A Constraint-Based Account of Handshape Contrast in Sign
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A CONSTRAINT-BASED ACCOUNT OF HANDSHAPE CONTRAST IN SIGN LANGUAGES A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Petra Nichole Eccarius In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2008 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana ii To my mother, who taught me how to write. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There is no way to adequately thank all of the people who have contributed to the creation of this document in the space provided here. For all of you not specifically named, I will strive to thank you in person. Particular thanks goes to my dissertation committee: to Alex Francis and Karen Emmorey for their patience and guidance as I ventured into the realm of psycholin- guistic experimentation; to Ronnie Wilbur, for suggesting (during those first over- whelming weeks of graduate school) that I should join her research lab, and for acting as a mentor ever since; and especially to Diane Brentari, my chair, for her patience, guidance and relentless encouragement throughout every new opportunity—thank you for figuring out the best ways to keep me motivated. I am also grateful to all of the agencies who funded me in this endeavor. Parts of this work were supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (BCS- 0112391 and BCS-0547554 to Diane Brentari and 0414953 to Ronnie Wilbur), as well as a National Institutes of Health Training Grant (T32DC00030) and a dissertation grant from the Purdue Research Foundation. Thank you also to the sign language researchers and their assistants in Switzerland and Hong Kong for helping to make this a cross-linguistic study. Special thanks goes to Penny Boyes Braem, Gladys Tang, Felix Sze and Wong Yuet On—thank you for answering so many questions from so far away. A big thank you also goes to all of the members of the Deaf communities in Indiana, at Gallaudet, in Switzerland, and in Hong Kong, who contributed to this work by providing data, helping me in the collection process, or by just answer- ing my incessant questions. I would especially like to thank Rita Mowl, Molly O’Hara, Drucilla Ronchen, Christa Notter, Sandra Sidler-Miserez, Brigitte Daiss- Klaug, Thomas Schmidt, Doris Hermann, Chu Kwan Ngai, Chu Hoi Yan, Tse Wing iv Man and Lam Tung Wah for their linguistic insights; Jill Lestina for her patience and good humor as she signed my stimulus items over and over and over again; Kristi Win- ter for signing my instructions and being curious enough to help with data collection; and Robin Shay for answering all of my last minute questions with a smile. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Ruta Bajorunaite and Bruce Craig for all of their help with my statistical analysis; and to my fellow lab members for their assistance and support—especially Carolina Gonzalez and Donovan Grose for keeping me sane, Marie Nadolske for pushing me to sign more, and Christina Gifford for her fabulous work ethic and all of those hours at the computer. And for all of the friends who supported me (and even traveled great distances to cheer me on) in this pursuit that they didn’t always understand—thank you as well. A special thank you goes to Noemi for housing me, encouraging me, and providing me with cats to play with on my frequent trips to West Lafayette; to all of the folks at Purdue Lutheran Ministries for helping me keep my priorities straight; to Eirinn, Pieter and the rest of the madragali for giving me a musical escape during my time at Purdue; and to Chap and Jon for (among many other things) being crazy enough to want to read (and even proofread) this massive document so tangential to their own interests. Finally, I would like to thank my family, who continued to love me even at my most stressed. I am especially grateful to my mother who has always supported me in my academic pursuits (as in life) even in the most uncertain of times; and to Dennis, for sustaining me—physically and spiritually—through this and all of life’s challenges. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: viii ABBREVIATIONS :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: x ABSTRACT ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: xi 1 INTRODUCTION :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 2 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW ::::::::::::: 3 2.1 Handshape :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3 2.1.1 Phonological structure of handshape ::::::::::::: 4 2.1.2 Structural scope of this research :::::::::::::::: 6 2.2 Contrast types ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 6 2.3 Lexical stratification :::::::::::::::::::::::::: 10 2.3.1 Lexical components for sign languages :::::::::::: 11 2.3.2 Phonological behavior across the lexicon ::::::::::: 15 2.4 Iconicity ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 18 2.4.1 Iconicity debate: All or nothing :::::::::::::::: 19 2.4.2 Iconicity debate: Middle ground :::::::::::::::: 21 2.5 Cross-linguistic comparisons :::::::::::::::::::::: 22 2.6 Methodological approach :::::::::::::::::::::::: 23 3 INTERNAL EVIDENCE: DICTIONARY AND ELICITED DATA :::: 24 3.1 General methodology :::::::::::::::::::::::::: 25 3.2 Utilization of [stacked] joints :::::::::::::::::::::: 26 3.2.1 Language-internal distributions :::::::::::::::: 27 3.2.2 Contrast types ::::::::::::::::::::::::: 29 3.3 Utilization of three selected fingers :::::::::::::::::: 31 3.3.1 Language-internal distributions :::::::::::::::: 32 vi Page 3.3.2 Contrast types ::::::::::::::::::::::::: 37 3.4 Summary of [stacked] and 3FHS contrast differences ::::::::: 38 3.5 Handshape contrast across classifier types :::::::::::::: 39 3.5.1 Classifier types ::::::::::::::::::::::::: 39 3.5.2 Iconic representations via phonological features ::::::: 42 3.5.3 Feature asymmetries across classifier types :::::::::: 52 4 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: EXPERIMENTAL DATA ::::::::::: 59 4.1 Background ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 60 4.2 Methodology :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 62 4.2.1 Stimuli :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 62 4.2.2 Design :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 66 4.2.3 Participants ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 68 4.2.4 Procedure :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 68 4.3 Results :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 69 4.3.1 O handshape group ::::::::::::::::::::::: 69 4.3.2 F handshape group ::::::::::::::::::::::: 71 4.3.3 C handshape group ::::::::::::::::::::::: 73 4.4 Discussion :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 73 4.4.1 The minimal pair problem revisited :::::::::::::: 77 4.4.2 Predictions for language change :::::::::::::::: 79 4.4.3 Future experiments ::::::::::::::::::::::: 81 4.4.4 Theoretical implications :::::::::::::::::::: 82 5 OT ANALYSIS OF CONTRAST :::::::::::::::::::::: 84 5.1 Background ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 84 5.1.1 OT in general :::::::::::::::::::::::::: 84 5.1.2 OT and contrast :::::::::::::::::::::::: 85 5.1.3 OT and lexical stratification :::::::::::::::::: 86 5.1.4 OT and iconicity? :::::::::::::::::::::::: 87 vii Page 5.1.5 Challenges to the analysis (and disclaimer) :::::::::: 92 5.2 Constraints ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 93 5.2.1 Markedness constraints ::::::::::::::::::::: 93 5.2.2 Faithfulness constraints ::::::::::::::::::::: 99 5.3 Synchronic analyses ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 112 5.3.1 Selected Fingers ::::::::::::::::::::::::: 112 5.3.2 Joints :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 137 5.4 Diachronic Analyses :::::::::::::::::::::::::: 142 5.4.1 Selected fingers ::::::::::::::::::::::::: 142 5.4.2 Joints :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 144 5.4.3 Iconicity in core forms ::::::::::::::::::::: 146 5.5 Summary :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 147 6 CONCLUSION :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 150 LIST OF REFERENCES :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 153 A EXPERIMENTAL STIMULUS ITEMS ::::::::::::::::::: 160 B LIST OF PROPOSED CONSTRAINTS :::::::::::::::::: 162 VITA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 166 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 The phonological structure for handshape (Brentari, 1998). ::::: 5 2.2 Examples of joint configurations from Brentari (1998). ::::::: 5 2.3 Types of phonological contrast (following Clements, 2001). ::::: 9 2.4 Stratification of the ASL lexicon (Brentari and Padden, 2001). ::: 11 2.5 Examples of core lexical items. ::::::::::::::::::::: 12 2.6 Examples of fingerspelled letters (top) and initialized signs utilizing them (bottom). ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 14 2.7 Examples of classifier constructions. :::::::::::::::::: 15 2.8 Example handshape asymmetries across ASL lexical components (adapted from Brentari and Padden, 2001). ::::::::::::::::::: 16 3.1 Examples of plain and stacked handshapes. :::::::::::::: 26 3.2 Stimuli used to elicit stacked handshapes (Zwitserlood, 2003). ::: 27 3.3 The three-legged boy (left) and handshapes used to represent him (right). :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 33 3.4 Examples of three-finger handshapes (3FHSs) in the foreign, core and classifier components for ASL, DSGS and HKSL. :::::::::: 36 3.5 The phonological structure for handshape (Brentari, 1998). ::::: 43 3.6 Size representations. :::::::::::::::::::::::::: 44 3.7 WCLs representing whole object shape. :::::::::::::::: 45 3.8 Different sizes of similarly shaped objects via degree of base and non- base joint flexion. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 46 3.9 Fingertip arrangements depicting round and flat RP shapes (top) and perimeter classifiers combining these RP shapes with a curved surface shape (bottom). ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 47 3.10 DCL and HCL orderings for size and shape combinations. :::::: 49 3.11 Power vs. precision grips (based on Napier 1956). :::::::::: 51 ix Figure Page 3.12 Example handshapes from the four proposed classifier types. :::: 55 3.13 Continuum for joint and selected finger possibilities