Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Frequency of
Occurrence
and Ease of
Articulation of
Sign Language
Handshapes
Page i
FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page ii
FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page iii
Frequency of
Occurrence
and Ease of
Articulation of
Sign Language
Handshapes
The Taiwanese Example
Jean Ann
FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page iv
FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page v
FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page vi
FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page vii
Contents
Acknowledgments
ix
Chapter One
Chapter Two
56
87
Handshape Articulation
Chapter Four Ease and Frequency Compared
139
Conclusion
181
References
191
Index
205
vii
FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page viii
FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 Mandels
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 didnt. 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 Archangelis careful attention to my
writing and analysis was a gift. Sam Supallas 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
FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page x
Acknowledgments
FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 OConnor, 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 DAndrea, 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
FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
xii
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page xii
Acknowledgments
FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page xiii
Acknowledgments
xiii
FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page xiv
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 1
Chapter One
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Chapter One
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 worlds 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.
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 3
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 4
Chapter One
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 5
To better understand the approaches of formalism and functionalism, we need to consider how both play out in specific areas of lin-
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 anothers work, they do not know much about one anothers 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 ideaa functionalist idea by its very naturethat 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
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 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, 1389), 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
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 linguistsfor example, those working in optimality theorymight 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
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 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.
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
10
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 10
Chapter One
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 11
11
and Ladnyi 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, 1213). 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 texthow often a particular word comes up (Bybee 2001b, 10). Bybee (2001b) explains that
in Francis and Kuceras (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 contractionsfrequent collocations such as cant, couldnt, wont, wouldnt,
shouldnt, dont, didnt 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
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
(hman 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
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 13
13
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
14
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 14
Chapter One
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 15
15
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
16
9:57 AM
Page 16
Chapter One
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 17
17
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 18
Chapter One
18
Stops
Approximants
Complex Fricatives
More Complex
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 19
19
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
20
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 20
Chapter One
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 21
21
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
22
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 22
Chapter One
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 23
23
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
wordsay, the unit of syllablewe 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
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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.
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
26
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 26
Chapter One
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 27
27
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
28
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 28
Chapter One
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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.
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.
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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.
Brentaris (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)
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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.
8. In this work, I use the term open when citing or discussing the work of
other researchers. Otherwise, I use the term extended.
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 Bellugis (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 Johnsons (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)
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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. Uyechis 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.
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 34
Chapter One
34
a. closed
c. one-finger
d. two-finger
b. open
e. three-finger
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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.
Mandels (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.
Mandels 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 Mandels ligamentous ties are
the juncturae tendinum; I discuss them in chapter 2.
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 othersto 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). Stungiss work did not challenge the idea in Lane, BoyesBraem, and Bellugi (1976) that features could be based on perceptual evidence.
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 itthumb 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. Sandlers (1989) feature geometry also includes an unnamed node that
dominated the index and middle fingers, which corresponds to Corina and Sageys
(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.
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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.
Brentaris (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.
Sandlers (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).
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 39
39
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-Braems (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
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
40
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 40
Chapter One
fingers one by one, including the weakestthe middle finger and the
ring finger. Handshapes used in Stages 14 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 radialulnar 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 radialulnar 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-Braems stages of handshape acquisition. From Volterra and
Erting (1994). Used by permission.
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 41
41
Stage 3
Stage 4
Figure 6
(Continued)
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 stageswhat 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
babys 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)
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 43
43
McIntire finds some patterns that are not consistent with BoyesBraem, but Boyes-Braems 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 McIntires (1977) corpus (182 of 186 substitutions) is composed of handshapes from Boyes-Braems Stage 1. McIntires 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 signs 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 childrens 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).
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
44
9:57 AM
Page 44
Chapter One
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 ones 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
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Chapter One
46
a.
Figure 8
Page 46
b.
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 Lonckes 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 experimenters 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.
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
48
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 48
Chapter One
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 49
49
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
50
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 50
Chapter One
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
52
Figure 9
(1998).
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 52
Chapter One
b. ASL ngerspelled T
c. ASL ngerspelled A
d. ASL ngerspelled S
(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 extensionhandshapes in which one finger is extended with the rest
of the fingers closed; (b) two-finger extensiontwo fingers extended
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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.
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
54
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 54
Chapter One
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 55
55
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
10:07 AM
Page 56
Chapter Two
56
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 1020 percent) or maximally (say, 80100 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
ve digits should be interpreted as including the thumb and four fingers. The phrase
the ngers should be interpreted as excluding the thumb.
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 15 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
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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-
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
10:07 AM
Page 61
61
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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).
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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-
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
64
9/5/06
10:07 AM
Page 64
Chapter Two
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).
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
10:07 AM
Page 65
Figure 14
65
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
10:08 AM
66
Page 66
Chapter Two
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.
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
68
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 68
Chapter Two
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
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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.
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
70
10:08 AM
Page 70
Chapter Two
four lumbricals
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
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 71
71
Figure 20 The intrinsic muscles. Adapted from Schider (1957, plate 4, figure 3).
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 73
73
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
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
Figure 22
Page 74
Chapter Two
74
a. closed
10:08 AM
b. curved
c. bent
d. opposed
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
76
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 76
Chapter Two
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 77
threading a needle
77
making a fist
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 NAVE, pictured in
Figure 25
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 thumbs 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
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 pinkys
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 adductionthe 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.
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
80
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Chapter Two
a. abducted
Figure 26
Page 80
b. adducted
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
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 81
81
extension
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
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
82
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 82
Chapter Two
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 musclesthe
three palmar interossei and the adductor pollicismust 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
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 83
83
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 thumbs 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
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 84
Chapter Two
84
Finger
Number of
extensors
Number of
flexors
Thumb
Index
Middle
2 (2 independent)
2 (1 independent)
1
Ring
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 requiredthe 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
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 85
85
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
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.
ch02_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
86
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 86
Chapter Two
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 Mandels 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 (Mandels 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 (Mandels 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
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
88
Figure 30
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 88
Chapter Three
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
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 89
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.
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 configurationmuscle 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-
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 91
91
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
PIPDIP 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.
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 92
Chapter Three
92
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
most difficult
next most difficult
easiest
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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.
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
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 94
Chapter Three
94
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 95
95
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
96
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 96
Chapter Three
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 97
97
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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.
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 100
Chapter Three
100
a.
b.
c.
tendency to spread
d.
e.
tendency to oppose the thumb
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 101
101
to one-group
handshapes
Muscle opposition in
configuration
All fingers
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.
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
102
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 102
Chapter Three
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 103
103
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 104
Chapter Three
104
spread handshape
Figure 34
unspread handshape
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 105
105
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
106
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 106
Chapter Three
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 107
107
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
108
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 108
Chapter Three
(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).
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 109
109
B
SE value
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF value
E
Temporary
ease score
(0)
IMRP
(0)
T thumb
NOTE: The temporary ease score is the result of adding the values of the
SE and SF criteria.
B
The rest of
the fingers
(most flexed)
C
Temporary
Ease Score
(SE SF)
D
Bent
(1)
E
Extended
(2)
F
Curved
(3)
IMRP
T thumb
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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.
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 111
111
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 112
Chapter Three
112
Contrasting handshapes.
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 113
113
B
SE
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
(0)
IMRP
(0)
(0)
TMRP
(0)
(1)
TIRP
(1)
(1)
TIMP
(1)
(0)
TIMR
(1)
I index
M middle
T thumb
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 114
Chapter Three
114
B
C
D
E
F
The rest of Temporary Bent Extended Curved
the fingers ease score (1)
(2)
(3)
IMRP
TMRP
TIRP
TIMP
TIMR
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-
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 115
115
D
Bent (1)
E
Extended (2)
F
Curved (3)
*4
*6
*4
*6
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
B
SE
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
TI
(0)
MRP
(0)
TM
(1)
IRP
(1)
TR
(1)
IMP
(1)
TP
(0)
IMR
(1)
IM
(0)
TRP
(1)
IR
(1)
TMP
(1)
IP
(0)
TMR
(1)
MR
(1)
TIP
(1)
MP
(1)
TIR
(1)
RP
(0)
TIM
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 117
117
Chart 7
B: RESULT OF APPLYING THE
OF THE SE SF CRITERIA
B
The rest
of the
fingers
C
Temporary
ease
score
D
Bent
(1)
E
Extended
(2)
F
Curved
(3)
TI
MRP
TM
IRP
TR
IMP
TP
IMR
IM
TRP
IR
TMP
IP
TMR
MR
TIP
MP
TIR
RP
TIM
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
TM
*4
*6
TR
*4
*6
TP
IM
IR
*4
*6
IP
MR
*4
*6
MP
*4
*6
RP
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 119
119
Chart 9
A: RESULT OF ADDING THE VALUES OF THE
AND THE SF CRITERION
SE CRITERION
B
SE
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
TIM
(0)
RP
(1)
TIR
(1)
MP
(1)
TIP
(0)
MR
(1)
TMR
(1)
IP
(1)
TMP
(1)
IR
(1)
TRP
(0)
IM
(1)
IMR
(0)
TP
(1)
IMP
(0)
TR
(1)
IRP
(0)
TM
(1)
MRP
(0)
TI
(0)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 120
Chapter Three
120
Chart 10
B: RESULT OF APPLYING THE
OF THE SE SF CRITERIA
B
The rest
of the
fingers
C
Temporary
ease
score
D
Bent
(1)
TIM
RP
TIR
MP
TIP
MR
TMR
IP
TMP
IR
TRP
IM
IMR
TP
IMP
TR
IRP
TM
MRP
TI
T thumb
I index
M middle
E
F
Extended Curved
(2)
(3)
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
TIR
*4
*6
TIP
TMR
*4
*6
TMP
*4
*6
TRP
IMR
IMP
IRP
MRP
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 122
Chart 12
A: RESULT OF ADDING THE VALUES OF THE
AND THE SF CRITERION
SE CRITERION
B
SE
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
TIMR
(0)
(1)
TIMP
(0)
(1)
TIRP
(0)
(1)
TMRP
(0)
(0)
IMRP
(0)
(0)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
Chart 13
B: RESULT OF APPLYING THE
OF THE SE SF CRITERIA
B
The rest
of the
fingers
C
Temporary
ease
score
D
Bent
(1)
E
Extended
(2)
F
Curved
(3)
TIMR
TIMP
TIRP
TMRP
IMRP
T thumb
122
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
TIMP
TIRP
TMRP
IMRP
Chart 15
A: RESULT OF ADDING THE VALUES OF THE
AND THE SF CRITERION
SE CRITERION
B
SE
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
TIMR
(0)
(1)
TIMP
(0)
(1)
TIRP
(0)
(1)
TMRP
(0)
(0)
IMRP
(0)
(0)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
B
The rest
of the
fingers
C
Temporary
ease
score
D
Bent
(1)
E
Extended
(2)
F
Curved
(3)
TIMR
n.a.
TIMP
n.a.
TIRP
n.a.
TMRP
n.a.
IMRP
n.a.
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
n.a.
*3
TIMP
n.a.
*3
TIRP
n.a.
*3
TMRP
n.a.
IMRP
n.a.
T thumb
124
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
TIM
(0)
RP
(1)
TIR
(1)
MP
(1)
TIP
(0)
MR
(1)
TMR
(1)
IP
(1)
TMP
(1)
IR
(1)
TRP
(0)
IM
(1)
IMR
(0)
TP
(1)
IMP
(0)
TR
(1)
IRP
(0)
TM
(1)
MRP
(0)
TI
(0)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 126
Chapter Three
126
Chart 19
B: RESULT OF APPLYING THE
OF THE SE SF CRITERIA
B
The rest
of the
fingers
(least flexed
fingers)
C
Temporary
ease
score
D
Bent
(1)
E
Extended
(2)
F
Curved
(3)
TIM
RP
n.a.
TIR
MP
n.a.
TIP
MR
n.a.
TMR
IP
n.a.
TMP
IR
n.a.
TRP
IM
n.a.
IMR
TP
n.a.
IMP
TR
n.a.
IRP
TM
n.a.
MRP
TI
n.a.
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
n.a.
*3
TIR
*2
n.a.
*6
TIP
n.a.
*3
TMR
*2
n.a.
*6
TMP
*2
n.a.
*6
TRP
n.a.
*3
IMR
n.a.
*3
IMP
n.a.
*3
IRP
n.a.
*3
MRP
n.a.
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 128
Chapter Three
128
Chart 21
A: RESULT OF ADDING THE VALUES OF THE
AND THE SF CRITERION
SE CRITERION
B
SE
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
TI
(0)
MRP
(0)
TM
(1)
IRP
(1)
TR
(1)
IMP
(1)
TP
(0)
IMR
(1)
IM
(0)
TRP
(1)
IR
(1)
TMP
(1)
IP
(0)
TMR
(1)
MR
(1)
TIP
(1)
MP
(1)
TIR
(1)
RP
(0)
TIM
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 129
129
Chart 22
B: RESULT OF APPLYING THE
OF THE SE SF CRITERIA
B
C
D
E
F
The rest
Temporary Bent Extended Curved
of the
ease
(1)
(2)
(3)
fingers
score
(least flexed
fingers)
TI
MRP
n.a.
TM
IRP
n.a.
TR
IMP
n.a.
TP
IMR
n.a.
IM
TRP
n.a.
IR
TMP
n.a.
IP
TMR
n.a.
MR
TIP
n.a.
MP
TIR
n.a.
RP
TIM
n.a.
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
n.a.
TM
*2
n.a.
*6
TR
*2
n.a.
*6
TP
n.a.
*3
IM
n.a.
*3
IR
*2
n.a.
*6
IP
n.a.
*3
MR
*2
n.a.
*6
MP
*2
n.a.
*6
RP
n.a.
*3
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 131
Chart 24
A: RESULT OF ADDING THE VALUES OF THE
AND THE SF CRITERION
SE CRITERION
B
SE
C
Most flexed fingers
bent or curved
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
(0)
IMRP
(0)
(0)
TMRP
(0)
(1)
TIRP
(1)
(1)
TIMP
(1)
(0)
TIMR
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
Chart 25
B: RESULT OF APPLYING THE
OF THE SE SF CRITERIA
B
The rest of
the fingers
C
Temporary
ease score
TMRP
n.a.
TMRP
n.a.
TIRP
n.a.
TIMP
n.a.
TIMR
n.a.
T thumb
I index
M middle
D
E
F
Bent Extended Curved
(1)
(2)
(3)
R ring
P pinky
131
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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)
n.a.
n.a.
*2
n.a.
*6
*2
n.a.
*6
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 2733, 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
12 means a handshape is difficult, and a score of 34 indicates that
the handshape is impossible. The familiar conventionseasy is unmarked, difficult is underlined, impossible is asteriskedapply.
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
I opposes T
(0)
M opposes T
(0)
R opposes T
(1)
P opposes T
(1)
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
Temporary
ease score
Final
ease score
I, M oppose T
(0)
I, R oppose T
(1)
*3
I, P oppose T
(1)
*3
M, R oppose T
(1)
M, P oppose T
(1)
*3
R, P oppose T
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
133
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
Temporary
ease score
Final
ease score
I, M, R oppose T
(1)
I, M, P oppose T
(1)
*3
I, R, P oppose T
(1)
*3
M, R, P oppose T
(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
Temporary
ease score
Final
ease score
I opposes T
(0)
M opposes T
(0)
R opposes T
(1)
*3
P opposes T
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
Temporary
ease score
Final
ease score
I, M oppose T
(0)
I, R oppose T
(1)
*3
I, P oppose T
(1)
M, R oppose T
(1)
*3
M, P oppose T
(1)
*3
R, P oppose T
(1)
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
Temporary
ease score
Final
ease score
I, M, R oppose T
(1)
I, M, P oppose T
(1)
I, R, P oppose T
(1)
M, R, P oppose T
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
135
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
Temporary
ease score
Final
ease score
(1)
I, M, R, P oppose T
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
Extended/
spread
ease
score
Curved/
spread
ease
score
TS
criterion
Extended/
unspread
Curved/
unspread
TI
(1)
IM
(1)
MR
(1)
*5
*7
RP
(1)
TIM
(1)
IMR
(1)
MRP
(1)
TIMR
(1)
IMRP
(1)
TIMRP
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
ch03_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 138
Chapter Three
138
Rest of
fingers
closed
Rest of
fingers
extended
Fingers
opposed
to thumb
Fingers
curved or
extended and
unspread
0
13
46
0
1
26
0
12
34
0
14
57
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.
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:48 PM
Page 139
Chapter Four
139
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
140
9/1/06
12:48 PM
Page 140
Chapter Four
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 141
a.
b.
e.
c.
f.
141
d.
g.
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
142
Figure 40
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 142
Chapter Four
Handshapes in
Handshape in
MOSQUITO
COUNTRY
a.
b.
much as possible, I follow Smith and Tings 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
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 15357).
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 15862).
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.
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
144
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 144
Chapter Four
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
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 145
145
Type frequency
(conversation)
Token frequency
(conversation)
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 147
147
One-group handshapes
five-finger
Two-group handshapes
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.
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
Page 148
Chapter Four
148
Figure 43
12:49 PM
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 fingereven though they seem
easy to make.
Tables 1214 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 handshapes 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)
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 149
149
Handshapes
Ease of
articulation
difficult
easy
difficult
easy
difficult
difficult
Type frequency
(most to least)
32
28
25
25
20
19
Handshapes
16
17
easy
easy
difficult
12:49 PM
17
150
easy
easy
difficult
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
17
18
19
Type frequency
(most to least)
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 150
Chapter Four
difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
easy
difficult
difficult
15
12
12
11
11
10
difficult
difficult
difficult
12:49 PM
difficult
easy
difficult
easy
9/1/06
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 151
151
Handshapes
difficult
difficult
difficult
easy
difficult
difficult
Ease of
articulation
Type frequency
(most to least)
Handshapes
difficult
difficult
12:49 PM
152
difficult
difficult
difficult
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
Type frequency
(most to least)
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 152
Chapter Four
Handshapes
difficult
easy
easy
easy
easy
64
32
29
28
Ease of
articulation
123
Type frequency
(most to least)
Handshapes
12
easy
difficult
difficult
12:49 PM
14
17
easy
easy
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
22
24
Type frequency
(most to least)
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 153
153
Handshapes
difficult
easy
easy
easy
difficult
easy
Ease of
articulation
11
Type frequency
(most to least)
Handshapes
easy
difficult
difficult
12:49 PM
154
difficult
easy
difficult
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
Type frequency
(most to least)
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 154
Chapter Four
difficult
difficult
difficult
easy
difficult
excluded
difficult
difficult
12:49 PM
difficult
easy
difficult
difficult
9/1/06
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 155
155
Handshapes
difficult
difficult
easy
difficult
excluded
Ease of
articulation
Type frequency
(most to least)
Handshapes
excluded
easy
12:49 PM
156
difficult
easy
easy
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
Type frequency
(most to least)
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 156
Chapter Four
difficult
difficult
difficult
excluded
difficult
difficult
difficult
easy
12:49 PM
excluded
difficult
difficult
excluded
9/1/06
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 157
157
Handshapes
difficult
easy
easy
difficult
easy
618
348
263
169
Ease of
articulation
949
Token frequency
(most to least)
Handshapes
88
easy
easy
12:49 PM
114
158
difficult
easy
easy
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
121
144
156
Token frequency
(most to least)
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 158
Chapter Four
difficult
easy
easy
easy
difficult
difficult
easy
79
66
60
53
52
44
38
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
Handshapes
difficult
easy
difficult
difficult
difficult
11
11
11
11
Ease of
articulation
13
Token frequency
(most to least)
Handshapes
difficult
excluded
12:49 PM
160
difficult
excluded
difficult
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
10
Token frequency
(most to least)
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 160
Chapter Four
difficult
difficult
difficult
easy
difficult
easy
difficult
excluded
12:49 PM
easy
difficult
easy
easy
9/1/06
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 161
161
Handshapes
Ease of
articulation
difficult
excluded
difficult
difficult
excluded
Token frequency
(most to least)
0
Handshapes
difficult
easy
12:49 PM
162
excluded
difficult
difficult
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
Token frequency
(most to least)
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 162
Chapter Four
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 1921, 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-
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 164
Chapter Four
164
Ease of articulation
difficult
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
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 165
165
Ease of articulation
easy
9.
difficult
10.
difficult
11.
easy
12.
difficult
13.
easy
14.
difficult
15.
easy
16.
difficult
17.
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 166
Chapter Four
166
Ease of articulation
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 allthe unspread flat hand. This handshape occurs in many signs, suggesting that it would have not only a high type
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 167
167
Ease of articulation
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.
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
168
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 168
Chapter Four
Ease of articulation
difficult
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
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 169
169
Ease of articulation
easy
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
Ease of articulation
12:49 PM
3.
8.
7.
Handshapes (highest to
lowest type frequencies)
170
easy
easy
difficult
Ease of articulation
9/1/06
2.
1.
Handshapes (highest to
lowest type frequencies)
Table 18. Type Frequency and Ease of Articulation of Handshapes in Conversation Data
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 170
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
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 171
171
31.
30.
easy
difficult
36.
35.
34.
difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
Ease of articulation
12:50 PM
29.
33.
32.
Handshapes (highest to
lowest type frequencies)
172
difficult
excluded
difficult
Ease of articulation
9/1/06
28.
27.
Handshapes (highest to
lowest type frequencies)
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 172
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
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 173
173
52.
difficult
56.
55.
difficult
easy
excluded
difficult
Ease of articulation
12:50 PM
51.
54.
53.
Handshapes (highest to
lowest type frequencies)
174
excluded
difficult
difficult
Ease of articulation
9/1/06
50.
49.
Handshapes (highest to
lowest type frequencies)
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
Page 174
Chapter Four
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:50 PM
Page 175
Ease of articulation
difficult
1.
easy
2.
easy
3.
difficult
4.
easy
5.
easy
6.
easy
7.
difficult
8.
easy
9.
175
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
176
9/1/06
12:50 PM
Page 176
Chapter Four
Ease of articulation
easy
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.
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:50 PM
Page 177
Ease of articulation
difficult
18.
difficult
19.
easy
20.
easy
21.
easy
22.
difficult
23.
difficult
24.
difficult
25.
easy
26.
difficult
27.
177
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
178
9/1/06
12:50 PM
Page 178
Chapter Four
Ease of articulation
difficult
28.
difficult
29.
difficult
30.
excluded
31.
difficult
32.
excluded
33.
difficult
34.
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/1/06
12:50 PM
Page 179
Ease of articulation
difficult
35.
difficult
36.
difficult
37.
easy
38.
difficult
39.
easy
40.
easy
41.
easy
42.
difficult
43.
easy
44.
excluded
45.
179
ch04_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
180
9/1/06
12:50 PM
Page 180
Chapter Four
Ease of articulation
difficult
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
Concl_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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 Tings
(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,
Concl_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 183
Conclusion
183
Concl_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
184
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 184
Conclusion
Concl_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 185
Conclusion
185
Concl_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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-
Concl_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 187
Conclusion
187
Concl_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
188
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 188
Conclusion
Concl_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 189
Conclusion
189
Concl_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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, 56973. Prague: Academia.
Anderson, S. 1981. Why phonology isnt natural. Linguistic Inquiry 12
(4):493539.
. 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):14357.
. 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, 111.
. 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):47175.
. 1996. On the relation between the difficulty and the frequency of
occurrence of handshapes in two sign languages. Lingua 98: 1941.
. 2005. A functional explanation of Taiwan Sign Language handshape
frequency. Language and Linguistics 6 (2):21745.
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):17394.
191
Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
192
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 192
References
Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 193
References
193
Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
194
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 194
References
Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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. Ladnyi. 2000. Productivity in word formation (WF):
A morphological approach. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47 (14):10344.
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):14388.
Fahrer, M. 1981. Interdependent and independent actions of the fingers. In
The hand, ed. R. Tubiana, 399403. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Francis, W. N., and H. Kucera. 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):80210.
Gee, J. 1993. Reflections on the nature of ASL and the development of ASL
linguistics: Comments on Corinas article. In Phonetics and phonology.
Vol. 3, Current issues in ASL phonology, ed. G. Coulter, 97101. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Halverson, H. M. 1937. Studies on the grasping response of early infancy.
Journal of Genetic Psychology 51: 393424.
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, 181200. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, M. 2000. Why cant we talk to each other? Lingua 110: 23555.
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, 24385. 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, 88120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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: 146.
Hulst, H. van der. 1995. The composition of handshapes. Trondheim Working
Papers 23:117.
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: 4560.
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 2325,
ed. S. S. Mufwene, S. Steever, and C. Walker, 2432. 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, viixxvii. 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.
Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 197
References
197
Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
198
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 198
References
Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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: 33140.
Morford, J. P. and J. MacFarlane. 2003. Frequency characteristics of American
Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 3 (2):213225.
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, 34657. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
Myers, J., H. Lee, and J. Tsay. 2005. Phonological production in Taiwan Sign
Language. Language and Linguistics 6 (2):31060.
Myers, S, 1997. Expressing phonetic naturalness in phonology. In Derivations
and constraints in phonology, ed. I. Roca, 12552. 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 grammars view of phonological systems. Rivista di Linguistica 6 (2):27587.
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: 94551.
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, 25174. 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, 289316. 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, 178203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
200
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 200
References
Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 201
References
201
Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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): 118092.
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):26176.
Tai, J. H-Y. To appear. Modality effects: Iconicity in Taiwan Sign Language.
In Festschrift in celebration of Professor William S.-Y. Wangs Seventieth
birthday, 1936. 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 scientic 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.
Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 203
References
203
Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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.
205
Index_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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, 6163; and ease of
articulation, 184; of the fingers, 6164,
8081, 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, 18788; 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., 2122
ease of articulation, 1215, 35, 54; anatomy
and, 3941; bite-block studies and,
1516; definition of, 14; diachronic sound
change and, 22; and least effort, 12, 16;
language acquisition and, 2022; and
markedness, 13; and maximal clarity, 12;
in phonology, 14; ranking and, 89101,
speech sounds, 18; in TSL, 14480;
theory with handshapes, 18
ease score, 87, 138; calculating, 10612,
charting, 11236; definition of, 87;
determining, 1024, rationale for, 1046
extension, and adduction, 81; finger, 50, 52
Index_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
8/31/06
9:12 AM
Page 207
Index
207
Lupton, L., 48
Lutes-Driscoll, V., 4748
Maddieson, I., 12n1, 19
Mandel, M. A., 3335, 3738, 4546,
79n17, 96, 187; finger position constraint,
87n1, 140
markedness, 8, 9, 13, 189
Mathur, G., 44
MacFarlane, J., 54
McIntire, M., 4243
Meir, R. P., 43
Miller, G. A., 3536
Miyawaki, K., 36
muscle opposition criterion, 8994, 9899,
1026, 108, 11314
Morford, J. P., 54
Moy, A., 51
muscles: anatomy of, 6466; of the fingers,
7276, 82, 85, 8992, 95; movement and,
5657; and tenodesis, 4446; of the
thumb, 6567
Nathan, G. S., 20, 22
Nelson, W. L., 17
Newmeyer, F. J., 4, 5
Nicely, P. E., 3536
Ohala, J. J., 17, 2223
opponens: digiti minimi 35, 79, 82, 96;
pollicis, 7879, 8283, 96
opposition, 101, 185; hierarchy and, 3435;
of muscles, 8994, 105; and the thumb,
66, 74, 7879, 96
Padden, C. A., 25
palm, 57, 62, 77, 96; bones of, 57, 60;
movement, 4546, orientation, 12, 38,
tendons of, 68
Perkell, J. S., 17
Perlmutter, D., 25
phalanges, 5859
Index_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
8/31/06
208
9:12 AM
Page 208
Index
Index_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
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
Index_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
8/31/06
9:12 AM
Page 210