An Introduction to Embodied Cognitive Phonology: Claw-5 Hand-shape Distribution in ASL and Libras

Abstract

Abstract. While the arbitrariness of the sign has occupied a central space in linguistic theory for a century, counter-evidence to this basic tenet has been mounting. Recent findings from cross-linguistic studies on spoken languages have suggested that, contrary to purely arbitrary distributions of phonological content, languages often exhibit systematic and regular phonological and sub-phonological patterns of form-meaning mappings. To date, studies of distributional tendencies of this kind have not been conducted for signed languages.In an investigation of phoneme distribution in American Sign Language (ASL) and Língua Brasileira de Sinais (Libras), tokens of the claw-5 handshape were extracted and analyzed for whether the handshape contributed to the overall meaning of the sign. The data suggests that distribution of the claw-5 handshape is not randomly distributed across the lexicon, but clusters around six formmeaning patterns: convex-concave, Unitary-elements, non-compact matter, hand-as-hand, touch, and interlocking. Interestingly, feature-level motivations were uncovered as the source of the mappings These findings are considered within a new cognitive framework to better understand how and why sub-morphemic units develop and maintain motivated form-meaning mappings. The model proposed here, Embodied Cognitive Phonology, builds on cognitive and usage-based approaches but incorporates theories of embodiment to address the source of the claw-5 mappings. Embodied Cognitive Phonology provides a unifying framework for understanding the perceived differences in phonological patterning and organization across the modalities. Both language-internal and languageexternal sources of motivation contribute to the emergence of form-meaning mappings. Arbitrariness is argued to be but one possible outcome from the process of emergence and schematization of phonological content, and exists alongside motivation as a legitimate state of linguistic units of all sizes of complexity. Importantly, because language is dynamic, these states are not fixed, but are in continuous flux, as language users reinvent and reinterpret form and meaning over time.

Contribution of the Semiological Approach to Deixis–Anaphora in Sign Language: The Key Role of Eye-Gaze

“…(Hockett, 1978, 274-275, quoted by Wilcox, 1996, emphasis added. In the same vein, we fully subscribe to the model recently developed by Occhino (2016Occhino ( , 2017; she writes for instance: "By beginning with signed languages, and expanding our analysis to spoken languages (the opposite of the typical direction of linguistic theory building), we gain keen insight into the nature of schematization and emergence of structure, which is obfuscated by the opaqueness of the articulatory mechanism of spoken languages" (Occhino, 2017, 94, emphasis added).…”

The linguistic sources of offense of taboo terms in German Sign Language

“…We follow Occhino et al (2017) and interpret our finding as a warning: iconicity is not to be taken as identical to transparency. Further, whether and how the form of a sign is motivated for a particular viewer depends on the signer's cultural background and native sign language, frequency of exposure, education level, and whether one is a hearing non-signer or a deaf signer (Braem et al 2002;Occhino 2017). The caveat for sign language linguists is, when it comes to iconicity, to collect judgments rather than to assume them.…”

The role of iconicity, construal, and proficiency in the online processing of handshape

“…The privileged status of arbitrariness as a defining feature of human language has given way to the recognition that iconicity too is a fundamental organizing feature of human language (Imai & Kita, 2014; Padden, Meir, Hwang, Lepic, Seegers, & Sampson, 2013; Perniss, Thompson, & Vigliocco, 2010). Iconicity works alongside arbitrariness (and systematicity) to structure the grammars of languages in both the spoken and signed modality (Dingemanse, Blasi, Lupyan, Christiansen, & Monaghan, 2015; Occhino, 2017). Still, while iconicity is now a mainstream topic in theoretical circles, additional experimental investigations are needed to understand iconicity’s role in the organization and processing of natural linguistic systems.…”

“…Occhino (2017) investigated cognitive iconicity of a single handshape in ASL, Claw-5 (see Figure 2). Traditionally, this handshape has been assumed to be phonologically equivalent across all signs in which it appears.…”

“…While the discussion of construal generally focuses on grammatical constructions, construal operations can also apply to the production and perception of articulatory gestures (Occhino, 2016(Occhino, , 2017Wilcox, 2004). Construal of the articulators, or of the articulation itself, occurs in both signed and spoken modalities.…”