Metathesis in signs/motor economy

[Jörg Keller]

Dear Scott,
 if you read the mail I posted on the list recently, you've actually got what Nancy referred to. She used the term 'theory' in a more non-technical, colloquial sense to refer to the hypothesis I forwarded to account for a number of phonotactic/phonological variations and options that need not enter the proper of phonological theory or any part of the theory of grammar. Indeed, there exist several theories of motor action that directly relate to language (e.g. Lieberman/Mattingly, D.MacKay, or Massaro) but I didn't really refer to these, nor to any specific principle of economy of Generative syntax.

In my opinion, motoric economy is not reserved to phenomena of metatheses of course - it is not even reserved to (sign) language. BUT, because of its modality of production, motor economy is more apparent in sign language than it is in spoken language! However, even in spoken languages, phenomena such as coarticulation may be an effect of motor economy.

Another DGS-example: In my analysis of the grammar of space in German Sign Language (see Sign Language & Linguistics 2, pp.219-227 for a summary), I suggested that certain alternations such as a switch of an index finger to an A'-handshape (=thumb used to point instead of the index finger) when pointing goes backwards to the right (in case of right hand=dominant) or straight backwards over the signer's shoulder is due to motoric economy too. One could, of course, assume an allophonic variation (or worse allomorphs for the  signs) thereby accounting for alternations of this sort with specific representations in the domain of phonology/morphology - but I cannot see the virtue of doing so for conceptual reasons of theory making (Occam's razor effect). For one thing, one would need additional rules and a representation to specify the use/the context of appearance of this form, for another thing, such a rule would be an optional one at any rate. (Things are even worse for allomorphs because the signs that show this sort of alternation have different meanings.) So all you end up in doing so is extra phonological machinery.... This is not to say that this  may not be the case - but one needs some good reason for any specific extras. 

I simply mean that we get a number of phenomena for free - in a strictly model theoretic sense - that need no language/grammar specific account. 
>From a physiological point of view, motor economy is favoured in motor coordination and automation - it truely saves energy in view of the gravitational forces that we have to comply with as Nancy suggested. (Better stop now - I am getting too carried away...)


Rachel, 
just a note: GEHOERLOS (deaf) in DGS is signed with an index finger and usually goes  from close to the ear to the mouth. This is standard. Sometimes the direction of movement is reversed, yet not considered to be ungrammatical. I also came across this kind of reversal in one variant of VATER (father) and MUTTER (mother) the other day. VATER is standardly signed with a flathand, arm horizontal, palm down, starting at the forehead with a down movement to the chin. One variant of MUTTER is also signed with a flathand, arm in vertical orientation, palm leftward (on right-hand dominance), starting at the right cheek side with movement to the left cheek. In videos used to monitor sign production errors, we found movement reversals in both VATER and MUTTER - again this is not standard but was also not considered ungrammatical nor a slip of the hand by our deaf colleagues.

Regards
Joerg




*********************
Joerg Keller
please use the following e-mail-address for replies:
keller at lingua.uni-frankfurt.de