Sign Language Phonology II

1
Sign Language Phonology II

• COGS 524, A. Hohenberger
• Sandler Lillo-Martin 2006,
• chapter 13 Movement

2
Movement M

• All signs have a movement in them path or
  hand-internal (handshape or orientation change),
  otherwise they are not well-formed
• ? Is movement a sequential segment type or
  characteristic of the entire sign?
• ? Is M like a vowel V?

3
M as a segment

• M is often redundant, just a straight path
  between two locations L. Can it therefore be
  dispensed with in the representation of a sign?
• Here, the position is held that M exists as a
  phonological category, as a sequential segment,
  and should be reflected in the representation
• M defines the sign language syllable

4
Kinds of movement

• MOV
• path internal M
• HS change Orient change 2nd M

http//www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-signs/b/bug.
htm
THROW path M and HS change REQUEST Ori
change (from Brentari 1998)
SIT path mov UNDERSTAND HS
change BUG2nd M
5
Distinguishing lexical from transitional movement

• In both lexical and transitional movements,
  handshape changes do occur. However, the timing
  of the HS change within lex signs is much more
  evenly distributed than between lex signs, i.e.,
  during the transitional mov

6
Evidence for a M categoryM is phonologically
distinctive (Valli, Ceil 200120)
SIT vs. CHAIR (1 vs. 2 M)
7
Evidence for a M categoryM under inflection

• M affects morphological processes
• Only signs with no underlying movement may
  undergo MULTIPLE inflection
• SUPERVISE vs. SUPERVISE-ALL

8
2 views on M

• M is a sequential segment (S L-M)

• M is a prosodic feature (Brentari 1998)

9
Evidence for M as a segment the feature contact

• Any segment type, L and M, can be specified for
  contact
• a. NUDE b. SHINY c. TOUCH d. CLEAN
• LML LML LML LML
• contact contact contact contact

Brentari 1998 8)
10
M in morphological processes

• In the intensive form of adjectives and verbs,
  the M segment is geminated, i.e., temporally
  lengthened. Also, the final L segment is
  lenghtened in continuative aspectual forms
• Gemination in ISL
• M in intensive L in continuative
• LML LMML LML LMLL redup
• F ? F F ? F

11
Secondary M under phrase-final lengtheningbase
form base form

• GO-UP-IN-FLAMES GERMANY
• Wiggling on the M segment Wiggling on the L
  segment
• (Perlmutter 1992, pictures from Channon 200242)

12
Secondary M under phrase-final lengthening
(through mora ??insertion)

• M GO-UP-IN-FLAMES P GERMANY
• Under phrase-final lengthening, a static Position
  P segment is added to both signs.
• wiggle M P wiggle P
• ? ?? ???????????????
• The wiggling in GO-UP-IN-FLAMES is only
  restricted to the M segment, and does not show up
  on the extra P segment
• The wiggling in GERMANY also shows up on the
  extra P segment. From this, we can conclude that
  the 2nd M is associated with M in GO-UP-IN-FLAMES
  and with P in GERMANY. This example proves that M
  and P are distinct segments.
• (Perlmutter 1992, pictures from Channon 200242)

13
M in temporal aspect

• Signs with no underlying M, e.g., STUDY, have a
  secondary M (wiggling) on their single L segment.
• Under temporal aspect, and arc M is added to the
  sign. Now the secondary M vanishes and is
  substituted by the primary arc M
• STUDY STUDY durational
• arc
• L wiggling LML

14
The M feature

• The 2 default features for M are straight and
  concave. Any arc M is concave per default. Its
  marked form convex is a dependent of concave.

15
Path M in the Hand Tier model

• o Orientation
• Position o
• Selected fingers o
• HC
• L M L
• arc
• convex tense
• restrained
• Place o
• Setting o

16
M as prosody (Brentari 199826)
Inherent Features static
Prosodic Features dynamic
? change

• IF Handshape, POA
• PF MOV (path), setting change, ori change,
  aperture change

17
Elaborated Prosodic Model (Brentari)

• Sandler's critique in Brentari's model
  categories and their features are separated from
  the movemet that they articulate

18
Motivation for the model

• Enhancement of signs through adding of path and
  hand internal M.
• To make a sign more prominent, a larger movement
  is made by making the M with the arms instead of
  only the hands.
• A M of the wrist (orientation change) can be
  enhanced by substituting it with a path movement
  at the elbow
• A path M can be reduced by substituting it with a
  wrist twist, making it smaller.

19
Motivation for the model

• Since those movements (secondary wrist and
  primary path M) can substitute for each other
  systematically, they are represented together
  under the same feature branch the prosodic
  features, PF.

20
Enhanced UNDERSTAND

• Root
• inherent F prosodic F
• manual setting
• h1 path
• selected fingers aperture direction
• one closed open
• X X

A direction feature is added to the
representation (the arm moves upwards)
21
Sign Language of the Netherlands SLN normal and
enhanced form of NEW
Normal wrist M Enhanced wrist M path
M (Crasborn 2005)
22
Sandler's criticism

• NegBy separating the IF and the PF on two
  different branches, the internal organization of
  categories such as HC and place is disrupted in
  the Prosodic Model.
• Pos The Prosodic Model represents both path and
  internal M in the same branch. The evidence from
  enhanced, loud signing corroborates this
  representation internal M and path M can indeed
  substitute for one another.
• In the Hand Tier Model, on the other hand,
  internal M is a branching of the HC category and
  path M is on the segmental tier.

23
2 Hand Tier Representations

• Internal M only path M only
• HC HC
• L L M L
• In the hand tier Model, internal M is represented
  as branching in the HC and path M as an M
  position on the segmental tier.

24
2 Prosodic model representations

• Internal M only path M only
• root root
• IF PF IF PF
• ... ...
• aperture setting
• X X X X

25
Arguments in favor of the Pros or the Hand Tier
Model

• In the Delayed completive aspect, the first
  x-slot is related to the wiggling/wagging and the
  2nd x-slot to the non-manual 'op'. However, in
  Brentari's model, the non-manuals are in the IF
  branch, so the 'op' would have to spread over the
  entire sign.
• Enhancement of signs (wrist path M alternation
  in 'loud' signing) is a phonological process in
  Sandler's model it is only a phonetic one.
• Strongest argument Both internal and path M make
  the sign wellformed

26
Arguments in favor of the Pros or the Hand Tier
Model

• However, in that Brentari locates Handshape (with
  closed-open fingers) on the IF branch but
  handshape change on the PF branch, she misses the
  generalization that the fingerposition changes
  during handshape change.
• Also total handshape assimilation in compounding
  is not captured very well. What happens is that
  selected fingers, finger positions (all IF) and
  orientation features (PF) spread together.
  However, in Brentari's model, they are located on
  different branches.

27
Arguments in favor of the Pros or the Hand Tier
Model

• The Prosodic Model has the expectation that
  PF-features undergo common phonological
  processes. However, apart from the louder
  signing, no such processes have been shown
• The Prosodic Model rejects the idea that M is a
  sequential segment. The Hand Tier Model, on the
  other hand, shows that phonological processes
  relate to the M segment in particular, so it is
  justified to assume it as a sequential segment.

28
M in lexemes M in CL, poetry

• In lexical signs, movement is a quite restricted
  category, there is little variation (mostly path)
• M is not a good phonological category

• In Classfier predicates, in poetry, M is a very
  rich expressive device.
• M is more related to morphological proceses
• M is important in the identification of the
  central unit in SL, the word.