Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine


Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Towards a Classification of Weak Hand Holds

Vadim Kimmelman / Anna Sáfár
  • Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, PO Box 9103, NL-6500 HD Nijmegen, the Netherlands
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Onno Crasborn
Published Online: 2016-06-16 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2016-0010

Abstract

The two symmetrical manual articulators (the hands) in signed languages are a striking modalityspecific phonetic property. The weak hand can maintain the end position of an articulation while the other articulator continues to produce additional signs. This weak hand spreading (hold) has been analysed from various perspectives, highlighting its prosodic, syntactic, or discourse properties. The present study investigates corpus data from Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) and Russian Sign Language (RSL), two unrelated sign languages, in order to question the necessity of a sign-language specific notion of ‘buoy’ introduced in the discourse analysis of American Sign Language by Liddell (2003). Buoys are defined as weak hand holds that serve as a visible landmark throughout a stretch of discourse, and several types are distinguished based on their function and form. In the analysis of nearly two and a half hours of narratives and conversations from NGT and RSL, we found over 600 weak hand holds. We show that these holds can be analysed in terms of regular phonetic, syntactic, semantic, or discourse notions (or a combination thereof) familiar from the linguistic study of spoken languages, without the need for a sign language-specific notion of ‘buoy’.

Keywords: Russian Sign Language; Sign Language of the Netherlands; simultaneity; buoys; weak hand holds; non-dominant hand spreading

References

  • Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Serial verb constructions in typological perspective. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Serial Verb Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–68.Google Scholar

  • Battison, Robert. 1978. Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar

  • Bickford, J. Albert. 2005. The Signed Languages of Eastern Europe. SIL International.Google Scholar

  • Brentari, Diane & Laurinda Crossley. 2002. Prosody on the hands and face. Evidence from American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 5:2, pp. 105–130.Google Scholar

  • Caponigro, Ivano & Kathryn Davidson. (2011). Ask, and tell as well: clausal question-answer pairs in ASL. Natural Language Semantics, 19(4), 323-371.Google Scholar

  • Crasborn, Onno. 2006. On the use of the two hands in sign language poetry. Linguistics in the Netherlands 23, pp. 65-77.Google Scholar

  • Crasborn, Onno & Anna Sáfár. in prep. From dominant to right: the phonetics and phonology of hand choice in signed languages. Ms., Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar

  • Crasborn, Onno & Anna Sáfár. in press. An annotation scheme to investigate the form and function of hand dominance in the Corpus NGT. In Annika Herrmann, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.) Complex Sentences and Beyond in Sign and Spoken Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Crasborn, Onno & Els van der Kooij. In prep. Phonological feature spreading in signed languages: a multi-layered model of the second hand. Ms. Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar

  • Crasborn, Onno, Inge Zwitserlood & Johan Ros. 2008. Corpus NGT. An Open Access Digital Corpus of Movies with Annotations of Sign Language of the Netherlands. Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen. URL: http://www.let. ru.nl/corpusngt/.Google Scholar

  • Crasborn, Onno & Inge Zwitserlood. 2008. The Corpus NGT: an online corpus for professionals and laymen. In Onno Crasborn, Thomas Hanke, Eleni Efthimiou, Inge Zwitserlood & Ernst Thoutenhoofd (eds.), Construction and Exploitation of Sign Language Corpora. 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages. Paros: ELDA, pp. 44–49.Google Scholar

  • Davidson, Kathryn. 2012. When Disjunction Looks like Conjunction: Pragmatic Consequence in ASL. In Maria Aloni, Vadim Kimmelman, Floris Roelofsen, Galit Weidman Sassoon, Kathryn Schulz, & Matthijs Westera (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Annual Amsterdam Colloquium. Berlin: Springer, pp. 72–81.Google Scholar

  • Elordieta, Gorka. 2008. An overview of theories of the syntax-phonology interface. ASJU, XLII-1, 209–286.Google Scholar

  • Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1994. Some simultaneous constructions in Danish Sign Language. In Mary Brennan & Graham H. Turner (eds.), Word-order Issues in Sign Language: Working Papers. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association, pp. 73–88.Google Scholar

  • Freleng, Friz. 1950. Canary row [film, animated cartoon]. New York: Time Warner.Google Scholar

  • Frishberg, Nancy. 1985. Dominance relations and discourse structures. In William Stokoe & Virginia Volterra (eds.), SLR ’83: Sign Language Research. Silver Spring, Maryland: Linstok Press, pp. 79–90.Google Scholar

  • Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: the functional domain of switch reference. In John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch reference and universal grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 51–82.Google Scholar

  • Hulst, Harry van der. 1996. On the other hand. Lingua 98, pp. 121-143.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnston, Trevor. 2013. Formational and functional characteristics of pointing signs in a corpus of Auslan (Australian Sign Language): are the data sufficient to posit a grammatical class of pronouns in Auslan? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(1), pp. 109–159.Google Scholar

  • Kimmelman, Vadim. 2014. Information Structure in Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

  • Kimmelman, Vadim. 2015. Multiple tiers, multiple trees. Proceedings of CLS 49, 2013, pp. 225-238. Chicago Linguistic Press.Google Scholar

  • Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, Gesture and Meaning in ASL. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Liddell, Scott K., Marit Vogt-Svendsen & Brita Bergman. 2007. A cross-linguistic comparison of buoys: Evidence from American, Norwegian, and Swedish Sign Language. In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 187-216.Google Scholar

  • McKee, Rachel L., & Sophia Wallingford. 2011. ‘So, well, whatever’: Discourse functions of palm-up in New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 14(2), pp. 213–247.Google Scholar

  • Miller, Christopher. 1994a. Simultaneous Constructions in Quebec Sign Language. In Mary Brennan & Graham H. Turner (eds.), Word-order Issues in Sign Language. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association, pp. 89-112.Google Scholar

  • Miller, Christopher. 1994b. Simultaneous Constructions and Complex Signs in Quebec Sign Language. In Inger Ahlgren, Brita Bergman & Mary Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on Sign Language Structure. Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association, pp. 131-148.Google Scholar

  • Miller, Christopher. 2000, July. Multi-channel constructions and universal syntax. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research. Amsterdam.Google Scholar

  • Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler. 1999. Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech 42(2), pp. 143–176.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Nilsson, Anna-Lena. 2010. Studies in Swedish Sign Language. Reference, real space blending, and interpretation. PhD thesis. Stockholm University, Stockholm.Google Scholar

  • Nyst, Victoria. 2007. Simultaneous constructions in Adamorobe Sign language (Ghana). Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 128-145.Google Scholar

  • Ormel, Ellen & Onno Crasborn. 2012. Prosodic correlates of sentence in signed languages: A literature review and suggestions for new types of studies. Sign Language Studies 12 (2), pp. 109–145.Google Scholar

  • Pinsonneault, Dominique & Linda Lelièvre 1994. Enumeration in LSQ (Quebec Sign Language): The use of fingertip loci. In Inger Ahlgren, Brita Bergman and Mary Brennan (eds), Perspectives on sign language structure, Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, volume 1, p. 159-172.Google Scholar

  • Sáfár, Anna. 2012. Ambidextrous signers in the Corpus NGT. In Éva Illés & Tamás Eitler (eds.), Studies in Applied Linguistics in Honour of Edit H. Kontra. Budapest: ELTE BTK, pp. 123–132.Google Scholar

  • Sáfár, Anna & Vadim Kimmelman. 2015. Weak hand holds in two sign languages and two genres. Sign Language & Linguistics 18(2), 205-237.Google Scholar

  • Sandler, Wendy. 1999. The medium and the message: the prosodic interpretation of linguistic content in Israeli Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics, 2(2), pp. 187-215.Google Scholar

  • Sandler, Wendy. 2006. Phonology, phonetics and the nondominant hand. In Louis Goldstein, D. H. Whalen, & Catherine T. Best (eds.), Laboratory phonology 8. Varieties of phonological competence. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185-211.Google Scholar

  • Seidl, Amanda. 2001. Minimal Indirect Reference: A Theory of the Syntax-phonology Interface. London: Routledge. Vogt-Svendsen, Marit & Brita Bergman. 2007. Point buoys. The weak hand as a point of reference for time and space. Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 217–235.Google Scholar

  • Wheatley, Mark & Annika Pabsch. 2012. Sign Language Legislation in the European Union (2nd ed.). Brussels: European Union of the Deaf.Google Scholar

  • Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1996. Evidence for the function and structure of wh-clefts in American Sign Language. In William H. Edmondson & Ronnie B. Wilbur (eds.), International Review of Sign Linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 209–256. Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-09-12

Accepted: 2016-06-01

Published Online: 2016-06-16


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 2, Issue 1, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2016-0010.

Export Citation

© 2016 Vadim Kimmelman et al.. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in