Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Because the primary articulators for sign languages are the hands, sign phonology and phonetics have focused mainly on them and treated other articulators as passive targets. However, there is abundant research on the role of nonmanual articulators in sign language grammar and prosody. The current study examines how hand and head/body movements are coordinated to realize phonetic targets. Methods: Kinematic data were collected from 5 deaf American Sign Language (ASL) signers to allow the analysis of movements of the hands, head and body during signing. In particular, we examine how the chin, forehead and torso move during the production of ASL signs at those three phonological locations. Results: Our findings suggest that for signs with a lexical movement toward the head, the forehead and chin move to facilitate convergence with the hand. By comparison, the torso does not move to facilitate convergence with the hand for signs located at the torso. Conclusion: These results imply that the nonmanual articulators serve a phonetic as well as a grammatical or prosodic role in sign languages. Future models of sign phonetics and phonology should take into consideration the movements of the nonmanual articulators in the realization of signs.
verified
References
1 Antzakas K, Woll B (2002): Head movements and negation in Greek Sign Language; in Wachsmuth I, Sowa T (eds): Gesture and Sign Language in Human-Computer Interaction. Berlin, Springer, pp 193-196.10.1007/3-540-47873-6_20Search in Google Scholar
2 Baker C, Padden CA (1978): Focusing on the nonmanual components of American Sign Language; in Siple P (ed): Understanding Language through Sign Language Research. New York, Academic Press, pp 27-57.Search in Google Scholar
3 Gökgöz K (2013): Negation in Turkish Sign Language: the syntax of nonmanual markers; in Herrmann A, Steinbach M (eds): Nonmanuals in Sign Language. Philadelphia, Benjamins, pp 47-72.10.1075/bct.53.04gokSearch in Google Scholar
4 Herrmann A, Steinbach M (eds) (2013): Nonmanuals in Sign Language. Philadelphia, Benjamins.10.1075/bct.53Search in Google Scholar
5 Lupton L, Zelaznik H (1990): Motor learning in sign language students. Sign Lang Stud 67:153-174.10.1353/sls.1990.0020Search in Google Scholar
6 Mauk CE, Tyrone ME (2012): Location in ASL: insight from phonetic variation. Sign Lang Ling 15:128-146.10.1075/sll.15.1.06mauSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
7 Neidle C, Kegl J, MacLaughlin D, Bahan B, Lee RG (2000): The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MIT Press.10.1017/S0022226702261630Search in Google Scholar
8 Ormel E, Crasborn·(2011): Kinematic properties of lexical and transitional movements in Sign Language of the Netherlands; in Efthimiou E, Kouroupetroglou G (eds): Proceedings of the 9th International Gesture Workshop. Athens, pp 80-83.Search in Google Scholar
9 Peterson GE, Barney HL (1952): Control methods used in a study of vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 24:175-184.10.1121/1.1906875Search in Google Scholar
10 Pfau R (2002): Applying morphosyntactic and phonological readjustment rules in natural language negation; in Meier RP, Cormier KA, Quinto-Pozos D (eds): Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 263-295.10.1017/CBO9780511486777.014Search in Google Scholar
11 Pfau R, Quer J (2010): Nonmanuals: the grammatical and prosodic roles; in Brentari D (ed): Sign Languages. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 381-402.10.1017/CBO9780511712203.018Search in Google Scholar
12 Quinto-Pozos D, Mehta S (2010): Register variation in mimetic gestural complements to signed language. J Pragmat 42:557-584.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.004Search in Google Scholar
13 Sandler W, Lillo-Martin D (2006): Sign Language a nd Linguistic Universals. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139163910Search in Google Scholar
14 Stokoe WC (1960): Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. Silver Spring, Linstok.Search in Google Scholar
15 Sutton-Spence R, Boyes Braem P (eds) (2003): The Hands Are the Head of the Mouth. Seedorf, Signum.Search in Google Scholar
16 Sze F (2013): Nonmanual markings for topic constructions in Hong Kong Sign Language; in Herrmann A, Steinbach M (eds): Nonmanuals in Sign Language. Philadelphia, Benjamins, pp 111-142.10.1075/sll.14.1.07szeSearch in Google Scholar
17 Tyrone ME, Nam H, Saltzman E, Mathur G, Goldstein L (2010): Prosody and movement in American Sign Language: a task-dynamics approach. Speech Prosody 100957:1-4.Search in Google Scholar
18 Weast T (2008): Questions in American Sign Language: A Quantitative Analysis of Raised and Lowered Eyebrows; PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington.10.1075/sll.12.2.06weaSearch in Google Scholar
19 Wilbur RB (1990): An experimental investigation of stressed sign production. Int J Sign Product 1:41-59.Search in Google Scholar
20 Wilbur RB (1999): Stress in ASL: empirical evidence and linguistic issues. Lang Speech 42:229-250.10.1177/00238309990420020501Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21 Wilbur RB (2000): Phonological and prosodic layering of nonmanuals in American Sign Language; in Emmorey K, Lane H (eds): The Signs of Language Revisited: Festschrift for Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Mahwah, Erlbaum, pp 213-244.Search in Google Scholar
22 Wilbur RB (2009): Effects of varying rate of signing on ASL manual signs and non-manual markers. Lang Speech 52:245-285.10.1177/0023830909103174Search in Google Scholar PubMed
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
