Importance of SL phonemes

[Kathy H.]

Let's not give up yet on finding actual phonemes for signed languages.  
 
I think it's important to fit sign language phonology into spoken language phonology as much as we can.  If we have to start making up new things that are specific for sign language, other than the obvious difference of using the hands (etc.) rather than the vocal tract, then that gives evidence to people in charge to say No! concerning issues that deal with signed languages as true and natural languages.
 
The more we can fit signed and spoken languages into one phonological system, the stronger our case is in such instances where we need to contend for signed languages as true languages.  
 
If we make the claim to some official person that signed languages have phonemes, too, and then we are asked to show them, we cannot do so!  Then why should that official listen to us and honor our request?  He has reason NOT to do so.
 
I honestly believe that we need to unite the two modalities as much as possible.  In doing so, we just might find where spoken language phonology needs to be adjusted, and then we are further along in learning how languages work.
Concerning iconicity (see below), I would remove that from the equation in the search for phonemes.  I would also remove morphology.  In this way, there are no confounding elements.  Get a list of words, preferably native vocabulary, list the phonetic elements, and find patterns and predictable factors.  
 
And that's my two cents on a Friday morning!  (see below)
(That adds up to four cents.  Anyone else want to contribute?  We could start a sign language phoneme fund!)  <just kidding, of course>
 
Kathy
 



Kathy wrote: >(And I WOULD like to know if anyone can list the phonemes of any sign language...and justify their phonemic Zstatus...)  [I meant "status".  kh] That's a really good question. :) 
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 :)
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.
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". 
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.
 
Just my two cents on a friday morning :)
 
All the best
 
Sonja Erlenkamp
_________________________________________________________________
Explore the seven wonders of the world
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20070928/739b9d06/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
SLLING-L mailing list
SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l