Simultaneity as a unique property of visual-spatial language: the simultaneous structure of two-handed classifier predicates in bimodal ASL/English narrative ebooks for Deaf children"
Ian Forrest Holloway
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics
Swarthmore College 2017
Abstract
Simultaneity, or the co-occurrence of linguistic material at any level, is widely recognized as a fundamental property of the grammar of signed languages, a natural consequence of their visual-spatial modality. Enabled by multiple separate articulation tracts, including both hands, the upper torso and face (the non-manual articulators), signers across a broad variety of unrelated signed languages exploit both sequentiality and simultaneity to transmit a linguistic message (Vermeerbergen et aI2007). In American Sign Language (ASL), simultaneity is particularly relevant to what many sign language linguists term 'classifier predicates', where the handshape parameter serves to specify an argument by indicating a noun class, while physio-spatial properties of the hand including location, orientation, and movement serve to predicate the argument (Supalla 1986). Often described as a means of 'saying by showing', classifier predicates inventively and efficiently exploit the related properties of simultaneity and iconicity to a much higher degree than frozen lexical signs. While research has begun to illuminate the complex form and function of simultaneity in classifier predicates in regular conversation, my thesis contextualizes this evidence in a new and increasingly important register: bimodal narratives directed toward children who use sign language. Using a small corpus of ASLIEnglish ebooks from a collaborative project between students of Swarthmore College and Gallaudet University, my thesis describes the structure of two-handed classifier predicates in this dataset, concluding that the morphological constraints on simultaneity appear to be upheld in this register.
*1 would like to my extend gratitude to my advisor, Prof. Theodore B. Fernald, and Prof. Beppie van den Bogaerde for their invaluable guidance and suppor~ to my thesis reader Mollie Wild for her comments, and to Prof. Donna Jo Napoli and Prof. Gene Mirus for their inspiring commitment to developing shared reading technologies. Holloway 1
Glossing Abbreviations
CLo : Object classifier
CLH : Handling classifier CLss : Size and shape classifier + : repeated sign --- : held sign CHIMNEY, : co-referentiality
(Adopted from Sallandre 2007) Holloway 2
Table of Contents 1 Introduction l.l Theories of Linguistic Simultaneity...... 3 l.2 Phonetics and Phonology...... 6 l.3 Morphological Constraints...... 8 l.4 Syntax and Space...... 10 l.5 Classifier Predicates...... 12
2 Methods 2.1 Overview of the Dataset...... 14
3 Analysis 3.1 RH/LH Transcription...... 16 3.2 Two-Handed Simultaneous Classifiers...... l7
4 Discussion 20
5 Conclusion 22
6 References 24 Holloway 3
1. Introduction l.l Theories of Linguistic Simultaneity
According to Saussure, a crucial theorist in the foundation of modern linguistics, two fundamental properties of language are linearity and arbitrariness. In this view, language consists
of a sequential stream of symbols that have an unmotivated relationship to their referents in the
physical universe (Pemiss 2010); (Pietrandrea 2002). While certain properties of spoken
language, such as the two-dimensional nature of sound waves and the linearity of sound
perception (Wo1l2007) give credence to Saussure's view, this strict emphasis on linearity in relation to structure began to receive greater scrutiny following the revolutionary work of Noam
Chomsky from the 1950's onwards. Chomsky demonstrated that sentences can be seen as
generated representations of an underlying, hierarchical and multi-layered "deep structure", formulated in the rules of generative grammar (Chomsky 2005).
Where Chomsky's ideas implicate the concept of simultaneity most explicitly is in the field of generative phonology. As linguists struggled to cope with the inherent limitations to
segmental representations of phonological processes such as assimilation, tone, and prosodic
structure, generative phonology posited a new approach: a relaxation of the requirement for a
one-to-one mapping between phonological features and segments, as well as a separate tier of representation for auto segmental processes. This advancement automatically allowed analysis to turn to a wide range of nonlinear relations in phonological representation, such as multiply-linked constructions, shown in the following figure:
Figure l. Nonlinear phonological relations in spoken language (from Kenstowicz 2003) Holloway 4
, .. ~ , , , , I I V ~ f ...t u~ , , ., -., , " multiply many·tt>- ro" n"ating -,- linked ~ .. ~ feat"'"
Generative phonology has shown that the r elations ln Figure 1, many of which have nonlinear structure, are abundant across the phonologl es of spoken languages (Ke nstowlcZ 2003 311)
Thus, even before n gorous analyS1s ofS1 gn languages had begun ln the 20th century,
S1mul tanel ty had already begun to emerge as a relev ant property of the structure of hum an language m general
A s these research programs ln generative grammar, all largely stemmlng from
Chomsky's work, wer e undetway m the mid-20th century, another revolution was t aking place m lingU1stic s that mvol ved th e s clentifi c reahzation of S1gne d languages, comm umcative system, used by Deafpeople around the world for at least two centunes In the early 20th century, mc1uding ln Saussure' s ,ntellectual context, Sign languages w ere 1argel y disreg arded as non-lmgU1 sti c pantomlme due to the assumption that they w ere budt on highly lcom c and completely non -de composabl e sequence s of S1 gns (Humphrtes 2013) This lnaccurate and madequate Vl ew of S1gn languages ch anged radi cally foll owtng the groundbreaking work of
William Stokoe and others ln th e mld 1960', Stokoe proved that Signs are m fact composed of analyzable parts, the key distinction wtth spoken language words belng that these parts oc cur
S1mul taneousl y. The four parameters of handshape, ortentati on, location, and movement, m addition t o the non-manuals, are still wtdely used t o des cribe the phonologlcal and morphologlcal organlzation of S1gn languages (Battison 2000). The figure below glves an example of a mlmmal triplet - three Signs of Am encan Sign Language (ASL) which share the Holloway 5
sam e param eters of M ovement, a-ientation, and Handshape, but are distingU1sh ed by the parameter of Location Note how th e contrast of Just this one mtemal param eter r esults ln a change of meall1ng
Figure 2 An A SL :Mill1mal Tnpl et (from Klima &Bellugl 1979)
0" UGLY SUMMER
Stokoe's analySiS of S1gn language shows that at leas t at th e phonologlcal and morphologl call evel, 81m ultaneity 1S an lndispens able tool S1gn languages explO1 t ln fonmng structure. This last pomt bnngs attention to another lmportant and r elated feature of the v1Sual-spati al m odali ty, 1 COll1Cl ty. r COll1Cl ty refers t o a motivated rel ati onshi p between th e sem anti c and phonologl cal components of a lmgU1 sti c S1gn (Pietrandre a). 'While Saussure argued that arbi tranness is a pnnC1pl e deS1gn f eature of! anguage, res earch has shown that 1 COll1Cl ty is largely exploited by both 81gn ed and spoken languages as anon -n egligl ble part of th e grammar, suggesting 1 t 1 S a broader feature of natural 1an guage. In S1 gn languages, lCOll1 city has been shown to facilit ate language leammg ln small children, and 1S al so a motivating factor ln th e disperS10n of contact 81gns (Pe m1S et al 2010)
In ViSUal perception, the eye takes m multiple elem ents at th e same tim e, ultimatel y formlng a compoS1 te lmage Thus, S1gn languages, which operate usmg m the v1Sual-spatial modality, can exploit th e com positeness of V1SUal perc eption t o S1multaneousl y encode a Holloway 6
linguistic message. The simultaneous nature of the visual-spatial modality ultimately ties back to the encapsulating property of iconicity, or the motivated relationship between signifier and referent. An important nuance to the pervasiveness of iconicity in sign languages is that
arbitrariness is also present. As Pietrandrea notes in "Iconicity and Arbitrariness in Italian Sign
Language", while the vast majority of signs have iconic parameters, it is completely arbitrary as to what the distribution of those iconic features across a sign are. She concludes her analysis by
suggesting that iconicity and arbitrariness are in a dependent relationship that is grounded in the
principle oflinguistic economy (Pietrandrea).
In reviewing the discourse on the linguistic significance of two sets of opposing
properties: linearity and simultaneity, and iconicity and arbitrariness, it is wise to conclude that these properties are in fact all present in natural language, regardless of modality, albeit to varying degrees of relevance (Woll 2007). While Saussure originally formulated that linearity
and arbitrariness are defining properties of spoken language, the opposing concepts of
simultaneity and iconicity clearly motivate the design of sign languages at every level of the
grammar, in ways which will be discussed in detail in the following section.
l.2 Phonetics and Phonology
Simultaneity is grounded in the phonetic reality of sign languages, since the three
separate articulation tracts of each hand and the upper torso and face (non-manuals) can theoretically all be used and perceived at the same time. Despite of the relative slowness of the manual and non-manual articulators compared to the tongue in the vocal tract, sign languages
can exploit simultaneity to generate complex phonological and morphological structure (Fernald
& Napoli). Research has since revised and built upon Stokoe's original phonological framework Holloway 7
to conclude that m ore accurate! y, S1gn I anguages are both S1m ultaneous and sequ ential, noting th at th e hands altemate between penods of movem ent an d staS1s m the S1 gmng stream Liddell conceptualizes this phenom enon W1 th the terms H old and M ovement, th e two arti culat ory st ate s which the hands can be ln at aglven time. Both a Hold and a Movem ent can be conceptuallzed as f eature bundles, much m the sam e way spoken phonology charactenzes phonemes, meanlng th ey encompas s th e S1mul tan e ous reallzation of the baS1 c S1 gn param eters described earli er
Figure 3 F eatural Repres entation of a Hoi d and M ovement (from Li ddell 1989)
segmental KSlllt1ul features fea t u~
• articul atory , initial : finool features : ~ r1 k:ula tory : ..nlcul;ttory 'fe~t,,1'e$ fe~t"rl'l
In this figure, the l eft hand box represents a Hol d, while the nght hand box represents a
Movem ent, lncluding both lnitial and final articul atory features. From thi s an al ym, it becomes cl ear that even the S1mpl est of S1gns, ones which do not move, (H) have complex S1mul tan eous structure (Liddell 1989)
Building on this theory, researchers have al so turned th elr attention t o the notion of what encompasses a S1gn syllable. In spoken language, a syll able is large!y defin ed by ltS only obligatory component, a nucl eus or vowel. The nucl eus, which bears additional features such as tone or stress, 1 s ln fact th e most prosodically salient, or sonorous part of the syll able Brentarl applies what is known as th e Sonority Sequ encmg PnnC1 pie to analyze the phonologl cal Holloway 8
paramet ers of S1gns. She c onc1udes that the M onm ent parameter 1 s th e most sonorous parameter, while Hand Configuration (the combination of on entation and handshape) is much less so. 'While Liddell note d that a S1gn syllabl e conS1s ts of th e sequ ence H-M -H , preS1ded over In scope by a Hand Configuration, Brentan extends this analyS1 s to em phaS1 u th e role of prosody
1ll S1gn 1an guage structure, pOS1 ting that the sequ ence H-M -H is an analogue t o th e spoken language sequ ence of CV C (Brentan 1993) 'What these analyse, of syll able structure show is th at S1mul tan el ty is very much lllvol ved 1ll phonology at this 1e vel. The com pleX1 ti es that em erge with this degree of S1multaneity are represented viSually 1ll the folloW1ng tabl e
Figure 4. A 3-dim enslOnal representation of a S1gn ed syllable (From Sandl er 201 2) ,'-
•
In this di agram , the numbers 1-4 llldi cate node s corresponding t o the four parameters of a syllabI e. This di agram further Includes the non -domlllant hand, adding another elem ent t o th e com pleX1 ty of S1mul tan e ous structur e that W1ll be descn bed 1ll the followlllg se cti on
1 3 M orphological Constralllts
From a typologic al perspective, th e morphology of S1gn l anguages can be reg arded as monosyll abic, non -concatenating, and pol ymorpheml c (Schem bn 2001) The typological property of non-concatenation and means that S1gn languages are more likely t o alt er th e Holloway 9
mOlphological fonn of a word not by affixing mOlphemcs at either end, btt by modifying the
simultaneously occurring internal parameters of the sign (Aronoff2005), \Vhile non-concatenative is widdy distributed among spoken languages such as Arabic, Brentari notes that sign languages may be the only languages to posses the unique typological distribution of
favoring single syllables but being heavily polymorphemic. As will be demonstrated, this polymorphcmic tendency can be attributed directly to the property of simultaneity. Consider the
following table from Brentari:
Figure 5: A Monosyllabic, Polymocphic ASL Classifier Predicate (Bredari)
.""", ,,....,.,j. [Iracin~ : waiflt1[
II~cri.owioo IIOIl< .,.no""'"" [Ill ..!«t«l fi"~"': I [ .,.no""'"" [Ill: ..l=e [Ill: ndial pl>t>< offtl1 set] lPn,,, f1t>.e [hand ori ·f""" , . [IiPOA: pro<;m.o.l] .., ,. [IlPOA:d;.u]1 The image on the left shows a visual description of the sign, while the right hand table shows its full morphological description. Note that tmdcr Liddell's analysis, such a sign would be quite simple: H-M-II, or one ASL syllable. Despite this simplicity, the full predicate expressed is incredibly complex: "Two htmched over hmnans move fOlWard side-by-side in a careful manner." Thus, while this sign has only one salient movement, there arc as many as 10 Holloway 10 distinct morphemes nearly all conveyed simultaneously. This type of sign, called a classifier predicate, has uniquely productive morphological capabilities and will be discussed in full detail in section l. 5. In analyzing the morphology of sign languages, there appear to be morphological constraints on the type of simultaneity shown in figure 5. A general rule that appears in the discourse, is as follows, taken from Hendriks discussing Jordanian Sign Language: (1) Manual simultaneity can only take place when at least one of the hands makes no lexically specified movement, or when the movement of the two hands is symmetrical. (Hendriks 2007) This rule can be interpreted as a more general version of Battison's Dominance Condition, which evidence suggests may be universal not only in frozen lexical signs but also in classifier predicates, and across all sign languages (Battis on 2001). Researchers have also addressed the question of constraints on simultaneity from a variety of perspectives, including phonology, morphology, syntax, and cognition. Evidence suggests that although simultaneity may be freely employed, cognitive constraints on short term memory inhibits its overuse (Napoli 2010) (Napoli and Wu). With these constraints on the non-dominant hand in consideration, what then are the roles of the non-dominant hand in sign language grammar? Research shows that the non-dominant hand is involved in two separate but related constructions, dominance reversals, and what Liddell terms "buoys". In buoy constructions, the non-dominant hand provides syntactic ground for the predicate, which it holds as the active hand articulates the predicate (Liddell et al 2007). l.4 Syntax and Space Holloway 11 Another feature of simultaneity in sign languages that is directly related to the visual-spatial modality is the use of spatial referents, oc areas of the signing space that are given semantic value despite being lllloccupied by an active articulator. As discussed earlier, sign langnage granunars pattern typologically as non-coocatenating, and the vast majority of sign langnages are shown to have complex inflectiooal modifications to their verbs to code modality, tense, person, number, and aspect. An example of this complex manipulation of the movement parameter is shown in the fignre below. Figure 6. Spatial inflectional processes on the ASL sign GIVE, with the canonical fonn appearing at the top left (Klima & Bellugi 1988) Holloway 12 As this figure shows, subtle nuances in movement, such as contouring of the movement path occur simultaneously and encode substantive linguistic meaning. l.5 Classifier Predicates For the purposes of this thesis, I will be analyzing one aspect of ASL grammar in particular: classifier predicates. A classifier predicate involves the morphological use of handshape to specify an argument, while the parameters of orientation, movement, and location, which indicate physio-spatial properties of the hand, are used to predicate the argument. Thus, in classifier predicates, the phonological and morphological aspects of the sign, or its form, are suddenly meaningful at the level of syntax and semantics, or only its content (Vermeerbergen et al 2007). In European schools of sign language linguistics, classifier predicates are treated somewhat differently, with the distinctions summarized in the following passage, from Schembri 2003:4: In Australia, they are generally known as classifier signs or simply classifiers. (Bernal 1997, Branson et al 1995), whereas elsewhere they have variously been referred to as classifier verbs or verbs of motion and location (Supalla 1986, 1990), classifier predicates (Corazza 1990, Schick 1987, 1990, Smith 1990, Valli & Lucas 1995), spatial-locative predicates (Liddell & Johnson 1987), polymorphemic predicates (Collins-Ahlgren 1990), polysynthetic signs (Takkinen 1996, Wallin 1996, 1998), productive signs (Brennan 1992, Wallin 1998) polycomponential signs (Slobin et al. 2001) and polymorphic verbs (Engberg-Pederson 1993). Acknowledging the underlying similarities between these terms, I have chose to frame my analysis around the term 'classifier predicate'. Classifier predicates in ASL broadly fall into three groups based on three different types of visual iconicity. In the first, which Brentari terms handling classifiers (C~), the hand represents how an actual hand manipulates an object. For example, the ASL uses the F handshape as a handling classifier for very small objects (Supalla 1986). For the second group, Holloway 13 object classifiers (CLo)' the hand represents a whole entity; for example, a B handshape can be used to represent a book or a flat surface. This group of classifiers is special in that a particular handshape represents an entire class of nouns. Some examples include the ASL 3 handshape for vehicles, the bent-V handshape for animals, and the 1 handshape for upright people. The following table, from Brentari, details the three categories of classifier handshapes, with hvo examples for each category. Figure 7. Categories of Classifier Predicates (Brentari) (I) Handling classifiers a. handle flat object: open, flat B-handshapc ~ all fmgers bent only at the knuckle joint b. handle small object: F-handshape ~,index and thumb touehingat the pads of the fingel"ll (2) Whole entity classifiers a vehicle: 3-handshape ~, thumb, index, and middle finger extended b. airplane: ILY -handshapc 'fr, thumb, index, and little fmgers extended (3) Size and Shape Specifiers a. long-thin-object: I-handshapc fI. index finger extended). b. small object: Cl-handshape ~ index finger curved) Figure 2. Examples ofhandshapes used for three types of classifiers in ASL. The specific identity ofthe classifier is made clear by the signer before the classifier is introduced. The third and final group is known as size and shape classifiers (CLss) where the hands 'draw' the object in space, indicating its size and shape. A distributional pattern that has Holloway 14 been observed in many sign languages is the preference for handling handshapes in agentive clauses and object handshapes in non-agentive clauses (Brentari et a120l3). The employment of classifier predicates is that they are a faculty acquired with time, just like any other aspect of a language's grammar. Studies have shown that children take up until age 10 to use classifier predicates with the full morphological complexity of hand shape as native adult signers (Schembri 2001). Interestingly however, children as young as 3 have been shown to understand the agentive/non-agentive split between handling and object classifiers, as discussed previously (Brentari and Coppola et al). For the purposes of this thesis, I will be examining two-handed classifier predicates in ASL in a small corpus of bimodal ebooks through Gallaudet University's RISE project. Two-handed classifier predicates can be defined as two simultaneously produced handshapes, where at least one hand is a classifier predicate. In order to abide by, only one hand would be expected to produce a lexically specified movement. 2. Methods 2.1 Overview of the Dataset: Bilingual-Bimodal Ebooks For this project, the signing data that I will analyze comes from five videos, varying from 4 to 7 minutes in length, that are taken from a collaborative project between students of Swarthmore College and Gallaudet University. The videos, available online for download, are a component of a set of ebooks designed to be used by children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and use American Sign Language (ASL), along with their families. Each page of each ebook contains lines of English text, accompanied by illustrations and videos of students from Holloway 15 Ga1laudet University perfonning a signed version of the action of that page_ The following figure shows a page from Jemima Puddleduck_ Figure_ A Page of a Bilingual English-ASL version of Jemima Puddleduck (bttps:! IWWiV-youtube_cowwatch?V=oRiZllKWJ -1A&feature=voutu_be) hom the tOr of the hIll, ~he \aw woods That looked safe, no boY1i . As the layout of this page demonstrates, the ebooks are arranged to place emphasis on visual details that keep the child reader engaged and attended to the narrative_ For example, the basket of eggs on the bottom right increases in munber from page to page, a visual complement to the narrative itself When tapped, the still image of the signer in the upper left expands to a full screen video of the ASL sentence, which range from 10 to 30 seconds in length_ These ebooks serve the important fimction of increasing access to the practice of shared reading for Deaf and hard of hearing children Shared reading has been shown to facilitate a set of emerging literacy skills in YOtmg readers that includes tmderstanding and expectation of narrative structure_ (SOIlllenschein 2002)_ According to Burnstein & Roskos, additional research has indicated that shared reading "substantially prepares children prepares children for the Holloway 16 learn-to-read process, developing their print knowledge, comprehension strategies and vocabulary." (Burnstein & Roskos) Thus, the ebooks serve to both address the disadvantages to access in shared reading in Deaf children who use ASL, and most importantly provide material that is engaging and enjoyable for deaf and hard-of hearing children. From a linguistic perspective, the two most important distinguishing aspects of this dataset that are relevant to this analysis are (1) that the signing is directed toward young children and (2) that the signing is in the register of storytelling. I will argue in my analysis how these two factors most likely influence the linguistic structure of the signing, providing a motivation for increased simultaneity in morphological structure. A caveat is that because this thesis analyzes the five videos present in the ebooks corpus, but does not contrast them with a baseline video of prototypical signing, the analytical observations about the signing content cannot be taken as positive claims for evidence. In spite of this, I will argue that the description and analysis of these five videos will provide a rich framework for understanding and integrating simultaneity into not only further linguistic and pedagogical research, but also development of real world materials which can be accessed by the children who need them most. 3. Analysis 3.1 Sample Video Transcription The following transcription of the ebook "The Night Before Christmas in ASL" is useful in illustrating the near constant presence of simultaneity in the signing stream. In many instances, both hands will perform a two handed sign, with one hand holding this as a discourse marker while the other hand continues to sign. The sustained hold of a sign is indicated by the dashed lines -- which correspond roughly to that handshape' s duration. Video #1 Transcription: The Night Before Christmas Holloway 17 RH: **** NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS LH: NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS 'It was the night before Christmas.' RH: HOUSE ALL-AROUND QUIET LH: HOUSE ALL-AROUND QUIET 'Everywhere in the house was quiet.' RH: PEOPLE CLo: PERSON-WALK-AROUND OPEN 8 LH: PEOPLE CLo: PERSON-WALK-AROUND OPEN 8 'People were not walking around.' RH: MOUSE CLo: MOUSE-SCURRY-AROUND NONE LH: CLo: MOUSE-SCURRY-AROUND NONE 'Mouses were not scurrying about.' RH: HOUSE FAMILY CLH:HANGING-STOCKINGS CHIMNEY LH: HOUSE ***** FAMILY CLH:HANGING-STOCKINGS CHIMNEY RH: CLss: CHIMNEY CLss:TRIM-ON-CHIMNEYi RED CLHANGING-STOCKING+++ LH: CLss: CHIMNEYi------ RH: WHITE CLHANGING-TRIM-ON-CHIMNEYi+++ LH: CLss: CHIMNEYi------ 'In the house, the family carefully hung their red stockings on the chimney, which was decorated in white trim. ' 3.2 Two-Handed Simultaneity of Classifier Predicates Holloway 18 The following figure lists 10 examples of two-handed classifier predicates found in the corpus of RISE ebooks, available on Gallaudet's website. These configurations can be defined as two independent yet simultaneously realized handshapes produced by the dominant and nondominant hand, with at least one handshape specifYing a classifier predicate. Table 1. Two-Handed Classifier Predicates in the RISE set of ASL ebooks # Discourse/ Gloss of Gloss of Screenshot of Signer English Time Dominant Hand Non-Dominant Translation Hand ofASL Sentence 1 "The Night CLH : CLss: CHIMNEYi 'The Before PLACING-STOCKI stockings Christmas" NG-ON-CHIMNEYi were placed 0:38 carefully, one by one, on the chimney.' 2 "The Night CLH : 'Peering Before PARTING-BLINDS through the Christmas" blinds, I 01:40 looked out at the moon which was shining bright.' Holloway 19 3 "The Night CLo: CLo:SLEIGHi 'He leapt Before PERSON -JUMPS-O onto his Christmas" N-SLEIGH, sleigh' 04:36 4 "The Night CLss: CHIMNEY CLss : 'Three Before STOCKING-ON-CH stockings Christmas" IMNEYi hung from 04:36 the chimney.' 5 "Humpty Lexical Sign: CLss:WIDE-BODY 'As Humpty Dumpty" ROOSTER -OF-HUMPTY-DU Dumpty sat 00:44 MPTY on the wall, a rooster came by.' 6 "Jemima Lexical Index: 'While I get Puddle Duck" YOU the pot 4:03 ready, will you go to the garden and get parsley, onions and celery?' Holloway 20 7 "The Slant CLo :LOOK-AT CLo :LOOK-AT 'Two men Book" argued at a 03:48 tennis meet, they didn't know what to do.' 8 "The Slant CLo: 'The Book" CARRIAGE-RACIN carnage 04:20 G-TO-STUMPi raced toward the stump.' 9 "Stick's CLss:TINY-DOT-O 'A little bird Masterpiece" F-COLOR bumped her brush, making a golden dot.' 10 "Stick's CLss:CENTIPEDE 'She painted Masterpiece" the centipede's socks green.' Holloway 21 Video Links: "Jemima Puddle Duck": httvs ·1 Iwww . youtube.com /watch?v~oRiZbKWJ- IA&feature ~youtu . be "The Slant Book": httvs: II www.youtube.com/watch?v~ L-re-tihEOo&feature=youtu.be "Stick's Masterpiece": httvs :1 Iwww.youtube . com/watch?v=pNPdyEmJIq4&feature ~youtu.be "Humpty Dumpty": httvs: llwww . youtube.com/watch?v~OmRYXRvnGw&feature ~youtu . be "The Night Before Christmas": httvs :llwww . youtube.com/watch?v~42nXcSIebPE 4. Discussion Analysis of this set offive ebooks reveals an abundance of two-handed classifier predicates. Furthermore, these configurations suggest a wide array of combinatorial possibilities as to the types of classifier predicates which may be produced simultaneously. These include two object classifiers (example 3 and 7), an object and a handling classifier (example 2), an object classifier and a size and shape classifier (8, 9, and 10), and a handling and size and shape classifier (example 1). In some cases, one hand may produce a classifier while the other hand produces a lexical sign (5) or a referential index (6). In two-handed classifier predicates, the hands may have varying degrees of grammatical relation with one another. For instance, in examples 3 and 8, the two hands form a close semantic and syntactic relationship, with the dominant hand occupying the role of agent and the non-dominant hand the role of patient. The glosses in the figure further indicate this close relationship through coreference. On the other hand, the signers' two hands in examples 5 and 6 do not participate in the same predicate. However, because their simultaneous occurrence positions them closely in the discourse, the two arguments most likely have a close temporal or Holloway 22 spatial relationship. The fact that these actions are realized simultaneously is a demonstration of the visual-spatial modality's ability to replicate the iconicity of space. In terms of morphology, the examples in Table 1 all abide by Hendriks' constraint on simultaneity discussed in the introduction, that states if both hands articulate a lexically specified handshape, only one hand may articulate a lexically specified movement. Thus, the non-dominant hand is usually stationary while the dominant hand moves, which supports theories of simultaneity which attribute the dominant hand to the linguistic foreground and the non dominant hand to the background. While the examples from the dataset all abide by these morphological constraints, further analysis of languages beyond ASL would be needed to support the theory that these constraints are universal to sign language grammar. A final important feature to discuss with respect to these two-handed classifiers is the additional presence of the non-manuals, including facial expression, eye gaze, and mouth gesture. The non-manuals may be direct arguments of the predicate, as in example from figure 6, where eye gaze occurs toward the nondominant hand (MOON). The facial expression of squinting categorizes the action of seeing described in the sentence. As the non manuals co-occur with the movement of the hands, they demonstrate the complexity of simultaneously encoded meaning in ASL. The abundance of non-manuals suggests that signers are fully capable of producing both two-handed classifier predicates and non-manuals at the same time under the given constraints of simultaneity. 5. Conclusion While sign languages users across the globe have faced stigmatization and oppression by hearing majorities, linguistic evidence has widely refuted claims that sign languages are not Holloway 23 'language', and indeed shown the rich linguistic complexity engendered by their unique visual-spatial modality. This modality enables signers to exploit the inherent simultaneous properties of space to construct a linguistic message, which radically reorients our conception of language as purely linear. This thesis has attempted to explore more in depth the concept of simultaneity through analysis of two-handed classifier predicates. The corpus of ebooks showed numerous instances of these predicates, suggesting that despite the cognitive demands on simultaneous articulation, these structures are smoothly and spontaneously produced by fluent ASL signers. This supports the fundamental importance of simultaneity to the functioning of classifier predicates and ASL grammar in general. Further research can be done to examine whether the complex possibilities of simultaneity are producible by the intended audience of the ebooks: child signers, which may be able to shed light on the development of simultaneity. This corpus of ebooks illustrates the ways in which the Deaf community is at the forefront of generating passionate and innovative technologies that are modality-specific, and serve the ultimate aim of enriching the community through expanded access to shared reading. It is my hope that further research will continue to shed light on these technologies and their linguistic content. Holloway 24 6. References Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, & Wendy Sandler. 2005. "The paradox of sign language morphology." Language 81.2.301-44. Web. Battison, Robin. 2000. "Analyzing Signs." In Clayton Valli and Ceil Lucas (eds.),Linguistics of American Sign Language an Introduction. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet UP, Print. Boyes-Braem, Penny. 1990. "Acquisition of the handshape in american sign language: a preliminary analysis." From Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf Children. N.p.: Heidelberg, 107-27. Print. Brentari, Diane. 1993. "Establishing a sonority hierarchy in American Sign Language: the use of simultaneous structure in phonology." Phonology 10.02. 281-306. Web. ------. Alessio Di Renzo, Jonathan Keane, & Virginia Volterra. 2014. "Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic sources of a handshape distinction expressing agentivity." Topics in Cognitive Science Top Cogn Sci 7.1. 95-123. Web. ------. In press. Sign Language Phonology: The word and sub-lexical structure. In R. Pfau & B. Woll, (eds.), Handbook of Sign Language Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton. ------. Marie Coppola, and Ann Senghas. In press. "Handshape complexity as a precursor to phonology: evidence from acquisition and conventionalization in mature and emerging sign languages." Web. Chomsky, Noam. 2005. "Three factors in language design." Linguistic Inquiry 36.1. 1-22. Web. Button, Kathryn, & Margaret Johnson. 1997. "The role of shared reading in developing effective early reading strategies." Reading Horizons 34.4. Web. Fernald, Theodore, & Donna Jo Napoli. 2001. "Exploitation of morphological possibilities in sign languages: comparison of American Sign Language with English." In Sign Language and Linguistics. Web. Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. "Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language." In Language: 696. Print. Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Diane Brentari, M. Coppola, L. Horton, & A. Senghas. 2015. "Watching language grow in the manual modality: nominals, predicates, and handshapes." Cognition 136.381-95. Web. Holloway 25 Humphries, Tom. 2013. "Schooling in American Sign Language: a paradigm shift from a deficit model to a bilingual model in deaf education." In Berkeley Review ofEducation. Web. Hendriks, Bernadet. 2007. "Simultaneous use of the two hands in Jordanian Sign Language." In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson, and Alex Onno (eds.), Simultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 283-316. Print. Keane, Jonathan, Diane Brentari, & Jason Riggle. 2015. "Segmentation and pinky extension in ASL fingerspelling." In The Segment in Phonetics and Phonology. 103-28. Web. Kenstowicz, Michael. 2003. "Autosegmental phonology." In Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Print. Klima, Edward, & Ursula Bellugi. 1988. "The structured use of space and movement: morphological processes." In The Signs ofLanguage. Harvard UP. Print. Liddell, Scott K. 1984. "Think and believe: sequentiality in American Sign Language." In Language 60.2.372. Web. ------. "1989. American Sign Language: the phonological base." In Robert E. Johnson (ed.). Linguistics ofAmerican Sign Language: An Introduction. Print. ------. Marit Vogt-Svendsen & Brita Bergman. 2007. "A crosslinguistic comparison of buoys: Evidence from American, Norwegian, and Swedish Sign Language." In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson, & Alex Onno. (eds.). Simultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function. Ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 103-125. Print. Meteyard, Lotte, Emily Stoppard, Dee Snudden, Stefano F. Cappa, & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2015. "When semantics aids phonology: a processing advantage for iconic word forms in aphasia." Neuropsychologia 76.264-75. Web. Donna Jo, & Rachel Sutton-Spence. 2010. "Limitations on simultaneity in sign language." Language 86.3.647-62. Web. ------& Jeff Wu. 2003. "Morpheme structure constraints on two-handed signs in American Sign Language: notions of symmetry." Web. Pietrandrea, Paola. 2002. "Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language." In Sign Language Studies: 296-32l. Print. Perniss, Pamela. 2007. "Locative functions of simultaneous perspective constructions in German Sign Language narratives." In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson, & Alex Onno. (eds.). Simultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 26-54. Print. ------. Robin L. Thompson, & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2010. "Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages." Frontiers in Psychology Front. Psychology l. Web. Roskos, Kathleen, & Karen Burstein. 2012. "Descriptive observations of ebook shared reading at preschool." Journal of Literacy and Technology 13.3. Web. Sallandre, Marie-Anne. 2007. "Simultaneity in French Sign Language discourse." In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson, & Alex Onno (eds.). Simultaneity in Signed Holloway 26 Languages: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 103-125. Print. Sandler, Wendy. 1993. "Hand in hand: the roles of the non-dominant hand in sign language phonology." The Linguistic Review Web. ------. 2012. "The phonological organization of sign languages." Language and Linguistics Compass 6.3162-82. Web. Schembri, Adam C. 2001. Issues in the Analysis ofPoly componential Verbs in Australian Sign Language (Auslan). Thesis. 42-103. Print. Sonnenschein, Susan, & Kimberly Munsterman. 2002. "The influence of home-based reading interactions on 5-year-olds' reading motivations and early literacy development." Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Web. Stokoe, William C. "Edward S. Klima & Ursula Bellugi. 1981. The Signs ofLanguage. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979. Pp. Xii 417." Language in Society 10.01 142. Web. Supalla, Ted. "The Classifier System in American Sign Language." Noun classes and categorization: proceedings of a Symposium on Categorization and Noun Classification, Eugene, Or., Oct. 1983. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1986. N. pag. Print. "Rise ebooks presents: Classics and contemporaries in ASLIEnglish." Gallaudet.edu. Web.