The Symmetry and Dominance Conditions Reconsidered

Rachel Channon University of Maryland1

Introduction While most two-handed signs have the same handshape on both hands, some two-handed signs have different handshapes2. For example, in the ASL sign CREDIT-CARD, the strong hand (the right hand for a right handed signer) has a fist shape, while the weak hand has an open flat handshape. An important question in sign linguistics has been why the shape of the weak hand varies. I argue here that it is primarily controlled by phonetic factors interacting with phonology, specifically weak hand place features. Because handshapes are the data for this paper, I need to briefly explain my naming convention for handshapes. Researchers have used a variety of names for handshapes, but most of them are opaque to those unfamiliar with ASL signs. The names for handshapes used here are based on the initial letter of important digits3 (Thumb, Index, Middle, Ring, Pinky), and the degree of knuckle bending. I have used a broad categorization of knuckle bending as extended, bent, curved, ring, closed, and other. In general, if the important digits are extended, unmentioned digits will be closed, while if the important digits are closed, the unmentioned digits will be extended. For example, the open hand with all digits more or less extended is TIMRP-extended. The index finger extended from the fist is I-extended. The fist hand is TIMRP-closed. More complex handshapes will be mentioned and described as needed. These names are for convenience and transparency only and are not intended to function as features or feature groups4. This paper presents a theoretical proposal for treatment of the weak hand, and provides supporting data from five sources: the SignPhon database for NGT created by the Leiden group of phonologists (Harry van der Hulst, Onno Crasborn, Els van der Kooij and others), Stokoe's dictionary of ASL signs as transcribed by Daisuke Hara, a set of Japanese Sign Language signs from a paper dictionary also transcribed by Hara, my own knowledge of ASL, and signs mentioned on the Sign Language listserv. Battison’s Symmetry and Dominance Conditions: Literature review

1 Special thanks to Harry van der Hulst, Onno Crasborn and Els van der Kooij who gave me their database of NGT signs, and to Daisuke Hara who gave me a copy of his dissertation data on JSL and ASL. My thanks also to John Goldsmith, for pointing out some problems with the term physically easy, and to Jean Ann for an interesting discussion of the issues of physical ease. 2 American Sign Language is abbreviated as ASL, Japanese Sign language as JSL, and the Sign Language of The Netherlands as NGT or SLN. 3 Many researchers refer to this greater level of importance as being selected or significant, but I avoid this term here because this paper argues that determining importance for the weak hand may be a different process than for the strong hand, and fingers are not selected in the same way that they are on the strong hand. 4 I leave open the question as to exactly how handshape features are represented, but mention that one well known difficulty with using individual digits as features is that it predicts large numbers of finger combinations which do not occur.

Battison’s Symmetry Condition (1978) states that when both hands move independently, they will have the same handshape, place, orientation and movement. His Dominance Condition states that if the two hands have different handshapes then the weak hand will be passive and will have one of 5 handshapes: 1) TIMRP-extended with fingers spread or unspread, and the thumb in various postures (also called a B or 5 handshape, based on Stokoe’s sign notation and ASL fingerspelling), 2) TIMRP-curved (C-hand), 3) TIMRP-ring: thumb and fingers touching at tips (O-hand), 4) TIMRP-closed: a fist with the thumb either restraining the fingers or beside the fingers, (A or S hand), 5) I-extended: the index finger extended from the fist (G or 1-hand). Battison proposed that signs can be categorized as follows: Type 0: One-handed signs in neutral space, no body contact Type X: one handed signs with body contact (except for weak hand) Type 1: two-handed, both hands active, identical actions (Signs that obey the Symmetry Condition) Type 2: Non-symmetrical two-handed signs where both hands have the same handshape Type 3: non-symmetrical signs with different handshapes. Type C: compounds which cross categories (most compounds do not) Sandler 1993 van der Hulst 1996 van der Kooij 2002 Napoli & wu 2004 Brentari 1998XX Napoli and Wu (2004) proposed that 2 handed signs can be divided into a number of categories from types 1 to 7 (their categories do not match the types proposed by Battison and used here). They propose that in fact almost all two-handed ASL signs have some form of symmetry,

(11) Expanded Dominance Condition:

In a two-handed sign in which the hands have different shape, the nondominant

hand must have an unmarked shape.

Movement Symmetry Condition:

In two-handed signs in which the hands have the same shape and both move,

the positions of the hands along their respective paths at the relevant times must

be (a) identical, or (b) inverse. Complexity Condition on Handshape:

The greater the complexity of a two-handed transformation sign, the more

likely the sign is to use unmarked handshapes and to reflect across the unmarked

plane. Markedness Condition on Handshape change:

With the exception of (glide) reflection across the midsaggital plane, only signs

in which the hands move independently exhibit handshape change.

(4) Reflection Condition:

In reflection signs (a) the hands must be on the same position along their respective

paths at the relevant times (as in Type 4 signs), or (b) the hands must

exhibit inversion (as in Type 4-i signs).

Rotation Condition

In a sign involving rotation symmetry, the hands must (a) exhibit inversion,

and (b) (almost) touch at least at the points before and after the movement.

Translation Condition:

(9) Translation Condition (final formulation)

In a translation sign, the hands are always at the same point (a) on a single path,

moving as a unit, or (b) on their respective parallel paths.

Glide Reflection Condition.

In a glide reflection, the hands must always be on the same position along their

respective paths at the relevant times A second categorization divides two-handed signs into balanced and unbalanced signs (van der Hulst 1996). Balanced signs are equivalent to Type 1 signs and have also been called echo articulators (Sandler 1993). In unbalanced signs (= Type 2 and 3), the weak hand functions as a place for the strong hand articulator. Balanced signs always have the same handshape; some unbalanced signs have different handshapes. The Symmetry Condition, which covers most of the signs that fall under this branch of the Weak Hand Rule, has also been independently argued to be a cognitive, non-linguistic, constraint by Van der Gijn, Kita and van der Hulst (to appear), for an entirely different reason: because both signs and similar two-handed gestures of non-signers appear to fall under this condition. (Note that I am arguing that the preference for the same handshape is a cognitive phonetic constraint that covers type 2 signs as well as the type 1 signs covered by the Symmetry Condition that they examine.) Problem statement The Symmetry and Dominance Conditions have generally been assumed to be part of the phonology of sign languages, but there are several problems. First, these constraints appear to be universal. Although these rules were originally formulated for ASL, they appear to hold for all studied sign languages, including NGT and JSL: no researcher to date has proposed any sign language as a counterexample to these two very famous conditions. This suggests that either these constraints are evidence of some innate phonological knowledge, or more probably, that they are the surface manifestations of inherent phonetic constraints on the use of two hands. Second, the two constraints are not explanatory: Why are both hands the same? Why are there only these five possible weak hand shapes? Third, if a sign falls in the domain of the Dominance Condition, the signer is still left with five alternative handshapes, with no way of choosing between them.

Fourth, there are some exceptions to the Dominance Condition. For example, the ASL sign SKIP-CLASS uses I-extended on the strong hand to strike the flexed middle finger of the weak hand (M-bent), where the other weak hand digits are extended. This bent middle finger handshape is completely different from any of the weak handshapes listed in the Dominance Condition. A number of signs have been mentioned in the literature as having an extended index and middle. For example, in CHOOSE the strong thumb and index together (TI-ring) contacts in turn the index and middle of the weak IM-extended hand. Other exceptions have also been mentioned for various languages in recent discussions on the Sign Language listserv. Proposed change: The Weak Hand Rule I propose to replace both the Symmetry and Dominance Conditions with a simpler, more explanatory, and more unified rule:

(1) Weak Hand Rule: The weak hand assumes the phonetically easiest handshape which does not conflict with any underlying weak hand place features.

A more general, but still true statement is that the weak hand shape is phonetically determined unless it conflicts with any underlying phonological material. Because various researchers may have somewhat different understandings of the terms phonology and phonetics, and because these terms are important for this paper, I will here outline my understanding of them. The realm divided up between phonology and phonetics is the encoding (or mental representation), decoding, and physical instantiation of the units that make up the morphemes of a language. Within this realm, phonology is involved in the mental coding or representing of any element of a sign, or any factor affecting the production of a sign which is idiosyncratic and must be specified as part of the representation of the particular sign, a particular subset of signs or a particular language. For example, the sign CREDIT-CARD has a particular strong handshape which must have a phonological representation, because a different handshape would produce a different meaning (DANCE uses IM-extended, CLEAN uses TIMRP-extended). As another example, it appears that certain handshapes occur in some languages and not others, and if so, this may be a phonological constraint of the languages in question. On the other hand, many constraints, including the Symmetry and Dominance Conditions, appear to be universal across all sign languages. This strongly suggests that they are phonetic. Conceivably such constraints could be evidence of some aspect of a universal grammar, but this would seem to be a hypothesis which should only be entertained if there is no sensible phonetic reason for the constraint, or if the constraint bore a striking likeness to some spoken language constraint for which good evidence had been found to show that it was a phonological constraint of a universal grammar. Phonetics, which covers everything in this realm which is not phonological, has three major branches: 1) cognitive: those elements and factors affecting a phonological representation which are caused by general cognitive constraints, such as a cognitive preference for simpler representations or a cognitive preference for doing only one thing at a time, 2) articulatory: those elements and factors affecting a phonological representation which are based on the articulatory facts of a human body operating in a world with certain physical limitations such as gravity, or the concept that an object

cannot be in two places at the same time, or that a muscle can only operate comfortably within a certain range of motion, or that for an object to be touched, it must be accessible, that is, not covered up by another part of the body, (as when the palm is inaccessible because the hand is in a fist); 3) perceptual: those elements and factors affecting a phonological representation which are based on the perceptual abilities of both signer/speaker and watcher/listener. That is, a canonical viewer cannot perceive signs made behind the signer’s back, and a deaf person cannot hear any part of a sign, such as a clapping sound, or a spoken word. Less absolutely necessary restrictions may also occur, as in a preference for keeping the hand away from the eyes and mouth so that their actions can be perceived (Siple 1980), or a preference that the place at which a sign is made be prominent or clearly marked as the place, so that the viewer does not wonder whether for example, the index finger or the pinky is the place, but rather knows that the index finger must be the place because it and it alone is extended from the fist. My goal here is to try to tease out the phonetic aspects of the weak hand, and to give reasonable answers to the question of why the weak hand behaves as it does. I am only indirectly concerned with the phonological representation of these signs, in that pointing out what aspects of the weak hand are phonetic, removes those characteristics from the phonological representation. Insofar as some element is a part of the phonology, there is a sense in which asking why is almost meaningless – this is something that must be memorized. But insofar as something is phonetic, then we can sensibly ask the question as to what is causing an observed event or variation. To give an example of what I mean, the sign MOTHER is made by contacting the chin with the thumb of the TIMRP-extended hand. The chin place, the handshape, and probably the thumb contact-point are all phonological facts that must be coded or represented when the signer learns the sign. But other parts of this sign do not need to be learned. The orientation of the hand is a phonetic fact about this sign. This can be demonstrated by pointing out that orientations of the hand where the palm faces contralaterally and the fingers point straight up are acceptable, and orientations of the hand where the palm faces down are also acceptable, as well as a variety of orientations along a continuum between these two orientations. What is not acceptable is an orientation with the fingers pointing straight down, or with the palm facing up. Anyone who tries to hold their thumb on the chin can easily discover why these orientations are not acceptable. They are either physically impossible or painful. We can therefore sensibly ask two questions: Why is the orientation of this sign what it is? Why is more than one orientation acceptable? The answer to the first question is that the orientation of the hand is caused by articulatory requirements for physically possible and comfortable orientations, and the answer to the second question is that there is more than one possible orientation because orientation for this sign is not a part of the phonological representation and therefore there is nothing to prevent phonetic variation5.

5 A full explanation of the orientation variations of this sign would also note that the palm normally faces somewhere between down and sideways, probably because of the perceptual preference for keeping the face visible (Siple 1980), as well as the more comfortable angle of the wrist when the palm faces somewhere between sideways and down.

In the rest of this paper, therefore, I will give a similar kind of phonetic explanation for the questions: What are the possible handshapes for a weak hand in signs? When can a particular kind of weak handshape occur? Why do these handshapes occur? Factors affecting the weak hand shape I argue here that there are three primary explanations for the shape of the weak hand, as well as a few other factors involved in a small number of signs. These three explanations are 1) a cognitively based preference for both handshapes to be the same; 2) an articulatory requirement for access to the weak hand place; and 3) a perceptual requirement (which may also be articulatory) that the weak hand place be sufficiently prominent. In addition, a small number of signs appear to require a place shape feature, and an even smaller number appear to have two or more simultaneously expressed places. Signs where both hands have the same handshape In the simplest case, the weak hand in a two handed sign does not conflict with the phonology because there is no conflicting weak hand place. This is the case for all signs picked out by the Symmetry Condition (Type 1 or balanced signs). Such signs always have the same handshape on both hands. Most of these signs are made in neutral space and probably have no underlying place, but even when they are made on the body, these places have no requirements that conflict with using the same handshape. In Type 2 signs, although there is a weak hand place, it does not conflict with the strong handshape, so the handshapes will also be the same. Some ASL examples are RIGHT (I-extended), SISTER (I-extended), and UMBRELLA (TIMRP-closed). It cannot be the case that using the same handshape on both hands is always the physically easiest choice. Using the same handshape on both hands often involves relatively complex handshapes, as in the type 1 sign ANALYZE, with IM-extended changing to IM-bent repeatedly. The choice to use the same handshape on both hands appears to be in obedience to a cognitive limit: one thing at a time. Because it is not a question of what is physically easiest, it might seem at first glance that this constraint is not phonetic, but phonological. But this is unlikely. A preference for simplicity, and for attending to only one event, seems to be a widespread mental tendency, which means that it is not a constraint specific to linguistic activity. Furthermore, this condition appears to be particularly important when the body parts involved are symmetrical. It is not particularly difficult to talk (or chew gum) while walking. But it is quite difficult to let the legs dangle and attempt to rotate one leg while moving the other one back and forth, or to try to rub the stomach while patting the head. While I leave the formal representations for future research, I would suggest that these signs must have some feature such as the [weak-hand] proposed by van der Hulst (1996), but that no other information about the weak hand is provided in the representation for these signs. Because the representation says nothing more about the weak hand, signers select the cognitively simplest choice and use the same handshape that occurs on the strong hand. Type 3 signs – phonological requirements in conflict with phonetic values Some two-handed signs, however, do not have the same handshape as the strong hand. These are the type 3 signs, and in the following sections, I discuss in turn the factors that determine the handshape for these signs: access, prominence, place shape, and multiple places. These are the factors that seem to me to be involved, although there may be others

as yet undetermined. In many cases, it appears that more than one of these factors is involved, and it is not always possible to decide which ones are responsible for the surface shape. The order of presentation here does not imply that one factor occurs before another factor, but is rather based on their apparent degree of importance, with the factors which seem to affect the most signs presented first. 1. The weak hand place must be accessible. In some cases, using the same handshape as the strong hand may conflict with physical access to the underlying weak hand place. The resolution of this conflict is to use the phonetically easiest handshape that allows access. Most commonly this will be TIMRP-extended. For example, the strong hand for CREDIT-CARD is TIMRP-closed (the fist). The weak hand place is the palm side of the hand. If the weak hand were also a fist, then it would be impossible to access, that is, touch, the palm side of the hand. The signer therefore selects the phonetically easiest handshape which does allow access, which is TIMRP-extended. There are two parts of this statement that must be discussed: access and the question of phonetically easiest. TIMRP-extended has an important characteristic: it allows all parts of the hand to be reasonably accessible (although other handshapes may provide better access if the weak hand place is a digit or the flat part of the back of the hand, as will be discussed below). TIMRP-extended may also be the articulatorily easiest handshape, provided that “extended” is understood to mean some approximation to extension where all knuckles are actually slightly flexed. Greftegreff (1993) points out that TIMRP-extended is the shape assumed when the hand is at rest, which suggests that this is the physically easiest handshape. However, Ann (1996 and to appear) has argued that TIMRP-closed is actually the easiest. She states that flexing the digits is easier than extending them, for a number of reasons including the interesting points that babies are born with their hands flexed (citing Boyes-Braem 1991 and Halverson 1937); that certain early reflexes involve flexion; and that in sleep our hands are loosely flexed. She argues that hand configuration can be ranked for physical ease as closed – bent - extended - curved, with closed as the easiest. She also classifies handshapes into 3 basic categories: easy, hard, and impossible, where impossible signs rarely or never occur in Taiwanese Sign Language or ASL. Although TIMRP-closed is considered the easiest, all TIMRP handshapes are considered easy (as compared to handshapes where there are two groups of digits which have contrasting configurations such as closed and extended). It is possible therefore, that TIMRP-extended is the most common handshape for type 3 weak hands not because it is articulatorily easiest, but only because it is the handshape with the highest degree of access to the most common (type and token) weak hand places. Or it may be that this is a kind of trade-off between physically easy and accessible. TIMRP obviously provides better access to the palm side of the hand than TIMRP-closed, so that it may be chosen as the physically easiest handshape which allows access. However, it is also possible that this is a case where phonology and phonetics do not match one to one. That is, it may be the case that the handshape labeled TIMRP-extended is actually two different kinds of events. On the strong hand, it is represented in the underlying phonology as a handshape with an underlying feature [extended] (or some other feature that produces this result). But, if I am correct, the weak hand has no unitary

underlying representation - there is no phonological weak handshape per se, although there can be weak hand places (in types 2 and 3), and therefore there is no underlying [extended] feature. Since there are no phonological directions for either extension or flexion, the hand assumes the articulatorily easiest form, which I would tentatively propose might be none of Ann’s 4 configurations, but rather a loosely flexed form. Then, due to access and prominence constraints (prominence is discussed below) this loosely flexed form may become a somewhat less flexed posture, so that it surfaces as a loose version of a TIMRP-extended handshape. For example, in the case of CREDIT-CARD, because the strong hand must move across the weak palm from wrist to fingertips and back, the hand will tend to straighten out, to make it easier for the strong hand to achieve good contact with all parts. The resolution of what exactly is the articulatorily easiest form therefore needs further research, as well as the question of exactly how significant this is in the selection of the weak hand. For my purposes here, it is probably sufficient to say that the default shape of the hand will be a loosely flexed or loosely extended TIMRP handshape, whether this result is due to articulatory ease, or to access and prominence requirements, or to a mix of the these factors, which may even vary by sign, if access and prominence requirements vary. Visibility/Prominence Conflicts The third phonetic constraint is that the weak hand place must be visible or prominent. Using the strong handshape may interfere with place visibility. If so, the phonetically easiest handshape which still highlights the underlying place will be used. Digit Place Prominence A digit place can be made prominent in one of two ways: 1) by extending the place digit(s), while closing all others, or 2) by partially flexing the place digit(s), while extending all others. When a digit, such as the index, is extended, and the others completely flexed, the extended digit will be visible from all sides, and will be clearly separated from all others. The flexed digits will be visible only from the back, and will merge into a relatively shapeless and indeterminate mass with the palm of the hand, in such a way that neither they nor the palm can be clearly distinguished from each other. On the other hand, partially flexing the place digit at the big knuckle, and extending the others also provides prominence, but not as much. While the partially flexed digits are still prominent, the extended digits now compete for attention because they are not folded into the palm in a shapeless mass. Extension will therefore be preferred (all other things being equal), because it provided more prominence than flexion. Note also that either choice will provide a greater degree of access to a digit place than any TIMRP handshape, including TIMRP-extended. Extending the thumb, index, pinky, or index and middle together, are all relatively easy articulatorily. Even when the other digits are closed all the way into the palm, the action is easy enough that it is not necessary to restrain the closed fingers with the thumb. Ann (1991, 1992, and 1996) points out that the thumb, index and pinky all have separate muscles which allow independent extension. The middle and ring fingers, however, are a different story. Ann notes that they do not have separate extensor muscles, so that independent extension is very difficult. This can also be seen by the need to physically restrain the closed or flexed digits, when attempting to extend the middle or ring. Furthermore, while it is possible to partially

extend the ring (at middle and small knuckles) if the other fingers are restrained by the thumb, to fully extend the ring in this situation is impossible for at least some people. While extending the middle is not as difficult, it can still be noted that the middle cannot be easily extended at all knuckles, when the other fingers are completely closed, unless the other fingers are restrained with the thumb. The extended middle also tends to flex at the large knuckle, which suggests that it is physically more difficult than extending thumb, index, index and middle, or pinky6. Given that extension is articulatorily easy for the thumb, index, index and middle, and pinky, and given that this provides a higher degree of visual prominence, I therefore predict that when these digits are the place, they will extend. For example, the sign PRACTICE (strong hand TIMRP-closed) extends the index, because this provides the highest level of prominence for the index finger place at a small articulatory cost. But, when the middle or ring is the place, they will use the slightly less visually prominent choice of flexion, because extension is difficult to impossible. I know of exactly one example of a Type 3 sign with a middle finger place: SKIP-CLASS, which, as predicted, has a flexed middle finger. (Note that this means that the Weak Hand Rule is able to explain a sign which is not covered by the Dominance Condition.) I do not know of any signs that use the ring finger as a place. However, there are two signs that are close: ASL ENGAGEMENT and NGT TROUWEN (married). These signs use not the ring finger, but the bottom of the ring finger as a place. In this case, a different prediction must be made. Extension is ruled out, as above, because of the extreme articulatory difficulty. However, flexion is also ruled out. Although flexion would provide a moderate level of prominence to the ring finger as a whole or to the tip of the ring finger, it would actually reduce the prominence for the bottom of the ring finger, because flexion would hide the bottom of the finger between the extended middle and pinky. It would also reduce the accessibility of the bottom of the ring finger if access is from above. ENGAGEMENT is accessed by the strong hand from above (the strong hand moves in a spiraling motion toward, and then contacts the ring area). TROUWEN appears to be accessed from the front (the thumb and index of the strong hand appear to mime putting a ring on the ring finger). In both cases, the weak hand is a spread version of TIMRP-extended. Presumably spreading provides somewhat increased accessibility, as well as some sense that the fingers are not to be thought of a unitary place. Back of the hand The back of the hand is another possible place. Here it is necessary to distinguish between signs where the whole back of the hand or the back of the fingers are the place, as opposed to those signs where the place is the flat part of the back of the hand (the back of the palm). If the weak hand place is specified as the whole back of the hand, or the back of the fingers then TIMRP-extended is predicted. This handshape is at least one of

6 In addition, there is an social constraint against middle finger extension, such that, at least in ASL, only signs which have the socially restricted meaning, have this handshape (and I know of no such sign where the middle finger of the weak hand is extended while the strong hand has some other handshape). However, other languages I have examined (JSL and NGT) seem to avoid middle finger extension as well, so it seems unlikely that this social constraint is actually a significant factor.

the articulatorily easiest, and there does not appear to be any other handshape which would provide any higher degree of prominence to either the whole back of the hand, or to the back of the fingers. Because no particular finger is specified, any handshape which provides varying levels of prominence for different fingers is ruled out. This means that the only possible handshapes are those where all fingers behave the same, that is, a TIMRP handshape: extended, curved, ring or closed. But TIMRP-ring, TIMRP-curved and TIMRP-closed would decrease prominence for parts of the back of the hand, and in addition TIMRP-ring is clearly a more complex handshape. This leaves TIMRP-extended, so the Weak Hand Rule predicts that signs where the place is the back of the hand or the back of the fingers will have a weak TIMRP-extended shape. An ASL example is FORCE, where the strong hand, changing from TIMRP-ring to TIMRP-extended, moves, as predicted, across the back of the TIMRP-extended weak hand. However, if the weak hand place is only the flat part of the back of the hand, not including the fingers, then a flexed to closed hand is predicted, because this provide the greatest prominence for that place, by de-emphasizing the fingers. In ASL there appears to be some degree of variation for at least some signs with this place, such that the sign can be made either with loosely flexed or closed fingers. The flexed fingers may be slightly easier, while the fist handshape provides a slightly greater degree of prominence, but the differences in degree for both characteristics (articulatory ease and prominence) is so slight that neither one is decisive and therefore variation occurs. I have observed such variation for NATURAL (strong hand IM-extended) which can be made with either a fist or flexed weak hand. Place shape conflicts A fourth factor is that some signs have a place shape feature which must be expressed. I propose that there are at least two such shapes: [curved] and [ring]7, but further research may show that [flat] and [closed] are also shape features. Place shapes can be seen in signs like GROW and TEA. In GROW, the strong TIMRP-ring hand moves up (while changing to TIMRP-extended) through the weak TIMRP-curved hand. If we assume that the weak hand place is the palm side of the hand8, the curved handshape does not provide higher prominence or greater accessibility for the weak hand place, but rather the reverse. However, if we assume that there is an underlying feature [curved], then the curved hand certainly expresses this feature. The case is similar for a [ring] feature for a sign like TEA, where the strong TI-ring hand moves up and down into the ring created by a weak TIMRP-ring hand. Van der Kooij (2002) has proposed that the weak hand shapes of similar NGT signs can be explained through iconic motivation. Etymologically, there is iconic motivation for both the ASL and NGT signs, but it is not necessary to refer to this iconicity synchronically, provided that we accept that some weak hand places include feature specifications for place shape. This solution seems more satisfactory to me, because introducing iconicity into the phonology can cause serious problems (see Channon 2002), as well as requiring an unusual theoretical construct (iconic prespecification) not

7 It is possible that [ring] is actually [curved] plus [closed], but I leave that for further research. 8 It seems likely that the place in this handshape is actually not on the weak hand at all, but rather is the space enclosed by the weak hand when it makes a ring. However, this does not affect the argument.

apparently required in spoken languages. Place shapes however, seem rather similar to the spoken language feature [retroflex], which controls the shape of the tongue. Two Places Finally, there are a few signs which appear to have more than one underlying weak hand place on two different digits. In all of the cases I have seen, the digits are isolated from each other by spreading them. ASL examples are CHOICE and SECOND (index and middle), and THEN and ANGLE (thumb and index). The digits are extended, and touched in turn, except for SECOND, where only the middle is contacted. Given the meaning of these words which imply either a mental or physical event with two elements (two choices, two events or two lines at some angle to each other), it seems reasonable to suggest that these signs have two underlying places. There are a number of signs with two places, such as DEAF and WOMAN. The only difference here is that both places are presented simultaneously. Yhis is in fact attested in one other sign SICK An interesting set of signs is used to specify the year in college: ASL PREPRATORY, FRESHMAN, SOPHOMORE, JUNIOR, SENIOR. Here all digits, not just two, are extended and spread, and in each individual sign, only one digit is contacted. For example, the thumbtip is contacted to indicate SENIOR. Each digit represents a separate place which in turn represents an ordinal number: the first to fifth year of college. This is an unusual set of signs both because it appears that there are 5 individual places (the tip of each digit) , and because this is one of the few cases in which some of the underlying places are not contacted (SECOND is another example). For example, in signing SOPHOMORE, the middle finger only is touched, but all 5 digits are extended and spread. Summary and Conclusion The Weak Hand Rule states that preferably, the weak hand is the same as the strong hand because that is cognitively easiest, thus explaining all type 1 and 2 signs. In type 3 signs, where the weak hand is different from the strong hand, the shape is determined by three factors: Weak hand place(s) must be accessible. Weak hand place(s) must be visible or prominent. Any underlying place feature, including place shape features, and multiple places, must be expressed. Most type 3 signs use a relaxed TIMRP-extended, because it allows for the highest level of access for most weak hand places, while also being articulatorily easy (perhaps easiest, but this awaits further research). If the weak hand place is the thumb, index, index and middle, or the pinky, the digit(s) will be extended, and all other digits will be closed. If the place is the middle or ring, the finger will be flexed, but not closed, and all other digits will be extended. These choices provide the highest possible level of prominence and access, at the least possible articulatory cost. If the weak handshape cannot be accounted for on the basis of prominence, access, and phonetic ease, then a weak hand place shape must be assumed, such as [curved] or [ring], and the etymology of the sign should show a historic iconicity related to this shape. One important issue that is left unresolved here is the hierarchy of phonetic constraints. The Weak Hand Rule does not itself specify whether cognitive or articulatory or

perceptual constraints are more significant, although it appears that the cognitive constraint on doing only one thing at a time is a very important determiner of weak hand shape. What this article proposes is that there are characteristics of signs which on the surface appear to be phonological, but when examined more carefully, they turn out to be explainable on phonetic grounds. Specifically, there is little about the weak hand which is actually a part of the phonological representation for the vast majority of two-handed signs. For a relatively small subset of two-handed signs, a weak hand place must be specified, but even for these signs, many characteristics of the weak hand turn out to be phonetically determined. This seems to me an important result, because one of the most difficult tasks in studying a new language is separating out the phonetic from the phonological, and this task is made even more difficult for sign languages, due to the difference in modality. Yet it is only when we have separated out the phonetic from the phonological in signs that we will have arrive at a non-redundant representation, which is an important first step in understanding the phonology of signed languages. References Ann, Jean. 1991. Constraining sign language handshapes: Towards a phonetically grounded

account of handshapes in Taiwan Sign Language and American Sign Language. Proceedings of WECOL.

Ann, Jean. 1992. Physiological constraints in Taiwan Sign Language handshape-change. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 15: 2, pp. 143-158

Ann, Jean. 1996. On the relation between ease of articulation and frequency occurrence of handshapes in two sign languages. In: Lingua. Special issue on "Sign linguistics: Phonetics, phonology and morpho-syntax" 98: 1-3 (1996) - pp. 19-42.

Ann, Jean. To appear. A Functional Explanation of Taiwan Sign Language Handshape Frequency. Journal of Language and Linguistics.

Battison, Robbin. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok.

Boyes-Braem, Penny K. (1990) Acquisition of the Handshape in American Sign Language: a preliminary analysis. In V. Volterra and C. Erting. From Gesture to Language in hearing and deaf children. Springer Series in Language and Communication 27. Berlin: Springer.

Channon, Rachel. 2002. Signs are single segments: Phonological representations and temporal sequencing in ASL and other sign languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Gijn I. van, Kita, S. and H.G. van der Hulst (to appear). The non-linguistic status of the Symmetry Condition in signed language: Evidence from a comparison of signs and spontaneous co-speech gesture.

Greftegreff, Irene. 1993. A few notes on anatomy and distinctive features in NTS handshapes. In: Working Papers in Linguistics, 17, pp. 46-66

Halverson, H.M. 1937. Studies on the grasping response of early infancy. Journal of Genetic Psychology 51, 393-424.

Hulst, Harry van der. 1996. On the other hand. Lingua 98. p.121-144. Kooij, Els van der. 2002. Phonological Categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The Role

of Phonetic Implementation and Iconicity. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University, The Netherlands.

Sandler, Wendy. 1993. Hand in hand: The roles of the nondominant hand in sign language phonology. Linguistic Review 10, pp. 337-390.

Siple, Patricia. 1980. Visual Constraints for Sign Language Communication. In Stokoe, William. Sign and Culture: A reader for students of American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok.

Stokoe, William C., Dorothy C. Casterline and Carl G. Croneberg. 1965, reprinted 1976. A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.

Hara, Daisuke. 2003. A Complexity-Based Approach to the Syllable Formation in Sign

Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Ann, Jean. 1993. A Linguistic Investigation of the Relationship between Physiology and

Handshape. PhD Dissertation, University of Arizona. Tucson. Bickford XXX Mandel, Mark A. 1981. Phonotactics and morphophonology in ASL. Ann Arbor, Michigan:

U.M.I. 1981 - ix, Univ. of California, Berkeley Dissertation Japan Institute for Sign Language Studies (ed.). 1997. The Japanese-Japanese Sign Language

Dictionary. Tokyo, Japan: Federation of the Deaf. Addendum: One or two articulators An obvious difference between spoken and signed languages is that sign languages are articulated with the hands instead of the mouth. This being so, it might appear that a more abstract statement of this difference would be that at least some signs, those articulated with two hands, are using two active, independent and highly variable articulators, which would contrast with the spoken language situation where there is one active, and highly variable articulator, the tongue, as well as much more limited subsidiary articulators, such as the velum, glottis, and jaw. Whether this is a correct interpretation of the facts has been an issue that has been discussed in the literature, with many researchers agreeing that in fact, sign is like speech in having only one major articulator, which has variously been called the strong or dominant hand (for right-handed signers, normally the right hand), with the weak or non-dominant hand functioning as an echo articulator or as a place of articulation depending on the sign. This issue is indirectly relevant to the points of this article. If my argument is correct, then there is little or no reason to see the weak hand as a secondary articulator. In the majority of cases, it simply mirrors the strong hand, perhaps functioning as a kind of perceptual amplifier (see Siple 1980 who pointed out that places further away from the primary area of visual focus are more likely to have two hands). It is probably significant that there are very few minimal pairs which contrast only with respect to the number of hands. A number of these signs have an alternating motion, which is probably not a redundant characteristic. If a feature [alternating] is required, then for all such signs [two-hands] is superfluous. However, other signs such as COLD, DEER, PRESIDENT cannot be as clearly shown not to require some such [two-hand] feature. One of my consultants claims that ASL is changing to a one-handed language. The additional articulatory effort involved in moving two arms is probably finely balanced against the reduction of perceptual effort or visual amplification achieved with two hands. The presence of Weak Drop also suggests that in many cases the second hand, especially when it carries no more information than the mere fact of being a second hand, is redundant information. Thus the prediction is that when the two hands are moving independently without contact, weak drop will be highly favored in all but the most

formal of situations, because in these cases, the presence of the weak hand adds no other information to the sign, beyond the feature [two-hand]. A formal situation is exactly the situation where the most information is required, the fewest presuppositions can be made about the listener’s understanding, and where visual amplification will be especially valuable. A second set of two-handed signs does have one additional bit of information beyond [two hands], and that is contact, as in SHOE, AMERICA, BUTTERFLY and FRIEND. In this case, it would be predicted that Weak Drop would be less likely to occur, because there is at least one non-redundant piece of information, which is [contact]. Whether [two hands] is also required is unclear, but seems unlikely, since the point of contact appears to be distinctive and therefore required (SHOES vs WITH vs MAKE is a near minimal triple, and FRIEND and SAME are another near minimal pair). In other cases, the weak hand is clearly functioning as a relatively non-mobile place. The weak hand appears to have three possible functions. First, it may function as an echo articulator or amplifier. Second, it may function in a situation where neither hand is the primary articulator and neither hand is strong or weak, but both hands perform as a single unit. Thirdly, the weak hand may function as a place. There is no question that these signs to a greater or lesser extent have an iconic history, and that this iconicity is noticeable and usable for mature users of the language, and can be used to enrich and deepen their use of these signs in the same way that our knowledge of the etymology of spoken words can also enrich our use of these words. The test case here would be to observe young users of the language who are not yet familiar with the iconic motivation of these or similar words. Are these users inconsistent in their weak handshapes and does the achievement of consistent weak handshapes correlate with their increased understanding of the iconic history of these signs? (Since weak hand place shapes are probably somewhat marked (because most places, such as forehead or chest) could not use a place shape, because places such as forehead or chest do not have the necessary mobility to assume different shapes), it seems likely that the child would acquire place shapes fairly late, so the difficulty would be to tease apart late acquisition of a marked feature vs. late acquisition of iconic understanding) Examples: [curved] ASL: GROW NGT: TEA [ring] ASL: TEA, SPIRIT, VOTE NGT: HOTEL, EXHAUSTED Problematic signs in NGT and ASL NGT BESCHRIJVING/description 173617363 weak hand is extended TIMRP but contact is on middle and index only but handshapes only differ in bending strong hand is bent, weak is extended. Probably not a type 3 sign VINGERS/fingers 152 1434 weak hand is spread strong hand is TI with ti touching in grasping posture. Strong hand starts at pinky then ends at thumb – clearly selecting digits one by one TROUWEN marry weak hand is spread strong hand is TI ring

Battison’s original formulation lists 7 possible handshapes:B, A, S, C, O, 1 and 5. I have condensed these to five by grouping the B and 5, and the A and S handshapes together. The correspondences are as follows: open: B/5, curved: C, ring: O, fist: A/S, and index extended: 1. The only difference between a B and 5 handshape is that the B handshape has unspread fingers and the thumb can be folded into the palm or held next to the index finger. For most signs, these differences do not appear to be distinctive, but even if they were, the difference can be attributed to a feature [spread] which, if it is shown to be distinctive, would require a separate rule. Likewise, as Stokoe (19XX) observed, the difference between A and S (fist handshapes with the thumb next to or slightly extended from the fist and a fist with the the thumb holding down the fingers) is not distinctive. In general the thumb position is predictable from whether or not there is contact with the body or other hand in which case the thumb will generally be in the position which keeps it out of the way. For example, in ASL SORRY, the thumb is in the A form, tucked next to the fist, because the contact with the chest is made with the palm side of the fist. On the other hand, in SHOES, the thumbs have the S position, restraining the fingers, because the contact is on the index-side of each fist, and fists with the thumb in the A-position would tend to strike each other somewhat awkwardly on the last knuckle of the thumb. It must be observed however, that there are a few cases where the thumb is significantly extended from the fist in a way that suggests that the thumb and only the thumb is the selected digit (as in the sign TEN, REMEMBER and SWEETHEART. However, I would argue that the position of the weak hand thumb should be predictable based on the factors discussed in this paper Table 2 Database codes for handshapes SF Shape Database Codes from SignPhon and Hara

Bent 1-b c09 c12 X I Extended 1 c01 c03 c20 G Bent d06 e04 e06 e09 e12 H-BENT H-FLAT U-b U-f V-b V-BENT Extended d03 e03 H R U V V.U

IM

Other K m03 m04 Bent W-b Closed b15

IMR

Extended k18 W Bent b06 B4-FLAT Closed a16 curve/grasp

E

IMRP

Extended 4 b03 B4 f03 IP Extended 78 78-f e16 M Bent 8 f17 P Bent c19 I-b

Extended CH I R Bent 7 7(S)

Bent A-b A-BENT T Extended A (JSL) A-THUMB Bent c04 c05 c06 c08 c11 c13 Closed a06 c10 L-f L-f(LAX) L-FLAT curve/grasp

g04 g05 h01 h02 h04 h05 h06 l01 l02 l04 l05 l06 L-b L-BENT m07

Extended c02 L Other T

TI

Ring c07 F g01 g07 k01 k04 k05 k07 k10 l03 Bent 3-b 3-BENT e05 e08 e11 Closed 3-f 3-FLAT curve/grasp

g14

Extended 3 e02

TIM

Other e17 Bent 5-b 5-BENT a04 a05 b04 b05 b07 B4-b B4-f B-b f04

f10 f11 f12 f13 f14 f15 Closed A (ASL) a01 a02 a03 B-f B-FLAT m09 S curve/grasp

C f05 f08 f09 g11 i02 i03 i04 i14 j01 j02 j04 j05 j06 m02 m05

Extended 5 B B(LAX) B.'5 b01 b02 f01 f02 g02 m01 m05

TIMRP

Ring i01 i07 i10 i13 j03 O TIP extended 78-b

bent 8-f TM Ring k15

TMRP Ring m19 m20 TP Extended c18 Y TR Bent 7-f Table 3 Strong and Weak Handshapes in databases

Strong Handshapes Weak Handshapes Selected Fingers

Shape ASL JSL NGT ASL JSL NGT

Totals

TIMRP Extended 464 758 691 534 793 475 3715 29.8%TIMRP Closed 304 332 455 165 218 212 1686 13.5%I Extended 256 350 338 129 126 65 1264 10.1%

TIMRP curve/grasp 101 48 575 44 65 236 1069 8.6%TI Ring 82 133 355 39 61 105 775 6.2%TIMRP Bent 34 161 281 23 94 101 694 5.6%IM Extended 172 181 107 47 47 21 575 4.6%TI curve/grasp 20 57 194 9 28 40 348 2.8%TIMRP Ring 104 52 64 69 31 17 337 2.7%I Bent 85 42 70 31 13 21 262 2.1%TI Closed 20 136 28 3 70 2 259 2.1%TI Bent 181 35 216 1.7%T Extended 5 90 79 174 1.4%TI Extended 29 64 11 10 33 1 148 1.2%IM Bent 45 29 41 17 7 2 141 1.1%TP Extended 53 31 9 20 16 3 132 1.1%IM Other 50 3 31 19 1 7 111 0.9%IMRP Bent 42 31 31 5 109 0.9%IMRP Extended 8 18 43 6 18 93 0.7%P Extended 30 29 10 9 78 0.6%M Bent 42 4 3 11 1 61 0.5%TIM Extended 18 22 4 6 6 1 57 0.5%IMR Extended 20 26 1 2 7 56 0.4%IMRP curve/grasp 18 3 21 0.2%TIM Bent 6 4 6 1 1 18 0.1%IP Extended 10 1 2 13 0.1%TIM Closed 6 4 10 0.1%R Bent 7 2 9 0.1%P Bent 4 1 3 8 0.1%T Bent 3 3 1 7 0.1%TI Other 5 5 0.0%TMRP Ring 5 5 0.0%IMRP Closed 4 4 0.0%TIM Other 4 4 0.0%TM Ring 2 2 4 0.0%IMR Closed 2 2 0.0%TIM curve/grasp 1 1 2 0.0%TR Bent 2 2 0.0%IMR Bent 1 1 0.0%TIP extended 1 1 0.0%TM bent 1 1 0.0%

Grand Totals 2017 2608 3539 1223 1719 1371 12477 100.0% Table 4 Balanced and unbalanced sign stages ASL JSL NGT Totals N ( two handed sign stages)

1223 1719 1349 4291

Balanced 53.6 50.9 80.6 60.8 Unbalanced signs 46.4 49.1 19.4 39.2 Same handshape 18.5 15.8 8.5 14.3 Different

handshapes 27.9 33.3 11.4 24.9

Two-handed sign distributions Before continuing with the explication of the Weak Hand Rule, it may be helpful to present some general data about weak hand shapes. Table 5 One handed and two handed sign stages ASL JSL NGT Totals N 2017 2605 3541 8166 1-handed stages 39.4 34.1 61.9 47.5 2-handed stages 60.6 65.9 38.1 52.5 Error! Reference source not found. shows the Type 3 signs in the database I used for this project. It also shows that the Weak Hand Rule can potentially explain almost all of the data. I say potentially, because not every individual signs has been examined, and without actually examining each sign, it is conceivable that other explanations are required for some signs. There are also some signs from JSL and NGT which I cannot explain at this time, because I do not have enough data. Table 6 Weak Handshapes for Type 3 signs Weak Hand Selected Fingers and Shape ASL JSL NGT Grand

Total Described by Dominance condition

Possible Weak Hand Rule explanation

TIMRP extended 224 303 103 630 Yes Yes; access ,

prominence, and

physical ease

TIMRP closed 25 48 12 85 Yes Yes; prominence

and

possibly place shape

I extended 41 30 71 Yes Yes; prominence

and placeTIMRP curve/grasp 11 39 19 69 Yes Yes; place

shapeT extended 47 47 Yes Yes;

prominence and place

TIMRP ring 16 11 3 30 Yes Yes; place shape

TIMRP bent 19 5 24 No UnknownIM extended 9 11 20 No Yes;

prominence, access and two places

when spread

TI ring 17 2 19 Yes; place shape

P extended 2 7 9 Yes; prominence, access, and

placeIMRP extended 3 6 9 Yes Yes; accessTP extended 8 8 Probably:

prominenceTI curve/grasp 5 5 Yes; place

shapeTI extended 3 2 5 Prominence

and two places

TIM extended 3 1 4 Yes; prominence

IMR extended 2 2 ?IMRP bent 2 2 ?I bent 2 2 ?IM bent 1 1 ? place

shapeTI bent 1 1 ? place

shapeM bent 1 1 Yes;

prominence 332 558 154 1044

What is “physically easiest”? As has been pointed out to me (John Goldsmith, p.c.), “physically easiest” can appear to be a somewhat unclear, or shifty concept. What seems

physically easiest to me may not seem physically easy to you. With practice, playing the piano or riding a bike, appear physically easy to the skilled practioner, while to the novice it appears physically impossible. Furthermore, it is not at all clear that languages prefer what is physically easiest: if we did only what is physically easy, we would all be saying “ba” or signing only with TIMRP-extended in front of the chest. It is important to distinguish here between phonology and phonetics. While phonology is certainly constrained by physical difficulty, there is no clear reason to suppose that physical ease is the overriding concern of speakers or signers. There appears to be some sort of balancing act involved in languages as a whole such that no one language uses only the physically easiest elements (CV structure, voiceless stops, short words) and no one language uses only the most physically difficult structures. Acquisition facts show that children acquire their native languages on approximately the same time-table for all languages, although within each language, the acquisition of particular elements may be relatively delayed or precocious as compared to other languages, and these timing variations are generally attributable to some type of physical difficulty. For example, affricates are generally acquired later than stops. “Physically easy” is actually a catchall term for several different aspects of physical action.

(1) Weight. Lifting the weight of the tongue requires less physical effort than lifting the arm. Lifting two arms requires more physical effort than lifting one arm.

(2) Convenience. People in daily life frequently find themselves encumbered with some object they are holding: stones, books, children, food, sweaters, or tools. Under these common circumstances, it is physically easiest to use only one hand to sign.

(3) Precision required in forming a particular sign or sound. Does it matter which finger is extended? Must the hand be oriented at a particular angle?

(4) Coordination: Doing a set of tasks simultaneously or in a specific order.

(5) Perceptibility: in a system with at least two individuals, where one is speaking or signing, and the others are listening or watching, physically easy can also refer to what is easiest for the listener or watcher. Whispering or tiny signs are hard to hear or see. Very rapid production is difficult to process quickly enough. Very slow production may cause memory problems. Competing signals (noise) may interfere with understanding. Slurring or “sloppy” signs may be more difficult. Signs may be made at points that are on the edge or beyond of the signers vision. Lighting may be inadequate. Distance may be too great.

Physically easiest is therefore not a unitary concept. Furthermore, the articulatory and perceptual factors frequently conflict with each other, such that what is easiest from an articulatory standpoint is harder from a perceptual and vice versa. Even within each

group, there are probably similar conflicts. Furthermore, while I use the term “physical”, it in fact encompasses certain cognitive constraints (sequencing issues) as well as purely physical effects such as gravity. I nevertheless continue to use the term to refer to all those constraints on a sign which are not idiosyncratic or distinctive, but rather are the predictable or redundant results of a variety of phonetic interactions – to those aspects of a sign which do not seem to need to be listed in the lexicon. To some extent, the phrase “physically easiest” is almost synonymous with the word “phonetics”. The assumption I use here is that to the extent that a sign (and clearly these statements may be extended to spoken words as well) is idiosyncratic or non-redundant, it must be remembered individually and information about its idiosyncrasies must be stored in the lexicon. On the other hand, many characteristics of signs are phonetic because these characteristics are predictable based on general physical and cognitive constraints One sign with the handshape code of m05 were assigned a value of extended instead of bent. A second issue has to do with thumb selection. As Greftegreff (19XX) remarks, there are cases where the phonetic handshape does not map to the phonological handshape on a one-to-one basis. As an example, she mentions ASL SECRET where the fist hand with thumb contacting the side of index finger contacts the mouth and moves down a short distance. This sign probably has a selected thumb, similar to signs like ASL TEN (fist hand with thumb extended out from fist in neutral space). However, because SECRET contacts the mouth and moves down while still in contact, the thumb ends up in contact with the index finger, because this is phonetically easier. Following the pictures provided with SignPhon and Hara, I have coded handshapes where the thumb is extended as having a selected thumb, while those handshapes where the thumb was folded into the palm were coded with an unselected thumb. Thus, thumb selection here may vary from the underlying phonological value. The handshape information in the databases was examined and two fields were created to unify the information from the different sources. The first indicates the “selected fingers” (SF) for the handshape, and the second indicates the degree of extension or flexion. Selected fingers may not be the correct term for the weak hand (because if my arguments are correct, the weak handshape is determined by phonetic factors in combination with place features), but it serves as a understandable name. My data is taken from three sources. The SignPhon database was created by the Leiden group of phonologists (Harry van der Hulst, Onno Crasborn, Els van der Kooij and others). This database contains very detailed phonetic information on about 3000 NGT signs. A second source is Hara’s 2003 dissertation. His dissertation includes information on handshape place and orientation for ASL and JSL. The ASL data is based on the Stokoe, Casterline and Croneberg (19xx) dictionary, and the JSL data is based on a Japanese sign language dictionary published by the Japan Institute for Sign Language Studies (1997). A third source is my own knowledge of ASL, which added a few examples. Although in most cases, selected fingers are fairly easy to pick out, there are a few issues. For example, when all of the fingers behave as a unit, it is questionable whether this

should be considered to be a case of all fingers being selected or none. Van der Kooij (2002) treats both TIMRP-extended and the fist as having all fingers selected, while Brentari (1998) proposes that the fist hand has no selected finger branch, while TIMRP-extended has a selected finger branch with no other specification. It seems probable to me that in these cases, no fingers are selected – the fingers are being treated as a unitary surface with the rest of the hand (especially if the fingers are not spread or are relaxed with only a slight separation between the fingers). However, I have notated all of these signs as TIMRP (thumb, index, middle, ring and pinky), and leave this issue for future research. The second basic element of a handshape is the degree of knuckle bending. The SignPhon database contains information on the degree of bending for each knuckle of each finger, the Hara data does not. Both databases provided a field with a general code for handshapes and a handshape pictures for most signs. I have chosen here to adopt a broad categorization of bending as extended, bent, curved, ring, closed, and other. The “other” category includes 5 ASL and 3 NGT signs where the index and middle fingers varied in their degree of flexion or were crossed as in ASL fingerspelled K and R, or where the thumb was inserted between the bent/closed index and middle as in K and T. No Type 3 sign had a weak hand of this type, so it can be safely ignored for purposes of this discussion. Signs where I could not determine the handshape because there was no information or picture were excluded from the analysis. One effect of this broad categorization was that 31 more signs were considered to have the same handshape than would have been considered the same in a more refined analysis. I will refer to handshapes using these two values throughout the paper. For example, TIMRP-extended, also called the B-hand, is called TIMRP-extended, the index finger extended from the fist is I-extended, and the fist hand is TIMRP-closed. In the rare circumstances where it is necessary, I will include any additional information needed to distinguish the handshape. All the databases divided signs into syllables (Hara) or stages (SignPhon). However, for this analysis, it was unimportant whether signs have multiple timing units as implied by the notions of either stages or syllables, or whether, as I have claimed in other works, signs have only one timing unit (Channon 2002). I note here that 65% of signs were coded as having only one stage, and 90% with only two stages. The signs most critical to the discussion here are Type 3 signs, and of these, 95% had only one stage. I have therefore ignored the difference between a stage and sign and considered each stage as a sign. This means that most of my data does not precisely reflect number of signs, but rather number of coded stages, but percentages for stages and signs should be very similar. It is possible that flexion at only the big knuckle, with extension of the other knuckles may be physically more complex because there are two opposing actions involved – flexion at one knuckle and extension of the others. However, if this is true, then it would be difficult to explain the variation between the closed fist/flexed hand that we see for NATURAL.

As shown in Table 7, Type 1 and 2 signs each have over 21 different handshapes, and at least 25% of all type 1 and 2 signs have a handshape which does not select all fingers, (for example, a handshape which extends only the index or only the index and middle fingers). (Note that compared to one-handed signs, there is a general reduction in handshape variation for all two-handed signs.) Table 7 Handshape variation by sign types Type 0 1 2 3 Hand Strong Both Both Strong Weak Number of different handshapes 48 31 21 32 21 Number of signs that select all fingers

47.5% 66.6% 74.8% 35.0% 79.8%

Table 8 Distribution of two-handed sign types Type ASL JSL NGT Total

N 1222 1723 1349 4294 1 53.6% 50.8% 80.1% 60.8% 2 19.5% 16.6% 8.5% 14.9% 3 26.9% 32.6% 11.4% 24.3%

Table 9 Strong and Weak Handshapes in databases

Strong Handshapes

Weak Handshapes

Selected Fingers

Shape

ASL

JSL NGT

ASL

JSL NGT

Totals

TIMRP Extended 464 758 691 534 793 476 3715 29.8%TIMRP Closed 304 332 455 158 218 212 1686 13.5%I Extended 256 350 338 129 126 65 1264 10.1%TIMRP curve/gra

sp 101 48 575 44 65 235 1069 8.6%

TI Ring 82 133 355 42 131 105 775 6.2%TIMRP Bent 34 161 281 23 94 101 694 5.6%IM Extended 172 181 107 47 47 21 575 4.6%TI curve/gra

sp 20 57 194 9 28 40 348 2.8%

TIMRP Ring 104 52 64 72 31 17 337 2.7%I Bent 85 42 70 32 13 21 262 2.1%Total top 10

1620

2114

3130

1090

1546

1293

10793

86.5%

All other (31 strong,

396 498 409 132 177 78 1690 13.5%

21 weak) Grand Totals

2016

2612

3539

1222

1723

1371

12483

100.0%

Note the distinction made here between what is physically easiest, and what is cognitively easiest. In both cases, these are phonetic, and not phonological choices, although there are different reasons for each choice. It is not a question of phonology, because these determinations of the weak hand shape are not stored as part of the idiosyncratic (phonological) representation of a particular sign. Rather, there are general rules which apply cross linguistically to determine the weak hand shape. Notice also, that there is some phonological detail for the weak hand that must be represented. At a minimum, the representation must include information that this is a two handed sign (although curiously, there seem to be few minimal pairs for one-handed vs two-handed), and for type 3 signs, the representation must include the weak hand place. If there is no weak hand place, then cognitive phonetics determines the handshape. But once some phonological material is involved, then different kinds of phonetic factors enter the picture. While these other factors are probably issues of articulatory ease, or what is physically easiest, it is also possible that perceptual phonetics is also involved, especially for the issue of prominence discussed below. The WHR potentially explains most two hand signs. however, it should be noted that further research is required, because one factor that is missing is that I don’t know where the strong hand contacts the weak hand for all signs. It is impossible to falsify the suggestion that TIMRP-extended occurs for reasons of access, because any contact point can be argued to cause the hand to open for purposes of access. But when the weak hand is a fist, it is not at all clear that this is a response to either access or prominence, if the contact point is on the side of the hand. These cases would have to be argued to be examples of place shapes, and should be relatively few. Also, if there are any signs where a finger is extended but not contacted, this would be a counter example. Also if a finger is touched but not differentiated (some form of a TIMRP or IMRP handshape), then this would be a counterexample to the prominence suggestion. For example, the freshman/sophomore/jr/sr set of signs. Need to list all the signs from Stokoe that are made with a weak hand fist but the contact point is not on the back of the hand. List: For ngt: signs with TIMRP-extended – contact places should be primarily off fingers For asl signs with fist – how many on back of hand; how many on thumb side, how many elsewhere For ASL signs on index or other finger: make sure all such signs contact the finger. The Weak Hand Rule can explain hand shapes that the Dominance Condition cannot. There remain a residue of as yet unexplained cases, although this residue is smaller than with the Dominance Condition. More complete data should help to explain these remaining signs. Because I am not personally familiar with these language, there may be explanations that I cannot propose. There are a number of possible explanations such as iconically motivated place shapes that are culturally specific. For example, a number of

the NGT signs with somewhat unusual weak hands with thumb and index in a ring have a connection with money. Some JSL signs with the pinky extended refer to women, while the extended thumb refers to men. Age is shown by bending the pinky or thumb. Both men and women can be shown by extending thumb and pinky. Data entry errors are also a possibility. I note that a JSL dictionary which I have examined (XX 19XX) lists RULE as having a bent IM on the strong hand with the weak hand as the normal TIMRP-extended, while Hara lists RULE with the reverse configuration. If the weak hand contacts the back of the hand, then the weak hand will be either a fist or an open-curved hand with all fingers in the same posture (same degree of extension or curling) with the palm facing toward signer or downward. It is worth observing here, perhaps, that this paper is not a claim that phonological characteristics of a sign

are controlled (although they may be influenced) by what is cognitively or physically easier or easiest. However, it IS a claim that phonetics is largely, if not entirely, guided by such factors. The phonetics of the weak hand, at least, can be thought of as a process of interpolation or filling in material that is missing from the phonological representation. under those circumstances, it must be the case that either there is a non-uniform performance of phonetic material, and it doesn’t matter how the material is interpolated, or there is some very important universal constraint that will automatically produce the correct results. I can think of no other characteristic that would produce the same results across the board except for ease or simplicity: do what is easiest. One significant challenge is to determine why a particular result is easiest, and in what sense it is easiest: is it a physical or a cognitive constraint at work? In the situation described here, there appear to be issues of both cognitive and physical ease, which both affect the results.

Ann, Jean: Two types of morphemic handshapes in Taiwan Sign Language. Paper presented at the Fifth

International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research. September 19-22, 1996 Montréal. 1996 Manuscript

Ann, Jean: Contact between a sign language and a written language: Character signs in Taiwan Sign Language. In: Lucas, Ceil (ed): Pinky extension and eye gaze : language use in deaf communities. (Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities; 4) Washington, DC : Gallaudet Univ. Press (1998) - pp. 59-99

Ann, Jean: Bilingualism and language contact. In: Lucas, Ceil (ed): The sociolinguistics of sign languages. Cambridge [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Pr. (2001) - pp. 33-60

Ann, Jean / Peng, Bruce: Optimality and opposed handshapes in Taiwan Sign Language. Paper presented at the Conference on Sign Linguistics, Deaf Education and Deaf Culture in Asia 17th - 19th December 2001. 2001 Manuscript

Ann, Jean: The Chiying school of Taiwan: a foreigner's perspective. In: Monaghan, Leila F. et al (eds): Many ways to be deaf : international variation in deaf communities. Washington, DC : Gallaudet Univ. Press (2003) - pp. 230-248

She does however agree that this second-easiest status may only apply to a more rigidly extended hand than the typical weak TIMRP-extended handshape where the fingers are often slightly flexed (p.c. 2004)