This is a study of the interaction of phonology with syntax, and, to some extent, with meaning, in a natural sign language. It adopts the theory of prosodic phonology (Nespor & Vogel, 1986), testing both its assumptions, which had been based on data from spoken language, and its predictions, on the language of the deaf community in Israel. Evidence is provided to show that Israeli Sign Language (ISL) divides its sentences into the prosodic constituents, phonological phrase and intonational phrase.
It is argued that prominence falls at the end of phonological phrases, as the theory predicts for languages like ISL, whose basic word order is head first, then complement. It is suggested that this correspondence between prominence pattern and word order may have important implications for language acquisition. An assimilation rule whose domain is the phonological phrase provides further evidence for the phono logical phrase constituent. The rule involves a phonetic element that has no equivalentin spoken language: the non dominant hand. In this way, it is shown how a phonetic system that bears no physical relation to that of spoken language is recruited to serve a phonologicalsyntactic organization that is in many ways the same.
The study also provides evidence for the next higher constituent in the prosodic hierarchy, the intonational phrase. Elements such as topicalized constituents form their own intonational phrases in ISL as in spoken languages. Intonational phrases have clear phonetic correlates, one of which is facial expressions which characterize entire intonational phrases. It is argued that facial expressions are analogous to intonational melodies in spoken languages. But unlike the tones of spoken language, which follow one another in a sequence, facial articulations can occur simultaneously with one another and with the rest of the communicative message conveyed by the hands. This difference, it is argued, results from the fact that the many facial articulators are independent, both of each other and of the primary articulators, the hands.
The investigation illuminates the similarities as well as the differences of prosodic systems in the two natural human language modalities, and points out directions for future research.
Aarons, D., Bahan, B., Neidle, C., & Kegl, J. (1992). Clausal structure and a tier for grammatical marking in American Sign Language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 15, 103-142.
2.
Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Sandler, W. (in preparation). Universal and particular aspects of sign language morphology.
3.
Baker, C., & Padden, C. (1978). Focusing on the nonmanual components of ASL. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp. 27-57). New York : Academic Press.
4.
Baker-Shenk, C. (1983). A Microanalysis of the nonmanual components of questions in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
5.
Battison, R. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring: Linstok Press.
6.
Bellugi, U., & Fischer, S. (1972). A comparison of signed and spoken language. Cognition, 1, 173-200.
7.
Boyes-Braem, P. (1999) (this issue). Rhythmic temporal patterns in the signing of deaf early and late learners of German Swiss Sign Language. Language and Speech, 42(2&3), 177-208.
8.
Brentari, D. (1990). Theoretical foundations of ASL Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
9.
Brentari, D. (1995). Sign language phonology. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp.615-639). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
10.
Brentari, D. (1999). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
Brentari, D., & Goldsmith, J. (1993). Secondary licensing and the nondominant hand in ASL phonology. In G. Coulter ( 1993) Phonetics and phonology 3: Current issues in ASL phonology . San Diego, CA: Academic Press .
12.
Christophe, A., Guasti, M.-T., Nespor, M., Dupoux, E., & Ooyen, B. van (1997). Reflections on phonological bootstrapping: Its role for lexical and syntactic acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes,. 12, 585-612.
13.
Clements, G.N. (1985). Akan vowel harmony: A nonlinear analysis. In D. Goyvaerts (Ed.), African linguistics: Essays in memory of MWK Semikekenke (pp. 55-98). Amsterdam: Benjamins..
14.
Coerts, J. (1992). Nonmanual grammatical markers: An analysis of interrogatives, negations, and topicalisations in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
15.
Corina, D. (1989). Recognition of affective and noncanonical facial expressions in hearing and deaf subjects. Brain and Cognition , 9, 227-237.
16.
Corina, D. & Bellugi, U. (1999). Neuropsychological Studies of Linguistic and Affective Facial Expressions in Deaf Signers. Language and Speech, 42(2&3), 305-329.
17.
Corina, D., & Sandler, W. (1993). Phonological structure in sign language. Phonology, 10(2), 165-208.
18.
Coulter, G. (1979). American Sign Language typology. Doctoral dissertation , University of California, San Diego.
19.
Coulter, G.( 1982). On the nature of ASL as a monosyllabic language. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Seattle, WA.
20.
Frascarelli, M. (1997). L'Interfacciasintassi: Fonologianelle costruzion idifocalizzazionee topicalizzazione dell'Italiano. Doctoral dissertation, University of Rome.
21.
Gee, J.P., & Goodhart, W. (1988). American Sign Language and the human biological capacity for language. In M. Strong (Ed.), Language learning and deafness (pp.49-74). Cambridge , U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Ghini, M. (1993). F-formatio in Italian: A new proposal. In C. Dyck (Ed.), Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics., 12(2), 41-78.
23.
Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation , MIT.
24.
Greenberg, J. (1963). Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
Guasti, M.T.M., Nespor, A., Christophe, B., & Ooyen, B. van (to appear). Pre-lexical setting of the head-complement parameter through prosody. In J. Weissenborn & B. Hoehle (Eds.), Approaches to bootstrapping in early language development. Amsterdam: Benjamin.
26.
Hayes, B. (1989). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In P. Kiparsky & G. Youmans (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology: Rhythm and meter (pp.201-260). New York. Academic Press.
27.
Hayes, B., & Lahiri, A. (1991). Bengali intonational phonology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 47-96.
28.
Hulst, H. G. van der (1993). Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology, 10(2), 209-242.
29.
Hulst, H. G. van der (1996). On the other hand. Lingua, 93(1-3), 121-143.
30.
Hulst, H. G. van der, & Sandler, W. (1994). Phonological theories meet sign language: Two theories of the two hands. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics , 13(1), 43-75.
31.
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in Generative Grammar . Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
32.
Kingston, J. (1999) (this issue). Extrapolating from spoken to signed prosody via laboratory phonology. Language and Speech, 42(2&3), 251-281.
Liddell, S.K. (1978). Nonmanual signals and relative clauses in American Sign Language.In P.P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research. (pp.59-90). New York: Academic Press.
35.
Liddell, S.K. (1980). American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
36.
Liddell, S.K. (1984). THINK and BELIEVE: Sequentiality in American Sign Language. Language, 60, 372-392.
37.
Liddell, S.K., & Johnson, R. (1989). American Sign Language: The phonological base . Sign Language Studies, 64, 197-277.
38.
Lillo-Martin, D. (1991) Universal Grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the null argument parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
39.
Mandel, M. (1981). Phonotactics and morphophonology in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California , Berkeley.
40.
Mazuka, R. (1996). How can a grammatical parameter be set before the first word? In J. L. Morgan & I. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
41.
Meier, R. (1991). Language acquisition by deaf children. American Scientist, 9, 60-70.
42.
Meier, R. (1993). A psychological perspective on phonological segmentation in sign and speech. In G. Coulter (Ed.), Current issues in ASL phonology: Phonetics and phonology, Vol. 3 (pp. 169-188). San Diego: Academic Press.
43.
Nespor, M. (1987). Vowel degemination and fast speech rules. Phonology Yearbook, 4, 61-85.
44.
Nespor, M. & Guasti, M.-T. (submitted). Alignment of stress and focus.
45.
Nespor, M., Guasti, M.-T., & Christophe, A. (1996). Selecting word order: The Rhythmic Activation Principle. In U. Kleinhenz (Ed.), Interfaces in phonology (pp. 1-26). Berlin : Akademie Verlag.
46.
Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodicphonology. Dordrecht : Foris.
47.
Newkirk, D. (1981). On the temporal segmentation of the sign (ms.) , The Salk Institute of Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA.
48.
Newport, E.L. (1996). Sign language research in the next millenium. Keynote address, conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research , Montreal.
49.
Newport, E.L., & Meier, R. (1985). The acquisition of American Sign Language. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition Vol.1 (pp. 81-938). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
50.
Padden, C.A. (1988). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland .
51.
Padden, C.A., & Perlmutter, D.M. (1987). American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 335- 375.
52.
Perlmutter, D.M. (1992). Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 407-442.
53.
Petronio, K., & Lillo-Martin, D. (1997). Wh-movement and the position of spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language , 73, 18-57.
54.
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The Phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
55.
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirchberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Cohen & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intention in communication . (pp. 271-311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56.
Pijper, J.-R. de, & Sanderman, A.A. (1994). On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America., 96, 2037- 2047.
57.
Reilly, J., McIntire, M., & Bellugi, U. (1990). The acquisition of conditionals in American Sign Language: Gramaticalized facial expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics , 11, 369-392.
58.
Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris.
59.
Sandler, W. (1990). Temporal aspects and American Sign Language phonology . In S. Fischer & P. Siple (Eds.). Theoretical Issues In Sign Language Research, 1 (pp. 7-35). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60.
Sandler, W. (1993a). A sonority cycle in American Sign Language. Phonology, 10(2), 243-280.
61.
Sandler, W. (1993b). Hand in hand: The roles of the nondominanthand in sign language phonology. The Linguistic Review, 10, 337-390.
62.
Sandler, W. (1996a). Phonological features and feature classes: The case of movements in sign language. Lingua, 98, 197-220.
63.
Sandler, W. (1996b). Representing handshapes. In W. Edmondson & R. B. Wilbur (Eds.), International Journal of Sign Linguistics (pp. 115-158). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
64.
Sandler, W. (in press). One phonology or two? Sign language and phonological theory . In L. Cheng & R. Sybesma (Eds.), GLOT international state-of-the-article book. Hague: Holland Academie Graphics .
65.
Sandler, W. (1999). Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language . In T.A. Hall and U. Kleinhenz (Eds.), Studies on the phonological word. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Current Studies in Linguistic Theory.).
66.
Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (in press). Natural sign languages. In M. Aronoff and J. ReesMiller (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of linguistics . Oxford: Blackwell.
67.
Selkirk, E.O. (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 563 - 605.
68.
Selkirk, E.O. (1981). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In T. Fretheim (Ed.), Nordic prosody 11. Trondheim: TAPIR .
69.
Selkirk, E.O. (1984). Phonology and syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
70.
Selkirk, E.O. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 371-405.
71.
Selkirk, E.O. (1995). The prosodic structure of function words. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, 239- 269.
72.
Siple, P. (Ed.). (1978). Visual contraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies,19, 95-110.
Supalla, T. (1982). Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
75.
Supalla, T., & Newport, E.L. (1978). How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp.91-133). New York: Academic Press.
76.
Truckenbrodt, H. (1995). Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus and prominence. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
77.
Truckenbrodt, H. (to appear). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry.
78.
Uyechi, L. (1994). The geometry of visual phonology. Doctoral dissertation , Stanford University.
79.
Vallduví, E. (1992). The informational component. New York: Garland.
80.
Veinberg, S., & Wilbur, R.B. (1990). A linguistic analysis of the negative headshake in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 68, 217-244.
81.
Wilbur, R.B. (1982). A multitiered theory of syllable structure for American Sign Language. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, CA.
82.
Wilbur, R.B. (1991). Intonational and focus in American Sign Language . In Y. No & M. Libucha (Eds.), ESCOL `90: Proceedings of the Seventh Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp. 320-331). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
83.
Wilbur, R.B. (1993). Syllables and segments: Hold the movements and move the holds. In G.G. Coulter (Ed.), Phonetics and phonology 3: Current issues in ASL phonology (pp.135-168). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
84.
Wilbur, R.B. (1994). Eyeblinks and ASL phrase structure. Sign Language Studies, 84, 221-240.
85.
Wilbur, R.B. (1996). Prosodic structure of American Sign Language. Ms. Purdue University.
86.
Zubizarreta, M.L. (1996). Focus and word order (ms.), University of Southern California.
