Jean Ann - Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Sign Language Handshapes - The Taiwanese Example

FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Frequency of
Occurrence
and Ease of
Articulation of
Sign Language
Handshapes
Page i
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page ii
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page iii
Frequency of
Occurrence
and Ease of
Articulation of
Sign Language
Handshapes
The Taiwanese Example
Jean Ann
Gallaudet University Press

Washington, D.C.
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page iv
Gallaudet University Press

Washington, D.C. 20002
http://gupress.gallaudet.edu
2006 by Gallaudet University
All rights reserved
Published in 2006
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Ann, Jean
Frequency of occurrence and ease of articulation of sign language handshapes :
the Taiwanese example / Jean Ann.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-56368-288-5 (alk. paper)
1. Taiwan Sign Language. I. Title.
HV2474.A55 2000
419'.51249dc22
2006010157
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
American National Standard for Information SciencesPermanence of Paper for

Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page v
To my mother, Marian Jeanne Savoca Griffin, and the memory

of my father, Patrick Joseph Griffin. From the first time I insisted
on reading them The Cat in the Hat all by myself, I have loved language.
Their stoking of that fire eventually led me to become a linguist.
And to my parents-in-law, Zhang Da-yin and Peng Jin-de, who teach
me, ever so gently, about language and living in a foreign land with dignity and courage.
I honor them all for what they have given me, and for what they
keep letting me believe I can do.
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page vi
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page vii
Contents
Acknowledgments
ix
Chapter One
Contextualizing this Book
Chapter Two
The Anatomy and Physiology

of the Human Hand
Chapter Three A Model of Ease of
56
87
Handshape Articulation
Chapter Four Ease and Frequency Compared
139
Conclusion
181
References
191
Index
205
vii
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page viii
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page ix
Acknowledgments
About fifteen years ago, I read four things that rocked my world: a thenunpublished paper by David Corina and Elizabeth Sagey, Mark Mandels
dissertation, drafts of Grounded Phonology by Diana Archangeli and
Doug Pulleyblank, and some of the work of John Ohala. Since then,
the idea of articulation of handshapes has bothered me night and day. I
ended up writing a 1993 dissertation on the topic. Perhaps I should have
left it at that, but I didnt. This book is a much-revised and updated version of my dissertation.
Doing this project gave me chances to live in places from southern
Taiwan to central New York and to work with a delightful array of both
linguists and regular people. The clearest way to express my gratitude
to the many who have supported me as I wrote this book is to tell the
stories of my encounters with each. But because those stories are another
book, it will have to suffice to reduce the stories to names and a few
words of thanks and praise. I hope I have thanked everyone who helped
me; for anyone I have inadvertently left out, I offer apologies and thanks.
At the University of Arizona, first and foremost, Mike Hammond
gave me the space to try to think about functional questions in a formal
department. If he had not let me be where I was, I would not have been
able to begin this journey. Diana Archangelis careful attention to my
writing and analysis was a gift. Sam Supallas insights about sign languages and his willingness to make time for me were invaluable. I was
encouraged by Doug Saddy, Wendy Wiswall, Tom Bourgeois, Masahide
ix
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page x
Acknowledgments
Ishihara, David Basilico, Raquel Mejia, Jorge Lemus, Lee Fulmer,

Carol Braithwaite, Husni Muadz, Larry Hagberg, Steven Zepp, Chip
Gerfen, Pilar Piar, Laura Conway, Anna Ciszewska-Wilkens, Kyoko
Yoshimura, Colleen Fitzgerald, Ken Drozd, Prapa Sookgasem, Cari
Spring, Megan Crowhurst, Elizabeth Dyckman, Judy Linnane, David
Bergheim, and Rosemary interosseous Emery. A special expression of
thanks is due my friends Diane Ohala, Diane Meador, and Pat (Patep)
Prez who steered when I could not. I owe a debt to a few people outside
the University of Arizona who also assisted me. Wayne Smith welcomed
me to TSL research with open arms and freely shared his encyclopedic
knowledge of the language and the people. Sandy Sasarita guided me
gently through hand physiology and had unfailing enthusiasm for the
project. Raquel Willerman shared her insights about ease of articulation in spoken languages. Yau Shun Chiu talked with me at length about
the sign language of mainland China. Enriched with all of this, I left
Arizona in 1992.
In every place I have been since, as I have worked on this project
sporadically, students and colleagues have helped with things from statistics, to computers, to linguistics, to publication, to writing, to physical and emotional well-being. At Purdue University, help came in the
form of Ronnie Wilbur, Maggie Rolfe, Chen Nien-Po, Homayoun Valafar, and Jian Zhao. At National University of Singapore, K. P. Mohanan,
Tara Mohanan, David Gil, and Bruce Long Peng started many enlightening and exciting conversations about understanding language from a
formal perspective. Geraint Wong translated some written materials. At
San Jos State University, Martha Bean and I discussed writing and
staying sane in linguistics. At Gallaudet University, the inimitable Ceil
Lucas encouraged me to share my work. At S.U.N.Y. Oswego, the
semi-linguists in my writing group, Sharon Kane, Bobbi Schnorr,
Chris Walsh, Bonita Hampton, Tania Ramalho, Barb Beyerbach, and
Mary Harrell took on the task of helping me make the manuscript make
sense to readers. I thank them all for the attention they paid to my work
despite being much too busy with their own. Pat Russo and Pam Michel
helped me to insist and persist. Theresa Bilodeau carefully worked on
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page xi
Acknowledgments
xi
the frequency numbers. Sarah Mahan adapted and drew many of the
pictures in this book.
Wayne Smith and Ting Li Fen, who literally wrote the book on
Taiwan Sign Language, allowed me to reproduce pictures of handshapes
from their works Your Hands Can Become a Bridge, volumes 1 and 2.
All pictures come from their work, unless otherwise noted.
There were others, from here and there and from time to time, who
assisted me, some of whom I have not yet met in person. First, the suggestions of an anonymous reviewer at Gallaudet University Press
pushed me to rethink both the theory and the data in my dissertation by
causing me to face the question of formalism versus functionalism in
sign language linguistics. I hope what has resulted helps our field move
forward. Shaun OConnor, Isabel Davis, Susan Fischer, Richard Meier,
Chiangsheng Yu, Jeff Davis, David Corina, Susan Duncan, Wendy Sandler, Joan Bybee, Mark Mandel, Bill Stokoe, Vincent van Heuven, Onno
Crasborn, James Woodward, Els van de Kooij, and Harry van der Hulst
all have amazing and useful insights into different areas of life, writing, and language, and they all helped me to have faith in the ideas and
keep working on them. And Vera Baquet, Melinda Stone, Nan Uber,
Terence Dulin, and especially Susan B. Brown helped me work on
things much closer to home. I am so grateful to them for their excellent
listening and for sharing their thinking with me. And for their embrace
and their laughter through all the things that life brings, I thank my sisters Dorothy Mancuso, Audrey Gray, and Emmy Nelson and my brothersin-law Anthony Mancuso, Jim Gray, and Jim Nelson and all my kids,
Andrea, Patrick, Marty, Matthew, Warren, Jimmy, and Brian.
In the course of completing this book, I traveled to Taiwan four
times. In the beginning, it was John DAndrea, Zhang Shi, Zhang Da-yin,
and especially Jane Tsay who kept me in touch, translating and interpreting correspondence, articles, and dictionaries. During my early visits,
professional courtesies were extended to me by Chiang Ssu Nung and
Chiang Jenn Tsyi from the Chiying School in Kaohsiung and by Shyue
Jian Wu, Jennifer Song, D. J. Guan, and S. Y. Wang at National Sun
Yat-sen University in Kaohsiung. By 2003, my colleagues and friends
xii
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page xii
Acknowledgments
James Myers and Jane Tsay of the Graduate Institute in Linguistics at

National Chung Cheng University in Chia-yi had invited me to Taiwan
for an incredible event: the first international Taiwan Sign Language
Linguistics Symposium. At that time, the three of us made a plan to help
me finish the book. I am overwhelmed by and grateful for their longstanding encouragement of me and my work, ever since we were graduate students at Arizona, and it is absolutely clear that if they had not
provided extensive help with the data, the book would never have been
finished. Their graduate students, Chang Feng Ru, Lin Fang Yu, Su Shioufen, Tsou Ya-ching, Lee Yan-an, Chiu Cheng-hao, and especially Lee
Hsin-Hsien deserve abundant thanks.
Of all the experiences I have had connected to this book, the most
fun has been to learn about language from members of southern Taiwans
Deaf community. During my first trip to Kaohsiung, only one of the
people I met had heard of the legendary work of Wayne Smith and Ting
Li Fen years before in Taipei; most were unfamiliar with linguistics
and linguists. And yet, somehow, they answered linguist questions,
told me how things were said in their language, introduced me to their
friends, and helped me make Kaohsiung home. For taking this leap of
faith, I thank Lin Fang Shi, Wong Tzuu Pin, Wong Yeh Yeong, Tsay Jiazhen, Chung Ru Feng, and others who wish to remain anonymous. The
small corpus analyzed in this book comes from conversational data of
native signers Lu Jia-li, Cai Jia-zhen, Wu Su-li, and Wu Yi-san. A few
words here will not begin to express my thanks to all of these people
for their enormous contribution to my understanding of sign languages
and of life. I can only hope that this book will, however indirectly, make
a contribution to their lives as significant as the one they made to mine.
Since the beginning of this project, I have been very fortunate to
receive funding from important sources. In 1990, the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council with
the Chiang Ching-Kuo Foundation awarded me a dissertation grant
to go to Kaohsiung to collect data. In 1992, the American Association of
University Women provided me with a grant that supported the final
year of writing the dissertation. In 2000, I received a Scholarly and
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page xiii
Acknowledgments
xiii
Creative Activities award from S.U.N.Y. Oswego that freed up some

time to write. In 2001, 2003, and 2005, I was able to secure student
help thanks to small grants from the Oswego chapter of United University Professions as part of the negotiated Joint Labor Management Professional Development and Quality of Work Life program. In 2003,
I received an International Education grant from S.U.N.Y. Oswego to
attend the TSL Linguistics Symposium. In 2005, I made the final revisions to this book during my sabbatical at National Chung Cheng University, which was made possible through a second grant from the Chiang
Ching-Kuo Foundation. I am extremely grateful to all these funding
sources. Their willingness to persistently fund this project indicates a
great need to know what the study of Taiwan Sign Language and the
people who use it might reveal.
I am indebted to Deirdre Mullervy and Ivey Wallace at Gallaudet
University Press who were patient and understanding of the many delays.
Mary Gawlik, the copy editor, righted many wrongs. For any errors that
remain, I take full responsibility.
And at last, I offer unbridled gratitude to Bruce Long Peng. Adventures such as this one are even better when one has a home. Peng Long
moves mountains to make ours a loving home where we can write,
think, and laugh. He takes on all the burden of being my partner, favorite
linguist, revered chef, most efficient travel agent, most constructive
critic, loudest cheerleader, and dearest friend. He has been beside me
every step of the way, and without his considerable and much cherished
influence in my life as a linguist and as a human being, I cannot imagine having come this far.
9/7/06
11:56 AM
Page xiv
ch01_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 1
Chapter One

In the late 1960s, a surprising claim was made: the gestures that American Deaf people use in communication with one another actually had
all the properties of a language (Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg
1965). Part of the evidence advanced to support this claim was that ASL
signs, analogous to spoken words, were composed of parts that combined to form larger, meaningful units. These parts were originally proposed to be handshape, palm orientation, location, and movement
(Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg 1965; Battison 1978). With this
claim, American Sign Language (ASL) became a topic of interest to linguists. Indeed, from that time to the present, linguists have investigated
many sign languages.
This book is concerned neither with the totality of the unit we know
as a sign nor with any linguistic unit larger than a sign. Rather, it examines the parameter of a sign that is known in the literature as handshape. The relationship between a handshape and a sign is that of part to
whole. A sign is made up of one handshape (or more, depending on the
sign) with the palm oriented in a particular way within a particular location and, perhaps, with movement of the fingers or movement of the
hand along a path.
Handshape refers to the configuration of the fingers as a sign is
articulated, for example, the thumbs-up handshape or the peace sign
handshape pictured in figure 1. Throughout this work, the handshape
labeled figure 1a is described as having the thumb extended and the rest
of the fingers closed to the palm. The handshape labeled figure 1b is
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Chapter One
a.
Figure 1
Page 2
b.
Some handshapes
described as having the index and middle fingers extended while the
thumb, middle, and ring fingers are closed to the palm. All other handshapes are described in similar terms.
ASL and some of the sign languages of Europe, including SLN
(Sign Language of the Netherlands) and SSL (Swedish Sign Language),
are probably the worlds most studied sign languages. A gap continues
to widen between the study of these and other North American and
European sign languages, not to mention the sign languages in use on
other continents. In this book, I focus on Taiwan Sign Language (TSL),
an under-studied sign language, but one of the more studied sign languages of Asia.
In a nutshell, this book examines the relationship between frequency of occurrence of handshape and ease of articulation of handshape. About fifty-six handshapes have been discovered for TSL (Smith
and Ting 1979, 1984). The null hypothesis would predict that all fiftysix handshapes ought to occur with equal frequency in TSL. However,
this conjecture is not the case; in fact, some handshapes occur with
much greater frequency than others. Why should this variation occur?
Linguists might hypothesize that ease of articulation has something to
do with this phenomenon. In other words, the handshapes that are used
most frequently are the easiest to articulate or make. This book examines that hypothesis.
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 3
APPROACHES TO LINGUISTIC STUDY

One way linguists seek to understand the structure and function of language in general is by focusing on a specific phenomenon in one language. The questions that I examine concern the relationship between
frequency of occurrence and ease of articulation with respect to handshapes in TSL. More precisely, how are easy-to-articulate and difficultto-articulate handshapes distributed in TSL? Do easy handshapes occur frequently and difficult handshapes occur less frequently? Or does
some other relationship exist between ease of articulation of handshapes
and frequency of occurrence, if a relationship exists at all? The context
of these questions needs to be made clear at the outset to establish how
answers might be reached. Because linguists have explored the ideas
of both ease of articulation and frequency of occurrence largely in the
context of an approach known as functionalism, and not in the context
of an alternate approach known as formalism, I discuss these approaches
to linguistic study first.
In modern linguistics, researchers have taken diverse positions with
respect to how to approach the task of understanding language. These
positions are said to include two general approaches known as formalism and functionalism (Newmeyer 1998). The preoccupations of each
approach are different, and as a result, each has divergent views on some
rather serious issues, including (a) the facts about language that need
to be explained (Newmeyer 1998, 96); (b) the domains worth exploring in search of explanation (Newmeyer 1998, 96); (c) what counts
as an explanation (Newmeyer 1998, 9697); and (d) the goals of linguistic analysis (Haspelmath 2000, 236).
The task of fully describing formalist and functionalist perspectives on all of these issues is beyond the scope of this book and might
even be impossible because one cannot always clearly distinguish one
way of thinking in relation to the other, and overlap between positions
certainly exists. Consequently, researchers who call themselves formalists do not necessarily agree about every aspect of formal linguistic
analysis, nor do all who call themselves functionalists always agree on
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 4
Chapter One
a functional analysis (Newmeyer 1998). Nevertheless, it is possible to

crystallize the basic ideas in each of these schools of thought in a way
that clarifies how linguists from different perspectives try to understand
human language.
In general, formal linguists believe that languages are internally
constrained. In other words, grammars have their own internal logic,
separate from anything else in human cognition (Newmeyer 1998).
Functional linguists take a very different view. They believe that the
constraints on linguistic structure may arise from anatomy or physiology of the vocal tract; the perceptual system; general cognitive constraints; and psychological, psycholinguistic, or sociolinguistic concerns and aspects of how language is used. Newmeyer (1998) claims
that too strict a dichotomization of these views results in oversimplification and suggests that formalists and functionalists seek both internal
and external explanation.
In addition to diverse views on the source of constraints, formal and
functional linguists have differences of opinion on other matters. For
example, formal linguists, following de Saussure (1916) and Chomsky
(1965), distinguish the notions of linguistic competence (i.e., what a
speaker knows) from linguistic performance (i.e., what a speaker actually does). Linguistic competence refers to linguistic knowledge that
humans have even when they cannot actually act on that knowledge. For
example, factors such as alcohol consumption or exhaustion affect, not
competence, but performance in such a way that speakers might slur or
have difficulty recalling words. Speakers who are affected in this way
clearly have competence in their languages, but under adverse conditions, might be unable to perform in the optimal way.
The research agenda in formal linguistics attempts to get at what
speakers know, but considers what speakers actually do as relatively
uninteresting (Newmeyer 1998; Bybee and Hopper 2001). Therefore, a
formal linguist seeking grammaticality judgments might invent a sentence (e.g., Who does Grace know Sue saw?) without concern as to
whether that sentence either has ever been said or is likely to be said.
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 5
In the thinking of many functional linguists, a sentence such as that one

might be grammatical but, if it is rarely, if ever, uttered, then it becomes
irrelevant because speakers choose other ways to get across the same
idea (Newmeyer 1998). Those linguists question the theories that have
been built on grammaticality judgments of those obscure sentences. To
a formal linguist (who might well admit that sentences such as Who
does Grace know Sue saw? are relatively rare in occurrence), the overriding issue is whether such a sentence could be said (and considered
grammatical) in some situation. The fact that it rarely, if ever, is uttered
is a matter of little importance.
Functional linguists question the value of dichotomizing competence (what we know) and performance (what we actually say) (Bybee
2001b). After all, as Bybee and Hopper (2001) point out, outside linguistics, it is widely held that cognitive representations are highly affected by experience (1). Thus, for the functional linguist, the data of
interest involve what is actually spoken, not what merely might happen
to be spoken. In keeping with their approach, functional linguists tend to
use as data corpora of sentences that have been spoken in natural speech.
Clearly, formal and functional linguistics have different preoccupations and goals. As Newmeyer (1998) explains,
[f ]unctionalist work, then, is not addressed to formulating grammarinternal principles characterizing the well- or ill-formedness of a set of
sentences. Instead, a generalization about grammatical patterning
might be attributed to the most orderly or efficient means of conveying information, the desirability of foregrounding or backgrounding
events in the discourse, the speakers desire for economy, the hearers
demand for clarity, or cognitive propensities not specific to language
such as a general preference for iconic over arbitrary representations,
and so on. (1011)
To better understand the approaches of formalism and functionalism, we need to consider how both play out in specific areas of lin-
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 6
Chapter One
guistic study. Syntactic analysis has been conducted by both formalists and functionalists. Although proponents of each know the general
character of one anothers work, they do not know much about one anothers philosophical positions and consequent research paradigms
(Newmeyer 1998). In the 1990s, researchers became interested in
articulating the differences between formalist and functionalist approaches as well as their respective advantages and disadvantages, particularly, in relation to syntactic questions (Newmeyer 1998; Darnell
et al. 1999; Haspelmath 2000). Functional linguists have made a number of observations about syntax that most formal linguists accept as
true. Despite this acceptance, these observations have not been made
part of formal syntactic theories (Bybee 2001a). Despite efforts at understanding one another, a gulf between the two approaches clearly
remains.
In phonology, too, we find this sort of dichotomy between formal
and functional approaches (Hayes 1999; Bybee 1999). Most phonologists accept the ideaa functionalist idea by its very naturethat the
tension between the need to minimize articulatory effort and to minimize perceptual confusion results in human languages sounding the
way they do (Passy 1891; Boersma 1998). It has long been tacitly understood that functionalism in phonology is phonetic in character
(Hayes 1999, 243).
Phonetic motivation (motivation from the articulation, acoustics,
or perception of speech) has always been sought as motivation for
phonological phenomena (that occur in the sound system overall)
(Bybee 2001b). Yet the idea that understandings from phonology and
phonetics are crucial to each other and very closely linked has a somewhat uneasy following, and many (e.g., Keating 1996; Lindblom 2000;
Lindblom 1992; Ohala 1990; Myers 1997) have described a gulf between
phonetics and phonology. This uncomfortable relationship, however,
seems to be changing. Lindblom (2000) notes that relatively new theories of articulatory phonology (Browman and Goldstein 1990a, 1990b),
laboratory phonology (Pierrehumbert, Beckman, and Ladd 1996), and
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 7
optimality theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) are connecting phonological and phonetic findings, as grounding theory (Archangeli and
Pulleyblank 1994) had tried to do. More recently, an effort-based approach to understanding phonological phenomena (see Kirchner 2001)
and phonetically based phonology (Hayes, Kirchner, and Steriade
2004) are gaining attention from phonologists.
In this mildly chaotic context, then, this book tries to pave the way
for talking about TSL phonology by focusing on aspects of the language
(connected to ease of articulation) and aspects of the way that TSL is
used (connected to frequency of occurrence).
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
AND FORMAL LINGUISTICS
For formal linguists, word frequency is a matter of linguistic performance rather than competence (Pierrehumbert 2001, 1389), consequently, the subject is not of much interest. Bybee (2000) explains that
structuralist and generative theories assume that the lexicon is a static
list, and that neither the rules nor the lexical forms of a language are
changed at all by instances of use (14). Citing Pierrehumbert (1999a),
Bybee (2000) notes that optimality theory (Hayes 1999; Prince and
Smolensky 1993, 1997) posits a strict separation of lexicon and grammar that makes it impossible to describe any of the interactions of
phonology with the lexicon that are attested in the literature (14).
Nevertheless, though few would argue that frequency figures prominently into the problems or explanations of formal linguistic theories
(Pierrehumbert 2001), formalists certainly make use of and rely on related ideas.
The basic goal of formal linguistics is to answer the question What
is a possible human language? To this end, formal phonologists find
asymmetries in phonologies. Asymmetries can be discovered by ascertaining whether something is attested and something else is unattested
where we might have expected it to occur. Under this scenario, the
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 8
Chapter One
possibilities are simply that some pattern or segment is attested or unattested. An example of this kind of a pattern is the occurrence of permissible s-stop clusters in English. Because we frequently find voiceless obstruents together and almost never find mixed pairs of obstruents,
we say that [sp], [st], and [sk] are permissible clusters in English but
that *[sb], *[sd], and *[sg] are not, as indicated by the asterisks. This
pattern of obstruent sounds that are both voiceless is robust; in other
words, it almost always works this way in English. And formal linguistsfor example, those working in optimality theorymight encode these observations in the theory by positing a constraint such as
ADJACENT OBSTRUENTS MUST AGREE IN VOICING.
Not every linguistic pattern is this robust, however. Some patterns
are attested but only to a certain degree. A gradient pattern is one that
occurs not almost always, as described above, but only sometimes. At
one time, little attention, if any, was paid to gradient patterns. Now, formal linguists are paying more attention to them. For example, Hayes
(2001) describes the case of light [l] (the alveolar [l] in words such as
leaf ) and dark [l~] (the velarized [l~] in words such as full) in English.
The fact that there are environments where each of the allophones occurs is uncontroversial. But Hayes finds that there are also environments
where either can occur in free variation. In other words, [l~] and [l] can
freely vary (i.e., they occur gradiently). To date, formal linguists have
ignored this scenario because it is neither attested (occurring) nor unattested (not occurring) but is, rather, a finer grained distribution. Hayes
(2001) suggests that the problem of gradient well-formedness may
be one of the most pervasive overlooked-but-unsolved problem in linguistics (118).
Another sense in which formal linguists care about frequency to
some extent is in the area of markedness. Markedness has to do with
phenomena that occur across languages. Formal linguists note that there
are languages with obligatory onsets and languages with optional onsets, but no languages where there are only onsetless syllables. They encode facts of this nature into theories of phonology. For example, phonologists working in optimality theory posit a constraint making it
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 9
costly to have codas with no onsets.1 I will have more to say about
markedness later in the chapter.
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
AND FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS
When Zipf (1935) claimed that the most frequently used forms of a language are also the shortest, relative frequency of linguistic forms was
correlated with the structure of language for the first time. Since this
claim was made, frequency has not been talked about much in linguistics (Ellis 2002; Bybee 2001a). In related literature, however, some of
which is reviewed in Ellis (2002), evidence is mounting that, generally,
people pay attention to frequency in cognition and, specifically, to frequency in language behavior (Ellis 2002; MacDonald 1994; Hare, Ford,
and Marslen-Wilson 2001).
Consequently, frequency needs to be taken into consideration in theories of language. Kemmer and Barlow (2000), for example, point out
that because the system is largely an experience-driven one, frequency
of instances is a prime factor in its structure and operation . . . [and] it
has an indispensable role in any explanatory account of language (x).
And within linguistics, it is now understood that people have an extraordinary sensitivity to frequency (Labov 1994, 598). In fact, Newmeyer
(1998) describes frequency of occurrence as central in the thinking of
functional linguists.
Pierrehumbert (1999b) explains that language patterns are learned
through statistical generalizations over numerous patterns (112). Recent research has revealed many insights about how frequency interacts with linguistic behavior, for example, in the area of lexical access
(Hare, Ford, and Marslen-Wilson 2001), sound change (Labov 1994;
Bybee 2000; Phillips 2001), other phonological behavior (Bybee 2001a,
2001b), structural change (Hentschel and Mendel 2002), syntactic patterns
1. A syllable such as strain would look something like this transcribed in IPA:
[strein]. In this sequence, [str] would be an onset and [n] would be a coda.
10
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 10
Chapter One
and discourse patterns (Bybee 2000), and second language acquisition

(Ellis 2002).
Bybee and Hopper (2001) summarize the literature by saying that
there are frequency effects on words, on phrases and other constructions, in discourse, and in many other areas of language study. They add,
These effects are (1) phonological reduction in high frequency words
and phrases, (2) functional change due to high frequency, (3) frequency and the formation of constructions, (4) frequency and accessibility, (5) the retention of conservative characteristics and (6) the
notion that a stochastic grammar is a result of linguistic knowledge
based on experience. (3)
All of these findings lead to a conclusion stated by Bybee and Hopper

(2001): Linguistic material cannot accrue frequency effects unless the
brain is keeping track of frequency in some way (9).
Having considered what frequency might explain, we now examine how frequency has been characterized. Two kinds of frequency are
relevant for functionalist theories: type frequency and token frequency
(Bybee 2001b). Different sorts of effects are associated with these two
types of frequency (Bybee 2001b).
Type frequency refers to the dictionary frequency of a particular
pattern e.g. a stress pattern, an affix or a consonant cluster (Bybee
2001b, 10). For example, if we assume that every two-syllable English
word has one and only one stress, then two relevant stress patterns
emerge: (1) stress the first syllable and (2) stress the second syllable. In
a given corpus, words such as knitting, staple, and quiver would be
counted as exemplars of the first type because they all have initial stress.
Words such as implore, allege, and descend would count as exemplars
of the second type because they all have final stress. Which is the more
frequent pattern in English? Calculating a type frequency requires counting how many times a particular pattern, not a particular word, occurs.
Type frequency plays a role in constructing explanations for linguistic puzzles. For example, though some linguists disagree (Dressler
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 11
11
and Ladnyi 2000), many assert that type frequency assists in determining productivity, namely, the extent to which a pattern is likely to
apply to new forms such as borrowings or novel formations (Bybee
2000, 1213). Novel forms in a given language have been shown to take
morphology that has higher type frequency than lower type frequency.
For example, Bybee (2001a) points out that new verbs entering French
are usually conjugated according to the pattern of the First Conjugation (110).
The second type of frequency that is important in functionalist theories is token frequency. Token frequency refers to the frequency of
occurrence of a unit, usually a word, in running texthow often a particular word comes up (Bybee 2001b, 10). Bybee (2001b) explains that
in Francis and Kuceras (1982) corpus of English usage, broke (the past
tense of break) occurs sixty-six times per million words, while the past
tense verb damaged occurs five times in the same corpus. In other words,
the token frequency of broke is much higher than that of damaged (10).
Token frequency has two distinct effects that are important for
phonology and morphology (Bybee 2001b, 11). The first effect is that
phonetic change seems to progress more quickly in items with high token frequency (Bybee 2001b, 11). Examples include English contractionsfrequent collocations such as cant, couldnt, wont, wouldnt,
shouldnt, dont, didnt that have become lexicalized in the writing system. Other examples such as wanna, gonna and gotta, though not accepted in the formal writing system, are said regularly by many if not
most speakers (Bybee and Hopper 2001). Less-known examples in
which a phonological change occurs include the loss of the schwa in frequent words such as every, camera, memory, and family, making them
two-syllable words for many speakers. But the schwa remains in similar, though less frequent, words such as mammary, artillery, and homily,
keeping them three-syllable words for many speakers (Bybee 2001b).
Although words that have high token frequency seem to easily undergo phonetic change, a second effect found in words with high token
frequency is that they are more resistant to other kinds of change
(Bybee 2001b, 11). For example, English speakers tend to overgeneralize
12
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 12
Chapter One
the rules for forming the past tense of less frequently used verbs, producing weeped instead of wept, creeped instead of crept. Interestingly,
similar high frequency verbs like sleep and keep do not become to
sleeped or keeped. Clearly, then, high frequency irregular verb paradigms
are also conservative. The same kinds of effects also show up in syntax.
EASE OF ARTICULATION
Many phoneticians and phonologists believe that languages develop
their phonological character in response to the dual pressures of the
principles of maximal clarity and least effort.2 In other words, with the
least effort, the listener wants to be able to understand what is being said
and the speaker wants to be understood (Passy 1891; Ladefoged 1982;
Lindblom 1998; Lindblom 1990; Donegan 1985).
The idea of least effort has been thought about in terms of segments
and combinations of segments in spoken languages. The first problem
with thinking of segments as easy or difficult to articulate is that under
the scrutiny of phoneticians, the notion of segment itself is suspect
(hman 1966, and many others) because the same segment is articulated differently depending on the sounds that surround it. The notion of
segment is no more than a useful tool to talk about single sounds; a
convenience for the researcher attempting a rough organization of his
observations (Pierrehumbert 1990, 390). And yet, segment is a persistent idea. Its persistence notwithstanding, Browman and Goldstein
(1990b) assert that just as Pierrehumbert suggests that fine phonetic
2. Maddieson (1998) recasts older formulations of articulatory ease and

auditory distinctiveness as a balance between contrastivity and connectedness. He
notes that contrastivity is the requirement that a language must show differentiation
in sound, rather than being undifferentiated noise (106). Maddiesons notion of
connectedness is that a language needs to be produced as a continuous stream, its
parts connected to each other just as essentially as they must be differentiated from
each other. . . . The suggestion here is that it is the need to achieve connectednessrather than an explicit minimization of articulatory effortthat favors limits on the
range of articulatory gestures, especially in adjacent parts of the utterance (107).
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 13
13
transcription has no real status in phonetics, . . . there is no reason to

assume that representations employing segmental transcriptions have
any theoretical status in phonology (418). All of this commentary suggests that the notion of segment is controversial and outmoded, if necessary for the time being. This situation is changing slowly. Westbury
and Keating (1986) make the assumption that ease of articulation cannot
be determined segment by segment but, rather, in consideration of the
sounds adjacent to the segment in question. Current theories of phonology look at segments in context.
The second problem concerns the characterization of ease of articulation. Despite its appeal as an explanation for linguistic phenomena,
the intuitively pleasing notion of ease of articulation is extremely difficult to quantify. It is not surprising that linguists generally agree that the
attempts to explain what makes a sound relatively easy or difficult to
articulate have not yet adequately characterized ease of articulation in
spoken languages (Ohala 1990, 1992; Lindblom 1990; Nelson, Perkell,
and Westbury 1984; Keating 1985; Stevens 1971). Characterizing ease
of articulation does look somewhat elusive. Ladefoged (1990) suggests
that ease of articulation cannot be measured and that it would always
end up being language dependent. For this reason, appeals to ease of
articulation as an explanation would necessarily be unfalsifiable. Lindblom (1998) acknowledges that ease of articulation is difficult to
define (250) and suggests that worries about uncritical use of articulatory ease . . . [are] well taken (Lindblom 2000, 304). However, Lindblom (1998) claims that these warnings appear overly pessimistic and
suggests that recent developments indicate that this situation (ease of
articulation as difficult to define) is about to change (250). This development is fortuitous because the absence of a way to characterize ease
of articulation independently can lead to circular reasoning to explain
certain linguistic puzzles. Properties such as markedness and ease of
articulation are often linked in the literature. The persistence of this circularity is described in Willerman (1994) as so striking that it is often
difficult to tell whether markedness is proposed as an explanation or as
something to be explained (3448).
14
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 14
Chapter One
Even if we had answers to these two problems, there is still the

question of how ease of articulation might be incorporated into theories of phonology. In formal theories, phonologists express ease of
articulation only indirectly, if at all, for example, when considering notions such as marked and unmarked. And in the phonological literature
at large, Lindblom (1992), citing Anderson (1985), states that the problem of how to represent naturalness of rules and segment inventories for
example has largely disappeared from the literature . . . [though] most
linguists would agree that . . . [these topics] still present . . . major unresolved problems (182). This problem is one that phonologists are just
beginning to work on (Lindblom 1992, 2000); thus, the status of ease
of articulation as a theoretical construct is in question. These problems
associated with ease of articulation notwithstanding, researchers have
certainly appealed to it. In the next subsection, first I review the ways
that ease of articulation has been characterized in the literature and, second, the linguistic phenomena that ease of articulation has been invoked
to explain.
HOW EASE OF ARTICULATION MIGHT BE CHARACTERIZED

To arrive at a definition of ease that can be independently motivated
(Keating 1985; Lindblom 1983) would enable us to avoid a circular definition of ease of articulation.3 Various attempts have been made to
show that certain sounds require more effort than others.
3. As Willerman (1994) explains, A problem of circularity arises when the

explanatory apparatus is built solely from the data to be explained (37). Thus, the
following reasoning is circular: the sounds that are easy to articulate are the ones
that are acquired first (or marked across languages or marked within languages) and
the sounds that are acquired first (or marked across languages or marked within
languages) are the ones that are easy to articulate. This discussion owes much to a
similar discussion in Willerman (1991), some of which also appears in Willerman
(1994). In addition, I thank Willerman for helpful discussion of and comments on
an earlier draft of this section.
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 15
15
Departure from the NormalNeutral Position

Makes a Sound More Difficult
Two strands of research, the bite-block studies and studies of spontaneous voicing, point to the conclusion that sounds whose articulators
depart from a normal or neutral position can be considered more difficult than sounds whose articulators remain in normal or neutral position.
I briefly examine each in turn.
The bite-block studies.

A bite-block is a device that is placed in the mouth to prohibit the jaw
from moving normally. In the bite-block studies, speakers produced
vowels under normal conditions and under the condition in which their
jaws were restrained by a bite-block. Researchers found that the formant
values for bite-block vowels correspond very closely to those of normal vowels (Lindblom and Sundberg 1971; Gay, Lindblom, and Lubker
1981). How is this correspondence possible? The researchers surmise
that subjects compensate for the lack of mobility in one area (the jaw)
by exaggerating a gesture in another area (the tongue). This response is
known as compensatory articulation (Lindblom and Sundberg 1971),
and these exaggerated gestures of the tongue are referred to as supershapes (Lindblom and Sundberg 1971; Gay, Lindblom, and Lubker
1981). When speakers jaws are prevented from assuming, say, a relatively closed position in the case of /i/ because of the bite-block, speakers produce /i/ by using an exaggerated gesture of the tongue to compensate. These exaggerated gestures of the tongue are referred to as
supershapes (Lindblom and Sundberg 1971; Gay, Lindblom, and
Lubker 1981). Lindblom and Sundberg (1971) find that characteristic
of the supershapes is the antagonism between the tongue muscles and
the jaw muscles (1178).
The bite-block studies have implications for the study of ease of
articulation. If speakers can produce the same vowel with either the
normal shape or a supershape of the tongue, then why do they choose
9/5/06
16
9:57 AM
Page 16
Chapter One
the normal shape? The researchers conclude that it must be because

the supershapes are simply too demanding. They reason that speech,
like other motor behaviors, evolves according to minimum expenditure
of energy or least effort (Lindblom 1983; Lindblom 1990; Lindblom
2000; Willerman 1991; Willerman 1994).
Spontaneous voicing.
The second strand of research relevant here concerns spontaneous voicing. Spontaneously voiced sounds include liquids (such as [l] and [r]),
nasals (such as [m] and [n]), glides (such as [y] and [w]), and vowels
(such as [a] and [u]). Two conditions must be met for voicing to occur:
first, the vocal cords must be relatively close together, and second, air
must be crossing over the vocal cords (Ohala 1983). Both conditions are
met in the normal articulation of liquids, nasals, glides, and vowels;
therefore, those sounds are considered spontaneously voiced. In contrast, stops (such as [p] and [t]) and fricatives (such as [f] and [s]) are
spontaneously unvoiced because when they are produced, there is no
airflow to set the vocal cords into vibration (Ohala 1983; Westbury and
Keating 1986; Ladefoged 1975). Of course, it is possible to produce
both unvoiced sonorants (such as [m]) and voiced fricatives (such as [v])
and stops (such as [b]), but producing

those sounds requires more effort than the natural versions (Willerman 1991). Investigations have
been conducted in this area. Westbury and Keating (1986) explicated
an articulatory model within which the explicit hypothesis that voiced
stops are less natural than voiceless stops could be examined.
Higher Rates of Displacement Indicate Difficulty
Higher rates of displacement of the mandible indicate more difficulty,
and they are avoided. This conclusion was drawn on the basis of a study,
which showed that moving an articulator the same distance in a shorter
(versus longer) period of time requires an increase in velocity. An in-
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 17
17
crease in velocity is associated with greater force, or more effort. Nelson,

Perkell, and Westbury (1984) found that subjects attempted to reduce
the time it took to say sasa by trading the use of greater velocity (more
effort) for shorter distance. In other words, to speak faster, speakers
move their articulators a shorter distance (reducing vowels, for example)
rather than work harder (producing a full vowel).
Higher Number of Articulatory Events per Unit
of Time Indicate Difficulty
In the theory of articulatory phonology (Browman and Goldstein 1985,
1986, 1990c, 1992, 1995), the basic units of phonological contrast are
gestures, which are also abstract categorizations of articulatory events,
each with an intrinsic time or duration (1992, 155). The behavior of the
articulators (such as the velum, the tongue body, the lips, and the glottis) used in producing a syllable or phrase can be represented as a gestural scorea schematic diagram of what each of the articulators is
doing during the utterance. A gestural score represents the articulatory
gestures of various articulators during an utterance as separate events
that must be coordinated in time. Two given utterances may have different numbers of necessary articulators, which will correspond to the
same number of tiers and the degree of difficulty. Browman and Goldsteins work focuses on sounds in the context of whole words or phrases
(Bybee 2000).
Willerman (1991) reasons that gestural scores can model one factor of articulatory complexity. As the number of events per unit time
increases, so does the articulatory complexity (33). For example, take
the case of aspiration. Ohala (1992), citing Ladefoged (1984), says that
aspirated consonants are . . . costly in that they use considerable respiratory energy, and an obvious candidate for pruning in any attempt to
reduce the overall effort required for an utterance (347). Presumably,
gestural scores would reveal that aspirated consonants are harder to produce than others.
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 18
Chapter One
18
Greater Degrees of Articulatory Precision Indicate Difficulty

Stevens (1971) measures and compares the area of constriction above
the glottis of various sound classes. Vowels require a constriction in a
particular range. Fricatives must be constricted in an area far smaller.
Thus, fine motor control for fricatives is greater than that for the vowels.
These facts are interpreted by Willerman (1991) to suggest that vowels
are easier to articulate than fricatives. She uses her interpretation of
Stevenss observations to construct the schema in the following:
Vowels
Simpler
Stops
Approximants
Complex Fricatives
More Complex
It ought to be clear that construction of a model to determine what

makes sounds easy or difficult to articulate is a sticky matter. Even
though the available technology for studying speech sounds is quite advanced, it is not clear what the criteria for ease or difficulty of a speech
sound should be. In the absence of a way to characterize ease of articulation, appeals to ease as a solution to linguistic puzzles are circular.
Even though the available technology for studying speech sounds is
quite advanced, it is not clear what the criteria for ease or difficulty of
a speech sound should be. The problem of coming up with a theory for
ease of articulation of sign language handshapes is as difficult, if not
more so. I present my theory in chapters 3 and 4. In whatever way ease
of articulation might be quantified, it could prove to be a useful construct in explaining, or at least contributing to the explanation for, the
linguistic phenomena listed in the following subsections.4
4. Lindblom (2000) has a somewhat different list and hypothesizes that minimization of energy expenditure plays a causal role in: (1) the absence of vegetative
movement and mouth sounds; (2) determining the feature composition of phonetic
segments (e.g., why are /i/ and /u/ universally close vowels); (3) constraining the
universal organization of syllabic and phonotactic structure; (4) the patterning of diachronic and synchronic lenition and fortition processes; (5) shaping the system-dependent selection of phonetic values in segment inventories, etc. (305).
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 19
19
1. Aspects of inventories of linguistic sounds

can be explained by ease of articulation.
The idea of teasing out the acoustic, articulatory, phonological, and
cognitive constraints on speech sounds that occur in inventories has
interested linguists for a long time (Trubetzkoy 1939; Donegan 1985;
Jakobson 1968; Lindblom and Maddieson 1988; Nathan 1994; Lindblom 1998). Lindblom (1990) discusses a tautology in phonetics: the
definition of a speech sound is tantamount to saying that a speech
sound is a sound that occurs as a speech sound in a given language
(138). He suggests that to define speech sound in a noncircular way, we
must examine the set of logically possible sounds of which speech
sounds are a part. Willerman (1991) suggests that, of the logically possible sounds, speech sounds are those that require the least effort
to produce.
Lindblom and Maddieson (1988) examined the consonant inventories of a number of languages and found that the size of inventory correlated to phonetic content of the inventories. For example, the phonetic
character of the consonants in languages with a large number of consonantsfor example, !Xu (ninety-five consonants)is quite different
from the phonetic character of consonants in languages such as Hawaiian with an inventory of eight (Willerman 1991). Lindblom and Maddieson (1988) and Lindblom (1992) formalize this observation as the
size principle: paradigm size influences phonetic content in a lawful
manner.
In an attempt to ascertain whether the size principle would explain
the phonetic content of other paradigms besides consonant inventories,
Willerman (1991, 1994) examined the phonetic content of pronouns. As
a closed-class grammatical category, pronouns are assumed to have a
small paradigm size compared with the large paradigm size of an open
grammatical class. Willerman (1991, 1994) found that pronouns contained a greater number of simpler consonants than would have been
predicted if the consonants in pronouns had been drawn at random from
the consonant inventories of languages.
20
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 20
Chapter One
2. Aspects of first and second language acquisition

Two strands of research suggest that aspects of language acquisition
might be explained by ease. First, Locke (1983) provides data from separate investigations, conducted years apart, which indicate that the same
consonants are acquired (i.e., produced) early by children from different
spoken-language backgrounds, including Mayan, Luo, Thai, English,
Slovenian, and Japanese, as well as by deaf children. If those varied
groups of children produce approximately the same sounds at the same
time, then something independent of language background or input
must be responsible. The suggestion is that some notion of physical ease
of articulation causes the children to acquire the same sounds in roughly
the same order (Locke 1983, 1993).5
Second, the theory of natural phonology (Stampe 1979; Schane
1973; Donegan 1985; Nathan 1982) holds that the major task for phonologists is to discover phonological processes. A process is a mental operation that applies in speech to substitute for a class of sounds or
sound sequences presenting a specific common difficulty to the speech
capacity of the individual, an alternative class identical but lacking the
difficult property (Stampe 1979, 1). Processes have physical motivations (Donegan 1985). They occur in natural languages for two reasons,
as explained in Nathan (1982):
Some processes represent moves toward perceptual clarity or distinctiveness. These are called fortitions. . . . Other processes represent
change towards articulatory simplicity. These are changes resulting in
ease of articulation and are called lenitions. They are carried out on
behalf of our vocal apparatus and enable it to do less work in the time
allotted to it by reducing the number and amount of fine adjustments
that human speech requires. (11920)
5. Willerman (1994) points out that the argument is circular. She writes, The
argument goes something like this: Children acquire simpler sounds first, so the first
sounds children acquire are the simpler ones. Although this tautology may turn out
to be true when independent grounds for articulatory complexity have been established, the logic is just as circular as the frequency of occurrence hypothesis (33).
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 21
21
Lenitions get rid of sounds or sound sequences in service of making

words easier to articulate, as Donegan (1985) explains:
Lenition processes are typically context-sensitive, since they function to produce more-easily-articulated sequences. They may be assimilative, since sequences of similar segments are (it is usually assumed) easier to articulate than sequences of dissimilar segments. Or
they may be reductive since shorter segments require less effort than
longer ones, segments with few or no special articulations require less
effort than those with several, single segments are less demanding
than geminates, and deleted segments require no articulatory effort at
all. (3839)
Because processes are universal, proponents of natural phonology claim

that they can explain more than synchronic descriptions of phonologies of various languages (Stampe 1979; Donegan 1985; Nathan 1982).
Indeed, natural phonology claims to explain aspects of child language
and second language acquisition, historical change over time, and other
linguistic phenomena.
With respect to first language acquisition, Donegan (1985) suggests
that childrens first approximations of sounds are often easier to say than
the target sounds, given childrens limited abilities at any given stage. The
point is that the substitutions are not random; the function of processes in
child speech is to replace more difficult sounds or sound sequences with
easier ones. Specifically, for example, devoicing of voiced stops occurs in
English because voiced stops are relatively difficult to articulate. And a
nasal-spirant sequence such as [ns] is also difficult to articulate. Reducing this difficulty is remedied in one of two ways: either by addition of a
stop between the two sounds or by substituting a nasal lacking oral closure for the nasal, for example, [nts] or [Vs] (Stampe 1979).
Similarly, aspects of second language acquisition can be explained
by ease of articulation. For example, Donegan (1985) suggests that nativization of foreign words can often be explained by processes. She uses
the example of a speaker whose first language has the canonical fivevowel system [a e i o u] and who cannot pronounce a particular English
vowel other than these and therefore substitutes something easier for it.
22
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 22
Chapter One
Donegan further explains that, sometimes, speakers substitute not one

sound but a few, for example, English speakers who, in learning German, alternate between [i] and [u] in attempting to pronounce [y].
Nathan (1982) argues that natural phonology can account for the
facts that teachers of second languages already knowthat learners
substitute easier sounds for those that do not exist in their native languages (12324).
3. The rarity of some sounds across languages
Sounds that are the most natural are so because they are easier to either
articulate or perceive (Westbury and Keating 1986). Common sounds
have been characterized as those that have the greatest acoustic energy
and those that are the most distinctive, or rarely confused with other
sounds (Maddieson 1984). Conversely, the sounds that are rarely found
in language are those that are more difficult to articulate or perceive.
Maddieson (1998), bolstering the idea that the more difficult sounds
are the least commonly found in languages, suggests that sounds that are
believed to be rather common but, paradoxically, difficult might not be
as difficult to articulate as originally thought.
4. Diachronic sound change can be explained
by ease of articulation.
The idea that language change is solely attributable to articulatory
causes has not been advanced. In fact, it has been pointed out that ease
of articulation could not be the only factor; if it were, then all languages
should evolve toward the constant articulation of no sound but [] (the
schwa), which is clearly not the case.
Ohala (1975) argues that, although articulatory ease is likely to play
a small role in sound change, perception is a more important factor than
ease of articulation. In fact, Ohala (1981, 1993) proposes that some sound
changes begin as listener misperceptions. Ohala (1990) also rejects an
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 23
23
articulatory account of assimilation in favor of a perceptual one, though

assimilation is usually regarded as an articulatory process (Lindblom
2000). Ohala (1992) argues that invoking ease of articulation makes
explanations teleological (352); that is, saying that sounds are easy to
articulate implies that the speakers are choosing to make their speech
easier to articulate.6 Still, it seems clear that there are phonetically natural diachronic sound changes.
FORMAL AND FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES
TO SIGN LANGUAGE PHONOLOGY
We know less about the structure of signs than the structure of spoken
words, if only because linguists have concerned themselves with only
spoken languages until relatively recently. In the aftermath of the important claim that sign languages are full-fledged languages (Stokoe,
Casterline, and Croneberg 1965; Klima and Bellugi 1979), linguists
came to grapple with the basic questions we ask about spoken languages
as we examine the worlds sign languages. The surge of interest in sign
languages attracted linguists from various backgrounds, linguists with
different concerns and preoccupations. Wilbur (1999a) claims that sign
language research has been more functional than formal and suggests
that this claim is attributable to the belief that the origins of forms
should be more easily identifiable in sign languages, thus making investigating form/function relationships more likely to be fruitful than
for spoken languages (296). It may be true that more investigation
comes from the functionalist tradition, but investigation in both traditions has contributed to our understanding of sign languages, and clearly,
we need both. In any case, few have overtly referred to their research
6. Ohala (1992) further explains his position by saying he disagrees with the
idea that sound changes occur in order to ease production, make speech easier to
hear or make it easier to learn or process. There is no denying that teleology
(choice, intention) can underlie that spread of a phonetically natural sound change.
What I resist is the idea that the initiation or creation of a phonetically-motivated
variant pronunciation comes about in this way (352).
24
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 24
Chapter One
questions and their methods for solving them as either formal or functional. As a result, the literature presents a somewhat puzzling array of
insights into sign language phonology.
FORMAL APPROACHES TO SIGN LANGUAGE PHONOLOGY
At its best, formal inquiry examines language data with an objective to
discover asymmetries. Where asymmetries occur in sound systems, formal phonologists have a chance to learn about the language. Explaining an asymmetry involves proposing theoretical apparatus; for example, speaking as atheoretically as possible, some parts of words are
longer and louder, such as the beginning of solar and the end of abate.
So seems to be somehow more prominent than lar, and bate seems more
prominent than a. How do we describe this circumstance? If all we had
were the notions of segment and word, then coming up with a description would be challenging. The first two segments in solar sound longer
than the remainder, and the last four segments in abate sound longer.
However, by positing the existence of a unit between segment and
wordsay, the unit of syllablewe begin to describe the asymmetry.
We can say that words can be divided into syllables and that in a given
language, certain syllables receive stress. In solar, the first syllable is
stressed; in abate, the second.
Formal researchers try to motivate all constructs such as syllable
that are used in a theory. To motivate a construct means to find a reason
to believe that it ought to exist because it would be useful in explaining
something other than the thing it was proposed to explain. Thus, the
construct of syllable needs to be motivated phonetically, phonologically,
and psycholinguistically as well as examined cross-linguistically to see
whether it is as useful in other languages as it is in English.
Constructs like syllable are part of what formal phonologists call
representations. In formal sign language linguistics, an important focus has been to establish what the representations are. In an interesting
work that takes very seriously the idea of motivating every single construct necessary to describe sign language phenomena, Uyechi (1996)
proposes representations of the hand, the signing space, movement, and
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 25
25
the sign itself. Sandler (1996) seeks to represent the entire sign, including handshape.
Constructs such as syllable (Wilbur 1990) and mora (Perlmutter
1992) have been proposed to be useful in explaining linguistic puzzles
in sign languages. Psycholinguistic evidence was provided for the construct of syllable in Wilbur (1990, 1993) and Wilbur and Allen (1991).
To capture one of the properties of signs, namely, that sometimes the
hands arrive at a point and stay there and sometimes the hands are
in motion, linguists have proposed the constructs of movements and
holds (Liddell and Johnson 1989) and movements and positions (Perlmutter 1992).
In addition to these proposals for representations, phonologists have
also proposed the existence of phonological rules. Phonological rules, in
principle, act on representations to derive surface phonological patterns.
The phonological rules of weak drop (in which the weak hand in a twohanded sign can drop)first noticed, according to Brentari (1998), in
Battison (1974, 1978) and later discussed in Padden and Perlmutter
(1987)and weak freeze (in which the weak hand in a two-handed sign
can freeze)see Padden and Perlmutter (1987)were proposed to explain variation in sign production.
Constraints, too, have been proposed from the earliest days. The
symmetry and dominance conditions (Battison 1978) and the finger position constraint (Mandel 1981) are two examples. These constraints
served to characterize how signs were produced. Ann and Peng (2000)
used optimality theory to describe constraints on how handshapes in
which some number of fingers are opposed to the thumb are produced.
The essence of that analysis was that three types of constraints are necessary to account for frequency problems involving opposed handshapes
in TSL: the finger selection constraints, the adjacency constraint, and
the extension constraint.
These authors were seeking to understand the structure of sign languages by understanding the constraints within the grammar itself, a
goal consonant with formalist leanings. A great deal remains to be said
about the successes and failures of formal approaches to sign language
phonology; this brief description will suffice only as a beginning.
26
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 26
Chapter One
FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING SIGN LANGUAGES

In the context of sign languages, perception refers to the study of how
listeners perceive visual information in general and signs in particular. Knowing the structure of the physical signal of a sign, including how
far an articulator goes and how fast an articulator goes in a given period of time (kinematics) as well as how the articulators of a sign language interact with one another to produce signs (articulation) can serve
to constrain the form of sign languages.
To consider questions of articulation, linguists must be familiar with
the role of hand and forearm anatomy and kinesiologyfields of inquiry with which few are comfortable (Wilbur 1987). Yet it seems clear
that from the earliest days, sign language researchers suspected a connection between what hands naturally do and what aspects of sign languages look like. For example, Battison (1978) outlines a research direction calling for the discovery of the relation between the form of the
signs and the dynamics of the machine which articulates themthe human body (1112). He suggested that one goal of phonological description is to seek motivation for . . . structures and constraints in the
articulatory and perceptual processes which encode and decode the
forms of the language (1920). Many topics in sign language research
can scarcely be studied without citing Battison for at least two reasons.
First, he suggested that there is a small group of unmarked ASL handshapes (Battison 1978). These are said to be easy to articulate, but this
quality is not demonstrated in any way except through their frequency
exactly the circularity that Willerman (1994) cautions us to avoid.
Second, his theory of symmetry and dominance conditions (Battison 1978) characterizes, but does not explain, how signs are constructed. Yet the symmetry and dominance conditions are often cited because they capture important generalizations about ASL signs. Battison
(1978) says:
The Symmetry Condition states that (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
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 27
27
movement (whether performed simultaneously or in alternation),

and the specification for orientation must be either symmetrical or
identical. . . .
The Dominance Condition states that (a) if the hands of a twohanded sign do not share the same specification for handshape (i.e.,
they are different), then (b) one hand must be passive while the other
hand articulates the movement and (c) the specification of the passive handshape is restricted to be one of a small set: A, S, B, 5, G, C,
0. (335, emphasis in the original)
As Brentari (1998) says, The symmetry and dominance conditions

have survived the test of close scrutiny and reinvestigation surprisingly
well, but they left many areas unexplored and later investigators have
worked to refine, extend and formalize them (25253). Battisons work
encouraged linguists to think about articulatory and perceptual constraints for sign languages, and in this way, too, it was seminal. His
work, however, does not characterize ease of articulation, perception, or
any kinematic property of signs, and for the most part, Battisons work
appeals to none of these as a solution for a specific linguistic puzzle.
Battisons work undoubtedly has pushed our understandings ahead,
but at some point, it will be necessary to understand the perceptual,
kinematic, and articulatory constraints on languages, beginning with
understanding the perceptual, kinematic, and articulatory properties
of handshapes. To understand these properties, we must examine the
phonological features for handshapes and their organization, the issues
connected to acquisition of handshapes, and the nature of signs or
handshapes.
Phonological Features
In explaining the sound patterns of spoken languages, phonologists make
use of the idea that sounds are composed of features. This theoretical
machinery provides a means of explaining phonological phenomena
such as assimilationsfor example, [In baib] [Imbaib] in which a
preceding nasal takes on the place features of the following stop. Phono-
28
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 28
Chapter One
logical features are hypothesized to have two possible sources: acoustic

(Jakobson, Fant, and Halle 1951/1972) and articulatory (Chomsky and
Halle 1968). In other words, phonological features are hypothesized to
have phonetic (acoustic or articulatory) correlates. In the areas of features, feature combinations, and feature geometries, then, uncontroversially, phonology and phonetics interact.
The powerful strategy of describing sounds as being composed of
features, a strategy that proved so useful in the analysis of spoken languages, has been appealed to in the quest to understand sign languages.
The proliferation of feature proposals for sign languages suggests that
researchers believe features also are helpful in explaining linguistic
puzzles in sign languages. The fact that features are so connected to
phonetics in spoken language makes it all the more remarkable that the
phonetics of sign languages goes relatively unnoticed, though researchers
generally make some reference to articulation and perception. Most propose largely articulatory features (see, e.g., Liddell and Johnson 1989;
Corina and Sagey 1989; Sandler 1993; Kegl and Wilbur 1976). Some
propose perceptual features (Lane, Boyes-Braem, and Bellugi 1976;
Stungis 1981).7 Some propose features motivated by both areas (Brentari
7. A striking difference noticed by researchers (Corina and Sagey 1988;

Brentari 1990; Mandel 1981; Wilbur 1990; and Poizner, Klima, and Bellugi 1987
to name a few) between the phonetics of spoken and sign languages underscores
this oversight. That is, although speakers are not aware of where they place their
articulators when they produce sounds, all of the articulators of signers are visible
to the eye. Spoken language phonetics has to be determined by X-ray and other
invasive methods; it is not clear whether sign language phonetics need be determined in these ways. (I thank Sam Supalla and Ronnie Wilbur for conversations
that helped to clarify my thinking on this point.)
Finally, Brentari (1998) notes that a great deal more is known about higher
level processing in vision than is known in audition (31011). She credits this reality to two facts: first, that the visual system is more accessible than the auditory
system for measurements with instruments and, second, that asymmetrical goals
exist in research in audition and vision. Work in audition focuses on hearing that
is impaired whereas work on vision focuses on normal vision. Brentari reasons,
therefore, that sign language phonology can . . . draw upon well-developed research on higher order visual processing . . . in a way that spoken language phonology cannot (31011).
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 29
29
1990, 1998). Most researchers acknowledge the need for (a) features for
fingers and (b) features for what fingers can do. In so doing, they discuss
constraints of the sort we care about here.
Which fingers work together?

Virtually every researcher who has written about handshapes has realized that random combinations of fingers cannot act together in handshapes, that a system is involved. The complex business of explaining
which fingers can combine to take on the same configuration has been
approached in several ways. Many researchers have noted that fingers
can act relatively independently in handshapes. For example, in the
handshapes for ASL signs SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT and NINE, each of the four
fingers singly opposes the thumb (see figure 2). The physiological fact
that the fingers can act relatively independently (as in the signs in figure 2) has been encoded in distinctive feature systems by five features,
one for each finger: [Thumb], [Index], [Middle], [Ring], and [Pinky]
(Mandel 1981; Corina and Sagey 1989; Sandler 1989). Interestingly, the
index finger seems to have special status because it is used in almost
all of the licit handshapes (Corina and Sagey 1988; Brentari 1988;
Uyechi 1996).
ASL SIX
ASL SEVEN
ASL EIGHT
ASL NINE
Figure 2 Examples in which fingers act relatively independently in handshapes, particularly, each of the four fingers singly opposes the thumb.
30
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 30
Chapter One
Kegl and Wilbur (1976) and Wilbur (1987) propose the adjacency
convention. It is part of a feature system that includes the following
features: [extended], [closed], [2adjacent], and [3adjacent]. The feature
[extended] refers to some unspecified number of fingers that are extended. The feature [closed] refers to some unspecified number of fingers
that are closed. The features [2adjacent] and [3adjacent] specify the
exact number of fingers, excluding the thumb, which are adjacent and
relevant in handshapes that are [ extended]. Kegl and Wilbur (1976)
claim a relationship exists between [ closed] or [ closed] and the
features [2adjacent] and [3adjacent]. So, for example, if in a particular
handshape the combination of features [ closed], [ extended], and
either [2adjacent] or [3adjacent] is assigned, the counting of fingers
starts at the index edge of the hand. A handshape that has the features
[ extended], [ closed], and either [2adjacent] or [3adjacent] starts
counting at the pinky edge. The features [2adjacent] and [3adjacent]
are not relevant for handshapes that are [ extended]. Though Kegl
and Wilbur (1976) do not make explicit reference to physiological facts
about the fingers in explaining their observations, clearly they see a
pattern in what fingers act together in handshapes.
Brentaris (1998) prosodic model incorporates insights not only
from her own work but also from the work of other researchers. Though
her model deals with more than handshape, discussion of handshape is
significant. Some of the handshape features in Brentari (1990) are said
to have acoustic and articulatory bases, but they are labeled as having
only an articulatory base in Brentari (1998).
Along similar lines, Brentari (1998; Brentari, Hulst, van der Kooij,
and Sandler 1996) also discusses the issue of which fingers occur together. She proposes four features ([all], [one], [mid], and [ulnar]). The
features [all] and [one] specify the number of selected fingers: [all] is
defined as all four fingers, and [one] is defined as one finger. [ulnar] and
[mid] specify where the point of reference occurs: [ulnar] specifies that
the pinkie finger side of the hand is used as the reference point; [mid]
specifies that the middle finger is used; otherwise the radial or index
finger side of the hand is assumed (Brentari 1998, 112)
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 31
a. open
b. curved
c. bent
31
d. closed
Figure 3 Configurations of the hand that have been proposed for American
Sign Language.
What configurations can fingers assume?

Several proposals describe the four configurations that are possible in
ASL. The fingers can be open, curved, bent, or closed (after Brentari 1990;
Liddell and Johnson 1989).8 Figure 3 illustrates these configurations.
Sandlers (1989) feature system that describes the handshapes in
figure 3 has four monovalent features: [open], [closed], [bent], and
[curved]. Fingers like the ones in figure 3a are [ open]. The handshape
in figure 3b is [ curved], the handshape in figure 3c is [ bent], and
the handshape in figure 3d is [ closed]. In this system, each of the configurations has a separate feature; therefore, phonetic similarities between configurations are obscured.
Corina and Sagey (1988; 1989) and Corina (1990) point out that the
handshapes in figure 3a through figure 3d share physiological similarities. The handshape in figure 3a is not flexed at any joint, and the handshape in figure 3b is not flexed at the knuckle, but it is flexed at the other
joints. Handshapes like figure 3c are flexed at the knuckle and extended
at the other joints; they share the physiological similarity of flexion at
the knuckle with handshapes like figure 3d. To describe the configurations in figure 3a through figure 3d and, at the same time, encode the
facts that certain of the handshapes share physiological characteristics,
Corina and Sagey propose two bivalent features, [bent] and [hooked].
8. In this work, I use the term open when citing or discussing the work of
other researchers. Otherwise, I use the term extended.
32
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 32
Chapter One
Handshapes like the one in figure 3a are [ bent, hooked]. Handshapes like the one in figure 3b are [ bent, hooked]. The handshape
in figure 3c is [ bent, hooked] and the handshape in figure 3d is
[ bent, hooked]. Phonetic similarity between certain handshapes is
one motivation for having these handshapes share a feature. So figure 3a
and figure 3b share the feature [ bent], and figure 3c and figure 3d
share the feature [ bent]. The question remains whether the phonetic
observations are phonologically significant in ASL, that is, whether the
phonology treats as similar the handshapes that share [ bent] and the
handshapes that share [ bent].
Brentari (1990, 1998) cautions against relying too heavily on phonetics when proposing features or a feature geometry, preferring to include features that control distinctions made by the phonology rather
than the phonetics. But Brentari makes reference to both perceptual
and articulatory evidence for various proposals. Brentari (1990) expressed the difference between the four configurations in figure 2 with
two bivalent features, [peripheral] and [closed]. Figure 2a is [ peripheral, closed], figure 2b is [ peripheral, closed], figure 2c is [ peripheral, closed], figure 2d is [ peripheral, closed]. The feature
[peripheral] has a perceptual basis. Brentari reasons that Lane, BoyesBraem, and Bellugis (1976) work shows that there are more confusions
between bent or curved than, presumably, between open and closed.
Thus, we can assume that a person must spend more energy concentrating in order to perceive them correctly (Brentari 1990, 65). Handshapes such as figures 3a and 3d are [ peripheral] because they are at
the extreme ends of the range of positions in ASL handshapes
(Brentari 1990, 65).
In Liddell and Johnsons (1989) description of how these configurations (specifically figure 3b and 3c) differ, they discuss the proximal
joint and the distal joint (225). They explain that, in figure 3b, the
proximal joint is extended while the distal joint is flexed and that, in
figure 3c, the proximal joint is flexed while the distal joint is extended.
The term proximal joint refers to the metacarpophalangeal joint (i.e.,
knuckle), and distal joint refers to the proximal interphalangeal (PIP)
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 33
33
and distal interphalangeal (DIP) joints. The fact that Liddell and Johnson
make reference to a distal joint (not joints) reveals their tacit understanding that the proximal interphalangeal joint and the distal interphalangeal joint work together, which is true, except in a few cases discussed in chapter 2. This physiological fact, also written about in Uyechi
(1996) and Mandel (1981), is encoded in linguistic theories in that a feature that controls the distal interphalangeal joint and the proximal interphalangeal joint (each independently) has never been proposed.
Uyechi (1996) notes that the fingers and thumb are very different
physiologically because of their respective joint structures. Sandler
(1996), Liddell and Johnson (1989), Corina and Sagey (1989), Brentari
(1990), and others also make this observation. Uyechis theory treats
fingers and thumb as distinct phonological constructs (1996, 25).
Uyechi provides a fairly detailed discussion of joints and, in so doing,
comes up with the generalization that the distal and proximal interphalangeal joints work together. Uyechi (1996) represents each finger and
each joint separately.
Mandel (1981) also describes what fingers are capable of doing both
individually and with other fingers. His is not a feature proposal in the
same sense as the foregoing, though it is a thorough, persistent attempt
to describe the phonetics of ASL. He proposes not only the adjacency
principle but also four anatomically based hierarchies to deal with finger selection and configuration. The numbers of fingers hierarchy says
that the least marked number of fingers working together in a handshape
is 0 or 4, regardless whether the handshape is closed or open. Figures 4a
and 4b illustrate the closed and open handshapes. The next least marked
number of fingers in the hierarchy is 1. Examples of handshapes in
which one finger does something are not provided in Mandel; presumably, they are handshapes such as the one in figure 4c. The next least
marked number of fingers in the hierarchy is 2; presumably figure 4d
would be an example. The most marked number of fingers in a handshape is 3. Mandel claims three-fingered handshapes occur only in
handshapes such as that pictured in figure 4e. Mandel proposes no particular physiological justification for the number of fingers hierarchy.
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 34
Chapter One
34
a. closed
c. one-finger
d. two-finger
b. open
e. three-finger
Figure 4 Examples of handshapes according to the number of fingers

hierarchy.
Rather, he seems to be attempting to capture the idea that four-finger

handshapes, three-finger handshapes, two-finger handshapes, and onefinger handshapes do not occur with equal frequency in ASL.
The extension hierarchy, flexion hierarchy, and opposition hierarchy
each rank singly each of the four fingers in terms of its ability to assume
an extended, flexed, or opposed configuration (Mandel 1981).9 Mandels
work also included discussion of anatomy of the hand. It tries to characterize ease of articulation, to some extent, and to use the idea to explain a linguistic puzzle.
The extension hierarchy (Mandel 1981) positions each finger in the
order of the least to most marked in handshapes. The extended index finger is assigned the first place because the index finger has its own extensor muscle, the extensor proprius indicis. The pinky, assigned second place, also has its own extensor, the extensor digiti minimi. Mandel
positions the pinky in second place because, although the pinky is rela9. Mandel (1981) did not include a hierarchy for bending or for curving because, in his proposal, both configurations were considered more or less extended
relative to the other fingers in the handshape.
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 35
35
tively independent, it is tied to the ring and through the ring, to the middle (Mandel 1981, 100). Mandel does not elaborate on the ties of the
pinky to other fingers or their effects. The positioning of the middle as
the higher of the two remaining fingers is justified physiologically by
the fact that the middle finger is next to the index finger, which Mandel
(1981) notes is very independent. Consequently, the ring finger is in
the final place.
The idea behind the opposition hierarchy follows similar logic. The
most opposable finger is the index, with the middle next most opposable. The positions of the ring and pinky in the hierarchy are unclear because the physiology does not suggest a clear answer. The ring finger
is closer to the thumb and therefore seems more opposable than the
pinky. But the pinky, though farther away from the thumb, is equipped
with a muscle, the opponens digiti minimi, which helps it to oppose the
thumb. Mandel leaves the ranking of ring and pinky unresolved.
Mandels (1981) independent flexion hierarchy governs the flexion
of a finger without opposition. Mandel claims that the middle finger is
the freest in this regard. He notes that both the index and pinky have
their relative extensors to hold them up and that the ring is tied by ligamentous connections10 to other fingers. In contrast, the middle, the
longest finger, can reach out far enough to be distinguished. Mandel
claims that the index and ring are closely tied for the next position in the
hierarchy. The pinky occupies the final place in the flexion hierarchy
because it is the least free, being tied to the ring. Mandel offers no more
than this information about the physiology of the fingers.
Mandels innovative (1981) work attempted an enormously complex task. He used physiology to explain linguistic puzzles. His work
is a substantial contribution, though it is not complete enough to use as
a basis for a model of ease of articulation.
Lane, Boyes-Braem, and Bellugi (1976) proposes distinctive features for ASL handshapes. It was modeled after the Miller and Nicely
10. The physiological literature suggests that Mandels ligamentous ties are
the juncturae tendinum; I discuss them in chapter 2.
36
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 36
Chapter One
(1955) study in which consonant sounds were presented in noise to subjects who were to discriminate them from one other. The fact that they
were presented in noise made it likely that the sounds would be confused. Miller and Nicely (1955) found that particular pairs of sounds are
more likely to be confused than other pairs. This result was taken to
mean that, first, two sounds that were highly likely to be confused for
each other shared some features and, second, that the features that distinguished the sounds that were confused were not very salient in the
language. Therefore, if a feature is salient, the sounds that differ on the
absence or presence of that feature will not be confused. Lane, BoyesBraem, and Bellugi (1976) tested the likelihood that particular sets of
similar ASL handshapes would be confused for each other. They presented subjects with handshapes in visual noise, making it likely that the
subjects would confuse the handshapes. The sets of handshapes that
were most likely to be confused were analyzed as sharing features.
Lane, Boyes-Braem, and Bellugi (1976) propose eleven features that describe ASL handshapes. They speak of distinctive features as phonological features, and they clearly are concerned with not only phonology
but also psychology.
Stungis (1981) questioned the validity of Lane, Boyes-Braem,
and Bellugi (1976) in two important ways. First, the results of Lane,
Boyes-Braem, and Bellugi (1976) may not have been based on a large
enough number of trials. Second, they relied on the judgments of deaf
signers who were not native signers of ASL. This fact is expected
on the basis of perception studies of spoken language such as Abraham and Lisker (1970), Miyawaki et al. (1975), and othersto significantly affect responses. Thus, Lane, Boyes-Braem, and Bellugi
(1976) cannot be understood to reflect the actual perception of native signers. Stungis overtly disavows any attempt to establish what
the phonological features of ASL might be; rather, his use of the term
distinctive features refers to a visual cue that is a physical characteristic of the stimulus and that is sufficient for its recognition (Stungis
1981). Stungiss work did not challenge the idea in Lane, BoyesBraem, and Bellugi (1976) that features could be based on perceptual evidence.
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 37
37
Arrangement of features.
One proposal for a feature geometry for handshapes suggests an appeal
to physiology be made to explain the grouping of fingers in handshapes
(Corina and Sagey 1989). The proposal is that because the index and
middle fingers are referred to as radial fingers, they are dominated in a
geometry by a node (an apex) called the radial node. Similarly, because
the ring finger and the pinky are considered ulnar fingers, the ulnar
node would dominate the ring and pinky.11 This partitioning makes good
physiological sense; as physiological evidence for the nodes, Corina
and Sagey (1988, 1989) claim that two different motor efferents (nerves)
control the radial fingers and the ulnar fingers. They do not discuss this
point further.
Another example of an appeal to the physiology related to feature
combinations is the case of [spread]. The feature [spread] controls
whether or not the fingers are spread apart or held together with no space
in between. Several restrictions on the application of [spread] are relevant. First, [spread] can apply only to more than one finger (Corina and
Sagey 1988). Speaking of one finger as spread or unspread makes little
sense because a finger can be spread only with respect to the others.
Mandel (1981), working out a feature system for handshapes, notes that
the middle finger stays stationary while the other four fingers spread
away from itthumb and index going in one direction and ring and pinky
going in the other. Mandel (1981) encodes these physiological facts in his
theory by proposing features such as [spread.index] but does not propose
the feature [spread.middle]. The second restriction on [spread] is that it
can occur only with extended or curved fingers but not with bent fingers.12 The physiological reason for this restriction on the application
11. Sandlers (1989) feature geometry also includes an unnamed node that
dominated the index and middle fingers, which corresponds to Corina and Sageys
(1988) radial node. However, Sandler (1989) offers no physiological justification
for the node.
12. Kegl and Wilbur (1976) note that the feature [spread] is relevant only to
[ extended] handshapes; [ extended] handshapes are redundantly [ spread]
(392). I interpret the statement to mean in handshapes in which the fingers are closed,
they are not spread; it is only possible for fingers to be spread if they are extended.
38
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 38
Chapter One
of [spread] was not explained in either Corina and Sagey (1988) or Mandel (1981). Ann (1992b, 1993a, and chapter 2 of this volume) explain the
physiology behind the fact that the only handshapes that can be spread
are those in which the metacarpophalangeal joint (knuckle) is not flexed.
Chapter 2 makes clear why only the curved and extended configurations
are able to spread.
Brentaris (1998) proposal is that the selected fingers branch of her
feature geometry has two sub-branches: joints and fingers. Separation
of joints and fingers for selected fingers was first proposed in Hulst
(1995). In Brentari (1998), class nodes of the prosodic branch are
arranged from most distal to most proximal joints. She notes that what
often happens in the phonetic realization of a sign is that the movement migrates from the default joint of its particular movement type to
a more proximal joint or a more distal one (133). She refers to this
process as phonetic reduction, or distalization, and to phonetic enhancement as proximalization (Brentari 1998). She provides several examples with various kinds of movement. An example with handshape (but
not movement) noticed by other researchers is that, in some signs, fingers can be extended at all joints or flexed at the metacarpophalangeal
joint and extended at the PIP and DIP joints and still mean the same
thing whereas, in other signs, this variation cannot happen. Mandel
(1982) provides the example of YOU, which can be signed with either
wrist flexion or metacarpophalangeal joint flexion. Uyechi (1996) provides the example of CONFLICT in which it is possible to distalize (from
the wrist to the metacarpophalangeal joint) and MEET-YOU in which it
is not. Brentari (1998) claims that representing orientation is quite complex because of the complexity of movement controlled by the joints
in the forearm and the wrist.
Sandlers (1996) proposal considers the entire representation of
handshape. Her proposal appears in figure 5. Of her proposal, Sandler
(1996) observes that the motivation is partly articulatory in the sense
that each class corresponds to an articulator. HC (hand configuration)
corresponds to the whole hand, orientation to the palm, selected fingers to the fingers, and position to the joints of the fingers (9).
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 39
39
Figure 5 Sandlers proposed entire representation of handshape. Reproduced

from Sandler (1996, 117).
The preceding discussion should demonstrate that the areas of features and their organization has afforded linguists a chance to make significant observations about articulation and perception. Now let us turn
our attention to acquisition.
Issues Connected to Acquisition of Handshapes
Boyes-Braems (1981, 1990) work uses ease of articulation as an explanation for a linguistic puzzle, namely, the order of acquisition of
handshapes by an American deaf child. To a lesser extent, her work also
attempts to characterize ease of articulation based on anatomy. She
found that the child acquired (i.e., was able to produce) handshapes in
four stages. At Stage 1, the child acquired the simplest of handshapes.
These involve the manipulation either of the hand as a whole or of the radial fingers (which she considers the thumb and index finger). In Stage 2,
the child acquired the least complex of the complex handshapes. In
Stage 3, the child began to manipulate the ulnar fingers (the middle, ring,
and pinky fingers) separately rather than treat them as a unit (BoyesBraem 1990), and as in stage 1, the middle, ring, and pinky fingers were
all either closed or extended. In Stage 4, the child learned to move all the
40
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 40
Chapter One
fingers one by one, including the weakestthe middle finger and the
ring finger. Handshapes used in Stages 14 are shown in figure 6.
Boyes-Braem (1990) explains these data as being a result of the
anatomy of the hand. She includes some attention to muscles and some
attention to the radialulnar distinction. Boyes-Braem also explains that
the thumb, index, and pinky have extra muscles that the middle and
ring fingers do not have.
It is not clear why, as a group, the radialulnar distinction, not the independent extensor distinction, is reflected in the handshapes that are
acquired earliest. Though Boyes-Braem (1990) associates the order of
Stage 1
Stage 2
Figure 6 Boyes-Braems stages of handshape acquisition. From Volterra and
Erting (1994). Used by permission.
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 41
41
Stage 3
Stage 4
Figure 6
(Continued)
acquisition of some ASL handshapes with the physiology of the hand,

she does not make an explicit claim that a handshapes ease of articulation relates to the stage of its acquisition. Instead of proposing a theory of ease of articulation, she uses ease of articulation to explain the
order of acquisition of handshapes. To a lesser extent, Boyes-Braems
work also attempts to characterize ease of articulation based on
anatomy. However, because her work attempts to explain only the order
in which a child acquires ASL handshapes, we have no information
from this work on logically possible handshapes. These might include
42
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 42
Chapter One
(a) handshapes that are not attested (do not occur) in ASL but are attested
(do occur) in other sign languages, (b) handshapes that are physically
possible but not present in any sign language, and (c) handshapes that
are physically impossible. So it is not possible to construct a model from
Boyes-Braem (1973, 1981, 1990) alone.
McIntire (1977) examined acquisition to see what features might
explain it. She concluded (but did not show) that, although features proposed by Boyes-Braem are useful in explaining the data, the proposal in
Lane, Boyes-Braem, and Bellugi (1976) is more appropriate.
McIntire (1977) gathered data from a series of videotaped play
sessions in the home of a deaf child of Deaf parents and grandparents, all of whom used ASL. She examines the hypothesis that there
exist at least two steps in the order of sign language development
(249). This hypothesis is based on the observation that pointing and
grasping are the functions most commonly served by the human hand
(249). The pointing index finger and the action of grasping seem very
common in sign languages, too. But McIntire points out that sign languages require the independent manipulation of the middle, ring,
and pinky fingers, which, she notes, is acquired comparatively late in
development (249).
Both Boyes-Braem (1973) and McIntire (1977) reason that the manipulation of the thumb and index finger come before the manipulation
of the rest of the fingers developmentally and, therefore, that acquisition
of handshape occurs in two stageswhat might be called the radial
stage and the ulnar stage. McIntire summarizes her model as follows:
The sequence suggested by the model is based on the gradually increasing ability both physical and cognitive of the child to control
the weaker fingers, making possible the positive specification (production) of more and more difficult features. The prediction therefore is that signs requiring a dez (handshape) in a stage beyond the
babys performance abilities . . . will be signed by using as substitutes dez (handshapes) within her capabilities. . . . In this model it is
also predicted that no dez from a later stage will substitute for a dez
from an earlier stage. (1977, 250)
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 43
43
McIntire finds some patterns that are not consistent with BoyesBraem, but Boyes-Braems basic hypothesis (i.e., that the dez handshapes requiring control of the thumb and index finger or the whole
hand will develop before others) is sustained (McIntire 1977). Virtually all of McIntires (1977) corpus (182 of 186 substitutions) is composed of handshapes from Boyes-Braems Stage 1. McIntires work
tries to use ease of articulation as at least a partial explanation for a linguistic puzzle, but from this work alone, it would not be possible to
build a model of ease of articulation such as the one I propose here.
Siedlecki and Bonvillian, in two separate studies (Bonvillian and
Siedlecki 2000; Siedlecki and Bonvillian 1993), gathered data on the acquisition of ASL handshapes by deaf children. They videotaped hearing and deaf children, who were native signers, in conversation with
their sign-using parents. They collected token frequencies of errors of
these children, and they showed that during the acquisition process,
children got a signs location and movement correct more often than its
handshape. From these data, they concluded that handshape is the most
challenging parameter of a sign to acquire.
Meier et al. (1998) investigated whether the natural course of motor development in infants influenced early sign acquisition. They
found three principles that may account for certain broad patterns
that we have detected in young childrens articulation of their first
signs (70):
1. Fine motor control over small muscle groups (e.g., those in the
hand) lags behind gross motor control over large muscle groups
(e.g., those in the shoulder or arm) (64).
2. Development of motor control generally proceeds from proximal
articulators (e.g., the shoulder) to distal ones (e.g., the wrist and
fingers), where proximal and distal articulators are defined by
distance from the torso (64).
a. . . . [I]f a child uses a joint that would not be anticipated in the
adult citation-form sign, that joint will likely be proximal to
the most proximal of the expected joints (67).
9/5/06
44
9:57 AM
Page 44
Chapter One
3. . . . [I]f joint activity is omitted from a sign that involves action

at two or more joints, children will typically omit distal articulation (69).
Issues of Perception, Articulation, and Kinematics

Other literature, though not categorized as having to do with features
or acquisition, engages with issues of perception, articulation, or kinematics while examining particular questions about sign languages. The
following sections detail this work.
Signs as a whole.
Mathur and Rathmann (2000) claim that physiology affects the grammar of sign languages, not just the construction of signs. Their argument
is that some verbs in four sign languages do not have agreement with
objects because to do so would entail having a conflict in the motor
requirements of the joint movements that are needed (30). Despite their
appeal to consider articulation as an explanation for a linguistic puzzle,
they do not characterize ease of articulation.
The TSL sign GAOSU (TELL) pictured in figure 7 is one example of
signs that involve handshape change and path movement. In this particular sign, all of the fingertips touch and then open so the fingers are
extended and spread. During this change, the hand starts in a position
in front of and close to the signers body and moves to a position about
a foot in front of the signers body.
Mandel (1979) predicts the direction in which signs like the one in
figure 7 will move in space based on the well-known observation that,
when the wrist is flexed, the fingers tend to extend, and when the wrist
is extended, the fingers tend to flex. This tendency is referred to as tenodesis. In tenodesis, muscles that pass over and act on some number of
joints are not long enough to permit all of the joints to move as much
as they are able at the same time (Galley and Forster 1987; Wells 1966).
This limitation causes a pulley effect (Wells 1966), meaning that ac-
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 45
45
Figure 7 An example of a TSL sign that involves handshape change and path
movement translated as GAOSU TELL.
tions occur, not because they are directly performed, but because they
are forced to occur by remote control.
The technical explanation of the tenodesis that occurs in the hand
is that the extrinsic muscles of the hand (i.e., those that originate, not
in the hand, but in the forearm) are the extensor digitorum communis,
and the flexors digitorum profundus and superficialis. Both flexors are
located on the palmar side of the hand. The extensor is located on the
dorsal side of the hand. Each of these muscles crosses, and therefore
acts on, the wrist joints and some or all of the joints in the fingers. However, none of the extrinsic muscles are long enough to allow both the
wrist and the fingers to either flex completely or extend simultaneously.
This fact can be verified easily by placing ones elbow near the edge of
a table so the hand can fall forward in space at the wrist (see figure 8a).
Flexing the fingers from this position will cause the wrist to automatically extend (straighten) as shown in figure 8b. This action occurs because of tenodesis: the flexors are not long enough to comfortably let
both the wrist and the fingers flex.
Mandel (1979) hypothesizes that, in a sign in which the handshape
changes from closed to extended (as in figure 7), the fingers extend,
which causes the wrist to tend to flex, which in turn moves the hand forward. (Mandel defines forward as moving in the direction that the palm
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Chapter One
46
a.
Figure 8
Page 46
b.
Demonstration of tenodesis. Drawings by Sarah Mahan.
is facing.) Conversely, in a sign with a handshape change from extended

to closed, the fingers flex, which causes the wrist to extend, which
moves the palm backward (in the direction that the back of the hand is
facing). Mandels investigation of Stokoe, Casterline, and Cronebergs
Dictionary of American Sign Language (1965) reveals that of the sixtytwo signs with (a) either opening or closing of the fingers and (b) path
movement through space, forty-six signs favor tenodesis and only sixteen oppose it (Mandel 1979). Mandels (1979, 1981) work makes an attempt both to characterize ease of articulation and to use it to solve linguistic puzzles.
Loncke (1984) suggests that kinesiology plays a role in several
phonological characteristics of Belgian Sign Language. First, Loncke
notes that it is highly predictable that signs produced in the signing
space will more likely have flexion, abduction, and inward rotation than
other combinations of movements or single movements. Second, Loncke
notes that, in one-handed signs that are articulated in areas either to the
left or to the right of the signing space, the preferred direction of movement is contralateral to ipsilateral. This preference holds true for righthanded and left-handed signers. Third, circular movements in signs tend
to go in the same direction no matter in which plane (horizontal, vertical,
or sagittal) they occur. Even nonsigners who were asked to produce a sign
after hearing a description that did not include instructions on which
way to make the circular movement respected the directionality that
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 47
47
signers used. In his explanation of what could account for these data,
Loncke (1984) concludes that they must be attributable to what is most
comfortable. Although all of Lonckes observations are interesting, they
are not explored in any greater detail, and no attempt is made to determine exactly what makes some movements easier or more comfortable.
Taking another tack, Siple (1978) relates several aspects of the lexicon of ASL to visual constraints. Specifically, she claims that different
areas of the signing space have a high or low degree of visual acuity. At
what she calls the point of fixation, acuity is best (1978, 97). As the
distance between the sign and the point of fixation increases, acuity decreases. If we assume that the fixation point for signers is the face, then
the area around the face is a high visual acuity area. The area around
the waist, then, would be a low visual acuity area. Siple predicts that
pairs of signs that look very similar will be produced in the high acuity
areas of the signing space because they will be easy to distinguish. Siple
defines visually similar signs as being almost identical signs, except for
small distinctions such as a different location or handshape. Visually
similar signs will be produced in areas that are easy to see, and visually
different pairs of signs will be produced in areas that are harder to see.
Siple (1978) claims that the data in Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg
(1965) confirm her predictions, but she does not cite the actual data.
Wilcox (1992) notes that several studies have examined the kinematics of ASL movement rather than ASL handshape. These studies
have unearthed some interesting conclusions that bear on sign phonetics.
From a series of studies concerned with the perception of movement
primarily, we have a beginning understanding of the importance of
handshape to a sign. Poizner, Bellugi, and Lutes-Driscoll (1981) used a
technique of representing human motion as points of light. They used a
point-light display in which signers heads as well as various joints in
the hand and arm were illuminated. The experimenters room was darkened so only the lights were visible. The experimenters tried to find out
whether signers could recognize signs represented as point-light displays as well as they could recognize signs signed normally on videotape. In some cases, they removed particular lights from the stimuli.
48
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 48
Chapter One
From their experiments, Poizner, Bellugi, and Lutes-Driscoll (1981)

concluded that in general, the more distal the joint of the arm, the more
information is carried for sign identifiability (432). Poizner, Klima, and
Bellugi (1987) reported that movement of the fingertipsthough not
any other pair of points is necessary for sign identification (25). In another study, Poizner (1983) compared the responses of native ASL signers and those of hearing people with no knowledge of ASL. Deaf and
hearing subjects did not differ in their responses to certain aspects of
movement such as its direction and repetition and cyclicity; in other
words, on the issue of the effect of linguistic experience on certain types
of judgments, there is no difference between deaf and hearing signers.
Lupton and Zelaznik (1990) try to shed light on how skills in using
ASL are developed. They do kinematic measurements at two distinct
points in time of the movements of two hearing subjects who were
learning ASL as a second language and who had had no previous exposure to ASL (other than what they had been exposed to the semester
the study was done). They conclude that, as a result of practice, learners get better at producing ASL because they learn to produce it with
coarticulated movements. Though there were differences between the
subjects, their movements generally became more constrained and reproducible. One of the conclusions reached by Lupton and Zelaznik
(1990) is that the target position, not the movement amplitude, provides the greatest amount of linguistic information in ASL (169). Lupton and Zelazniks (1990) study concerns the learning of ASL as a second language; time will tell whether it and other studies like it have
something of value to say about the structure of ASL.
Brentari (1998) proposes that both hands need to be represented in
theories of phonology. Part of her evidence for this assertion is the existence of weak drop. Weak drop (Padden and Perlmutter 1987) is a rule
proposed to account for an asymmetry: the weak hand can be dropped
altogether in certain signs but not in others. Brentari notes that this rule
bears on phonological economy (1998, 248).
In addition, Brentari (1998) discusses prosodic complexity as visual
sonority. Among her claims for sonority in sign languages is that the
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 49
49
degree of sonority is correlated with the proximity to the body of the

joint articulating the sign gesture to the body; the more proximal the
joint articulating the movement is to the midline of the body, the greater
the degree of sonority (21617).
Brentari defines sonority in terms of both perception and articulation. With respect to perception, sonority is defined as the property that
enhances the ability of a property of a sign to be perceived at greater distances; in this regard, perceiving a property of a sign, discriminating it
from other similar properties, and identifying it are taken to be separate operations in the act of comprehension, and with respect to articulation, sonority is defined and measured on the basis of the joint(s)
used to articulate a single movement (1998, 2728).
Handshape.
Wilcox (1992) is not concerned with the articulation or perception of
handshapes but, rather, with handshape kinematicswhich corresponds
with the acoustics of speech. His study of the acoustic phonetics of fingerspelling is the nearest we have come to discovering the kinematic
properties of handshapes. Fingerspelling is relevant to a phonetics of
handshape because fingerspelling involves the rapid transmission of
handshapes, each of which corresponds to a letter of the alphabet. Ann
(1993b) notes that Wilcoxs examination of fluent and nonfluent fingerspelling yields several conclusions: (a) speed is not a factor in producing fluent fingerspelling, (b) peak velocity occurs in the transitions
of fingerspelled words, (c) the behavior of the fingers and hand are temporally synchronized in fluent fingerspelling but not in disfluent fingerspelling. It is not clear, however, whether these conclusions point to constraints on handshapes or constraints on sign languages in general.
In a study of coarticulation across ASL signs, Cheek (2001) explores a phenomenon she refers to as handshape variationthe observation that the same handshape is not always produced in precisely the same
way. She notes that other researchers (Klima and Bellugi 1979; Wilbur
1987; Liddell and Johnson 1986, 1989; Sandler 1993) have noticed that
50
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 50
Chapter One
the handshape of a previous sign can affect the handshape in a following

sign. She points out that these discussions do not distinguish between
phonetic patterns of coarticulation and phonological patterns of assimilation (Cheek 2001, 9).
Cheeks work attempts to resolve this ambiguity by using quantitative kinematic data to get more information about the exact nature of
variation. She examines finger extension in a few phrases with the ASL
handshapes 5 and 1. In the ASL phrase TRUE SMART (really smart), TRUE
is articulated with a 1 handshape, and SMART is articulated with a
1 handshape. In the phrase TRUE MOTHER (real mother), TRUE (articulated
with the 1 handshape) is followed by MOTHER, which is articulated with
a 5 handshape. Cheek tries to ascertain whether the 1 handshape in
TRUE looks any different in the phrase TRUE SMART than it does in the
phrase TRUE MOTHER. Her experimental results show that the preceding
and following sign systematically affect the production of the index
handshape in the dominant hand as well as the relaxed handshape of
the nondominant hand (Cheek 2001, 196). Cheeks work shows that
the phenomenon she explores is not phonological but phonetic. She concludes that the principles of economy are clearly at work in sign just
as they are in speech (2001, 209).
When hearing people perceive linguistic sounds, they do not perceive only one discrete stimuli as a particular sound. Rather, they identify sounds along a continuum to be the same sound. The stimuli that
they perceive to be the same sound has to do with their native language
and with their linguistic experience with the sound contrast being tested.
This phenomenon is known as categorical perception. Baker (2003)
studied whether a linguistic system constrained the perception of only
speech or whether the same effects happened for processing stimuli
that were not speech (2).
In her study, Baker (2003) investigated whether hearing and deaf
adults perceived handshapes categorically, that is, whether there is a
linguistic, as opposed to a purely perceptual, basis for the processing
of linguistic contrasts that are visual (3). Bakers hypothesis was that,
if both hearing subjects (with English as a native language) and deaf sub-
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 51
51
jects (with ASL as a native language) had categorical perception of handshapes, then some general perceptual mechanism was at play. If only
the deaf group had categorical perception, then the result of linguistic experience in perceiving handshapes was significant. Baker reasoned that,
if linguistic experience plays a role in constraining the perception of the
ASL contrasts, then language has its own system-specific perceptual
mechanism focused on the phenomenon of categorical perception.
To test her hypothesis about ASL in general, Baker focused on figuring out whether deaf ASL signers and hearing nonsigners exhibited
categorical perception as they viewed three pairs of handshapes. Subjects had an identification task and a discrimination task that had to do
with handshapes. The results of the identification task suggested that
there was no categorical perception; both the hearing and the deaf subjects grouped handshapes in the same way. However, the result of the
discrimination task suggested that the deaf subjects did categorically
perceive handshapes and the hearing subjects did not. Although Baker
(2003) was not attempting to test any linguistic hypotheses, she notes
that her research has implications for Brentari et al. (1996), who propose various features for handshapes: The deaf adults were indeed
processing the handshapes in terms of their component features
(Baker 2003, 89).
Moy (1990) observes a parallel between progress in spoken language phonology and sign language phonology: much of the phonological research on ASL until 1990 tried to explain phonological puzzles
by considering only evidence gleaned from what people signed. In other
words, the evidence came from the language itself (language-internal
evidence). In his research, Moy instead took a psycholinguistic approach.
His question had been a long-standing one. Stokoe, Casterline, and
Croneberg (1965) and Stokoe (1978) claimed that the handshapes in figure 9 were allophones of one another. Allophones are handshapes that,
when replaced by each other in a given sign, do not result in a meaning
difference, although they may make the sign look unusual or funny
to a native signer. Moy tests the specific claim that the handshapes in 9a,
9c, and 9d are allophones. On the basis of psycholinguistic evidence
52
Figure 9
(1998).
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 52
Chapter One
a. The handshape in ASL 10
b. ASL ngerspelled T
c. ASL ngerspelled A
d. ASL ngerspelled S
ASL allophones. Figures b and c are from Tennant and Brown
(subjects response to a concept formation test), he finds that the handshapes in figures 9c and 9d were not considered the same thing by subjects and therefore should not be considered allophones of one another.
However, subjects saw the handshapes in figures 9a and 9c as the same
thing, and therefore they can be considered allophones.
Frequency of occurrence.
In sign language research, the few studies that deal with frequency do
not conceptualize their questions or data as some functional linguists
might. Woodward (1982, 1985, 1987), essentially using dictionary data,
examined the frequency of particular handshapes across ten sign languages. He looked at handshapes involving what he called (a) single-finger extensionhandshapes in which one finger is extended with the rest
of the fingers closed; (b) two-finger extensiontwo fingers extended
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 53
single-finger extension
53
two-finger extension
single-finger contact
Figure 10 Types of handshapes analyzed by Woodward.
with the rest closed; and (c) single-finger contacthandshapes in which

one finger contacts the thumb. (See figure 10.)
After analyzing his data, Woodward made the following observations about handshapes:
The extended index finger occurs in all of the sign languages. The extended
ring finger occurs in only one of the sign languages.
The extended index finger occurs in a relatively large percentage of signs,
compared, for example, with the extended ring finger, which occurs in a tiny
percentage of signs.
Single-finger extension handshapes occur more commonly than two finger
extended handshapes.
Single-finger extension handshapes are more common than handshapes in
which a single finger contacts the thumb.
Woodwards observations alone were a great contribution when they

were made, but the issue of generating an explanation for these observations was never examined.
Sandler (1996) in a discussion of markedness reports some statistics
from Israeli Sign Language (ISL). She has two sources of data on attested handshapes in ISL. First, she calculates their order of frequency
in the dictionary, and second, she calculates their order of frequency in
a small corpus of relatively natural signing.
54
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 54
Chapter One
Morford and McFarlane (2003) describe a preliminary study on

sign frequency in ASL. A database of 4,111 signs that were signed in
various discourse contexts by twenty-seven signers was considered.
The questions asked about the database did not concern handshape. One
question was concerned with discovering the most frequent sign
types; investigators distinguished between frozen signs, classifiers, fingerspelled signs, etc. An interesting finding was that the category of
signs we think of as classifiers comprised a very small percentage of
signs in the database: 4.2 percent. A related finding was that genre (formal, casual, or spontaneous narrative) affected the percentages of sign
types found in the corpus. For example, classifier constructions were
much more common in narratives than in casual or formal signing.
None of these conclusions could have been drawn in the absence of a
study about frequency.
With the exception of Bonvillian and Siedlecki (2000) and Siedlecki
and Bonvillian (1993), discussed earlier in this chapter, Ann (1993a) and
Ann (1996) are the only other works to have dealt with frequency. Both
Ann (1993a) and Ann (1996) were concerned with type frequency of
handshapes in two unrelated sign languages, ASL and TSL. Both studies used as data all the handshapes listed in the Smith and Ting (1979,
1984) glossaries for TSL and in the Dictionary of American Sign Language (Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg 1965) for ASL. Both studies
tried to explain frequency of occurrence data by making an appeal to
ease of articulation; both studies conceptualized frequency as a condition in which a handshape occurs more often than expected. What was
expected was calculated by means of a mathematical formula.
The present work differs from Ann (1993a, 1996) in four ways.
First, neither Ann (1993a) nor Ann (1996) couched the discussion of frequency and ease of articulation in functionalist theory. This work takes
pains to contextualize the questions dealt with here by placing them in
the context of functionalist theory. Second, both Ann (1993a) and Ann
(1996) ascertained frequency in only one way: both studies examined
only type frequency ascertained from dictionary entries. This work, even
more so than Ann (2005), expands that attempt by also examining con-
9/5/06
9:57 AM
Page 55
55
versational data. Ann (2005) reports on type frequencies for handshapes

in TSL from a mini-corpus of a few minutes of signing taken from a
Taiwanese television show in which two native signers converse. Third,
the conception of frequency of occurrence is different here than it was in
Ann (1993a) and Ann (1996). Here, I calculate frequency in a much
more straightforward way. Frequency is a matter of how many times a
handshape occurs, not whether it is expected to occur in a conversation.
Finally, Ann (1993a) and Ann (1996) were concerned with comparing
data from two sign languages whereas this work, because of the focus on
greatly expanding the database, examines only TSL in detail.
9/5/06
10:07 AM
Page 56
Chapter Two
The Anatomy and Physiology

of the Human Hand
First developing an understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the
human hand and the relevance of each to handshapes will enable the
reader to follow the theory I propose with respect to ease of articulation for handshapes. Although I adhere to the standard distinction between anatomy (i.e., the description of parts of the body and their potential for movement) and physiology (the study of how the parts move
and interact) (Galley and Forster 1987), my discussion of the two areas
will be intertwined.
The anatomy and physiology of the human hand are tremendously
complicated; therefore, making hard and fast conclusions about all aspects of physiology is unwise (and maybe even impossible). Enormous
fields of study such as anatomy, physiology, and biomechanics are engaged in the task of understanding how the human body works (Wells
1966). Discoveries made in these areas alter previous paradigms, and
consequently, aspects of both anatomy and physiology are still not well
understood. For example, variation exists across humans with respect to
the number and arrangement of extensor tendons (Schenck 1964).
Beyond anatomy, the precise functions of anatomical structures are
not necessarily clear. For example, questions still arise as to which
smaller movements combine to form a larger movement and which
muscles participate (and how much) in executing particular movements
(Wells 1966)questions that are particularly important here. Different
muscle groups might work together to achieve a given movement,
56
9/5/06
10:07 AM
Page 57
The Anatomy and Physiology of the Human Hand
57
though one muscle might be primarily responsible. But in another movement, the same muscles might participate in different ways. So, a given
muscle might act as a prime mover (i.e., actually doing some action) in
one movement, as an antagonist (i.e., permitting the action by relaxing) in another, and as a synergist (i.e., helping the prime mover to complete the action) in a third. To complicate matters, in accomplishing an
action, a prime mover or a synergist may participate minimally (say,
only 1020 percent) or maximally (say, 80100 percent).13 Clearly then,
it is impossible to say that a given muscle is a prime mover, an antagonist, or a synergist because it may function as a prime mover for one
movement, as an antagonist for another, and as a synergist for a third.
A thoroughly detailed explanation of the muscles of the hand and
the movements they accomplish is far too complex to be dealt with appropriately here. Nevertheless, some understanding of the physiology of
the hand and forearm is critical for us to begin to understand its relationship to sign language handshapes. Therefore, for my purposes here,
I make two reasonable assumptions that serve to simplify my task. First,
I assume that there exists a canonical, or standard hand, the structure
and functions of which I outline throughout this chapter. Second, although kinesiologists are still unraveling the mysteries of how the human hand moves, my hypotheses concern the movements that particular
muscles allow on the basis of the positioning of a muscle, the effects of
other soft structures in the hand, and the effects of the joint structures for
movement.
The question of which aspects of the physiology are in fact relevant for handshapes is a reasonable one. For example, the hand may
act as a whole (i.e., all five fingers together), or some subset of fingers
may group together in extension while the others remain closed to the
palm. So what each individual finger can do and what the hand as a
13. Because, anatomically and physiologically, the thumb both resembles and
differs from the other four fingers, the need sometimes arises to distinguish the
thumb from the rest of the fingers. Throughout the chapter, my use of the phrase the
ve digits should be interpreted as including the thumb and four fingers. The phrase
the ngers should be interpreted as excluding the thumb.
58
9/5/06
10:07 AM
Page 58
Chapter Two
whole can do is relevant to handshapes. Therefore, my discussion centers on the bones of the hand and wrist, the joints, and the muscles and
other soft structures.
THE BONES OF THE HAND
The hand and the wrist contain twenty-seven small bones: fourteen phalanges, five metacarpals, and eight carpal (wrist) bones (see figure 11).
In the following sections, I discuss the bones of the fingers, hand, and
wrist in turn. I will use the terms proximal and distal to refer to relative
locations on the body: proximal means closer to the trunk of the body,
and distal means farther from the trunk of the body.
FINGERS
Each of the digits is made up of small bones called the phalanges. There
are fourteen phalanges in the human hand. The four fingers have three
phalanges each, known as the distal phalanx, the medial phalanx, and
Figure 11
Bones of the hand. Adapted from Napier 1980, 29.
9/5/06
10:07 AM
Page 59
59
the proximal phalanx. The distal phalanx is located near the tip of each
finger. The proximal phalanx is located near the metacarpophalangeal
joint (or knuckle) of each finger. The medial phalanx is the bone between the proximal phalanx and the distal phalanx. The thumb has two
phalanges: the proximal phalanx (near the knuckle) and the distal phalanx (near the tip).
HAND
The skeleton of the palm, the metacarpus, consists of five bones called
metacarpals, labeled 15 in figure 11. Each metacarpal attaches to the
proximal phalanx of each respective digit. The first metacarpal is that of
the thumb, the second metacarpal is that of the index, and so on. The
metacarpal heads are the distal ends of the metacarpal bones, in other
words, the ends of each metacarpal bone that are closest to the proximal phalanx (Romanes 1981).
WRIST
The eight bones of the wrist (the carpal bones) can be divided into two
rows, a distal row (located on the hand side of the wrist) and a proximal row (located on the forearm side of the wrist). The distal row of
carpal bones from right to left in figure 12 are the hamatum, capitatum,
multangulum minor, and multangulum major. The proximal row of
carpal bones from right to left are the pisiform, triquetum, lunatum,
and navicular. The distal ends of the two bones in the forearm, the radius
and the ulna, are attached to the proximal row of carpal bones.
JOINTS
At a joint, two bones meet. Understanding the nature of the joints in
the hand will help us see their relevance for sign language handshapes.
One classification organizes joints into those with a space between the
two bones and those without a space between the two bones (Wells
9/5/06
60
10:07 AM
Page 60
Chapter Two
Figure 12 Carpal bones from the palmar side. Adapted from Galley and
Forster (1987, 114).
1966). The former permit gliding movement; the latter permit very little
movement or no movement. From these groupings, three types of joints
can be described: (1) synovial (freely moving), (2) cartilaginous (slightly
moveable), and (3) fibrous (fixed) (Galley and Forster 1987). The hand
has examples of all three.
FINGERS AND HAND
The fingers and hand have three sets of joints, all labeled in figure 11. At
the distal interphalangeal joint, the distal and medial phalanges meet. At
the proximal interphalangeal joint, the medial and proximal phalanges
meet. At the metacarpophalangeal joint, or knuckle, the proximal phalanx of each finger meets its respective metacarpal at the metacarpal
heads. All of these joints are synovial, moving freely in flexion and ex-
9/5/06
10:07 AM
Page 61
61
tension. In addition, the metacarpophalangeal joints of the four fingers

permit abduction and adduction (spreading apart and coming together).
HAND AND WRIST
The wrist has four sets of joints. These are the carpometacarpal joints,
the midcarpal joints, the intercarpal joints, and the radiocarpal joint.
Proceeding from the distal to the proximal joints, the carpometacarpal
joint is where the metacarpals meet the distal row of carpal bones. The
midcarpal joints and the intercarpal joints are within the wrist itself. The
midcarpal joints are those that connect the four carpal bones in the proximal row with the four carpal bones in the distal row. The intercarpal
joints are between adjacent carpal bones in both rows (Wells and
Luttgens 1976). The radiocarpal joint is where the bones of the forearm,
the radius and the ulna, meet the proximal row of carpal bones. Most
of these joints are cartilaginous, permitting only slight movements. Together, however, they allow wrist movements of flexion, extension,
hyperextension, radial flexion (moving the wrist to the right), ulnar flexion (moving the wrist to the left), and circumduction.
For our purposes, the carpometacarpal joints (labeled in figure 11)
are the most interesting. We can productively examine the five carpometacarpal joints in three groups: the carpometacarpal joint of the
thumb, the carpometacarpal joints that distally attach to the index and
the middle fingers, and those that distally attach to the ring and the
pinky. The thumbs carpometacarpal joint, sometimes called a saddle
joint, is synovial. In fact, the first metacarpal is the most mobile of the
five at the carpometacarpal joint and permits not only the movements
necessary to produce sign language handshapes but also a number of
other movements. The carpometacarpal joints of the four fingers are
extremely interesting for our purposes. The construction of these joints
varies in ways that have important implications for sign language handshapes. The carpometacarpal joints of the second and third metacarpals
are fibrous or fixed, rendering the second and third metacarpals immobile. In contrast, the carpometacarpal joints of the fourth and fifth
62
9/5/06
10:07 AM
Page 62
Chapter Two
Figure 13 The fixed (fibrous) parts of the hand. Adapted from Galley and
Forster (1987, 215) and Napier (1980, 29).
metacarpals are cartilagenous, making them slightly moveable. The

fibrous parts of the hand are pictured in figure 13.
The following two exercises help demonstrate the difference between the attachments of the second and third metacarpals and the
fourth and fifth metacarpals at the carpometacarpal joint. First, take a
friends hand with fingers facing toward you and palm down. Using both
of your hands, grasp the second and third metacarpal of your friends
hand with your thumb on the dorsal side of the hand and your index
finger on the palmar side. Attempt to push down (toward the floor) on
one metacarpal while pulling upward (toward the ceiling) on the other.
You will see that it is not possible to move the second and third
metacarpals. Now, grasp the fourth and fifth metacarpals, and try the
same thing. You will quickly see that, quite in contrast with the second
and third metacarpals, these are permitted plenty of movement.
9/5/06
10:07 AM
Page 63
63
Next, lay a pencil across the open flat hand, and make a fist holding the pencil. Notice the difference between the way the index and
middle fingers grip the pencil and the way the ring and pinky grip the
pencil. The index and middle simply wrap around the pencil, steadying
it on the radial (thumb) side. The ring and pinky cup around the pencil
steadying it on the ulnar (pinky) side. This cupping action occurs because the ring and pinky metacarpals are mobile at the carpometacarpal
joint; if they were not, they could not grip the pencil as tightly and the
pencil would be loose on the ulnar side of the hand. It should be clear
by now that the different behavior of the second and third metacarpals
compared with the fourth and fifth metacarpals is attributed to their very
different carpometacarpal joint structures.
To summarize, the wrist and hand have synovial, cartilagenous, and
fibrous joints. The synovial joints are the distal interphalangeal joints,
the proximal interphalangeal joints, the metacarpophalangeal joints, the
radiocarpal joint, and all of the joints of the thumb. The cartilaginous
joints are the ring and pinky carpometacarpal joints, the midcarpal
joints, and the intercarpal joints. The fibrous joints are the index and
middle carpometacarpal joints. The next section will consider what implications this anatomy has for sign language handshapes.
THE PHYSIOLOGICAL RESULT OF THE ANATOMY
OF THE CARPOMETACARPAL JOINTS
We have seen that the index and middle metacarpals are anatomically
immobilized at the carpometacarpal joint. The ring and pinky metacarpals are permitted a small degree of mobility at the carpometacarpal
joint. The physiological result is that an asymmetry exists between the
radial fingers and the ulnar fingers at the carpometacarpal joint. This
asymmetry renders the radial fingers more able to perform precision
movements than the ulnar fingers. This fact may seem counterintuitive
because, at the carpometacarpal joint, the index and middle are the fingers that are fixed whereas the ring and pinky are slightly moveable. In
fact, the explanation for this capacity comes from the fact that, to per-
64
9/5/06
10:07 AM
Page 64
Chapter Two
form a precision movement, the proximal bones [must] be stabilized

[i.e., held still] while the distal bones perform the movement (Wells
1966, 54). If the fingers are to perform a precision movement, then the
proximal bone involved in that movement needs to be immobilized.
Where the action of fingers is concerned, the proximal bone is the
metacarpal. Because the index and middle metacarpals are anatomically
immobilized at the carpometacarpal joint, the index and middle fingers
are capable of performing precision movements.14 In contrast, because
the ring and pinky metacarpals are not anatomically immobilized at the
carpometacarpal joint, the ulnar fingers do not meet the condition for
performing precision movements (proximal bones stabilized while distal bone performs the movement). Thus, the ring and pinky fingers are
not capable of performing precision movements.
MUSCLES
For our purposes, a muscle is more accurately characterized as a
muscle-tendon group such as the one pictured in figure 14. The muscle
part of a muscle-tendon group is made up of contractile tissue (tissue
that is able to contract). A muscles only ability is to contract and to return to its rest position. The tendon part of a muscle-tendon group can
be conceptualized as a string coming off a muscle. Although a muscle
has the ability to contract, its tendons, by themselves, have no such ability. Tendons, in other words, either are pulled or do nothing, depending
on what is happening at the muscle origin.
Muscle-tendon groups have two endsthe origin and the insertion.
The origin is where the action of the muscle originates. Typically, at
the origin, the tendons come together in one mass of contractile tissue
(called a muscle head). However, it is possible for the origin of a muscle
to have more than one head; in this case, each head controls different
14. In general, the radial fingers provide the precision and stability of the hand,
and the ulnar fingers provide the power and stability of the hand (Galley and Forster
1987).
9/5/06
10:07 AM
Page 65
Figure 14
65
A muscle-tendon group. Adapted from Wells (1966, 290).
tendons. The insertion is usually distal to the origin of a muscle-tendon

group. At the insertion, the tendons, which have split off from a muscle
head, are attached to bone (Wells 1966). Knowing the location of the
origin and insertion of muscles at every joint is important because their
location is what determines which joints a muscle acts on and what the
action of the muscle will be on the joint. Other things being equal, a
muscle-tendon group manipulates every joint it crosses; the joints in
the hand are no exception.
If we consider the possible configurations that hands can perform, it
becomes clear that a joint in the hand might flex or extend to myriad
points along an axis. So a metacarpophalangeal joint might be flexed or
extended to any point in between the points in figure 15. However, linguistic distinctions do not seem to be made between, for example, a handshape flexed at the metacarpophalangeal joint at 45 degrees and a handshape flexed at the metacarpophalangeal joint at 55 degrees. Therefore,
I follow other researchers (e.g., Corina and Sagey 1988; Sandler 1989)
in isolating four configurations of the hand for examination: extension,
9/5/06
10:08 AM
66
Page 66
Chapter Two
Figure 15 Continuum of flexion and extension of a metacarpophalangeal

joint. Drawings by Sarah Mahan.
flexion (including curving, bending, opposition, and full flexion), adduction, and abduction.15 Each discussion begins with an explication
of the anatomy and then continues with an examination of the physiological implications of that anatomy.
Extension
When the fingers are extended, they are not flexed at any joint (see figure 16). The musculature responsible for this action involves the extensor muscles with assistance from the juncturae tendinum, the intrinsic
muscles, and the abductors. We will examine the structural and functional properties of the anatomy that are responsible for extension of
the fingers.
Extension of the thumb.
The thumb is well supplied with the following muscles that help it
achieve full extension: the extensor pollicis brevis, the abductor polli15. In principle, the discussion could involve five configurations or three configurations. Perhaps perceptual considerations account for why four configurations have traditionally been isolated.
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 67
67
Figure 16 Extension.
cis longus, and the extensor pollicis longus. The origins of all three muscles are in the forearm. Because of the location of its insertion at the
interphalangeal joint of the thumb, the extensor pollicis brevis extends
the thumb at the metacarpophalangeal joint. The interphalangeal joint is
brought into full extension by the combined actions of two other muscles, the abductor pollicis longus and the extensor pollicis longus,
whose insertions lie at more distal locations in the thumb.
Extension of the fingers.
The index and pinky each have an independent extensor (Brand 1985)
whose function is to extend only that finger primarily at the metacarpophalangeal joint. These extensors are the extensor indicis proprius
(for the index finger) and extensor digiti minimi (for the pinky). The origins of the extensor indicis proprius and the extensor digiti minimi lie in
the forearm. The insertion of each is just distal to the metacarpophalangeal joint.
Extension of all four fingers by the common extensor,
extensor digitorum communis.
The origin of the extensor digitorum communis, pictured in figure 17,
lies in the forearm. It has four tendons that have two insertions each. The
68
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 68
Chapter Two
Figure 17 The common extensor (extensor digitorum communis) and its

tendons. Adapted from Wells and Luttgens (1976).
proximal insertions are at the wrist, and these will be discussed later in
this chapter in the section about abduction and adduction of the fingers.
The distal insertions, relevant here, are between the medial and distal
phalanges of each of the four fingers.
This arrangement is slightly more complicated than it first appears.
When the extensor tendons cross the metacarpophalangeal joint, they
are located on the dorsal side of each finger. But just distal to the metacarpophalangeal joint, they start to cross around the finger to the palmar
side. They cross the proximal interphalangeal joint midway between the
dorsal and palmar sides of the fingers. Then, at the distal interphalangeal
joint, the tendons of the common extensor are squarely on the palm
side of the hand. This structure is schematically illustrated in figure 18.
The physiological result of the placement of the tendons of the extensor digitorum communis is that, when the extensor contracts, the
metacarpophalangeal joint extends, the distal interphalangeal joint extends slightly, and the proximal interphalangeal joint remains flexed.
This shape resembles the sign language handshape configuration known
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 69
69
Figure 18 The common extensor tendons. Adopted from Schider (1957, plate 4,
figure 3).
as curved.16 At this point, the lumbricals and interossei (known collectively as the intrinsic muscles because their origins and insertions are
in the hand itself) come into play.
Extension by the intrinsic muscles.
The seven interosseous muscles, that is, the three palmar interossei and
the four dorsal interossei, are located on both the palmar and dorsal
sides of the hand. The palmar and dorsal interossei have their origins between the metacarpal bones and their insertions at the distal interphalangeal joint. The four lumbricals are located on the radial (thumb) side
of each of the four fingers. Similar to the interossei, their origins are on
16. The difference between the actual curved configuration and the loosely
curved configuration referred to here is that the actual curved configuration requires
that the flexion at proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints be
greater. To see what contraction of the extensor digitorum communis accomplishes,
first, hold the left hand in a position of rest (the fingers of the left hand should be
loosely flexed). Next, place the right index finger on the dorsal side of the left hand
at the metacarpophalangeal joint of the left index finger. Next, firmly move the right
index finger toward the second (index) carpometacarpal joint, pulling the skin
along. The left index finger will extend slightly at the metacarpophalangeal joint
and will remain loosely flexed at the two more distal joints. In this demonstration,
the skin on the dorsal side of the hand has been forced to function much as the
extensor digitorum communis does.
9/5/06
70
three palmar interossei
10:08 AM
Page 70
Chapter Two
four dorsal interossei
four lumbricals
Figure 19 The interosseous and lumbrical muscles. Adapted from Wells

(1966, 295, 29899).
the palmar side of the metacarpus, and their insertions are on the dorsal side of the fingers at the distal interphalangeal joint (see figure 19).
The lumbricals and the interossei help accomplish full extension
by pulling the medial and distal phalanges into full extension while they
simultaneously flex the metacarpophalangeal joint (Wells 1966). The
fact that the intrinsic muscles both flex and extend is a result of their positioning. At the metacarpophalangeal joint, the intrinsics are located on
the palmar side of the finger. The intrinsics curve around the finger, and
at the proximal interphalangeal joints, they are located toward the dorsal side of the finger. At the distal interphalangeal joints, they are clearly
on the dorsal side of the finger. This structure is illustrated in figure 20.
Contraction of these muscles results in simultaneous flexion (at the
metacarpophalangeal joints) and extension (at the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints).
Juncturae tendinum.
The final aspect of anatomy and physiology for extension of the fingers
is the juncturae tendinum, a group of three ligaments located on the dorsal side of the hand. These ligamentous bands connect the tendons of the
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 71
71
Figure 20 The intrinsic muscles. Adapted from Schider (1957, plate 4, figure 3).
extensor digitorum communis. The juncturae tendinum are pictured in

figure 21. The juncturae tendinum labeled (a) connects the extensor tendon of the pinky to that of the ring finger. The juncturae tendinum labeled (b) connects the extensor tendon of the ring finger to that of the
middle finger. The juncturae tendinum labeled (c) connects the extensor
tendon of the middle finger to that of the index finger.
The physiological relevance of the juncturae tendinum anatomy is
not completely clear. However, it is expected that, as the fingers extend, the juncturae tendinum will pull on each other, which will cause
the fingers to be dependent on one another to varying degrees. Although
I leave the exact mechanics to be worked out by specialists in this field,
I speculate here on the hypothesized physiological effects of the
anatomical facts.
Figure 21 The juncturae tendinum. Adapted from Tubiana (1981, 241).
72
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 72
Chapter Two
The extensor tendons of both the index and pinky fingers are tethered by only one juncturae tendinum. This structure contrasts the situation for both the middle and ring fingers, which are tethered on either
side by two juncturae tendinum: the ring finger by (a) and (b) and the
middle finger by (b) and (c) (see figure 21). I make two predictions
based on this structure: First, fingers that are tethered by one juncturae
tendinum are slightly freer than fingers tethered by two. Thus, the index and pinky fingers are each a bit freer than the middle and ring fingers. Second, in extension, when the juncturae tendinum come into play,
pairs of adjacent fingers have some effect on each other.
Because of their musculature, some fingers (the thumb, index, and
pinky) can fully extend, and others (the middle and ring) cannot. Clearly,
however, the abilities of both the middle and ring fingers change when
they act with other fingers. This discussion centers on the conditions under which the middle and ring fingers can fully extend in concert with
other fingers. I suggest, first, that when two fingers act together, any finger can extend fully if (a) it has an independent extensor or (b) it is connected by a juncturae tendinum to a finger with an independent extensor.
Second, when three or four fingers act together, any finger can fully extend if each extended finger is directly connected by a juncturae tendinum to another extended finger and if one of the group has an independent extensor. The finger combinations that can extend fully and
those that cannot are listed in table 1.
Flexion
Moving from the complicated interactions between muscles that allow
extension of the hand, we now examine flexion, the movement that ultimately brings the open hand to a fist. The hand accomplishes flexion
with four flexors plus the intrinsic muscles. Because we discussed the
intrinsic muscles in the section on extension, our discussion here begins with the flexors. In full flexion, as in full extension, all of the joints
are pulled the same way. However, unlike full extension, full flexion
requires only the flexor muscles: no assistance is needed from any other
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 73
73
Table 1. Finger Combinations that Can

or Cannot Fully Extend
Pairs that
can fully
extend
ring and pinkya
middle and
index
Pairs that
cannot fully
extend
middle and pinky
ring and index
middle and ring
thumb and ring
thumb and
middle
Groups that
can fully
extend
Groups that
cannot
fully extend
index, middle,
thumb, index, ring
ring, pinky
thumb, middle,
thumb, index,
pinky
middle
thumb, middle,
index, middle,
ring
ring
middle, ring,
pinky
index, middle,
pinky
index, ring, pinky
NOTE: a. Clearly, when the ring and pinky extend, the ring is slightly less
extended than when it extends with the middle, ring, and pinky. However,
it is still very nearly fully extended.
set of muscles. The flexors are distributed symmetrically, and each digit
has two flexors. The fact that all of the digits are equipped with the same
number of flexors suggests that no finger is better than any other at flexion (Mandel 1981). Nevertheless, the thumb and the index are actually
capable of a bit more than the other fingers. The handshape configurations that involve flexion include closed, curved, bent, and opposed (see
figure 22).
Flexion of the thumb.
The thumb has two flexors: the flexor pollicis longus and the flexor pollicis brevis (see figure 23). Both are located on the palmar side of the
hand. With these flexors, the thumb can independently execute the
9/5/06
Figure 22
Page 74
Chapter Two
74
a. closed
10:08 AM
b. curved
c. bent
d. opposed
Handshape configurations that involve flexion.
actions these muscles permit. In addition, the structure of the thumbs

joints and its supply of muscles make it capable of the movements necessary for opposition. Thus, the thumb, though being no better than the
other fingers at flexion per se, has a more complex set of behaviors than
the fingers.
Flexion of the fingers.
The two flexors for the fingersthe flexor digitorum superficialis and
the flexor digitorum profundusare located on the palmar side of the
forearm and hand. The origins of both lie in the forearm. The superficialis has four tendons whose insertions are located at the base of the
medial phalanges of each of the four fingers (see figure 23). The superficialis flexes the fingers largely at the proximal interphalangeal joint.
The profundus, too, has four tendons, and their insertions are at the base
of the distal phalanges in each of the four fingers (see figure 23). Neither
the profundus nor the superficialis are positioned such that they primarily flex the fingers at the metacarpophalangeal joint. In fact, flexion
at the metacarpophalangeal joint is largely a result of the intrinsic muscles (i.e., the lumbricals and interossei).
Clearly, the profundus and the superficialis share some physiological properties. But the profundus also differs. It has two separate muscle
heads, one for the index finger and one for the middle, ring, and pinky
fingers (Fahrer 1981). Consequently, when the profundus contracts at its
origin, it can contract (a) the tendons of the middle, ring, and pinky fin-
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 75
75
Figure 23 The flexors of the thumb and fingers. Adapted from Wells
(1966, 290).
gers; (b) the tendon of the index finger; or (c) both. So, the index finger
can flex at the distal interphalangeal joint separately from the other fingers, and all the fingers can flex at the distal interphalangeal joint. Crucially, however, the middle, ring, and pinky fingers must act together in
flexion of the distal interphalangeal joint because the tendons that control them originate from the same muscle head. It is impossible for the
common muscle head of the profundus to be contracted in one place and
not in the other (i.e., the pinky cannot flex at the distal interphalangeal
joint without the middle and ring fingers also being flexed there). The
reader can easily verify these assertions by curving the index finger
while extending the other fingers. This configuration is perfectly possible
to do because the profundus has a separate muscle head for the index.
Next, try to make a curved configuration (which necessarily involves
flexion at the distal interphalangeal joint) with the middle finger, keeping the ring and pinky fingers extended. This configuration is not possible because, when the middle finger curves, the ring and pinky fingers cannot stay extended; they curve, too. The common muscle head of
the profundus unites the middle, ring, and pinky fingers in flexion so
76
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 76
Chapter Two
no one of them can assume a curved configuration without the other

two. Unlike the profundus, the superficialis has a common muscle head
for all of the fingers.
The curved configuration requires extension at the metacarpophalangeal joint and flexion at the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints. In other words, in the curved configuration, not
all of the joints are being pulled the same way. The curved configuration
requires two muscle groups, the extensors and the flexors. From our discussion of the muscles so far, it should be clear that the flexors digitorum superficialis and profundus flex the fingers at the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints. The extensors extend the
fingers at the metacarpophalangeal joint.
In the bent configuration, fingers are flexed at the metacarpophalangeal joint and extended at the proximal interphalangeal and distal
interphalangeal joints. As is the case with the curved configuration, all
of the joints are not pulled the same way. However, unlike the curved
configuration, the bent configuration requires only one set of muscles
the intrinsics (the lumbricals and interossei). Although it seems counterintuitive, neither extensors nor flexors are activated in the production of the bent configuration. Rather, the intrinsics act as flexors at the
metacarpophalangeal joints and as extensors at the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints, exactly the actions needed to
produce the bent configuration.
Until this point, it has been tacitly assumed that the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints act as one. In fact, now we
have explored enough hand physiology to see why this assumption is
generally true (Brand 1985). In extension, they function as a unit because
the intrinsic muscles control them both. In flexion, although the distal
interphalangeal joint is controlled by the profundus and the proximal
interphalangeal joint is controlled by the superficialis, it is uncommon for
flexion of the distal interphalangeal joint to occur in most people without
flexion of the proximal interphalangeal joint, except in two cases.
In the first exception, the distal interphalangeal joint can be extended while the proximal interphalangeal is flexed when the distal pha-
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 77
threading a needle
77
making a fist
Figure 24 Extension of the distal interphalangeal joints while flexing the

proximal interphalangeal joints. Drawings by Sarah Mahan.
lanx is held against the palm or the thumb. This situation occurs commonly when threading a needle or making a fist (see figure 24). In these
situations, the distal interphalangeal joints can be held open by the
thumb or palm while the proximal interphalangeal joints are flexed.
In the second exception, the distal and proximal interphalangeal
joints do not act as a unit when the profundus is not activated at all, leaving just the superficialis to flex the proximal interphalangeal joint. For
example, consider the handshape in the ASL sign NAVE, pictured in
Figure 25
The handshape in the ASL sign NAVE. Drawing by Sarah Mahan.
78
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 78
Chapter Two
figure 25. The proximal interphalangeal joint of the ring finger is clearly
flexed. However, the distal interphalangeal joint is neither flexed nor extended. These exceptions notwithstanding, in both flexion and extension, the proximal interphalangeal joint and the distal interphalangeal
joint operate for the most part as one unit.
Opposition.
I consider a finger to be opposed to the thumb when either the pad is
touching the pad of the thumb or the tip is touching the thumb tip. Excluded from opposition are configurations in which the fingers are restrained behind the thumb (i.e., when the pad of the thumb is touching
the fingernails of the restrained fingers) (Mandel 1981; Corina and
Sagey 1988). I consider the fingers in those excluded handshapes to be
closed. An opposed handshape is pictured in figure 22d.
Opposition is similar to bending in two ways. First, both require
flexion at the metacarpophalangeal joint. Second, both will tolerate a
small degree of proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal
joint flexion. Opposition and bending differ in one way: contact of the
fingerpad or tip with the thumb is necessary in opposed handshapes
whereas no contact with the thumb occurs in bent handshapes.
The thumb is the most specialized digit in that it is capable of not
only all the same movement of the fingers but also other movements
such as opposition (Napier 1980). Opposition is a combination of abduction (spreading) and hyperflexion (Wells 1966). In opposition, both
the thumb and each of the opposed fingers make a contribution.
Let us take a closer look at the contributions of each digit to opposition. The thumbs contribution is its mobility at the carpometacarpal
joint and the action of the muscle, the opponens pollicis, which makes
it possible when flexing phalanges for the thumb to touch the tip of any
of the four fingers (Wells 1966, 297). Clearly, all four fingers can flex
at the metacarpophalangeal joint to bring them into position to oppose
the thumb. But the positioning of the fingers relative to the thumb must
make a contribution to opposition. For example, the index opposes the
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 79
79
thumb automatically when the index is flexed and the thumb is abducted
(Wells 1966). The middle finger, like the index finger, is also able to oppose the thumb with little effort, presumably because of its close position to the thumb (Sandy Sasarita, pers. comm.).17 I assume, therefore,
that the opponens pollicis is not used when either the index finger or
the middle finger opposes the thumb.
In contrast, for the thumb to oppose the ring and pinky fingers, both
the thumb and the ring or pinky must make contributions. The pinkys
opponens digiti minimi, whose function it is both to flex and abduct the
fifth metacarpal bone (Wells 1966, 295), is activated, thereby positioning the pinky so it can oppose the thumb. The ring finger lacks special musculature; however, its position on the hand (i.e., nearer to the
thumb than the pinky), contributes to its ability to oppose the thumb.
Abduction and adduction.
The final configurations relevant to sign language handshapes are abduction and adductionthe spreading apart and coming together of
extended fingers. When fingers are spread, they are abducted (as in
figure 26a), or moved away from the middle finger (Napier 1980). When
there are no spaces between the fingers, they are adducted (as in figure
26b). Two sets of anatomical facts cause a natural tendency for fingers
to abduct when extending. These are the structure and function of the
collateral ligaments and the placement of the proximal insertions of the
extensor digitorum communis, both discussed further here.
The opportunity for fingers to spread (abduct) when extending is
created by the location and function of the collateral ligaments and the
shape of the metacarpal head. Each finger has two collateral ligaments.
They are located at the knuckle, the place where the metacarpal heads
meet the proximal phalanges. One collateral ligament is anchored on the
17. Mandel (1981) notes that the index is the most opposable finger (99).
Mandel (1979) describes the phenomenon known as tenodesis, discussed in chapter 1, which bears on this point.
80
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Chapter Two
a. abducted
Figure 26
Page 80
b. adducted
Handshape configurations do not involve flexion.
radial side of the knuckle, and the other is anchored on the ulnar side.
These ligaments perform two functions: first, they connect the relevant
metacarpal head to the proximal phalanx of the relevant finger, and second, they allow abduction of the fingers. Abduction is possible when
fingers are extended at the metacarpophalangeal joint, but not when they
are flexed. The reader can easily verify this claim by flexing the metacarpophalangeal joint and trying to spread the fingers. It is very difficult
to get any spreading at all. Next, extend the fingers at the metacarpophalangeal joints and spread them. In this configuration, spreading is not
only possible but natural.
When the metacarpophalangeal joint is flexed, the collateral ligaments are required to stretch around the large part of the metacarpal
head. In so doing, the ligaments become taut and cannot then allow abduction. The situation is different when there is extension at the metacarpophalangeal joint. In this case, the ligaments do not have to reach
around the large part of the metacarpal head, and are, therefore, loose.
When the ligaments are loose, abduction of the fingers is possible. The
metacarpophalangeal joint in extension (a) and flexion (b) is pictured
in figure 27. Notice the taut collateral ligaments in the illustration of
flexion.
The positioning of the attachments of the tendons of the extensor
digitorum communis at the metacarpophalangeal and carpometacarpal
joints causes the tendons to function as abductors because of their line
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 81
81
extension
flexion
Figure 27 Inability to adduct in flexion. Adapted from Tubiana, Thomine,
and Mackin (1996, 75).
of pull (MacConaill and Basmajian 1969, 214). Recall that the tendons of the extensor digitorum communis have two insertions: one at
the carpometacarpal joint, relevant here, and one between the medial
and distal phalanges of each finger. The fact that the extensor digitorum communis has these two insertions creates a line of pull. At the
metacarpophalangeal joint, the tendons are attached by sagittal bands,
which are situated on top of each knuckle and hold the tendons in place
(i.e., not, for example, in the space between each knuckle, which would
create a different line of pull). Proximal to this attachment, the extensor tendons are also attached in the middle of the wrist. When the extensor digitorum communis contracts, if each of its tendons is to end
up in a straight line, the fingers are forced to abduct slightly. In figure 28
82
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 82
Chapter Two
Figure 28 Line of pull of the tendons of the extensor digitorum communis.

Illustrations by Sandy Sasarita.
on the left, the fingers are abducted, and each of the tendons of the
extensor digitorum communis is aligned. On the right, the fingers are
adducted. Notice that the tendons of the extensor digitorum communis
are not aligned, except for the middle finger.
The inclination of the fingers to open and spread at the same time
cannot be considered an absolute: fingers can certainly extend and not
abduct. To override the natural tendency, the adductor musclesthe
three palmar interossei and the adductor pollicismust be used (see figure 29). However, fingers must adduct when they close, an observation
for which the physiology is completely responsible.
In addition, the hand has two opponens muscles that create a tendency for the fingers to abduct when they extend. These muscles, the opponens digiti minimi (for the pinky finger) and the opponens pollicis
(for the thumb), are pictured in figure 29. The origin of the opponens
digiti minimi is in the distal proximal row of bones in the wrist at the
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 83
83
Figure 29 The adductor muscles. Adapted from Wells and Luttgens

(1976, 126).
hamatum. Its insertion is along the length of the ulnar side (pinky) of the
fifth metacarpal. The origin of the opponens pollicis is at the multangulum major (the carpal bone with which the thumbs metacarpal bone
forms the saddle joint). Its insertion is along the length of the radial border of the first metacarpal (Wells 1966).
IMPLICATIONS OF ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY
FOR SIGN LANGUAGE HANDSHAPES: SUMMARY
The twenty-seven small bones of the hand and wrist contact one another
through four sets of joints: the carpometacarpal joint, where the hand
meets the wrist; the metacarpophalangeal (i.e., knuckle) joint; the proximal interphalangeal joint; and the distal interphalangeal joint. These
joints are of two types: the synovial (moveable) joint and the fibrous
(absolutely immobile) or cartilaginous (almost immobile) joint. The
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 84
Chapter Two
84
Table 2. Summary of Finger Independence and Movement

Physiological evidence for the ranking
Finger
Number of
extensors
Number of
flexors
Thumb
Index
Middle
2 (2 independent)
2 (1 independent)
1
Ring
Pinky
2 (1 independent)
2 (2 independent)
2 (1 independent)
2 (1 tied to ring
and pinky)
2 (1 tied to middle
and pinky)
2 (1 tied to middle
and ring)
Favorable
carpometacarpal
joint?
Favorable
juncturae
tendinum?
yes
yes
n.a.
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
metacarpophalangeal, proximal interphalangeal, and distal interphalangeal joints of the fingers are all mobile joints. In addition, all of the
joints of the thumb are mobile. But the carpometacarpal joints of the fingers are either fixed or only slightly mobile. The metacarpals of the index and middle fingers are immobilized (fixed) at the carpometacarpal
joint. The metacarpals of the ring and pinky fingers are slightly moveable. Given this structure, the index and middle fingers are much more
capable than are the ring and pinky of making precision movements
such as those needed for handshapes.
The common extensors cause the fingers to extend at the metaacarpophalangeal joint when either the four fingers or all five digits act
together. The independent extensors for the thumb, index, and pinky
do this work when one of those fingers is extended alone. To accomplish
full extension, two separate sets of muscles are requiredthe extensors,
which extend the finger at the metacarpophalangeal joint, and the intrinsics, which finish the job by extending the proximal interphalangeal
and distal interphalangeal joints.
There is an asymmetry with respect to extensors. The thumb, index, and pinky each have two extensors: their respective tendons of the
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 85
85
Table 3. Summary of Hand Configurations

Configuration
Are the joints pulled

the same way?
Extended
Closed
Curved
Bent or opposed
Spread
Unspread
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
Muscles responsible
extensors, intrinsics
flexors
extensors, flexors
intrinsics, opponens
abductors
adductors
common extensor and an independent extensor. The result is that the

thumb, index, and pinky can extend even if they act alone. In contrast,
the middle and ring fingers each have only the tendon of the common
extensor (see, e.g., Mandel 1981; Boyes-Braem 1990; Wells 1966).
Without the analogous extra set of muscles, the middle and ring fingers
are much less able to extend, particularly if they must do so alone with
the rest of the fingers closed. It is clear that the common extensor is not
very effective when only one of its tendons is working because, in those
situations, full extension of the middle and ring fingers is impossible.
The best the common extensor can do is to get the middle or ring finger into a bent configuration.18
Each of the digits has two flexors whose function it is to flex them
at various joints. In addition, the intrinsic muscles have the task of flexing the fingers at the metacarpophalangeal joint while extending them at
the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints. All of
these anatomical features make it possible for the individual fingers
and the hand to produce the handshapes of sign languages. Table 2 presents a summary of the fingers with respect to independence and ability
18. Even in combination with other fingers, the middle and especially the ring
fingers are poor at full extension. The muscular deficit of the ring finger is exacerbated by its status as an ulnar finger and by the juncturae tendinum that tie it to
other fingers.
86
9/5/06
10:08 AM
Page 86
Chapter Two
to perform certain actions. Table 3 summarizes how the hand as a whole

accomplishes various configurations in different ways.
In chapter 3 I use the physiological facts and hypotheses presented
here to construct a theory of ease of articulation. Specifically, in chapter 3, I assign a relative ease of articulation score to each logically
possible handshape.
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 87
Chapter Three
A Model of Ease of
Handshape Articulation
In this chapter, I construct an explicit model of handshape ease of articulation based on the physiological facts explained in chapter 2. As I
will show, the model allows us to divide logically possible handshapes
into three groups: easy to articulate, difficult to articulate, and physically
impossible to articulate. To construct this model, I first motivated the
physiologically based criteria that I think affect ease of articulation. I
then applied physiologically based criteria to all the fingers, to some
subset of fingers, or to a single finger whereupon each handshape received an ease score, that is, a number that reflects its relative ease of
articulation.
A handshape can involve all of the fingers in one group, all doing
the same thing, or it can involve fingers in exactly two groups, for example, one that includes the extended index and thumb and one that
includes the closed middle, ring, and pinky fingers. 19 Logically, a
19. According to Mandels finger position constraint (FPC) (1981), licit handshapes can involve fingers all in one group or fingers in two groups, but no more
than two groups. Actually, the set of generalizations included in the concept of FPC
is somewhat more complicated. The concept of FPC asserts that one of the two
groups (Mandels selected fingers) can be in any position except closed, but they
must all be in the same position. They can change shape in a sign that involves
handshape change, and they can make contact with the other hand or with some
other part of the body. The second group of fingers (Mandels unselected fingers)
can be either all fully extended or all fully flexed (Mandel 1981; Sandler 1989;
Corina and Sagey 1988). The FPC has never been seriously challenged.
87
88
Figure 30
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 88
Chapter Three
An example of a two-group handshape.
handshape could be made with three groups of fingers, for example, one
in which the thumb is extended, the index finger is bent, and the middle,
ring, and pinky fingers are curved (or it could be made with five groups
for that matter, with each of the five fingers doing something different), but handshapes such as these are not observed in natural sign languages. The generalization of no more than two groups (Mandel 1981)
is quite helpful in characterizing attested handshapes and in ruling out
many logical possibilities. Therefore, I maintain a distinction between
the two groups of fingers, and I refer to these two groups in the most descriptive way possible. For example, in this work, the handshape in figure 30 will be referred to as a two-group handshape in which two fingers are extended with the rest of the fingers closed; other possibilities
for two-group handshapes could include bent and closed or curved and
closed.
As we have discussed, the basic hand configurations used in sign
languages are extended (which some refer to as open), bent, curved, and
closed. In addition, hand configurations can involve the fingers being
opposed, abducted, or adducted. The anatomical and physiological features of the fingers, hand, and wrist, which are discussed in chapter 2,
provide good reasons to consider the four main configurations unequal
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 89
A Model of Ease of Handshape Articulation
89
in terms of their relative levels of difficulty. A search of the physiological literature did not reveal any ranking of configurations. Therefore,
this work establishes a ranking, which is crucial to the process of determining the relative ease of handshape articulation. To that end, I have
established five criteria based on hand physiology: muscle opposition in
configurations of handshapes, support for extension, support for flexion,
tendency to oppose the thumb, and tendency to spread. These criteria refer mostly to muscle function; the joint structures in the hand contribute
less prominently.
CRITERION ONE: MUSCLE OPPOSITION IN

CONFIGURATIONS (MOC) OF HANDSHAPES
I start from the assumption that the more opposition there is between the
muscle groups necessary to produce a particular configuration, the more
difficult the configuration is to articulate. Similar assumptions have been
made in the phonetic and phonological literature of spoken languages.
For example, Lindblom and Sundberg (1971) conclude that antagonism
is a characteristic of the supershapes of the tongue that subjects produce
in the bite-block studies (discussed in chapter 1); various muscles in
the tongue oppose one another to create the supershapes. Lindblom
(1983) hypothesized that consonant-vowel coarticulation arises from a
synergy constraint that seeks to keep the actions of the tongue tip and
tongue body coordinated. Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1994) use synergy and antagonism in grounded phonology, a theory that seeks to
ground phonological rules in phonetics. In grounded phonology, entities such as the features [ advanced tongue root], [ advanced tongue
root] and [ high] are conceived both as instructions to the tongue and
as phonological features. The feature [ advanced tongue root] instructs
the tongue root to advance, the feature [ advanced tongue root] instructs the tongue root to retract, and the feature [ high] instructs the
tongue body to raise. Any two instructions to the tongue (i.e., any two
feature combinations) are said to be in either an antagonistic or a syn-
90
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 90
Chapter Three
ergistic relationship with respect to each other. If they are in an antagonistic relationship, then the tongue would receive instructions to
move in opposing directions. If they are in a synergistic relationship,
then both instructions to the tongue would potentially move it in the
same direction. Thus, the combination of [ high] and [ advanced
tongue root] are antagonistic because the instruction [ high] raises the
tongue body, pushing it forward whereas the instruction [ advanced
tongue root] retracts the tongue root. In contrast, the feature combination [ advanced tongue root] and [ high] are synergistic: both move
the tongue forward and raise it.
In a similar approach, I use the notions of synergy and antagonism
to analyze handshapes. My assumption is that the more opposition (antagonism) between the muscles that is necessary to produce a configuration, the more difficult the configuration is to produce. This assumption is formally expressed in the model through a criterion that describes
the amount of opposition that exists between the muscles necessary to
produce a configurationmuscle opposition in configurations (MOC),
which is understood in this context to always be related to handshapes.
The MOC criterion focuses on the hand as a whole, not on individual fingers. (Criteria to be described later will focus more on individual
fingers.) To understand how configuration of the hand affects overall
ease of articulation of handshapes, we must consider the muscles and
muscle groups that potentially control the hand as a whole. The relevant muscles (some of the extensors as well as all of the flexors and intrinsics) and their functions are listed in table 4.
The information in table 4 helps to establish the difficulty of a particular configuration because the MOC criterion is concerned with how
much opposition exists between the muscles necessary to produce it.
Of the muscles listed in table 4, extensors and flexors maximally oppose
each other because they accomplish opposite tasks. The intrinsics, because of their placement in the hand, act in both opposition and synergy
with both flexors and extensors. Thus, I conclude that maximal opposition would exist in configurations that use both the extensors and the
flexors. Less opposition would exist in configurations that use (a) the ex-
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 91
91
Table 4. The Function of Muscles that Control

the Hand as a Whole
Muscle
The extensor:
digitorum communis
The exors:
digitorum profundus
digitorum superficialis
The intrinsics:
lumbricals and interossei
Function
Extends fingers at the metacarpophalangeal
joint
Flexes the fingers at the distal interphalangeal
(DIP) joint
Flexes the fingers at the proximal
interphalangeal (PIP) joint
Flex the fingers at the metacarpophalangeal
joint and extend the fingers at the
PIPDIP joint
tensors and the intrinsics, (b) the flexors and the intrinsics, or (c) the
intrinsics alone.
Each of the muscles in the hand does something in every configuration. In a given hand configuration, some muscles act as prime movers
(initiating, carrying out, and maintaining the configuration), some act as
synergists (helping the prime mover), and some act as antagonists (relaxing to let the prime mover do the action). Clearly, the hand functions best when all the muscles participate in their respective ways;
nevertheless, without the action of certain muscles, a given configuration simply could not be achieved. Those particular muscles are what I
call necessary to achieve that configuration. If a muscle functions as a
prime mover or a synergist in a given configuration, then it is listed in
table 5 as necessary. If the task of a particular muscle is merely to
allow other muscles to take over to accomplish the configuration, then it
is listed in the table as not necessary. Table 5 shows the muscles that
are necessary and not necessary to produce each of the four main hand
configurations.
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 92
Chapter Three
92
Table 5. Muscles Necessary in Hand Configurations

Configuration
Extensors
Flexors
Intrinsics
Closed
Bent
Extended
Curved
not necessary
not necessary
necessary
necessary
necessary
not necessary
not necessary
necessary
not necessary
necessary
necessary
not necessary
It is obvious from table 5 that some configurations (closed, bent)

have one group of necessary muscles, and some (extended, curved) have
two. Configurations in which only one group of muscles is necessary
show no evidence of opposition; configurations in which two muscle
groups are necessary show some amount of opposition. Clearly, both the
extended and curved configurations involve more muscle opposition
than the closed and bent configurations. But comparing the extended
and curved configurations, curved is the more difficult because it involves both the extensors and the flexors, which maximally oppose each
other. Extended is the next most difficult configuration because it uses
the extensors and the intrinsics between which there is less opposition.
Bent and closed are the easiest; both require only one group of muscles
and show no evidence of any opposition. With this information, then, we
can derive the three-way ranking in table 6.
Although the bent and closed configurations are the easiest to
articulate, three independent observations enable us to discern that
closed is easier to articulate than bent. First, infants are born with their
Table 6. Three-Way Ranking of Hand Configurations
Configuration Relative ease
Curved
Extended
Bent, Closed
most difficult
next most difficult
easiest
Level of opposition Necessary muscles

maximal
less
least
extensors and flexors

extensors and intrinsics
Bent: intrinsics
Closed: flexors
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 93
93
muscles flexed; only later do they develop the ability to extend them
(Boyes-Braem 1990; Halverson 1937). Full flexion is involved in some
reflexes evident in infants, for example, the palmar grasp reflex. Second, when the hand is in a position of rest, as in sleep, the flexors predominate over the extensors because the fingers are loosely flexed at all
the joints. Third, the closed configuration is considered physically
strong in the sense that, although extended fingers cannot be prevented
from making a fist, fully flexed fingers can be prevented from extending. This last observation illustrates that extensors are weaker than flexors. Grasps in which the fingers are fully flexed are used in the largest
number of prehensile functional activities. Other partially flexed configurations (such as those resembling bent and curved configurations)
are not used as often. I take these observations as preliminary evidence
that the closed configuration is more natural and easier than the bent
configuration.
The MOC criterion allows us to capture a constellation of facts that
suggest that the hand, when nothing special is going on, naturally tends
toward a configuration in which there is no muscle opposition and the
fingers are slightly flexed. Therefore, the more opposition in a configuration, the more the configuration departs from the natural state of
the hand and, thus, the more difficult the configuration is to articulate.
If this logic is on the right track, then the level of difficulty of each hand
configuration shown in table 7 would result, with the easiest configuration getting a score of 0 and the most difficult configuration getting a
score of 3.
Table 7. Ranking of Difficulty of Hand Configurations

Configuration
Relative ease
Curved
Extended
Bent
Closed
most difficult
next most difficult
easier
easiest
Level of opposition
maximal
less
even less
least
Level of difficulty
3
2
1
0
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 94
Chapter Three
94
CRITERION TWO: SUPPORT FOR EXTENSION (SE)

The support for extension (SE) criterion is one of two that refers to the
capabilities of individual fingers, or subgroupings of fingers, but not to
the hand as a whole. In this sense, it differs from the MOC criterion. SE
examines characteristics of individual fingers and subgroups of fingers
relevant to extensionin other words, the muscles and muscle groups
that control individual fingers (the extensor pollicis longus, the extensor
indicis proprius, the extensor digiti minimi) and the juncturae tendinum.
The SE criterion determines whether the extended fingers have
either (a) an independent extensor or (b) sufficient support to extend.
A handshape in which the thumb, index, or pinky is extended alone does
not need support because each of those three digits have independent
extensors. The middle and ring fingers have no independent extensors,
but they do have sufficient support to extend under two circumstances:
in chapter 2, I observed that the middle and ring can fully extend either
(a) with an immediately adjacent independent extensor finger or (b) with
a group of extended fingers in which each member is adjacent to at least
one other member of the group and one of the members has an independent extensor. The combinations of fingers that can fully extend and
those that cannot fully extend (even with support) are listed in table 8.
Table 8. Possible Finger Combinations Based

on Extension Support
Extensions possible with support
index, middle, ring, pinky
thumb, index, middle
index, middle, ring
index, middle, pinky
index, ring, pinky
middle, ring, pinky
index, middle
ring, pinky
Extensions not possible because

fingers do not have support
thumb, middle, ring
thumb, index, ring
thumb, middle, pinky
thumb, middle
thumb, ring
index, ring
middle, ring
middle, pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 95
95
This criterion allows us to determine from a cluster of physiological

facts that not all fingers are equally capable of full extension. Certain individual fingers, all five fingers as a group, and certain smaller subsets
of fingers are equipped to fully extend whereas some individual fingers
and subsets of fingers are not equipped to do so.
CRITERION THREE: SUPPORT FOR FLEXION (SF)
The third criterion, support for flexion (SF), concerns whether all members of the set {middle, ring, pinky} act together in flexion and extension, that is, whether the middle, ring, and pinky fingers are either all included or all excluded in the act of flexion or extension. There are two
reasons to consider the set {middle, ring, pinky} as a group in both flexion and extension. First, the flexor digitorum profundus, which flexes
the fingers at the distal interphalangeal joint, has one muscle head for
the middle, ring, and pinky fingers and a separate muscle head for the
index finger. The effects are that no single finger of the set {middle,
ring, pinky} can be curved while the rest in the set are extended. However, because the profundus has a separate muscle head for the index
finger alone, the index finger can be curved while the other fingers are
extended.
The second reason supporting the set {middle, ring, pinky} is explained, in part, by the fact that, of the four fingers, the middle and ring
fingers are the most dependent because each is tethered on two sides
by juncturae tendinum. But what makes the middle, ring, and pinky fingers a group rather than the index, middle, and ring fingers? The answer
to this question is that the index has both a joint structure advantage and
a musculature advantage (see pages 6178). With these two advantages,
the index finger is able to move quite independently of the other fingers;
the other three fingers, however, lack one or both of these advantages.
The SF criterion is a way of capturing the fact that, particularly in
flexion, the set {middle, ring, pinky} are, to a large degree, incapable
of acting separately. The physiological information in chapter 2 certainly confirms this fact.
96
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 96
Chapter Three
CRITERION FOUR: TENDENCY

TO OPPOSE THE THUMB (TOT)
Because the thumb is necessarily involved in every opposed handshape,
the characteristics of the thumb relevant to opposition are expected to be
important. The tendency to oppose the thumb (TOT) criterion determines whether the thumb naturally tends to oppose the relevant finger
(or fingers).
Mandel (1981) observes that the thumb opposes the index and perhaps the middle finger almost automatically. However, opposition of
the thumb to the ring and pinky fingers is apparently much more complex because both the thumb and the pinky finger are equipped with
special musclesthe opponens pollicis and the opponens digiti minimi, respectivelythat enable opposition to the thumb (Mandel 1981).
These muscles move the relevant finger across the palm of the hand,
readying it to perform opposition. Boyes-Braem (1981) points out that
the joint structure of the pinky carpometacarpal resembles the thumbs
highly moveable carpometacarpal joint. My research suggests that the
thumb opposes the ring finger with some difficulty. These findings
support the assertion that opposition of the thumb to the index and
middle fingers is easier than opposition of the thumb to the ring and
pinky fingers.
The physiological literature cited in chapter 2 and the observations
of linguists suggest that the thumb naturally opposes certain fingers (the
index and middle) when they are flexed at the metacarpophalangeal and
DIPPIP joints whereas opposition of the thumb to the ring and pinky is
more difficult. The TOT criterion is a way of capturing this fact.
CRITERION FIVE: THE TENDENCY TO SPREAD (TS)

The tendency to spread (TS) criterion determines whether the handshape relies on natural spreading of fingers. In some handshapes, fingers are spread (abducted); in others, they are not spread (adducted).
Physiologically, fingers are incapable of being spread if they are con-
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 97
97
figured in either the bent or closed configuration (Ann 1992a, 1992b).

But spreading (abduction) of the fingers occurs automatically when fingers are extended at the metacarpophalangeal joint, as in the extended
or curved configurations. So, when fingers are extended or curved, the
adductor pollicis and the three dorsal interossei must be activated for
the fingers to unspread, or adduct. Spread handshapes, then, appear to
be easier to produce than unspread handshapes because producing an
unspread handshape requires extra muscles to be activated. The TS
criterion reflects the natural tendency for fingers to spread when they
are extended.
HOW THE CRITERIA APPLY TO HANDSHAPES
The criteria apply in different ways to different sorts of handshapes. In
handshapes involving only one group of fingers, by definition, all of the
fingers are doing the same thing. Thus, in one-group handshapes, the need
to account for properties of more complex handshapes will not arise,
and as a result, not all five criteria need apply. I will explain further the
situation for one-group handshapes with respect to each criterion as I
move through the explanation of how the criteria apply.
How the criteria apply to two-group handshapes is a bit more complex and requires standard, clear descriptions of the handshapes. According to our definition of a two-group handshape, one group will consist of fingers that are extended, bent, or curved, and one group will be
either closed or extended. The group that is either closed or open will be
referred to as the rest of the fingers (or rest closed, rest open). (Obviously, a handshape in which one group is extended and the other is open
ends up being a one-group handshape and, so, is not included here.)
Thus, a two-group handshape such as the first handshape in figure 31,
would be described as one in which some fingers (the index and thumb)
are bent and the rest of the fingers (the middle, ring, and pinky fingers)
are closed.
This approach to describing the handshapes works for all handshapes, with one exception, and that is two-group handshapes in which
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 98
Chapter Three
98
a.
Figure 31
b.
Two types of two-group handshapes.
only one finger is extended and the others are closed (see figure 31b).
That particular type of handshape can be described in two ways, and it
is necessary to decide which description should be applied: (a) the
pinky is extended with the rest of the fingers closed or (b) the thumb,
index, middle, and ring are closed with the rest of the fingers extended.
In the remainder of this work, I treat any handshape in which there are
two groups of fingers, one of which is extended and one of which is
closed, as if specific fingers are extended and the rest of the fingers
are closed.
THE MOC CRITERION
The MOC criterion applies to a different group of fingers depending on
the type of handshape. If the handshape whose ease score we are trying
to determine is a one-group handshape, it applies to all the fingers. If the
handshape is a two-group handshape, in which some of the fingers are
extended, then the MOC applies to the group of fingers that are most
flexed, that is, not the group of fingers that are extended. (I explain this
application further shortly.) If we are trying to determine the ease score
of a handshape in which some of the fingers are closed, then the MOC
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 99
99
applies to the group of fingers that are least flexed (not the group of fingers that are closed).
THE SE CRITERION AND THE SF CRITERION
The SE criterion and the SF criterion do not apply in handshapes that
have only one group of fingers. Both apply in handshapes that have two
groups of fingers. In two-group handshapes, one criterion applies to one
group of fingers and the other applies to the other group of fingers; in
other words, the two criteria never apply to the same group. The SE
criterion applies to the least flexed group of fingers as it seeks to determine how much help for extension a finger or finger combination is receiving.20 The SF criterion applies to the most flexed group of fingers. In
all two-group handshapes, the SF criterion pertains to the most flexed
group of fingers because it is trying to find out how the fingers flex.
THE TS CRITERION AND THE TOT CRITERION
The TS criterion and the TOT criterion apply to both one-group and
two-group handshapes only if they are relevant. In other words, they apply if all the fingers (in a one-group handshape) or a subset of fingers (in
a two-group handshape) are unspread or are opposed to the thumb.
Handshapes that illustrate the TS criterion are shown in a, b, and c
of figure 32. In these handshapes, all the fingers are unspread and extended. Logically, they could also be unspread and bent or curved. The
TS criterion applies to all handshapes that have unspread fingers.
When all of the fingers in a one-group handshape or some of the fingers in a two-group handshape are opposed to the thumb, then the TOT
criterion applies. Examples of handshapes that demonstrate the TOT criterion are also shown in d and e of figure 32. Note, however, that, if all
20. Whether a finger has an independent extensor also seems to have an effect
on bending because, as I show later, the fingers that are easiest to bend are those
that have independent extensors.
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 100
Chapter Three
100
a.
b.
c.
tendency to spread
d.
e.
tendency to oppose the thumb
Figure 32 Handshapes that illustrate the tendency to spread and tendency to

oppose the thumb criteria.
the fingers in a one-group handshape are closed or bent, then neither

of these criteria would apply because no fingers would be extended
or curved (so none could be unspread) and none would be opposed to
the thumb.
Table 9 summarizes the applications of the five criteria. A discussion of how to identify the least flexed and most flexed fingers in a handshape follows.
DETERMINING THE GROUP WITH
THE LEAST AND MOST FLEXION
In handshapes in which one group of fingers is closed, the other group
of fingers might logically be configured one of three ways: extended,
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 101
101
Table 9. Summary of Criteria Applications

Applications
Criterion
to one-group
handshapes
Muscle opposition in
configuration
All fingers
Support for extension

Support for flexion
Tendency to oppose
the thumb
Tendency to spread
n.a.
n.a.
All fingers
All fingers
to two-group
handshapes
Least flexed fingers in
a rest-closed handshape
Most flexed fingers in a
rest-open handshape
Least flexed fingers
Most flexed fingers
Fingers opposed to
the thumb
Fingers that are unspread
bent, or curved. Let us consider a handshape in which one group of fingers is closed and the other is bent. The closed fingers are flexed at
both joints, and the bent fingers are flexed only at the metacarpophalangeal joint.21 Therefore, the group of fingers with the least flexion
is the group that is bent. When the curved fingers are flexed at one joint
and the closed fingers are flexed at two joints, the curved fingers are
the least flexed. In all three types of handshapes in which one group
of fingers is closed, the most flexed group will always be the closed
group.
In handshapes in which one group of fingers is extended, the other
group could logically be configured as curved, bent, or closed. In these
handshapes, the extended fingers are the least flexed because they are
not flexed at any joint. The most flexed group of fingers will always be
the group that is not extended, in other words, the group that is curved,
bent, or closed.
21. Recall from chapter 2 that, physiologically, the PIP joints and DIP joints
function, for the most part, as one unit.
102
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 102
Chapter Three
DERIVING EASE OF ARTICULATION SCORES

Having laid out the criteria and how they apply to handshapes, we are
now ready to explore the actual algorithm we will use to arrive at a score
for ease of articulation, or the ease score. We determine an ease score for
each logically possible handshape by applying the five criteria to every
logically possible handshape. Most of the logically possible handshapes
will be dealt with by the first three criteriaMOC, SE, and SF
because they are the relevant criteria, and I will discuss this large set of
handshapes first. After that discussion, I will consider opposed and unspread handshapes, and in so doing, will explain the last two criteria
TOT and TS.
Earlier in this chapter (see table 7), I assigned a level of difficulty
to the four types of configurations in the MOC criterion. The rankings
were as follows: curved (3), extended (2), bent (1), and closed (0). I then
assigned a plus or minus value to handshapes based on the elements
considered in the SE and SF criteria. If the fingers have either an independent extensor or support to extend (SE criterion) or if the middle,
ring, and pinky fingers are either all included or all excluded in the act
of flexion or extension (SF criterion), then the handshape receives a plus
value and a score of 0. If the fingers do not have either an independent
extensor or support to extend (SE criterion) or if the middle, ring, and
pinky fingers are not either all included or all excluded in the act of flexion or extension (SF criterion), then the handshape receives a minus
value and a score of 1.
This system gives points for difficulty, not ease. Plus values, always
worth 0, indicate ease whereas minus values, always worth 1, indicate relative difficulty. Handshapes that receive the highest ease scores are more
difficult to articulate than the handshapes with the lowest ease scores.
To calculate ease scores for logically possible handshapes that are
spread and unopposed, we add the values for the SE and SF criteria and
then multiply the sum by the value for the MOC criterion, using the
following algorithm:
(SE SF) MOCof least flexed fingers in a rest-closed handshape and most flexed fingers in a rest-open handshape
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 103
103
This formula allows us to discover a great deal about a large number of

logically possible handshapes. However, the algorithm is not sufficient to
predict ease scores for opposed handshapes and unspread handshapes.
In an opposed handshape, some of the fingers are opposed to the
thumb (e.g., see figure 33). In calculating the ease score, I assume that
opposed handshapes are not closed. In fact, I argue that opposed handshapes more closely resemble bent handshapes and that this fact ought
to be formally encoded into our algorithm. Therefore, to calculate the
ease score of an opposed handshape, I begin with the ease score of the
analogous bent handshape and then consider one additional criterion
the TOT criterion. The TOT criterion considers whether a given handshape involves only fingers that have a natural tendency to oppose the
thumb (i.e., whether it involves the index finger, the middle finger, or
both). Handshapes that do involve these relevant fingers are assigned a
plus value in the relevant column. Handshapes that do not involve these
fingers are assigned a minus value in the appropriate column. Pluses
receive a value of 0, and minuses receive a value of 1. The formal algorithm is stated as follows:
(SE SF) MOCof least flexed fingers in a rest-closed handshape and most flexed fingers in a rest-open handshape TOT
two fingers opposed to the thumb
all fingers opposed to the thumb
Figure 33 Examples of opposed handshapes.
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 104
Chapter Three
104
In all the handshapes discussed so far, we have tacitly assumed that

any adjacent fingers in the extended or curved configuration are also
spread apart from each other, following the hands natural tendency. But
in some handshapes, the fingers are unspread (see figure 34). The ease
score for an unspread handshape begins with the ease score for the same
handshape in its spread form. Then, the TS criterion, which determines
whether the handshape relies on natural spreading of the hand, is factored
in. If the handshape does rely on natural spreading, then a plus (0) is
given. If the handshape does not rely on natural spreading, then a minus
(1) is given. In other words, in an unspread handshape that corresponds
to a spread handshape, the score is increased by 1. The algorithm follows:
(SE SF) MOCof least flexed fingers in a rest-closed handshape and most flexed fingers in a rest-open handshape TS
RATIONALE FOR THE FORMULAS

In all three formulas just stated, the values for SE and SF are added to
combine the effects of these two criteria because they contribute equally
and in the same way to the difficulty of a handshape. Both criteria indi-
spread handshape
Figure 34
unspread handshape
Examples of spread and unspread handshapes.
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 105
105
cate which fingers are more capable of combining in a handshape. Taken

together, they account for all five fingers in extension and in flexion.
The MOC criterion is multiplied by the sum of the values for SE
and SF. The fact that MOC is multiplied (not added, subtracted, or divided) by the sum of the values for the other two criteria expresses the
enhanced effect that muscle opposition (as opposed to joint structure
or whatever else) has on a configurations difficulty.
Both the TOT and the TS criteria, however, begin with the ease
score for a similar handshape and add (not multiply) difficulty. The intuition here is that the amount of difficulty entailed is not enough to warrant multiplying the number; rather, the difficulty entailed merely adds
to the overall difficulty.
The algorithm uses numbers. Why? Simply put, numbers allow the
explicit description needed for this endeavor. An impressionistic system
would not be as explicit. Certainly, one could arrive at an ease score by
using another method.22 For example, if all numbers were added or one
number were divided by another, we might be able to arrive at a reasonable ease score, just as we will with this system. If this possibility is true,
then the particular system I have chosen to use may end up not being
the most appropriate for the task at hand. However, the point of the book
is not to argue for this particular calculation system either as a whole or
in part. Rather, the point is to see how linguistic facts about handshapes
compare with ease scores of handshapes. To accomplish that task, we
need a clearly articulated system that we can apply to every handshape
across the board. My system allows us to make judgments about every
22. An alternative method of computation was suggested to me by Diana
Archangeli and Mike Hammond. To calculate the ease score for the handshape by
this method, the score for each group of fingers is multiplied by the value for its
configuration, and the values for each group are added. The results are that (a) far
more handshapes are easy, (b) physically impossible handshapes stay the same, and
therefore (c) fewer handshapes remain in the difficult category. This method seems
more intuitive, but it has two disadvantages, which led me to discard it: (a) the math
is slightly more complex, and (b) the easy category is predicted to be larger than the
difficult category. The evidence suggests that physiologically there are fewer easy
handshapes than difficult ones.
106
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 106
Chapter Three
logically possible handshape and to see exactly why, in terms of ease,

each handshape falls where it does. I leave it to future research to determine whether the particular algorithm I propose here is the most appropriate for the observations and intuitions I attempt to capture.
CALCULATING EASE SCORES
This section demonstrates how to calculate ease of articulation scores for
each of the major types of handshapes we are examining. The first calculation will involve a one-group handshape, and the second set of calculations will involve three different two-group handshapes. Next, I will
explain how to determine an ease score for an opposed handshape, and
finally, I will show how to do so for an unspread handshape. These last
two types of handshapes can be one-group or two-group handshapes.
Calculating the Ease Score for a One-Group Handshape
The handshape in figure 35 will provide a good example for calculating the ease score for a one-group handshape. This handshape does not
have two groups of fingers, so it is impossible to locate the least flexed
and most flexed fingers. Thus, the SE and SF criteria can apply only to
the handshape as a whole. Because the SE and SF criteria describe opposite actions (i.e., extension and flexion), in reality, only one will apply
to a handshape like that in figure 34whichever one is more relevant
to the handshape.
If we apply the SE criterion to the handshape in figure 35, it will
always be the case that all fingers have either an independent extensor or
sufficient support. Therefore, this handshape will receive a plus on the
SE criterion and an SE score of 0. Similarly, if we apply the SF criterion
to this handshape, it will always be the case that the set of {middle, ring,
pinky} act together. Thus, the handshape will receive a plus for the SF
criterion and an SF score of 0. So, a one-group handshape such as in
figure 35 will receive a temporary ease score of 0 (SE SF 0) for
this set of criteria. The temporary ease score is the result of adding the
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 107
107
Figure 35 A one-group handshape.
values of the SE and SF criteria as the initial step in determining the

configurations actual ease score.
Next, we multiply the temporary ease score by the number that corresponds to the ease of the configuration of the handshape (i.e., 0 if it
is closed, 1 if it is bent, 2 if it is extended, 3 if it is curved). Because 0
multiplied by any number is 0, one-group handshapes such as that in figure 35 will always have an ease score of 0.
Calculating the Ease Score for a Two-Group Handshape
For those two-group handshapes in which one finger, in this case, the
thumb, is extended, curved, or bent, figure 36 will serve as a model. In
each of the three illustrations in figure 36, the rest of the fingers are
closed. We will consider all three examples together because they all,
in some sense, might be considered versions of the same handshape.
With two-group handshapes, we have to establish which is the least
flexed group and which is the most flexed group. In the handshapes in
figure 36, the least flexed is always the thumb, and the most flexed is always the rest of the fingers. To calculate the ease score, first we apply
the SE criterion to the least flexed fingers. The SE criterion determines
whether the extended fingersthe thumb in this casehave either
108
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 108
Chapter Three
Figure 36 Two-group handshapes. The drawing on the far right from

Tennant and Brown.
(a) an independent extensor or (b) support to extend. In this case, the result is that it does because we know that the thumb is well-supplied with
independent extensors (see chapter 2). Therefore, we can assign a plus
and a value of 0 for this criterion. Next, we apply the SF criterion to the
most flexed fingers. The SF criterion determines whether the {middle,
ring, and pinky}, as a group, are either included or excluded from this
group of fingers. They are all included, and so we assign a plus and a
value of 0 to this criterion. The temporary ease score for all three handshapes in figure 36 is arrived at by adding the values for the two pluses
(see chart 1). The result is 0 (0 0 0).
Now, we have to factor in the MOC criterion. The MOC criterion
essentially determines how hard the least flexed fingers in a rest-closed
handshape are working. We know that closed fingers assume the easiest of all positions; therefore, because the MOC criterion is concerned
with difficulty, it considers the other fingers. If the thumb were curved,
then the temporary ease score would be multiplied by 3 (the level of difficulty for a curved handshape). If the thumb were extended, then the
temporary ease score for the whole handshape would be multiplied by 2
(the level of difficulty for an extended handshape). If the thumb were
bent, then the temporary ease score would be multiplied by 1 (the level
of difficulty for a bent handshape). The bent configuration is the easiest of the three. Because 0 multiplied by any number is always 0, the
final ease score for each of the handshapes in figure 36 is 0 (see chart 2).
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 109
109
Chart 1. Temporary Ease Score

for Handshapes in Figure 36
Configuration: One finger extended, bent, or curved; rest of the
fingers closed
A
Least flexed
fingers
B
SE value
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF value
E
Temporary
ease score
(0)
IMRP
(0)
T thumb
IMRP index, middle, ring, and pinky
NOTE: The temporary ease score is the result of adding the values of the
SE and SF criteria.
Calculating the Ease Score of an Opposed Handshape

Opposed fingers are in essentially the same configuration as bent fingers,
except that when fingers are opposed, they contact the thumb. The handshape pictured in figure 37 is opposed. We calculate the ease score of
this kind of handshape by beginning with the ease score for the bent
version of this handshape. The relevant bent ease score for the hand-
Chart 2. Final Ease Scores for

Handshapes in Figure 36
fingers closed
A
The extended,
bent, or curved
finger
B
The rest of
the fingers
(most flexed)
C
Temporary
Ease Score
(SE SF)
D
Bent
(1)
E
Extended
(2)
F
Curved
(3)
IMRP
T thumb
IMRP index, middle, ring, pinky
110
Figure 37
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 110
Chapter Three
An opposed handshape.
shape in which the thumb and middle are bent, but do not contact each
other, and the rest of the fingers are extended is 1. To calculate the difficulty of opposed handshapes, the TOT criterion is applied. It determines whether all opposed fingers have a natural tendency to oppose the
thumb. If all the opposed fingers do have this tendency, then the handshape receives a plus (0); if they do not, then the handshape receives a
minus (1). The resulting value is then added to the bent ease score, yielding a final ease score. For the handshape in figure 37, the TOT criterion
is determined to be a plus (0), and the final ease score is 1 (1 0 1).
Calculating the Ease Score for Unspread Handshapes
Because spreading or unspreading occurs only with respect to adjacent fingers, many kinds of logically possible handshapes are ruled
out in this category. One-finger handshapes are ruled out entirely. The
two-finger, three-finger, and four-finger combinations that do not involve adjacent fingers are ruled out. All bent and closed handshapes are
ruled out by the physiology. In each logically possible handshape that
I will examine in this category, the rest of the fingers are all closed because no handshapes are attested in which some of the extended or
curved fingers are spread and the rest of the extended or curved fingers are not.
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 111
111
Calculating the ease score for an unspread handshape begins with

the ease score for the related spread handshape. Next, we apply the TS
criterion, which determines whether the handshape relies on the tendency to spread. If the handshape does rely on the tendency to spread,
then it receives a plus (0). If the handshape does not rely on the tendency
to spread, then it receives a minus (1). In other words, an unspread handshape gets points for difficulty and a spread handshape does not get
points.
UNDERSTANDING THE SCORES
To understand what ease scores mean, consider the contrast between a
handshape in which the ring finger extends and the rest of the fingers are
closed and a handshape in which all of the fingers are extended (see
figure 38).
The handshape in figure 38a is impossible because the ring cannot
fully extend by itself for many physiological reasons (see chapter 2).
But the handshape in figure 38b is quite possible because the restrictions
on extending the ring no longer hold. As we will see, my system assigns a score of 4 to figure 38a and a score of 0 to figure 38b. My claim
is that any handshape whose final ease score is 0 is an easy handshape.
This result is significant because all handshapes in which all of the fingers are in one group have final ease scores of 0. This score captures
the intuition that, when all of the fingers act together, the resulting handshape is easy. My model easily distinguishes handshape 38a from handshape 38b by confirming the intuition that there are big differences between extending certain fingers alone and extending all the fingers
together and by arriving at that confirmation in a noncircular fashion
by directly invoking the physiology.
Handshapes like that in figure 38a end up with ease scores higher
than 0. How, then, do we determine which handshapes in that category
are difficult as opposed to impossible? To distinguish the impossible
handshapes from the rest, I let the physiology determine the cutoff
point. The ease score of handshape in figure 38a is 4. Therefore, I consider any handshape that has a score of 4 or greater to be impossible.
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 112
Chapter Three
112
a. only ring finger extended

Figure 38
b. all fingers extended
Contrasting handshapes.
If the easy handshapes are assigned a score of 0 and impossible

handshapes are assigned a score of 4 and greater, then difficult handshapes are those that are assigned a score greater than 0 and less than
4. As we examine different sorts of handshapes, the actual ease scores
that represent impossible handshapes will vary, but in every case, the
physiology itself provides the dividing line.
In the charts at the end of this chapter that contain the final ease
scores for handshapes, the highest ease scores, which indicate impossible handshapes, are asterisked. The lowest ease scores of 0 are unmarked. The ease scores greater than 0 and less than 4, which indicate
difficult handshapes, are underlined.
CHARTING EASE SCORES
The remainder of this chapter contains charts that reveal the ease scores
for all logically possible handshapes. Although we have just gone
through a sample calculation for each sort of handshape of interest here,
the following charts contain a good deal more information than the
charts we have seen so far. This section provides a context for understanding the charts.
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 113
113
Chart 3 is called an A chart, and it replaces chart 1, which contains

information about the three logically possible handshapes in figure 36.
Chart 3 contains information about fifteen logically possible handshapes
in which one finger is extended, bent, or curved and the rest of the fingers are closed. Column A lists each of the fingers, starting with the
thumb. As in chart 1, the rest of the fingers in each case are listed in the
relevant row of column C. In row 1, where the thumb is the single finger,
the rest of the fingers are the index, middle, ring, and pinky, abbreviated IMRP. The information in columns B and D shows the result of
applying the SE and SF criteria, respectively, to the particular set of
handshapes.
To arrive at the final ease score for the handshapes in chart 3, the
temporary ease score is multiplied by the value for the MOC criterion of
the least flexed fingers. The final ease scores for the handshapes in
which one finger is extended, bent, or curved are given in chart 4. All
charts that give the same information as chart 4 will be referred to as
B charts.
Chart 3. Temporary Ease Scores (SE SF)

A
fingers closed
A
Least flexed
fingers
B
SE
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
(0)
IMRP
(0)
(0)
TMRP
(0)
(1)
TIRP
(1)
(1)
TIMP
(1)
(0)
TIMR
(1)
I index
M middle
T thumb
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 114
Chapter Three
114
Chart 4. Results of (SE SF) MOC

B
fingers closed
A
The extended,
bent, or curved
finger
B
C
D
E
F
The rest of Temporary Bent Extended Curved
the fingers ease score (1)
(2)
(3)
IMRP
TMRP
TIRP
TIMP
TIMR
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
Column A and column C in chart 3 correspond to column A and column B in chart 4. Again, columns A and B in chart 4 show what each
group of fingers is doing: column A shows that the least flexed group is
extended, bent, or curved, and column B shows that the rest of the fingers are closed. Column C in chart 4 gives the temporary ease score
from column E in chart 3.
To find the final ease score, we have to multiply the temporary ease
score by the level of difficulty (determined by applying the MOC criterion). If the least flexed fingers are bent, we multiply by 1; if they are
extended, we multiply by 2; and if they are curved, we multiply by 3.
After the MOC has been figured into the overall ease of a handshape, the
result is placed in columns D, E, and F in chart 4. Thus, the final ease
scores for this set of logically possible one-finger handshapes appear
in columns D, E, and F.
Chart 5 presents a compression of the information in chart 4. I
include only the final ease scores for the fifteen logically possible hand-
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 115
115
Chart 5. Final Ease Score

C
Configuration: One finger extended, bent, or curved;
rest of the fingers closed
A
D
Bent (1)
E
Extended (2)
F
Curved (3)
*4
*6
*4
*6
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
NOTE: Underlined numerals indicate difficult handshapes; numerals marked

with an asterisk indicate impossible handshapes; unmarked numerals indicate
easy handshapes.
shapes from Columns D, E, and F of chart 4. In this model, points are

accumulated for difficulty, not for ease. Therefore, the highest numbers
indicate impossible handshapes, the lowest indicate easy handshapes,
and the numbers in between indicate the difficult handshapes. In chart 5,
asterisked handshapes are impossible, the underlined handshapes are
difficult, and the unmarked handshapes are easy. All charts that give
the same information as chart 5 will be referred to as C charts.
Throughout the remainder of this chapter, I include the same progression of charts (A, B, and C) for all the logically possible handshapes.
The C charts should be of most interest because they reveal the final
ease score for each handshape and the category into which each falls. I
begin with handshapes in which two or more fingers are extended and
the rest of the fingers are closed (see charts 614).
The next group of charts (charts 1526) represents the logically
possible handshapes when one or more fingers are bent or curved and
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 116
Chapter Three
116
Chart 6
A: RESULT OF ADDING THE VALUES OF THE
AND THE SF CRITERION
SE CRITERION
Configuration: Two fingers extended, bent, or curved; rest of the

fingers closed
A
Least flexed
fingers
B
SE
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
TI
(0)
MRP
(0)
TM
(1)
IRP
(1)
TR
(1)
IMP
(1)
TP
(0)
IMR
(1)
IM
(0)
TRP
(1)
IR
(1)
TMP
(1)
IP
(0)
TMR
(1)
MR
(1)
TIP
(1)
MP
(1)
TIR
(1)
RP
(0)
TIM
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 117
117
Chart 7
B: RESULT OF APPLYING THE
OF THE SE SF CRITERIA
MOC CRITERION TO THE SUM

fingers closed
A
The extended,
bent, or
curved finger
B
The rest
of the
fingers
C
Temporary
ease
score
D
Bent
(1)
E
Extended
(2)
F
Curved
(3)
TI
MRP
TM
IRP
TR
IMP
TP
IMR
IM
TRP
IR
TMP
IP
TMR
MR
TIP
MP
TIR
RP
TIM
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 118
Chapter Three
118
Chart 8
C: FINAL EASE SCORE
fingers closed
A
D
Bent (1)
E
Extended (2)
F
Curved (3)
TI
TM
*4
*6
TR
*4
*6
TP
IM
IR
*4
*6
IP
MR
*4
*6
MP
*4
*6
RP
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 119
119
Chart 9
SE CRITERION
Configuration: Three fingers extended, bent, or curved; rest of the

fingers closed
A
Least flexed
fingers
B
SE
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
TIM
(0)
RP
(1)
TIR
(1)
MP
(1)
TIP
(0)
MR
(1)
TMR
(1)
IP
(1)
TMP
(1)
IR
(1)
TRP
(0)
IM
(1)
IMR
(0)
TP
(1)
IMP
(0)
TR
(1)
IRP
(0)
TM
(1)
MRP
(0)
TI
(0)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 120
Chapter Three
120
Chart 10

fingers closed
A
The extended,
bent, or
curved finger
B
The rest
of the
fingers
C
Temporary
ease
score
D
Bent
(1)
TIM
RP
TIR
MP
TIP
MR
TMR
IP
TMP
IR
TRP
IM
IMR
TP
IMP
TR
IRP
TM
MRP
TI
T thumb
I index
M middle
E
F
Extended Curved
(2)
(3)
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 121
121
Chart 11
C: FINAL EASE SCORE
fingers closed
A
D
Bent
(1)
E
Extended
(2)
F
Curved
(3)
TIM
TIR
*4
*6
TIP
TMR
*4
*6
TMP
*4
*6
TRP
IMR
IMP
IRP
MRP
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 122
Chart 12
SE CRITERION
Configuration: Four fingers extended, bent, or curved; rest of the

fingers closed
A
Least flexed
fingers
B
SE
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
TIMR
(0)
(1)
TIMP
(0)
(1)
TIRP
(0)
(1)
TMRP
(0)
(0)
IMRP
(0)
(0)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
Chart 13

fingers closed
A
The extended,
bent, or
curved finger
B
The rest
of the
fingers
C
Temporary
ease
score
D
Bent
(1)
E
Extended
(2)
F
Curved
(3)
TIMR
TIMP
TIRP
TMRP
IMRP
T thumb
122
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 123
123
Chart 14
C: FINAL EASE SCORE
fingers closed
A
D
Bent (1)
E
Extended (2)
F
Curved (3)
TIMR
TIMP
TIRP
TMRP
IMRP
Chart 15
SE CRITERION
Configuration: One finger bent or curved; rest of the fingers

extended
A
Least flexed
fingers
B
SE
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
TIMR
(0)
(1)
TIMP
(0)
(1)
TIRP
(0)
(1)
TMRP
(0)
(0)
IMRP
(0)
(0)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 124
Chart 16
B: RESULT OF APPLYING THE MOC CRITERION TO THE SUM
fingers extended
A
The extended,
bent, or
curved finger
B
The rest
of the
fingers
C
Temporary
ease
score
D
Bent
(1)
E
Extended
(2)
F
Curved
(3)
TIMR
n.a.
TIMP
n.a.
TIRP
n.a.
TMRP
n.a.
IMRP
n.a.
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
Chart 17
C: FINAL EASE SCORE
fingers extended
A
D
Bent (1)
E
Extended (2)
F
Curved (3)
TIMR
n.a.
*3
TIMP
n.a.
*3
TIRP
n.a.
*3
TMRP
n.a.
IMRP
n.a.
T thumb
124
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 125
125
Chart 18
A: RESULT OF ADDING THE VALUES OF THE SE CRITERION
Configuration: Two fingers bent or curved; rest of the
fingers extended
A
Least flexed
fingers
B
SE
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
TIM
(0)
RP
(1)
TIR
(1)
MP
(1)
TIP
(0)
MR
(1)
TMR
(1)
IP
(1)
TMP
(1)
IR
(1)
TRP
(0)
IM
(1)
IMR
(0)
TP
(1)
IMP
(0)
TR
(1)
IRP
(0)
TM
(1)
MRP
(0)
TI
(0)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 126
Chapter Three
126
Chart 19

fingers extended
A
The bent
or curved
fingers
(most flexed
fingers)
B
The rest
of the
fingers
(least flexed
fingers)
C
Temporary
ease
score
D
Bent
(1)
E
Extended
(2)
F
Curved
(3)
TIM
RP
n.a.
TIR
MP
n.a.
TIP
MR
n.a.
TMR
IP
n.a.
TMP
IR
n.a.
TRP
IM
n.a.
IMR
TP
n.a.
IMP
TR
n.a.
IRP
TM
n.a.
MRP
TI
n.a.
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 127
127
Chart 20
C: FINAL EASE SCORE
fingers extended
A
D
Bent
(1)
E
Extended
(2)
F
Curved
(3)
TIM
n.a.
*3
TIR
*2
n.a.
*6
TIP
n.a.
*3
TMR
*2
n.a.
*6
TMP
*2
n.a.
*6
TRP
n.a.
*3
IMR
n.a.
*3
IMP
n.a.
*3
IRP
n.a.
*3
MRP
n.a.
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 128
Chapter Three
128
Chart 21
SE CRITERION
Configuration: Three fingers bent or curved; rest of the

fingers extended
A
Least flexed
fingers
B
SE
C
Most flexed
fingers
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
TI
(0)
MRP
(0)
TM
(1)
IRP
(1)
TR
(1)
IMP
(1)
TP
(0)
IMR
(1)
IM
(0)
TRP
(1)
IR
(1)
TMP
(1)
IP
(0)
TMR
(1)
MR
(1)
TIP
(1)
MP
(1)
TIR
(1)
RP
(0)
TIM
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 129
129
Chart 22

fingers extended
A
The bent
or curved
fingers
(most flexed
fingers)
B
C
D
E
F
The rest
Temporary Bent Extended Curved
of the
ease
(1)
(2)
(3)
fingers
score
(least flexed
fingers)
TI
MRP
n.a.
TM
IRP
n.a.
TR
IMP
n.a.
TP
IMR
n.a.
IM
TRP
n.a.
IR
TMP
n.a.
IP
TMR
n.a.
MR
TIP
n.a.
MP
TIR
n.a.
RP
TIM
n.a.
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 130
Chapter Three
130
Chart 23
C: FINAL EASE SCORE
fingers extended
A
D
Bent
(1)
E
Extended
(2)
F
Curved
(3)
TI
n.a.
TM
*2
n.a.
*6
TR
*2
n.a.
*6
TP
n.a.
*3
IM
n.a.
*3
IR
*2
n.a.
*6
IP
n.a.
*3
MR
*2
n.a.
*6
MP
*2
n.a.
*6
RP
n.a.
*3
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 131
Chart 24
SE CRITERION
Configuration: Four fingers bent or curved; rest of the

fingers extended
A
Least flexed
fingers
B
SE
C
Most flexed fingers
bent or curved
D
SF
E
Temporary
ease score
(0)
IMRP
(0)
(0)
TMRP
(0)
(1)
TIRP
(1)
(1)
TIMP
(1)
(0)
TIMR
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
Chart 25
Configuration: Four fingers bent or curved; rest of the

fingers extended
A
The bent or
curved finger
B
The rest of
the fingers
C
Temporary
ease score
TMRP
n.a.
TMRP
n.a.
TIRP
n.a.
TIMP
n.a.
TIMR
n.a.
T thumb
I index
M middle
D
E
F
Bent Extended Curved
(1)
(2)
(3)
R ring
P pinky
131
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 132
Chapter Three
132
Chart 26
C: FINAL EASE SCORE
Configuration: One finger extended bent or curved; rest of the
fingers extended
A
Bent or
curved finger
D
Bent
(1)
E
Extended
(2)
F
Curved
(3)
n.a.
n.a.
*2
n.a.
*6
*2
n.a.
*6
n.a.
*3
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
the rest of the fingers are extended, not closed. The score for easy
handshapes remains the same: 0. However, if we allow the physiology to draw the line between the impossible handshapes and the rest,
the impossible handshapes have ease scores of 2 and above (as opposed to the scores of the impossible rest-closed handshapes, which
were 4 and above). Consequently, the difficult handshapes have ease
scores of 1.
The following charts, charts 2733, establish the final ease scores
for handshapes in which fingers are opposed to the thumb. The layout
strategy of A, B, and C charts is modified here because all the information necessary to arrive at a final ease score fits into one chart. A final
ease score of 0 in column D means the handshape is easy, a score of
12 means a handshape is difficult, and a score of 34 indicates that
the handshape is impossible. The familiar conventionseasy is unmarked, difficult is underlined, impossible is asteriskedapply.
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 133
Chart 27
FINAL EASE SCORE RESULTING FROM CONSIDERING THE TOT CRITERION
Configuration: One finger opposes the thumb; rest of the fingers
extended
Bent
score
A
TOT
criterion
B
Temporary
ease score
Final
ease score
I opposes T
(0)
M opposes T
(0)
R opposes T
(1)
P opposes T
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
Chart 28
Configuration: Two fingers oppose the thumb; rest of the
fingers extended
Bent
score
TOT
criterion
Temporary
ease score
Final
ease score
I, M oppose T
(0)
I, R oppose T
(1)
*3
I, P oppose T
(1)
*3
M, R oppose T
(1)
M, P oppose T
(1)
*3
R, P oppose T
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
133
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 134
Chapter Three
134
Chart 29
Configuration: Three fingers oppose the thumb; rest of the
fingers extended
Bent
score
TOT
criterion
Temporary
ease score
Final
ease score
I, M, R oppose T
(1)
I, M, P oppose T
(1)
*3
I, R, P oppose T
(1)
*3
M, R, P oppose T
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
Chart 30
Configuration: One finger opposes the thumb; rest of the
fingers closed
Bent
score
TOT
criterion
Temporary
ease score
Final
ease score
I opposes T
(0)
M opposes T
(0)
R opposes T
(1)
*3
P opposes T
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 135
Chart 31
Configuration: Two fingers oppose the thumb; rest of the
fingers closed
Bent
score
A
TOT
criterion
B
Temporary
ease score
Final
ease score
I, M oppose T
(0)
I, R oppose T
(1)
*3
I, P oppose T
(1)
M, R oppose T
(1)
*3
M, P oppose T
(1)
*3
R, P oppose T
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
Chart 32
Configuration: Three fingers oppose the thumb; rest of the
fingers closed
Bent
score
TOT
criterion
Temporary
ease score
Final
ease score
I, M, R oppose T
(1)
I, M, P oppose T
(1)
I, R, P oppose T
(1)
M, R, P oppose T
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
135
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 136
Chapter Three
136
Chart 33
Configuration: Four fingers oppose the thumb
Bent
score
TOT
criterion
Temporary
ease score
Final
ease score
(1)
I, M, R, P oppose T
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
In chart 34, we examine the result of applying the TS criterion,

which determines whether the handshape makes use of the natural tendency to spread. All of the handshapes in chart 34 do not, so all receive
a minus (1). Final ease scores are calculated in columns D (for extended) and E (for curved). All unspread handshapes are, at the least,
difficult.
SUMMARY
In this chapter, I have constructed a theory of ease of articulation of
handshapes on the basis of physiological facts and have determined explicit ease scores for a great number of logically possible handshapes.
The C charts in the matrix of charts 326 provide a final ease score for
handshapes to which we applied the first three criteria: MOC, SE, and
SF. Charts 2733 provide the ease scores for the remainder of handshapes to which we applied the TOT and TS criteria.
From this analysis, we have formed three groups of handshapes:
those that are easy (all have ease scores of 0), those that are difficult
(those that have the intermediate ease scores), and those that are physically impossible (those that have the highest ease scores). These results
are summarized in table 10 on page 138.
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 137
137
Chart 34
FINAL EASE SCORE RESULTING FROM CONSIDERING THE TS CRITERION
Configuration: Some number of fingers unspread; the rest of the
fingers closed
A
Final ease score

Fingers
unspread
Extended/
spread
ease
score
Curved/
spread
ease
score
TS
criterion
Extended/
unspread
Curved/
unspread
TI
(1)
IM
(1)
MR
(1)
*5
*7
RP
(1)
TIM
(1)
IMR
(1)
MRP
(1)
TIMR
(1)
IMRP
(1)
TIMRP
(1)
T thumb
I index
M middle
R ring
P pinky
9/1/06
12:41 PM
Page 138
Chapter Three
138
Table 10. Dividing Lines for Categories

of Handshapes by Ease Score
Ease
category of
handshape
Easy
Difficult
Impossible
Rest of
fingers
closed
Rest of
fingers
extended
Fingers
opposed
to thumb
Fingers
curved or
extended and
unspread
0
13
46
0
1
26
0
12
34
0
14
57
In my model, all easy handshapes receive a score of 0. Consequently, no claims are made about the relative ease of handshapes in this
category. Similarly, although some impossible handshapes have higher
ease scores than others, one impossible handshape is not considered
more impossible than another. So, again, no claims are made about the
relative ease of handshapes in this category.
In contrast, the model does make claims about which of the difficult
handshapes are more difficult than others. For example, handshapes in
which the pinky is extended, bent, or curved and the rest of the fingers
are closed all are analyzed as being difficult. But extending the pinky
is more difficult to do than curving (compare the ease score of 3 for
curved with 2 for extended). Bending the pinky (ease score of 1) is easier still. Intriguing as this analysis may be, this work does not test any of
these predictions, leaving these claims open for future research.
We are now in a position to compare the ease scores we have determined for logically possible handshapes with the number of occurrences of a particular handshape in Taiwan Sign Language.
9/1/06
12:48 PM
Page 139
Chapter Four
Ease and Frequency Compared

To establish a relationship between ease of articulation and frequency of
occurrence, I first had to examine how frequently different handshapes
occur. For this study, I used the handshapes found in Taiwan Sign Language (TSL). I calculated two types of frequency: type frequency, or the
number of different signs in which a particular handshape occurs, and
token frequency, or the number of times a handshape occurs in natural
conversation. My sources were Your Hands Can Become a Bridge: Sign
Language Manual, volumes 1 and 2 (Smith and Ting 1979, 1984), and
portions of two videotaped conversations.
TYPE FREQUENCY OF HANDSHAPES IN TSL
The Smith and Ting volumes are regarded as the most authoritative
source on TSL signs in isolation. A total of 1,336 signs appear in the two
volumes. I counted each entry to arrive at the type frequency of occurrence for each handshape and found a corpus of fifty-six handshapes
(see table 12 on page 14952).
However, I have excluded a few TSL handshapes from my analysis
for various reasons, knowing that, eventually, these handshapes have to
be integrated into any theory of ease of articulation. The first excluded
handshape occurs only in the TSL sign GINGER (see figure 39a). This
handshape is excluded because it goes against two generalizations: first,
that there are four configurations that fingers can assume in a sign language, and second, that no handshape can be divided into more than two
139
140
9/1/06
12:48 PM
Page 140
Chapter Four
groups. To understand what makes figure 39a so anomalous, one should

try to produce it. To do so, begin by forming a handshape in which all
the fingers are curved (similar to the ASL E handshape except keep the
curved thumb to the radial side of the index, not touching the fingertips).
Now, splay the fingers just at the metacarpophalangeal joint in the following manner: (a) keep the flexion at the proximal interphalangeal
and distal interphalangeal joints; (b) configure the index metacarpophalangeal joint so there is full flexion (i.e., close the index finger); then
(c) configure the middle finger with slightly less flexion, the ring finger
with even less, and the pinky finger with full extension at the metacarpophalangeal joint. The result is a handshape with a cascading effect,
each finger assuming a sort of mountaintop shape at points along an
imaginary arc.
The next three excluded handshapes (see figures 39b, 39c, and 39d)
all violate Mandels (1981) finger position constraint. In other words,
they are composed of more than two groups of fingers. In 39b, the ring
and pinky are closed, the middle is bent, the index is extended, and the
thumb is extended but resting on the middle. Figures 39c and 39d could
be described in a similarly detailed manner that would reveal that they
each have more than two groups.
The final three handshapes that I exclude (see figures 39e, 39f, and
39g) are very close to handshapes that I do consider. The handshape in
figure 39e is essentially a fist, except that the thumb is inside the closed
fingers instead of outside. In figure 39f, the index and middle are crossed,
which is quite similar to the handshape with the index and middle unspread and extended (similar to the ASL U handshape). Their similarity to other handshapes notwithstanding, the system I have proposed to
categorize handshapes cannot accommodate these two handshapes. One
other handshape that deserves mention is the handshape pictured in figure 39g. That handshape strongly resembles the TSL 10 handshape
the same as the ASL X handshape. I did not consider the handshape in
figure 39g to be different when I wrote Ann (1993a), and therefore, I
ignored it in that document. However, here, I include it because I can derive an ease score for it.
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 141
a.
b.
e.
c.
f.
141
d.
g.
Figure 39 Handshapes excluded from the data.
The handshapes in figure 39 violate constraints many of us take as

basic. For this reason, they are perhaps exactly the handshapes to examine most closely. The handshapes shown in figures 39eg might be
fairly easily dealt with by modifications to my model, but it is not immediately obvious how to make this modification. As enticing as it is
to consider these excluded handshapes, I leave it to future research to
unlock what they can teach us.
The total number of handshapes in these data (1,653) and the total
number of signs in the Smith and Ting dictionary (1,336) are different
because there is not a one-to-one relationship between signs and handshapes; in other words, signs can have more than one handshape. For
example, a TSL sign such as MOSQUITO is counted once under each of
its two handshapes because Smith and Ting (1979) list them as the
handshapes that occur in the sign (see figure 40a). In fact, MOSQUITO
has a third handshape that Smith and Ting (1979) does not mention
but still illustrates. The nondominant hand maintains a handshape that
appears to be fistlike. Smith and Ting make no mention of the nondominant hand because MOSQUITO need not be produced with the nondominant hand. Following Smith and Tings example, I do not count
the handshape of the nondominant hand in MOSQUITO. Conversely, the
sign COUNTRY has a handshape that is counted twice because it is produced with two such handshapes, one on each hand (see figure 40b). As
142
Figure 40
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 142
Chapter Four
Handshapes in
Handshape in
MOSQUITO
COUNTRY
a.
b.
Signs with more than one handshape counted in the data.
much as possible, I follow Smith and Tings analysis of which handshapes occur in signs.
FREQUENCY OF TSL HANDSHAPES IN CONVERSATION
To obtain a corpus of signs used in natural TSL conversation, I videotaped two, approximately hour-long, conversations between two separate pairs of adult native signers (total of four different signers) at the
Tainan School for the Deaf in southern Taiwan. Portions of these conversations were chosen arbitrarily to be transcribed by a group of linguistics graduate students at National Chung Cheng University in Chiayi, Taiwan. The group consisted of one hearing native TSL signer and
four hearing nonnative TSL learners. The graduate students transcribed
a total of twenty minutes and twenty-four seconds worth of TSL conversation into both Chinese (using hanyu pinyin, the major Chinese romanization system currently in use) and English. Thirteen minutes and
five seconds worth of data came from one conversation, and seven minutes and nineteen seconds came from the other. A corpus of 2,242 signs
was created from these conversations. The graduate students, who were
very familiar with Smith and Ting (1979, 1984), indicated in their translations whether or not the signs they had transcribed appeared in the
books. Of approximately every 100 signs transcribed, approximately
four did not appear in the Smith and Ting books and, consequently, were
not considered in this work. Approximately another 90 signs were not
considered because they could not be found in the Smith and Ting books
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 143
143
for various reasons, including typographical errors or glossing. The remaining signs that were considered included signs that were repeated
during the course of the conversation.
The English transcripts were then examined by a nonsigning,
English-speaking undergraduate student studying linguistics. The student used the English word in the translation, looked up each sign in
the Smith and Ting books, and listed its handshapes. She calculated the
number of times each handshape occurred, regardless of the hand on
which it occurred. She included each sign once in her calculations, providing the type frequency of the handshapes used in TSL conversation
The next step was to count every instance of every handshape to
determine the token frequency of each handshape. This process involved
counting each occurrence of every handshape. Using Smith and Ting
(1979, 1984) as a reference, anytime a handshape appeared on any hand
in a sign, it was logged in these data. If a two-handed sign used the same
handshape for both hands, the handshape was counted twice. In twohanded signs with different handshapes, each handshape was counted
once. In signs with handshape change, each handshape was counted
once. By analyzing the data, I determined how frequently each of the
fifty-six handshapes in Smith and Ting was used in TSL conversation
GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT HANDSHAPE FREQUENCY
Several things are worth noting at this point. First, inspection of the data
shows that, indeed, some handshapes occur a great deal more than others. The conversational data show that some handshapes have a relatively high token frequency and some have a relatively low token frequency. The conversational data also show that some handshapes have a
high type frequency and others have a very low type frequency, even as
low as 0. In the Smith and Ting data, the lowest type frequency is 1,
not 0, because if the handshape is included in the dictionary, it must be
there because at least one sign includes it.
144
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 144
Chapter Four
A closer look at the data reveals another observation: there is a great

deal of overlap in the ten most frequent handshapes in each category
type frequency in the dictionary, type frequency in conversation, and token frequency in conversation (see table 11). The ten least frequent
handshapes in the conversational data also overlap significantly. This
finding makes sense because, if the handshape does not show up at all in
conversation (has a token frequency of 0), then the handshape should
have a type frequency in conversation of 0. These findings raise the
question of whether the overlap can be attributed to ease of articulation, and to this question we turn our attention next.
EASE OF ARTICULATION OF
ATTESTED TSL HANDSHAPES
After analyzing the frequency of the fifty-six attested TSL handshapes
in the dictionary and conversation data, I then looked at the ease of
articulation of these handshapes using the system detailed in chapter 3.
I was able to divide the fifty-six handshapes into four categories: easy,
difficult, impossible, and excluded handshapes. The handshapes for
the easy, difficult, and excluded categories are pictured in figures 41
43 (there were too many handshapes in the impossible category to illustrate here). Figures 41 and 42 contain the most handshapes, so each
of these figures is further divided into two main sections: one-group
handshapes and two-group handshapes. Then, within each group,
handshapes are categorized according to how many fingers are acting
together. I derive the number of fingers from the set of fingers that is
not closed.
I expect that most of the designations of handshapes into the two
basic categories of easy and difficult will not be surprising and may
well reflect intuitive assumptions about which handshapes are easy and
which are difficult. Nevertheless, several of the designations will seem
very surprising. Figure 44 shows a few handshapes that would seem
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 145
145
Table 11. Ten Most Frequently Used TSL Handshapes

Type frequency
(dictionary)
Type frequency
(conversation)
Token frequency
(conversation)
146
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 146
Chapter Four
One-group handshapes
five-finger
Two-group handshapes
one-finger
two-finger
three-finger
four-finger
Figure 41
Easy TSL handshapes.
to be easy but are difficult by my criteria. In principle, many more

could be listed, but these seem the most obvious. By my criteria, unspread handshapes are difficult, yet figures 44a and 44b show unspread
handshapes that seem to be easy. Handshapes involving the middle
finger (without the pinky and ring fingers) become increasingly diffi-
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 147
147
One-group handshapes
five-finger
Two-group handshapes
one-finger
two-finger
three-finger
four-finger
Figure 42 Difficult TSL handshapes.
NOTE: a. Throughout this discussion, the ring and middle fingers are bent,
not fully extended.
9/1/06
Page 148
Chapter Four
148
Figure 43
12:49 PM
Excluded TSL handshapes.
cult; the middle finger has the joint structure but not the muscle support
to extend, even with the ring finger. So, figures 44c through 44f are difficult because they include the middle fingereven though they seem
easy to make.
Tables 1214 present the TSL handshapes divided into three groups:
type frequency from the dictionary, type frequency from conversation,
and token frequency from conversation. I list the handshapes from most
to least frequent, with each handshapes ease of articulation as determined according to my system.
TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS
It is very obvious, and probably expected, that each handshape by itself does not confirm the hypothesis that the most frequently occurring
handshapes are the easiest to articulate. The relevant issue, however, is
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Figure 44 Handshapes that look easy but are classified as difficult to articulate.
Handshapes
Ease of
articulation
difficult
easy
easy
easy
easy
difficult
Type frequency
(most to least)
385
196
101
79
72
67
Handshapes
37
40
easy
difficult
difficult
easy
12:49 PM
49
54
easy
easy
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
57
63
Type frequency
(most to least)
Table 12. Type Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation

of Handshapes, based on Dictionary Data
Page 149
149
Handshapes
Ease of
articulation
difficult
easy
difficult
easy
difficult
difficult
Type frequency
(most to least)
32
28
25
25
20
19
Handshapes
Table 12. (continued)
16
17
easy
easy
difficult
12:49 PM
17
150
easy
easy
difficult
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
17
18
19
Type frequency
(most to least)
Page 150
Chapter Four
difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
easy
difficult
difficult
15
12
12
11
11
10
difficult
difficult
difficult
12:49 PM
difficult
easy
difficult
easy
9/1/06
Page 151
151
Handshapes
difficult
difficult
difficult
easy
difficult
difficult
Ease of
articulation
Type frequency
(most to least)
Handshapes
difficult
difficult
12:49 PM
152
difficult
difficult
difficult
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
Type frequency
(most to least)
Page 152
Chapter Four
Handshapes
difficult
easy
easy
easy
easy
64
32
29
28
Ease of
articulation
123
Type frequency
(most to least)
Handshapes
12
easy
difficult
difficult
12:49 PM
14
17
easy
easy
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
22
24
Type frequency
(most to least)
Table 13. Type Frequency and Ease of Articulation of Handshapes,

Based on Conversation Data
Page 153
153
Handshapes
difficult
easy
easy
easy
difficult
easy
Ease of
articulation
11
Type frequency
(most to least)
Handshapes
easy
difficult
difficult
12:49 PM
154
difficult
easy
difficult
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
Type frequency
(most to least)
Page 154
Chapter Four
difficult
difficult
difficult
easy
difficult
excluded
difficult
difficult
12:49 PM
difficult
easy
difficult
difficult
9/1/06
Page 155
155
Handshapes
difficult
difficult
easy
difficult
excluded
Ease of
articulation
Type frequency
(most to least)
Handshapes
excluded
easy
12:49 PM
156
difficult
easy
easy
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
Type frequency
(most to least)
Page 156
Chapter Four
difficult
difficult
difficult
excluded
difficult
difficult
difficult
easy
12:49 PM
excluded
difficult
difficult
excluded
9/1/06
Page 157
157
Handshapes
difficult
easy
easy
difficult
easy
618
348
263
169
Ease of
articulation
949
Token frequency
(most to least)
Handshapes
88
easy
easy
12:49 PM
114
158
difficult
easy
easy
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
121
144
156
Token frequency
(most to least)
Table 14. Token Frequency and Ease of Articulation of Handshapes,

Based on Conversation Data
Page 158
Chapter Four
difficult
easy
easy
easy
difficult
difficult
easy
79
66
60
53
52
44
38
(not fully extended)

difficult
easy
easy
easy
difficult
difficult
17
15
14
14
14
difficult
25
30
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 159
159
Handshapes
difficult
easy
difficult
difficult
difficult
11
11
11
11
Ease of
articulation
13
Token frequency
(most to least)
Handshapes
difficult
excluded
12:49 PM
160
difficult
excluded
difficult
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
10
Token frequency
(most to least)
Page 160
Chapter Four
difficult
difficult
difficult
easy
difficult
easy
difficult
excluded
12:49 PM
easy
difficult
easy
easy
9/1/06
Page 161
161
Handshapes
Ease of
articulation
difficult
excluded
difficult
difficult
excluded
Token frequency
(most to least)
0
Handshapes
difficult
easy
12:49 PM
162
excluded
difficult
difficult
Ease of
articulation
9/1/06
Token frequency
(most to least)
Page 162
Chapter Four
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 163
163
whether the handshapes in general confirm the hypothesis. To effectively deal with the data, I divided each set into three roughly equal
groups. If it is true that the handshapes that are easiest to articulate are
the ones that occur most frequently, then it ought to be true that
the handshapes with the highest type frequency are all easy. Table 15
shows that, of the seventeen most frequent handshapes, ten are easy
and the other seven are difficult. This finding seems to reasonably confirm the hypothesis. The next seventeen handshapes with the highest
type frequency appear in table 16, and these show a slightly different
pattern: ten of these handshapes are difficult and seven are easy. The final fifteen handshapes occur the least frequently in the dictionary data,
and, as expected, fourteen of the fifteen are difficult to articulate (see
table 17).
Next, we examine the type frequency results from the conversation
data and ask the same question. Of the seventeen handshapes that have
the highest type frequency in the conversation data, eleven are easy and
four are difficult. Again, this finding seems to reasonably confirm the hypothesis. In the middle group of handshapes (those with moderate type
frequency), twelve of the seventeen are difficult and four are easy and
one is excluded. The final group of handshapes represents the handshapes occurring least frequently. Twenty-two handshapes are listed in
this group because five of the handshapes that I excluded from my analysis of the dictionary handshapes appeared in the conversation data. Of
these twenty-two handshapes, five are excluded from consideration, thirteen are difficult, and four are easy. Table 18 presents each of the handshapes in descending order of frequency along with the corresponding
ease categories. Again, these data seem to confirm the hypothesis.
Thus far, we have seen that the two methods I used of ascertaining
type frequency have generally supported the hypothesis that the easiest
handshapes indeed occur more frequently than those that are difficult to
articulate. Now, in tables 1921, we examine the final set of the data: the
token frequency of each handshape taken from the conversation data. As
we found with the type frequency data, we see in table 19 that eleven of
the seventeen handshapes with the highest token frequency in the con-
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 164
Chapter Four
164
Table 15. Ease of Articulation of the Seventeen

Handshapes with the Highest Type Frequency
(Dictionary Data)
Handshapes
Ease of articulation
difficult
1.
easy
2.
easy
3.
easy
4.
easy
5.
difficult
6.
easy
7.
easy
8.
versation data are easy and six are difficult. This finding is another confirmation of the hypothesis. In the next group of handshapes (see table
20), two are excluded, eleven are difficult, and four are easy. In this case,
it seems that more difficult handshapes are being used in conversation
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 165
165

Handshapes
easy
9.
difficult
10.
difficult
11.
easy
12.
difficult
13.
easy
14.
difficult
15.
easy
16.
difficult
17.
than we might predict. Finally, table 21 contains the token frequencies in

the conversational data for the remainder of TSL handshapes. Of the final twenty-two handshapes, three are excluded, thirteen are difficult, and
six are easy. Again, the hypothesis seems to be confirmed.
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 166
Chapter Four
166
Table 16. Ease of Articulation of the Seventeen

Handshapes with Moderate Type Frequency
(Dictionary Data)
Handshapes
18.
difficult
19.
difficult
20.
easy
21.
easy
22.
difficult
23.
easy
24.
easy
25.
difficult
The numbers of the most frequent handshapes that are easy and the
numbers of the least frequent handshapes that are difficult, when looked
at in terms of type and token frequency, seem to clearly support the
claim that the most frequent handshapes are the easiest to articulate.
Probably the most egregious counterexample to this claim is the most
common handshape of allthe unspread flat hand. This handshape occurs in many signs, suggesting that it would have not only a high type
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 167
167

Handshapes
26.
difficult
27.
difficult
28.
difficult
29.
easy
30.
difficult
31.
difficult
32.
easy
33.
difficult
34.
easy
frequency but also a high token frequency, and it does. However, this
handshape is difficult to articulate.23 My system finds the handshape dif23. A similar handshape (see figure 3c) is considered easy. In this handshape,
all five fingers are bent. Because the whole hand participates, application of my criteria to the handshape leads to the handshape being considered easy to articulate,
although the fingers are unspread; it is physiologically impossible for a handshape
that is bent (flexed at the metacarpophalangeal joint) to be spread.
168
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 168
Chapter Four
Table 17. Ease of Articulation of the Handshapes with

Lowest Type Frequency (Dictionary Data)
Handshapes
difficult
35.
difficult
36.
difficult
37.
difficult
38.
difficult
39.
difficult
40.
difficult
41.
ficult to articulate because fingers that are extended or curved are naturally spread, and therefore, unspread fingers that are extended or curved
in handshapes accumulate points for being unspread, even if all the fingers participate in the unspread handshape.
This situation seems to point up a few issues. First, there has not yet
been a detailed enough study to find out whether the instances of this
handshape are really pronounced as unspread. Perhaps in conversational
9/1/06
12:49 PM
Page 169
169

Handshapes
easy
42.
difficult
43.
difficult
44.
difficult
45.
difficult
46.
difficult
47.
difficult
48.
difficult
49.
signing there is not much difference between the unspread 5 hand and
the spread 5 hand.
Second, assuming that the ease claims that I am making are correct, the situation of a difficult handshape that is frequent suggests that
there are more forces on the form of language than just ease of articulation. It might be suggested that the desire of the signer to produce
signs that look a certain way and that would be better represented with
6.
5.
4.
easy
easy
easy
12.
11.
10.
9.
easy
difficult
easy
difficult
difficult
easy
12:49 PM
3.
8.
7.
Handshapes (highest to
lowest type frequencies)
170
easy
easy
difficult
9/1/06
2.
1.
Table 18. Type Frequency and Ease of Articulation of Handshapes in Conversation Data
Page 170
Chapter Four
19.
18.
17.
difficult
easy
difficult
26.
25.
24.
23.
22.
21.
easy
difficult
difficult
difficult
easy
difficult
12:50 PM
16.
easy
difficult
easy
20.
difficult
9/1/06
15.
14.
13.
easy
Page 171
171
31.
30.
easy
difficult
36.
35.
34.
difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
12:50 PM
29.
33.
32.
172
difficult
excluded
difficult
9/1/06
28.
27.
Page 172
Chapter Four
42.
41.
difficult
difficult
48.
47.
46.
45.
44.
excluded
difficult
difficult
difficult
excluded
12:50 PM
40.
easy
excluded
difficult
43.
easy
9/1/06
39.
38.
37.
easy
Page 173
173
52.
difficult
56.
55.
difficult
easy
excluded
difficult
12:50 PM
51.
54.
53.
174
excluded
difficult
difficult
9/1/06
50.
49.
Page 174
Chapter Four
9/1/06
12:50 PM
Page 175
Table 19. Ease of Articulation of

Handshapes with the Highest Token Frequency
(Conversation Data)
Handshapes
difficult
1.
easy
2.
easy
3.
difficult
4.
easy
5.
easy
6.
easy
7.
difficult
8.
easy
9.
175
176
9/1/06
12:50 PM
Page 176
Chapter Four

Handshapes
easy
10.
difficult
11.
easy
12.
easy
13.
easy
14.
difficult
15.
difficult
16.
easy
17.
the unspread handshape is more important than the desire for ease. For
example, consider the TSL sign that means house (the sign represents
the two sides of a pointed roof with the fingers on both hands unspread).
Using spread handshapes for this sign might seem undesirable because
doing so might suggest that the roof is not solid. Rather than produce a
sign that suggests unintended connotations, signers choose the more
difficult sign.
9/1/06
12:50 PM
Page 177
Table 20. Ease of Articulation of Handshapes with

Moderate Token Frequency (Conversation Data)
Handshapes
difficult
18.
difficult
19.
easy
20.
easy
21.
easy
22.
difficult
23.
difficult
24.
difficult
25.
easy
26.
difficult
27.
177
178
9/1/06
12:50 PM
Page 178
Chapter Four

Handshapes
difficult
28.
difficult
29.
difficult
30.
excluded
31.
difficult
32.
excluded
33.
difficult
34.
Finally, it might also be that ease can be sacrificed in handshapes

with high type and token frequency precisely because they are practiced
so much by signers. (This idea is similar to the idea that frequent words
are often the most irregularfor example, the verb to be in English.) It
has been suggested that less frequent paradigms regularize whereas
more frequent ones do not because, using them so often, people get
more chances to keep the irregularity.24
24. I thank Jane Tsay, Jim Tai, James Myers, and the students in the graduate
Phonology and Frequency class at the National Chung Cheng University (NCCU)
in fall 2005 for discussion on this point.
9/1/06
12:50 PM
Page 179
Table 21. Ease of Articulation of Handshapes with

Lowest Token Frequency (Conversation Data)
Handshapes
difficult
35.
difficult
36.
difficult
37.
easy
38.
difficult
39.
easy
40.
easy
41.
easy
42.
difficult
43.
easy
44.
excluded
45.
179
180
9/1/06
12:50 PM
Page 180
Chapter Four

Handshapes
difficult
46.
difficult
47.
difficult
48.
difficult
49.
difficult
50.
excluded
51.
difficult
52.
difficult
53.
excluded
54.
easy
55.
difficult
56.
Concl_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 181
Conclusion
This book explores the connection between ease of articulation and frequency of occurrence of handshapes in Taiwan Sign Language (TSL).
Its central conclusion, based on what the evidence suggests, is that, although ease of articulation does not dictate frequency of occurrence, it
plays a significant role in helping to explain which handshapes are used
most frequently in TSL. The book focuses in depth on the crucial steps
that were taken to reach this conclusion: (a) proposing an independently
motivated theory of ease of articulation based on the physiology of the
hand, (b) determining both the type frequencies and the token frequencies of TSL handshapes, and (c) analyzing and comparing the results
of both investigations.
This work makes contributions in three areas. First, this work contributes to a better understanding of sign languages in general. Compared with what is known about spoken languages, very little is known
about sign languages, and even less is known about sign languages in
use outside North America and Europe. Perhaps the most central contribution of this work, then, is that it adds to what is known about one
of the sign languages we know the least about.
Second, this book makes a contribution with respect to the examination of frequency. Clearly, exploration by linguists and others of frequency effects in spoken languages is worthwhile. (As Morford and
MacFarlane, 2003, point out, psycholinguistic studies that do not control for frequency of the words being tested simply cannot be published.)
That exploration also is expected, therefore, to be as worthwhile to researchers who examine the structure of sign languages. As Wilbur (1999a)
181
182
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 182
Conclusion
notes, what we find depends partly on where we look. Studying corpora of various sign languages could yield heretofore unavailable results
that would help a great deal in understanding the structure of sign languages. Although this work examines type and token frequency effects
only insofar as they relate to ease of articulation, the expectation is that
these effects occur in other languages as they occur in TSL. Future work
will confirm whether these predictions are borne out.
Very few works except for those I cite in chapter 1 establish a natural sign language corpus and explain generalizations made from examination of the corpus. With respect to the data itself, the TSL corpus
I have used is as yet, of course, too small. This limitation cannot be
avoided now, but this book will likely spark interest and inspire mobilization of resources to establish a much larger corpus of TSL. The
process of data analysis involved transcribing TSL conversations and
then translating them from TSL to Chinese and English glosses. The
English transcriptions were then analyzed, using Smith and Tings
(1979, 1984) sign language manuals, to see what handshapes occur in
a given sign in isolation. This process may not be the best way to accomplish this task because the videotaped data cannot be used directly.
But as technology to do this sort of work improves, better procedures
will be established. This study serves to encourage future research.
Third, this book explores an under-studied aspect of TSL: its phonetics. Unfortunately, linguistic phenomena that fall under the phonetic
domain are sometimes characterized as unimportant. I have explained
that, in spoken language research, this lack of interest results in some
phonologists cultivating a particular disregard for phonetics, although
this situation is changing in many parts of the field. In sign language
research, this disregard has manifested somewhat differently: phonetics
and phonology are, in some sense, not separated ideologically because
phonetics, per se, has not received much attention to begin with. This
book takes a step in the right direction by considering how handshapes,
specifically those that show up in the inventory of TSL, are produced. It
is not concerned with the phonological processes that members of the
inventory may undergo. It does not examine the behavior of handshapes,
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 183
Conclusion
183
for example, in strings or in individual signs. It does not propose any

rules that relate one form of a handshape to another. It does not discuss
handshape variants. Thus, I consider it an example of phonetic research.
Using a phonetic approach, this book explores the idea of articulation and claims that we can establish which handshapes are more
effortful to produce. Perhaps the central problem with ease of articulation is that it is not often used in a rigorous manner. My work provides
a testable, explicit model of ease of articulation of handshapes. This
model allows us to characterize ease of articulation in handshapes rigorously. At the very least, then, we can potentially eliminate the circular thinking that associates ease of articulation with other properties of
language, for example, easy equals frequent and frequent equals easy,
or easy equals acquired first and acquired first equals easy.
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Future research stemming from this work could take three directions.
The first, most obvious direction to take is to make sure that this work
is extended to all handshapes in TSL and to all other handshapes in all
other sign languages. In this work, I consider only the one- and twogroup handshapes that are attested in TSL; therefore, a few TSL handshapes were excluded from consideration. Eventually, these should be
considered. Future researchers will need to uncover a mechanism with
which to decide the difficulty or ease of these handshapes. Likewise,
corpora of conversational data should be collected and studied in every
sign language. Type and token frequencies should be established for
handshapes and for other aspects of signs.
The second direction for future research is related to phonetics. The
literature review in chapter 1 makes clear that we need to know more
about sign language phonetics. A start in experimental sign phonetics
has already been made in works such as Wilcox (1992), Wilbur (1990,
1992), and Poizner, Klima, Bellugi, and Livingston (1986) in the sense
that various technologies have been used to answer questions about production and perception. At this point, these results have little to do with
184
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 184
Conclusion
the questions I address here, but our community of researchers should

think about how the kinematics, perception, and articulation of handshapes go together. In addition, psycholinguistic studies that seek to
establish whether there are frequency effects and ease effects, as well
as whether they can be teased apart, would be helpful.
At this stage, it seems unlikely that this study can make a direct contribution to the work in spoken language phonetics that seeks to characterize ease of articulation. However, if more attention to handshape
phonetics proves fruitful in future research, then the methods and theories of phonetic work in sign languages will advance. As this progress
occurs, sign language phonetics could well provide new insights for
spoken language phonetics. The modality difference between signed
and spoken languages may make study of phonetic properties of a sign
more accessible than it is in spoken languages. Even if the important
discoveries about the phonetics of sign languages can be made only by
examining underlying physical structures of the hand, experimental
work may still be easier to do on the hands and forearm than in the vocal tract. The lack of explicit information about handshape phonetics until this point has made it impossible to advance and support a model of
ease of articulationhence, the need for this book.
My model is a first step in this direction. Generally, I claim that the
aspects of the physiology that are important for handshape are (a) how
the fingers group together in flexion and extension, (b) what fingers do
in combination and alone, and (c) what configuration the fingers assume.
But the specific details of my proposal must be challenged. For example,
the physiological criteria I have isolated here might not be the correct
ones. Future research in this area may show that one or more of these
factors is not the most important for ease and that other factors should be
considered, which would support changing the criteria used to evaluate
ease. I considered only the carpometacarpal joint (the joint that connects
the hand to the wrist) and joints distal to that. Future work might take
into consideration the other two wrist jointsthe midcarpal joint (which
connects the distal and proximal rows of wrist bones to each other) and
the radiocarpal joint (which connects the wrist to the forearm)to see
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 185
Conclusion
185
whether these play a role in ease of articulation of handshapes. Further,

joints proximal to the wrist also could be of interest to sign language
researchers, as Crasborns (1995) work on orientation suggests. Finally,
the neurology relevant to the human hand, a criterion I excluded in this
work, should eventually be taken into consideration.
Moreover, additional motivation for all criteria remains to be uncovered. For example, are there experimental methods to measure how
much opposition exists in a given configuration? If there are and if they
show that the configurations really can be ranked in terms of ease, then
we could more confidently use the MOC criteria. The effects of all the
criteria also need to be experimentally verified.
The model I have proposed makes clear claims about the physiological effect of various anatomical structures in the hand. Because the
phonetics of sign languages will likely include analysis of hand and
forearm movements, linguists and kinesiologists would do well to
examine some of these issues together. In particular, two hypotheses
should be examined with respect to the juncturae tendinum. First, experiments should be conducted to determine whether my proposed juncturae tendinum effects (that the index and pinky fingers are freer than
the middle and ring fingers and that between the middle and ring, the
ring is the least free) occur for large numbers of people and whether
these effects should in fact be attributed to the juncturae tendinum.
Perhaps somewhat easier to test are claims that certain muscles are
used in the articulation of particular handshapes. These claims might
be verifiable by methods introduced in sources such as Basmajian
(1978) and Kendall, McCreary, and Kendall (1983) from the physiological literature. I also make claims about whether the use of these
muscles makes the handshapes easy or difficult. Testing these claims, of
course, depends on what the definition of ease is as well as whether
and how it can be tested. The agility of the radial compared with the
ulnar fingers also might be tested.
In addition, further testing and research could be conducted with respect to the actual mechanics of the model (i.e., the way the physiological criteria are expressed by the algorithms). For example, the algorithms
186
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 186
Conclusion
that I have used here to calculate the ease scores might not be correct. As
I acknowledge in chapter 3, other possible algorithms might be used to
arrive at an ease score. Reasons to choose one over another might be
established with further research in this area. Also, the numerical values
that I have assigned to the criteria may be incorrect. Perhaps scores
should be based on more than a yes or no and, consequently, a 1 or 0 distinction, as in this system. The criteria may need to be weighted differently than in this study where the MOC criterion counted more than others. Finally, the cutoffs that I have chosen might be incorrect; perhaps
more handshapes than just those with essentially nothing difficult about
them (i.e., the handshapes with scores of 0) should be considered easy.
With more work in this area, motivation to choose different cutoff points
may be uncovered.
Finally, the third direction for future research involves phonology.
Although this study is concerned with phonetics, it also stands to contribute to our understanding of sign language phonology. One of my
attempts here is to disentangle (at least in principle) phonetics and
phonology and to give a place to phonetics in its own right. This task is
important because how we do what we do has effects for persistent
questions that sign language researchers are facing, for example, what is
phonetics and what is phonology in sign languages? Many researchers
have noticed and commented (anecdotally and in their writing) on the
fact that the boundary between the phonology and the phonetics of sign
languages is hazy (see, e.g., Gee 1993; Brentari 1998). Of course, as in
spoken languages, phonetics and phonology interact very closely in sign
languages, and this fact explains some of the inability to consider them
separately. Nevertheless, the haziness persists in sign language research,
and it needs to be clarified.
In an attempt to understand more about the difference between
phonology and phonetics in sign languages, I tried to focus on explicating what the formal and functional approaches take to be the important
questions and ways to answer them. But as revealing as doing so can
be, it is not always easy to decide what perspective a piece of work takes.
Bybee (1999) writes that her work has been characterized as both func-
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 187
Conclusion
187
tionalist and antifunctionalist. It appears that this ambiguity will occur as

we talk about sign language research. As an example, consider Mandels
(1979) claim that the physiological fact of tenodesis causes signs with
path movement and opening handshape change to move in the direction
away from the signer and that similar signs with closing handshape
change to move toward the signer. Mandels problemWhat handshape
changes occur with what direction of path movement?leaves him trying to discover what goes with what. Finding answers to this question
is one of the ways that formal linguists make sense of data. But Mandels
strategy to solve the probleman appeal to anatomic constraintsis
something functional linguists would be more likely to adopt. From this
example alone, it should be clear that the interpretation of exactly what
our questions and results mean will likely be complicated. In this book,
I dichotomize formalism and functionalism to try and understand each
separately. In so doing, I likely made some things clearer as I made other
things more cloudy. Still, discussing our perspectives as linguists and
how those perspectives affect our questions as well as our methods to
find answers for them would push us forward in our quest to understand
not only sign languages but also language in general.
The question of what is phonetic and what is phonological in sign
languages is an important one. What we learn about articulation of
handshapes can potentially reduce the number of handshape phenomena
that phonology has to explain. We can examine the question of which
linguistic phenomena must be explained by reference to mental representations and which may be explained by aspects of the real world
(e.g., constraints of the articulators of sign languages, perceptual requirements). Questions remain: Will further study of handshape and
sign phonetics answer our questions? What will the phonetics fail to
explain? Will a particular phenomenon that phonetics fails to explain
be a candidate for a phonological explanation? Handshape phonology
and phonetics provide an opportunity to examine these questions.
Classical definitions hold that phonetics seeks to explain the physical properties of sounds whereas phonology is concerned both with explaining the behavior of the sounds in sound sequences and the mental
188
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 188
Conclusion
representation of sounds. Thus, we expect that handshapes have a

canonical, physical, or citation form (with which this research is largely
concerned), and that handshapes may assume various other forms when
they are acted on by phonology. These enterprises are clearly related,
and there is a movement to bring evidence from each to bear on the
other (Ohala and Jaeger 1986; Kingston and Beckman 1990; Ohala
1974, 1990, and other citations in chapter 1).
Although this book is not directly concerned with phonology, it has
implications for phonological theories that are responsive to the phonetics. I have shown that the physiology of the hand, wrist, and forearm is partially responsible for the handshape inventories and patterns
discussed in this work. The question remains as to whether or not the
physiological reasons behind these phenomena should be encoded in the
grammar. Consider the case of physically impossible handshapes. If
physiological information ought to be encoded in the grammar, then
there are several ways this encoding might be achieved.
First, consider a physically impossible handshape in which the ring
finger is extended with the rest of the fingers closed. We might advocate
the construction of a feature theory for handshapes that prevents combinations such as [extended] and [ring] from occurring because these
two features can never combine when the ring finger acts alone and
the rest of the fingers are closed. A theory such as this one might place
[extended] and [ring] in a feature geometry in a way that makes their
combination impossible. In this type of scenario, the physiological fact
that it is impossible to extend the ring finger when it acts alone would be
captured by the formal feature theory that disallowed the combination.
A second possibility, which is similar to the first that encodes physiological constraints in the grammar, is one that uses feature co-occurrence
constraints that are based on the phonetics. Grounding theory (Archangeli
and Pulleyblank 1994) is such a system. It allows features to combine
subject to phonetic constraints. For the handshape discussed above, a constraint such as *[extended] [ring] might be used in this type of system.
Again, the formal system of constraints on combinations encodes the
fact that the ring cannot extend when the other fingers are closed.
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 189
Conclusion
189
Optimality theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) is a phonological

theory of ranked constraints as opposed to rules. The rankings of the
constraints differ from language to language, and the constraints themselves are violable. Constraints interact within each language in different ways to derive outputs. Violations of highly ranked constraints are
costly. Phonological representations are arrived at by the way the constraints interact with one another. Optimality theory is widely regarded
as a theory of markedness (Boersma, Dekkers, and van de Weijer 2000).
Interested readers can find a much more detailed explanation in Prince
and Smolensky (1993). Within the framework of optimality theory, perhaps a feature combination such as [extended] [ring] could be ranked
as very high or excluded altogether.
But also relevant here is the issue of where the constraints come
from. Researchers have discussed the attempt within optimality theory
to constrain the set of constraints with independently motivated, functionally based principles, such as those notions of phonetic optimality
(informally) appealed to by Natural Phonology and other functionally
oriented traditions of linguistic analysis (Kirchner 2001, 19). Optimality theory accounts of sign language phenomena are not plentiful
(see Brentari 1998; Ann and Peng 2000). Ann and Peng (2000) attempted to base the constraints directly on the physiology. The work
presented here should be very helpful to accounts of handshape phenomena made from the perspective of optimality theory.
There is justification to assert that physiological information need
not be encoded in the grammar. Consider, for example, that the grammar
encodes only those aspects of the language that cannot be predicted
from anything else. Because physical impossibility can be explained in
the real world through physiology, information about physically impossible handshapes would not need to be encoded in the grammar. That
is, any handshape that is physically impossible would not be produced,
not because it was prevented from doing so by a feature geometry or a
theory of constraints, but rather, because such a handshape would simply
not be possible. The physiology itself, not a formal theory, is the explanation for why the handshape does not occur.
190
8/31/06
1:49 PM
Page 190
Conclusion
This book does not provide any evidence that enables us to choose
between these competing ideas. Whatever view of phonology is adopted,
however, this work can be drawn on for phonetic evidence for claims
about handshape features, feature geometries, and feature combinations.
For a long time, many linguists did not consider the ideas of articulation (and ease of articulation) and frequency to be very important.
But this perspective is changing. Phonologists and phoneticians who
work on spoken languages are bringing together different methods and
techniques as well as theoretical understandings (Hayes, Kirchner, and
Steriade 2004) to understand the sound systems in spoken languages. It
seems clear that researchers should make the same sorts of efforts in
studying sign languages and should begin to understand more about their
articulatory, acoustic (kinematic), and perceptual properties. Finally, it is
indisputable that frequency has important effects in virtually all areas
of spoken languages. It is time to consider that this possibility also exists
in sign languages as well. Natural language corpora must be developed,
and generalizations from these corpora must be explained. And as we
work, we ought to be aware enough of our approaches as linguists to
overtly discuss them, so they can be challenged and so our results can be
understood clearly in the context from which they emerged.
Ref_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 191
References
Abraham A. S., and L. Lisker. 1970. Discriminability along the voicing continuum: Cross language tests. In Proceedings of the Sixth International
Congress of Phonetic Science, 56973. Prague: Academia.
Anderson, S. 1981. Why phonology isnt natural. Linguistic Inquiry 12
(4):493539.
. 1985. Phonology in the twentieth century. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Ann, J. 1992a. Physiological constraints in Taiwan Sign Language handshapechange. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 15 (2):14357.
. 1992b. Physiological constraints on two-finger handshapes. In Papers
from the twenty-eighth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society,
ed. C. P. Canakis, G. P. Chan, and J. Marshall Denton, 111.
. 1993a. A linguistic investigation of physiology and handshape. Ph.D.
diss., Dept. of Linguistics, University of Arizona, Tucson.
. 1993b. Review of the phonetics of fingerspelling by Sherman Wilcox.
Language and Speech 36 (4):47175.
. 1996. On the relation between the difficulty and the frequency of
occurrence of handshapes in two sign languages. Lingua 98: 1941.
. 2005. A functional explanation of Taiwan Sign Language handshape
frequency. Language and Linguistics 6 (2):21745.
Ann, J., and B. L. Peng. 2000. Optimality theory and opposed handshapes in
Taiwan Sign Language. University of Rochester Working Papers in the
Language Sciences 1 (2):17394.
191
192
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 192
References
Archangeli, D., and D. Pulleyblank. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.
Baker, S. 2003. The perception of handshapes in American Sign Language.
Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Linguistics, University of Delaware, Newark.
Basmajian, J. V. 1978. Muscles alive! Their functions revealed by electromyography. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
Battison, R. 1974. Phonological deletion in American Sign Language. Sign
Language Studies 5: 119.
. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring,
MD: Linstok Press.
Boersma, P. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. Amsterdam: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
Boersma, P., J. Dekkers, and J. van der Weijer. 2000. Introduction to Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition, ed. J. Dekkers, F. van
der Leeuw, and J. van der Weijer. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bonvillian, J. D., and T. Siedlecki Jr. 2000. Young childrens acquisition of the
formational aspects of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 1
(1):4564.
Boyes-Braem, P. 1973. The acquisition of the dez (handshape) in American
Sign Language: A preliminary analysis. Salk Working Paper., Salk Institute, La Jolla, CA.
. 1981. Features of the handshape in American Sign Language. Ph.D.
diss., Dept. of Psychology, University of California at Berkeley.
. 1990. Acquisition of the handshape in American Sign Language: A
preliminary analysis. In From gesture to language in hearing and deaf
children, ed. V. Volterra and C. Erting, 10727. Springer Series in Language and Communication 27. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Brand, P. W. 1985. Clinical mechanics of the hand. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Brentari, D. 1988. Partial predictability in ASL handshape change. Paper presented at the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference
(TISLR), Gallaudet University, Washington DC.
. 1990. Theoretical foundations of American Sign Language phonology.
Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Linguistics, University of Chicago.
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 193
References
193
. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge MA:

MIT Press.
Brentari, D., H. van der Hulst, E. van der Kooij, and W. Sandler. 1996. One
over all and all over one: A model for the phonological representation of
handshape. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on
Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, University of Qubec and
McGill University, September, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Browman, C. P., and L. M. Goldstein. 1985. Dynamic modeling of phonetic
structure. In Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged,
ed. V. Fromkin, 3553. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
. 1986. Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3:
21952.
. 1990a. Gestural specification using dynamically-defined articulatory
structures. Journal of Phonetics 18: 299320.
. 1990b. Representation and reality: Physical systems and phonological structure. Journal of Phonetics 18: 41124.
. 1990c. Tiers in articulatory phonology with some implications for
casual speech. In Papers in laboratory phonology: Between the grammar
and the physics of speech, ed. J. Kingston and M. Beckman, 34176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49: 155
80.
. 1995. Gestural syllable position effects in American English. In Producing speech: Contemporary issues for Katherine Safford Harris, ed.
F. Bell-Berti and L. J. Raphael, 1934. Woodbury, NY: American Institute
of Physics.
Bybee, J. L. 1999. Usage-based phonology. In Functionalism and formalism in
linguistics. Vol. 1, General papers, ed. M. Darnell, E. Moravcsik,
F. Newmeyer, M. Noonan, and K. Wheatley, 21142. Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion.
In Usage-based models of language, ed. M. Barlow and S. Kemmer, 65
85. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information
(CSLI) Publications.
194
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 194
References
. 2001a. Frequency effects on French liaison. In Frequency and the

emergence of linguistic structure, ed. J. Bybee and P. Hopper, 21142.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 2001b. Phonology and language use. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J., and P. Hopper, ed. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chang, J., S. Su, and J. H-Y Tai. 2005. Classifier predicates reanalyzed, with
special reference to Taiwan Sign Language. Language and Linguistics
6 (2):24778.
Cheek, D. A. 2001. The phonetics and phonology of handshape in American
Sign Language. Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Linguistics, University of Texas at
Austin.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Chomsky, N., and M. Halle. 1968. Sound pattern of English. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Corina, D. 1990. Reassessing the role of sonority in syllable structure: Evidence from a visual gestural language. In Papers from the twenty-sixth
regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Vol. 2, The parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology, ed. M. Ziolkowski,
M. Noske, and K. Deaton, 3344. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
Corina, D., and E. Sagey. 1988. Predictability in ASL handshapes with implications for feature geometry. San Diego, CA: Salk Institute and University
of California at San Diego.
. 1989. Are phonological hierarchies universal? Evidence from American Sign Language. In Proceedings of the Sixth Eastern States Conference
on Linguistics (ESCOL), ed. K. DeJong and Y. No, 7383. Columbus, OH:
Ohio State University Press.
Crasborn, O. 1995. Articulatory symmetry in two-handed signs. MA thesis,
Department of Linguistics, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Darnell, M., E. Moravcsik, F. Newmeyer, M. Noonan, and K. Wheatley, ed.
1999. Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Vol. 1, General papers.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
De Saussure, F. 1916. Cours de linguistique gnral. Paris: Payot.
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 195
References
195
Donegan, P. 1985. On the natural phonology of vowels. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series. New York: Garland.
Dressler, W. U., and M. Ladnyi. 2000. Productivity in word formation (WF):
A morphological approach. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47 (14):10344.
Ellis, N. C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 (2):14388.
Fahrer, M. 1981. Interdependent and independent actions of the fingers. In
The hand, ed. R. Tubiana, 399403. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Francis, W. N., and H. Kucera. 1982. Frequency analysis of English usage.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Galley, P. M., and A. L. Forster. 1987. Human movement: An introductory
text for physiotherapy students. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
Gay, T., B. Lindblom, and J. Lubker. 1981. Production of bite-block vowels:
Acoustic equivalence by selective compensation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69 (3):80210.
Gee, J. 1993. Reflections on the nature of ASL and the development of ASL
linguistics: Comments on Corinas article. In Phonetics and phonology.
Vol. 3, Current issues in ASL phonology, ed. G. Coulter, 97101. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Halverson, H. M. 1937. Studies on the grasping response of early infancy.
Journal of Genetic Psychology 51: 393424.
Hare, M. L., M. Ford, and W. D. Marslen-Wilson. 2001. Frequency effects and
the representation of regular verbs. In Frequency and the emergence of
linguistic structure, ed. J. Bybee and P. Hopper, 181200. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, M. 2000. Why cant we talk to each other? Lingua 110: 23555.
Hayes, B. P. 1999. Phonetically driven phonology: The role of optimality
theory and inductive grounding. In Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Vol. 1, General papers, ed. M. Darnell, E. Moravcsik, F.
Newmeyer, M. Noonan, and K. Wheatley, 24385. Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
. 2001. Gradient well-formedness in optimality theory. In Optimality
theory phonology, syntax, and acquisition, ed. J. Dekkers, F. van der
Leeuw, and J. van de Weijer, 88120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
196
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 196
References
Hayes, B., R. Kirchner, and D. Steriade, ed. 2004. Phonetically based phonology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hentschel, G., and T. Mendel. 2002. Marker productivity, structural preferences and frequency: Observations about morphological change in
Slavonic. Indogermanische Forschungen 107: 146.
Hulst, H. van der. 1995. The composition of handshapes. Trondheim Working
Papers 23:117.
Jakobson, R. 1968. Child language, aphasia and phonological universals. The
Hague: Mouton.
Jakobson, R., G. Fant, and M. Halle. 1951/1972. Preliminaries to speech
analysis. Repr. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Keating, P. 1996. The phonetics-phonology interface. University of California Working Papers in Phonetics 92: 4560.
Kegl, J., and R. Wilbur. 1976. When does structure stop and style begin? Syntax, morphology and phonology vs. stylistic variation in ASL. In Papers
from the 12th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 2325,
ed. S. S. Mufwene, S. Steever, and C. Walker, 2432. Chicago: Chicago
Linguistics Society.
Kemmer, S., and M. Barlow. 2000. Introduction: A usage-based conception
of language. In Usage-based models of language, ed. M. Barlow and
S. Kemmer, viixxvii. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language
and Information (CSLI) Publications.
Kendall, F. P., E. K. McCreary, and H. O. Kendall. 1983. Muscles, testing and
function. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
Kingston, J., and M. Beckman, ed. 1990. Papers in laboratory phonology:
Between the grammar and the physics of speech. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kirchner, R. 2001. An effort based approach to consonant lenition. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series. New York: Routledge.
Klima, E., and U. Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Labov, W. 1994. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1, Internal factors. Language in Society Series 20. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ladefoged, P. 1984. A course in phonetics. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace
Jovanovich.
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 197
References
197
. 1990. Some reflections on the IPA. Journal of Phonetics 18:

33546.
Lane, H., P. Boyes-Braem, and U. Bellugi. 1976. Preliminaries to a distinctive feature analysis of handshapes in American Sign Language. Cognitive
Psychology 8: 26389.
Liddell, S., and R. E. Johnson. 1986. American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization and phonological remnants. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 445513.
. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64: 195277.
Lindblom, B. 1983. The economy of speech gestures. In The production of
speech, ed. P. F. MacNeilage, 21745. New York: Springer Verlag.
. 1990. On the notion of possible speech sound. Journal of Phonetics 18: 13552.
. 1992. Phonological units as adaptive emergents of lexical development. In Phonological development: Models, research, implications, ed.
C. Ferguson, L. Menn, and C. Stoel-Gammon, 13163. Timonium, MD:
York Press.
. 1998. Systematic constraints and adaptive change in the formation of
sound structure. In Approaches to the evolution of language, ed. J. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy, and C. Knight, 24264. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
. 2000. Developmental origins of adult phonology: The interplay between phonetic emergents and the evolutionary adaptations of sound patterns. Phonetica 57 (24):297314.
Lindblom, B., and I. Maddieson. 1988. Phonetic universals in consonant systems. In Language, speech, and mind, ed. L. Hyman and C. Li, 6278.
New York: Routledge.
Lindblom, B., and J. Sundberg. 1971. Acoustic consequences of lip, tongue,
jaw and larynx movement. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
50: 116679.
Locke, J. L. 1983. Phonological acquisition and change. New York: Academic
Press.
. 1993. The childs path to spoken language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
198
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 198
References
Loncke, F. 1984. On the interface between sign phonology and kinesiology.

In Recent research on European sign languages, ed. F. Loncke, P. BoyesBraem, and Y. Lebrun, 12936. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and
Zeitlinger.
Lupton, L., and H. Zelaznik. 1990. Motor learning in sign language students.
Sign Language Studies 67: 15374.
MacConaill, M. A., and J. V. Basmajian. 1969. Muscles and movements: A
basis for human kinesiology. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
Maddieson, I. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
. 1998. Why make life hard? Resolutions to problems of rare and difficult sound types. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society, February, Berkeley, CA.
Mandel, M. A. 1979. Natural constraints in sign language phonology: Data
from anatomy. Sign Language Studies 24: 21529.
. 1981. Phonotactics and morphophonology in ASL. Ph.D. diss.,
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.
. 1982. Point of contact in the basehand of type 3 signs of American
Sign Language. Working paper, Northeastern University, Boston.
Mathur, G., and C. Rathmann. 2000. Why not GIVE-US: An articulatory constraint in signed languages. In Current trends in international sign language research, ed. V. Dively, M. Metzger, S. Taub, and A. Baer, 126.
Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.
McIntire, M. 1977. The acquisition of American Sign Language hand configurations. Sign Language Studies 16: 24766.
Meier, R. P., C. Mauk, G. R. Mirus, and K. Conlin. 1998. Motoric constraints
on early sign acquisition. In Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual Child
Language Research Forum, ed. E. V. Clark, 6372. San Jose, CA: Stanford University.
Miller G. A., and P. E. Nicely. 1955. An analysis of perceptual confusions
among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 27: 33952.
Miyawaki, K., W. Strange, R. R. Verbrugge, A. M. Liberman, J. J. Jenkins, and
O. Fujimura. 1975. An effect of linguistic experience: The discrimination
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 199
References
199
of [r] and [l] by native speakers of Japanese and English. Perception and
Psychophysics 18: 33140.
Morford, J. P. and J. MacFarlane. 2003. Frequency characteristics of American
Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 3 (2):213225.
Moy, A. 1990. A psycholinguistic approach to categorizing handshapes in
American Sign Language: Is [As] an allophone of /A/? In Sign language
research: Theoretical issues, ed. C. Lucas, 34657. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
Myers, J., H. Lee, and J. Tsay. 2005. Phonological production in Taiwan Sign
Language. Language and Linguistics 6 (2):31060.
Myers, S, 1997. Expressing phonetic naturalness in phonology. In Derivations
and constraints in phonology, ed. I. Roca, 12552. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Napier, J. 1980. Hands. New York: Pantheon Books.
Nathan, G. S. 1982. Natural phonology interference in second language acquisition. In The uses of phonology, ed. G. S. Nathan and M. Winters, 103
13. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
. 1994. How the phoneme inventory gets its shape: Cognitive grammars view of phonological systems. Rivista di Linguistica 6 (2):27587.
Nelson, W. L., J. S. Perkell, and J. R. Westbury. 1984. Mandible movements
during increasingly rapid articulations of single syllables: Preliminary observations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 75: 94551.
Newmeyer, F. J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge MA:
MIT Press.
Ohala, J. J. 1974. Phonetic explanation in phonology. In Papers from the
parasession on natural phonology, ed. A. Bruck, R. A. Fox, M. W. La
Galy, 25174. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
. 1975. Phonetic explanations for nasal sound patterns. In Nasalfest:
Papers from a Symposium on Nasals and Nasalization, ed. C. A. Ferguson, L. M. Hyman, and J. J. Ohala, 289316. Stanford, CA: Language Universals Project.
. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. In Papers from the
parasession on language and behavior, ed. C. S. Masek, R. A. Hendrick,
and M. F. Miller, 178203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
200
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 200
References
. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In The

production of speech, ed. P. F. MacNeilage, 189216.
. 1990. There is no interface between phonology and phonetics: A
personal view. Journal of Phonetics 18: 15371.
. 1992. Whats cognitive, whats not in sound change. Lingua e Stile
27 (3):32162.
. 1993. Sound change as natures speech perception experiment. Speech
Communication 13: 15561.
Ohala, J., and J. J. Jaeger, ed. 1986. Experimental phonology. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
hman, S. E. G. 1966. Perception of segments of VCCV utterances. Journal of
the Acoustical Society of America 40: 97988.
Padden, C. A., and D. Perlmutter. 1987. American Sign Language and the
architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 5: 33575.
Passy P. 1891. Etude sur les changements phonetiques et leurs caracteres
generaux. Paris: Librairie Firmin-Didot.
Perlmutter, D. 1992. Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry 23 (3):40742.
Phillips, B. S. 2001. Lexical diffusion, lexical frequency and lexical analysis.
In Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. J. Bybee and
P. Hopper, 12336. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pierrehumbert, J. 1990. Phonological and phonetic representation. Journal of
Phonetics 18: 37594.
. 1999a. Formalizing functionalism. In Functionalism and formalism in
linguistics. Vol. 1, General papers, ed. M. Darnell, E. Moravcsik,
F. Newmeyer, M. Noonan, and K. Wheatley, 287304. Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
. 1999b. What people know about sounds of language. Studies in the
Linguistic Sciences 29 (2):11120.
. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In
Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. J. Bybee and
P. Hopper, 13757. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pierrehumbert, J., M. Beckman, and D. R. Ladd. 1996. Laboratory phonology. In Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, ed. J. Du-
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 201
References
201
rand and B. Laks, 53548. Salford, UK: European Studies Research

Institute.
Poizner, H. 1983. Perception of movement in American Sign Language: Effects of linguistic structure and linguistic experience. Perceptions and Psychophysics 33(3): 21531.
Poizner, H., E. Klima, and U. Bellugi. 1987. What the hands reveal about the
brain. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Poizner, H., U. Bellugi, and V. Lutes-Driscoll. 1981. Perception of American
Sign Language in dynamic point-light displays. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 7(2): 43040.
Poizner, H., E. S. Klima, U. Bellugi, and R. B. Livingston. 1986. Motion analysis of grammatical processes in a visual-gestural language. In Motion:
Representation and perception, ed. N. I. Badler and J. K. Tsotsos. New
York: North-Holland.
Prince, A., and P. Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction
in generative grammar. Working paper, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ, and University of Colorado at Boulder.
. 1997. Optimality: From neural networks to universal grammar. Science
275: 160410.
Romanes, G. J. (ed.). 1981. Cunninghams textbook of anatomy. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Sandler, W. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.
. 1993. Sign language handshapes and markedness. Working paper,
University of Haifa, Israel.
. 1996. Representing handshapes. International Review of Sign Linguistics 1: 11558.
Schane, S. 1973. Generative phonology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schenck, R. R. 1964. Variations of the extensor tendons of the fingers. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 46-A (1):10310.
Siedlecki, T., Jr., and J. D. Bonvillian. 1993. Location, handshape and movement: Young childrens acquisition of the formational aspects of American
Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 78 (Spring):3152.
Siple, P. 1978. Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign
Language Studies 7 (19):95110.
202
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 202
References
Smith, W. H., and L. Ting. 1979. Shou neng sheng chyau: Sign language manual, (Your hands can become a bridge), vol. 1. Taipei, Taiwan: Deaf Sign
Language Research Association of the Republic of China.
. 1984. Shou neng sheng chyau: Sign language manual (Your hands can
become a bridge), vol. 2. Taipei, Taiwan: Deaf Sign Language Research
Association of the Republic of China.
Stampe, D. 1979. A dissertation on natural phonology. New York: Garland.
Stevens, K. N. 1971. Airflow and turbulence noise for fricative and stop consonants: Static considerations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 50 (4, part 2): 118092.
Stokoe, W. C. 1978. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. Studies in Linguistics: Occasional
Papers 8, (rev. ed.). Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
Stokoe W. C., D. Casterline, and C. G. Croneberg. 1965. A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok
Press. (Orig. pub. 1974.)
Stungis, J. 1981. Identification and discrimination of handshape in American
Sign Language. Perception and Psychophysics 29 (3):26176.
Tai, J. H-Y. To appear. Modality effects: Iconicity in Taiwan Sign Language.
In Festschrift in celebration of Professor William S.-Y. Wangs Seventieth
birthday, 1936. Taipei, Taiwan: Academia Sinica.
Tennant, R. and M. G. Brown. 1998. The American Sign Language handshape
dictionary. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Trubetzkoy, N. 1939. Principles of phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Tubiana, R. (ed.). 1981. The hand, vol. 1. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Tubiana, R., J.-M. Thomine, and E. Mackin. 1996. Examination of the hand
and wrist, 2d ed. London: Martin Dunitz Press.
Uyechi, L. 1996. The geometry of visual phonology. Dissertations in Linguistics Series. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.
Wells, K. F. 1966. Kinesiology: The scientic basis of human motion. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Wells, K., and K. Luttgens. 1976. Kinesiology: The scientific basis of human
motion, 6th ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 203
References
203
Westbury, J. R., and P. Keating. 1986. On the naturalness of stop consonant

voicing. Journal of Linguistics 22: 14566.
Wilbur, R. B. 1978. On the notion of derived segments in American Sign Language. Communication and Cognition 11 (1): 79104.
. 1987. American Sign Language, 2d ed. Boston: Little, Brown.
. 1990. Why syllables? What the notion means for ASL research. In
Theoretical issues in sign language research. Vol. 1, Linguistics, ed. S. D.
Fischer and P. Siple, 81108. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. 1993. Syllables and segments: Hold the movement and move the
holds! In Phonetics and phonology. Vol. 3, Current issues in ASL phonology, ed. G. Coulter, 13568. San Diego: Academic Press.
. 1999a. A functional journey with a formal ending: What do brow
raises do in American Sign Language? In Functionalism and formalism
in linguistics. Vol. 1, General papers, ed. M. Darnell, E. Moravcsik, F.
Newmeyer, M. Noonan, and K. Wheatley, 294314. Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
. 1999b. Stress in ASL: Empirical evidence and linguistic issues.
Language and Speech 42 (23):22950.
Wilbur, R., and G. D. Allen. 1991. Perceptual evidence against internal structure in American Sign Language syllables. Language and Speech 34
(1):2746.
Wilcox, S. 1992. The phonetics of fingerspelling. Philadelphia: Johns Benjamins.
Willerman, R. 1991. The phonetics of pronouns: A typological perspective.
Working paper, University of Texas at Austin.
. 1994. The phonetics of pronouns: Articulatory bases of markedness.
Ph.D. diss., Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.
Woodward, J. 1982. Single finger extension: For a theory of naturalness in sign
language phonology. Sign Language Studies 37: 289303.
. 1985. Universal constraints on two-finger extension across sign languages. Sign Language Studies 46: 5372.
. 1987. Universal constraints across sign languages: Single finger contact handshapes. Sign Language Studies 57: 37585.
Zipf, G. K. 1935. The Psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic
philology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8/31/06
1:50 PM
Page 204
Index_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet
8/31/06
9:12 AM
Page 205
Index
Note. Italicized numbers indicate artwork.
abduction, 46, 61, 66, 68, 80, 97; anatomy

and, 7983; definition of, 78
Abraham, A. S., 36
acoustics, 6, 19, 28, 30; relation to
handshape kinematics, 49
adduction, 61, 66, 68, 88, 97; anatomy and,
7983
Allen, G. D., 25
allophones, 8, 5152
American Sign Language, 1, 42, 46, 51, 52;
configurations in, 31; distinctive features
of, 36; handshapes, 26, 29; order of
acquisition, 4041; movement and,
4748; phonetics of, 3335; phonological
features of, 3536; and signing space, 47;
signs, 26; sign frequency and, 54, 77, 140;
weak drop in, 48
anatomy: constraints on linguistic structure,
4; ease of articulation and, 3941; of the
hand, 34; implications for sign language
handshapes, 6386; versus physiology, 56
Anderson, S., 14
Ann, J., 25, 38, 49, 54, 55, 140, 203
antagonism, 15, 57; in configurations of
handshapes, 8993
Archangeli, D., 89
arm, 43, 47, 48
articulation: ease of, 3435, 3942, 4546,

54; and the grammar of sign languages,
44; and handshapes, 23, 2627, 4243;
and speech sounds, 1223; and sonority,
49, 87, 144, 197
articulators, 38, 193, 201; vocal, 1518; in
sign language, 2628
asymmetries, 7, 24, 48, 63, 84
Baker, S., 5051
Barlow, M., 9
Battison, R., 2527
Bellugi, U., 32, 35, 36, 42, 4748
bite-block studies, 1516, 89; and
compensatory articulation, 15; implication
for ease of articulation, 1516;
supershapes and, 15, 89
bivalent features, 31, 32
bones: of the fingers (phalanges), 5859,
69, 79, 8283; of the forearm (radius and
ulna), 61; and joints, 5964; of the palm
(metacarpus), 59; of the wrist (carpal),
59, 60, 61
Bonvillian, J. D., 43, 54
Boyes-Braem, P., 32, 35, 36, 96; stages of
handshape acquisition, 3943
Brentari, D., 25, 28n7, 30, 32, 38, 4849, 51
205
8/31/06
206
9:12 AM
Page 206
Index
Browman, C. P., 17
Bybee, J. L., 5, 10, 11, 17
carpometacarpal joints, 78, 81, 83;
description of, 6163; and ease of
articulation, 184; of the fingers, 6164,
8081, 84, 96; relation to the index and
middle metacarpals, 64; of the thumb, 61,
78, 84
Casterline, D., 46, 51
categorical perception, 50, 51
Cheek, D. A., 50
Chomsky, N., 4
circularity, 13, 14, 26
classifiers, 54
coarticulation, 49, 50, 89
collateral ligaments, 79, 80
compensatory articulation, 15
consonants, 17, 19, 20
constraints, 4, 8, 25, 26, 29; on handshapes,
141, 18788; visual, 47, 49
Corina, D., 31, 33, 37, 38
Croneberg, C. G., 46, 47, 51
Dictionary of American Sign Language
(Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg),
46, 54
dominance condition 25, 26, 27
Donegan, P., 2122
ease of articulation, 1215, 35, 54; anatomy
and, 3941; bite-block studies and,
1516; definition of, 14; diachronic sound
change and, 22; and least effort, 12, 16;
language acquisition and, 2022; and
markedness, 13; and maximal clarity, 12;
in phonology, 14; ranking and, 89101,
speech sounds, 18; in TSL, 14480;
theory with handshapes, 18
ease score, 87, 138; calculating, 10612,
charting, 11236; definition of, 87;
determining, 1024, rationale for, 1046
extension, and adduction, 81; finger, 50, 52
53, 57, 80, 84; hierarchy, 3435; of the

hand, 5770, 77, 78; juncturae tendium,
7072; curved configuration, 76, bent
configuration and, 76; support for, 9495,
99; 1012
feature geometry, 3739
finger position constraint (Mandel), 87n1
fingerspelling: acoustic phonetics and, 49
fist, 63, 72, 77, 93, 140
flexion, 31, 35, 66, 7273, 1012; and
adduction, 8081; of the fingers, 7478,
140; support for, 89, 9596, 1067; of the
thumb, 7374
flexors, 45, 7276, 8486, 9093
forearm, 18485, 199; joints and, 38, 45, 57;
muscles of, 67, 74, 75; wrist and, 59, 61
formal linguistics, 7, 8; and asymmetries, 7,
24; and markedness, 8; and obstruents, 8;
and sign language, 2425
fricatives, 16, 18
functional linguistics, 9; and frequency of
occurrence, 912; and sign language, 23
functionalism, 3, 5, 6, 201
gestures, 1, 15, 17
gestural scores, 17
Goldstein, L. M., 17
grounding theory, 7
grammar 4, 7; in sign language, 25, 44,
18889
hand, 2426; bones of, 5859;
configurations of, 3031, 45, 57; joints,
5964; juncturae tendium and, 7072;
muscles of, 6470, 9093
handshape: acquisition of, 27, 3944;
adjacency convention and, 30, 34;
anatomy and, 5758; antagonism and, 90;
categorical perception and, 5051;
configurations, 3139, 8889, 9293;
constraints and, 25, 47; constructs and,
2425; definition of, 12, 8788; ease of
8/31/06
9:12 AM
Page 207
Index
articulation, 2, 3, 18; features of, 3639;

flexion hierarchy, 35; frequency of
occurrence, 7, 5255, 14344; kinematics,
49; muscle opposition in, 8993; onegroup, 97, 98, 99100, 1067, 144, 146,
147; opposition hierarchy, 35; and path
movement, 44, 45; phonological rules
and, 25; properties of, 27, 53; synergy
and, 90; two-group, 9799, 106, 1078,
144, 146, 147; variation and, 49
Hayes, B. P., 8
Hopper, P., 5, 10
Hulst, H., van der, 38
intrinsic muscles, 76
Israeli Sign Language: markedness and, 53
Johnson, R. E., 32
joints, 31, 5986, 96, 101; distal, 3334, 44;
and feature geometry, 38; proximal,
3334, 43, and tenodesis, 4445, 47
juncturae tendinum, 35, 66, 7072, 85n18,
199; and the support for extension
criterion, 9495
Keating, P., 13, 16
Kegl, J., 30
Kemmer, S., 9
kinematics, 26, 27, 44, 47, 184
kinesiology, 26, 4647
Klima, E., 48, 183
knuckle, 3132, 38, 59, 6061, 7981, 83
Ladefoged, P., 13
Lane, H., 32, 36, 42
language acquisition, 20, 21
lenitions 20, 21
Liddell, S., 32
Lindblom, B., 13, 14, 18n4, 19, 89
linguistics 5, 8, 9, 143
Locke, J. L., 20
Loncke, F., 47
lumbricals, 6970, 74, 76, 91
207
Lupton, L., 48
Lutes-Driscoll, V., 4748
Maddieson, I., 12n1, 19
Mandel, M. A., 3335, 3738, 4546,
79n17, 96, 187; finger position constraint,
87n1, 140
markedness, 8, 9, 13, 189
Mathur, G., 44
MacFarlane, J., 54
McIntire, M., 4243
Meir, R. P., 43
Miller, G. A., 3536
Miyawaki, K., 36
muscle opposition criterion, 8994, 9899,
1026, 108, 11314
Morford, J. P., 54
Moy, A., 51
muscles: anatomy of, 6466; of the fingers,
7276, 82, 85, 8992, 95; movement and,
5657; and tenodesis, 4446; of the
thumb, 6567
Nathan, G. S., 20, 22
Nelson, W. L., 17
Newmeyer, F. J., 4, 5
Nicely, P. E., 3536
Ohala, J. J., 17, 2223
opponens: digiti minimi 35, 79, 82, 96;
pollicis, 7879, 8283, 96
opposition, 101, 185; hierarchy and, 3435;
of muscles, 8994, 105; and the thumb,
66, 74, 7879, 96
Padden, C. A., 25
palm, 57, 62, 77, 96; bones of, 57, 60;
movement, 4546, orientation, 12, 38,
tendons of, 68
Perkell, J. S., 17
Perlmutter, D., 25
phalanges, 5859
8/31/06
208
9:12 AM
Page 208
Index
phonetics, 12, 13; of fingerspelling, 49; and

phonology, 67, 28, 89; sign language
and, 3233, 4748, 18388; and TSL,
18283
phonology, 6; articulatory, 6, 17; ease of
articulation in, 14; features and, 2728;
grounded, 89, laboratory, 6; natural,
2022; processes, 20; and sign language,
13, 25, 32, 200
Pierrehumbert, J., 9
pinky finger, 84, 8788, 95, 97, 102;
abduction and, 82; and acquisition of
handshapes, 3942; extensor tendons and,
7172, 8485; flexion and, 7475; joints,
6364, 96; opposition and, 79; opposition
hierarchy and, 3435; and ulnar node, 37
Poizner, H., 4748
Prince, A., 189
Pulleyblank, D., 89
radiocarpal joints, 61, 63, 184
Rathmann, C., 44
Sagey, 31, 38
Sandler, W., 25, 31, 37n11, 38, 53
Saussure, F. de, 4
segments, 8, 1213, 21, 24
Siedlecki, T., Jr., 43, 54
sign language, 2325, 28, 51; anatomy and,
26, 8386; acquisition of, 43; features of,
2829, 3639; formal approaches to, 24
25; functional approaches to, 2627;
grammar of, 44; phonology, 24; research,
23; symmetry and dominance conditions
theory, 26; and visual constraints, 47; and
weak drop, 48
signs: anatomy and, 27, 38, 4344, 4647,
50; constraints and, 25; frequency, 5455;
and handshapes, 14143, 16667; parts

of, 1, 2325
Siple, P., 47
Smith, W. H., 2, 54, 139, 14143
sonority, 4849
sounds, 8, 1217, 36, 50; categorical
perception and, 50; phonology and,
2728; 18788; speech, 1823, 3536
space, 37, 44, 59, 79, 81; signing and, 24,
46, 47
[spread] feature, 3738
spontaneous voicing, 16
Stokoe, W. C., 46, 47, 51
stops, 18
Stungis, J., 36
Sundberg, J., 89
supershapes, 15, 16, 89
symmetry, 9, 11, 25
symmetry and dominance conditions theory,
2527
Taiwan Sign Language: handshapes and, 2
3, 25, 4445, 5455, 13880, 18183,
195, 197
tendons: extensor, 56, 6869, 69, 72; and
muscles, 64, 65, 67, juncturae tendinum,
7072; of the fingers, 7475, 8085
tenodesis: definition of, 4446, 79n17. See
wrist
token frequency, 10, 182; definition of, 11
12; in TSL, 139; 14345, 148, 158, 163
79
type frequency, 5455, 148; definition of,
1011; of TSL handshapes, 13944, 148,
14962
Uyechi, L., 24, 33
8/31/06
9:12 AM
Page 209
Index
vowels, 18
Westbury, J. R., 13, 16, 17
Wilbur, R. B., 23, 37n12, 181, 183;
adjacency convention, 30; construct of
syllable, 25
Wilcox, S., 47, 49
Willerman, R., 13, 14n3, 17, 18, 19, 20n5, 26
209
Woodward, J., 5253

wrist, 38, 43, 88; bones of, 5859; joints of,
6164, physiological result of the
carpometacarpal joint, 6383; and
tenodesis, 4446
Zelaznik, H., 48
Zipf, G. K., 9
8/31/06
9:12 AM
Page 210

Jean Ann - Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Sign Language Handshapes - The Taiwanese Example

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Jean Ann - Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Sign Language Handshapes - The Taiwanese Example

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

FM_8033_JeanAnn_Gallaudet

Gallaudet University Press

Gallaudet University Press

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of

American National Standard for Information SciencesPermanence of Paper for

To my mother, Marian Jeanne Savoca Griffin, and the memory

Contextualizing this Book

The Anatomy and Physiology

Chapter Three A Model of Ease of

Ishihara, David Basilico, Raquel Mejia, Jorge Lemus, Lee Fulmer,

James Myers and Jane Tsay of the Graduate Institute in Linguistics at

Creative Activities award from S.U.N.Y. Oswego that freed up some

Contextualizing this Book

Contextualizing this Book

APPROACHES TO LINGUISTIC STUDY

a functional analysis (Newmeyer 1998). Nevertheless, it is possible to

Contextualizing this Book

In the thinking of many functional linguists, a sentence such as that one

Contextualizing this Book

Contextualizing this Book

and discourse patterns (Bybee 2000), and second language acquisition

All of these findings lead to a conclusion stated by Bybee and Hopper

Contextualizing this Book

2. Maddieson (1998) recasts older formulations of articulatory ease and

Contextualizing this Book

transcription has no real status in phonetics, . . . there is no reason to

Even if we had answers to these two problems, there is still the

HOW EASE OF ARTICULATION MIGHT BE CHARACTERIZED

3. As Willerman (1994) explains, A problem of circularity arises when the

Contextualizing this Book

Departure from the NormalNeutral Position

The bite-block studies.

the normal shape? The researchers conclude that it must be because

and stops (such as [b]), but producing

Contextualizing this Book

crease in velocity is associated with greater force, or more effort. Nelson,

Greater Degrees of Articulatory Precision Indicate Difficulty

It ought to be clear that construction of a model to determine what

Contextualizing this Book

1. Aspects of inventories of linguistic sounds

2. Aspects of first and second language acquisition

Contextualizing this Book

Lenitions get rid of sounds or sound sequences in service of making

Because processes are universal, proponents of natural phonology claim

Donegan further explains that, sometimes, speakers substitute not one

Contextualizing this Book

articulatory account of assimilation in favor of a perceptual one, though

Contextualizing this Book

FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING SIGN LANGUAGES

Contextualizing this Book

movement (whether performed simultaneously or in alternation),

As Brentari (1998) says, The symmetry and dominance conditions

logical features are hypothesized to have two possible sources: acoustic

7. A striking difference noticed by researchers (Corina and Sagey 1988;

Contextualizing this Book

Which fingers work together?

Contextualizing this Book

What configurations can fingers assume?

Contextualizing this Book

Figure 4 Examples of handshapes according to the number of fingers

Rather, he seems to be attempting to capture the idea that four-finger

Contextualizing this Book

Contextualizing this Book

Contextualizing this Book