Phonology of numerals

Tue May 14 22:07:29 UTC 2002

Adam and Carol,

The way I see it, these numerals seem to violate Battison's constraint in the
same way the ASL signs SHOW, HELP, and LEAD seem to violate it. SHOW uses the 5
handshape for the nondominant hand and the index finger for the dominant hand,
and the index finger contacts the 5 hand on the palm. The two hands then move
together as a unit. Similarly, the two hands in the BSL numerals seem to work
together as a unit as well, based on Adam's description. Even though the two
hands may not necessarily touch each other, they still function as a unit. The
nondominant hand remains unmarked, and it continues to follow the movement of
the dominant hand, so in that sense, the sign obeys the Dominance Condition.

Many DGS signs involving the numerals 6 through 9 (e.g. 6-9, 16-19, 26-29, etc.)
similarly use the two hands, with the nondominant hand appearing in the 5
handshape, which is unmarked and copies the movement of the dominant hand. The
crucial point here is that dominance cannot be switched in these signs, i.e.
the nondominant hand cannot appear in the handshape for 6 while the dominant
hand appears in the 5 handshape. This is further supported by the DGS sign for,
e.g., 69. First the sign is made for '9' which has the dominant hand in the 4
handshape and the nondominant hand in the 5 handshape. Next, the hands twist
and form the sign for '6': the dominant hand is in the A-thumb handshape while
the nondominant hand is in the 5 handshape. Note that throughout both parts of
the sign, the nondominant hand remains in the unmarked handshape of 5.

The above suggests to me that these kinds of signs remain single two-handed
signs (where the two hands work together as a unit when some morphological
process is applied to them), and not as two one-handed signs. While they may
seem to be exceptions, they actually prove the rule, i.e. Battison~'s Dominance
Condition.

Christian

> Carol,
>
> Thanks for your message. I see your point about the signs SIXTEEN to
> NINETEEN in BSL - is anyone in print arguing that these signs, and
> similar signs in other signed languages such as LIS (Italian SL) and
> DGS (German SL), are indeed two one-handed signs? Would the argument
> be that they represent some kind of simultaneous compound? The odd
> thing about them in BSL is that, like some two-handed lexical signs,
> they also occur without the non-dominant hand and yet this does not
> change the meaning. I do not know if the same is true of numerals in
> LIS or DGS.
>
> I am familiar with the fact that classifier constructions are not
> constrained by the symmetry or dominance condition :-). However, I
> believe that the examples from Auslan cannot be analysed as
> classifier constructions. These are clearly signs from the
> monomorphemic core native lexicon. The Auslan signs MIDDLE and
> COINCIDENCE involve a dominant B oriented pinky side downwards making
> contact with a non-dominant Middle (the 5 hand with the middle finger
> bent at the base joint). The signs LAST and MENSTRUAL-PERIOD involve
> a dominant B handshape contacting a non-dominant I. They dominant
> hand in each case is clearly the B handshape which moves and not the
> Middle or I which are held still. The last sign (MENSTRUAL-PERIOD)
> may have lexicalised from an enumeration complex meaning FOURTH (as
> in 'fourth week'), but I do not feel it can be analysed as
> multimorphemic synchronically. The other three do not seem to allow
> any kind of multimorphemic analysis.
>
> The dominance condition clearly holds for the majority of two-handed
> signs in Auslan. In one analysis, I found that over 95% of two-handed
> signs used an unmarked non-dominant handshape (5, G, S, C, O, A etc),
> so the language clearly favours this pattern. But there do appear to
> be some exceptions, and the four I have given here clearly use marked
> non-dominant handshapes.
>
> Adam
>
>
> >Adam --
> >
> >I would argue that the reason why these forms are not constrained
> >by the symmetry (or dominance) condition is because they are not
> >two-handed signs, but two one-handed signs. I'm not sure I understand
> >how your forms look, but I've seen similar "two-handed" numeral
> >forms in other sign languages (e./g. Italian Sign Language) and a
> >case could be made that these function as if both hands are one-
> >handed.  Many classifier complexes are like these - the left hand
> >is VEHICLE and the right hand is PERSON, 'walking past the car.'
> >Movements can be simultaneous, and even lexicalized to some
> >extent, but  because both hands can vary independently and
> >meaningfully, they are not two-handed signs.
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >>BSL has at least four signs that appear not to be constrained by
> >>Battison's (1978) symmetry condition. These are the signs SIXTEEN,
> >>SEVENTEEN, EIGHTEEN and NINETEEN. These signs have a two-handed
> >>variant in which the hands have the same location (neutral space)
> and
> >>movement (an alternating up and down movement) but different hand
> >>configurations on the dominant and non-dominant hand (the
> >>non-dominant hand has a 5 handshape, while the other hand may have
> an
> >>I, for example, in one form of the sign SIXTEEN). To my knowledge,
> >>these variants are not found in the related variety, Auslan.
> >>
> >>Bencie Woll pointed out to me that numerals in BSL and Auslan have
> >>other distinctive formational properties, such as hand
> configurations
> >>not found in other core native signs, as in the closed hand with
> >>only the pinky and ring finger extended used in some varieties of
> BSL
> >>and Auslan for SEVEN, and the extended thumb, index, middle and ring
> >>used in some varieties for NINE. Only signs related to SEVEN and
> >>NINE use these handshapes (e.g., SEVENTEEN, NINETY, LAST-WEEK etc).
> >>
> >>I believe the same claim has been made in the literature for ASL
> >>SEVEN.
> >>
> >>So do other sign languages use different formational features and
> >>constraints for numerals? Can someone point me in the direction of
> >>any published discussion of this issue (I seem to recall some
> >>discussion of this on SLLING-L some time ago)?
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>Adam
> >>
> >>PS Auslan also has a very small number of signs that appear to break
> >>Battison's (1978) dominance condition, using marked handshapes on
> the
> >>non-dominant hand.
> >>
> >>----------------------
> >>Adam Schembri
> >>Centre for Deaf Studies
> >>University of Bristol
> >>8 Woodland Rd
> >>Bristol BS8 1TN
> >>United Kingdom
> >>Telephone: +44 (0)117 954 6909
> >>Textphone: +44 (0)117 954 6920
> >>Fax: +44 (0)117 954 6921
> >>Email: Adam.Schembri at bristol.ac.uk
> >>Website: www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/DeafStudies
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------
> >Carol A. Padden
> >Professor
> >Department of Communication
> >University of California, San Diego
> >La Jolla, CA 92093-0503
> >858.534.7571 tty
> >858.534.7315 fax  ~ cpadden at ucsd.edu
> >-----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --
>