3.4 A proposal for a feature set for SLN
3.4.3 Orientation
3.4.3.3 Values of the orientation feature
I propose six feature values in the phonological model to account for the orientation of all signs.69 These refer to six sides of the specified articulator. What this articulator is, and therefore the exact phonetic locus of these sides on the articulator, depends on the specification of the selected fingers.70
69 In addition to the three ‘qualitative’ arguments for relative orientation in the previous section, the list of actual values provides a further, quantitative argument: instead of 12 orientation features (6 each for the finger and palm orientation), a relative orientation specification can suffice with only 6 features. In some cases of absolute orientation specifications, such as used in the KOMVA system, intermediate values between the 12 orientation values can also be used, leading to a very large set of possible distinctions.
70 Brentari (1998: 46) further distinguishes between the palm side of the fingers and the palm side of the hand (i.e. the metacarpals), and likewise between the dorsum side of the fingers and the hand. I claim that for orientation, this distinction does not exist: at most, they refer to the same side of different articulators, and then this difference would be represented under the selected fingers branch of the articulator node. It is not clear to me if the two features would be needed to refer to different locations on the weak hand in SLN. My impression is that the exact location in signs like SWEDEN and GAY is variable, extending from the dorsum of the hand to the dorsum of the proximal phalanges. Furthermore, I do not know of any SLN signs like ASL EASYASL, where the location is the dorsal side of the fingers only. Therefore, there are no
value examples
tips CONTENT, indexical signs root CHICKEN, person classifier ulnar INTERPRETER
radial PROGRAM
palm APPLAUSE
dorsum PROOF
Table 3.2
Feature values for orientation
The feature value [tips] refers to the fingertips, irrespective of the state of the articulator proximal to the tips. If the selected finger is fully extended, then [tips] resembles the ‘extended finger orientation’ as discussed above, since the distal end of the metacarpal bones in the hand points in the same direction as the finger tip. If the selected fingers are curved, whether by a phonological specification of [configuration: curved] or as the articulatory result of the absence of that perceptual specification, then [tips] rather resembles palm orientation. If the value [tip] is specified for an extended thumb, then the orientation resembles the orientation [radial] for a selected index finger, for example. However, all the values in Table 3.2 differ from these traditional orientation features in that it can only be interpreted with reference to the location (the final setting) that is specified for a sign. This location differs from sign to sign. By contrast, the frame of reference for absolute orientation features is independent of the sign or any of its features, it can always be interpreted by reference to the three dimensions of space around the signer.
The feature value [root] refers to the side of the articulator that is opposite to [tips]; [root] appears to be little used in SLN. It is needed to describe the orientation in lexical items such as CHICKEN and classifier constructions such as CAR-MOVE- BACKWARDS and PERSON-LOCATED-HERE.
The features [ulnar] and [radial] are named after the two bones in the forearm, ulna and radius. The distal end of the ulna is connected to the carpal bones of the hand at the ‘pinkie side’ of the hand, the distal end of the radius is on the ‘thumb side’. The radial (or ulnar) side of a selected finger need not necessarily be completely parallel to the radius (or ulna); this depends on the state of the wrist and forearm. The terms are used for convenience, and derive from the anatomical reference position where the wrist and all finger joints are fully extended.
The features [palm] and [dorsum] also refer to the palm and back side of the specified articulator, and they are not necessarily parallel to the palm and dorsum of the hand. The term ‘dorsum’ instead of ‘back’ is chosen to avoid confusion with the ‘root’ side.
The examples in Figure 3.13 illustrate the uses of these terms for one combination of articulator feature values. The values are exemplified in the signs illustrated in Figure 3.14.
i. Radial ii. Ulnar iii. Tips iv. Root v. Palm vi. Dorsum Figure 3.13
Different sides of the articulator for [selected fingers: 1, radial] and [curving: straight]
ii. palm: EASY (location: chin)
iii. tip: FINLAND (location: chin)
v. root: CHICKEN (location: chin)
vi. dorsum: ENOUGH (location: below chin) Figure 3.14
Examples of orientation values
In addition to only specifying one of the two degrees of freedom of the specified articulator, these feature values differ from orientation features proposed by others in four ways. First, they refer to a side of the hand rather than a direction in space, and this side of the hand faces the final place of articulation (i.e. they are relative rather than absolute). They only have an impact on the realization of a sign in combination with the specified second setting, if any, and in the absence of a change in setting, the value for major location. In other words, the orientation feature values cannot be pronounced on their own.71 In the absence of a feature value for location, no orientation feature is specified either; see page 89 for a discussion of signs without a location feature value.
Secondly, unlike most proposals for orientation features, the values in Table 3.2 do not refer to the hand, but rather to the specified articulator, i.e. the combination
71 In a broader sense this is true for all features: one cannot articulate a location without an articulator, and one cannot articulate the feature [selected fingers: 1, ulnar] without also articulating a certain location (cf. Friedman 1976). However, there is still a difference in the perceptual impact: absolute orientation features are identical for all locations and all hand configurations, while the impact of relative orientation features differs for different articulators and different locations. This ‘perceptual impact’, or maybe more appropriately the ‘optical output’ in the model proposed in §2.4, consists of the rotation of the ‘flat’ (or metacarpal) part of the hand in three dimensions in space – in other words, the absolute orientation of the
of feature values under the articulator node. In the model that I propose, then, the hand as a whole does not have a special status. This argument will be more fully articulated in the next section (§3.4.4) and in Chapter 6. The fact that the orientation feature does not apply to the hand but rather to the specified articulator (which can be smaller or larger than the whole hand) constitutes one piece of evidence for the claim that the hand has no privileged role as an articulator.
Thirdly, an important difference between the proposed feature values and feature values for absolute orientation is that there is no arbitrary choice to specify just any degree of freedom in orientation. In specifying absolute orientations, most models and transcription systems choose to specify palm orientation (either alone or in combination with finger orientation). This may not be completely arbitrary, given the special functions of these sides of the hands in handling objects. In principle, however, it would be just as satisfactory to specify the orientation of the back of the hand and the pinkie side. Since the space with respect to which the orientation is specified is fixed, viz. the absolute space around the signer, no side of the hand is privileged in any way. Orientation relative to the location implies that one side of the articulator is privileged: typically only one side is specified for a sign in the present model. The side of the hand that points to the specified final location is specified. In different signs, this side can be any of the six sides of the articulator, as the examples in Figure 3.14 illustrated. Two more examples are presented in Figure 3.15. In the sign ALSO (3.15i), the radial side of the articulator is specified, and in the sign HALF illustrated in (3.15ii) the root side is specified. Neither of these two sides would be highlighted by an absolute description of orientation in terms of palm and/or finger orientation. Yet in these two signs, these two sides of the hand always face the end location, whereas the orientation of the palm and finger may vary from one realization to the next.
i. ALSO:
[orientation: radial], [location: chest], [setting: away,close]
ii. Initial and final position of
HALF: [orientation: root], [location: weak hand–radial], [setting: dorsum,palm]
Figure 3.15
Further examples of specification of sides other than palm and fingertips
In SLN, [palm] and [tips] seem to occur most often.72 I hypothesize that their high frequency is largely due to iconic factors. The palmar surface of the hand and fingers and the finger tips are most frequently used in daily life in grasping and touching objects of all sorts, as well as in pointing gestures; both domains form the basis for many signs.
Fourthly, these orientation feature values are different from ‘point of contact’ features that describe which part of the hand that faces or contact the location (Mandel 1981). Whether the side of the articulator that is specified for relative orientation actually contacts the location or not is variable, but it is not phonologically contrastive (van der Kooij 1997). If the combination [away; close] is used, then relative orientation is the same as the contact side, since the movement is in the direction of the location. With the combination [close; away] the movement is away from the specified location, and in the other six combinations of setting features the movement is parallel to the specified location.73
Since only one degree of freedom is specified, the other degree is still open. I propose that this other degree of freedom results from the easiest articulation of the specified degree of freedom. For the moment, this easiest articulation can be defined as the smallest distance measured in joint angles between the previous state of the articulator and the target state, with the more proximal joints weighing more than the more distal joints. This measure of articulatory effort will be further discussed in Chapter 5. To be able to ‘calculate’ this easiest articulation, we need to know what
72 Relative orientation is not coded in the SignPhon database, and therefore I do not have access to lexical frequency data.
73 This distinction in movement direction, parallel vs. orthogonal to a location, is expressed in Brentari (1998) as the distinction between respectively ‘tracing’ and ‘direction’, the latter being “realized at a 90˚ angle with respect to a plane” (1998: 141).
the target articulation is and what the previous state of the articulator was. Evidently, the latter will depend on the perceptual specification of the previous sign. In the case of a sign in isolation the resting position of the hands will differ depending on the posture of the signer, among other things. This variation leads to what we might call coarticulation effects for hand movements (cf. Wilcox 1992, Cheek 2000).
For example, in the sign HALF (Figure 3.15ii), as in many unbalanced two- handed signs, bringing the strong hand towards the weak hand, which typically is in front of the body at about 20 cm from the midriff, will generally be done by flexing the elbow a little over 90 degrees and rotating the upper arm inwards at the shoulder joint. The previous position in this example is assumed to be a rest position: hands hanging down by the side of the body if the signer is standing, hands resting on the lap if the signer is sitting. To make sure that the ulnar side of the four straight selected fingers faces (or actually touches) the weak hand as in HALF, the forearm has to be rotated so that it is in neutral position. In this configuration, the finger tips will point diagonally forward-contralateral, and the palm side of the fingers will point diagonally backward-contralateral. This is articulatorily ‘easy’ since the wrist is in neutral position and the shoulder does not have to be flexed much from its neutral position: it is the easiest way to articulate the specified location. Two other possible articulatory configurations are illustrated in Figure 3.16. The articulator, location, and orientation in these signs are the same, but the articulatory effort as measured in angular distance from the previous position is much larger.
i. Tips pointing ipsi-back, elbow high
ii. Wrist hyperextended, fingertips of both hands in the same direction same direction
Figure 3.16
Two non-existent complex articulations of location [weak hand] and orientation [ulnar]
This specific example actually applies to most two-handed signs, because most two- handed signs are made at the same location in neutral space. Only in a few motivated cases such as EXAMPLE are the hands at a different location in neutral
space. In EXAMPLE the major location is [weak hand: palm], but the orientation and location of the weak hand itself are separately specified ([location: neutral space: frontal plane], [orientation: palm]). Most articulations of this specification lead to a location of the hand at shoulder height in neutral space.
There appear to be some signs in neutral space with a highly variable orientation and location. Examples include ALWAYS, NOTHING, and DIFFICULT. All of these are made on the ipsilateral side of neutral space, but the height of the location seems to vary from waist to shoulder. I propose that these signs have a location value [neutral space], but no orientation specification. This implies that both degrees of freedom of orientation are determined by the production grammar, and that ease of articulation is the most important factor determining their realization. Indeed, in most cases the wrist and forearm are in a neutral position (wrist extended and forearm between pronated and supinated). The elbow is minimally flexed, and the shoulder is rotated inwards, just enough to bring the location of the hand within signing space. One could say that this is the default signing position, and that these signs are un(der)specified not only for orientation but also for location.74 I leave this open for future investigation, together with the prediction that the sequential context plays a large role in determining orientation and location for this sign. One also finds this location in some articulations of signs that are derived from fingerspelling, such as BLUE and LAZY, which in other cases are made at the standard fingerspelling location (ipsilaterally in neutral space, at shoulder height; palm forward). This could then be analyzed as the deletion of a location specification.
One question that remains open for investigation is whether the two feature values [radial] and [ulnar] should not actually be replaced by a single value, which I shall call [lateral]. In most signs with one of the two values [radial] or [ulnar], the other value would actually be nearly impossible to articulate. For example, the standard form of HOLIDAY has the orientation [radial] (illustrated in Figure 3.11 on page 100). Articulating the value [ulnar] in combination with the same articulator and location features would require an extreme or even impossible supination of the
74 Brentari (1998: 155) claims that the ‘fundamental standing position’ (arms hanging by the sides of the body, palms facing the thighs; cf. Luttgens, Deutsch & Hamilton 1992) that is used in anatomy to define the terms referring to positions and movements of the joints, should also be taken to lead to a ‘default orientation’. In positing this claim, Brentari refers to Crasborn (1995). This interpretation is not what I intended in Crasborn (1995), however, and the confusion illustrates the difference between perceptual and articulatory descriptions: although there may well be a default position for the forearm joints (0 degrees pronated and supinated, an articulatory notion), the actual orientation that results from this neutral position (a perceptual notion) depends on the configuration of the whole arm and hand. If there is something like a “fundamental signing position” (Brentari 1998: 31-33), I suggest that it is rather the state of the articulators as in the sign PAUSE (similar to NAMEASL): the elbows flexed 105 degrees, and the
shoulder rotated inwards 45 degrees. The reason is that this is the prototypical articulator configuration that we find in these signs without an orientation specification. Brentari (1998) proposes that the fundamental signing position deviates from the fundamental standing position by 90 degrees elbow flexion and a neutral state of the forearm (0 degree rotation). The circumstantial evidence that Brentari (1998: 31, footnote 15) mentions is that in various sign languages, including ASL and SLN, the verb SIGN
uses this orientation: the palms of the hands face the midsagittal plane. I propose that these signs do have an orientation specification, viz. [palm] in combination with the location [midsagittal plane], while the default orientation can be inferred only from signs that have an orientation specification that refers to the weak hand (rather than to a location in space).
forearm. I have found no signs with locations on or near the face that need a specification for [ulnar]. Similarly, there are many signs on the weak hand that are articulated with the value [ulnar], but as far as I know only one with the value [radial], This last case is PROGRAM, in which the weak hand has four extended fingers pointing up, palm pointing forward (see Figure 3.17i). The four selected extended fingers of the strong hand have the palm pointing down, while the radial side of the hand repeatedly touches the weak hand while moving down. If we analyze this sign as a repeated end-contact sign, then the setting change would be from [away] to [close], and the relative orientation would be [radial]. In this case, too, the articulation of the specification [ulnar] would be nearly impossible. Moreover, we do find alternative versions of PROGRAM in which the palm is facing the signer, and then it is always the ulnar side of the hand that faces the location (see Figure 3.17ii).75 These might be morphologically distinct forms, where the orientation of the weak hand is the distinctive phonological property, but the forms might also be in ‘free’ variation.
i. Palm of weak hand pointing outward, relative orientation of strong hand [radial]
ii. Palm of weak hand pointing inward, relative orientation of strong hand [ulnar] Figure 3.17
Two realizations of PROGRAM
This alternation would seem to be a phonological operation if we assume distinctive features [ulnar] and [radial], whereas they would be a phonetically predictable effect if we assume a feature [lateral]. This feature [lateral] is a higher perceptual abstraction of the two more concrete features [ulnar] and [radial], which would leave it up to the phonetic implementation model to determine the actual articulation that we find in a specific case.
There does seem to be a lexical distinction between [ulnar] and [radial] if the location is the chest, though, cf. the signs in Figure 3.18.
i. YUGOSLAVIA ii. ALSO
Figure 3.18
A contrast between [ulnar] and [radial]
Signs similar to YUGOSLAVIA include IDENTITY and TIRED; signs similar to ALSO