Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:45:25.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Units in the analysis of signs*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Harry van der Hulst
Harry van der Hulst
Affiliation:
Holland Institute of Linguistics/University of Leiden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The assumption that there is a common set of linguistic principles underlying both spoken language and sign language phonology, which forms part of the human language capacity, is shared by most phonologists working on sign language. See Sandler (1993a) for an extensive discussion of these issues. But even though this assumption is reasonable, since both spoken and signed languages are products of the same human brain and fulfil the same function, it is not clear that theories of representation which have been proposed for spoken languages can be directly applied to the structure of sign languages. Such representations have been developed on the basis of the spoken language modality only. They are often so close to the phonetics of spoken languages that we cannot rule out the possibility that non-trivial aspects of them are modality-specific. Therefore, rather than, for example, attempting to test various competing (spoken language-based) theories of syllable structure, we must first investigate the structure of sign language in its own right. This strategy need not be pushed too far, however. In developing a model of signs we can benefit from general principles which have proved successful in the study of spoken languages, especially if these principles do not seem to be directly based on ‘spoken phonetics’.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , August 1993 , pp. 209 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahn, S.-H. (1990). A structured-tiers model for ASL phonology. In Lucas (1990). 11–26.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1987). The limits of linearity. In Anderson, J. & Durand, J. (eds.) Explorations in dependency phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. & Ewen, C. (1987). Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battison, R. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, M. (1990). Word formation in British Sign Language. Ms, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (1990). Theoretical foundations of American Sign Language phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. & Goldsmith, J. (1993). Secondary licensing and the non-dominant hand in ASL phonology. In Coulter (1993). 19–41.Google Scholar
Chinchor, N. (1978). The syllable in ASL. Paper presented at the MIT Sign Language Symposium, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2. 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corina, D. P. (1990a). Handshape assimilations in hierarchical phonological representations. In Lucas (1990). 27–49.Google Scholar
Corina, D. P. (1990b). Reassessing the role of sonority in syllable structure: evidence from a visual-gestural language. CLS 26:2. 31–44.Google Scholar
Corina, D. P. (1993). To branch or not to branch: underspecification in ASL handshape contours. In Coulter (1993). 63–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulter, G. R. (1982). On the nature of ASL as a monosyllabic language. Paper presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego.Google Scholar
Coulter, G. R. (ed.) (1993). Current issues in ASL phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dresher, E. & Hulst, H. van der (1992). Head-dependent asymmetries in phonology. Ms, University of Toronto & University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. H. (1985). Autosegmental phonology: the syllable and the sign. In Tervoort, B. (ed.) Signs of life. Amsterdam: Institute of General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam. 79–94.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. H. (1990). Segments in signed languages: do they exist and does it matter? In Edmondson, W. H. & Karlsson, F. (eds.) SLR '87: Papers from the 4th International Symposium on Sign Language Research. Hamburg: Signum. 66–74.Google Scholar
Ewen, C. (to appear). Dependency relations in phonology. In Goldsmith, J. (ed.) A handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fischer, S. & Siple, P. (eds.) (1990). Theoretical issues in sign language research. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Greftegreff, I. (1992). Orientation in indexical signs in Norwegian Sign Language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 15. 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hamnosys, (1989). Prillwitz, S., Leven, R., Zienert, H., Hanke, T., Henning, J. et al. Hamburg notation system for sign languages: an introductory guide. Version 2.0. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1990). Diphthongisation and coindexing. Phonology 7. 31–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. (1991). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Ms, UCLA.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1993). Against movement. In Coulter (1993). 213–226.Google Scholar
Hirst, D. (1985). Linearization and the single segment hypothesis. In Guéron, J., Obenauer, H.-G. & Pollock, J.-Y. (eds.) Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris. 87–100.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. G. Van Der (1989). Atoms of segmental structure: components, gestures and dependency. Phonology 6. 253–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulst, H. G. van der (1993). Radical CV phonology. Ms, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Kager, R. (1989). A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1984). Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1990). Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7. 193–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kegl, J. & Wilbur, R. (1976). Where does structure stop and style begin? Syntax, morphology and phonology vs. stylistic variations in American Sign Language. CLS 12. 376–396.Google Scholar
Komva, (1988). Notatie-systeem voor Nederlandse gebaren. Amsterdam: Nederlandse Stichting voor het Dove en Slechthorende Kind.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (1982). Sequentiality in American Sign Language signs. Paper presented at the Summer Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (1984). THINK and BELIEVE: sequentiality in American Sign Language. Lg 60. 372–399.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (1990). Structures for representing handshape and local movement at the phonemic level. In Fischer & Siple (1990). 37–65.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. & Johnson, R. E. (1986). American Sign Language - compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. NLLT 4. 445–513.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. & Johnson, R. E. (1989). American Sign Language: the phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64. 195–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, L. (1990). The nonlinear organization of the affricate. NLLT 8. 375–425.Google Scholar
Lucas, C. (ed.) (1990). Sign language research: theoretical issues. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 43. 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandel, M. (1981). Phonotactics and morphophonology in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Nagahara, H. (1988). Towards an explicit phonological representation for American Sign Language. MA thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
Padden, C. A. & Perlmutter, D. M. (1987). American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. NLLT 5. 335–375.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1991). Feature geometry in a language with two active articulators. Paper presented at the Conference on Segmental Structure, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1992). Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. LI 23. 407–442.Google Scholar
Sagey, E. C. (1986). The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (1986). The spreading hand autosegment of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies SO. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W. (1987). Sequentiality and simultaneity in American Sign Language phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign: linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W. (1991). The internal organization of hand configuration in ASL. Paper presented at the Conference on Segmental Structure, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (1993a). Sign language and modularity. Lingua 89. 315–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W. (1993b). Linearization of phonological tiers in ASL. In Coulter (1993). 103–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W. (to appear a). Hand in hand: the role of the nondominant hand in American Sign Language. The Linguistic Review 9.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (to appear b). Markedness in ASL handshapes: a componential analysis. In Hulst, H. G. van der & van de Weijer, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the HIL Phonology Conference. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
Stack, K. (1988). Tiers and syllable structure in American Sign Language: evidence from phonotactics. MA thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign language structure. 2nd edn 1978. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Supalla, T. (1982). Structure and acquisition of verbs and motion and location in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Weijer, J. van de (1992). Lexical patterns in Turkish. Ms, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Weijer, J. van de (in preparation). Segmental structure and complex segments. Ms, University of Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, R. (1987). American Sign Language: linguistic and applied dimensions. 2nd edn. Boston: College Hill Press.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. (1990). Why syllables? What the notion means for ASL research. In Fischer, S. & Siple, P. (eds.) Theoretical issues in sign language research. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 81–108.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. (1993). Syllables and segments: hold the movement and move the holds! In Coulter (1993). 135–168.Google Scholar