Towards a Classification of Weak Hand Holds

Vadim Kimmelman 1 , Anna Sáfár 2 ,  and Onno Crasborn 3
  • 1 CLC, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 134, 1012VB Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • 2 Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, PO Box 9103, NL-6500 HD Nijmegen, the Netherlands
  • 3 Dept. of Linguistics, Radboud University, PO Box 9103, NL-6500 HD Nijmegen, the Netherlands

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’.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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/.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Open Linguistics is a new academic peer-reviewed journal covering all areas of linguistics. The objective of this journal is to foster free exchange of ideas and provide an appropriate platform for presenting, discussing and disseminating new concepts, current trends, theoretical developments and research findings related to a broad spectrum of topics: descriptive linguistics, theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics.

Search