Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T10:38:06.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physiological Constraints in Taiwan Sign Language Handshape-Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Jean Ann
Jean Ann
Affiliation:
1353 Heavilon Hall, Department of Audiology and Speech Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906, USA. e-mail: ANNJ@PURCCVM.bitnet
Get access

Abstract

This paper examines the role of physiology of the hand relevant to particular handshapechange data from Taiwan Sign Language. The physiology of the hand is shown to be completely responsible for one aspect of handshape-change (that fingers must become unspread when closed). In addition, the physiology provides the explanation for two tendencies in handshape-changes (i) that when fingers extend, they tend to spread, and (ii) that when less than all five fingers perform a handshape change, the fingers that do so are the thumb, index, and middle or a subset.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , December 1992 , pp. 143 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Ann, J. (in preparation). A Linguistic Investigation of the Relationship Between Physiology and Sign Language Handshape, Dissertation. University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Ann, J. (to appear). Constraining Sign Language Handshapes: Toward a Phonetically Grounded Account of Handshapes in Taiwan Sign Language and American Sign Language, Proceedings of Western Conference on Linguistics, 20.Google Scholar
Archangeli, D. & Pulleyblank, D. (in preparation). Grounded Phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Battison, R. 1974. Phonological Deletion in American Sign Language, Sign Language Studies 5, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyes-Braem, P. 1973. The Acquisition of the Dez (Handshape) in American Sign Language: A Preliminary Analysis. Unpublished manuscript. Salk Working Papers, Salk Institute, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
Boyes-Braem, P. 1991. Acquisition of the Handshape in American Sign Language: A Preliminary Analysis. In Volterra, V. and Erting, C. (eds.). From Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf Children, Springer Series in Language and Communication 27. Berlin, Heidelberg; Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Chao, C. M., Chu, H.-H. & Liu, C.-C. 1988. Taiwan Natural Sign Language, Deaf Sign Language Research Association of the Republic of China, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Corina, D. & Sagey, E., 1988. Predictability in ASL Handshapes with Implications for Feature Geometry. Salk Institute and University of California at San Diego. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Kegi, J. & Wilbur, R. 1976. When Does Structure Stop and Style Begin? Syntax, Morphology and Phonology vs. Stylistic Variation in ASL. Proceedings of the Twelfth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 376–396.Google Scholar
Lane, H., Boyes-Braem, P. & Bellugi, U. 1976. Preliminaries to a Distinctive Feature Analysis of Handshape in American Sign Language. Cognitive Psychology 8, 263–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacConaill, M.A. & Basmajian, J.V. 1969. Muscles and Movements: a Basis for Human Kinesiology. Baltimore: The Wilkins and Wilkins Company.Google Scholar
Mandel, M.A. 1980. Phonotactics and Morphophonology in American Sign Language. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Napier, J. 1980. Hands. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Peng, L. 1992. A Unified Theory of Tone-Voice. Dissertation. University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, D. 1989. Patterns of Feature Co-ocurrence: The Case of Nasality, In: Fulmer, L., Ishihara, M. and Wiswall, W. (eds.) Proceedings of Arizona Phonology Conference 2.Google Scholar
Sandier, W. 1989. Phonological Representation of the Sign: Linearity and on-linearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Fioris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. H. & Ting, L.-F. 1979. Shou Neng Sheng Chyau: Sign Language Manual, vol. 1, (translation: Your Hands Can Become A Bridge). Deaf Sign Language Research Association of the Republic of China, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Smith, W. H. & Ting, L.-F. 1984. Shou Neng Sheng Chyau: Sign Language Manual, vol 2, (translation: Your Hands Can Become A Bridge). Deaf Sign Language Research Association of the Republic of China, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Stokoe, W.C. 1960. Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication System of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics Occasional Papers no. 8.Google Scholar
Stungis, J. 1981. Identification and Discrimination of Handshape in American Sign Language, Perception and Psychophysics 29 (3), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tubiana, R. 1981. The Hand, vol. 1. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co.Google Scholar
Wells, K.F. 1966. Kinesiology: The Scientific Basis of Human Motion. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 1982. Single Finger Extension: For a Theory of Naturalness in Sign Language Phonology. Sign Language Studies 37, 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar