(http://www.mpi.nl/tools/elan.html), Filemaker Pro (a commercially available program), and other forms for representing signs using images and videoclips,.
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur Zagreb, Croatia / Zadar, Croatia / Purdue University
We present an initial description of the sign parameters in Croatian Sign Language. We show that HZJ has a comparable phonological structure to other known sign languages, including basic sign parts, such as location, handshape, movement, orientation, and nonmanual characteristics. Our discussion follows the Prosodic Model (Brentari 1998), in which sign structure is separated into those characteristics which do not change during sign formation (inherent features) and those that do (prosodic features). We present the model, along with discussion of the notion of constraints on sign formation, and apply it to HZJ to the extent that we are able to do so. We identify an inventory of the relevant handshapes, orientations, locations, and movements in HZJ, and a partial inventory of nonmanuals. One interesting feature of the HZJ environment is the existence of two fingerspelling alphabets, a one-handed and a two-handed system. We also provide additional analytical steps that can be taken after the initial inventory has been constructed. Both minimal pairs and constraints on sign formation are especially useful for demonstrating the linguistic systematicity of sign languages and separating them from gesture and mime. Keywords: Croatian Sign Language, phonology, handshapes, sign formation constraints, sign movements, Prosodic Model, place of articulation, sign orientation
1. Introduction In this paper, we present the basic parts of a sign in HZJ, an initial step in the description of the parameters that are involved in forming signs of Croatian Sign Language. We show that HZJ has a comparable phonological structure to other known sign languages, including basic sign parts, such as location, handshape, movement, orientation, and nonmanual characteristics, as well as constraints Sign Language & Linguistics 9:1/2 (2006), 33–70. issn 1387–9316 / e-issn 1569–996x © John Benjamins Publishing Company
34
Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur
on combinations such as those identified by Battison (1978) and Napoli and Wu (2003). The earliest known work on HZJ phonology is Zimmerman (1986), a sign lexicon for students of Croatian Sign Language. In it, he provides general information about sign handshapes (finger setting, palm and finger orientation), locations, and movements (type, direction and speed). 1.1 Background on phonological representation 1.1.1 Overall model The most complete model of phonological structure for sign languages is presented in Brentari (1998). She proposes a Prosodic Model of sign structure, separating characteristics which do not change during sign formation (inherent features ‘IF’) from those that do (prosodic features ‘PF’). In this system, two parallel feature nodes map onto a single root (sign) node (Figure 1). The IF node includes specifications for Place of Articulation (POA) and for the Articulator (hand), which is further sub-divided to account for the configurations of joints and fingers that compose the distinctive handshapes of the sign language. The Articulator node also contains a node for Nonmanual Articulators, although this part of the model still needs to be completed. Inherent features occur simultaneously in the formation of the sign. The PF node includes the specifications for the sign movement. Prosodic features are articulated sequentially over time. It is through the PF node that the feature configuration for a sign maps onto prosodic structure and syllable structure.
Root IF A
nonmanual
PF POA
manual H2
setting change
path H1
orientation change
aperture change
Figure 1. Structure of Inherent and Prosodic Feature branches (from Brentari 1998:26)
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language
A well-formed independent sign contains feature specifications for both the inherent and prosodic nodes. If a sign contains only one morpheme, for example the color ‘red’, then the sign specifications are the same as the specifications for the morpheme ‘red’. But signs may contain multiple morphemes, in which case the IF and PF specifications may be distributed among those morphemes. Bound morphemes (e.g. suffixes, aspects, or classifier handshapes) lack specifications for either the IF or PF nodes and must combine with other morphemes to make a complete independent sign. For example, a bound morpheme like a classifier handshape, which lacks PF specifications, must affix itself to other morphemes that have the features it needs, in effect borrowing, or mapping onto, the features of those other morphemes, creating a complete set of features. We will return to these features as relevant. 1.1.2 Three-dimensional space Traditional analysis of sign formation includes the notion of the ‘signing space’ (Figure 2). Lacy (1974) describes the signing space as extending from the top of the head to just below the waist (or hip area) on the vertical axis while horizontally and laterally forming a “bubble” in front of the signer, extending from the signer’s extreme right to the signer’s extreme left (an arc of 180°). Signs can be made in the neutral space in front of the body or in contact with some part of the body. Few signs are made over the head, behind the ear, or below the waist (Lacy 1974).
Figure 2. Signing space
Figure 3. Three planes of the body
35
36
Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur
Brentari’s phonological analysis uses planes in space for analysis of both inherent and prosodic features (Figure 3). The frontal (ventral, x) plane divides a human into front-back. The horizontal (transverse, y) plane divides a human into top-bottom. The midsaggital (z) plane divides the body into left-right. 1.2 Inherent Features 1.2.1 POA The three planes identified above form the basis for description of places of articulation (POA) in neutral space. The frontal (x) plane also serves as the basis for the body plane, which has more detailed POA specifications than neutral space has. Brentari (1998) divides the body into four major regions, and then subdivides each region into eight strips. Table 1 gives the major regions and their subdivisions. Pictures for each are provided for both ASL and HZJ in Section 2.2.1, which discusses the relevance of each to HZJ. In addition, we will identify several more place distinctions that seem to be required for HZJ. Table 1. Eight divisions in 4 regions Region/ division 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Head
Arm
Body
Hand
top forehead eye cheek/bone upper lip mouth chin under chin
upper elbow front elbow back forearm back forearm front ulnar wrist back wrist front
neck shoulder clavicle torso-top torso-mid torso-bottom waist hips
palm finger fronts back palm back finger radial finger ulnar finger tip of finger/thumb heel of hand
1.2.2 Handshape Brentari’s Prosodic Model identifies an extensive set of nodes and features for the specification of handshape. For each handshape, it is possible to have both ‘selected’ and ‘unselected’ fingers. Unselected fingers can be either [extended] or [flexed], and do not change their settings during a sign. Selected fingers can be specified for a variety of joints (base and non-base) and finger and thumb positions. Selected fingers are the ones that will be involved in handshape change and possibly contact. Eccarius (2002) modified Brentari’s tree by providing structure for secondary selected fingers, based on the need for additional finger specifications to characterize a larger set of handshapes cross-linguistically, which included HZJ.
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language
Until we investigate handshapes and their participation in phonological processes like assimilation, we are unable to pursue handshape feature analysis further. Thus, in Section 2.2.2, we provide an inventory of handshapes, but do not break them down further into their component features. 1.2.3 Orientation Hand orientation is an important phonological parameter that traditionally comprises two types: orientation of the palm (direction it faces) and orientation of the fingertips (or knuckles, if fingertips are bent; Figure 4). Both palm and fingertip/ knuckle orientations have six possible options: up, down, left, right, forward and backward. The necessity of making a distinction between palm and fingertip/knuckle orientation is well-established. Meir (1998) notes that the Israeli Sign Language (ISL) signs help and hate differ with respect to whether the palm or fingertips provides the direction of movement for verb agreement. The sign help uses the orientation of the fingertips for its direction of movement, whereas the sign hate uses the palm orientation for its direction of movement. It is clear that this distinction must be made by lexical items in other sign languages. In the Prosodic Model, basic orientation is a relation between a part of the hand and a place of articulation in the Inherent Features branch of structure. Brentari (p. 96) represents the information that would distinguish help and hate using the horizontal plane, a hand part specification, and a movement feature ([direction] or [tracing]). The handpart specification comes from the eight subareas of the hand, as identified in Table 1 above. It is chosen according to its parallel relationship to the superior surface of the horizontal plane. For example, the ASL sign for children has the handpart specified as palm, whereas the sign thing has handpart specified as back of the hand (Figure 5). For both of them, the specified handpart is parallel to the superior part of the horizontal plane. Separately, a plane of articulation
direction knuckles point direction palm faces
Figure 4. Palm and knuckles orientation
37
38
Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur
CHILDREN
THING
Figure 5. Distinctive orientation: children palm down, thing palm up
is also specified in the inherent features. Signs that have path movement, like ISL help and hate, are specified in the Prosodic Features branch as having movement within the specified plane ([tracing]) or movement perpendicular to the specified plane ([direction]). Together these three specifications represent the inherent orientation of a sign, the plane of its articulation, and the direction of its movement. For both ISL signs help and hate, the movement is perpendicular to the specified plane, and the specified plane is the same. What differs in Brentari’s representation is the specified handpart. This distinction exactly captures Meir’s observation about the difference between the two signs, that they are lexically specified differently. Brentari’s representation does not need to refer to palm or fingertip/knuckle orientation to capture this difference. In addition, Brentari’s analysis allows for more precise specification of orientation by using the eight possible handparts as specifications. 1.3 Prosodic Features In the PF branch of Brentari’s model (refer to Figure 1 above), there are nodes for setting change, path, orientation change, and aperture change (Figure 6). There are four prosodic features that can associate with the features available at each node. These general prosodic features are [arc], [circle], [straight] and [trilled movement (TM)]. In addition, each of the four nodes has its own set of relevant prosodic features. 1.3.1 Setting change Brentari (1998: 151) defines setting change as a ‘movement between two values in a plane in which the articulator can move.’ There are three pairs of features relevant to the setting value: [top]-[bottom], [distal]-[proximal], and [contra(lateral)][ipsi(lateral)]. The frontal (front-back) plane has the relevant features [contra][ipsi] and [top]-[bottom]. The horizontal (top-bottom) plane has the relevant
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language
Figure 6. Prosodic Features branch of structure
features [distal]-[proximal] and [contra]-[ipsi]. The midsaggital (left-right) plane has the relevant features [top]-[bottom] and [distal]-[proximal]. 1.3.2 Path The above three planes are also relevant to the specification of Path features. Associated with the Path node are features that specify linear movement in a plane or at a 90° angle to the plane of articulation. These features include [direction], [tracing], [pivot], and [repeat]. The [direction] feature is found in all movements that are perpendicular to a plane. [tracing] is the feature that characterizes movement within a plane. Tracing movement may combine with shape features [straight], [circle] and [arc], and may result in zigzag, triangle, and other geometric and nongeometric shape outlines. [Pivot] is a feature of movement in which the elbow is fixed; it is found in rotation symmetry (Section 1.4.4.2 Figure 9 below). Brentari’s phonological feature [repeat] occurs with straight movement, creating an identical movement, or one rotated by 90° or 180°.
. In a study of backwards signing, Wilbur & Petersen (1997) demonstrated that these forms of [repeat] are available to signers attempting to reverse the movement of a sign (and that these movements can also be further decomposed into their Inherent Feature specifications).
39
40 Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur
1.3.3 Orientation change Orientation change is a type of movement (Brentari 1998: 96). Its features are expressed in the prosodic features branch of structure: [supination], [pronation], [flexion], [extension], and [abduction]. [supination] is rotation from palm down to palm up. [pronation] is rotation from palm up to palm down orientation. [flexion] is rotation from wrist straight to wrist bent. [extension] is rotation from wrist bent to wrist straight. [abduction] is side-to-side rotation. Wilbur (2003) has observed that these orientation changes are morphological in verbs representing punctual events in ASL (see also Wilbur in press). Figure 7 shows [extension ] in give-up, [flexion] in come-on, [pronation] in happen, and [supination] in start.
a. [extension] GIVE-UP
b. [flexion] COME-ON
c. [pronation] HAPPEN
d. [supination] START
Figure 7. Orientation changes used in signs reflecting telic punctual events
1.3.4 Aperture change Aperture change specifies open or closed variants of handshapes. The finger(s) that actually move are specified in IF as ‘selected fingers’, and they must all move as a group. Thus, if the index and middle fingers are specified as selected fingers in IF, and the aperture features are [open] [closed], both fingers will change together from open position (not bent) to closed position (bent). In this way, the specification of a sign movement is divided between the IF and PF nodes. 1.4 Constraints on sign formation Every sign language has restrictions on what combinations of features can occur together in a well-formed sign. For example, certain movements cannot be made in certain locations, or certain handshapes cannot participate in certain movement. Two-handed signs can vary widely with respect to the movement of each hand, as well as with respect to what handshape each hand has. Signs which make contact with two body POAs are restricted as to where the second contact may be made.
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language
1.4.1 Constraints on two-handed signs Battison (1974) divides two-handed signs into three groups: (1) same handshapes, same movements for both hands; (2) same handshapes, only dominant hand moves; and (3) different handshapes, only dominant hand moves. In the third group, the handshape on the non-dominant, non-moving hand is restricted to a limited set of handshapes. For ASL, Battison (1978:33–34) observed the Symmetry Condition: (1) Symmetry Condition a. If both hands of a sign move independently during its articulation, then b. both hands must be specified for the same location, the same handshape, the same movement (whether performed simultaneously or in alternation), and the specifications for orientation must be either symmetrical or identical.
For Battison, the ‘same location’ means in the same area or in mirror-image locations with respect to the ‘line of bilateral symmetry’ (dividing the body in half top to bottom). ‘Symmetrical orientation’ means mirror-image orientation with respect to the plane which separates the hands, and ‘identical orientation’ means the same with respect to the body. A second morpheme structure constraint that Battison identified is the Dominance Condition (1978:34): (2) Dominance Condition a. If the hands of a two-handed sign do not share the same specification for handshape (i.e., they are different), then b. One hand must be passive while the active hand articulates the movement, and c. The specification of the passive (non-moving) handshape is restricted to be one of a small set: a, s, b, 5, g, c, and o.
In a recent in-depth analysis of Battison’s Symmetry and Dominance Conditions, Napoli and Wu (2003) proposed modifications to the Dominance Condition, and several new conditions on handshapes and symmetry of movement. Their proposed modification to the Dominance Condition (2) is the Expanded Dominance Condition (3). (3) Expanded Dominance Condition: In a two-handed sign in which the hands have different shape, the nondominant hand must have an unmarked shape.
41
42
Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur
1.4.2 Digression: Handshape inventory and unmarked handshapes In order to assess the relevance of the above conditions to an unstudied sign language such as HZJ, certain prior steps must be taken. First, an inventory of the relevant handshapes, orientations, locations, and movements must be identified, which we present in this paper for HZJ. Second, studies must be conducted to determine the frequency of various handshapes, locations, and movements within a particular sign language. This information is needed to determine the set of handshapes that are eligible to be considered ‘unmarked’. Rozelle (2004) identifies a universal frequency-based criterion for determining the unmarked set: the handshapes that occur most frequently and account for 50% of the data. She notes that in the four sign languages that she studied (American, Korean, New Zealand, and Finnish SLs), the set of unmarked handshapes determined by this criterion was the same for the four languages. Third, a thorough study must be made of two-handed lexical signs in the sign language. Rozelle (2004) uses two-handed signs to identify a language-specific phonology-based criterion for determining the unmarked handshape set: the handshapes allowed on the nondominant hand in signs in which the two hands have different handshapes. By this criterion, the set of unmarked handshapes is different in each of the four sign languages she studied. When these two criteria — frequency and nondominant hand — give different results, an issue arises as to which set to use. Rozelle tested both sets of results in her investigation of the question as to whether location can predict handshapes; she found that quantitatively it did not make any difference which set she used to test the predictions. This leaves open the question of whether the two different sets of handshapes determined by these two different criteria would make a difference in other qualitative phonological analyses. Brentari (1998) includes both frequency of occurrence and use on the nondominant hand, as well as a number of additional factors that have been used to decide which handshapes are unmarked. These include acquisition by children, substitution errors, participation in handshape contours (handshape change), errors in aphasic signing, ease of articulation, and frequency of occurrence crosslinguistically (occurrence in languages rather than in signs within one language). Brentari (p. 117) notes that the structural properties for these handshape markedness criteria can be traced to joint configuration and selected fingers structures. More complex structures are more marked, and less complex structures are less marked. Thus, a thorough analysis of the set of unmarked handshapes would need to include the full structure, including features on each of the articulator nodes, for all the handshapes. Until the set of unmarked handshapes have been identified for a language, it is not possible for the various proposed phonological conditions to be tested for
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language
their relevance to lexical items in a particular sign language. Ideally, after these relevant conditions have been identified, an investigation should be made into how well the various conditions apply to signs that arise productively from classifier use. We anticipate further research on HZJ in both of these sign categories. 1.4.3 More constraints The procedure outlined above deals primarily with handshape, but there are also constraints on locations, orientations, and movements, as well as possible interactions among them (e.g. Rozelle 2004; Channon 2002). Napoli and Wu (2003) propose the Movement Symmetry Condition (4) as a replacement for Battison’s Symmetry Condition (1); this condition holds whether the hands move together as a unit or independently. (4) 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.
Napoli and Wu address in more detail what is meant by ‘symmetry’, a term that has been treated as ‘obvious’ in the linguistic literature until now. They note that there are five basic mathematical transformations of a structure that can yield symmetry, and that only four of these are relevant to ASL morpheme structure. These symmetry transformations are reflection (mirror image) (Figure 8), rotation (Figure 9), translation (Figure 10), glide reflection (Figure 11), and, finally, dilation symmetry, the one that is not relevant to ASL (Figure 12). 1.4.4 Types of symmetry 1.4.4.1 Reflection symmetry. To reflect an object means to produce its mirror image. Every reflection has a mirror line. A reflection of an “R” is a backwards “R”.
Figure 8. Reflection symmetry
. Figures 8 through 12 are from “The Four Types of Symmetry in the Plane”, used with permission. They are resources of Susan Addington and The Math Forum @ Drexel, http://mathforum. org/sum95/suzanne/symsusan.html.
43
44 Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur
1.4.4.2 Rotation symmetry. To rotate an object means to turn it around. Every rotation has a center (point) and an angle.
Figure 9. Rotation symmetry
1.4.4.3 Translation symmetry. To translate an object means to move it without rotating or reflecting it. Every translation has a direction and a distance.
Figure 10. Translation symmetry
1.4.4.4 Glide reflection symmetry. A glide reflection combines a reflection with a translation along the direction of the mirror line. Glide reflections are the only type of symmetry that involve more than one step.
Figure 11. Glide reflection symmetry
1.4.4.5 Dilation symmetry. Dilation symmetry involves change only in size. It is not relevant to ASL and probably not relevant to other sign languages as well.
Figure 12. Dilation symmetry
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language
1.4.5 Movement symmetry constraints for ASL Given these different types of movement symmetries, Napoli and Wu add four more conditions on ASL morpheme structure (5–8 below), one for each type of symmetrical transformation except dilation.
(5) Reflection Condition: In reflection signs (a) the hands must be on the same position along their respective paths at the relevant times, or (b) the hands must exhibit inversion. Figure 13 illustrates the ASL ‘take-bowl-down’, which is symmetrical with respect to a vertical line/plane and both hands move together.
Figure 13. Reflection symmetry on vertical plane, with allowances for physiology and comfort: ‘take down bowl’ Videoclip 1. take-down-bowl 2h reflection
(6) 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.
center of rotation
y
Figure 14. Rotation symmetry with inversion (hands moving mirror image to each other) and (almost) touching at beginning and end: ASL ‘round bowl’ Videoclip 2. round[bowl] 2h sym mirror
45
46 Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur
(7) Translation Condition In a translation sign, the hands are always at the same point (a) on a single path (if they move as a unit) or (b) on their respective parallel paths.
Figure 15. Translation symmetry — both hands move without reflection or rotation; ASL baseball Videoclip 3. baseball translation sym
(8) Glide Reflection Condition In a glide reflection, the hands must always be on the same position along their respective paths at the relevant times.
Hands reflect across vertical plane, as in Figure 13; hands are translated so that one is further away from signer than other but both move together as in Figure 15
Figure 16. Glide reflection (reflection and translation), ASL same Videoclip 4. same
Glide Reflection symmetry is a two-step process, first reflection then translation, making it more complex than the other types of symmetry transformations. Na-
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language
poli and Wu note the relevance of movement complexity to handshape in twohanded signs, and propose the Complexity Condition on Handshape (9). (9) Complexity Condition on Handshape: The greater the complexity of a two-handed movement transformation sign, the more likely the sign is to use unmarked handshapes and to reflect symmetrically across the unmarked plane.
Finally, Napoli and Wu propose one further condition, the Markedness Condition on Handshape Change (10): (10) 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.
This condition is the most complex, as it includes the relationship between the path movement of the hands, the type of symmetry transformation, and the particular planes of symmetry involved and their effects on hand-internal handshape change. 1.4.6 Constraints on two-contact signs Some signs involve double contact with the body. Battison, Markowicz & Woodward (1975) noted that in such double contact signs in ASL, there are constraints on the permissible locations of the first and second sequential contacts. If the body is divided into four major sections, (a) head and neck, (b) chest/trunk, (c) arm, and (d) hand, then generally the second contact is in a lower major area than the first (e.g. head to hand, but not hand to head). If the two contacts are in the same major body part area, the first contact may occur in a variety of places within each of the general areas, whereas the second contact is more restricted and can only occur in the central part of that general area. Constraints such as this, which are not required by physical limitations, may aid perception and production of signs, and certainly are important features that distinguish sign from mime. Future research should investigate the location limitations in the production of such signs in HZJ. 1.5 Background on our study A detailed phonological analysis of any sign language such as has been described above is possible only with a substantial amount of available data. Such information is not yet available for Croatian Sign Language. We present here the first steps toward reaching the goal of providing an analysis of HZJ comparable to that of ASL.
47
48 Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur
For the determination of the inventories presented here, we analyzed four minutes of recorded signed conversation of a deaf couple (and added additional data as available from the other projects described in this volume). The conversation topics were suggested in advance in order to guide the couple’s discussion. Their most relaxed and spontaneous signing was selected from the filmed material for analysis. In order to conduct this research, we needed a transcription system. Thus we extended Stokoe, Casterline & Croneberg’s (1965) system in order to provide a consistent notation for HZJ and to represent more sign descriptions and distinctions. In particular, we needed to make more specifications of the phonological features (e.g. location of the sign) than in Stokoe’s original system. However in subsequent years, we have discovered that this notation system is rarely useful for the rest of the work that we do, which is now focused on morphology, syntax, and semantics. Furthermore, with recent technological developments, such as Elan (http://www.mpi.nl/tools/elan.html), Filemaker Pro (a commercially available program), and other forms for representing signs using images and videoclips, we have not needed to notate HZJ handshapes, locations, or movements in symbols. For example, instead of a symbol for notating a particular handshape, we can insert an actual picture of the handshape, which is clearer and less likely to cause confusion as to what it meant. Furthermore, in our naming system for handshapes (Section 2.2.2), we originally used names based on the Croatian one-handed and two-handed fingerspelling system along with certain numerals. But as part of a group working on three sign languages at once, it became necessary to find a more consistent method for naming handshapes without being completely arbitrary or imposing names used frequently for ASL. In what follows, we provide descriptions that were originally associated with our extended notational system, their representations (when appropriate) in Brentari’s Prosodic Model, and pictures and videos to show what these distinctive phonological characteristics look like. But we have ‘retired’ the actual symbols developed for HZJ because we no longer use them. This lesson suggests that while it is important to identify distinctive production characteristics of handshapes, locations, and movement, it is not necessary to give each one a symbol except for transcription by hand. Even there, many options are available (see discussions in Sign Language & Linguistics 8 in articles by Baker, Van den Bogaerde & Woll; Takkinen; and Morgan).
. For this, we consulted Petra Eccarius Brylow, whose handshape expertise helped us to find common ground; HZJ was included in her 2002 survey of handshapes.
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language 49
2. HZJ phonological components Like other well-studied sign languages, HZJ has five major phonological characteristics that contribute to sign formation: Place of Articulation (POA), handshape (HS), orientation (O), movement (Mov), and nonmanual (NM) characteristics. A change in any one or all of these characteristics may, but not necessarily, result in the creation of a new sign. The first four characteristics are basic manual IF and PF phonological characteristics, i.e., they are the parts produced on the hand or hands, and some of them are specified in nearly every sign. Nonmanual characteristics do not contribute to the formation of every sign but are still considered to be a separate phonological characteristic. 2.1 Minimal pairs Whenever two signs differ on only one feature, they are considered minimal pairs. Minimal pairs for handshape, location, and movement in ASL were provided in Klima and Bellugi (1979). For HZJ, we provide minimal pairs for these and for orientation (Milković 2005). For POA, Figure 17 shows the signs balavac ‘mucus’ and majmun ‘monkey’ which are made at the nose and chin, respectively (Figure 17). Another pair that differs only in POA is jučer ‘yesterday’ and piti ‘to drink’, with jučer at the body/ shoulder and piti head/under the chin.
BALAVAC
'brat, snotty'
MAJMUN
'monkey'
ZEDAN
'thirsty'
Figure 17. Different POA, but same handshape, orientation and movement
Signs that differ by only handshape include the numbers 20, 30, and 40 (among others), and the triplet bijelo ‘white’, lijen ‘lazy’ and milost ‘mercy’ (Figure 18).
50
Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur
bijelo ‘white’ lijen ‘lazy’ milost ‘mercy’ LIJEN ‘lazy’ MILOST ‘mercy’
BIJELO ‘white’
Figure 18. Different handshape, but same POA, orientation, and movement
Pairs that differ by orientation include ja ‘I’ and ti ‘you’, and the pair razlika ‘difference’ and ravnoteža ‘balance’ (Figure 19).
razlika ‘difference’ ravnoteža ‘balance’ RAVNOTEŽA ‘balance’
RAZLIKA ‘difference’
Figure 19. Different orientation but same handshape, location and movement
Signs that differ by movement include the numbers 2, 20, and 200, and the pair utakmica ‘competition’ and neprijatelj ‘enemy’ (Figure 20).
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language
utakmica ‘game, competition’ ‘game, competition’
UTAKMICA
neprijatelj ‘enemy’
NEPRIJATELJ ‘enemy’
Figure 20. Different movement, but same handshape, location and orientation
In the discussion that follows, we present manual inherent features (IF) first, followed by manual prosodic features (PF), and then finally by nonmanuals. For IF, we present POA, handshape, and then orientation. 2.2 Inherent Features 2.2.1 Place of Articulation All the POAs observed in our corpus of HZJ signs are listed in the multiple sections of Table 2. Further research must be conducted to determine whether all phonologically relevant POAs have been identified, which of the listed POAs are phonologically distinctive, and whether all the POAs can be accounted for within Brentari’s feature system. Table 2a. POA head Brentari Head Region 1 Top
ASL
HZJ gloss
hat
kralj ‘king’
2
perplexed glup ‘dumb’
Forehead
Picture
51
52
Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur onion
plakati ‘cry’
3
Eye
4
Cheek/bone flower
oštar ‘sharp’
5
Upper lip
thief
brkovi ‘mustache’
6
Mouth
say-noth- šuti! ‘Shush!’ ing
7
Chin
frustrated dosadno ‘bored’
(7a)
Side of chin beer
mačka ‘cat’
8
Under chin
subota ‘Saturday’
(8a)
Front of neck –
full
dosta-mi-je ‘I am sick of it/I’ve had it’
Table 2b. POA arm Region/ Arm division 1 Upper
ASL
HZJ gloss
scotch
švicarska ‘Switzerland’
Picture
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language
2
Elbow front drugs
droga ‘drugs’
3
Elbow back poor
studirati ‘study (at university level)’
4
Forearm backstage
miš ‘mouse’
5
Forearm front
bridge
nervozan ‘nervous’
6
Ulnar
basket
drvo ‘wood’
7
Wrist back
slave
doktor ‘doctor’
8a 8b
Wrist front doctor Wrist radial -
kruh ‘bread’
Table 2c. POA body Region/ Body division 1 Neck
ASL
HZJ gloss
broke
engleska ‘England’
2
responsibility
banka ‘bank’
Shoulder
Picture
53
54
Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur 3
Clavicle
personal- ogrlica ity ‘necklace’
4
Torso-top
heart
volim ‘like’
5
Torso-mid
sorry
patiti ‘to suffer’
6
Torso-bottomgut-feeling
gladan ‘hungry’
7
Waist
russian
majka ‘mother’
8
Hips
navy
skijati se ‘skiing’
ASL
HZJ gloss
learn
tisuća ‘thousand’
Table 2d. POA H2 Region/ H2 division 1 Palm
2 3
Finger fronts dismiss Back palm touch
– dodir ‘touch’
4
Back finger
prosto ‘vulgar’
5
Radial finger wood
easy
razlog ‘reason’
Picture
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language
6
Ulnar finger ticket
pomoć ‘help’
7
Tip of finger/ top thumb
neprijatelj ‘enemy’
8
Heel of hand cheese
prljavo ‘dirty’
2.2.2 Handshape It is necessary to begin our discussion with the fact that two different fingerspelling alphabets are used in Croatia. Figure (17) shows both the two-handed alphabet and the one-handed alphabet. Both alphabets are in use. Note that the one-handed alphabet contains hand configurations for letters that Croatian does not use: q, w, x, and y. These letters are not represented in the two-handed alphabet, indicating that the one-handed alphabet is more recent and reflects external influence. The fingerspelling hand configurations can be contrasted with the handshapes actually used in lexical signs. We recorded 44 different handshapes in HZJ (Table 3). Of these, 17 occur in the one-handed manual alphabet, and 10 occur in the two-handed alphabet. The most frequent handshape in the analyzed material was 5 (spread hand). Further research is needed to determine with certainty which handshapes are truly distinctive and which are predictable variants of other handshapes (for example, when the thumb moves out of the way to avoid interfering with contact between the two hands). That is, some of the listed handshapes could be variants of other handshapes. For example, it could be that HS lax–5 is actually just a variant of the HS 5, and l-th-adj could be a variant of the HS l. Thus, the handshape list in Table 3 is probably not the final inventory of handshapes in HZJ. Until such an inventory has been finalized, it will not be possible to assess whether there are any handshapes that cannot be handled by Brentari’s handshape features. Further research is also needed to identify the inventory of unmarked handshapes before we can determine the applicability of Napoli and Wu’s Extended Dominance Condition.
55
56
Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur
(b) One-handed alphabet (a) Two-handed alphabet (b)
Figure 21. Croatian two-handed and one-handed fingerspelling alphabets Table 3. The handshapes inventory of HZJ
Abbreviations are as follows: ‘th’ = extended thumb, ‘th-adj’ = adjacent thumb (next to palm), ‘ext’ = extended non-selected fingers.
Picture
Name a
Handshape (description) Figure 21b: “a” in one-handed alphabet
a-th
HZJ number 1, thumb extended
b
Fig 21b: “b” in one-handed manual alphabet
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language b-th-adj
palm flat, all fingers extended and adjacent
b-th
palm flat; fingers extended and adjacent with thumb extended and spread
flat-b-th
fingers bent at base joint; thumb extended and adjacent
c
Fig 21b: “c” in one-handed manual alphabet
c-th-adj
Fingers curved and adjacent
baby-c
Fig 21a: “c” in two-handed manual alphabet
i
Fig 21b: “i” in one-handed manual alphabet
index
Fig 21a: “i” in two-handed manual alphabet
k
Fig 21b: “k” in one-handed manual alphabet
57
58
Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur l
Fig 21b: “l” in one-handed manual alphabet
l-th-adj
thumb and index finger extended, adjacent to each other, other fingers folded
n
Fig 21b: “n” in one-handed alphabet
o
Fig 21b: “o” in one-handed manual alphabet
baby-o-ext
Fig 21a: “o” in two-handed manual alphabet
pinched-o
fingers flexed at base and non-base joints; all fingertips touch each other
baby-o-flat
small bird’s beak; fist clenched, the tip of the thumb touches the tip of the index finger
baby-o-flat-ext
small bird’s beak with other fingers spread
flat-o2
bird’s beak; the tip of the thumb touches the tip of the index finger and the tip of the middle finger; unselected fingers closed
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language flat-o2-ext
bird’s beak with other fingers extended and spread
flat-o
large bird’s beak, fingers bent at base joint, with the thumb below the other fingers
mido-fl-ext
HZJ number 10, the tip of the middle finger touches tip of thumb; other fingers extended
mido-ext
fingers extended, the nail of the middle finger touches the tip of the thumb forming a circle
mid-ext
middle finger bent at base joint; palm flat, fingers extended and thumb spread
r
Fig 21b: “r” in one-handed manual alphabet
s
Fig 21b: “s” in one-handed manual alphabet
u
Fig 21b: “u” in one-handed manual alphabet
u-th
u with thumb spread
59
60 Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur v
Fig 21b: “v” in one-handed manual alphabet
bent-v
double hook; clenched fist with the index finger and the middle finger spread and curved
x
Figure 21b: “x” in one-handed alphabet
x-th-adj
pincers; clenched fist, the thumb and the index finger raised a little
x-th
Index finger bent at non-base joint, thumb extended and spread
y
Fig 21b: “y” in one-handed manual alphabet
w
Fig 21b: “w” in one-handed manual alphabet
3
HZJ number 3
4
HZJ number 4
5
HZJ number 5; spread hand
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language bent–5
fingers spread and flexed at non-base joints
lax–5
5 hand relaxed; fingers spread and lax
horns
index and little finger extended
horns-th
horns hand, with extended thumb
2.2.3 Orientation The possible orientations for hands are with the palms or knuckles facing in one of six directions: upward, downward, leftward, rightward, forward, and backward. In HZJ all six orientations are found for both palms and knuckles. The most frequent palm orientation in HZJ is backward (facing the signer), and the most frequent knuckle orientation is forward (facing away from the signer). In addition to the direction in which the palm or knuckles face, Meir (1998) makes a linguistic distinction between orientation and facing. Facing refers to those orientation features that change in accordance with the spatial locations assigned to the references to the arguments of the verb. Meir notes that the regular pattern of agreement between a verb and its arguments is to have path movement from the subject location to the object location. Meir notes that agreement verbs not only use the direction of the path but also the facing of the hand to show which argument is subject and which is object. Meir argues that the path movement reflects the semantic/thematic relationship of the arguments, that is, typically source and goal. In contrast, facing reflects the syntactic status of subject and object, with facing toward the object. The regular associations are between (1) subject and source, and (2) object and goal. However, a subset of verbs, called ‘backwards’ verbs, also has facing toward the object and path movement from the source to goal. What is backward about backwards verbs is that the subject is associated with the goal, rather than the more typical association of subject with source. A typical example in ASL and Israeli
61
62
Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur
Sign Language (ISL) is the verb ‘take’. HZJ also has backwards verbs, including take, copy, and invite. As expected, they behave like the backwards verbs identified for ASL and ISL (Table 4). Table 4. HZJ ‘backwards’ verbs Sign gloss ‘take’ uzeti
Picture
‘copy’ kopirati ‘invite’ pozvati
2.3 Prosodic Features: HZJ movements The 36 movements recorded in the analyzed material of HZJ are listed in Table 5 together with their glosses. Many signs in the corpus contain more than one movement. One of the reasons for this is that there are different articulators for movements: the whole arm, the whole hand, or fingers only. Simple signs include only one of these movements. More complex signs can include two, typically a path movement combined with what is referred to as ‘local’ movement at the wrist or knuckles (handshape change, wrist nod or rotate).
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language
Table 5. Movements in HZJ Movement upward
Signs and Gloss sjever ‘north’
downward
izgubiti ‘to lose’
upward-downward ili ‘or’
upward bowlike
zalazak ‘sunset’
downward bowlike ispod ‘under’
contra(lateral) to ipsi(lateral)
Zagreb ‘Zagreb’
side-to-side
vjetar ‘wind’
diagonal
Miss ‘beauty title’
toward the signer
primiti ‘to receive’
away from the signer
javiti ‘to inform’
toward-away from the signer
interesantno ‘interesting’
Picture
63
64 Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur bend (at wrist)
prije ‘before’
alternating
potres ‘earthquake’
upward palm rotation (supination)
otvoriti ‘to open (e.g. yogurt)’
downward palm mrtav ‘dead’ rotation (pronation) 180-degree turn of the hand
slobodan ‘free’
nodding
nemarno ‘carelessly’
circular movement nedjelja ‘Sunday’
bringing closer
neprijatelj ‘enemy’
moving hands further away from each other
novine ‘newspapers’
touching
točno ‘correct’
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language
grabbing
uspjeh ‘success’
crossing
posvađati se ‘to argue’
entering
stan ‘apartment’
flutter at wrist
pedeset ‘fifty’
finger interlace
grad ‘town’
repeated finger interlace
Varaždin ‘Varaždin (town)’
pointing
to ‘that’
wrist pivot
utakmica ‘game’
fluttering the fingers luk ‘onion’
65
66 Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur brushing
lijen ‘lazy’
hand close to all zaboraviti ‘to forget’ finger tips touching closed fist opens to biljka ‘plant’ spread fingers wavelike movement planina ‘mountain’
bending finger/fin- slikati ‘to paint’ gers at knuckle repeated opening and closing of spread fingers
izmišljati ‘to make up (a story)
hitting the hands together
sudar ‘crash’
2.4 Nonmanual characteristics Research indicates that the nonmanual characteristics (face, head, body) have an important role in sign language linguistics (Anderson & Reilly 1998; Bahan 1996; Baker-Shenk 1983; Wilbur 1991, 1994a, b, 1997). One of the earliest findings on the significance of nonmanuals was in 1960 when Stokoe observed that negative headshakes can grammatically mark negation in ASL by itself (without a negative manual sign). The nonmanual characteristics found in the HZJ sample described
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language
Table 6. The nonmanual characteristics in HZJ Nonmanual characteristic mouth shape
eyegaze
position of eyebrows blink head movement
head nod/head shake body movement (shift) body lean (bl) blf blb blr bll bllr sh
Possible forms 1. Mouthings a. articulation of a whole Croatian word simultaneously with a HZJ sign b. partial articulation of a Croatian word simultaneously with a sign 2. Mouth gestures movement of the mouth that is not speech: pursed lips, rounded lips, stretched mouth, stretched mouth with corners up or down upward downward leftward rightward upward downward one two or more upward downward leftward rightward one two or more leftward rightward forward back right left left-right shrugs
in Section 1.5 have been organized into eight groups: mouth shape, eyegaze, position of eyebrows, blink, head movements, head nods and head shakes, body movement (shift), and body lean (Table 6). Each of these groups contains different forms which occurred in the sample. . Elsewhere in this volume, nonmanuals are further described. Šarac Kuhn & Wilbur discuss the role of NMs in HZJ interrogatives. Milković, Bradarić-Jončić & Wilbur discuss the role of NMs in licensing other word orders in HZJ. Alibašić Ciciliani & Wilbur discuss the role of eyegaze in distinguishing person in HZJ pronouns.
67
68 Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur
3. Conclusion Based on this research we can conclude that Croatian Sign Language (HZJ) shows similar phonological characteristics found in other well-studied sign languages, such as ASL and BSL. Analyzing HZJ, we distinguish five phonological parameters: place of articulation, handshape, orientation, movement, and nonmanual characteristics. Until now, this information about the phonological structure of HZJ has not been available to other sign language researchers. Further research will be able to focus on HZJ in relation to other languages in addition to focusing on the unique features that HZJ might hold. Since HZJ developed in an area closely surrounded by other sign languages (such as Austrian, Hungarian and Italian Sign Languages), the influence of these languages on the development of Zagreb HZJ, as well as on other dialects, could be substantial. Particularly, we are interested in comparison between HZJ and ÖGS (Austrian Sign Language) taking into consideration that in the past, the deaf people of Croatia went to Austrian deaf schools for their education. For this reason, we would like to take a closer look into phonological parameters of both HZJ and ÖGS, and trace their similarities and differences. We also expect continued research on the formation of, and constraints on, two-handed signs. Constraints on simultaneous articulation in two-handed signs put limits on the independence of the hands, as Battison (1974, 1978) and Napoli & Wu (2003) have shown. We would like to find the comparable phonological constraints in HZJ. Since the results of this research indicate that some of the described handshapes might not be distinctive but rather variants of certain other handshapes, further research is needed to investigate this possibility in depth. This study points out the main phonological characteristics found in the analyzed HZJ material. It presents an outline of the phonological structure as well as identifying the system of these characteristics. The study also opens doors for the future research of HZJ phonology, and provides further support to establishing the merit of HZJ in the human, social, educational and political awareness frameworks of today.
Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Grant No. 0345314, and by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sport. We would especially like to thank Marina Milković for all her help with the data collection, figures, tables, and insights in HZJ. We are also grateful to all the individuals from the Zagreb Deaf community who
Phonological parameters in Croatian Sign Language 69
participated in our research and helped us. We acknowledge with gratitude The Math Forum at Drexel University for permission to use figures showing the different types of mathematical rotation; they are resources of Susan Addington and The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/ sum95/suzanne/symsusan.html.
References Anderson, D. E. & J. S. Reilly (1998). PAH! The acquisition of adverbials in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 1: 117–142. Bahan, B. J. (1996). Nonmanual realization of agreement in ASL. Doctoral dissertation, Boston University. Baker-Shenk, C. L. (1983). A microanalysis of the nonmanual components of questions in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Battison, R. (1974). “Phonological deletion in American Sign Language.” Sign Language Studies 5: 1–19. Battison, R. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Battison, R., H. Markowicz & J. Woodward (1975). “A good rule of thumb: Variable phonology in ASL.” In R. Shuy & R. Fasold (eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English II, 291–302. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Channon, R. (2002). Signs are single segments: Phonological representations and temporal sequencing in ASL and other sign languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Eccarius, P. (2002). Finding common ground: A comparison of handshape across multiple sign languages. Masters thesis, Purdue University. Klima, E. & U. Bellugi (eds.) (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lacy, R. (1974). Putting some of the syntax back into semantics. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, New York. Milković, M. (2005). Red riječi u hrvatskom znakovnoj jeziku. [Word order in Croatian Sign Language.] Masters thesis, University of Zagreb. Meir, I. (1998). “Syntactic-semantic interaction in Israeli Sign Language verbs: The case of backwards verbs.” Sign Language & Linguistics 1:3–38. Napoli, D. J. & J. Wu (2003). “Morpheme structure constraints on two-handed signs in American Sign Language: Notions of symmetry.” Sign Language & Linguistics 6: 123–205. Rozelle, L. (2004) Does location predict handshape? Dependence between phonological parameters. Presented at the eighth Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research conference, Barcelona. Stokoe, William C., D. Casterline & C.G. Croneberg (1965). A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Wilbur, R. B. (1991). “Intonation and focus in American Sign Language.” In Y. No & M. Libucha (Eds.), ESCOL ‘90: Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, pp. 320–331. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Wilbur, R. B. (1994a). “Eyeblinks & ASL phrase structure.” Sign Language Studies 84: 221–240.
70 Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn, Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani and Ronnie B. Wilbur Wilbur, R. B. (1994b). “Foregrounding structures in American Sign Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 22: 647–672. Wilbur, R. B. (1997). “Body leans and the marking of contrast in American Sign Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 275–303. Wilbur, R. B. (2003, Apr.) Representations of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistics Society 39. Wilbur, R. B. (in press). “Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar?” In J. Quer (ed.), Leading research in sign language research. Hamburg: Signum Press. Wilbur, R. & L. Petersen (1997). “Backwards signing and ASL syllable structure.” Language & Speech 40: 63–90. Zimmermann, A. (1986). Introductory seminar about communication with hearing impaired people: second revised edition. Unpublished manuscript, Savez osoba oštećena sluha grada Zagreba, Zagreb.
Authors’ addresses Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn 85 West Fifth Ave, apt.201 San Mateo, CA 94402 USA Tamara Alibašić Ciciliani Table 33 21000 Split Croatia
Ronnie B. Wilbur Purdue University 500 Oval Drive W. Lafayette, IN 47907–2038 USA
