<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<STYLE>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3132" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>I think it's a good question too. </FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>I hesitate to jump in because I'm a little out of touch these days -
</FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>My available memory cells are taken up with dissertation
stuff in a different field at the moment.
</FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>It's been almost 10 years since I was reading in this area, but here
goes - </FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>In the late '90s, </FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG><STRONG><EM><SPAN
class=281324307-28092007><FONT face=Arial>given the slipperiness of phonemes and
the development of other phonological descriptive systems,
</FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>some people were using feature-level taxonomies -
generative phonology and Optimality theory. </FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>I don't recall reading OT texts on SLs, but it seems to me that
several people were publishing </FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>feature-level analyses. </FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT face=Arial>Diane Brentari
(1999). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN class=281324307-28092007>is reviewed in:
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>Wendy Sandler. Review: Diane Brentari (1999). A prosodic model of
sign language phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. in Phonology
(1999), 16: 443-447 Cambridge University Press</FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><EM><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>
<P align=left><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=281324307-28092007>Wendy Sandler
& Diane Lillo-Martin. "</SPAN>Natural Sign Languages<SPAN
class=281324307-28092007>"</SPAN>. In <I>Handbook of Linguistics.<SPAN
class=281324307-28092007> </SPAN></I>M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (eds.)
2001.<SPAN class=281324307-28092007> </SPAN>pp. 533-562</FONT></P></EM>
<P align=left><FONT face=Arial><EM><SPAN
class=281324307-28092007></SPAN></EM></FONT> </P>
<P align=left><FONT face=Arial><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007>cites
</SPAN>Sandler, Wendy (<SPAN class=281324307-28092007>then </SPAN>in press). One
phonology or two? Sign language and<SPAN class=281324307-28092007>
</SPAN></EM><EM>phonological theory. in R. Sybesma and L. Cheng, eds.,
</EM><EM>GLOT International<SPAN class=281324307-28092007>
</SPAN></EM><EM>State-of-the-Article Book. </EM>The Hague: Holland Academie
Graphics</FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></EM> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT face=Arial>It
seems to me that there was at least one other generative or lexical model I was
looking at - I'll check my shelves. </FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></EM> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT face=Arial>To
me (as I remember) the advantage of these descriptions was that they were not
tied to using terms that originated with spoken languages;
</FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT face=Arial>a
[+/- feature] hierarchy worked equally well for both, with each on its own
terms.</FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial> I was very taken by the idea of the "mora," a two part unit
roughly corresponding to: </FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>move-hold patterns, </FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>Consonant/Vowel pairings, </FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>Japanese syllabaries' written representations,
</FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT face=Arial>the
opening and closing of a set of muscles. </FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT face=Arial>-
but this was only one aspect of feature analysis, not the whole
theory.</FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT face=Arial>I
liked to think we split perceptions up arbitrarily as drumbeats in order to
process a continuous stream of input as if it had discrete
parts.</FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>Capturing some information about short segments lets us compare them
to what's coming in, to understand new input in spite of
variability.</FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>Whenever someone generates a system for coding in another modality -
an alphabet, a syllabary, a pictographic lexicon, a set of dots and dashes or
bumps, you name it - </FONT></SPAN></EM></SPAN></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-FAMILY: Times">
<DIV style="LEFT: 403px; POSITION: absolute; TOP: 13936px"><NOBR>Sandler, W.
(1989). <I>Phonological representation of the sign: Linear-</I></NOBR></DIV>
<DIV style="LEFT: 415px; POSITION: absolute; TOP: 13949px"><NOBR><I>ity and
nonlinearity in American Sign Language. </I>Dordrecht:
Foris.</NOBR></DIV></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007> <FONT
face=Arial>they are encoding an overlapping set of different levels of
"analysis"/categorization, but sorting it by (more or less) one level that they
can understand and manipulate consciously.</FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>So one system might break up moves and holds as separate elements,
while another might combine them in a single system.
</FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>In the spoken language examples that have been talked about, some
code at the mora level, some split mora up into C and V (and, perhaps, leave the
V out), some split out more features and come up with - roughly 20-50 "phonemes"
(more if you add tonal elements), others focus on a morphological or semantic
level (Chinese characters, for example) - but even Chinese characters are
phonologically based to some extent, in spite of also capturing, as you are
talking about below, the semantic comment. </FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>Feature-based systems have an advantage over semantic-level systems
in that you can use a smaller set of symbols to fully express -
</FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>everything; but they also have disadvantages (cognitively). One of
them is that the input stream is parsed into arbitrary units differently by
different people, making some elements disconnect from the "standard" or
intended representation. </FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>This really hit me with the following example (sorry it's from a
spoken language; you'll see why in a minute): </FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>We pronounce "flour" and "flower" the same, but spell them
differently. </FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>Why? </FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>In moving from an open mouth-low tongue (flah) to a rounded
one (ur), there is a point of merger. </FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>For some people, that point is perceptible; it just happens to be the
same "coarticulation" set that defines "w" as a consonant.
</FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>Hence: Flo (short o as in "hot") + ur
</FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>but ALSO Flo + Wur</FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>AND sometimes Flo + U (these two together rhyme with "how") +
ur.</FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007>The
representations, then, are less arbitrary for some than for others: if your
internal system matches the level of representation, the shape but not the
number of symbols and their deployment is arbitrary. The farther your own
internal system is from the symbolic one, the more the system has a second level
of abstraction that makes it hard to code/decode.</SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN
class=281324307-28092007></SPAN></EM></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>A second interesting thing about these pairings is that they
were very slippery historically until dictionaries came
along. </FONT> </SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>Signwriting begins with a dictionary, though.
</FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN
class=281324307-28092007></SPAN></EM></STRONG><STRONG><EM><SPAN
class=281324307-28092007><FONT face=Arial>I would be really curious to know
whether there are persistent "poor spellers" in signwriting as time goes on,
</FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><STRONG><EM><SPAN class=281324307-28092007><FONT
face=Arial>who perceive categories of movement differently and insist on their
own coding system. </FONT></SPAN></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=Arial></FONT></EM></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=Arial>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Carolyn Ostrander</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>PhD student, Composition and Cultural
Rhetoric</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Syracuse University </FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="mailto:clostran@syr.edu">clostran@syr.edu</A></FONT></DIV></FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV><FONT
face=Arial></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT><STRONG><EM><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></EM></STRONG><STRONG><EM><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></EM></STRONG><STRONG><EM><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></EM></STRONG><STRONG><EM><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></EM></STRONG><STRONG><EM><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></EM></STRONG><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> slling-l-bounces@majordomo.valenciacc.edu
[mailto:slling-l-bounces@majordomo.valenciacc.edu] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Sonja
Erlenkamp<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, September 28, 2007 3:34 AM<BR><B>To:</B> A
list for linguists interested in signed languages; A list for linguists
interested in signed languages<BR><B>Subject:</B> SV: [SLLING-L] use of sign
language in Jordan<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText44408 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Kathy wrote:<BR> <BR>>(And I WOULD like to know if anyone
can list the phonemes of any sign language...and justify their phonemic
Zstatus...)<BR> <BR>That's a really good question. :) </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>I have searched for an answer to that questions some years now
and haven't found any full description of the phonemesystem of any signed
language yet. But of course I may not have found the one that exists
(please let me know if that is the case :)</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>One of my Ph.D. students who is working on notational systems for
sign lanuage dictionaries seems to close in to a conclusion that one of the
major problems for notational system is to capture shared iconic features
of different signs.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Personally I believe that many, if not allmost of all the
parameters in a single sign and including nonmanual features can (and often
do) carry an iconic potential which makes them by definition non-arbitrary and
that means again they could not be phonemic in the sense of spoken language
phonemes, because phonemes are by definition arbitrary. On the other
hand is for example a handshape not always morphemic either since
it does not carry some meaning in a morphemic sense, just an iconic potential
that can be activated in a sign. I think that signed languages probably do not
fit entirely in the linguistic level model of phonemic - morphemic and
that we probably need a new level, somewhat in between these two "levels"
describing how "iconemes" work. I use the terms "iconeme" roughly said for the
"smallest analysable unit in a language carrying an iconic potential". </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>And if (I say IF!) we end up describing an iconeme-level of
signed languages this could also influence our understanding of
writing systems/notational tools for signed languages.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><STRONG><EM><FONT face=Arial></FONT></EM></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Just my two cents on a friday morning :)</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><STRONG><EM><FONT face=Arial></FONT></EM></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>All the best</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><STRONG><EM><FONT face=Arial></FONT></EM></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Sonja Erlenkamp<BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<HR>
</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger <A
href="http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline"
target=_new>Get it now! </A></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>