. In other words, to speak faster, speakers move their articulators a shorter distance (reducing vowels, for example) rather than work harder (producing a full vowel). Higher Number of Articulatory Events per Unit of Time Indicate Difficulty In the theory of articulatory phonology (Browman and Goldstein 1985, 1986, 1990c, 1992, 1995), “the basic units of phonological contrast are gestures, which are also abstract categorizations of articulatory events, each with an intrinsic time or duration” (1992, 155). The behavior of the articulators (such as the velum, the tongue body, the lips, and the glottis) used in producing a syllable or phrase can be represented as a “gestural score”—a schematic diagram of what each of the articulators is doing during the utterance. A gestural score represents the articulatory gestures of various articulators during an utterance as separate “events” that must be coordinated in time. Two given utterances may have different numbers of necessary articulators, which will correspond to the same number of tiers and the degree of difficulty. Browman and Goldstein’s work focuses on sounds in the context of whole words or phrases (Bybee 2000). Willerman (1991) reasons that gestural “scores can model one factor of articulatory complexity. As the number of events per unit time increases, so does the articulatory complexity” (33). For example, take the case of aspiration. Ohala (1992), citing Ladefoged (1984), says that “aspirated consonants are . . . costly in that they use considerable respiratory energy, and an obvious candidate for pruning in any attempt to reduce the overall effort required for an utterance” (347). Presumably, gestural scores would reveal that aspirated consonants are harder to produce than others.


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 18

Chapter One

18

Greater Degrees of Articulatory Precision Indicate Difficulty Stevens (1971) measures and compares the area of constriction above the glottis of various sound classes. Vowels require a constriction in a particular range. Fricatives must be constricted in an area far smaller. Thus, fine motor control for fricatives is greater than that for the vowels. These facts are interpreted by Willerman (1991) to suggest that vowels are easier to articulate than fricatives. She uses her interpretation of Stevens’s observations to construct the schema in the following: Vowels Simpler

Stops

Approximants

Complex Fricatives More Complex

It ought to be clear that construction of a model to determine what makes sounds easy or difficult to articulate is a sticky matter. Even though the available technology for studying speech sounds is quite advanced, it is not clear what the criteria for ease or difficulty of a speech sound should be. In the absence of a way to characterize ease of articulation, appeals to ease as a solution to linguistic puzzles are circular. Even though the available technology for studying speech sounds is quite advanced, it is not clear what the criteria for ease or difficulty of a speech sound should be. The problem of coming up with a theory for ease of articulation of sign language handshapes is as difficult, if not more so. I present my theory in chapters 3 and 4. In whatever way ease of articulation might be quantified, it could prove to be a useful construct in explaining, or at least contributing to the explanation for, the linguistic phenomena listed in the following subsections.4 4. Lindblom (2000) has a somewhat different list and hypothesizes that “minimization of energy expenditure plays a causal role in: (1) the absence of vegetative movement and mouth sounds; (2) determining the feature composition of phonetic segments (e.g., why are /i/ and /u/ universally ‘close’ vowels); (3) constraining the universal organization of syllabic and phonotactic structure; (4) the patterning of diachronic and synchronic lenition and fortition processes; (5) shaping the system-dependent selection of phonetic values in segment inventories, etc.” (305).


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 19


19

1. Aspects of inventories of linguistic sounds can be explained by ease of articulation. The idea of teasing out the acoustic, articulatory, phonological, and cognitive constraints on speech sounds that occur in inventories has interested linguists for a long time (Trubetzkoy 1939; Donegan 1985; Jakobson 1968; Lindblom and Maddieson 1988; Nathan 1994; Lindblom 1998). Lindblom (1990) discusses a tautology in phonetics: the definition of a speech sound is tantamount to saying that “a speech sound is a sound that occurs as a speech sound in a given language” (138). He suggests that to define speech sound in a noncircular way, we must examine the set of logically possible sounds of which speech sounds are a part. Willerman (1991) suggests that, of the logically possible sounds, speech sounds are those that require the least effort to produce. Lindblom and Maddieson (1988) examined the consonant inventories of a number of languages and found that the size of inventory correlated to phonetic content of the inventories. For example, the phonetic character of the consonants in languages with a large number of consonants—for example, !Xu (ninety-five consonants)—is quite different from the phonetic character of consonants in languages such as Hawaiian with an inventory of eight (Willerman 1991). Lindblom and Maddieson (1988) and Lindblom (1992) formalize this observation as the size principle: paradigm size influences phonetic content in a lawful manner. In an attempt to ascertain whether the size principle would explain the phonetic content of other paradigms besides consonant inventories, Willerman (1991, 1994) examined the phonetic content of pronouns. As a closed-class grammatical category, pronouns are assumed to have a small paradigm size compared with the large paradigm size of an open grammatical class. Willerman (1991, 1994) found that pronouns contained a greater number of simpler consonants than would have been predicted if the consonants in pronouns had been drawn at random from the consonant inventories of languages.


20

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 20

Chapter One

2. Aspects of first and second language acquisition can be explained by ease of articulation. Two strands of research suggest that aspects of language acquisition might be explained by ease. First, Locke (1983) provides data from separate investigations, conducted years apart, which indicate that the same consonants are acquired (i.e., produced) early by children from different spoken-language backgrounds, including Mayan, Luo, Thai, English, Slovenian, and Japanese, as well as by deaf children. If those varied groups of children produce approximately the same sounds at the same time, then something independent of language background or input must be responsible. The suggestion is that some notion of physical ease of articulation causes the children to acquire the same sounds in roughly the same order (Locke 1983, 1993).5 Second, the theory of natural phonology (Stampe 1979; Schane 1973; Donegan 1985; Nathan 1982) holds that the major task for phonologists is to discover phonological “processes.” A process is a “mental operation that applies in speech to substitute for a class of sounds or sound sequences presenting a specific common difficulty to the speech capacity of the individual, an alternative class identical but lacking the difficult property” (Stampe 1979, 1). Processes have physical motivations (Donegan 1985). They occur in natural languages for two reasons, as explained in Nathan (1982): Some processes represent moves toward perceptual clarity or distinctiveness. These are called fortitions. . . . Other processes represent change towards articulatory simplicity. These are changes resulting in ease of articulation and are called lenitions. They are carried out on behalf of our vocal apparatus and enable it to do less work in the time allotted to it by reducing the number and amount of fine adjustments that human speech requires. (119–20) 5. Willerman (1994) points out that the argument is circular. She writes, “The argument goes something like this: Children acquire simpler sounds first, so the first sounds children acquire are the simpler ones. Although this tautology may turn out to be true when independent grounds for articulatory complexity have been established, the logic is just as circular as the frequency of occurrence hypothesis” (33).


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 21


21

Lenitions get rid of sounds or sound sequences in service of making words easier to articulate, as Donegan (1985) explains: Lenition processes are typically context-sensitive, since they function to produce more-easily-articulated sequences. They may be assimilative, since sequences of similar segments are (it is usually assumed) easier to articulate than sequences of dissimilar segments. Or they may be reductive since shorter segments require less effort than longer ones, segments with few or no special articulations require less effort than those with several, single segments are less demanding than geminates, and deleted segments require no articulatory effort at all. (38–39)

Because processes are universal, proponents of natural phonology claim that they can explain more than synchronic descriptions of phonologies of various languages (Stampe 1979; Donegan 1985; Nathan 1982). Indeed, natural phonology claims to explain aspects of child language and second language acquisition, historical change over time, and other linguistic phenomena. With respect to first language acquisition, Donegan (1985) suggests that children’s first approximations of sounds are often easier to say than the target sounds, given children’s limited abilities at any given stage. The point is that the substitutions are not random; the function of processes in child speech is to replace more difficult sounds or sound sequences with easier ones. Specifically, for example, devoicing of voiced stops occurs in English because voiced stops are relatively difficult to articulate. And a nasal-spirant sequence such as [ns] is also difficult to articulate. Reducing this difficulty is remedied in one of two ways: either by addition of a stop between the two sounds or by substituting a nasal lacking oral closure for the nasal, for example, [nts] or [Vs] (Stampe 1979). Similarly, aspects of second language acquisition can be explained by ease of articulation. For example, Donegan (1985) suggests that nativization of foreign words can often be explained by processes. She uses the example of a speaker whose first language has the canonical fivevowel system [a e i o u] and who cannot pronounce a particular English vowel other than these and therefore substitutes something easier for it.


22

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 22

Chapter One

Donegan further explains that, sometimes, speakers substitute not one sound but a few, for example, English speakers who, in learning German, alternate between [i] and [u] in attempting to pronounce [y]. Nathan (1982) argues that natural phonology “can account for the facts that teachers of second languages already know—that learners substitute ‘easier’ sounds for those that do not exist in their native languages” (123–24). 3. The rarity of some sounds across languages can be explained by ease of articulation. Sounds that are the most “natural” are so because they are easier to either articulate or perceive (Westbury and Keating 1986). Common sounds have been characterized as those that have the greatest acoustic energy and those that are the most distinctive, or rarely confused with other sounds (Maddieson 1984). Conversely, the sounds that are rarely found in language are those that are more difficult to articulate or perceive. Maddieson (1998), bolstering the idea that the more difficult sounds are the least commonly found in languages, suggests that sounds that are believed to be rather common but, paradoxically, difficult might not be as difficult to articulate as originally thought. 4. Diachronic sound change can be explained by ease of articulation. The idea that language change is solely attributable to articulatory causes has not been advanced. In fact, it has been pointed out that ease of articulation could not be the only factor; if it were, then all languages should evolve toward the constant articulation of no sound but [ə] (the schwa), which is clearly not the case. Ohala (1975) argues that, although articulatory ease is likely to play a small role in sound change, perception is a more important factor than ease of articulation. In fact, Ohala (1981, 1993) proposes that some sound changes begin as listener misperceptions. Ohala (1990) also rejects an


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 23


23

articulatory account of assimilation in favor of a perceptual one, though assimilation is usually regarded as an articulatory process (Lindblom 2000). Ohala (1992) argues that invoking ease of articulation “makes explanations teleological” (352); that is, saying that sounds are easy to articulate implies that the speakers are choosing to make their speech easier to articulate.6 Still, it seems clear that there are phonetically natural diachronic sound changes. FORMAL AND FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO SIGN LANGUAGE PHONOLOGY We know less about the structure of signs than the structure of spoken words, if only because linguists have concerned themselves with only spoken languages until relatively recently. In the aftermath of the important claim that sign languages are full-fledged languages (Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg 1965; Klima and Bellugi 1979), linguists came to grapple with the basic questions we ask about spoken languages as we examine the world’s sign languages. The surge of interest in sign languages attracted linguists from various backgrounds, linguists with different concerns and preoccupations. Wilbur (1999a) claims that sign language research has been more functional than formal and suggests that this claim is attributable to the “belief that the origins of forms should be more easily identifiable in sign languages, thus making investigating form/function relationships more likely to be fruitful than for spoken languages” (296). It may be true that more investigation comes from the functionalist tradition, but investigation in both traditions has contributed to our understanding of sign languages, and clearly, we need both. In any case, few have overtly referred to their research 6. Ohala (1992) further explains his position by saying he disagrees with the idea that “sound changes occur in order to ease production, make speech easier to hear or make it easier to learn or process. There is no denying that teleology (choice, intention) can underlie that spread of a phonetically natural sound change. What I resist is the idea that the initiation or creation of a phonetically-motivated variant pronunciation comes about in this way” (352).


24

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 24

Chapter One

questions and their methods for solving them as either formal or functional. As a result, the literature presents a somewhat puzzling array of insights into sign language phonology. FORMAL APPROACHES TO SIGN LANGUAGE PHONOLOGY At its best, formal inquiry examines language data with an objective to discover asymmetries. Where asymmetries occur in sound systems, formal phonologists have a chance to learn about the language. Explaining an asymmetry involves proposing theoretical apparatus; for example, speaking as atheoretically as possible, some parts of words are longer and louder, such as the beginning of solar and the end of abate. So seems to be somehow more prominent than lar, and bate seems more prominent than a. How do we describe this circumstance? If all we had were the notions of segment and word, then coming up with a description would be challenging. The first two segments in solar sound longer than the remainder, and the last four segments in abate sound longer. However, by positing the existence of a unit between segment and word—say, the unit of syllable—we begin to describe the asymmetry. We can say that words can be divided into syllables and that in a given language, certain syllables receive stress. In solar, the first syllable is stressed; in abate, the second. Formal researchers try to motivate all constructs such as syllable that are used in a theory. To motivate a construct means to find a reason to believe that it ought to exist because it would be useful in explaining something other than the thing it was proposed to explain. Thus, the construct of syllable needs to be motivated phonetically, phonologically, and psycholinguistically as well as examined cross-linguistically to see whether it is as useful in other languages as it is in English. Constructs like syllable are part of what formal phonologists call “representations.” In formal sign language linguistics, an important focus has been to establish what the representations are. In an interesting work that takes very seriously the idea of motivating every single construct necessary to describe sign language phenomena, Uyechi (1996) proposes representations of the hand, the signing space, movement, and


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 25


25

the sign itself. Sandler (1996) seeks to represent the entire sign, including handshape. Constructs such as syllable (Wilbur 1990) and mora (Perlmutter 1992) have been proposed to be useful in explaining linguistic puzzles in sign languages. Psycholinguistic evidence was provided for the construct of syllable in Wilbur (1990, 1993) and Wilbur and Allen (1991). To capture one of the properties of signs, namely, that sometimes the hands arrive at a point and stay there and sometimes the hands are in motion, linguists have proposed the constructs of movements and holds (Liddell and Johnson 1989) and movements and positions (Perlmutter 1992). In addition to these proposals for representations, phonologists have also proposed the existence of phonological rules. Phonological rules, in principle, act on representations to derive surface phonological patterns. The phonological rules of weak drop (in which the weak hand in a twohanded sign can drop)—first noticed, according to Brentari (1998), in Battison (1974, 1978) and later discussed in Padden and Perlmutter (1987)—and weak freeze (in which the weak hand in a two-handed sign can freeze)—see Padden and Perlmutter (1987)—were proposed to explain variation in sign production. Constraints, too, have been proposed from the earliest days. The symmetry and dominance conditions (Battison 1978) and the finger position constraint (Mandel 1981) are two examples. These constraints served to characterize how signs were produced. Ann and Peng (2000) used optimality theory to describe constraints on how handshapes in which some number of fingers are opposed to the thumb are produced. The essence of that analysis was that three types of constraints are necessary to account for frequency problems involving opposed handshapes in TSL: the finger selection constraints, the adjacency constraint, and the extension constraint. These authors were seeking to understand the structure of sign languages by understanding the constraints within the grammar itself, a goal consonant with formalist leanings. A great deal remains to be said about the successes and failures of formal approaches to sign language phonology; this brief description will suffice only as a beginning.


26

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 26

Chapter One

FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING SIGN LANGUAGES In the context of sign languages, perception refers to the study of how “listeners” perceive visual information in general and signs in particular. Knowing the structure of the physical signal of a sign, including how far an articulator goes and how fast an articulator goes in a given period of time (kinematics) as well as how the articulators of a sign language interact with one another to produce signs (articulation) can serve to constrain the form of sign languages. To consider questions of articulation, linguists must be familiar with the role of hand and forearm anatomy and kinesiology—fields of inquiry with which few are comfortable (Wilbur 1987). Yet it seems clear that from the earliest days, sign language researchers suspected a connection between what hands naturally do and what aspects of sign languages look like. For example, Battison (1978) outlines a research direction calling for the discovery of “the relation between the form of the signs and the dynamics of the machine which articulates them—the human body” (11–12). He suggested that one goal of phonological description is to “seek motivation for . . . structures and constraints in the articulatory and perceptual processes which encode and decode the forms of the language” (19–20). Many topics in sign language research can scarcely be studied without citing Battison for at least two reasons. First, he suggested that there is a small group of unmarked ASL handshapes (Battison 1978). These are said to be easy to articulate, but this quality is not demonstrated in any way except through their frequency— exactly the circularity that Willerman (1994) cautions us to avoid. Second, his theory of symmetry and dominance conditions (Battison 1978) characterizes, but does not explain, how signs are constructed. Yet the symmetry and dominance conditions are often cited because they capture important generalizations about ASL signs. Battison (1978) says: The Symmetry Condition states that (a) if both hands of a sign move independently during its articulation, then (b) both hands must be specified for the same location, the same handshape, the same


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 27


27

movement (whether performed simultaneously or in alternation), and the specification for orientation must be either symmetrical or identical. . . . The Dominance Condition states that (a) if the hands of a twohanded sign do not share the same specification for handshape (i.e., they are different), then (b) one hand must be passive while the other hand articulates the movement and (c) the specification of the passive handshape is restricted to be one of a small set: A, S, B, 5, G, C, 0. (33–5, emphasis in the original)

As Brentari (1998) says, “The symmetry and dominance conditions have survived the test of close scrutiny and reinvestigation surprisingly well, but they left many areas unexplored and later investigators have worked to refine, extend and formalize them” (252–53). Battison’s work encouraged linguists to think about articulatory and perceptual constraints for sign languages, and in this way, too, it was seminal. His work, however, does not characterize ease of articulation, perception, or any kinematic property of signs, and for the most part, Battison’s work appeals to none of these as a solution for a specific linguistic puzzle. Battison’s work undoubtedly has pushed our understandings ahead, but at some point, it will be necessary to understand the perceptual, kinematic, and articulatory constraints on languages, beginning with understanding the perceptual, kinematic, and articulatory properties of handshapes. To understand these properties, we must examine the phonological features for handshapes and their organization, the issues connected to acquisition of handshapes, and the nature of signs or handshapes. Phonological Features In explaining the sound patterns of spoken languages, phonologists make use of the idea that sounds are composed of features. This theoretical machinery provides a means of explaining phonological phenomena such as assimilations—for example, [In ⫹ baib] → [Imbaib] in which a preceding nasal takes on the place features of the following stop. Phono-


28

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 28

Chapter One

logical features are hypothesized to have two possible sources: acoustic (Jakobson, Fant, and Halle 1951/1972) and articulatory (Chomsky and Halle 1968). In other words, phonological features are hypothesized to have phonetic (acoustic or articulatory) correlates. In the areas of features, feature combinations, and feature geometries, then, uncontroversially, phonology and phonetics interact. The powerful strategy of describing sounds as being composed of features, a strategy that proved so useful in the analysis of spoken languages, has been appealed to in the quest to understand sign languages. The proliferation of feature proposals for sign languages suggests that researchers believe features also are helpful in explaining linguistic puzzles in sign languages. The fact that features are so connected to phonetics in spoken language makes it all the more remarkable that the phonetics of sign languages goes relatively unnoticed, though researchers generally make some reference to articulation and perception. Most propose largely articulatory features (see, e.g., Liddell and Johnson 1989; Corina and Sagey 1989; Sandler 1993; Kegl and Wilbur 1976). Some propose perceptual features (Lane, Boyes-Braem, and Bellugi 1976; Stungis 1981).7 Some propose features motivated by both areas (Brentari

7. A striking difference noticed by researchers (Corina and Sagey 1988; Brentari 1990; Mandel 1981; Wilbur 1990; and Poizner, Klima, and Bellugi 1987 to name a few) between the phonetics of spoken and sign languages underscores this oversight. That is, although speakers are not aware of where they place their articulators when they produce sounds, all of the articulators of signers are visible to the eye. Spoken language phonetics has to be determined by X-ray and other invasive methods; it is not clear whether sign language phonetics need be determined in these ways. (I thank Sam Supalla and Ronnie Wilbur for conversations that helped to clarify my thinking on this point.) Finally, Brentari (1998) notes that “a great deal more is known about higher level processing in vision than is known in audition” (310–11). She credits this reality to two facts: first, that the visual system is more accessible than the auditory system for measurements with instruments and, second, that asymmetrical goals exist in research in audition and vision. Work in audition focuses on hearing that is impaired whereas work on vision focuses on normal vision. Brentari reasons, therefore, that sign language phonology “can . . . draw upon well-developed research on higher order visual processing . . . in a way that spoken language phonology cannot” (310–11).


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 29


29

1990, 1998). Most researchers acknowledge the need for (a) features for fingers and (b) features for what fingers can do. In so doing, they discuss constraints of the sort we care about here.

Which fingers work together? Virtually every researcher who has written about handshapes has realized that random combinations of fingers cannot act together in handshapes, that a system is involved. The complex business of explaining which fingers can combine to take on the same configuration has been approached in several ways. Many researchers have noted that fingers can act relatively independently in handshapes. For example, in the handshapes for ASL signs SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT and NINE, each of the four fingers singly opposes the thumb (see figure 2). The physiological fact that the fingers can act relatively independently (as in the signs in figure 2) has been encoded in distinctive feature systems by five features, one for each finger: [Thumb], [Index], [Middle], [Ring], and [Pinky] (Mandel 1981; Corina and Sagey 1989; Sandler 1989). Interestingly, the index finger seems to have special status because it is used in almost all of the licit handshapes (Corina and Sagey 1988; Brentari 1988; Uyechi 1996).

ASL SIX

ASL SEVEN

ASL EIGHT

ASL NINE

Figure 2 Examples in which fingers act relatively independently in handshapes, particularly, each of the four fingers singly opposes the thumb.


30

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 30

Chapter One

Kegl and Wilbur (1976) and Wilbur (1987) propose the adjacency convention. It is part of a feature system that includes the following features: [extended], [closed], [2adjacent], and [3adjacent]. The feature [extended] refers to some unspecified number of fingers that are extended. The feature [closed] refers to some unspecified number of fingers that are closed. The features [2adjacent] and [3adjacent] specify the exact number of fingers, excluding the thumb, which are adjacent and “relevant” in handshapes that are [⫹ extended]. Kegl and Wilbur (1976) claim a relationship exists between [⫹ closed] or [⫺ closed] and the features [2adjacent] and [3adjacent]. So, for example, if in a particular handshape the combination of features [⫹ closed], [⫹ extended], and either [2adjacent] or [3adjacent] is assigned, the counting of fingers starts at the index edge of the hand. A handshape that has the features [⫹ extended], [⫺ closed], and either [2adjacent] or [3adjacent] starts counting at the pinky edge. The features [2adjacent] and [3adjacent] are not relevant for handshapes that are [⫺ extended]. Though Kegl and Wilbur (1976) do not make explicit reference to physiological facts about the fingers in explaining their observations, clearly they see a pattern in what fingers act together in handshapes. Brentari’s (1998) prosodic model incorporates insights not only from her own work but also from the work of other researchers. Though her model deals with more than handshape, discussion of handshape is significant. Some of the handshape features in Brentari (1990) are said to have acoustic and articulatory bases, but they are labeled as having only an articulatory base in Brentari (1998). Along similar lines, Brentari (1998; Brentari, Hulst, van der Kooij, and Sandler 1996) also discusses the issue of which fingers occur together. She proposes four features ([all], [one], [mid], and [ulnar]). The features “[all] and [one] specify the number of selected fingers: [all] is defined as all four fingers, and [one] is defined as one finger. [ulnar] and [mid] specify where the point of reference occurs: [ulnar] specifies that the pinkie finger side of the hand is used as the reference point; [mid] specifies that the middle finger is used; otherwise the radial or index finger side of the hand is assumed” (Brentari 1998, 112)


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 31


a. open

b. curved

c. bent

31

d. closed

Figure 3 Configurations of the hand that have been proposed for American Sign Language.

What configurations can fingers assume? Several proposals describe the four configurations that are possible in ASL. The fingers can be open, curved, bent, or closed (after Brentari 1990; Liddell and Johnson 1989).8 Figure 3 illustrates these configurations. Sandler’s (1989) feature system that describes the handshapes in figure 3 has four monovalent features: [open], [closed], [bent], and [curved]. Fingers like the ones in figure 3a are [⫹ open]. The handshape in figure 3b is [⫹ curved], the handshape in figure 3c is [⫹ bent], and the handshape in figure 3d is [⫹ closed]. In this system, each of the configurations has a separate feature; therefore, phonetic similarities between configurations are obscured. Corina and Sagey (1988; 1989) and Corina (1990) point out that the handshapes in figure 3a through figure 3d share physiological similarities. The handshape in figure 3a is not flexed at any joint, and the handshape in figure 3b is not flexed at the knuckle, but it is flexed at the other joints. Handshapes like figure 3c are flexed at the knuckle and extended at the other joints; they share the physiological similarity of flexion at the knuckle with handshapes like figure 3d. To describe the configurations in figure 3a through figure 3d and, at the same time, encode the facts that certain of the handshapes share physiological characteristics, Corina and Sagey propose two bivalent features, [bent] and [hooked].

8. In this work, I use the term open when citing or discussing the work of other researchers. Otherwise, I use the term extended.


32

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 32

Chapter One

Handshapes like the one in figure 3a are [⫺ bent, ⫺ hooked]. Handshapes like the one in figure 3b are [⫺ bent, ⫹ hooked]. The handshape in figure 3c is [⫹ bent, ⫺ hooked] and the handshape in figure 3d is [⫹ bent, ⫹ hooked]. Phonetic similarity between certain handshapes is one motivation for having these handshapes share a feature. So figure 3a and figure 3b share the feature [⫺ bent], and figure 3c and figure 3d share the feature [⫹ bent]. The question remains whether the phonetic observations are phonologically significant in ASL, that is, whether the phonology treats as similar the handshapes that share [⫺ bent] and the handshapes that share [⫹ bent]. Brentari (1990, 1998) cautions against relying too heavily on phonetics when proposing features or a feature geometry, preferring to include features that control distinctions made by the phonology rather than the phonetics. But Brentari makes reference to both perceptual and articulatory evidence for various proposals. Brentari (1990) expressed the difference between the four configurations in figure 2 with two bivalent features, [peripheral] and [closed]. Figure 2a is [⫹ peripheral, ⫺ closed], figure 2b is [⫺ peripheral, ⫺ closed], figure 2c is [⫺ peripheral, ⫹ closed], figure 2d is [⫹ peripheral, ⫹ closed]. The feature [peripheral] has a perceptual basis. Brentari reasons that Lane, BoyesBraem, and Bellugi’s (1976) work shows that there are more confusions between bent or curved than, presumably, between open and closed. Thus, “we can assume that a person must spend more energy concentrating in order to perceive them correctly” (Brentari 1990, 65). Handshapes such as figures 3a and 3d are [⫹ peripheral] because they are at the “extreme ends of the range of positions in ASL handshapes” (Brentari 1990, 65). In Liddell and Johnson’s (1989) description of how these configurations (specifically figure 3b and 3c) differ, they discuss the “proximal joint” and the “distal joint” (225). They explain that, in figure 3b, the proximal joint is extended while the distal joint is flexed and that, in figure 3c, the proximal joint is flexed while the distal joint is extended. The term proximal joint refers to the metacarpophalangeal joint (i.e., knuckle), and distal joint refers to the proximal interphalangeal (PIP)


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 33


33

and distal interphalangeal (DIP) joints. The fact that Liddell and Johnson make reference to a distal joint (not joints) reveals their tacit understanding that the proximal interphalangeal joint and the distal interphalangeal joint work together, which is true, except in a few cases discussed in chapter 2. This physiological fact, also written about in Uyechi (1996) and Mandel (1981), is encoded in linguistic theories in that a feature that controls the distal interphalangeal joint and the proximal interphalangeal joint (each independently) has never been proposed. Uyechi (1996) notes that the fingers and thumb are very different physiologically because of their respective joint structures. Sandler (1996), Liddell and Johnson (1989), Corina and Sagey (1989), Brentari (1990), and others also make this observation. Uyechi’s theory treats “fingers and thumb as distinct phonological constructs” (1996, 25). Uyechi provides a fairly detailed discussion of joints and, in so doing, comes up with the generalization that the distal and proximal interphalangeal joints work together. Uyechi (1996) represents each finger and each joint separately. Mandel (1981) also describes what fingers are capable of doing both individually and with other fingers. His is not a feature proposal in the same sense as the foregoing, though it is a thorough, persistent attempt to describe the phonetics of ASL. He proposes not only the adjacency principle but also four anatomically based hierarchies to deal with finger selection and configuration. The numbers of fingers hierarchy says that the least marked number of fingers working together in a handshape is 0 or 4, regardless whether the handshape is closed or open. Figures 4a and 4b illustrate the closed and open handshapes. The next least marked number of fingers in the hierarchy is 1. Examples of handshapes in which one finger does something are not provided in Mandel; presumably, they are handshapes such as the one in figure 4c. The next least marked number of fingers in the hierarchy is 2; presumably figure 4d would be an example. The most marked number of fingers in a handshape is 3. Mandel claims three-fingered handshapes occur only in handshapes such as that pictured in figure 4e. Mandel proposes no particular physiological justification for the number of fingers hierarchy.


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 34

Chapter One

34

a. closed

c. one-finger

d. two-finger

b. open

e. three-finger

Figure 4 Examples of handshapes according to the number of fingers hierarchy.

Rather, he seems to be attempting to capture the idea that four-finger handshapes, three-finger handshapes, two-finger handshapes, and onefinger handshapes do not occur with equal frequency in ASL. The extension hierarchy, flexion hierarchy, and opposition hierarchy each rank singly each of the four fingers in terms of its ability to assume an extended, flexed, or opposed configuration (Mandel 1981).9 Mandel’s work also included discussion of anatomy of the hand. It tries to characterize ease of articulation, to some extent, and to use the idea to explain a linguistic puzzle. The extension hierarchy (Mandel 1981) positions each finger in the order of the least to most marked in handshapes. The extended index finger is assigned the first place because the index finger has its own extensor muscle, the extensor proprius indicis. The pinky, assigned second place, also has its own extensor, the extensor digiti minimi. Mandel positions the pinky in second place because, although the pinky is rela9. Mandel (1981) did not include a hierarchy for bending or for curving because, in his proposal, both configurations were considered more or less extended relative to the other fingers in the handshape.


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 35


35

tively independent, it is “tied to the ring and through the ring, to the middle” (Mandel 1981, 100). Mandel does not elaborate on the ties of the pinky to other fingers or their effects. The positioning of the middle as the higher of the two remaining fingers is justified physiologically by the fact that the middle finger is next to the index finger, which Mandel (1981) notes is very independent. Consequently, the ring finger is in the final place. The idea behind the opposition hierarchy follows similar logic. The “most opposable” finger is the index, with the middle next most opposable. The positions of the ring and pinky in the hierarchy are unclear because the physiology does not suggest a clear answer. The ring finger is closer to the thumb and therefore seems more opposable than the pinky. But the pinky, though farther away from the thumb, is equipped with a muscle, the opponens digiti minimi, which helps it to oppose the thumb. Mandel leaves the ranking of ring and pinky unresolved. Mandel’s (1981) independent flexion hierarchy governs the flexion of a finger without opposition. Mandel claims that the middle finger is the freest in this regard. He notes that both the index and pinky have their relative extensors to hold them up and that the ring is tied by ligamentous connections10 to other fingers. In contrast, the middle, the longest finger, can reach out “far enough to be distinguished.” Mandel claims that the index and ring are closely tied for the next position in the hierarchy. The pinky occupies the final place in the flexion hierarchy because it is the least free, being tied to the ring. Mandel offers no more than this information about the physiology of the fingers. Mandel’s innovative (1981) work attempted an enormously complex task. He used physiology to explain linguistic puzzles. His work is a substantial contribution, though it is not complete enough to use as a basis for a model of ease of articulation. Lane, Boyes-Braem, and Bellugi (1976) proposes distinctive features for ASL handshapes. It was modeled after the Miller and Nicely 10. The physiological literature suggests that Mandel’s “ligamentous ties” are the juncturae tendinum; I discuss them in chapter 2.


36

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 36

Chapter One

(1955) study in which consonant sounds were presented in noise to subjects who were to discriminate them from one other. The fact that they were presented in noise made it likely that the sounds would be confused. Miller and Nicely (1955) found that particular pairs of sounds are more likely to be confused than other pairs. This result was taken to mean that, first, two sounds that were highly likely to be confused for each other shared some features and, second, that the features that distinguished the sounds that were confused were not very salient in the language. Therefore, if a feature is salient, the sounds that differ on the absence or presence of that feature will not be confused. Lane, BoyesBraem, and Bellugi (1976) tested the likelihood that particular sets of similar ASL handshapes would be confused for each other. They presented subjects with handshapes in visual noise, making it likely that the subjects would confuse the handshapes. The sets of handshapes that were most likely to be confused were analyzed as sharing features. Lane, Boyes-Braem, and Bellugi (1976) propose eleven features that describe ASL handshapes. They speak of distinctive features as phonological features, and they clearly are concerned with not only phonology but also psychology. Stungis (1981) questioned the validity of Lane, Boyes-Braem, and Bellugi (1976) in two important ways. First, the results of Lane, Boyes-Braem, and Bellugi (1976) may not have been based on a large enough number of trials. Second, they relied on the judgments of deaf signers who were not native signers of ASL. This fact is expected— on the basis of perception studies of spoken language such as Abraham and Lisker (1970), Miyawaki et al. (1975), and others—to significantly affect responses. Thus, Lane, Boyes-Braem, and Bellugi (1976) cannot be understood to reflect the actual perception of native signers. Stungis overtly disavows any attempt to establish what the phonological features of ASL might be; rather, his use of the term distinctive features refers to a visual cue that is a physical characteristic of the stimulus and that is sufficient for its recognition (Stungis 1981). Stungis’s work did not challenge the idea in Lane, BoyesBraem, and Bellugi (1976) that features could be based on perceptual evidence.


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 37


37

Arrangement of features. One proposal for a feature geometry for handshapes suggests an appeal to physiology be made to explain the grouping of fingers in handshapes (Corina and Sagey 1989). The proposal is that because the index and middle fingers are referred to as radial fingers, they are dominated in a geometry by a “node” (an apex) called the radial node. Similarly, because the ring finger and the pinky are considered ulnar fingers, the ulnar node would dominate the ring and pinky.11 This partitioning makes good physiological sense; as physiological evidence for the nodes, Corina and Sagey (1988, 1989) claim that two different motor efferents (nerves) control the radial fingers and the ulnar fingers. They do not discuss this point further. Another example of an appeal to the physiology related to feature combinations is the case of [spread]. The feature [spread] controls whether or not the fingers are spread apart or held together with no space in between. Several restrictions on the application of [spread] are relevant. First, [spread] can apply only to more than one finger (Corina and Sagey 1988). Speaking of one finger as spread or unspread makes little sense because a finger can be spread only with respect to the others. Mandel (1981), working out a feature system for handshapes, notes that the middle finger stays stationary while the other four fingers spread away from it—thumb and index going in one direction and ring and pinky going in the other. Mandel (1981) encodes these physiological facts in his theory by proposing features such as [spread.index] but does not propose the feature [spread.middle]. The second restriction on [spread] is that it can occur only with extended or curved fingers but not with bent fingers.12 The physiological reason for this restriction on the application 11. Sandler’s (1989) feature geometry also includes an unnamed node that dominated the index and middle fingers, which corresponds to Corina and Sagey’s (1988) radial node. However, Sandler (1989) offers no physiological justification for the node. 12. Kegl and Wilbur (1976) note that “the feature [spread] is relevant only to [⫹ extended] handshapes; [⫺ extended] handshapes are redundantly [⫺ spread]” (392). I interpret the statement to mean in handshapes in which the fingers are closed, they are not spread; it is only possible for fingers to be spread if they are extended.


38

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 38

Chapter One

of [spread] was not explained in either Corina and Sagey (1988) or Mandel (1981). Ann (1992b, 1993a, and chapter 2 of this volume) explain the physiology behind the fact that the only handshapes that can be spread are those in which the metacarpophalangeal joint (knuckle) is not flexed. Chapter 2 makes clear why only the curved and extended configurations are able to spread. Brentari’s (1998) proposal is that the selected fingers branch of her feature geometry has two sub-branches: joints and fingers. Separation of joints and fingers for selected fingers was first proposed in Hulst (1995). In Brentari (1998), class nodes of the prosodic branch are arranged from most distal to most proximal joints. She notes that “what often happens in the phonetic realization of a sign is that the movement migrates from the default joint of its particular movement type to a more proximal joint or a more distal one” (133). She refers to this process as phonetic reduction, or distalization, and to phonetic enhancement as proximalization (Brentari 1998). She provides several examples with various kinds of movement. An example with handshape (but not movement) noticed by other researchers is that, in some signs, fingers can be extended at all joints or flexed at the metacarpophalangeal joint and extended at the PIP and DIP joints and still mean the same thing whereas, in other signs, this variation cannot happen. Mandel (1982) provides the example of YOU, which can be signed with either wrist flexion or metacarpophalangeal joint flexion. Uyechi (1996) provides the example of CONFLICT in which it is possible to distalize (from the wrist to the metacarpophalangeal joint) and MEET-YOU in which it is not. Brentari (1998) claims that representing orientation is quite complex because of the complexity of movement controlled by the joints in the forearm and the wrist. Sandler’s (1996) proposal considers the entire representation of handshape. Her proposal appears in figure 5. Of her proposal, Sandler (1996) observes that “the motivation is partly articulatory in the sense that each class corresponds to an articulator. HC (hand configuration) corresponds to the whole hand, orientation to the palm, selected fingers to the fingers, and position to the joints of the fingers” (9).


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 39


39

Figure 5 Sandler’s proposed entire representation of handshape. Reproduced from Sandler (1996, 117).

The preceding discussion should demonstrate that the areas of features and their organization has afforded linguists a chance to make significant observations about articulation and perception. Now let us turn our attention to acquisition. Issues Connected to Acquisition of Handshapes Boyes-Braem’s (1981, 1990) work uses ease of articulation as an explanation for a linguistic puzzle, namely, the order of acquisition of handshapes by an American deaf child. To a lesser extent, her work also attempts to characterize ease of articulation based on anatomy. She found that the child acquired (i.e., was able to produce) handshapes in four stages. At Stage 1, the child acquired the “simplest” of handshapes. These involve the manipulation either of the hand as a whole or of the radial fingers (which she considers the thumb and index finger). In Stage 2, the child acquired the least complex of the complex handshapes. In Stage 3, the child began to manipulate the ulnar fingers (the middle, ring, and pinky fingers) separately rather than treat them as a unit (BoyesBraem 1990), and as in stage 1, the middle, ring, and pinky fingers were all either closed or extended. In Stage 4, the child learned to move all the


40

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 40

Chapter One

fingers one by one, including the weakest—the middle finger and the ring finger. Handshapes used in Stages 1–4 are shown in figure 6. Boyes-Braem (1990) explains these data as being a result of the anatomy of the hand. She includes some attention to muscles and some attention to the radial–ulnar distinction. Boyes-Braem also explains that the thumb, index, and pinky have extra muscles that the middle and ring fingers do not have. It is not clear why, as a group, the radial–ulnar distinction, not the independent extensor distinction, is reflected in the handshapes that are acquired earliest. Though Boyes-Braem (1990) associates the order of

Stage 1

Stage 2 Figure 6 Boyes-Braem’s stages of handshape acquisition. From Volterra and Erting (1994). Used by permission.


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 41


41

Stage 3

Stage 4 Figure 6

(Continued)

acquisition of some ASL handshapes with the physiology of the hand, she does not make an explicit claim that a handshape’s ease of articulation relates to the stage of its acquisition. Instead of proposing a theory of ease of articulation, she uses ease of articulation to explain the order of acquisition of handshapes. To a lesser extent, Boyes-Braem’s work also attempts to characterize ease of articulation based on anatomy. However, because her work attempts to explain only the order in which a child acquires ASL handshapes, we have no information from this work on logically possible handshapes. These might include


42

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 42

Chapter One

(a) handshapes that are not attested (do not occur) in ASL but are attested (do occur) in other sign languages, (b) handshapes that are physically possible but not present in any sign language, and (c) handshapes that are physically impossible. So it is not possible to construct a model from Boyes-Braem (1973, 1981, 1990) alone. McIntire (1977) examined acquisition to see what features might explain it. She concluded (but did not show) that, although features proposed by Boyes-Braem are useful in explaining the data, the proposal in Lane, Boyes-Braem, and Bellugi (1976) is more appropriate. McIntire (1977) gathered data from a series of videotaped play sessions in the home of a deaf child of Deaf parents and grandparents, all of whom used ASL. She examines the hypothesis that there exist “at least two steps in the order of sign language development” (249). This hypothesis is based on the observation that “pointing and grasping are the functions most commonly served by the human hand” (249). The pointing index finger and the action of grasping seem very common in sign languages, too. But McIntire points out that sign languages require the “independent manipulation” of the middle, ring, and pinky fingers, which, she notes, “is acquired comparatively late in development” (249). Both Boyes-Braem (1973) and McIntire (1977) reason that the manipulation of the thumb and index finger come before the manipulation of the rest of the fingers developmentally and, therefore, that acquisition of handshape occurs in two stages—what might be called the radial stage and the ulnar stage. McIntire summarizes her model as follows: The sequence suggested by the model is based on the gradually increasing ability both physical and cognitive of the child to control the weaker fingers, making possible the positive specification (production) of more and more “difficult” features. The prediction therefore is that signs requiring a dez (handshape) in a stage beyond the baby’s performance abilities . . . will be signed by using as substitutes dez (handshapes) within her capabilities. . . . In this model it is also predicted that no dez from a later stage will substitute for a dez from an earlier stage. (1977, 250)


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 43


43

McIntire finds some patterns that are not consistent with BoyesBraem, but Boyes-Braem’s basic hypothesis (i.e., that the dez handshapes requiring control of the thumb and index finger or the whole hand will develop before others) is sustained (McIntire 1977). Virtually all of McIntire’s (1977) corpus (182 of 186 substitutions) is composed of handshapes from Boyes-Braem’s Stage 1. McIntire’s work tries to use ease of articulation as at least a partial explanation for a linguistic puzzle, but from this work alone, it would not be possible to build a model of ease of articulation such as the one I propose here. Siedlecki and Bonvillian, in two separate studies (Bonvillian and Siedlecki 2000; Siedlecki and Bonvillian 1993), gathered data on the acquisition of ASL handshapes by deaf children. They videotaped hearing and deaf children, who were native signers, in conversation with their sign-using parents. They collected token frequencies of errors of these children, and they showed that during the acquisition process, children got a sign’s location and movement correct more often than its handshape. From these data, they concluded that handshape is the most challenging parameter of a sign to acquire. Meier et al. (1998) investigated whether the natural course of motor development in infants influenced early sign acquisition. They found three principles that may account for “certain broad patterns that we have detected in young children’s articulation of their first signs” (70): 1. “Fine motor control over small muscle groups (e.g., those in the hand) lags behind gross motor control over large muscle groups (e.g., those in the shoulder or arm)” (64). 2. “Development of motor control generally proceeds from proximal articulators (e.g., the shoulder) to distal ones (e.g., the wrist and fingers), where ‘proximal’ and ‘distal articulators’ are defined by distance from the torso” (64). a. “. . . [I]f a child uses a joint that would not be anticipated in the adult citation-form sign, that joint will likely be proximal to the most proximal of the expected joints” (67).


9/5/06

44

9:57 AM

Page 44

Chapter One

3. “. . . [I]f joint activity is omitted from a sign that involves action at two or more joints, children will typically omit distal articulation” (69).

Issues of Perception, Articulation, and Kinematics Other literature, though not categorized as having to do with features or acquisition, engages with issues of perception, articulation, or kinematics while examining particular questions about sign languages. The following sections detail this work. Signs as a whole. Mathur and Rathmann (2000) claim that physiology affects the grammar of sign languages, not just the construction of signs. Their argument is that some verbs in four sign languages do not have agreement with objects because to do so would entail having “a conflict in the motor requirements of the joint movements that are needed” (30). Despite their appeal to consider articulation as an explanation for a linguistic puzzle, they do not characterize ease of articulation. The TSL sign GAOSU (TELL) pictured in figure 7 is one example of signs that involve handshape change and path movement. In this particular sign, all of the fingertips touch and then open so the fingers are extended and spread. During this change, the hand starts in a position in front of and close to the signer’s body and moves to a position about a foot in front of the signer’s body. Mandel (1979) predicts the direction in which signs like the one in figure 7 will move in space based on the well-known observation that, when the wrist is flexed, the fingers tend to extend, and when the wrist is extended, the fingers tend to flex. This tendency is referred to as tenodesis. In tenodesis, muscles that pass over and act on some number of joints are not long enough to permit all of the joints to move as much as they are able at the same time (Galley and Forster 1987; Wells 1966). This limitation causes a “pulley effect” (Wells 1966), meaning that ac-


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 45


45

Figure 7 An example of a TSL sign that involves handshape change and path movement translated as GAOSU ‘TELL’.

tions occur, not because they are directly performed, but because they are forced to occur by “remote control.” The technical explanation of the tenodesis that occurs in the hand is that the extrinsic muscles of the hand (i.e., those that originate, not in the hand, but in the forearm) are the extensor digitorum communis, and the flexors digitorum profundus and superficialis. Both flexors are located on the palmar side of the hand. The extensor is located on the dorsal side of the hand. Each of these muscles crosses, and therefore acts on, the wrist joints and some or all of the joints in the fingers. However, none of the extrinsic muscles are long enough to allow both the wrist and the fingers to either flex completely or extend simultaneously. This fact can be verified easily by placing one’s elbow near the edge of a table so the hand can fall forward in space at the wrist (see figure 8a). Flexing the fingers from this position will cause the wrist to automatically extend (straighten) as shown in figure 8b. This action occurs because of tenodesis: the flexors are not long enough to comfortably let both the wrist and the fingers flex. Mandel (1979) hypothesizes that, in a sign in which the handshape changes from closed to extended (as in figure 7), the fingers extend, which causes the wrist to tend to flex, which in turn moves the hand forward. (Mandel defines forward as moving in the direction that the palm


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Chapter One

46

a. Figure 8

Page 46

b.

Demonstration of tenodesis. Drawings by Sarah Mahan.

is facing.) Conversely, in a sign with a handshape change from extended to closed, the fingers flex, which causes the wrist to extend, which moves the palm backward (in the direction that the back of the hand is facing). Mandel’s investigation of Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg’s Dictionary of American Sign Language (1965) reveals that of the sixtytwo signs with (a) either opening or closing of the fingers and (b) path movement through space, forty-six signs favor tenodesis and only sixteen oppose it (Mandel 1979). Mandel’s (1979, 1981) work makes an attempt both to characterize ease of articulation and to use it to solve linguistic puzzles. Loncke (1984) suggests that kinesiology plays a role in several phonological characteristics of Belgian Sign Language. First, Loncke notes that it is highly predictable that signs produced in the signing space will more likely have flexion, abduction, and inward rotation than other combinations of movements or single movements. Second, Loncke notes that, in one-handed signs that are articulated in areas either to the left or to the right of the signing space, the preferred direction of movement is contralateral to ipsilateral. This preference holds true for righthanded and left-handed signers. Third, circular movements in signs tend to go in the same direction no matter in which plane (horizontal, vertical, or sagittal) they occur. Even nonsigners who were asked to produce a sign after hearing a description that did not include instructions on which way to make the circular movement respected the directionality that


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 47


47

signers used. In his explanation of what could account for these data, Loncke (1984) concludes that they must be attributable to what is most comfortable. Although all of Loncke’s observations are interesting, they are not explored in any greater detail, and no attempt is made to determine exactly what makes some movements easier or more comfortable. Taking another tack, Siple (1978) relates several aspects of the lexicon of ASL to visual constraints. Specifically, she claims that different areas of the signing space have a high or low degree of visual acuity. At what she calls the “point of fixation,” acuity is best (1978, 97). As the distance between the sign and the point of fixation increases, acuity decreases. If we assume that the fixation point for signers is the face, then the area around the face is a high visual acuity area. The area around the waist, then, would be a low visual acuity area. Siple predicts that pairs of signs that look very similar will be produced in the high acuity areas of the signing space because they will be easy to distinguish. Siple defines visually similar signs as being almost identical signs, except for small distinctions such as a different location or handshape. Visually similar signs will be produced in areas that are easy to see, and visually different pairs of signs will be produced in areas that are harder to see. Siple (1978) claims that the data in Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg (1965) confirm her predictions, but she does not cite the actual data. Wilcox (1992) notes that several studies have examined the kinematics of ASL movement rather than ASL handshape. These studies have unearthed some interesting conclusions that bear on sign phonetics. From a series of studies concerned with the perception of movement primarily, we have a beginning understanding of the importance of handshape to a sign. Poizner, Bellugi, and Lutes-Driscoll (1981) used a technique of representing human motion as points of light. They used a point-light display in which signers’ heads as well as various joints in the hand and arm were illuminated. The experimenter’s room was darkened so only the lights were visible. The experimenters tried to find out whether signers could recognize signs represented as point-light displays as well as they could recognize signs signed normally on videotape. In some cases, they removed particular lights from the stimuli.


48

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 48

Chapter One

From their experiments, Poizner, Bellugi, and Lutes-Driscoll (1981) concluded that “in general, the more distal the joint of the arm, the more information is carried for sign identifiability” (432). Poizner, Klima, and Bellugi (1987) reported that “movement of the fingertips—though not any other pair of points is necessary for sign identification” (25). In another study, Poizner (1983) compared the responses of native ASL signers and those of hearing people with no knowledge of ASL. Deaf and hearing subjects did not differ in their responses to certain aspects of movement such as its direction and repetition and cyclicity; in other words, on the issue of the effect of linguistic experience on certain types of judgments, there is no difference between deaf and hearing signers. Lupton and Zelaznik (1990) try to shed light on how skills in using ASL are developed. They do kinematic measurements at two distinct points in time of the movements of two hearing subjects who were learning ASL as a second language and who had had no previous exposure to ASL (other than what they had been exposed to the semester the study was done). They conclude that, as a result of practice, learners get better at producing ASL because they learn to produce it with coarticulated movements. Though there were differences between the subjects, their movements generally became more constrained and reproducible. One of the conclusions reached by Lupton and Zelaznik (1990) is that the target position, not the movement amplitude, “provides the greatest amount of linguistic information in ASL” (169). Lupton and Zelaznik’s (1990) study concerns the learning of ASL as a second language; time will tell whether it and other studies like it have something of value to say about the structure of ASL. Brentari (1998) proposes that both hands need to be represented in theories of phonology. Part of her evidence for this assertion is the existence of weak drop. Weak drop (Padden and Perlmutter 1987) is a rule proposed to account for an asymmetry: the weak hand can be dropped altogether in certain signs but not in others. Brentari notes that this rule bears on “phonological economy” (1998, 248). In addition, Brentari (1998) discusses prosodic complexity as visual sonority. Among her claims for sonority in sign languages is that “the


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 49


49

degree of sonority is correlated with the proximity to the body of the joint articulating the sign gesture to the body; the more proximal the joint articulating the movement is to the midline of the body, the greater the degree of sonority” (216–17). Brentari defines sonority in terms of both perception and articulation. With respect to perception, sonority is defined as “the property that enhances the ability of a property of a sign to be perceived at greater distances; in this regard, perceiving a property of a sign, discriminating it from other similar properties, and identifying it are taken to be separate operations in the act of comprehension,” and with respect to articulation, sonority is “defined and measured on the basis of the joint(s) used to articulate a single movement” (1998, 27–28). Handshape. Wilcox (1992) is not concerned with the articulation or perception of handshapes but, rather, with handshape kinematics—which corresponds with the acoustics of speech. His study of the acoustic phonetics of fingerspelling is the nearest we have come to discovering the kinematic properties of handshapes. Fingerspelling is relevant to a phonetics of handshape because fingerspelling involves the rapid transmission of handshapes, each of which corresponds to a letter of the alphabet. Ann (1993b) notes that Wilcox’s examination of fluent and nonfluent fingerspelling yields several conclusions: (a) speed is not a factor in producing fluent fingerspelling, (b) peak velocity occurs in the transitions of fingerspelled words, (c) the behavior of the fingers and hand are temporally synchronized in fluent fingerspelling but not in disfluent fingerspelling. It is not clear, however, whether these conclusions point to constraints on handshapes or constraints on sign languages in general. In a study of coarticulation across ASL signs, Cheek (2001) explores a phenomenon she refers to as handshape variation—the observation that the same handshape is not always produced in precisely the same way. She notes that other researchers (Klima and Bellugi 1979; Wilbur 1987; Liddell and Johnson 1986, 1989; Sandler 1993) have noticed that


50

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 50

Chapter One

the handshape of a previous sign can affect the handshape in a following sign. She points out that “these discussions do not distinguish between phonetic patterns of coarticulation and phonological patterns of assimilation” (Cheek 2001, 9). Cheek’s work attempts to resolve this ambiguity by using quantitative kinematic data to get more information about the exact nature of variation. She examines finger extension in a few phrases with the ASL handshapes 5 and 1. In the ASL phrase TRUE SMART (really smart), TRUE is articulated with a 1 handshape, and SMART is articulated with a 1 handshape. In the phrase TRUE MOTHER (real mother), TRUE (articulated with the 1 handshape) is followed by MOTHER, which is articulated with a 5 handshape. Cheek tries to ascertain whether the 1 handshape in TRUE looks any different in the phrase TRUE SMART than it does in the phrase TRUE MOTHER. Her experimental results show that the preceding and following sign “systematically affect the production of the index handshape in the dominant hand as well as the relaxed handshape of the nondominant hand” (Cheek 2001, 196). Cheek’s work shows that the phenomenon she explores is not phonological but phonetic. She concludes that “the principles of economy are clearly at work in sign just as they are in speech” (2001, 209). When hearing people perceive linguistic sounds, they do not perceive only one discrete stimuli as a particular sound. Rather, they identify sounds along a continuum to be the same sound. The stimuli that they perceive to be the same sound has to do with their native language and with their linguistic experience with the sound contrast being tested. This phenomenon is known as categorical perception. Baker (2003) studied whether a linguistic system constrained the perception of only speech or whether the same effects happened for “processing stimuli that were not speech” (2). In her study, Baker (2003) investigated whether hearing and deaf adults perceived handshapes categorically, that is, whether there is a “linguistic, as opposed to a purely perceptual, basis for the processing of linguistic contrasts that are visual” (3). Baker’s hypothesis was that, if both hearing subjects (with English as a native language) and deaf sub-


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 51


51

jects (with ASL as a native language) had categorical perception of handshapes, then some general perceptual mechanism was at play. If only the deaf group had categorical perception, then the result of linguistic experience in perceiving handshapes was significant. Baker reasoned that, if linguistic experience plays a role in constraining the perception of the ASL contrasts, then language has its own system-specific perceptual mechanism focused on the phenomenon of categorical perception. To test her hypothesis about ASL in general, Baker focused on figuring out whether deaf ASL signers and hearing nonsigners exhibited categorical perception as they viewed three pairs of handshapes. Subjects had an identification task and a discrimination task that had to do with handshapes. The results of the identification task suggested that there was no categorical perception; both the hearing and the deaf subjects grouped handshapes in the same way. However, the result of the discrimination task suggested that the deaf subjects did categorically perceive handshapes and the hearing subjects did not. Although Baker (2003) was not attempting to test any linguistic hypotheses, she notes that her research has implications for Brentari et al. (1996), who propose various features for handshapes: “The deaf adults were indeed processing the handshapes in terms of their component features” (Baker 2003, 89). Moy (1990) observes a parallel between progress in spoken language phonology and sign language phonology: much of the phonological research on ASL until 1990 tried to explain phonological puzzles by considering only evidence gleaned from what people signed. In other words, the evidence came from the language itself (language-internal evidence). In his research, Moy instead took a psycholinguistic approach. His question had been a long-standing one. Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg (1965) and Stokoe (1978) claimed that the handshapes in figure 9 were allophones of one another. Allophones are handshapes that, when replaced by each other in a given sign, do not result in a meaning difference, although they may make the sign look unusual or “funny” to a native signer. Moy tests the specific claim that the handshapes in 9a, 9c, and 9d are allophones. On the basis of psycholinguistic evidence


52

Figure 9 (1998).

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 52

Chapter One

a. The handshape in ASL 10

b. ASL fingerspelled T

c. ASL fingerspelled A

d. ASL fingerspelled S

ASL allophones. Figures b and c are from Tennant and Brown

(subjects’ response to a concept formation test), he finds that the handshapes in figures 9c and 9d were not considered the same thing by subjects and therefore should not be considered allophones of one another. However, subjects saw the handshapes in figures 9a and 9c as the same thing, and therefore they can be considered allophones. Frequency of occurrence. In sign language research, the few studies that deal with frequency do not conceptualize their questions or data as some functional linguists might. Woodward (1982, 1985, 1987), essentially using dictionary data, examined the frequency of particular handshapes across ten sign languages. He looked at handshapes involving what he called (a) single-finger extension—handshapes in which one finger is extended with the rest of the fingers closed; (b) two-finger extension—two fingers extended


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 53


single-finger extension

53

two-finger extension

single-finger contact Figure 10 Types of handshapes analyzed by Woodward.

with the rest closed; and (c) single-finger contact—handshapes in which one finger contacts the thumb. (See figure 10.) After analyzing his data, Woodward made the following observations about handshapes: • The extended index finger occurs in all of the sign languages. The extended ring finger occurs in only one of the sign languages. • The extended index finger occurs in a relatively large percentage of signs, compared, for example, with the extended ring finger, which occurs in a tiny percentage of signs. • Single-finger extension handshapes occur more commonly than two finger extended handshapes. • Single-finger extension handshapes are more common than handshapes in which a single finger contacts the thumb.

Woodward’s observations alone were a great contribution when they were made, but the issue of generating an explanation for these observations was never examined. Sandler (1996) in a discussion of markedness reports some statistics from Israeli Sign Language (ISL). She has two sources of data on attested handshapes in ISL. First, she calculates their order of frequency in the dictionary, and second, she calculates their order of frequency in a small corpus of relatively natural signing.


54

9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 54

Chapter One

Morford and McFarlane (2003) describe a preliminary study on sign frequency in ASL. A database of 4,111 signs that were signed in various discourse contexts by twenty-seven signers was considered. The questions asked about the database did not concern handshape. One question was concerned with discovering the most frequent “sign types”; investigators distinguished between frozen signs, classifiers, fingerspelled signs, etc. An interesting finding was that the category of signs we think of as classifiers comprised a very small percentage of signs in the database: 4.2 percent. A related finding was that genre (formal, casual, or spontaneous narrative) affected the percentages of sign types found in the corpus. For example, classifier constructions were much more common in narratives than in casual or formal signing. None of these conclusions could have been drawn in the absence of a study about frequency. With the exception of Bonvillian and Siedlecki (2000) and Siedlecki and Bonvillian (1993), discussed earlier in this chapter, Ann (1993a) and Ann (1996) are the only other works to have dealt with frequency. Both Ann (1993a) and Ann (1996) were concerned with type frequency of handshapes in two unrelated sign languages, ASL and TSL. Both studies used as data all the handshapes listed in the Smith and Ting (1979, 1984) glossaries for TSL and in the Dictionary of American Sign Language (Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg 1965) for ASL. Both studies tried to explain frequency of occurrence data by making an appeal to ease of articulation; both studies conceptualized frequency as a condition in which a handshape occurs more often than expected. What was expected was calculated by means of a mathematical formula. The present work differs from Ann (1993a, 1996) in four ways. First, neither Ann (1993a) nor Ann (1996) couched the discussion of frequency and ease of articulation in functionalist theory. This work takes pains to contextualize the questions dealt with here by placing them in the context of functionalist theory. Second, both Ann (1993a) and Ann (1996) ascertained frequency in only one way: both studies examined only type frequency ascertained from dictionary entries. This work, even more so than Ann (2005), expands that attempt by also examining con-


9/5/06

9:57 AM

Page 55


55

versational data. Ann (2005) reports on type frequencies for handshapes in TSL from a mini-corpus of a few minutes of signing taken from a Taiwanese television show in which two native signers converse. Third, the conception of frequency of occurrence is different here than it was in Ann (1993a) and Ann (1996). Here, I calculate frequency in a much more straightforward way. Frequency is a matter of how many times a handshape occurs, not whether it is expected to occur in a conversation. Finally, Ann (1993a) and Ann (1996) were concerned with comparing data from two sign languages whereas this work, because of the focus on greatly expanding the database, examines only TSL in detail.


9/5/06

10:07 AM

Page 56

Chapter Two

The Anatomy and Physiology of the Human Hand First developing an understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the human hand and the relevance of each to handshapes will enable the reader to follow the theory I propose with respect to ease of articulation for handshapes. Although I adhere to the standard distinction between anatomy (i.e., the description of parts of the body and their potential for movement) and physiology (the study of how the parts move and interact) (Galley and Forster 1987), my discussion of the two areas will be intertwined. The anatomy and physiology of the human hand are tremendously complicated; therefore, making hard and fast conclusions about all aspects of physiology is unwise (and maybe even impossible). Enormous fields of study such as anatomy, physiology, and biomechanics are engaged in the task of understanding how the human body works (Wells 1966). Discoveries made in these areas alter previous paradigms, and consequently, aspects of both anatomy and physiology are still not well understood. For example, variation exists across humans with respect to the number and arrangement of extensor tendons (Schenck 1964). Beyond anatomy, the precise functions of anatomical structures are not necessarily clear. For example, questions still arise as to which smaller movements combine to form a larger movement and which muscles participate (and how much) in executing particular movements (Wells 1966)—questions that are particularly important here. Different muscle groups might work together to achieve a given movement,

56


9/5/06

10:07 AM

Page 57


57

though one muscle might be primarily responsible. But in another movement, the same muscles might participate in different ways. So, a given muscle might act as a prime mover (i.e., actually doing some action) in one movement, as an antagonist (i.e., permitting the action by relaxing) in another, and as a synergist (i.e., helping the prime mover to complete the action) in a third. To complicate matters, in accomplishing an action, a prime mover or a synergist may participate minimally (say, only 10–20 percent) or maximally (say, 80–100 percent).13 Clearly then, it is impossible to say that a given muscle is a prime mover, an antagonist, or a synergist because it may function as a prime mover for one movement, as an antagonist for another, and as a synergist for a third. A thoroughly detailed explanation of the muscles of the hand and the movements they accomplish is far too complex to be dealt with appropriately here. Nevertheless, some understanding of the physiology of the hand and forearm is critical for us to begin to understand its relationship to sign language handshapes. Therefore, for my purposes here, I make two reasonable assumptions that serve to simplify my task. First, I assume that there exists a “canonical,” or standard hand, the structure and functions of which I outline throughout this chapter. Second, although kinesiologists are still unraveling the mysteries of how the human hand moves, my hypotheses concern the movements that particular muscles allow on the basis of the positioning of a muscle, the effects of other soft structures in the hand, and the effects of the joint structures for movement. The question of which aspects of the physiology are in fact relevant for handshapes is a reasonable one. For example, the hand may act as a whole (i.e., all five fingers together), or some subset of fingers may group together in extension while the others remain closed to the palm. So what each individual finger can do and what the hand as a 13. Because, anatomically and physiologically, the thumb both resembles and differs from the other four fingers, the need sometimes arises to distinguish the thumb from the rest of the fingers. Throughout the chapter, my use of the phrase the five digits should be interpreted as including the thumb and four fingers. The phrase the fingers should be interpreted as excluding the thumb.


58

9/5/06

10:07 AM

Page 58

Chapter Two

whole can do is relevant to handshapes. Therefore, my discussion centers on the bones of the hand and wrist, the joints, and the muscles and other soft structures. THE BONES OF THE HAND The hand and the wrist contain twenty-seven small bones: fourteen phalanges, five metacarpals, and eight carpal (wrist) bones (see figure 11). In the following sections, I discuss the bones of the fingers, hand, and wrist in turn. I will use the terms proximal and distal to refer to relative locations on the body: proximal means closer to the trunk of the body, and distal means farther from the trunk of the body. FINGERS Each of the digits is made up of small bones called the phalanges. There are fourteen phalanges in the human hand. The four fingers have three phalanges each, known as the distal phalanx, the medial phalanx, and

Figure 11

Bones of the hand. Adapted from Napier 1980, 29.


9/5/06

10:07 AM

Page 59


59

the proximal phalanx. The distal phalanx is located near the tip of each finger. The proximal phalanx is located near the metacarpophalangeal joint (or knuckle) of each finger. The medial phalanx is the bone between the proximal phalanx and the distal phalanx. The thumb has two phalanges: the proximal phalanx (near the knuckle) and the distal phalanx (near the tip). HAND The skeleton of the palm, the metacarpus, consists of five bones called metacarpals, labeled 1–5 in figure 11. Each metacarpal attaches to the proximal phalanx of each respective digit. The first metacarpal is that of the thumb, the second metacarpal is that of the index, and so on. The metacarpal heads are the distal ends of the metacarpal bones, in other words, the ends of each metacarpal bone that are closest to the proximal phalanx (Romanes 1981). WRIST The eight bones of the wrist (the carpal bones) can be divided into two rows, a distal row (located on the hand side of the wrist) and a proximal row (located on the forearm side of the wrist). The distal row of carpal bones from right to left in figure 12 are the hamatum, capitatum, multangulum minor, and multangulum major. The proximal row of carpal bones from right to left are the pisiform, triquetum, lunatum, and navicular. The distal ends of the two bones in the forearm, the radius and the ulna, are attached to the proximal row of carpal bones. JOINTS At a joint, two bones meet. Understanding the nature of the joints in the hand will help us see their relevance for sign language handshapes. One classification organizes joints into those with a space between the two bones and those without a space between the two bones (Wells


9/5/06

60

10:07 AM

Page 60

Chapter Two

Figure 12 Carpal bones from the palmar side. Adapted from Galley and Forster (1987, 114).

1966). The former permit gliding movement; the latter permit very little movement or no movement. From these groupings, three types of joints can be described: (1) synovial (freely moving), (2) cartilaginous (slightly moveable), and (3) fibrous (fixed) (Galley and Forster 1987). The hand has examples of all three. FINGERS AND HAND The fingers and hand have three sets of joints, all labeled in figure 11. At the distal interphalangeal joint, the distal and medial phalanges meet. At the proximal interphalangeal joint, the medial and proximal phalanges meet. At the metacarpophalangeal joint, or knuckle, the proximal phalanx of each finger meets its respective metacarpal at the metacarpal heads. All of these joints are synovial, moving freely in flexion and ex-


9/5/06

10:07 AM

Page 61


61

tension. In addition, the metacarpophalangeal joints of the four fingers permit abduction and adduction (spreading apart and coming together). HAND AND WRIST The wrist has four sets of joints. These are the carpometacarpal joints, the midcarpal joints, the intercarpal joints, and the radiocarpal joint. Proceeding from the distal to the proximal joints, the carpometacarpal joint is where the metacarpals meet the distal row of carpal bones. The midcarpal joints and the intercarpal joints are within the wrist itself. The midcarpal joints are those that connect the four carpal bones in the proximal row with the four carpal bones in the distal row. The intercarpal joints are between adjacent carpal bones in both rows (Wells and Luttgens 1976). The radiocarpal joint is where the bones of the forearm, the radius and the ulna, meet the proximal row of carpal bones. Most of these joints are cartilaginous, permitting only slight movements. Together, however, they allow wrist movements of flexion, extension, hyperextension, radial flexion (moving the wrist to the right), ulnar flexion (moving the wrist to the left), and circumduction. For our purposes, the carpometacarpal joints (labeled in figure 11) are the most interesting. We can productively examine the five carpometacarpal joints in three groups: the carpometacarpal joint of the thumb, the carpometacarpal joints that distally attach to the index and the middle fingers, and those that distally attach to the ring and the pinky. The thumb’s carpometacarpal joint, sometimes called a “saddle joint,” is synovial. In fact, the first metacarpal is the most mobile of the five at the carpometacarpal joint and permits not only the movements necessary to produce sign language handshapes but also a number of other movements. The carpometacarpal joints of the four fingers are extremely interesting for our purposes. The construction of these joints varies in ways that have important implications for sign language handshapes. The carpometacarpal joints of the second and third metacarpals are fibrous or fixed, rendering the second and third metacarpals immobile. In contrast, the carpometacarpal joints of the fourth and fifth


62

9/5/06

10:07 AM

Page 62

Chapter Two

Figure 13 The fixed (fibrous) parts of the hand. Adapted from Galley and Forster (1987, 215) and Napier (1980, 29).

metacarpals are cartilagenous, making them slightly moveable. The fibrous parts of the hand are pictured in figure 13. The following two exercises help demonstrate the difference between the attachments of the second and third metacarpals and the fourth and fifth metacarpals at the carpometacarpal joint. First, take a friend’s hand with fingers facing toward you and palm down. Using both of your hands, grasp the second and third metacarpal of your friend’s hand with your thumb on the dorsal side of the hand and your index finger on the palmar side. Attempt to push down (toward the floor) on one metacarpal while pulling upward (toward the ceiling) on the other. You will see that it is not possible to move the second and third metacarpals. Now, grasp the fourth and fifth metacarpals, and try the same thing. You will quickly see that, quite in contrast with the second and third metacarpals, these are permitted plenty of movement.


9/5/06

10:07 AM

Page 63


63

Next, lay a pencil across the open flat hand, and make a fist holding the pencil. Notice the difference between the way the index and middle fingers grip the pencil and the way the ring and pinky grip the pencil. The index and middle simply wrap around the pencil, steadying it on the radial (thumb) side. The ring and pinky cup around the pencil steadying it on the ulnar (pinky) side. This cupping action occurs because the ring and pinky metacarpals are mobile at the carpometacarpal joint; if they were not, they could not grip the pencil as tightly and the pencil would be loose on the ulnar side of the hand. It should be clear by now that the different behavior of the second and third metacarpals compared with the fourth and fifth metacarpals is attributed to their very different carpometacarpal joint structures. To summarize, the wrist and hand have synovial, cartilagenous, and fibrous joints. The synovial joints are the distal interphalangeal joints, the proximal interphalangeal joints, the metacarpophalangeal joints, the radiocarpal joint, and all of the joints of the thumb. The cartilaginous joints are the ring and pinky carpometacarpal joints, the midcarpal joints, and the intercarpal joints. The fibrous joints are the index and middle carpometacarpal joints. The next section will consider what implications this anatomy has for sign language handshapes. THE PHYSIOLOGICAL RESULT OF THE ANATOMY OF THE CARPOMETACARPAL JOINTS We have seen that the index and middle metacarpals are anatomically immobilized at the carpometacarpal joint. The ring and pinky metacarpals are permitted a small degree of mobility at the carpometacarpal joint. The physiological result is that an asymmetry exists between the radial fingers and the ulnar fingers at the carpometacarpal joint. This asymmetry renders the radial fingers more able to perform precision movements than the ulnar fingers. This fact may seem counterintuitive because, at the carpometacarpal joint, the index and middle are the fingers that are fixed whereas the ring and pinky are slightly moveable. In fact, the explanation for this capacity comes from the fact that, to per-


64

9/5/06

10:07 AM

Page 64

Chapter Two

form a precision movement, the “proximal bones [must] be stabilized [i.e., held still] while the distal bones perform the movement” (Wells 1966, 54). If the fingers are to perform a precision movement, then the proximal bone involved in that movement needs to be immobilized. Where the action of fingers is concerned, the proximal bone is the metacarpal. Because the index and middle metacarpals are anatomically immobilized at the carpometacarpal joint, the index and middle fingers are capable of performing precision movements.14 In contrast, because the ring and pinky metacarpals are not anatomically immobilized at the carpometacarpal joint, the ulnar fingers do not meet the condition for performing precision movements (proximal bones stabilized while distal bone performs the movement). Thus, the ring and pinky fingers are not capable of performing precision movements. MUSCLES For our purposes, a muscle is more accurately characterized as a muscle-tendon group such as the one pictured in figure 14. The muscle part of a muscle-tendon group is made up of contractile tissue (tissue that is able to contract). A muscle’s only ability is to contract and to return to its rest position. The tendon part of a muscle-tendon group can be conceptualized as a string coming off a muscle. Although a muscle has the ability to contract, its tendons, by themselves, have no such ability. Tendons, in other words, either are pulled or do nothing, depending on what is happening at the muscle origin. Muscle-tendon groups have two ends—the origin and the insertion. The origin is where the action of the muscle originates. Typically, at the origin, the tendons come together in one mass of contractile tissue (called a muscle head). However, it is possible for the origin of a muscle to have more than one head; in this case, each head controls different

14. In general, the radial fingers provide the precision and stability of the hand, and the ulnar fingers provide the power and stability of the hand (Galley and Forster 1987).


9/5/06

10:07 AM

Page 65


Figure 14

65

A muscle-tendon group. Adapted from Wells (1966, 290).

tendons. The insertion is usually distal to the origin of a muscle-tendon group. At the insertion, the tendons, which have split off from a muscle head, are attached to bone (Wells 1966). Knowing the location of the origin and insertion of muscles at every joint is important because their location is what determines which joints a muscle acts on and what the action of the muscle will be on the joint. Other things being equal, a muscle-tendon group manipulates every joint it crosses; the joints in the hand are no exception. If we consider the possible configurations that hands can perform, it becomes clear that a joint in the hand might flex or extend to myriad points along an axis. So a metacarpophalangeal joint might be flexed or extended to any point in between the points in figure 15. However, linguistic distinctions do not seem to be made between, for example, a handshape flexed at the metacarpophalangeal joint at 45 degrees and a handshape flexed at the metacarpophalangeal joint at 55 degrees. Therefore, I follow other researchers (e.g., Corina and Sagey 1988; Sandler 1989) in isolating four configurations of the hand for examination: extension,


9/5/06

10:08 AM

66

Page 66

Chapter Two

Figure 15 Continuum of flexion and extension of a metacarpophalangeal joint. Drawings by Sarah Mahan.

flexion (including curving, bending, opposition, and full flexion), adduction, and abduction.15 Each discussion begins with an explication of the anatomy and then continues with an examination of the physiological implications of that anatomy. Extension When the fingers are extended, they are not flexed at any joint (see figure 16). The musculature responsible for this action involves the extensor muscles with assistance from the juncturae tendinum, the intrinsic muscles, and the abductors. We will examine the structural and functional properties of the anatomy that are responsible for extension of the fingers. Extension of the thumb. The thumb is well supplied with the following muscles that help it achieve full extension: the extensor pollicis brevis, the abductor polli15. In principle, the discussion could involve five configurations or three configurations. Perhaps perceptual considerations account for why four configurations have traditionally been isolated.


9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 67


67

Figure 16 Extension.

cis longus, and the extensor pollicis longus. The origins of all three muscles are in the forearm. Because of the location of its insertion at the interphalangeal joint of the thumb, the extensor pollicis brevis extends the thumb at the metacarpophalangeal joint. The interphalangeal joint is brought into full extension by the combined actions of two other muscles, the abductor pollicis longus and the extensor pollicis longus, whose insertions lie at more distal locations in the thumb. Extension of the fingers. The index and pinky each have an independent extensor (Brand 1985) whose function is to extend only that finger primarily at the metacarpophalangeal joint. These extensors are the extensor indicis proprius (for the index finger) and extensor digiti minimi (for the pinky). The origins of the extensor indicis proprius and the extensor digiti minimi lie in the forearm. The insertion of each is just distal to the metacarpophalangeal joint. Extension of all four fingers by the “common extensor,” extensor digitorum communis. The origin of the extensor digitorum communis, pictured in figure 17, lies in the forearm. It has four tendons that have two insertions each. The


68

9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 68

Chapter Two

Figure 17 The common extensor (extensor digitorum communis) and its tendons. Adapted from Wells and Luttgens (1976).

proximal insertions are at the wrist, and these will be discussed later in this chapter in the section about abduction and adduction of the fingers. The distal insertions, relevant here, are between the medial and distal phalanges of each of the four fingers. This arrangement is slightly more complicated than it first appears. When the extensor tendons cross the metacarpophalangeal joint, they are located on the dorsal side of each finger. But just distal to the metacarpophalangeal joint, they start to cross around the finger to the palmar side. They cross the proximal interphalangeal joint midway between the dorsal and palmar sides of the fingers. Then, at the distal interphalangeal joint, the tendons of the common extensor are squarely on the palm side of the hand. This structure is schematically illustrated in figure 18. The physiological result of the placement of the tendons of the extensor digitorum communis is that, when the extensor contracts, the metacarpophalangeal joint extends, the distal interphalangeal joint extends slightly, and the proximal interphalangeal joint remains flexed. This shape resembles the sign language handshape configuration known


9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 69


69

Figure 18 The common extensor tendons. Adopted from Schider (1957, plate 4, figure 3).

as curved.16 At this point, the lumbricals and interossei (known collectively as the intrinsic muscles because their origins and insertions are in the hand itself) come into play. Extension by the intrinsic muscles. The seven interosseous muscles, that is, the three palmar interossei and the four dorsal interossei, are located on both the palmar and dorsal sides of the hand. The palmar and dorsal interossei have their origins between the metacarpal bones and their insertions at the distal interphalangeal joint. The four lumbricals are located on the radial (thumb) side of each of the four fingers. Similar to the interossei, their origins are on

16. The difference between the actual curved configuration and the loosely curved configuration referred to here is that the actual curved configuration requires that the flexion at proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints be greater. To see what contraction of the extensor digitorum communis accomplishes, first, hold the left hand in a position of rest (the fingers of the left hand should be loosely flexed). Next, place the right index finger on the dorsal side of the left hand at the metacarpophalangeal joint of the left index finger. Next, firmly move the right index finger toward the second (index) carpometacarpal joint, pulling the skin along. The left index finger will extend slightly at the metacarpophalangeal joint and will remain loosely flexed at the two more distal joints. In this demonstration, the skin on the dorsal side of the hand has been forced to function much as the extensor digitorum communis does.


9/5/06

70

three palmar interossei

10:08 AM

Page 70

Chapter Two

four dorsal interossei

four lumbricals

Figure 19 The interosseous and lumbrical muscles. Adapted from Wells (1966, 295, 298–99).

the palmar side of the metacarpus, and their insertions are on the dorsal side of the fingers at the distal interphalangeal joint (see figure 19). The lumbricals and the interossei help accomplish full extension by pulling the medial and distal phalanges into full extension while they simultaneously flex the metacarpophalangeal joint (Wells 1966). The fact that the intrinsic muscles both flex and extend is a result of their positioning. At the metacarpophalangeal joint, the intrinsics are located on the palmar side of the finger. The intrinsics curve around the finger, and at the proximal interphalangeal joints, they are located toward the dorsal side of the finger. At the distal interphalangeal joints, they are clearly on the dorsal side of the finger. This structure is illustrated in figure 20. Contraction of these muscles results in simultaneous flexion (at the metacarpophalangeal joints) and extension (at the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints). Juncturae tendinum. The final aspect of anatomy and physiology for extension of the fingers is the juncturae tendinum, a group of three ligaments located on the dorsal side of the hand. These ligamentous bands connect the tendons of the


9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 71


71

Figure 20 The intrinsic muscles. Adapted from Schider (1957, plate 4, figure 3).

extensor digitorum communis. The juncturae tendinum are pictured in figure 21. The juncturae tendinum labeled (a) connects the extensor tendon of the pinky to that of the ring finger. The juncturae tendinum labeled (b) connects the extensor tendon of the ring finger to that of the middle finger. The juncturae tendinum labeled (c) connects the extensor tendon of the middle finger to that of the index finger. The physiological relevance of the juncturae tendinum anatomy is not completely clear. However, it is expected that, as the fingers extend, the juncturae tendinum will pull on each other, which will cause the fingers to be dependent on one another to varying degrees. Although I leave the exact mechanics to be worked out by specialists in this field, I speculate here on the hypothesized physiological effects of the anatomical facts.

Figure 21 The juncturae tendinum. Adapted from Tubiana (1981, 241).


72

9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 72

Chapter Two

The extensor tendons of both the index and pinky fingers are tethered by only one juncturae tendinum. This structure contrasts the situation for both the middle and ring fingers, which are tethered on either side by two juncturae tendinum: the ring finger by (a) and (b) and the middle finger by (b) and (c) (see figure 21). I make two predictions based on this structure: First, fingers that are tethered by one juncturae tendinum are slightly freer than fingers tethered by two. Thus, the index and pinky fingers are each a bit freer than the middle and ring fingers. Second, in extension, when the juncturae tendinum come into play, pairs of adjacent fingers have some effect on each other. Because of their musculature, some fingers (the thumb, index, and pinky) can fully extend, and others (the middle and ring) cannot. Clearly, however, the abilities of both the middle and ring fingers change when they act with other fingers. This discussion centers on the conditions under which the middle and ring fingers can fully extend in concert with other fingers. I suggest, first, that when two fingers act together, any finger can extend fully if (a) it has an independent extensor or (b) it is connected by a juncturae tendinum to a finger with an independent extensor. Second, when three or four fingers act together, any finger can fully extend if each extended finger is directly connected by a juncturae tendinum to another extended finger and if one of the group has an independent extensor. The finger combinations that can extend fully and those that cannot are listed in table 1. Flexion Moving from the complicated interactions between muscles that allow extension of the hand, we now examine flexion, the movement that ultimately brings the open hand to a fist. The hand accomplishes flexion with four flexors plus the intrinsic muscles. Because we discussed the intrinsic muscles in the section on extension, our discussion here begins with the flexors. In full flexion, as in full extension, all of the joints are pulled the same way. However, unlike full extension, full flexion requires only the flexor muscles: no assistance is needed from any other


9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 73


73

Table 1. Finger Combinations that Can or Cannot Fully Extend Pairs that can fully extend ring and pinkya middle and index

Pairs that cannot fully extend middle and pinky ring and index middle and ring thumb and ring thumb and middle

Groups that can fully extend

Groups that cannot fully extend

index, middle, thumb, index, ring ring, pinky thumb, middle, thumb, index, pinky middle thumb, middle, index, middle, ring ring middle, ring, pinky index, middle, pinky index, ring, pinky

NOTE: a. Clearly, when the ring and pinky extend, the ring is slightly less extended than when it extends with the middle, ring, and pinky. However, it is still very nearly fully extended.

set of muscles. The flexors are distributed symmetrically, and each digit has two flexors. The fact that all of the digits are equipped with the same number of flexors suggests that no finger is better than any other at flexion (Mandel 1981). Nevertheless, the thumb and the index are actually capable of a bit more than the other fingers. The handshape configurations that involve flexion include closed, curved, bent, and opposed (see figure 22). Flexion of the thumb. The thumb has two flexors: the flexor pollicis longus and the flexor pollicis brevis (see figure 23). Both are located on the palmar side of the hand. With these flexors, the thumb can independently execute the


9/5/06

Figure 22

Page 74

Chapter Two

74

a. closed

10:08 AM

b. curved

c. bent

d. opposed

Handshape configurations that involve flexion.

actions these muscles permit. In addition, the structure of the thumb’s joints and its supply of muscles make it capable of the movements necessary for opposition. Thus, the thumb, though being no better than the other fingers at flexion per se, has a more complex set of behaviors than the fingers. Flexion of the fingers. The two flexors for the fingers—the flexor digitorum superficialis and the flexor digitorum profundus—are located on the palmar side of the forearm and hand. The origins of both lie in the forearm. The superficialis has four tendons whose insertions are located at the base of the medial phalanges of each of the four fingers (see figure 23). The superficialis flexes the fingers largely at the proximal interphalangeal joint. The profundus, too, has four tendons, and their insertions are at the base of the distal phalanges in each of the four fingers (see figure 23). Neither the profundus nor the superficialis are positioned such that they primarily flex the fingers at the metacarpophalangeal joint. In fact, flexion at the metacarpophalangeal joint is largely a result of the intrinsic muscles (i.e., the lumbricals and interossei). Clearly, the profundus and the superficialis share some physiological properties. But the profundus also differs. It has two separate muscle heads, one for the index finger and one for the middle, ring, and pinky fingers (Fahrer 1981). Consequently, when the profundus contracts at its origin, it can contract (a) the tendons of the middle, ring, and pinky fin-


9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 75


75

Figure 23 The flexors of the thumb and fingers. Adapted from Wells (1966, 290).

gers; (b) the tendon of the index finger; or (c) both. So, the index finger can flex at the distal interphalangeal joint separately from the other fingers, and all the fingers can flex at the distal interphalangeal joint. Crucially, however, the middle, ring, and pinky fingers must act together in flexion of the distal interphalangeal joint because the tendons that control them originate from the same muscle head. It is impossible for the common muscle head of the profundus to be contracted in one place and not in the other (i.e., the pinky cannot flex at the distal interphalangeal joint without the middle and ring fingers also being flexed there). The reader can easily verify these assertions by curving the index finger while extending the other fingers. This configuration is perfectly possible to do because the profundus has a separate muscle head for the index. Next, try to make a curved configuration (which necessarily involves flexion at the distal interphalangeal joint) with the middle finger, keeping the ring and pinky fingers extended. This configuration is not possible because, when the middle finger curves, the ring and pinky fingers cannot stay extended; they curve, too. The common muscle head of the profundus unites the middle, ring, and pinky fingers in flexion so


76

9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 76

Chapter Two

no one of them can assume a curved configuration without the other two. Unlike the profundus, the superficialis has a common muscle head for all of the fingers. The curved configuration requires extension at the metacarpophalangeal joint and flexion at the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints. In other words, in the curved configuration, not all of the joints are being pulled the same way. The curved configuration requires two muscle groups, the extensors and the flexors. From our discussion of the muscles so far, it should be clear that the flexors digitorum superficialis and profundus flex the fingers at the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints. The extensors extend the fingers at the metacarpophalangeal joint. In the bent configuration, fingers are flexed at the metacarpophalangeal joint and extended at the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints. As is the case with the curved configuration, all of the joints are not pulled the same way. However, unlike the curved configuration, the bent configuration requires only one set of muscles— the intrinsics (the lumbricals and interossei). Although it seems counterintuitive, neither extensors nor flexors are activated in the production of the bent configuration. Rather, the intrinsics act as flexors at the metacarpophalangeal joints and as extensors at the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints, exactly the actions needed to produce the bent configuration. Until this point, it has been tacitly assumed that the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints act as one. In fact, now we have explored enough hand physiology to see why this assumption is generally true (Brand 1985). In extension, they function as a unit because the intrinsic muscles control them both. In flexion, although the distal interphalangeal joint is controlled by the profundus and the proximal interphalangeal joint is controlled by the superficialis, it is uncommon for flexion of the distal interphalangeal joint to occur in most people without flexion of the proximal interphalangeal joint, except in two cases. In the first exception, the distal interphalangeal joint can be extended while the proximal interphalangeal is flexed when the distal pha-


9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 77


threading a needle

77

making a fist

Figure 24 Extension of the distal interphalangeal joints while flexing the proximal interphalangeal joints. Drawings by Sarah Mahan.

lanx is held against the palm or the thumb. This situation occurs commonly when threading a needle or making a fist (see figure 24). In these situations, the distal interphalangeal joints can be held open by the thumb or palm while the proximal interphalangeal joints are flexed. In the second exception, the distal and proximal interphalangeal joints do not act as a unit when the profundus is not activated at all, leaving just the superficialis to flex the proximal interphalangeal joint. For example, consider the handshape in the ASL sign NAÏVE, pictured in

Figure 25

The handshape in the ASL sign NAÏVE. Drawing by Sarah Mahan.


78

9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 78

Chapter Two

figure 25. The proximal interphalangeal joint of the ring finger is clearly flexed. However, the distal interphalangeal joint is neither flexed nor extended. These exceptions notwithstanding, in both flexion and extension, the proximal interphalangeal joint and the distal interphalangeal joint operate for the most part as one unit. Opposition. I consider a finger to be opposed to the thumb when either the pad is touching the pad of the thumb or the tip is touching the thumb tip. Excluded from opposition are configurations in which the fingers are restrained behind the thumb (i.e., when the pad of the thumb is touching the fingernails of the “restrained” fingers) (Mandel 1981; Corina and Sagey 1988). I consider the fingers in those excluded handshapes to be closed. An opposed handshape is pictured in figure 22d. Opposition is similar to bending in two ways. First, both require flexion at the metacarpophalangeal joint. Second, both will tolerate a small degree of proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joint flexion. Opposition and bending differ in one way: contact of the fingerpad or tip with the thumb is necessary in opposed handshapes whereas no contact with the thumb occurs in bent handshapes. The thumb is the most specialized digit in that it is capable of not only all the same movement of the fingers but also other movements such as opposition (Napier 1980). Opposition is a combination of abduction (spreading) and hyperflexion (Wells 1966). In opposition, both the thumb and each of the opposed fingers make a contribution. Let us take a closer look at the contributions of each digit to opposition. The thumb’s contribution is its mobility at the carpometacarpal joint and the action of the muscle, the opponens pollicis, which “makes it possible when flexing phalanges for the thumb to touch the tip of any of the four fingers” (Wells 1966, 297). Clearly, all four fingers can flex at the metacarpophalangeal joint to bring them into position to oppose the thumb. But the positioning of the fingers relative to the thumb must make a contribution to opposition. For example, the index opposes the


9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 79


79

thumb automatically when the index is flexed and the thumb is abducted (Wells 1966). The middle finger, like the index finger, is also able to oppose the thumb with little effort, presumably because of its close position to the thumb (Sandy Sasarita, pers. comm.).17 I assume, therefore, that the opponens pollicis is not used when either the index finger or the middle finger opposes the thumb. In contrast, for the thumb to oppose the ring and pinky fingers, both the thumb and the ring or pinky must make contributions. The pinky’s opponens digiti minimi, whose function it is both to “flex and abduct the fifth metacarpal bone” (Wells 1966, 295), is activated, thereby positioning the pinky so it can oppose the thumb. The ring finger lacks special musculature; however, its position on the hand (i.e., nearer to the thumb than the pinky), contributes to its ability to oppose the thumb. Abduction and adduction. The final configurations relevant to sign language handshapes are abduction and adduction—the spreading apart and coming together of extended fingers. When fingers are “spread,” they are abducted (as in figure 26a), or moved away from the middle finger (Napier 1980). When there are no spaces between the fingers, they are adducted (as in figure 26b). Two sets of anatomical facts cause a natural tendency for fingers to abduct when extending. These are the structure and function of the collateral ligaments and the placement of the proximal insertions of the extensor digitorum communis, both discussed further here. The opportunity for fingers to spread (abduct) when extending is created by the location and function of the collateral ligaments and the shape of the metacarpal head. Each finger has two collateral ligaments. They are located at the knuckle, the place where the metacarpal heads meet the proximal phalanges. One collateral ligament is anchored on the

17. Mandel (1981) notes that the index is the “most opposable” finger (99). Mandel (1979) describes the phenomenon known as tenodesis, discussed in chapter 1, which bears on this point.


80

9/5/06

10:08 AM

Chapter Two

a. abducted Figure 26

Page 80

b. adducted

Handshape configurations do not involve flexion.

radial side of the knuckle, and the other is anchored on the ulnar side. These ligaments perform two functions: first, they connect the relevant metacarpal head to the proximal phalanx of the relevant finger, and second, they allow abduction of the fingers. Abduction is possible when fingers are extended at the metacarpophalangeal joint, but not when they are flexed. The reader can easily verify this claim by flexing the metacarpophalangeal joint and trying to spread the fingers. It is very difficult to get any spreading at all. Next, extend the fingers at the metacarpophalangeal joints and spread them. In this configuration, spreading is not only possible but natural. When the metacarpophalangeal joint is flexed, the collateral ligaments are required to stretch around the large part of the metacarpal head. In so doing, the ligaments become taut and cannot then allow abduction. The situation is different when there is extension at the metacarpophalangeal joint. In this case, the ligaments do not have to reach around the large part of the metacarpal head, and are, therefore, loose. When the ligaments are loose, abduction of the fingers is possible. The metacarpophalangeal joint in extension (a) and flexion (b) is pictured in figure 27. Notice the taut collateral ligaments in the illustration of flexion. The positioning of the attachments of the tendons of the extensor digitorum communis at the metacarpophalangeal and carpometacarpal joints causes the tendons to function as abductors because of their “line


9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 81


81

a

extension

b

flexion Figure 27 Inability to adduct in flexion. Adapted from Tubiana, Thomine, and Mackin (1996, 75).

of pull” (MacConaill and Basmajian 1969, 214). Recall that the tendons of the extensor digitorum communis have two insertions: one at the carpometacarpal joint, relevant here, and one between the medial and distal phalanges of each finger. The fact that the extensor digitorum communis has these two insertions creates a line of pull. At the metacarpophalangeal joint, the tendons are attached by sagittal bands, which are situated on top of each knuckle and hold the tendons in place (i.e., not, for example, in the space between each knuckle, which would create a different line of pull). Proximal to this attachment, the extensor tendons are also attached in the middle of the wrist. When the extensor digitorum communis contracts, if each of its tendons is to end up in a straight line, the fingers are forced to abduct slightly. In figure 28


82

9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 82

Chapter Two

Figure 28 Line of pull of the tendons of the extensor digitorum communis. Illustrations by Sandy Sasarita.

on the left, the fingers are abducted, and each of the tendons of the extensor digitorum communis is aligned. On the right, the fingers are adducted. Notice that the tendons of the extensor digitorum communis are not aligned, except for the middle finger. The inclination of the fingers to open and spread at the same time cannot be considered an absolute: fingers can certainly extend and not abduct. To override the natural tendency, the adductor muscles—the three palmar interossei and the adductor pollicis—must be used (see figure 29). However, fingers must adduct when they close, an observation for which the physiology is completely responsible. In addition, the hand has two opponens muscles that create a tendency for the fingers to abduct when they extend. These muscles, the opponens digiti minimi (for the pinky finger) and the opponens pollicis (for the thumb), are pictured in figure 29. The origin of the opponens digiti minimi is in the distal proximal row of bones in the wrist at the


9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 83


83

Figure 29 The adductor muscles. Adapted from Wells and Luttgens (1976, 126).

hamatum. Its insertion is along the length of the ulnar side (pinky) of the fifth metacarpal. The origin of the opponens pollicis is at the multangulum major (the carpal bone with which the thumb’s metacarpal bone forms the saddle joint). Its insertion is along the length of the radial border of the first metacarpal (Wells 1966). IMPLICATIONS OF ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY FOR SIGN LANGUAGE HANDSHAPES: SUMMARY The twenty-seven small bones of the hand and wrist contact one another through four sets of joints: the carpometacarpal joint, where the hand meets the wrist; the metacarpophalangeal (i.e., knuckle) joint; the proximal interphalangeal joint; and the distal interphalangeal joint. These joints are of two types: the synovial (moveable) joint and the fibrous (absolutely immobile) or cartilaginous (almost immobile) joint. The


9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 84

Chapter Two

84

Table 2. Summary of Finger Independence and Movement Physiological evidence for the ranking

Finger

Number of extensors

Number of flexors

Thumb Index Middle

2 (2 independent) 2 (1 independent) 1

Ring

1

Pinky

2 (1 independent)

2 (2 independent) 2 (1 independent) 2 (1 tied to ring and pinky) 2 (1 tied to middle and pinky) 2 (1 tied to middle and ring)

Favorable carpometacarpal joint?

Favorable juncturae tendinum?

yes yes

n.a. yes

yes

no

no

no

no

yes

metacarpophalangeal, proximal interphalangeal, and distal interphalangeal joints of the fingers are all mobile joints. In addition, all of the joints of the thumb are mobile. But the carpometacarpal joints of the fingers are either fixed or only slightly mobile. The metacarpals of the index and middle fingers are immobilized (fixed) at the carpometacarpal joint. The metacarpals of the ring and pinky fingers are slightly moveable. Given this structure, the index and middle fingers are much more capable than are the ring and pinky of making precision movements such as those needed for handshapes. The common extensors cause the fingers to extend at the metaacarpophalangeal joint when either the four fingers or all five digits act together. The independent extensors for the thumb, index, and pinky do this work when one of those fingers is extended alone. To accomplish full extension, two separate sets of muscles are required—the extensors, which extend the finger at the metacarpophalangeal joint, and the intrinsics, which finish the job by extending the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints. There is an asymmetry with respect to extensors. The thumb, index, and pinky each have two extensors: their respective tendons of the


9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 85


85

Table 3. Summary of Hand Configurations Configuration

Are the joints pulled the same way?

Extended Closed Curved Bent or opposed Spread Unspread

yes yes no no yes yes

Muscles responsible extensors, intrinsics flexors extensors, flexors intrinsics, opponens abductors adductors

common extensor and an independent extensor. The result is that the thumb, index, and pinky can extend even if they act alone. In contrast, the middle and ring fingers each have only the tendon of the common extensor (see, e.g., Mandel 1981; Boyes-Braem 1990; Wells 1966). Without the analogous extra set of muscles, the middle and ring fingers are much less able to extend, particularly if they must do so alone with the rest of the fingers closed. It is clear that the common extensor is not very effective when only one of its tendons is working because, in those situations, full extension of the middle and ring fingers is impossible. The best the common extensor can do is to get the middle or ring finger into a bent configuration.18 Each of the digits has two flexors whose function it is to flex them at various joints. In addition, the intrinsic muscles have the task of flexing the fingers at the metacarpophalangeal joint while extending them at the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints. All of these anatomical features make it possible for the individual fingers and the hand to produce the handshapes of sign languages. Table 2 presents a summary of the fingers with respect to independence and ability

18. Even in combination with other fingers, the middle and especially the ring fingers are poor at full extension. The muscular deficit of the ring finger is exacerbated by its status as an ulnar finger and by the juncturae tendinum that tie it to other fingers.


86

9/5/06

10:08 AM

Page 86

Chapter Two

to perform certain actions. Table 3 summarizes how the hand as a whole accomplishes various configurations in different ways. In chapter 3 I use the physiological facts and hypotheses presented here to construct a theory of ease of articulation. Specifically, in chapter 3, I assign a relative “ease of articulation” score to each logically possible handshape.


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 87

Chapter Three

A Model of Ease of Handshape Articulation In this chapter, I construct an explicit model of handshape ease of articulation based on the physiological facts explained in chapter 2. As I will show, the model allows us to divide logically possible handshapes into three groups: easy to articulate, difficult to articulate, and physically impossible to articulate. To construct this model, I first motivated the physiologically based criteria that I think affect ease of articulation. I then applied physiologically based criteria to all the fingers, to some subset of fingers, or to a single finger whereupon each handshape received an “ease score,” that is, a number that reflects its relative ease of articulation. A handshape can involve all of the fingers in one group, all doing the same thing, or it can involve fingers in exactly two groups, for example, one that includes the extended index and thumb and one that includes the closed middle, ring, and pinky fingers. 19 Logically, a 19. According to Mandel’s finger position constraint (FPC) (1981), licit handshapes can involve fingers all in one group or fingers in two groups, but no more than two groups. Actually, the set of generalizations included in the concept of FPC is somewhat more complicated. The concept of FPC asserts that one of the two groups (Mandel’s “selected” fingers) can be in any position except closed, but they must all be in the same position. They can change shape in a sign that involves handshape change, and they can make contact with the other hand or with some other part of the body. The second group of fingers (Mandel’s “unselected” fingers) can be either all fully extended or all fully flexed (Mandel 1981; Sandler 1989; Corina and Sagey 1988). The FPC has never been seriously challenged.

87


88

Figure 30

9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 88

Chapter Three

An example of a two-group handshape.

handshape could be made with three groups of fingers, for example, one in which the thumb is extended, the index finger is bent, and the middle, ring, and pinky fingers are curved (or it could be made with five groups for that matter, with each of the five fingers doing something different), but handshapes such as these are not observed in natural sign languages. The generalization of no more than two groups (Mandel 1981) is quite helpful in characterizing attested handshapes and in ruling out many logical possibilities. Therefore, I maintain a distinction between the two groups of fingers, and I refer to these two groups in the most descriptive way possible. For example, in this work, the handshape in figure 30 will be referred to as a two-group handshape in which two fingers are extended with the rest of the fingers closed; other possibilities for two-group handshapes could include bent and closed or curved and closed. As we have discussed, the basic hand configurations used in sign languages are extended (which some refer to as open), bent, curved, and closed. In addition, hand configurations can involve the fingers being opposed, abducted, or adducted. The anatomical and physiological features of the fingers, hand, and wrist, which are discussed in chapter 2, provide good reasons to consider the four main configurations unequal


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 89

A Model of Ease of Handshape Articulation

89

in terms of their relative levels of difficulty. A search of the physiological literature did not reveal any ranking of configurations. Therefore, this work establishes a ranking, which is crucial to the process of determining the relative ease of handshape articulation. To that end, I have established five criteria based on hand physiology: muscle opposition in configurations of handshapes, support for extension, support for flexion, tendency to oppose the thumb, and tendency to spread. These criteria refer mostly to muscle function; the joint structures in the hand contribute less prominently.

CRITERION ONE: MUSCLE OPPOSITION IN CONFIGURATIONS (MOC) OF HANDSHAPES I start from the assumption that the more opposition there is between the muscle groups necessary to produce a particular configuration, the more difficult the configuration is to articulate. Similar assumptions have been made in the phonetic and phonological literature of spoken languages. For example, Lindblom and Sundberg (1971) conclude that “antagonism” is a characteristic of the supershapes of the tongue that subjects produce in the bite-block studies (discussed in chapter 1); various muscles in the tongue oppose one another to create the supershapes. Lindblom (1983) hypothesized that consonant-vowel coarticulation arises from a “synergy constraint” that seeks to keep the actions of the tongue tip and tongue body coordinated. Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1994) use “synergy” and “antagonism” in grounded phonology, a theory that seeks to “ground” phonological rules in phonetics. In grounded phonology, entities such as the features [⫹ advanced tongue root], [⫺ advanced tongue root] and [⫹ high] are conceived both as instructions to the tongue and as phonological features. The feature [⫹ advanced tongue root] instructs the tongue root to advance, the feature [⫺ advanced tongue root] instructs the tongue root to retract, and the feature [⫹ high] instructs the tongue body to raise. Any two instructions to the tongue (i.e., any two feature combinations) are said to be in either an antagonistic or a syn-


90

9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 90

Chapter Three

ergistic relationship with respect to each other. If they are in an antagonistic relationship, then the tongue would receive instructions to move in opposing directions. If they are in a synergistic relationship, then both instructions to the tongue would potentially move it in the same direction. Thus, the combination of [⫹ high] and [⫺ advanced tongue root] are antagonistic because the instruction [⫹ high] raises the tongue body, pushing it forward whereas the instruction [⫺ advanced tongue root] retracts the tongue root. In contrast, the feature combination [⫹ advanced tongue root] and [⫹ high] are synergistic: both move the tongue forward and raise it. In a similar approach, I use the notions of synergy and antagonism to analyze handshapes. My assumption is that the more opposition (antagonism) between the muscles that is necessary to produce a configuration, the more difficult the configuration is to produce. This assumption is formally expressed in the model through a criterion that describes the amount of opposition that exists between the muscles necessary to produce a configuration—muscle opposition in configurations (MOC), which is understood in this context to always be related to handshapes. The MOC criterion focuses on the hand as a whole, not on individual fingers. (Criteria to be described later will focus more on individual fingers.) To understand how configuration of the hand affects overall ease of articulation of handshapes, we must consider the muscles and muscle groups that potentially control the hand as a whole. The relevant muscles (some of the extensors as well as all of the flexors and intrinsics) and their functions are listed in table 4. The information in table 4 helps to establish the difficulty of a particular configuration because the MOC criterion is concerned with how much opposition exists between the muscles necessary to produce it. Of the muscles listed in table 4, extensors and flexors maximally oppose each other because they accomplish opposite tasks. The intrinsics, because of their placement in the hand, act in both opposition and synergy with both flexors and extensors. Thus, I conclude that maximal opposition would exist in configurations that use both the extensors and the flexors. Less opposition would exist in configurations that use (a) the ex-


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 91


91

Table 4. The Function of Muscles that Control the Hand as a Whole Muscle The extensor: digitorum communis The flexors: digitorum profundus digitorum superficialis The intrinsics: lumbricals and interossei

Function Extends fingers at the metacarpophalangeal joint Flexes the fingers at the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint Flexes the fingers at the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint Flex the fingers at the metacarpophalangeal joint and extend the fingers at the PIP–DIP joint

tensors and the intrinsics, (b) the flexors and the intrinsics, or (c) the intrinsics alone. Each of the muscles in the hand does something in every configuration. In a given hand configuration, some muscles act as prime movers (initiating, carrying out, and maintaining the configuration), some act as synergists (helping the prime mover), and some act as antagonists (relaxing to let the prime mover do the action). Clearly, the hand functions best when all the muscles participate in their respective ways; nevertheless, without the action of certain muscles, a given configuration simply could not be achieved. Those particular muscles are what I call “necessary” to achieve that configuration. If a muscle functions as a prime mover or a synergist in a given configuration, then it is listed in table 5 as “necessary.” If the task of a particular muscle is merely to allow other muscles to take over to accomplish the configuration, then it is listed in the table as “not necessary.” Table 5 shows the muscles that are necessary and not necessary to produce each of the four main hand configurations.


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 92

Chapter Three

92

Table 5. Muscles Necessary in Hand Configurations Configuration

Extensors

Flexors

Intrinsics

Closed Bent Extended Curved

not necessary not necessary necessary necessary

necessary not necessary not necessary necessary

not necessary necessary necessary not necessary

It is obvious from table 5 that some configurations (closed, bent) have one group of necessary muscles, and some (extended, curved) have two. Configurations in which only one group of muscles is necessary show no evidence of opposition; configurations in which two muscle groups are necessary show some amount of opposition. Clearly, both the extended and curved configurations involve more muscle opposition than the closed and bent configurations. But comparing the extended and curved configurations, curved is the more difficult because it involves both the extensors and the flexors, which maximally oppose each other. Extended is the next most difficult configuration because it uses the extensors and the intrinsics between which there is less opposition. Bent and closed are the easiest; both require only one group of muscles and show no evidence of any opposition. With this information, then, we can derive the three-way ranking in table 6. Although the bent and closed configurations are the easiest to articulate, three independent observations enable us to discern that closed is easier to articulate than bent. First, infants are born with their Table 6. Three-Way Ranking of Hand Configurations Configuration Relative ease Curved Extended Bent, Closed

most difficult next most difficult easiest

Level of opposition Necessary muscles maximal less least

extensors and flexors extensors and intrinsics Bent: intrinsics Closed: flexors


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 93


93

muscles flexed; only later do they develop the ability to extend them (Boyes-Braem 1990; Halverson 1937). Full flexion is involved in some reflexes evident in infants, for example, the palmar grasp reflex. Second, when the hand is in a position of rest, as in sleep, the flexors predominate over the extensors because the fingers are loosely flexed at all the joints. Third, the closed configuration is considered physically strong in the sense that, although extended fingers cannot be prevented from making a fist, fully flexed fingers can be prevented from extending. This last observation illustrates that extensors are weaker than flexors. Grasps in which the fingers are fully flexed are used in the largest number of prehensile functional activities. Other partially flexed configurations (such as those resembling bent and curved configurations) are not used as often. I take these observations as preliminary evidence that the closed configuration is more natural and easier than the bent configuration. The MOC criterion allows us to capture a constellation of facts that suggest that the hand, when nothing special is going on, naturally tends toward a configuration in which there is no muscle opposition and the fingers are slightly flexed. Therefore, the more opposition in a configuration, the more the configuration departs from the natural state of the hand and, thus, the more difficult the configuration is to articulate. If this logic is on the right track, then the level of difficulty of each hand configuration shown in table 7 would result, with the easiest configuration getting a score of 0 and the most difficult configuration getting a score of 3.

Table 7. Ranking of Difficulty of Hand Configurations Configuration

Relative ease

Curved Extended Bent Closed

most difficult next most difficult easier easiest

Level of opposition maximal less even less least

Level of difficulty 3 2 1 0


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 94

Chapter Three

94

CRITERION TWO: SUPPORT FOR EXTENSION (SE) The support for extension (SE) criterion is one of two that refers to the capabilities of individual fingers, or subgroupings of fingers, but not to the hand as a whole. In this sense, it differs from the MOC criterion. SE examines characteristics of individual fingers and subgroups of fingers relevant to extension—in other words, the muscles and muscle groups that control individual fingers (the extensor pollicis longus, the extensor indicis proprius, the extensor digiti minimi) and the juncturae tendinum. The SE criterion determines whether the extended fingers have either (a) an independent extensor or (b) “sufficient support” to extend. A handshape in which the thumb, index, or pinky is extended alone does not need support because each of those three digits have independent extensors. The middle and ring fingers have no independent extensors, but they do have sufficient support to extend under two circumstances: in chapter 2, I observed that the middle and ring can fully extend either (a) with an immediately adjacent independent extensor finger or (b) with a group of extended fingers in which each member is adjacent to at least one other member of the group and one of the members has an independent extensor. The combinations of fingers that can fully extend and those that cannot fully extend (even with support) are listed in table 8.

Table 8. Possible Finger Combinations Based on Extension Support Extensions possible with support index, middle, ring, pinky thumb, index, middle index, middle, ring index, middle, pinky index, ring, pinky middle, ring, pinky index, middle ring, pinky

Extensions not possible because fingers do not have support thumb, middle, ring thumb, index, ring thumb, middle, pinky thumb, middle thumb, ring index, ring middle, ring middle, pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 95


95

This criterion allows us to determine from a cluster of physiological facts that not all fingers are equally capable of full extension. Certain individual fingers, all five fingers as a group, and certain smaller subsets of fingers are equipped to fully extend whereas some individual fingers and subsets of fingers are not equipped to do so. CRITERION THREE: SUPPORT FOR FLEXION (SF) The third criterion, support for flexion (SF), concerns whether all members of the set {middle, ring, pinky} act together in flexion and extension, that is, whether the middle, ring, and pinky fingers are either all included or all excluded in the act of flexion or extension. There are two reasons to consider the set {middle, ring, pinky} as a group in both flexion and extension. First, the flexor digitorum profundus, which flexes the fingers at the distal interphalangeal joint, has one muscle head for the middle, ring, and pinky fingers and a separate muscle head for the index finger. The effects are that no single finger of the set {middle, ring, pinky} can be curved while the rest in the set are extended. However, because the profundus has a separate muscle head for the index finger alone, the index finger can be curved while the other fingers are extended. The second reason supporting the set {middle, ring, pinky} is explained, in part, by the fact that, of the four fingers, the middle and ring fingers are the most dependent because each is tethered on two sides by juncturae tendinum. But what makes the middle, ring, and pinky fingers a group rather than the index, middle, and ring fingers? The answer to this question is that the index has both a joint structure advantage and a musculature advantage (see pages 61–78). With these two advantages, the index finger is able to move quite independently of the other fingers; the other three fingers, however, lack one or both of these advantages. The SF criterion is a way of capturing the fact that, particularly in flexion, the set {middle, ring, pinky} are, to a large degree, incapable of acting separately. The physiological information in chapter 2 certainly confirms this fact.


96

9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 96

Chapter Three

CRITERION FOUR: TENDENCY TO OPPOSE THE THUMB (TOT) Because the thumb is necessarily involved in every opposed handshape, the characteristics of the thumb relevant to opposition are expected to be important. The tendency to oppose the thumb (TOT) criterion determines whether the thumb naturally tends to oppose the relevant finger (or fingers). Mandel (1981) observes that the thumb opposes the index and perhaps the middle finger almost automatically. However, opposition of the thumb to the ring and pinky fingers is apparently much more complex because both the thumb and the pinky finger are equipped with special muscles—the opponens pollicis and the opponens digiti minimi, respectively—that enable opposition to the thumb (Mandel 1981). These muscles move the relevant finger across the palm of the hand, readying it to perform opposition. Boyes-Braem (1981) points out that the joint structure of the pinky carpometacarpal resembles the thumb’s highly moveable carpometacarpal joint. My research suggests that the thumb opposes the ring finger with some difficulty. These findings support the assertion that opposition of the thumb to the index and middle fingers is easier than opposition of the thumb to the ring and pinky fingers. The physiological literature cited in chapter 2 and the observations of linguists suggest that the thumb naturally opposes certain fingers (the index and middle) when they are flexed at the metacarpophalangeal and DIP–PIP joints whereas opposition of the thumb to the ring and pinky is more difficult. The TOT criterion is a way of capturing this fact.

CRITERION FIVE: THE TENDENCY TO SPREAD (TS) The tendency to spread (TS) criterion determines whether the handshape relies on natural spreading of fingers. In some handshapes, fingers are spread (abducted); in others, they are not spread (adducted). Physiologically, fingers are incapable of being spread if they are con-


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 97


97

figured in either the bent or closed configuration (Ann 1992a, 1992b). But spreading (abduction) of the fingers occurs automatically when fingers are extended at the metacarpophalangeal joint, as in the extended or curved configurations. So, when fingers are extended or curved, the adductor pollicis and the three dorsal interossei must be activated for the fingers to unspread, or adduct. Spread handshapes, then, appear to be easier to produce than unspread handshapes because producing an unspread handshape requires extra muscles to be activated. The TS criterion reflects the natural tendency for fingers to spread when they are extended. HOW THE CRITERIA APPLY TO HANDSHAPES The criteria apply in different ways to different sorts of handshapes. In handshapes involving only one group of fingers, by definition, all of the fingers are doing the same thing. Thus, in one-group handshapes, the need to account for properties of more complex handshapes will not arise, and as a result, not all five criteria need apply. I will explain further the situation for one-group handshapes with respect to each criterion as I move through the explanation of how the criteria apply. How the criteria apply to two-group handshapes is a bit more complex and requires standard, clear descriptions of the handshapes. According to our definition of a two-group handshape, one group will consist of fingers that are extended, bent, or curved, and one group will be either closed or extended. The group that is either closed or open will be referred to as “the rest of the fingers” (or rest closed, rest open). (Obviously, a handshape in which one group is extended and the other is open ends up being a one-group handshape and, so, is not included here.) Thus, a two-group handshape such as the first handshape in figure 31, would be described as one in which some fingers (the index and thumb) are bent and the rest of the fingers (the middle, ring, and pinky fingers) are closed. This approach to describing the handshapes works for all handshapes, with one exception, and that is two-group handshapes in which


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 98

Chapter Three

98

a. Figure 31

b. Two types of two-group handshapes.

only one finger is extended and the others are closed (see figure 31b). That particular type of handshape can be described in two ways, and it is necessary to decide which description should be applied: (a) the pinky is extended with the rest of the fingers closed or (b) the thumb, index, middle, and ring are closed with the rest of the fingers extended. In the remainder of this work, I treat any handshape in which there are two groups of fingers, one of which is extended and one of which is closed, as if specific fingers are extended and the rest of the fingers are closed. THE MOC CRITERION The MOC criterion applies to a different group of fingers depending on the type of handshape. If the handshape whose ease score we are trying to determine is a one-group handshape, it applies to all the fingers. If the handshape is a two-group handshape, in which some of the fingers are extended, then the MOC applies to the group of fingers that are most flexed, that is, not the group of fingers that are extended. (I explain this application further shortly.) If we are trying to determine the ease score of a handshape in which some of the fingers are closed, then the MOC


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 99


99

applies to the group of fingers that are least flexed (not the group of fingers that are closed). THE SE CRITERION AND THE SF CRITERION The SE criterion and the SF criterion do not apply in handshapes that have only one group of fingers. Both apply in handshapes that have two groups of fingers. In two-group handshapes, one criterion applies to one group of fingers and the other applies to the other group of fingers; in other words, the two criteria never apply to the same group. The SE criterion applies to the least flexed group of fingers as it seeks to determine how much help for extension a finger or finger combination is receiving.20 The SF criterion applies to the most flexed group of fingers. In all two-group handshapes, the SF criterion pertains to the most flexed group of fingers because it is trying to find out how the fingers flex. THE TS CRITERION AND THE TOT CRITERION The TS criterion and the TOT criterion apply to both one-group and two-group handshapes only if they are relevant. In other words, they apply if all the fingers (in a one-group handshape) or a subset of fingers (in a two-group handshape) are unspread or are opposed to the thumb. Handshapes that illustrate the TS criterion are shown in a, b, and c of figure 32. In these handshapes, all the fingers are unspread and extended. Logically, they could also be unspread and bent or curved. The TS criterion applies to all handshapes that have unspread fingers. When all of the fingers in a one-group handshape or some of the fingers in a two-group handshape are opposed to the thumb, then the TOT criterion applies. Examples of handshapes that demonstrate the TOT criterion are also shown in d and e of figure 32. Note, however, that, if all

20. Whether a finger has an independent extensor also seems to have an effect on bending because, as I show later, the fingers that are easiest to bend are those that have independent extensors.


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 100

Chapter Three

100

a.

b.

c.

tendency to spread

d.

e. tendency to oppose the thumb

Figure 32 Handshapes that illustrate the tendency to spread and tendency to oppose the thumb criteria.

the fingers in a one-group handshape are closed or bent, then neither of these criteria would apply because no fingers would be extended or curved (so none could be unspread) and none would be opposed to the thumb. Table 9 summarizes the applications of the five criteria. A discussion of how to identify the least flexed and most flexed fingers in a handshape follows. DETERMINING THE GROUP WITH THE LEAST AND MOST FLEXION In handshapes in which one group of fingers is closed, the other group of fingers might logically be configured one of three ways: extended,


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 101


101

Table 9. Summary of Criteria Applications Applications Criterion

to one-group handshapes

Muscle opposition in configuration

All fingers

Support for extension Support for flexion Tendency to oppose the thumb Tendency to spread

n.a. n.a. All fingers All fingers

to two-group handshapes Least flexed fingers in a rest-closed handshape Most flexed fingers in a rest-open handshape Least flexed fingers Most flexed fingers Fingers opposed to the thumb Fingers that are unspread

bent, or curved. Let us consider a handshape in which one group of fingers is closed and the other is bent. The closed fingers are flexed at both joints, and the bent fingers are flexed only at the metacarpophalangeal joint.21 Therefore, the group of fingers with the least flexion is the group that is bent. When the curved fingers are flexed at one joint and the closed fingers are flexed at two joints, the curved fingers are the least flexed. In all three types of handshapes in which one group of fingers is closed, the most flexed group will always be the closed group. In handshapes in which one group of fingers is extended, the other group could logically be configured as curved, bent, or closed. In these handshapes, the extended fingers are the least flexed because they are not flexed at any joint. The most flexed group of fingers will always be the group that is not extended, in other words, the group that is curved, bent, or closed. 21. Recall from chapter 2 that, physiologically, the PIP joints and DIP joints function, for the most part, as one unit.


102

9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 102

Chapter Three

DERIVING EASE OF ARTICULATION SCORES Having laid out the criteria and how they apply to handshapes, we are now ready to explore the actual algorithm we will use to arrive at a score for ease of articulation, or the ease score. We determine an ease score for each logically possible handshape by applying the five criteria to every logically possible handshape. Most of the logically possible handshapes will be dealt with by the first three criteria—MOC, SE, and SF— because they are the relevant criteria, and I will discuss this large set of handshapes first. After that discussion, I will consider opposed and unspread handshapes, and in so doing, will explain the last two criteria— TOT and TS. Earlier in this chapter (see table 7), I assigned a level of difficulty to the four types of configurations in the MOC criterion. The rankings were as follows: curved (3), extended (2), bent (1), and closed (0). I then assigned a plus or minus value to handshapes based on the elements considered in the SE and SF criteria. If the fingers have either an independent extensor or support to extend (SE criterion) or if the middle, ring, and pinky fingers are either all included or all excluded in the act of flexion or extension (SF criterion), then the handshape receives a plus value and a score of 0. If the fingers do not have either an independent extensor or support to extend (SE criterion) or if the middle, ring, and pinky fingers are not either all included or all excluded in the act of flexion or extension (SF criterion), then the handshape receives a minus value and a score of 1. This system gives points for difficulty, not ease. Plus values, always worth 0, indicate ease whereas minus values, always worth 1, indicate relative difficulty. Handshapes that receive the highest ease scores are more difficult to articulate than the handshapes with the lowest ease scores. To calculate ease scores for logically possible handshapes that are spread and unopposed, we add the values for the SE and SF criteria and then multiply the sum by the value for the MOC criterion, using the following algorithm: (SE ⫹ SF) ⫻ MOCof least flexed fingers in a rest-closed handshape and most flexed fingers in a rest-open handshape


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 103


103

This formula allows us to discover a great deal about a large number of logically possible handshapes. However, the algorithm is not sufficient to predict ease scores for opposed handshapes and unspread handshapes. In an opposed handshape, some of the fingers are opposed to the thumb (e.g., see figure 33). In calculating the ease score, I assume that opposed handshapes are not closed. In fact, I argue that opposed handshapes more closely resemble bent handshapes and that this fact ought to be formally encoded into our algorithm. Therefore, to calculate the ease score of an opposed handshape, I begin with the ease score of the analogous bent handshape and then consider one additional criterion— the TOT criterion. The TOT criterion considers whether a given handshape involves only fingers that have a natural tendency to oppose the thumb (i.e., whether it involves the index finger, the middle finger, or both). Handshapes that do involve these relevant fingers are assigned a plus value in the relevant column. Handshapes that do not involve these fingers are assigned a minus value in the appropriate column. Pluses receive a value of 0, and minuses receive a value of 1. The formal algorithm is stated as follows: (SE ⫹ SF) ⫻ MOCof least flexed fingers in a rest-closed handshape and most flexed fingers in a rest-open handshape ⫹ TOT

two fingers opposed to the thumb

all fingers opposed to the thumb

Figure 33 Examples of opposed handshapes.


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 104

Chapter Three

104

In all the handshapes discussed so far, we have tacitly assumed that any adjacent fingers in the extended or curved configuration are also spread apart from each other, following the hand’s natural tendency. But in some handshapes, the fingers are unspread (see figure 34). The ease score for an unspread handshape begins with the ease score for the same handshape in its spread form. Then, the TS criterion, which determines whether the handshape relies on natural spreading of the hand, is factored in. If the handshape does rely on natural spreading, then a plus (0) is given. If the handshape does not rely on natural spreading, then a minus (1) is given. In other words, in an unspread handshape that corresponds to a spread handshape, the score is increased by 1. The algorithm follows: (SE ⫹ SF) ⫻ MOCof least flexed fingers in a rest-closed handshape and most flexed fingers in a rest-open handshape ⫹ TS

RATIONALE FOR THE FORMULAS In all three formulas just stated, the values for SE and SF are added to combine the effects of these two criteria because they contribute equally and in the same way to the difficulty of a handshape. Both criteria indi-

spread handshape Figure 34

unspread handshape

Examples of spread and unspread handshapes.


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 105


105

cate which fingers are more capable of combining in a handshape. Taken together, they account for all five fingers in extension and in flexion. The MOC criterion is multiplied by the sum of the values for SE and SF. The fact that MOC is multiplied (not added, subtracted, or divided) by the sum of the values for the other two criteria expresses the enhanced effect that muscle opposition (as opposed to joint structure or whatever else) has on a configuration’s difficulty. Both the TOT and the TS criteria, however, begin with the ease score for a similar handshape and add (not multiply) difficulty. The intuition here is that the amount of difficulty entailed is not enough to warrant multiplying the number; rather, the difficulty entailed merely adds to the overall difficulty. The algorithm uses numbers. Why? Simply put, numbers allow the explicit description needed for this endeavor. An impressionistic system would not be as explicit. Certainly, one could arrive at an ease score by using another method.22 For example, if all numbers were added or one number were divided by another, we might be able to arrive at a reasonable ease score, just as we will with this system. If this possibility is true, then the particular system I have chosen to use may end up not being the most appropriate for the task at hand. However, the point of the book is not to argue for this particular calculation system either as a whole or in part. Rather, the point is to see how linguistic facts about handshapes compare with ease scores of handshapes. To accomplish that task, we need a clearly articulated system that we can apply to every handshape across the board. My system allows us to make judgments about every 22. An alternative method of computation was suggested to me by Diana Archangeli and Mike Hammond. To calculate the ease score for the handshape by this method, the score for each group of fingers is multiplied by the value for its configuration, and the values for each group are added. The results are that (a) far more handshapes are easy, (b) physically impossible handshapes stay the same, and therefore (c) fewer handshapes remain in the difficult category. This method seems more intuitive, but it has two disadvantages, which led me to discard it: (a) the math is slightly more complex, and (b) the easy category is predicted to be larger than the difficult category. The evidence suggests that physiologically there are fewer easy handshapes than difficult ones.


106

9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 106

Chapter Three

logically possible handshape and to see exactly why, in terms of ease, each handshape falls where it does. I leave it to future research to determine whether the particular algorithm I propose here is the most appropriate for the observations and intuitions I attempt to capture. CALCULATING EASE SCORES This section demonstrates how to calculate ease of articulation scores for each of the major types of handshapes we are examining. The first calculation will involve a one-group handshape, and the second set of calculations will involve three different two-group handshapes. Next, I will explain how to determine an ease score for an opposed handshape, and finally, I will show how to do so for an unspread handshape. These last two types of handshapes can be one-group or two-group handshapes. Calculating the Ease Score for a One-Group Handshape The handshape in figure 35 will provide a good example for calculating the ease score for a one-group handshape. This handshape does not have two groups of fingers, so it is impossible to locate the least flexed and most flexed fingers. Thus, the SE and SF criteria can apply only to the handshape as a whole. Because the SE and SF criteria describe opposite actions (i.e., extension and flexion), in reality, only one will apply to a handshape like that in figure 34—whichever one is more relevant to the handshape. If we apply the SE criterion to the handshape in figure 35, it will always be the case that all fingers have either an independent extensor or sufficient support. Therefore, this handshape will receive a plus on the SE criterion and an SE score of 0. Similarly, if we apply the SF criterion to this handshape, it will always be the case that the set of {middle, ring, pinky} act together. Thus, the handshape will receive a plus for the SF criterion and an SF score of 0. So, a one-group handshape such as in figure 35 will receive a temporary ease score of 0 (SE ⫹ SF ⫽ 0) for this set of criteria. The temporary ease score is the result of adding the


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 107


107

Figure 35 A one-group handshape.

values of the SE and SF criteria as the initial step in determining the configuration’s actual ease score. Next, we multiply the temporary ease score by the number that corresponds to the ease of the configuration of the handshape (i.e., 0 if it is closed, 1 if it is bent, 2 if it is extended, 3 if it is curved). Because 0 multiplied by any number is 0, one-group handshapes such as that in figure 35 will always have an ease score of 0. Calculating the Ease Score for a Two-Group Handshape For those two-group handshapes in which one finger, in this case, the thumb, is extended, curved, or bent, figure 36 will serve as a model. In each of the three illustrations in figure 36, the rest of the fingers are closed. We will consider all three examples together because they all, in some sense, might be considered versions of the same handshape. With two-group handshapes, we have to establish which is the least flexed group and which is the most flexed group. In the handshapes in figure 36, the least flexed is always the thumb, and the most flexed is always the rest of the fingers. To calculate the ease score, first we apply the SE criterion to the least flexed fingers. The SE criterion determines whether the extended fingers—the thumb in this case—have either


108

9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 108

Chapter Three

Figure 36 Two-group handshapes. The drawing on the far right from Tennant and Brown.

(a) an independent extensor or (b) support to extend. In this case, the result is that it does because we know that the thumb is well-supplied with independent extensors (see chapter 2). Therefore, we can assign a plus and a value of 0 for this criterion. Next, we apply the SF criterion to the most flexed fingers. The SF criterion determines whether the {middle, ring, and pinky}, as a group, are either included or excluded from this group of fingers. They are all included, and so we assign a plus and a value of 0 to this criterion. The temporary ease score for all three handshapes in figure 36 is arrived at by adding the values for the two pluses (see chart 1). The result is 0 (0 ⫹ 0 ⫽ 0). Now, we have to factor in the MOC criterion. The MOC criterion essentially determines how hard the least flexed fingers in a rest-closed handshape are working. We know that closed fingers assume the easiest of all positions; therefore, because the MOC criterion is concerned with difficulty, it considers the other fingers. If the thumb were curved, then the temporary ease score would be multiplied by 3 (the level of difficulty for a curved handshape). If the thumb were extended, then the temporary ease score for the whole handshape would be multiplied by 2 (the level of difficulty for an extended handshape). If the thumb were bent, then the temporary ease score would be multiplied by 1 (the level of difficulty for a bent handshape). The bent configuration is the easiest of the three. Because 0 multiplied by any number is always 0, the final ease score for each of the handshapes in figure 36 is 0 (see chart 2).


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 109


109

Chart 1. Temporary Ease Score for Handshapes in Figure 36 Configuration: One finger extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers closed A Least flexed fingers

B SE value

C Most flexed fingers

D SF value

E Temporary ease score

T

⫹ (0)

IMRP

⫹ (0)

0

T⫽ thumb

IMRP ⫽ index, middle, ring, and pinky

NOTE: The temporary ease score is the result of adding the values of the SE and SF criteria.

Calculating the Ease Score of an Opposed Handshape Opposed fingers are in essentially the same configuration as bent fingers, except that when fingers are opposed, they contact the thumb. The handshape pictured in figure 37 is opposed. We calculate the ease score of this kind of handshape by beginning with the ease score for the bent version of this handshape. The relevant bent ease score for the hand-

Chart 2. Final Ease Scores for Handshapes in Figure 36 Configuration: One finger extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers closed A The extended, bent, or curved finger

B The rest of the fingers (most flexed)

C Temporary Ease Score (SE ⫹ SF)

D Bent (⫻1)

E Extended (⫻2)

F Curved (⫻3)

T

IMRP

0

0

0

0

T ⫽ thumb

IMRP ⫽ index, middle, ring, pinky


110

Figure 37

9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 110

Chapter Three

An opposed handshape.

shape in which the thumb and middle are bent, but do not contact each other, and the rest of the fingers are extended is 1. To calculate the difficulty of opposed handshapes, the TOT criterion is applied. It determines whether all opposed fingers have a natural tendency to oppose the thumb. If all the opposed fingers do have this tendency, then the handshape receives a plus (0); if they do not, then the handshape receives a minus (1). The resulting value is then added to the bent ease score, yielding a final ease score. For the handshape in figure 37, the TOT criterion is determined to be a plus (0), and the final ease score is 1 (1 ⫹ 0 ⫽ 1). Calculating the Ease Score for Unspread Handshapes Because spreading or unspreading occurs only with respect to adjacent fingers, many kinds of logically possible handshapes are ruled out in this category. One-finger handshapes are ruled out entirely. The two-finger, three-finger, and four-finger combinations that do not involve adjacent fingers are ruled out. All bent and closed handshapes are ruled out by the physiology. In each logically possible handshape that I will examine in this category, the rest of the fingers are all closed because no handshapes are attested in which some of the extended or curved fingers are spread and the rest of the extended or curved fingers are not.


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 111


111

Calculating the ease score for an unspread handshape begins with the ease score for the related spread handshape. Next, we apply the TS criterion, which determines whether the handshape relies on the tendency to spread. If the handshape does rely on the tendency to spread, then it receives a plus (0). If the handshape does not rely on the tendency to spread, then it receives a minus (1). In other words, an unspread handshape gets points for difficulty and a spread handshape does not get points. UNDERSTANDING THE SCORES To understand what ease scores mean, consider the contrast between a handshape in which the ring finger extends and the rest of the fingers are closed and a handshape in which all of the fingers are extended (see figure 38). The handshape in figure 38a is impossible because the ring cannot fully extend by itself for many physiological reasons (see chapter 2). But the handshape in figure 38b is quite possible because the restrictions on extending the ring no longer hold. As we will see, my system assigns a score of 4 to figure 38a and a score of 0 to figure 38b. My claim is that any handshape whose final ease score is 0 is an easy handshape. This result is significant because all handshapes in which all of the fingers are in one group have final ease scores of 0. This score captures the intuition that, when all of the fingers act together, the resulting handshape is easy. My model easily distinguishes handshape 38a from handshape 38b by confirming the intuition that there are big differences between extending certain fingers alone and extending all the fingers together and by arriving at that confirmation in a noncircular fashion by directly invoking the physiology. Handshapes like that in figure 38a end up with ease scores higher than 0. How, then, do we determine which handshapes in that category are difficult as opposed to impossible? To distinguish the impossible handshapes from the rest, I let the physiology determine the cutoff point. The ease score of handshape in figure 38a is 4. Therefore, I consider any handshape that has a score of 4 or greater to be impossible.


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 112

Chapter Three

112

a. only ring finger extended Figure 38

b. all fingers extended

Contrasting handshapes.

If the easy handshapes are assigned a score of 0 and impossible handshapes are assigned a score of 4 and greater, then difficult handshapes are those that are assigned a score greater than 0 and less than 4. As we examine different sorts of handshapes, the actual ease scores that represent impossible handshapes will vary, but in every case, the physiology itself provides the dividing line. In the charts at the end of this chapter that contain the final ease scores for handshapes, the highest ease scores, which indicate impossible handshapes, are asterisked. The lowest ease scores of 0 are unmarked. The ease scores greater than 0 and less than 4, which indicate difficult handshapes, are underlined. CHARTING EASE SCORES The remainder of this chapter contains charts that reveal the ease scores for all logically possible handshapes. Although we have just gone through a sample calculation for each sort of handshape of interest here, the following charts contain a good deal more information than the charts we have seen so far. This section provides a context for understanding the charts.


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 113


113

Chart 3 is called an A chart, and it replaces chart 1, which contains information about the three logically possible handshapes in figure 36. Chart 3 contains information about fifteen logically possible handshapes in which one finger is extended, bent, or curved and the rest of the fingers are closed. Column A lists each of the fingers, starting with the thumb. As in chart 1, the rest of the fingers in each case are listed in the relevant row of column C. In row 1, where the thumb is the single finger, the rest of the fingers are the index, middle, ring, and pinky, abbreviated IMRP. The information in columns B and D shows the result of applying the SE and SF criteria, respectively, to the particular set of handshapes. To arrive at the final ease score for the handshapes in chart 3, the temporary ease score is multiplied by the value for the MOC criterion of the least flexed fingers. The final ease scores for the handshapes in which one finger is extended, bent, or curved are given in chart 4. All charts that give the same information as chart 4 will be referred to as B charts.

Chart 3. Temporary Ease Scores (SE ⫹ SF) A Configuration: One finger extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers closed A Least flexed fingers

B SE


D SF


T

⫹ (0)

IMRP

⫹ (0)

0

I

⫹ (0)

TMRP

⫹ (0)

0

M

⫺ (1)

TIRP

⫺ (1)

2

R

⫺ (1)

TIMP

⫺ (1)

2

P

⫹ (0)

TIMR

⫺ (1)

1

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

T ⫽ thumb

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 114

Chapter Three

114

Chart 4. Results of (SE ⴙ SF) ⴛ MOC B Configuration: One finger extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers closed A The extended, bent, or curved finger

B C D E F The rest of Temporary Bent Extended Curved the fingers ease score (⫻1) (⫻2) (⫻3)

T

IMRP

0

0

0

0

I

TMRP

0

0

0

0

M

TIRP

2

2

4

6

R

TIMP

2

2

4

6

P

TIMR

1

1

2

3

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky

Column A and column C in chart 3 correspond to column A and column B in chart 4. Again, columns A and B in chart 4 show what each group of fingers is doing: column A shows that the least flexed group is extended, bent, or curved, and column B shows that the rest of the fingers are closed. Column C in chart 4 gives the temporary ease score from column E in chart 3. To find the final ease score, we have to multiply the temporary ease score by the level of difficulty (determined by applying the MOC criterion). If the least flexed fingers are bent, we multiply by 1; if they are extended, we multiply by 2; and if they are curved, we multiply by 3. After the MOC has been figured into the overall ease of a handshape, the result is placed in columns D, E, and F in chart 4. Thus, the final ease scores for this set of logically possible one-finger handshapes appear in columns D, E, and F. Chart 5 presents a compression of the information in chart 4. I include only the final ease scores for the fifteen logically possible hand-


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 115


115

Chart 5. Final Ease Score C Configuration: One finger extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers closed A

D Bent (⫻1)

E Extended (⫻2)

F Curved (⫻3)

T

0

0

0

I

0

0

0

M

2

*4

*6

R

2

*4

*6

P

1

2

3

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky

NOTE: Underlined numerals indicate difficult handshapes; numerals marked with an asterisk indicate impossible handshapes; unmarked numerals indicate easy handshapes.

shapes from Columns D, E, and F of chart 4. In this model, points are accumulated for difficulty, not for ease. Therefore, the highest numbers indicate impossible handshapes, the lowest indicate easy handshapes, and the numbers in between indicate the difficult handshapes. In chart 5, asterisked handshapes are impossible, the underlined handshapes are difficult, and the unmarked handshapes are easy. All charts that give the same information as chart 5 will be referred to as C charts. Throughout the remainder of this chapter, I include the same progression of charts (A, B, and C) for all the logically possible handshapes. The C charts should be of most interest because they reveal the final ease score for each handshape and the category into which each falls. I begin with handshapes in which two or more fingers are extended and the rest of the fingers are closed (see charts 6–14). The next group of charts (charts 15–26) represents the logically possible handshapes when one or more fingers are bent or curved and


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 116

Chapter Three

116

Chart 6 A: RESULT OF ADDING THE VALUES OF THE AND THE SF CRITERION

SE CRITERION

Configuration: Two fingers extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers closed A Least flexed fingers

B SE


D SF


TI

⫹ (0)

MRP

⫹ (0)

0

TM

⫺ (1)

IRP

⫺ (1)

2

TR

⫺ (1)

IMP

⫺ (1)

2

TP

⫹ (0)

IMR

⫺ (1)

1

IM

⫹ (0)

TRP

⫺ (1)

1

IR

⫺ (1)

TMP

⫺ (1)

2

IP

⫹ (0)

TMR

⫺ (1)

1

MR

⫺ (1)

TIP

⫺ (1)

2

MP

⫺ (1)

TIR

⫺ (1)

2

RP

⫹ (0)

TIM

⫺ (1)

1

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 117


117

Chart 7 B: RESULT OF APPLYING THE OF THE SE ⫹ SF CRITERIA

MOC CRITERION TO THE SUM

Configuration: Two fingers extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers closed A The extended, bent, or curved finger

B The rest of the fingers

C Temporary ease score

D Bent (⫻1)

E Extended (⫻2)

F Curved (⫻3)

TI

MRP

0

0

0

0

TM

IRP

2

2

4

6

TR

IMP

2

2

4

6

TP

IMR

1

1

2

3

IM

TRP

1

1

2

3

IR

TMP

2

2

4

6

IP

TMR

1

1

2

3

MR

TIP

2

2

4

6

MP

TIR

2

2

4

6

RP

TIM

1

1

2

3

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 118

Chapter Three

118

Chart 8 C: FINAL EASE SCORE Configuration: Two fingers extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers closed A

D Bent (⫻1)

E Extended (⫻2)

F Curved (⫻3)

TI

0

0

0

TM

2

*4

*6

TR

2

*4

*6

TP

1

2

3

IM

1

2

3

IR

2

*4

*6

IP

1

2

3

MR

2

*4

*6

MP

2

*4

*6

RP

1

2

3

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 119


119


SE CRITERION

Configuration: Three fingers extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers closed A Least flexed fingers

B SE


D SF


TIM

⫹ (0)

RP

⫺ (1)

1

TIR

⫺ (1)

MP

⫺ (1)

2

TIP

⫹ (0)

MR

⫺ (1)

1

TMR

⫺ (1)

IP

⫺ (1)

2

TMP

⫺ (1)

IR

⫺ (1)

2

TRP

⫹ (0)

IM

⫺ (1)

1

IMR

⫹ (0)

TP

⫺ (1)

1

IMP

⫹ (0)

TR

⫺ (1)

1

IRP

⫹ (0)

TM

⫺ (1)

1

MRP

⫹ (0)

TI

⫹ (0)

0

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 120

Chapter Three

120



Configuration: Three fingers extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers closed A The extended, bent, or curved finger



D Bent (⫻1)

TIM

RP

1

1

2

3

TIR

MP

2

2

4

6

TIP

MR

1

1

2

3

TMR

IP

2

2

4

6

TMP

IR

2

2

4

6

TRP

IM

1

1

2

3

IMR

TP

1

1

2

3

IMP

TR

1

1

2

3

IRP

TM

1

1

2

3

MRP

TI

0

0

0

0

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

E F Extended Curved (⫻2) (⫻3)

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 121


121

Chart 11 C: FINAL EASE SCORE Configuration: Three fingers extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers closed A

D Bent (⫻1)

E Extended (⫻2)

F Curved (⫻3)

TIM

1

2

3

TIR

2

*4

*6

TIP

1

2

3

TMR

2

*4

*6

TMP

2

*4

*6

TRP

1

2

3

IMR

1

2

3

IMP

1

2

3

IRP

1

2

3

MRP

0

0

0

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 122


SE CRITERION

Configuration: Four fingers extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers closed A Least flexed fingers

B SE


D SF


TIMR

⫹ (0)

P

⫺ (1)

1

TIMP

⫹ (0)

R

⫺ (1)

1

TIRP

⫹ (0)

M

⫺ (1)

1

TMRP

⫹ (0)

I

⫹ (0)

0

IMRP

⫹ (0)

T

⫹ (0)

0

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky



Configuration: Four fingers extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers closed A The extended, bent, or curved finger



D Bent (⫻1)

E Extended (⫻2)

F Curved (⫻3)

TIMR

P

1

1

2

3

TIMP

R

1

1

2

3

TIRP

M

1

1

2

3

TMRP

I

0

0

0

0

IMRP

T

0

0

0

0

T ⫽ thumb

122

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 123


123

Chart 14 C: FINAL EASE SCORE Configuration: Four fingers extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers closed A

D Bent (⫻1)

E Extended (⫻2)

F Curved (⫻3)

TIMR

1

2

3

TIMP

1

2

3

TIRP

1

2

3

TMRP

0

0

0

IMRP

0

0

0


SE CRITERION

Configuration: One finger bent or curved; rest of the fingers extended A Least flexed fingers

B SE


D SF


TIMR

⫹ (0)

P

⫺ (1)

1

TIMP

⫹ (0)

R

⫺ (1)

1

TIRP

⫹ (0)

M

⫺ (1)

1

TMRP

⫹ (0)

I

⫹ (0)

0

IMRP

⫹ (0)

T

⫹ (0)

0

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 124

Chart 16 B: RESULT OF APPLYING THE MOC CRITERION TO THE SUM OF THE SE ⫹ SF CRITERIA Configuration: Four fingers extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers extended A The extended, bent, or curved finger



D Bent (⫻1)

E Extended (⫻2)

F Curved (⫻3)

TIMR

P

1

1

n.a.

3

TIMP

R

1

1

n.a.

3

TIRP

M

1

1

n.a.

3

TMRP

I

0

0

n.a.

0

IMRP

T

0

0

n.a.

0

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky

Chart 17 C: FINAL EASE SCORE Configuration: Four fingers extended, bent, or curved; rest of the fingers extended A

D Bent (⫻1)

E Extended (⫻2)

F Curved (⫻3)

TIMR

1

n.a.

*3

TIMP

1

n.a.

*3

TIRP

1

n.a.

*3

TMRP

0

n.a.

0

IMRP

0

n.a.

0

T ⫽ thumb

124

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 125


125

Chart 18 A: RESULT OF ADDING THE VALUES OF THE SE CRITERION AND THE SF CRITERION Configuration: Two fingers bent or curved; rest of the fingers extended A Least flexed fingers

B SE


D SF


TIM

⫹ (0)

RP

⫺ (1)

1

TIR

⫺ (1)

MP

⫺ (1)

2

TIP

⫹ (0)

MR

⫺ (1)

1

TMR

⫺ (1)

IP

⫺ (1)

2

TMP

⫺ (1)

IR

⫺ (1)

2

TRP

⫹ (0)

IM

⫺ (1)

1

IMR

⫹ (0)

TP

⫺ (1)

1

IMP

⫹ (0)

TR

⫺ (1)

1

IRP

⫹ (0)

TM

⫺ (1)

1

MRP

⫹ (0)

TI

⫹ (0)

0

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 126

Chapter Three

126



Configuration: Two fingers bent or curved; rest of the fingers extended A The bent or curved fingers (most flexed fingers)

B The rest of the fingers (least flexed fingers)


D Bent (⫻1)

E Extended (⫻2)

F Curved (⫻3)

TIM

RP

1

1

n.a.

3

TIR

MP

2

2

n.a.

6

TIP

MR

1

1

n.a.

3

TMR

IP

2

2

n.a.

6

TMP

IR

2

2

n.a.

6

TRP

IM

1

1

n.a.

3

IMR

TP

1

1

n.a.

3

IMP

TR

1

1

n.a.

3

IRP

TM

1

1

n.a.

3

MRP

TI

0

0

n.a.

0

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 127


127

Chart 20 C: FINAL EASE SCORE Configuration: Two fingers bent or curved; rest of the fingers extended A

D Bent (⫻1)

E Extended (⫻2)

F Curved (⫻3)

TIM

1

n.a.

*3

TIR

*2

n.a.

*6

TIP

1

n.a.

*3

TMR

*2

n.a.

*6

TMP

*2

n.a.

*6

TRP

1

n.a.

*3

IMR

1

n.a.

*3

IMP

1

n.a.

*3

IRP

1

n.a.

*3

MRP

0

n.a.

0

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 128

Chapter Three

128


SE CRITERION

Configuration: Three fingers bent or curved; rest of the fingers extended A Least flexed fingers

B SE


D SF


TI

⫹ (0)

MRP

⫹ (0)

0

TM

⫺ (1)

IRP

⫺ (1)

2

TR

⫺ (1)

IMP

⫺ (1)

2

TP

⫹ (0)

IMR

⫺ (1)

1

IM

⫹ (0)

TRP

⫺ (1)

1

IR

⫺ (1)

TMP

⫺ (1)

2

IP

⫹ (0)

TMR

⫺ (1)

1

MR

⫺ (1)

TIP

⫺ (1)

2

MP

⫺ (1)

TIR

⫺ (1)

2

RP

⫹ (0)

TIM

⫺ (1)

1

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 129


129



Configuration: Three fingers bent or curved; rest of the fingers extended A The bent or curved fingers (most flexed fingers)

B C D E F The rest Temporary Bent Extended Curved of the ease (⫻1) (⫻2) (⫻3) fingers score (least flexed fingers)

TI

MRP

0

0

n.a.

0

TM

IRP

2

2

n.a.

6

TR

IMP

2

2

n.a.

6

TP

IMR

1

1

n.a.

3

IM

TRP

1

1

n.a.

3

IR

TMP

2

2

n.a.

6

IP

TMR

1

1

n.a.

3

MR

TIP

2

2

n.a.

6

MP

TIR

2

2

n.a.

6

RP

TIM

1

1

n.a.

3

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 130

Chapter Three

130

Chart 23 C: FINAL EASE SCORE Configuration: Three fingers bent or curved; rest of the fingers extended A

D Bent (⫻1)

E Extended (⫻2)

F Curved (⫻3)

TI

0

n.a.

0

TM

*2

n.a.

*6

TR

*2

n.a.

*6

TP

1

n.a.

*3

IM

1

n.a.

*3

IR

*2

n.a.

*6

IP

1

n.a.

*3

MR

*2

n.a.

*6

MP

*2

n.a.

*6

RP

1

n.a.

*3

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 131


SE CRITERION

Configuration: Four fingers bent or curved; rest of the fingers extended A Least flexed fingers

B SE

C Most flexed fingers bent or curved

D SF


T

⫹ (0)

IMRP

⫹ (0)

0

I

⫹ (0)

TMRP

⫹ (0)

0

M

⫺ (1)

TIRP

⫺ (1)

2

R

⫺ (1)

TIMP

⫺ (1)

2

P

⫹ (0)

TIMR

⫺ (1)

1

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky



Configuration: Four fingers bent or curved; rest of the fingers extended A The bent or curved finger



T

TMRP

0

0

n.a.

0

I

TMRP

0

0

n.a.

0

M

TIRP

2

2

n.a.

6

R

TIMP

2

2

n.a.

6

P

TIMR

1

1

n.a.

3

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

D E F Bent Extended Curved (⫻1) (⫻2) (⫻3)

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky

131


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 132

Chapter Three

132

Chart 26 C: FINAL EASE SCORE Configuration: One finger extended bent or curved; rest of the fingers extended A Bent or curved finger

D Bent (⫻1)

E Extended (⫻2)

F Curved (⫻3)

T

0

n.a.

0

I

0

n.a.

0

M

*2

n.a.

*6

R

*2

n.a.

*6

P

1

n.a.

*3

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky

the rest of the fingers are extended, not closed. The score for easy handshapes remains the same: 0. However, if we allow the physiology to draw the line between the impossible handshapes and the rest, the impossible handshapes have ease scores of 2 and above (as opposed to the scores of the impossible rest-closed handshapes, which were 4 and above). Consequently, the difficult handshapes have ease scores of 1. The following charts, charts 27–33, establish the final ease scores for handshapes in which fingers are opposed to the thumb. The layout strategy of A, B, and C charts is modified here because all the information necessary to arrive at a final ease score fits into one chart. A final ease score of 0 in column D means the handshape is easy, a score of 1–2 means a handshape is difficult, and a score of 3–4 indicates that the handshape is impossible. The familiar conventions—easy is unmarked, difficult is underlined, impossible is asterisked—apply.


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 133

Chart 27 FINAL EASE SCORE RESULTING FROM CONSIDERING THE TOT CRITERION Configuration: One finger opposes the thumb; rest of the fingers extended Bent score A

TOT criterion B

Temporary ease score

Final ease score

C

D

I opposes T

0

⫹ (0)

0

0

M opposes T

1

⫹ (0)

1

1

R opposes T

1

⫺ (1)

2

2

P opposes T

1

⫺ (1)

2

2

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky

Chart 28 FINAL EASE SCORE RESULTING FROM CONSIDERING THE TOT CRITERION Configuration: Two fingers oppose the thumb; rest of the fingers extended Bent score

TOT criterion


Final ease score

A

B

C

D

I, M oppose T

1

⫹ (0)

1

1

I, R oppose T

2

⫺ (1)

3

*3

I, P oppose T

2

⫺ (1)

3

*3

M, R oppose T

1

⫺ (1)

2

2

M, P oppose T

2

⫺ (1)

3

*3

R, P oppose T

1

⫺ (1)

2

2

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky

133


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 134

Chapter Three

134

Chart 29 FINAL EASE SCORE RESULTING FROM CONSIDERING THE TOT CRITERION Configuration: Three fingers oppose the thumb; rest of the fingers extended Bent score

TOT criterion


Final ease score

A

B

C

D

I, M, R oppose T

1

⫺ (1)

2

2

I, M, P oppose T

2

⫺ (1)

3

*3

I, R, P oppose T

2

⫺ (1)

3

*3

M, R, P oppose T

0

⫺ (1)

1

1

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky

Chart 30 FINAL EASE SCORE RESULTING FROM CONSIDERING THE TOT CRITERION Configuration: One finger opposes the thumb; rest of the fingers closed Bent score

TOT criterion


Final ease score

A

B

C

D

I opposes T

0

⫹ (0)

0

0

M opposes T

2

⫹ (0)

2

2

R opposes T

2

⫺ (1)

3

*3

P opposes T

1

⫺ (1)

2

2

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 135

Chart 31 FINAL EASE SCORE RESULTING FROM CONSIDERING THE TOT CRITERION Configuration: Two fingers oppose the thumb; rest of the fingers closed Bent score A

TOT criterion B


Final ease score

C

D

I, M oppose T

1

⫹ (0)

1

1

I, R oppose T

2

⫺ (1)

3

*3

I, P oppose T

1

⫺ (1)

2

2

M, R oppose T

2

⫺ (1)

3

*3

M, P oppose T

2

⫺ (1)

3

*3

R, P oppose T

1

⫺ (1)

2

2

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky

Chart 32 FINAL EASE SCORE RESULTING FROM CONSIDERING THE TOT CRITERION Configuration: Three fingers oppose the thumb; rest of the fingers closed Bent score

TOT criterion


Final ease score

A

B

C

D

I, M, R oppose T

1

⫺ (1)

2

2

I, M, P oppose T

1

⫺ (1)

2

2

I, R, P oppose T

1

⫺ (1)

2

2

M, R, P oppose T

0

⫺ (1)

1

1

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky

135


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 136

Chapter Three

136

Chart 33 FINAL EASE SCORE RESULTING FROM CONSIDERING THE TOT CRITERION Configuration: Four fingers oppose the thumb Bent score

TOT criterion


Final ease score

A

B

C

D

0

⫺ (1)

1

1

I, M, R, P oppose T T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky

In chart 34, we examine the result of applying the TS criterion, which determines whether the handshape makes use of the natural tendency to spread. All of the handshapes in chart 34 do not, so all receive a minus (1). Final ease scores are calculated in columns D (for extended) and E (for curved). All unspread handshapes are, at the least, difficult. SUMMARY In this chapter, I have constructed a theory of ease of articulation of handshapes on the basis of physiological facts and have determined explicit ease scores for a great number of logically possible handshapes. The C charts in the matrix of charts 3–26 provide a final ease score for handshapes to which we applied the first three criteria: MOC, SE, and SF. Charts 27–33 provide the ease scores for the remainder of handshapes to which we applied the TOT and TS criteria. From this analysis, we have formed three groups of handshapes: those that are easy (all have ease scores of 0), those that are difficult (those that have the intermediate ease scores), and those that are physically impossible (those that have the highest ease scores). These results are summarized in table 10 on page 138.


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 137


137

Chart 34 FINAL EASE SCORE RESULTING FROM CONSIDERING THE TS CRITERION Configuration: Some number of fingers unspread; the rest of the fingers closed A

B

C

D

E

Final ease score Fingers unspread

Extended/ spread ease score

Curved/ spread ease score

TS criterion

Extended/ unspread

Curved/ unspread

TI

0

0

⫺ (1)

1

1

IM

2

3

⫺ (1)

3

4

MR

4

6

⫺ (1)

*5

*7

RP

2

3

⫺ (1)

3

4

TIM

2

3

⫺ (1)

3

4

IMR

2

3

⫺ (1)

3

4

MRP

0

0

⫺ (1)

1

1

TIMR

2

3

⫺ (1)

3

4

IMRP

0

0

⫺ (1)

1

1

TIMRP

0

0

⫺ (1)

1

1

T ⫽ thumb

I ⫽ index

M ⫽ middle

R ⫽ ring

P ⫽ pinky


9/1/06

12:41 PM

Page 138

Chapter Three

138

Table 10. Dividing Lines for Categories of Handshapes by Ease Score Ease category of handshape Easy Difficult Impossible

Rest of fingers closed

Rest of fingers extended

Fingers opposed to thumb

Fingers curved or extended and unspread

0 1–3 4–6

0 1 2–6

0 1–2 3–4

0 1–4 5–7

In my model, all easy handshapes receive a score of 0. Consequently, no claims are made about the relative ease of handshapes in this category. Similarly, although some impossible handshapes have higher ease scores than others, one impossible handshape is not considered more impossible than another. So, again, no claims are made about the relative ease of handshapes in this category. In contrast, the model does make claims about which of the difficult handshapes are more difficult than others. For example, handshapes in which the pinky is extended, bent, or curved and the rest of the fingers are closed all are analyzed as being difficult. But extending the pinky is more difficult to do than curving (compare the ease score of 3 for curved with 2 for extended). Bending the pinky (ease score of 1) is easier still. Intriguing as this analysis may be, this work does not test any of these predictions, leaving these claims open for future research. We are now in a position to compare the ease scores we have determined for logically possible handshapes with the number of occurrences of a particular handshape in Taiwan Sign Language.


9/1/06

12:48 PM

Page 139

Chapter Four

Ease and Frequency Compared To establish a relationship between ease of articulation and frequency of occurrence, I first had to examine how frequently different handshapes occur. For this study, I used the handshapes found in Taiwan Sign Language (TSL). I calculated two types of frequency: type frequency, or the number of different signs in which a particular handshape occurs, and token frequency, or the number of times a handshape occurs in natural conversation. My sources were Your Hands Can Become a Bridge: Sign Language Manual, volumes 1 and 2 (Smith and Ting 1979, 1984), and portions of two videotaped conversations. TYPE FREQUENCY OF HANDSHAPES IN TSL The Smith and Ting volumes are regarded as the most authoritative source on TSL signs in isolation. A total of 1,336 signs appear in the two volumes. I counted each entry to arrive at the type frequency of occurrence for each handshape and found a corpus of fifty-six handshapes (see table 12 on page 149–52). However, I have excluded a few TSL handshapes from my analysis for various reasons, knowing that, eventually, these handshapes have to be integrated into any theory of ease of articulation. The first excluded handshape occurs only in the TSL sign GINGER (see figure 39a). This handshape is excluded because it goes against two generalizations: first, that there are four configurations that fingers can assume in a sign language, and second, that no handshape can be divided into more than two

139


140

9/1/06

12:48 PM

Page 140

Chapter Four

groups. To understand what makes figure 39a so anomalous, one should try to produce it. To do so, begin by forming a handshape in which all the fingers are curved (similar to the ASL E handshape except keep the curved thumb to the radial side of the index, not touching the fingertips). Now, splay the fingers just at the metacarpophalangeal joint in the following manner: (a) keep the flexion at the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints; (b) configure the index metacarpophalangeal joint so there is full flexion (i.e., close the index finger); then (c) configure the middle finger with slightly less flexion, the ring finger with even less, and the pinky finger with full extension at the metacarpophalangeal joint. The result is a handshape with a cascading effect, each finger assuming a sort of mountaintop shape at points along an imaginary arc. The next three excluded handshapes (see figures 39b, 39c, and 39d) all violate Mandel’s (1981) finger position constraint. In other words, they are composed of more than two groups of fingers. In 39b, the ring and pinky are closed, the middle is bent, the index is extended, and the thumb is extended but resting on the middle. Figures 39c and 39d could be described in a similarly detailed manner that would reveal that they each have more than two groups. The final three handshapes that I exclude (see figures 39e, 39f, and 39g) are very close to handshapes that I do consider. The handshape in figure 39e is essentially a fist, except that the thumb is inside the closed fingers instead of outside. In figure 39f, the index and middle are crossed, which is quite similar to the handshape with the index and middle unspread and extended (similar to the ASL U handshape). Their similarity to other handshapes notwithstanding, the system I have proposed to categorize handshapes cannot accommodate these two handshapes. One other handshape that deserves mention is the handshape pictured in figure 39g. That handshape strongly resembles the TSL 10 handshape— the same as the ASL X handshape. I did not consider the handshape in figure 39g to be different when I wrote Ann (1993a), and therefore, I ignored it in that document. However, here, I include it because I can derive an ease score for it.


9/1/06

12:49 PM

Page 141

Ease and Frequency Compared

a.

b.

e.

c.

f.

141

d.

g.

Figure 39 Handshapes excluded from the data.

The handshapes in figure 39 violate constraints many of us take as basic. For this reason, they are perhaps exactly the handshapes to examine most closely. The handshapes shown in figures 39e–g might be fairly easily dealt with by modifications to my model, but it is not immediately obvious how to make this modification. As enticing as it is to consider these excluded handshapes, I leave it to future research to unlock what they can teach us. The total number of handshapes in these data (1,653) and the total number of signs in the Smith and Ting dictionary (1,336) are different because there is not a one-to-one relationship between signs and handshapes; in other words, signs can have more than one handshape. For example, a TSL sign such as MOSQUITO is counted once under each of its two handshapes because Smith and Ting (1979) list them as the handshapes that occur in the sign (see figure 40a). In fact, MOSQUITO has a third handshape that Smith and Ting (1979) does not mention but still illustrates. The nondominant hand maintains a handshape that appears to be fistlike. Smith and Ting make no mention of the nondominant hand because MOSQUITO need not be produced with the nondominant hand. Following Smith and Ting’s example, I do not count the handshape of the nondominant hand in MOSQUITO. Conversely, the sign COUNTRY has a handshape that is counted twice because it is produced with two such handshapes, one on each hand (see figure 40b). As


142

Figure 40

9/1/06

12:49 PM

Page 142

Chapter Four

Handshapes in

Handshape in

MOSQUITO

COUNTRY

a.

b.

Signs with more than one handshape counted in the data.

much as possible, I follow Smith and Ting’s analysis of which handshapes occur in signs. FREQUENCY OF TSL HANDSHAPES IN CONVERSATION To obtain a corpus of signs used in natural TSL conversation, I videotaped two, approximately hour-long, conversations between two separate pairs of adult native signers (total of four different signers) at the Tainan School for the Deaf in southern Taiwan. Portions of these conversations were chosen arbitrarily to be transcribed by a group of linguistics graduate students at National Chung Cheng University in Chiayi, Taiwan. The group consisted of one hearing native TSL signer and four hearing nonnative TSL learners. The graduate students transcribed a total of twenty minutes and twenty-four seconds worth of TSL conversation into both Chinese (using hanyu pinyin, the major Chinese romanization system currently in use) and English. Thirteen minutes and five seconds worth of data came from one conversation, and seven minutes and nineteen seconds came from the other. A corpus of 2,242 signs was created from these conversations. The graduate students, who were very familiar with Smith and Ting (1979, 1984), indicated in their translations whether or not the signs they had transcribed appeared in the books. Of approximately every 100 signs transcribed, approximately four did not appear in the Smith and Ting books and, consequently, were not considered in this work. Approximately another 90 signs were not considered because they could not be found in the Smith and Ting books


9/1/06

12:49 PM

Page 143


143

for various reasons, including typographical errors or glossing. The remaining signs that were considered included signs that were repeated during the course of the conversation. The English transcripts were then examined by a nonsigning, English-speaking undergraduate student studying linguistics. The student used the English word in the translation, looked up each sign in the Smith and Ting books, and listed its handshapes. She calculated the number of times each handshape occurred, regardless of the hand on which it occurred. She included each sign once in her calculations, providing the type frequency of the handshapes used in TSL conversation (see table 13 on page 153–57). The next step was to count every instance of every handshape to determine the token frequency of each handshape. This process involved counting each occurrence of every handshape. Using Smith and Ting (1979, 1984) as a reference, anytime a handshape appeared on any hand in a sign, it was logged in these data. If a two-handed sign used the same handshape for both hands, the handshape was counted twice. In twohanded signs with different handshapes, each handshape was counted once. In signs with handshape change, each handshape was counted once. By analyzing the data, I determined how frequently each of the fifty-six handshapes in Smith and Ting was used in TSL conversation (see table 14 on page 158–62). GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT HANDSHAPE FREQUENCY Several things are worth noting at this point. First, inspection of the data shows that, indeed, some handshapes occur a great deal more than others. The conversational data show that some handshapes have a relatively high token frequency and some have a relatively low token frequency. The conversational data also show that some handshapes have a high type frequency and others have a very low type frequency, even as low as 0. In the Smith and Ting data, the lowest type frequency is 1, not 0, because if the handshape is included in the dictionary, it must be there because at least one sign includes it.


144

9/1/06

12:49 PM

Page 144

Chapter Four

A closer look at the data reveals another observation: there is a great deal of overlap in the ten most frequent handshapes in each category— type frequency in the dictionary, type frequency in conversation, and token frequency in conversation (see table 11). The ten least frequent handshapes in the conversational data also overlap significantly. This finding makes sense because, if the handshape does not show up at all in conversation (has a token frequency of 0), then the handshape should have a type frequency in conversation of 0. These findings raise the question of whether the overlap can be attributed to ease of articulation, and to this question we turn our attention next.

EASE OF ARTICULATION OF ATTESTED TSL HANDSHAPES After analyzing the frequency of the fifty-six attested TSL handshapes in the dictionary and conversation data, I then looked at the ease of articulation of these handshapes using the system detailed in chapter 3. I was able to divide the fifty-six handshapes into four categories: easy, difficult, impossible, and excluded handshapes. The handshapes for the easy, difficult, and excluded categories are pictured in figures 41– 43 (there were too many handshapes in the impossible category to illustrate here). Figures 41 and 42 contain the most handshapes, so each of these figures is further divided into two main sections: one-group handshapes and two-group handshapes. Then, within each group, handshapes are categorized according to how many fingers are acting together. I derive the number of fingers from the set of fingers that is not closed. I expect that most of the designations of handshapes into the two basic categories of easy and difficult will not be surprising and may well reflect intuitive assumptions about which handshapes are easy and which are difficult. Nevertheless, several of the designations will seem very surprising. Figure 44 shows a few handshapes that would seem


9/1/06

12:49 PM

Page 145


145

Table 11. Ten Most Frequently Used TSL Handshapes Type frequency (dictionary)

Type frequency (conversation)

Token frequency (conversation)


146

9/1/06

12:49 PM

Page 146

Chapter Four

One-group handshapes

five-finger Two-group handshapes

one-finger

two-finger

three-finger

four-finger Figure 41

Easy TSL handshapes.

to be easy but are difficult by my criteria. In principle, many more could be listed, but these seem the most obvious. By my criteria, unspread handshapes are difficult, yet figures 44a and 44b show unspread handshapes that seem to be easy. Handshapes involving the middle finger (without the pinky and ring fingers) become increasingly diffi-


9/1/06

12:49 PM

Page 147


147

One-group handshapes

five-finger Two-group handshapes

a

a

one-finger

two-finger

three-finger

four-finger Figure 42 Difficult TSL handshapes. NOTE: a. Throughout this discussion, the ring and middle fingers are bent, not fully extended.


9/1/06

Page 148

Chapter Four

148

Figure 43

12:49 PM

Excluded TSL handshapes.

cult; the middle finger has the joint structure but not the muscle support to extend, even with the ring finger. So, figures 44c through 44f are difficult because they include the middle finger—even though they seem easy to make. Tables 12–14 present the TSL handshapes divided into three groups: type frequency from the dictionary, type frequency from conversation, and token frequency from conversation. I list the handshapes from most to least frequent, with each handshape’s ease of articulation as determined according to my system. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS It is very obvious, and probably expected, that each handshape by itself does not confirm the hypothesis that the most frequently occurring handshapes are the easiest to articulate. The relevant issue, however, is

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Figure 44 Handshapes that look easy but are classified as difficult to articulate.

Handshapes

Ease of articulation difficult

easy

easy

easy

easy

difficult

Type frequency (most to least) 385

196

101

79

72

67

Handshapes

37

40

easy

difficult

difficult

easy

12:49 PM

49

54

easy

easy

Ease of articulation

9/1/06

57

63

Type frequency (most to least)

Table 12. Type Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Handshapes, based on Dictionary Data

ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet Page 149


149

Handshapes


easy

difficult

easy

difficult

difficult

Type frequency (most to least) 32

28

25

25

20

19

Handshapes

Table 12. (continued)

16

17

easy

easy

difficult

12:49 PM

17

150

easy

easy

difficult


9/1/06

17

18

19



Chapter Four

difficult

difficult

difficult

difficult

easy

difficult

difficult

15

12

12

11

11

10

9

4

4

difficult

difficult

difficult

12:49 PM

5

difficult

easy

difficult

easy

9/1/06

5

5

5

6



151

Handshapes difficult

difficult

difficult

easy

difficult

difficult

3

3

2

1

1


3


Handshapes


0

difficult

difficult

12:49 PM

1

152

difficult

difficult

difficult


9/1/06

1

1

1



Chapter Four


easy

easy

easy

easy

64

32

29

28


123


Handshapes

12

easy

difficult

difficult

12:49 PM

14

17

easy

easy


9/1/06

22

24


Table 13. Type Frequency and Ease of Articulation of Handshapes, Based on Conversation Data



153


easy

easy

easy

difficult

easy

9

9

7

7

6


11


Handshapes


5

5

easy

difficult

difficult

12:49 PM

5

154

difficult

easy

difficult


9/1/06

5

6

6



Chapter Four

difficult

difficult

difficult

easy

difficult

excluded

4

4

4

3

3

3

2

difficult

difficult

12:49 PM

2

difficult

easy

difficult

difficult

9/1/06

2

2

2

3



155


difficult

easy

difficult

excluded

1

1

1

1


1


Handshapes


1

excluded

easy

12:49 PM

1

156

difficult

easy

easy


9/1/06

1

1

1



Chapter Four

difficult

difficult

difficult

excluded

difficult

difficult

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

difficult

easy

12:49 PM

0

excluded

difficult

difficult

excluded

9/1/06

0

0

0

0



157


easy

easy

difficult

easy

618

348

263

169


949

Token frequency (most to least)

Handshapes

88

easy

easy

12:49 PM

114

158

difficult

easy

easy


9/1/06

121

144

156


Table 14. Token Frequency and Ease of Articulation of Handshapes, Based on Conversation Data


Chapter Four

difficult

easy

easy

easy

difficult

difficult

easy

79

66

60

53

52

44

38

(not fully extended) difficult

easy

easy

easy

difficult

difficult

17

15

14

14

14

difficult

25

30

ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet 9/1/06 12:49 PM Page 159


159


easy

difficult

difficult

difficult

11

11

11

11


13


Handshapes


7

difficult

excluded

12:49 PM

9

160

difficult

excluded

difficult


9/1/06

9

9

10



Chapter Four

difficult

difficult

difficult

easy

difficult

easy

7

6

5

3

3

2

1

difficult

excluded

12:49 PM

1

easy

difficult

easy

easy

9/1/06

1

2

2

2



161

Handshapes


excluded

difficult

difficult

excluded

Token frequency (most to least) 0

0

0

0

0

Handshapes


0

difficult

easy

12:49 PM

0

162

excluded

difficult

difficult


9/1/06

0

0

0



Chapter Four


9/1/06

12:49 PM

Page 163


163

whether the handshapes in general confirm the hypothesis. To effectively deal with the data, I divided each set into three roughly equal groups. If it is true that the handshapes that are easiest to articulate are the ones that occur most frequently, then it ought to be true that the handshapes with the highest type frequency are all easy. Table 15 shows that, of the seventeen most frequent handshapes, ten are easy and the other seven are difficult. This finding seems to reasonably confirm the hypothesis. The next seventeen handshapes with the highest type frequency appear in table 16, and these show a slightly different pattern: ten of these handshapes are difficult and seven are easy. The final fifteen handshapes occur the least frequently in the dictionary data, and, as expected, fourteen of the fifteen are difficult to articulate (see table 17). Next, we examine the type frequency results from the conversation data and ask the same question. Of the seventeen handshapes that have the highest type frequency in the conversation data, eleven are easy and four are difficult. Again, this finding seems to reasonably confirm the hypothesis. In the middle group of handshapes (those with moderate type frequency), twelve of the seventeen are difficult and four are easy and one is excluded. The final group of handshapes represents the handshapes occurring least frequently. Twenty-two handshapes are listed in this group because five of the handshapes that I excluded from my analysis of the dictionary handshapes appeared in the conversation data. Of these twenty-two handshapes, five are excluded from consideration, thirteen are difficult, and four are easy. Table 18 presents each of the handshapes in descending order of frequency along with the corresponding ease categories. Again, these data seem to confirm the hypothesis. Thus far, we have seen that the two methods I used of ascertaining type frequency have generally supported the hypothesis that the easiest handshapes indeed occur more frequently than those that are difficult to articulate. Now, in tables 19–21, we examine the final set of the data: the token frequency of each handshape taken from the conversation data. As we found with the type frequency data, we see in table 19 that eleven of the seventeen handshapes with the highest token frequency in the con-


9/1/06

12:49 PM

Page 164

Chapter Four

164

Table 15. Ease of Articulation of the Seventeen Handshapes with the Highest Type Frequency (Dictionary Data) Handshapes


1. easy 2. easy 3. easy 4. easy 5. difficult 6. easy 7. easy 8.

versation data are easy and six are difficult. This finding is another confirmation of the hypothesis. In the next group of handshapes (see table 20), two are excluded, eleven are difficult, and four are easy. In this case, it seems that more difficult handshapes are being used in conversation


9/1/06

12:49 PM

Page 165


165

Table 15. (continued) Handshapes

Ease of articulation easy

9. difficult 10. difficult 11. easy 12. difficult 13. easy 14. difficult 15. easy 16. difficult 17.

than we might predict. Finally, table 21 contains the token frequencies in the conversational data for the remainder of TSL handshapes. Of the final twenty-two handshapes, three are excluded, thirteen are difficult, and six are easy. Again, the hypothesis seems to be confirmed.


9/1/06

12:49 PM

Page 166

Chapter Four

166

Table 16. Ease of Articulation of the Seventeen Handshapes with Moderate Type Frequency (Dictionary Data) Handshapes


18.

difficult

19.

difficult

20.

easy

21.

easy

22.

difficult

23.

easy

24.

easy

25.

difficult

The numbers of the most frequent handshapes that are easy and the numbers of the least frequent handshapes that are difficult, when looked at in terms of type and token frequency, seem to clearly support the claim that the most frequent handshapes are the easiest to articulate. Probably the most egregious counterexample to this claim is the most common handshape of all—the unspread flat hand. This handshape occurs in many signs, suggesting that it would have not only a high type


9/1/06

12:49 PM

Page 167


167



26.

difficult

27.

difficult

28.

difficult

29.

easy

30.

difficult

31.

difficult

32.

easy

33.

difficult

34.

easy

frequency but also a high token frequency, and it does. However, this handshape is difficult to articulate.23 My system finds the handshape dif23. A similar handshape (see figure 3c) is considered easy. In this handshape, all five fingers are bent. Because the whole hand participates, application of my criteria to the handshape leads to the handshape being considered easy to articulate, although the fingers are unspread; it is physiologically impossible for a handshape that is bent (flexed at the metacarpophalangeal joint) to be spread.


168

9/1/06

12:49 PM

Page 168

Chapter Four

Table 17. Ease of Articulation of the Handshapes with Lowest Type Frequency (Dictionary Data) Handshapes


35. difficult 36. difficult 37. difficult 38. difficult 39. difficult 40. difficult 41.

ficult to articulate because fingers that are extended or curved are naturally spread, and therefore, unspread fingers that are extended or curved in handshapes accumulate points for being unspread, even if all the fingers participate in the unspread handshape. This situation seems to point up a few issues. First, there has not yet been a detailed enough study to find out whether the instances of this handshape are really pronounced as unspread. Perhaps in conversational


9/1/06

12:49 PM

Page 169


169



42. difficult 43. difficult 44. difficult 45. difficult 46. difficult 47. difficult 48. difficult 49.

signing there is not much difference between the unspread 5 hand and the spread 5 hand. Second, assuming that the ease claims that I am making are correct, the situation of a difficult handshape that is frequent suggests that there are more forces on the form of language than just ease of articulation. It might be suggested that the desire of the signer to produce signs that look a certain way and that would be better represented with

6.

5.

4.

easy

easy

easy

12.

11.

10.

9.

easy

difficult

easy

difficult

difficult

easy


12:49 PM

3.

8.

7.

Handshapes (highest to lowest type frequencies)

170

easy

easy

difficult


9/1/06

2.

1.


Table 18. Type Frequency and Ease of Articulation of Handshapes in Conversation Data


Chapter Four

19.

18.

17.

difficult

easy

difficult

26.

25.

24.

23.

22.

21.

easy

difficult

difficult

difficult

easy

difficult

12:50 PM

16.

easy

difficult

easy

20.

difficult

9/1/06

15.

14.

13.

easy



171

31.

30. easy

difficult

36.

35.

34.

difficult

difficult

difficult

difficult

difficult


12:50 PM

29.

33.

32.


172

difficult

excluded

difficult


9/1/06

28.

27.




Chapter Four

42.

41. difficult

difficult

48.

47.

46.

45.

44.

excluded

difficult

difficult

difficult

excluded

12:50 PM

40.

easy

excluded

difficult

43.

easy

9/1/06

39.

38.

37.

easy



173

52.

difficult 56.

55. difficult

easy

excluded

difficult


12:50 PM

51.

54.

53.


174

excluded

difficult

difficult


9/1/06

50.

49.




Chapter Four


9/1/06

12:50 PM

Page 175


Table 19. Ease of Articulation of Handshapes with the Highest Token Frequency (Conversation Data) Handshapes


1. easy 2. easy 3. difficult 4. easy 5. easy 6. easy 7. difficult 8. easy 9.

175


176

9/1/06

12:50 PM

Page 176

Chapter Four



10. difficult 11. easy 12. easy 13. easy 14. difficult 15. difficult 16. easy 17.

the unspread handshape is more important than the desire for ease. For example, consider the TSL sign that means house (the sign represents the two sides of a pointed roof with the fingers on both hands unspread). Using spread handshapes for this sign might seem undesirable because doing so might suggest that the roof is not solid. Rather than produce a sign that suggests unintended connotations, signers choose the more difficult sign.


9/1/06

12:50 PM

Page 177


Table 20. Ease of Articulation of Handshapes with Moderate Token Frequency (Conversation Data) Handshapes


18. difficult 19. easy 20. easy 21. easy 22. difficult 23. difficult 24. difficult 25. easy 26. difficult 27.

177


178

9/1/06

12:50 PM

Page 178

Chapter Four



28. difficult 29. difficult 30. excluded 31. difficult 32. excluded 33. difficult 34.

Finally, it might also be that ease can be sacrificed in handshapes with high type and token frequency precisely because they are practiced so much by signers. (This idea is similar to the idea that frequent words are often the most irregular—for example, the verb to be in English.) It has been suggested that less frequent paradigms regularize whereas more frequent ones do not because, using them so often, people get more chances to keep the irregularity.24 24. I thank Jane Tsay, Jim Tai, James Myers, and the students in the graduate Phonology and Frequency class at the National Chung Cheng University (NCCU) in fall 2005 for discussion on this point.


9/1/06

12:50 PM

Page 179


Table 21. Ease of Articulation of Handshapes with Lowest Token Frequency (Conversation Data) Handshapes


35. difficult 36. difficult 37. easy 38. difficult 39. easy 40. easy 41. easy 42. difficult 43. easy 44. excluded 45.

179


180

9/1/06

12:50 PM

Page 180

Chapter Four



46. difficult 47. difficult 48. difficult 49. difficult 50. excluded 51. difficult 52. difficult 53. excluded 54. easy 55. difficult 56.

Concl_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet

8/31/06

1:49 PM

Page 181

Conclusion This book explores the connection between ease of articulation and frequency of occurrence of handshapes in Taiwan Sign Language (TSL). Its central conclusion, based on what the evidence suggests, is that, although ease of articulation does not dictate frequency of occurrence, it plays a significant role in helping to explain which handshapes are used most frequently in TSL. The book focuses in depth on the crucial steps that were taken to reach this conclusion: (a) proposing an independently motivated theory of ease of articulation based on the physiology of the hand, (b) determining both the type frequencies and the token frequencies of TSL handshapes, and (c) analyzing and comparing the results of both investigations. This work makes contributions in three areas. First, this work contributes to a better understanding of sign languages in general. Compared with what is known about spoken languages, very little is known about sign languages, and even less is known about sign languages in use outside North America and Europe. Perhaps the most central contribution of this work, then, is that it adds to what is known about one of the sign languages we know the least about. Second, this book makes a contribution with respect to the examination of frequency. Clearly, exploration by linguists and others of frequency effects in spoken languages is worthwhile. (As Morford and MacFarlane, 2003, point out, psycholinguistic studies that do not control for frequency of the words being tested simply cannot be published.) That exploration also is expected, therefore, to be as worthwhile to researchers who examine the structure of sign languages. As Wilbur (1999a)

181


182

8/31/06

1:49 PM

Page 182

Conclusion

notes, what we find depends partly on where we look. Studying corpora of various sign languages could yield heretofore unavailable results that would help a great deal in understanding the structure of sign languages. Although this work examines type and token frequency effects only insofar as they relate to ease of articulation, the expectation is that these effects occur in other languages as they occur in TSL. Future work will confirm whether these predictions are borne out. Very few works except for those I cite in chapter 1 establish a natural sign language corpus and explain generalizations made from examination of the corpus. With respect to the data itself, the TSL corpus I have used is as yet, of course, too small. This limitation cannot be avoided now, but this book will likely spark interest and inspire mobilization of resources to establish a much larger corpus of TSL. The process of data analysis involved transcribing TSL conversations and then translating them from TSL to Chinese and English glosses. The English transcriptions were then analyzed, using Smith and Ting’s (1979, 1984) sign language manuals, to see what handshapes occur in a given sign in isolation. This process may not be the best way to accomplish this task because the videotaped data cannot be used directly. But as technology to do this sort of work improves, better procedures will be established. This study serves to encourage future research. Third, this book explores an under-studied aspect of TSL: its phonetics. Unfortunately, linguistic phenomena that fall under the phonetic domain are sometimes characterized as unimportant. I have explained that, in spoken language research, this lack of interest results in some phonologists cultivating a particular disregard for phonetics, although this situation is changing in many parts of the field. In sign language research, this disregard has manifested somewhat differently: phonetics and phonology are, in some sense, not separated ideologically because phonetics, per se, has not received much attention to begin with. This book takes a step in the right direction by considering how handshapes, specifically those that show up in the inventory of TSL, are produced. It is not concerned with the phonological processes that members of the inventory may undergo. It does not examine the behavior of handshapes,


8/31/06

1:49 PM

Page 183

Conclusion

183

for example, in strings or in individual signs. It does not propose any rules that relate one form of a handshape to another. It does not discuss handshape variants. Thus, I consider it an example of phonetic research. Using a phonetic approach, this book explores the idea of articulation and claims that we can establish which handshapes are more effortful to produce. Perhaps the central problem with ease of articulation is that it is not often used in a rigorous manner. My work provides a testable, explicit model of ease of articulation of handshapes. This model allows us to characterize ease of articulation in handshapes rigorously. At the very least, then, we can potentially eliminate the circular thinking that associates ease of articulation with other properties of language, for example, “easy equals frequent and frequent equals easy,” or “easy equals acquired first and acquired first equals easy.” DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Future research stemming from this work could take three directions. The first, most obvious direction to take is to make sure that this work is extended to all handshapes in TSL and to all other handshapes in all other sign languages. In this work, I consider only the one- and twogroup handshapes that are attested in TSL; therefore, a few TSL handshapes were excluded from consideration. Eventually, these should be considered. Future researchers will need to uncover a mechanism with which to decide the difficulty or ease of these handshapes. Likewise, corpora of conversational data should be collected and studied in every sign language. Type and token frequencies should be established for handshapes and for other aspects of signs. The second direction for future research is related to phonetics. The literature review in chapter 1 makes clear that we need to know more about sign language phonetics. A start in experimental sign phonetics has already been made in works such as Wilcox (1992), Wilbur (1990, 1992), and Poizner, Klima, Bellugi, and Livingston (1986) in the sense that various technologies have been used to answer questions about production and perception. At this point, these results have little to do with


184

8/31/06

1:49 PM

Page 184

Conclusion

the questions I address here, but our community of researchers should think about how the kinematics, perception, and articulation of handshapes go together. In addition, psycholinguistic studies that seek to establish whether there are frequency effects and “ease” effects, as well as whether they can be teased apart, would be helpful. At this stage, it seems unlikely that this study can make a direct contribution to the work in spoken language phonetics that seeks to characterize ease of articulation. However, if more attention to handshape phonetics proves fruitful in future research, then the methods and theories of phonetic work in sign languages will advance. As this progress occurs, sign language phonetics could well provide new insights for spoken language phonetics. The modality difference between signed and spoken languages may make study of phonetic properties of a sign more accessible than it is in spoken languages. Even if the important discoveries about the phonetics of sign languages can be made only by examining underlying physical structures of the hand, experimental work may still be easier to do on the hands and forearm than in the vocal tract. The lack of explicit information about handshape phonetics until this point has made it impossible to advance and support a model of ease of articulation—hence, the need for this book. My model is a first step in this direction. Generally, I claim that the aspects of the physiology that are important for handshape are (a) how the fingers group together in flexion and extension, (b) what fingers do in combination and alone, and (c) what configuration the fingers assume. But the specific details of my proposal must be challenged. For example, the physiological criteria I have isolated here might not be the correct ones. Future research in this area may show that one or more of these factors is not the most important for ease and that other factors should be considered, which would support changing the criteria used to evaluate ease. I considered only the carpometacarpal joint (the joint that connects the hand to the wrist) and joints distal to that. Future work might take into consideration the other two wrist joints—the midcarpal joint (which connects the distal and proximal rows of wrist bones to each other) and the radiocarpal joint (which connects the wrist to the forearm)—to see


8/31/06

1:49 PM

Page 185

Conclusion

185

whether these play a role in ease of articulation of handshapes. Further, joints proximal to the wrist also could be of interest to sign language researchers, as Crasborn’s (1995) work on orientation suggests. Finally, the neurology relevant to the human hand, a criterion I excluded in this work, should eventually be taken into consideration. Moreover, additional motivation for all criteria remains to be uncovered. For example, are there experimental methods to measure how much opposition exists in a given configuration? If there are and if they show that the configurations really can be ranked in terms of ease, then we could more confidently use the MOC criteria. The effects of all the criteria also need to be experimentally verified. The model I have proposed makes clear claims about the physiological effect of various anatomical structures in the hand. Because the phonetics of sign languages will likely include analysis of hand and forearm movements, linguists and kinesiologists would do well to examine some of these issues together. In particular, two hypotheses should be examined with respect to the juncturae tendinum. First, experiments should be conducted to determine whether my proposed juncturae tendinum effects (that the index and pinky fingers are freer than the middle and ring fingers and that between the middle and ring, the ring is the least free) occur for large numbers of people and whether these effects should in fact be attributed to the juncturae tendinum. Perhaps somewhat easier to test are claims that certain muscles are used in the articulation of particular handshapes. These claims might be verifiable by methods introduced in sources such as Basmajian (1978) and Kendall, McCreary, and Kendall (1983) from the physiological literature. I also make claims about whether the use of these muscles makes the handshapes easy or difficult. Testing these claims, of course, depends on what the definition of ease is as well as whether and how it can be tested. The agility of the radial compared with the ulnar fingers also might be tested. In addition, further testing and research could be conducted with respect to the actual mechanics of the model (i.e., the way the physiological criteria are expressed by the algorithms). For example, the algorithms


186

8/31/06

1:49 PM

Page 186

Conclusion

that I have used here to calculate the ease scores might not be correct. As I acknowledge in chapter 3, other possible algorithms might be used to arrive at an ease score. Reasons to choose one over another might be established with further research in this area. Also, the numerical values that I have assigned to the criteria may be incorrect. Perhaps scores should be based on more than a yes or no and, consequently, a 1 or 0 distinction, as in this system. The criteria may need to be weighted differently than in this study where the MOC criterion counted more than others. Finally, the cutoffs that I have chosen might be incorrect; perhaps more handshapes than just those with essentially nothing difficult about them (i.e., the handshapes with scores of 0) should be considered easy. With more work in this area, motivation to choose different cutoff points may be uncovered. Finally, the third direction for future research involves phonology. Although this study is concerned with phonetics, it also stands to contribute to our understanding of sign language phonology. One of my attempts here is to disentangle (at least in principle) phonetics and phonology and to give a place to phonetics in its own right. This task is important because how we do what we do has effects for persistent questions that sign language researchers are facing, for example, what is phonetics and what is phonology in sign languages? Many researchers have noticed and commented (anecdotally and in their writing) on the fact that the boundary between the phonology and the phonetics of sign languages is hazy (see, e.g., Gee 1993; Brentari 1998). Of course, as in spoken languages, phonetics and phonology interact very closely in sign languages, and this fact explains some of the inability to consider them separately. Nevertheless, the haziness persists in sign language research, and it needs to be clarified. In an attempt to understand more about the difference between phonology and phonetics in sign languages, I tried to focus on explicating what the formal and functional approaches take to be the important questions and ways to answer them. But as revealing as doing so can be, it is not always easy to decide what perspective a piece of work takes. Bybee (1999) writes that her work has been characterized as both func-


8/31/06

1:49 PM

Page 187

Conclusion

187

tionalist and antifunctionalist. It appears that this ambiguity will occur as we talk about sign language research. As an example, consider Mandel’s (1979) claim that the physiological fact of tenodesis causes signs with path movement and opening handshape change to move in the direction away from the signer and that similar signs with closing handshape change to move toward the signer. Mandel’s problem—What handshape changes occur with what direction of path movement?—leaves him trying to discover what goes with what. Finding answers to this question is one of the ways that formal linguists make sense of data. But Mandel’s strategy to solve the problem—an appeal to anatomic constraints—is something functional linguists would be more likely to adopt. From this example alone, it should be clear that the interpretation of exactly what our questions and results mean will likely be complicated. In this book, I dichotomize formalism and functionalism to try and understand each separately. In so doing, I likely made some things clearer as I made other things more cloudy. Still, discussing our perspectives as linguists and how those perspectives affect our questions as well as our methods to find answers for them would push us forward in our quest to understand not only sign languages but also language in general. The question of what is phonetic and what is phonological in sign languages is an important one. What we learn about articulation of handshapes can potentially reduce the number of handshape phenomena that phonology has to explain. We can examine the question of which linguistic phenomena must be explained by reference to mental representations and which may be explained by aspects of the “real world” (e.g., constraints of the articulators of sign languages, perceptual requirements). Questions remain: Will further study of handshape and sign phonetics answer our questions? What will the phonetics fail to explain? Will a particular phenomenon that phonetics fails to explain be a candidate for a phonological explanation? Handshape phonology and phonetics provide an opportunity to examine these questions. Classical definitions hold that phonetics seeks to explain the physical properties of sounds whereas phonology is concerned both with explaining the behavior of the sounds in sound sequences and the mental


188

8/31/06

1:49 PM

Page 188

Conclusion

representation of sounds. Thus, we expect that handshapes have a canonical, physical, or citation form (with which this research is largely concerned), and that handshapes may assume various other forms when they are acted on by phonology. These enterprises are clearly related, and there is a movement to bring evidence from each to bear on the other (Ohala and Jaeger 1986; Kingston and Beckman 1990; Ohala 1974, 1990, and other citations in chapter 1). Although this book is not directly concerned with phonology, it has implications for phonological theories that are responsive to the phonetics. I have shown that the physiology of the hand, wrist, and forearm is partially responsible for the handshape inventories and patterns discussed in this work. The question remains as to whether or not the physiological reasons behind these phenomena should be encoded in the grammar. Consider the case of physically impossible handshapes. If physiological information ought to be encoded in the grammar, then there are several ways this encoding might be achieved. First, consider a physically impossible handshape in which the ring finger is extended with the rest of the fingers closed. We might advocate the construction of a feature theory for handshapes that prevents combinations such as [extended] and [ring] from occurring because these two features can never combine when the ring finger acts alone and the rest of the fingers are closed. A theory such as this one might place [extended] and [ring] in a feature geometry in a way that makes their combination impossible. In this type of scenario, the physiological fact that it is impossible to extend the ring finger when it acts alone would be captured by the formal feature theory that disallowed the combination. A second possibility, which is similar to the first that encodes physiological constraints in the grammar, is one that uses feature co-occurrence constraints that are based on the phonetics. Grounding theory (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994) is such a system. It allows features to combine subject to phonetic constraints. For the handshape discussed above, a constraint such as *[extended] [ring] might be used in this type of system. Again, the formal system of constraints on combinations encodes the fact that the ring cannot extend when the other fingers are closed.


8/31/06

1:49 PM

Page 189

Conclusion

189

Optimality theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) is a phonological theory of ranked constraints as opposed to rules. The rankings of the constraints differ from language to language, and the constraints themselves are violable. Constraints interact within each language in different ways to derive outputs. Violations of highly ranked constraints are costly. Phonological representations are arrived at by the way the constraints interact with one another. Optimality theory is widely regarded as a theory of markedness (Boersma, Dekkers, and van de Weijer 2000). Interested readers can find a much more detailed explanation in Prince and Smolensky (1993). Within the framework of optimality theory, perhaps a feature combination such as [extended] [ring] could be ranked as very high or excluded altogether. But also relevant here is the issue of where the constraints come from. Researchers have discussed the attempt within optimality theory to constrain the set of constraints with “independently motivated, functionally based principles, such as those notions of phonetic optimality (informally) appealed to by Natural Phonology and other functionally oriented traditions of linguistic analysis” (Kirchner 2001, 19). Optimality theory accounts of sign language phenomena are not plentiful (see Brentari 1998; Ann and Peng 2000). Ann and Peng (2000) attempted to base the constraints directly on the physiology. The work presented here should be very helpful to accounts of handshape phenomena made from the perspective of optimality theory. There is justification to assert that physiological information need not be encoded in the grammar. Consider, for example, that the grammar encodes only those aspects of the language that cannot be predicted from anything else. Because physical impossibility can be explained in the “real world” through physiology, information about physically impossible handshapes would not need to be encoded in the grammar. That is, any handshape that is physically impossible would not be produced, not because it was prevented from doing so by a feature geometry or a theory of constraints, but rather, because such a handshape would simply not be possible. The physiology itself, not a formal theory, is the explanation for why the handshape does not occur.


190

8/31/06

1:49 PM

Page 190

Conclusion

This book does not provide any evidence that enables us to choose between these competing ideas. Whatever view of phonology is adopted, however, this work can be drawn on for phonetic evidence for claims about handshape features, feature geometries, and feature combinations. For a long time, many linguists did not consider the ideas of articulation (and ease of articulation) and frequency to be very important. But this perspective is changing. Phonologists and phoneticians who work on spoken languages are bringing together different methods and techniques as well as theoretical understandings (Hayes, Kirchner, and Steriade 2004) to understand the sound systems in spoken languages. It seems clear that researchers should make the same sorts of efforts in studying sign languages and should begin to understand more about their articulatory, acoustic (kinematic), and perceptual properties. Finally, it is indisputable that frequency has important effects in virtually all areas of spoken languages. It is time to consider that this possibility also exists in sign languages as well. Natural language corpora must be developed, and generalizations from these corpora must be explained. And as we work, we ought to be aware enough of our approaches as linguists to overtly discuss them, so they can be challenged and so our results can be understood clearly in the context from which they emerged.

Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet

8/31/06

1:50 PM

Page 191

References Abraham A. S., and L. Lisker. 1970. Discriminability along the voicing continuum: Cross language tests. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Phonetic Science, 569–73. Prague: Academia. Anderson, S. 1981. Why phonology isn’t “natural.” Linguistic Inquiry 12 (4):493–539. ———. 1985. Phonology in the twentieth century. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Ann, J. 1992a. Physiological constraints in Taiwan Sign Language handshapechange. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 15 (2):143–57. ———. 1992b. Physiological constraints on two-finger handshapes. In Papers from the twenty-eighth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. C. P. Canakis, G. P. Chan, and J. Marshall Denton, 1–11. ———. 1993a. A linguistic investigation of physiology and handshape. Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Linguistics, University of Arizona, Tucson. ———. 1993b. Review of the phonetics of fingerspelling by Sherman Wilcox. Language and Speech 36 (4):471–75. ———. 1996. On the relation between the difficulty and the frequency of occurrence of handshapes in two sign languages. Lingua 98: 19–41. ———. 2005. A functional explanation of Taiwan Sign Language handshape frequency. Language and Linguistics 6 (2):217–45. Ann, J., and B. L. Peng. 2000. Optimality theory and opposed handshapes in Taiwan Sign Language. University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Sciences 1 (2):173–94.

191


192

8/31/06

1:50 PM

Page 192

References

Archangeli, D., and D. Pulleyblank. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Baker, S. 2003. The perception of handshapes in American Sign Language. Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Linguistics, University of Delaware, Newark. Basmajian, J. V. 1978. Muscles alive! Their functions revealed by electromyography. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Battison, R. 1974. Phonological deletion in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 5: 1–19. ———. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Boersma, P. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. Amsterdam: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics. Boersma, P., J. Dekkers, and J. van der Weijer. 2000. Introduction to Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition, ed. J. Dekkers, F. van der Leeuw, and J. van der Weijer. New York: Oxford University Press. Bonvillian, J. D., and T. Siedlecki Jr. 2000. Young children’s acquisition of the formational aspects of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 1 (1):45–64. Boyes-Braem, P. 1973. The acquisition of the dez (handshape) in American Sign Language: A preliminary analysis. Salk Working Paper., Salk Institute, La Jolla, CA. ———. 1981. Features of the handshape in American Sign Language. Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Psychology, University of California at Berkeley. ———. 1990. Acquisition of the handshape in American Sign Language: A preliminary analysis. In From gesture to language in hearing and deaf children, ed. V. Volterra and C. Erting, 107–27. Springer Series in Language and Communication 27. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Brand, P. W. 1985. Clinical mechanics of the hand. St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Brentari, D. 1988. Partial predictability in ASL handshape change. Paper presented at the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference (TISLR), Gallaudet University, Washington DC. ———. 1990. Theoretical foundations of American Sign Language phonology. Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Linguistics, University of Chicago.


8/31/06

1:50 PM

Page 193

References

193

———. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Brentari, D., H. van der Hulst, E. van der Kooij, and W. Sandler. 1996. One over all and all over one: A model for the phonological representation of handshape. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, University of Québec and McGill University, September, Montreal, QC, Canada. Browman, C. P., and L. M. Goldstein. 1985. Dynamic modeling of phonetic structure. In Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged, ed. V. Fromkin, 35–53. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. ———. 1986. Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 219–52. ———. 1990a. Gestural specification using dynamically-defined articulatory structures. Journal of Phonetics 18: 299–320. ———. 1990b. Representation and reality: Physical systems and phonological structure. Journal of Phonetics 18: 411–24. ———. 1990c. Tiers in articulatory phonology with some implications for casual speech. In Papers in laboratory phonology: Between the grammar and the physics of speech, ed. J. Kingston and M. Beckman, 341–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49: 155– 80. ———. 1995. Gestural syllable position effects in American English. In Producing speech: Contemporary issues for Katherine Safford Harris, ed. F. Bell-Berti and L. J. Raphael, 19–34. Woodbury, NY: American Institute of Physics. Bybee, J. L. 1999. Usage-based phonology. In Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Vol. 1, General papers, ed. M. Darnell, E. Moravcsik, F. Newmeyer, M. Noonan, and K. Wheatley, 211–42. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ———. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Usage-based models of language, ed. M. Barlow and S. Kemmer, 65– 85. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.


194

8/31/06

1:50 PM

Page 194

References

———. 2001a. Frequency effects on French liaison. In Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. J. Bybee and P. Hopper, 211–42. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ———. 2001b. Phonology and language use. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bybee, J., and P. Hopper, ed. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Chang, J., S. Su, and J. H-Y Tai. 2005. Classifier predicates reanalyzed, with special reference to Taiwan Sign Language. Language and Linguistics 6 (2):247–78. Cheek, D. A. 2001. The phonetics and phonology of handshape in American Sign Language. Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N., and M. Halle. 1968. Sound pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Corina, D. 1990. Reassessing the role of sonority in syllable structure: Evidence from a visual gestural language. In Papers from the twenty-sixth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Vol. 2, The parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology, ed. M. Ziolkowski, M. Noske, and K. Deaton, 33–44. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Corina, D., and E. Sagey. 1988. Predictability in ASL handshapes with implications for feature geometry. San Diego, CA: Salk Institute and University of California at San Diego. ———. 1989. Are phonological hierarchies universal? Evidence from American Sign Language. In Proceedings of the Sixth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL), ed. K. DeJong and Y. No, 73–83. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Crasborn, O. 1995. Articulatory symmetry in two-handed signs. MA thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Darnell, M., E. Moravcsik, F. Newmeyer, M. Noonan, and K. Wheatley, ed. 1999. Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Vol. 1, General papers. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. De Saussure, F. 1916. Cours de linguistique général. Paris: Payot.


8/31/06

1:50 PM

Page 195

References

195

Donegan, P. 1985. On the natural phonology of vowels. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series. New York: Garland. Dressler, W. U., and M. Ladányi. 2000. Productivity in word formation (WF): A morphological approach. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47 (1–4):103–44. Ellis, N. C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 (2):143–88. Fahrer, M. 1981. Interdependent and independent actions of the fingers. In The hand, ed. R. Tubiana, 399–403. Philadelphia: Saunders. Francis, W. N., and H. Kucˇera. 1982. Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Galley, P. M., and A. L. Forster. 1987. Human movement: An introductory text for physiotherapy students. New York: Churchill Livingstone. Gay, T., B. Lindblom, and J. Lubker. 1981. Production of bite-block vowels: Acoustic equivalence by selective compensation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69 (3):802–10. Gee, J. 1993. Reflections on the nature of ASL and the development of ASL linguistics: Comments on Corina’s article. In Phonetics and phonology. Vol. 3, Current issues in ASL phonology, ed. G. Coulter, 97–101. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Halverson, H. M. 1937. Studies on the grasping response of early infancy. Journal of Genetic Psychology 51: 393–424. Hare, M. L., M. Ford, and W. D. Marslen-Wilson. 2001. Frequency effects and the representation of regular verbs. In Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. J. Bybee and P. Hopper, 181–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haspelmath, M. 2000. Why can’t we talk to each other? Lingua 110: 235–55. Hayes, B. P. 1999. Phonetically driven phonology: The role of optimality theory and inductive grounding. In Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Vol. 1, General papers, ed. M. Darnell, E. Moravcsik, F. Newmeyer, M. Noonan, and K. Wheatley, 243–85. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ———. 2001. Gradient well-formedness in optimality theory. In Optimality theory phonology, syntax, and acquisition, ed. J. Dekkers, F. van der Leeuw, and J. van de Weijer, 88–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


196

8/31/06

1:50 PM

Page 196

References

Hayes, B., R. Kirchner, and D. Steriade, ed. 2004. Phonetically based phonology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hentschel, G., and T. Mendel. 2002. Marker productivity, structural preferences and frequency: Observations about morphological change in Slavonic. Indogermanische Forschungen 107: 1–46. Hulst, H. van der. 1995. The composition of handshapes. Trondheim Working Papers 23:1–17. Jakobson, R. 1968. Child language, aphasia and phonological universals. The Hague: Mouton. Jakobson, R., G. Fant, and M. Halle. 1951/1972. Preliminaries to speech analysis. Repr. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Keating, P. 1996. The phonetics-phonology interface. University of California Working Papers in Phonetics 92: 45–60. Kegl, J., and R. Wilbur. 1976. When does structure stop and style begin? Syntax, morphology and phonology vs. stylistic variation in ASL. In Papers from the 12th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 23–25, ed. S. S. Mufwene, S. Steever, and C. Walker, 24–32. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Kemmer, S., and M. Barlow. 2000. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Usage-based models of language, ed. M. Barlow and S. Kemmer, vii–xxvii. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications. Kendall, F. P., E. K. McCreary, and H. O. Kendall. 1983. Muscles, testing and function. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Kingston, J., and M. Beckman, ed. 1990. Papers in laboratory phonology: Between the grammar and the physics of speech. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kirchner, R. 2001. An effort based approach to consonant lenition. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series. New York: Routledge. Klima, E., and U. Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Labov, W. 1994. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1, Internal factors. Language in Society Series 20. Oxford: Blackwell. Ladefoged, P. 1984. A course in phonetics. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.


8/31/06

1:50 PM

Page 197

References

197

———. 1990. Some reflections on the IPA. Journal of Phonetics 18: 335–46. Lane, H., P. Boyes-Braem, and U. Bellugi. 1976. Preliminaries to a distinctive feature analysis of handshapes in American Sign Language. Cognitive Psychology 8: 263–89. Liddell, S., and R. E. Johnson. 1986. American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization and phonological remnants. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 445–513. ———. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64: 195–277. Lindblom, B. 1983. The economy of speech gestures. In The production of speech, ed. P. F. MacNeilage, 217–45. New York: Springer Verlag. ———. 1990. On the notion of “possible speech sound.” Journal of Phonetics 18: 135–52. ———. 1992. Phonological units as adaptive emergents of lexical development. In Phonological development: Models, research, implications, ed. C. Ferguson, L. Menn, and C. Stoel-Gammon, 131–63. Timonium, MD: York Press. ———. 1998. Systematic constraints and adaptive change in the formation of sound structure. In Approaches to the evolution of language, ed. J. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy, and C. Knight, 242–64. New York: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2000. Developmental origins of adult phonology: The interplay between phonetic emergents and the evolutionary adaptations of sound patterns. Phonetica 57 (2–4):297–314. Lindblom, B., and I. Maddieson. 1988. Phonetic universals in consonant systems. In Language, speech, and mind, ed. L. Hyman and C. Li, 62–78. New York: Routledge. Lindblom, B., and J. Sundberg. 1971. Acoustic consequences of lip, tongue, jaw and larynx movement. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 50: 1166–79. Locke, J. L. 1983. Phonological acquisition and change. New York: Academic Press. ———. 1993. The child’s path to spoken language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


198

8/31/06

1:50 PM

Page 198

References

Loncke, F. 1984. On the interface between sign phonology and kinesiology. In Recent research on European sign languages, ed. F. Loncke, P. BoyesBraem, and Y. Lebrun, 129–36. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger. Lupton, L., and H. Zelaznik. 1990. Motor learning in sign language students. Sign Language Studies 67: 153–74. MacConaill, M. A., and J. V. Basmajian. 1969. Muscles and movements: A basis for human kinesiology. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Maddieson, I. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1998. Why make life hard? Resolutions to problems of rare and difficult sound types. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February, Berkeley, CA. Mandel, M. A. 1979. Natural constraints in sign language phonology: Data from anatomy. Sign Language Studies 24: 215–29. ———. 1981. Phonotactics and morphophonology in ASL. Ph.D. diss., Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley. ———. 1982. Point of contact in the basehand of type 3 signs of American Sign Language. Working paper, Northeastern University, Boston. Mathur, G., and C. Rathmann. 2000. Why not GIVE-US: An articulatory constraint in signed languages. In Current trends in international sign language research, ed. V. Dively, M. Metzger, S. Taub, and A. Baer, 1–26. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. McIntire, M. 1977. The acquisition of American Sign Language hand configurations. Sign Language Studies 16: 247–66. Meier, R. P., C. Mauk, G. R. Mirus, and K. Conlin. 1998. Motoric constraints on early sign acquisition. In Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual Child Language Research Forum, ed. E. V. Clark, 63–72. San Jose, CA: Stanford University. Miller G. A., and P. E. Nicely. 1955. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27: 339–52. Miyawaki, K., W. Strange, R. R. Verbrugge, A. M. Liberman, J. J. Jenkins, and O. Fujimura. 1975. An effect of linguistic experience: The discrimination


8/31/06

1:50 PM

Page 199

References

199

of [r] and [l] by native speakers of Japanese and English. Perception and Psychophysics 18: 331–40. Morford, J. P. and J. MacFarlane. 2003. Frequency characteristics of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 3 (2):213–225. Moy, A. 1990. A psycholinguistic approach to categorizing handshapes in American Sign Language: Is [As] an allophone of /A/? In Sign language research: Theoretical issues, ed. C. Lucas, 346–57. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Myers, J., H. Lee, and J. Tsay. 2005. Phonological production in Taiwan Sign Language. Language and Linguistics 6 (2):310–60. Myers, S, 1997. Expressing phonetic naturalness in phonology. In Derivations and constraints in phonology, ed. I. Roca, 125–52. New York: Oxford University Press. Napier, J. 1980. Hands. New York: Pantheon Books. Nathan, G. S. 1982. Natural phonology interference in second language acquisition. In The uses of phonology, ed. G. S. Nathan and M. Winters, 103– 13. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. ———. 1994. How the phoneme inventory gets its shape: Cognitive grammar’s view of phonological systems. Rivista di Linguistica 6 (2):275–87. Nelson, W. L., J. S. Perkell, and J. R. Westbury. 1984. Mandible movements during increasingly rapid articulations of single syllables: Preliminary observations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 75: 945–51. Newmeyer, F. J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Ohala, J. J. 1974. Phonetic explanation in phonology. In Papers from the parasession on natural phonology, ed. A. Bruck, R. A. Fox, M. W. La Galy, 251–74. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. ———. 1975. Phonetic explanations for nasal sound patterns. In Nasalfest: Papers from a Symposium on Nasals and Nasalization, ed. C. A. Ferguson, L. M. Hyman, and J. J. Ohala, 289–316. Stanford, CA: Language Universals Project. ———. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. In Papers from the parasession on language and behavior, ed. C. S. Masek, R. A. Hendrick, and M. F. Miller, 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.


200

8/31/06

1:50 PM

Page 200

References

———. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In The production of speech, ed. P. F. MacNeilage, 189–216. ———. 1990. There is no interface between phonology and phonetics: A personal view. Journal of Phonetics 18: 153–71. ———. 1992. What’s cognitive, what’s not in sound change. Lingua e Stile 27 (3):321–62. ———. 1993. Sound change as nature’s speech perception experiment. Speech Communication 13: 155–61. Ohala, J., and J. J. Jaeger, ed. 1986. Experimental phonology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Öhman, S. E. G. 1966. Perception of segments of VCCV utterances. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 40: 979–88. Padden, C. A., and D. Perlmutter. 1987. American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 335–75. Passy P. 1891. Etude sur les changements phonetiques et leurs caracteres generaux. Paris: Librairie Firmin-Didot. Perlmutter, D. 1992. Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry 23 (3):407–42. Phillips, B. S. 2001. Lexical diffusion, lexical frequency and lexical analysis. In Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. J. Bybee and P. Hopper, 123–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pierrehumbert, J. 1990. Phonological and phonetic representation. Journal of Phonetics 18: 375–94. ———. 1999a. Formalizing functionalism. In Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Vol. 1, General papers, ed. M. Darnell, E. Moravcsik, F. Newmeyer, M. Noonan, and K. Wheatley, 287–304. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ———. 1999b. What people know about sounds of language. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29 (2):111–20. ———. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. J. Bybee and P. Hopper, 137–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pierrehumbert, J., M. Beckman, and D. R. Ladd. 1996. Laboratory phonology. In Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, ed. J. Du-


8/31/06

1:50 PM

Page 201

References

201

rand and B. Laks, 535–48. Salford, UK: European Studies Research Institute. Poizner, H. 1983. Perception of movement in American Sign Language: Effects of linguistic structure and linguistic experience. Perceptions and Psychophysics 33(3): 215–31. Poizner, H., E. Klima, and U. Bellugi. 1987. What the hands reveal about the brain. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Poizner, H., U. Bellugi, and V. Lutes-Driscoll. 1981. Perception of American Sign Language in dynamic point-light displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 7(2): 430–40. Poizner, H., E. S. Klima, U. Bellugi, and R. B. Livingston. 1986. Motion analysis of grammatical processes in a visual-gestural language. In Motion: Representation and perception, ed. N. I. Badler and J. K. Tsotsos. New York: North-Holland. Prince, A., and P. Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Working paper, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, and University of Colorado at Boulder. ———. 1997. Optimality: From neural networks to universal grammar. Science 275: 1604–10. Romanes, G. J. (ed.). 1981. Cunningham’s textbook of anatomy. New York: Oxford University Press. Sandler, W. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris. ———. 1993. Sign language handshapes and markedness. Working paper, University of Haifa, Israel. ———. 1996. Representing handshapes. International Review of Sign Linguistics 1: 115–58. Schane, S. 1973. Generative phonology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schenck, R. R. 1964. Variations of the extensor tendons of the fingers. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 46-A (1):103–10. Siedlecki, T., Jr., and J. D. Bonvillian. 1993. Location, handshape and movement: Young children’s acquisition of the formational aspects of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 78 (Spring):31–52. Siple, P. 1978. Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies 7 (19):95–110.


202

8/31/06

1:50 PM

Page 202

References

Smith, W. H., and L. Ting. 1979. Shou neng sheng chyau: Sign language manual, (Your hands can become a bridge), vol. 1. Taipei, Taiwan: Deaf Sign Language Research Association of the Republic of China. ———. 1984. Shou neng sheng chyau: Sign language manual (Your hands can become a bridge), vol. 2. Taipei, Taiwan: Deaf Sign Language Research Association of the Republic of China. Stampe, D. 1979. A dissertation on natural phonology. New York: Garland. Stevens, K. N. 1971. Airflow and turbulence noise for fricative and stop consonants: Static considerations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 50 (4, part 2): 1180–92. Stokoe, W. C. 1978. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. Studies in Linguistics: Occasional Papers 8, (rev. ed.). Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Stokoe W. C., D. Casterline, and C. G. Croneberg. 1965. A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. (Orig. pub. 1974.) Stungis, J. 1981. Identification and discrimination of handshape in American Sign Language. Perception and Psychophysics 29 (3):261–76. Tai, J. H-Y. To appear. Modality effects: Iconicity in Taiwan Sign Language. In Festschrift in celebration of Professor William S.-Y. Wang’s Seventieth birthday, 19–36. Taipei, Taiwan: Academia Sinica. Tennant, R. and M. G. Brown. 1998. The American Sign Language handshape dictionary. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. Trubetzkoy, N. 1939. Principles of phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tubiana, R. (ed.). 1981. The hand, vol. 1. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. Tubiana, R., J.-M. Thomine, and E. Mackin. 1996. Examination of the hand and wrist, 2d ed. London: Martin Dunitz Press. Uyechi, L. 1996. The geometry of visual phonology. Dissertations in Linguistics Series. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications. Wells, K. F. 1966. Kinesiology: The scientific basis of human motion. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. Wells, K., and K. Luttgens. 1976. Kinesiology: The scientific basis of human motion, 6th ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.


8/31/06

1:50 PM

Page 203

References

203

Westbury, J. R., and P. Keating. 1986. On the naturalness of stop consonant voicing. Journal of Linguistics 22: 145–66. Wilbur, R. B. 1978. On the notion of derived segments in American Sign Language. Communication and Cognition 11 (1): 79–104. ———. 1987. American Sign Language, 2d ed. Boston: Little, Brown. ———. 1990. Why syllables? What the notion means for ASL research. In Theoretical issues in sign language research. Vol. 1, Linguistics, ed. S. D. Fischer and P. Siple, 81–108. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1993. Syllables and segments: Hold the movement and move the holds! In Phonetics and phonology. Vol. 3, Current issues in ASL phonology, ed. G. Coulter, 135–68. San Diego: Academic Press. ———. 1999a. A functional journey with a formal ending: What do brow raises do in American Sign Language? In Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Vol. 1, General papers, ed. M. Darnell, E. Moravcsik, F. Newmeyer, M. Noonan, and K. Wheatley, 294–314. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ———. 1999b. Stress in ASL: Empirical evidence and linguistic issues. Language and Speech 42 (2–3):229–50. Wilbur, R., and G. D. Allen. 1991. Perceptual evidence against internal structure in American Sign Language syllables. Language and Speech 34 (1):27–46. Wilcox, S. 1992. The phonetics of fingerspelling. Philadelphia: Johns Benjamins. Willerman, R. 1991. The phonetics of pronouns: A typological perspective. Working paper, University of Texas at Austin. ———. 1994. The phonetics of pronouns: Articulatory bases of markedness. Ph.D. diss., Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin. Woodward, J. 1982. Single finger extension: For a theory of naturalness in sign language phonology. Sign Language Studies 37: 289–303. ———. 1985. Universal constraints on two-finger extension across sign languages. Sign Language Studies 46: 53–72. ———. 1987. Universal constraints across sign languages: Single finger contact handshapes. Sign Language Studies 57: 375–85. Zipf, G. K. 1935. The Psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


8/31/06

1:50 PM

Page 204

Index_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet

8/31/06

9:12 AM

Page 205

Index Note. Italicized numbers indicate artwork.

abduction, 46, 61, 66, 68, 80, 97; anatomy and, 79–83; definition of, 78 Abraham, A. S., 36 acoustics, 6, 19, 28, 30; relation to handshape kinematics, 49 adduction, 61, 66, 68, 88, 97; anatomy and, 79–83 Allen, G. D., 25 allophones, 8, 51–52 American Sign Language, 1, 42, 46, 51, 52; configurations in, 31; distinctive features of, 36; handshapes, 26, 29; —order of acquisition, 40–41; movement and, 47–48; phonetics of, 33–35; phonological features of, 35–36; and signing space, 47; signs, 26; sign frequency and, 54, 77, 140; weak drop in, 48 anatomy: constraints on linguistic structure, 4; ease of articulation and, 39–41; of the hand, 34; implications for sign language handshapes, 63–86; versus physiology, 56 Anderson, S., 14 Ann, J., 25, 38, 49, 54, 55, 140, 203 antagonism, 15, 57; in configurations of handshapes, 89–93 Archangeli, D., 89 arm, 43, 47, 48

articulation: ease of, 34–35, 39–42, 45–46, 54; and the grammar of sign languages, 44; and handshapes, 2–3, 26–27, 42–43; and speech sounds, 12–23; and sonority, 49, 87, 144, 197 articulators, 38, 193, 201; vocal, 15–18; in sign language, 26–28 asymmetries, 7, 24, 48, 63, 84 Baker, S., 50–51 Barlow, M., 9 Battison, R., 25–27 Bellugi, U., 32, 35, 36, 42, 47–48 bite-block studies, 15–16, 89; and compensatory articulation, 15; implication for ease of articulation, 15–16; supershapes and, 15, 89 bivalent features, 31, 32 bones: of the fingers (phalanges), 58–59, 69, 79, 82–83; of the forearm (radius and ulna), 61; and joints, 59–64; of the palm (metacarpus), 59; of the wrist (carpal), 59, 60, 61 Bonvillian, J. D., 43, 54 Boyes-Braem, P., 32, 35, 36, 96; stages of handshape acquisition, 39–43 Brentari, D., 25, 28n7, 30, 32, 38, 48–49, 51

205


8/31/06

206

9:12 AM

Page 206

Index

Browman, C. P., 17 Bybee, J. L., 5, 10, 11, 17 carpometacarpal joints, 78, 81, 83; description of, 61–63; and ease of articulation, 184; of the fingers, 61–64, 80–81, 84, 96; relation to the index and middle metacarpals, 64; of the thumb, 61, 78, 84 Casterline, D., 46, 51 categorical perception, 50, 51 Cheek, D. A., 50 Chomsky, N., 4 circularity, 13, 14, 26 classifiers, 54 coarticulation, 49, 50, 89 collateral ligaments, 79, 80 compensatory articulation, 15 consonants, 17, 19, 20 constraints, 4, 8, 25, 26, 29; on handshapes, 141, 187–88; visual, 47, 49 Corina, D., 31, 33, 37, 38 Croneberg, C. G., 46, 47, 51 Dictionary of American Sign Language (Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg), 46, 54 dominance condition 25, 26, 27 Donegan, P., 21–22 ease of articulation, 12–15, 35, 54; anatomy and, 39–41; bite-block studies and, 15–16; definition of, 14; diachronic sound change and, 22; and least effort, 12, 16; language acquisition and, 20–22; and markedness, 13; and maximal clarity, 12; in phonology, 14; ranking and, 89–101, speech sounds, 18; in TSL, 144–80; theory with handshapes, 18 ease score, 87, 138; calculating, 106–12, charting, 112–36; definition of, 87; determining, 102–4, rationale for, 104–6 extension, and adduction, 81; finger, 50, 52–

53, 57, 80, 84; hierarchy, 34–35; of the hand, 57–70, 77, 78; juncturae tendium, 70–72; curved configuration, 76, bent configuration and, 76; support for, 94–95, 99; 101–2 feature geometry, 37–39 finger position constraint (Mandel), 87n1 fingerspelling: acoustic phonetics and, 49 fist, 63, 72, 77, 93, 140 flexion, 31, 35, 66, 72–73, 101–2; and adduction, 80–81; of the fingers, 74–78, 140; support for, 89, 95–96, 106–7; of the thumb, 73–74 flexors, 45, 72–76, 84–86, 90–93 forearm, 184–85, 199; joints and, 38, 45, 57; muscles of, 67, 74, 75; wrist and, 59, 61 formal linguistics, 7, 8; and asymmetries, 7, 24; and markedness, 8; and obstruents, 8; and sign language, 24–25 fricatives, 16, 18 functional linguistics, 9; and frequency of occurrence, 9–12; and sign language, 23 functionalism, 3, 5, 6, 201 gestures, 1, 15, 17 gestural scores, 17 Goldstein, L. M., 17 grounding theory, 7 grammar 4, 7; in sign language, 25, 44, 188–89 hand, 24–26; bones of, 58–59; configurations of, 30–31, 45, 57; joints, 59–64; juncturae tendium and, 70–72; muscles of, 64–70, 90–93 handshape: acquisition of, 27, 39–44; adjacency convention and, 30, 34; anatomy and, 57–58; antagonism and, 90; categorical perception and, 50–51; configurations, 31–39, 88–89, 92–93; constraints and, 25, 47; constructs and, 24–25; definition of, 1–2, 87–88; ease of


8/31/06

9:12 AM

Page 207

Index

articulation, 2, 3, 18; features of, 36–39; flexion hierarchy, 35; frequency of occurrence, 7, 52–55, 143–44; kinematics, 49; muscle opposition in, 89–93; onegroup, 97, 98, 99–100, 106–7, 144, 146, 147; opposition hierarchy, 35; and path movement, 44, 45; phonological rules and, 25; properties of, 27, 53; synergy and, 90; two-group, 97–99, 106, 107–8, 144, 146, 147; variation and, 49 Hayes, B. P., 8 Hopper, P., 5, 10 Hulst, H., van der, 38 intrinsic muscles, 76 Israeli Sign Language: markedness and, 53 Johnson, R. E., 32 joints, 31, 59–86, 96, 101; distal, 33–34, 44; and feature geometry, 38; proximal, 33–34, 43, and tenodesis, 44–45, 47 juncturae tendinum, 35, 66, 70–72, 85n18, 199; and the support for extension criterion, 94–95 Keating, P., 13, 16 Kegl, J., 30 Kemmer, S., 9 kinematics, 26, 27, 44, 47, 184 kinesiology, 26, 46–47 Klima, E., 48, 183 knuckle, 31–32, 38, 59, 60–61, 79–81, 83 Ladefoged, P., 13 Lane, H., 32, 36, 42 language acquisition, 20, 21 lenitions 20, 21 Liddell, S., 32 Lindblom, B., 13, 14, 18n4, 19, 89 linguistics 5, 8, 9, 143 Locke, J. L., 20 Loncke, F., 47 lumbricals, 69–70, 74, 76, 91

207

Lupton, L., 48 Lutes-Driscoll, V., 47–48 Maddieson, I., 12n1, 19 Mandel, M. A., 33–35, 37–38, 45–46, 79n17, 96, 187; finger position constraint, 87n1, 140 markedness, 8, 9, 13, 189 Mathur, G., 44 MacFarlane, J., 54 McIntire, M., 42–43 Meir, R. P., 43 Miller, G. A., 35–36 Miyawaki, K., 36 muscle opposition criterion, 89–94, 98–99, 102–6, 108, 113–14 Morford, J. P., 54 Moy, A., 51 muscles: anatomy of, 64–66; of the fingers, 72–76, 82, 85, 89–92, 95; movement and, 56–57; and tenodesis, 44–46; of the thumb, 65–67 Nathan, G. S., 20, 22 Nelson, W. L., 17 Newmeyer, F. J., 4, 5 Nicely, P. E., 35–36 Ohala, J. J., 17, 22–23 opponens: digiti minimi 35, 79, 82, 96; pollicis, 78–79, 82–83, 96 opposition, 101, 185; hierarchy and, 34–35; of muscles, 89–94, 105; and the thumb, 66, 74, 78–79, 96 Padden, C. A., 25 palm, 57, 62, 77, 96; bones of, 57, 60; movement, 45–46, orientation, 1–2, 38, tendons of, 68 Perkell, J. S., 17 Perlmutter, D., 25 phalanges, 58–59


8/31/06

208

9:12 AM

Page 208

Index

phonetics, 12, 13; of fingerspelling, 49; and phonology, 6–7, 28, 89; sign language and, 32–33, 47–48, 183–88; and TSL, 182–83 phonology, 6; articulatory, 6, 17; ease of articulation in, 14; features and, 27–28; grounded, 89, laboratory, 6; natural, 20–22; processes, 20; and sign language, 13, 25, 32, 200 Pierrehumbert, J., 9 pinky finger, 84, 87–88, 95, 97, 102; abduction and, 82; and acquisition of handshapes, 39–42; extensor tendons and, 71–72, 84–85; flexion and, 74–75; joints, 63–64, 96; opposition and, 79; opposition hierarchy and, 34–35; and ulnar node, 37 Poizner, H., 47–48 Prince, A., 189 Pulleyblank, D., 89 radiocarpal joints, 61, 63, 184 Rathmann, C., 44 Sagey, 31, 38 Sandler, W., 25, 31, 37n11, 38, 53 Saussure, F. de, 4 segments, 8, 12–13, 21, 24 Siedlecki, T., Jr., 43, 54 sign language, 23–25, 28, 51; anatomy and, 26, 83–86; acquisition of, 43; features of, 28–29, 36–39; formal approaches to, 24– 25; functional approaches to, 26–27; grammar of, 44; phonology, 24; research, 23; symmetry and dominance conditions theory, 26; and visual constraints, 47; and weak drop, 48 signs: anatomy and, 27, 38, 43–44, 46–47, 50; constraints and, 25; frequency, 54–55;

and handshapes, 141–43, 166–67; parts of, 1, 23–25 Siple, P., 47 Smith, W. H., 2, 54, 139, 141–43 sonority, 48–49 sounds, 8, 12–17, 36, 50; categorical perception and, 50; phonology and, 27–28; 187–88; speech, 18–23, 35–36 space, 37, 44, 59, 79, 81; signing and, 24, 46, 47 [spread] feature, 37–38 spontaneous voicing, 16 Stokoe, W. C., 46, 47, 51 stops, 18 Stungis, J., 36 Sundberg, J., 89 supershapes, 15, 16, 89 symmetry, 9, 11, 25 symmetry and dominance conditions theory, 25–27 Taiwan Sign Language: handshapes and, 2– 3, 25, 44–45, 54–55, 138–80, 181–83, 195, 197 tendons: extensor, 56, 68–69, 69, 72; and muscles, 64, 65, 67, juncturae tendinum, 70–72; of the fingers, 74–75, 80–85 tenodesis: definition of, 44–46, 79n17. See wrist token frequency, 10, 182; definition of, 11– 12; in TSL, 139; 143–45, 148, 158, 163– 79 type frequency, 54–55, 148; definition of, 10–11; of TSL handshapes, 139–44, 148, 149–62 Uyechi, L., 24, 33


8/31/06

9:12 AM

Page 209

Index

vowels, 18 Westbury, J. R., 13, 16, 17 Wilbur, R. B., 23, 37n12, 181, 183; adjacency convention, 30; construct of syllable, 25 Wilcox, S., 47, 49 Willerman, R., 13, 14n3, 17, 18, 19, 20n5, 26

209

Woodward, J., 52–53 wrist, 38, 43, 88; bones of, 58–59; joints of, 61–64, —physiological result of the carpometacarpal joint, 63–83; and tenodesis, 44–46 Zelaznik, H., 48 Zipf, G. K., 9


8/31/06

9:12 AM

Page 210

Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Sign Language Handshapes: The Taiwanese Example

The Ancient Origins of Sign Handshapes

The Ease of Being

Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language

Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language

Coping and Complaining: Attachment and the Language of Dis-ease

Sign of the Unicorn

Sign of the Unicorn

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Cross

Sign Of The Wolf

The Price Of Pain-Ease

Islam: the Religion of Ease

Religion and the Formation of Taiwanese Identities

Aspects of the Syntax of American Sign Language

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Wolf

Sign of the Wolf

Sign of the unicorn

Sign Of The Wolf

Sign of the Wolf

Sign Of The Unicorn

Sign Of The Wolf

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Wolf

Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Sign Language Handshapes: The Taiwanese Example

The Ancient Origins of Sign Handshapes

The Ease of Being

Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language

Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language

Coping and Complaining: Attachment and the Language of Dis-ease

Sign of the Unicorn

Sign of the Unicorn

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Cross

Sign Of The Wolf

The Price Of Pain-Ease

Islam: the Religion of Ease

Religion and the Formation of Taiwanese Identities

Aspects of the Syntax of American Sign Language

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Wolf

Sign of the Wolf

Sign of the unicorn

Sign Of The Wolf

Sign of the Wolf

Sign Of The Unicorn

Sign Of The Wolf

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Cross

Sign of the Wolf

Recommend Documents