361
Towards a Phonological Model of Czech Sign
Language: A Case Study of Lexical Variants
Hana Strachoňováa
and Lucia Vláškováb
Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic a
hana.strachonova@muni.mail.cz;
b
lucia.vlaskova@phil.muni.cz
Abstract: This paper brings some modifications of the phonological Hand-Tier model
proposed by Sandler (1986, 1987a, 1987b, 1989, 2006) for American Sign Language.
Based on Czech Sign Language data, we refined Sandler’s latest version of the model
as follows: (i) we added the features for planes into the handshape category; (ii) we
specified the application of the repetition feature; (iii) we added a feature and refined a
feature ([back] and [wrist], respectively) within the orientation set of the handshape
features; (iv) we removed a redundant feature for the thumb positions ([opposed]); and
(v) we redefined the feature [arm] as a complex subcategory by adding a set of
orientation features. This work has been initially motivated by the need for
variant/synonym distinction during the lemmatization process in the first online Czech
Sign Language dictionary (Dictio).
Keywords: sign language; phonology; variants; lexicography; Czech Sign Language
1. Introduction
This paper aims to propose an adaptation of a phonological model of American Sign
Language (ASL), namely the Hand-Tier model (HTM) by Sandler (2006), to the data
from Czech Sign Language (český znakový jazyk; ČZJ). The secondary goal is to
present a lexicographic application of the phonological model to categorize lexemes
into variants and synonyms.117
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces Sandler’s HTM and
briefly mentions other phonological models proposed for sign languages (SLs). Section
3 turns to the data source of this paper, Dictio, the largest electronic database of ČZJ
117
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewer, the editorial board and also the
audience of The Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium (Olinco) 2021 for the helpful comments and
suggestions that improved this article.
All the exemplified signs with their URLs as well as the models in the Appendix can be found
in an online repository at: muni.cz/go/CZJ+HTM_materials.
The handshape fonts are created by CSLDS, CUHK.
TOWARDS APHONOLOGICAL MODEL OF CZECH SIGN LANGUAGE: ACASE STUDY OF LEXICALVARIANTS
TOWARDS A PHONOLOGICAL MODEL OF CZECH SIGN LANGUAGE: A CASE STUDY OF LEXICALVARIANTS
362
up to date. Section 4 presents the three main categories of the HTM and our
modifications based on ČZJ data. Section 5 summarizes the contributions of the paper.
2. The Hand-Tier Model
This section introduces the HTM and gives a general overview of its feature categories
elaborated in more detail in Section 4. We briefly mention a few alternative approaches
to SL phonology and justify our choice of HTM.
It is crucial to note that there are several distinct versions of HTM (Sandler
1986, 1987a, 1987b, 1989, 2006). In each version, there are slightly different sets of
features in the individual categories. We have based our proposal on the newest
version of the model, which is, at least to our knowledge, Sandler (2006).
The model distinguishes three main phonological categories of a sign: hand
configuration (or handshape), place of articulation, and movement. The three categories
are linked together in a way that recognizes the simultaneous nature of the signs while
preserving their sequential characteristics (for example, the place category can be
branched into two locations). Figure 1a below visualizes the categories of the HTM,
while Figure 1b exemplifies the phonetic realization of these categories on the ČZJ sign
DEAF. As seen from the corresponding colours, the hand configuration category,
marked in green, is realized by -handshape. Place of articulation, marked in blue, is
the head, while the initial and final locations (in darker blue) are the ear and the chin,
respectively. Finally, the movement between the two locations is indicated by pink.
HANA STRACHOŇOVÁ AND LUCIAVLÁŠKOVÁ
363
Figure 1a. HTM.
Figure 1b. DEAF.
The features within each category are further divided into classes and subclasses. The
model obeys the principles of Feature Geometry (Clements 1985; Sagey 1986), by
which the features that control articulatory parts close to each other should also be
treated as related and behave as a feature class. The classes, and in some cases also
individual features, are in a hierarchical position, which emulates the advantages of
Dependency Phonology (Durand 1986; Anderson and Ewen 1987; van der Hulst 1989).
The category of hand configuration can be divided into subclasses of selected
fingers, orientation, position, and aperture (applied to different finger joints). The five
fingers are then divided into fingers and the thumb. The last subclass is unselected
fingers, the specification dependent on the position of the selected fingers, and
therefore, hierarchically subordinate. The other category within hand configuration is
non-dominant hand (hand 2 or h2), which is specified in two-handed symmetrical
signs. Hand 2 in this type of signs behaves as a copy of the dominant hand (h1).
Place of articulation can be defined by a set of features describing one of the main
areas of the signing space (the neutral space, the head, the trunk, the arm, or, in twohanded
asymmetrical signs, the non-dominant hand). These can be combined with the
features from a setting subcategory specifying the concrete location of the signing
within the main area. The setting features can be branched into two sets, corresponding
to two locations within a sign. Moreover, a sign’s initial and final location can be linked
to individual position and orientation features from the hand configuration category.
The movement category is the simplest one, from the hierarchical point of view.
It groups a set of features specifying the shape or repetition of the movement(s). The
categories and features mentioned above will be further described in Section 4, where
their motivation and application in modeling concrete signs will be further elaborated.
However, it is important to note that all qualities and refinements to the model are
posited to represent data from ČZJ and that these could differ wrt other SLs.
Sandler’s HTM presents just one way how to approach SL phonology. The MoveHold
model was put forward by Liddell (1984, 1990) and Liddell and Johnson (1989
TOWARDS A PHONOLOGICAL MODEL OF CZECH SIGN LANGUAGE: A CASE STUDY OF LEXICALVARIANTS
364
[1985]) and built for American Sign Language (ASL). It is the first one that rejects the
purely simultaneous nature of a sign (Stokoe 1960) and recognizes a sequential
structure composed of two types of segments: movements (the hands move) and holds
(the hands hold still). The Prosodic model proposed by Brentari (1989) also works with
ASL. Its main characteristic is the non-sequential representation of the movement
category. The main reason for our choice of HTM was the lexicographic task at hand:
distinguishing variants from synonyms. We needed to work with a notion of a main
phonological parameter of a sign (traditionally understood as the handshape, the place,
and the movement of a given sign). The models described above were not suitable for
such an approach since the MoveHold did not recognize the autosegmental category of
the handshape, and the Prosodic model did not distinguish an individual movement
parameter. Other phonological models, such as the Moraic model (Perlmutter 1992,
1993), the model of van der Hulst (1993) and Channon (2002a, 2002b), or van der
Kooij (2002), were not suitable for independent reasons, but discussing them would
exceed the scope of this article.
3. Data
This section introduces the lexicographic task that initially motivated our need for an
exact phonological representation of ČZJ lexemes. The second part of the section
presents essential information about Dictio, the largest online database of ČZJ, that
provides all examples quoted in this paper.
3.1 Lexicographic Task
The primary motivation for developing a phonological model of ČZJ was a practical
lexicographic task of distinguishing lexical variants from synonyms in a multilingual
online dictionary Dictio developed at Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
It is often the case that what has been already described in spoken languages
causes problems in the visual-spatial modality, and merely adopting the same
terminology and methodology is not enough. When it comes to distinguishing lexical
variants from synonyms, we cannot depend on the reliable methodology known from
spoken languages, where two variants share a common root and differ in affixes or
some pieces of phonology (Czech gender variants as brambor-0 ‘potato’ masculine vs.
brambor-a ‘potato’ feminine), whereas a pair of synonyms can have different roots
which vary, for example, in their etymology (Czech examples fotbal ‘football’ foreign
origin vs. kopaná
‘football’ native origin).118
Typologically, SLs are an unusual combination of the analytic and the
polysynthetic language types. They almost lack sequential morphology; on the
contrary, they exhibit a great richness in the simultaneous plane of articulation,
118
More details in Čermák (1995) or Filipec (1995).
HANA STRACHOŇOVÁ AND LUCIAVLÁŠKOVÁ
365
namely within the classifier subsystem, verb modification, numeral incorporation, and
spatial agreement (Aronoff et al. 2004). However, focusing on the variant/synonym
problem, we cannot rely on any simultaneous morphology. The issue of variant
classification was brought to the phonological level by Fenlon et al. (2015, 201), who
state that the pairs of signs that “differ in one parameter are likely to be variants”.
However, it was not always clear what was meant by that difference. This vagueness
leads us to base our decision process on a relatively strict phonological model and
posit the One Parameter Criterion; in (1).
(1) The One Parameter Criterion
A pair of lexemes with equal meaning is classified as variants if their (possibly
multiple) differing phonological features fall within only one of the three main
categories in the Hand-Tier Model: handshape, place of articulation, or movement.
In other cases, a pair of lexemes are classified as synonyms.
Let us look more closely at the decision process. The most straightforward cases
constitute pairs of signs that differ in just one feature or a couple of closely related
features. Such differences could be found within each of the three main parameters.
The signs PRAGUE#1 and PRAGUE#2 illustrate the variation in hand configuration.
They differ in the selection of fingers and the position of the thumb: PRAGUE#1
selects the pinky, the thumb is extended ( ). PRAGUE#2 does not select any finger,
and the thumb is flexed ( ). The difference in movement is shown on WHY#1 (single
movement) and WHY#2 (repeated movement). The pair of COFFEE#1 and
COFFEE#2 exemplifies the difference in place. COFFEE#1 performs the first contact
at the ipsilateral side of the head and the second contact at the contralateral side. In
COFFEE#2, all contact is made at the ipsilateral side.
Apart from the intuitively simple cases mentioned above, we have encountered
several more complicated pairs. Consider TUNISIA#1 and TUNISIA#2. At first sight,
they use different handshapes and movements. In TUNISIA#1, the selected fingers are
extended and move from an open to a closed position; the unselected fingers are closed
(from to ). In TUNISIA#2, the selected fingers are curved and closed, and their
position does not change; the unselected fingers are open ( ). BROTHER-IN-LAW#1
and BROTHER-IN-LAW#2 have different places of articulation that influence the
orientation of the dominant hand. In BROTHER-IN-LAW#1, the hand contacts the
upper part of the trunk, and it is oriented by the radial side to the addressee. In
BROTHER-IN-LAW#2, the hand contacts the non-dominant hand; it is oriented by the
fingertips to the addressee. Using the detailed phonological model, we propose clear
criteria for classifying data of similar complexity (Section 4).
We have seen a brief preview of the practical application of the One Parameter
Criterion to classifying multiple pairs of lexemes with various degrees of differences
between them. It is important to note that this criterion is only applicable to
TOWARDS A PHONOLOGICAL MODEL OF CZECH SIGN LANGUAGE: A CASE STUDY OF LEXICALVARIANTS
366
monosyllabic signs at this moment. The discussion of the multisyllabic signs would
outscope the current article.
3.2 The Dictio Database
The data presented in this paper come from Dictio, the largest electronic dictionary
database of ČZJ up to date. Dictio includes online dictionaries of languages of both
modalities, sign and spoken (Czech and ČZJ, English and ASL, and others). The heart
of the database is the ČZJ dictionary, currently containing more than 12 000 entries.
The teams of editors consist of linguists, interpreters, and native signers.
While working on the content of a particular entry, the Deaf editors often discuss
alternative ways of expressing the same meaning. Consider, for example, MONDAY#1
with the -handshape and a path movement with the first contact of the radial side of
the hand on the forehead and the second contact on the chin. Using their introspection,
the editors registered two more signs with the same meaning: MONDAY#2 (twohanded
symmetrical sign with -handshape, with a repeated circular movement and
continuous contact of the hands) and MONDAY#3 (two-handed asymmetrical sign
with the -handshape, articulated with a repeated forward movement and the initial
contact on the non-dominant hand). The relation of synonymy is displayed for all three
signs; see, for example, the entry for MONDAY#1. The Deaf editors do not distinguish
between synonyms and variants. It is the task of the linguistic team to give the exact
criteria for filtering the two groups.
As part of that team, we propose a (partial) phonological model for ČZJ that would
help us make a clear cut. Our formal apparatus is based on HTM; however, we already
included some modifications resulting from our work with ČZJ. The ČZJ examples in
this paper and their analyses should be understood as training data. We keep testing the
HTM with our modifications against the real data from Dictio. Our goal is to map the
strong and weak points of the current version of the model on the way to an adequate
phonological representation of ČZJ. However, there is still no comprehensive study of
ČZJ phonemes. Descriptions of related issues are given in some BA theses (Silovská
[2012] on minimal pairs in ČZJ, or Oberfalzerová [2015] focusing on the handshapes).
Unfortunately, we are still a long way from a researchbased list of ČZJ phonemes. The
rest of the section briefly describes the elicitation of the examples for this paper. More
information about the linguistic methodology of Dictio can be found in Vlášková and
Strachoňová (2021).
Since Dictio is an electronic database, it enables to create a list of unique entries
with registered synonyms. After generating the list, we went through it manually and
filtered out evident synonyms (the sign-pairs that do not share any parameter, as
MONDAY#1 and MONDAY#2). The pairs that share at least one parameter (by
intuitive evaluation at this point) were included in the training data set. Consider the
semiformal description of the pair of signs translated as ‘brother in law’, in (2). (2a)
and (2b) evidently share the handshape. We created a formal representation of them by
evaluating their relevant phonological features and concluded that they also share the
HANA STRACHOŇOVÁ AND LUCIAVLÁŠKOVÁ
367
same movement, differing only in the parameter of the place. Thus, the pair complies
with the requirement of a minimal difference (difference in one parameter), and it is
classified as variants. See their full specification in the Appendix (Figures A and B).
(2) (a) BROTHER-IN-LAW#1: -handshape, place of articulation: trunk, movement:
path, straight, continuous contact
(b) BROTHER-IN-LAW#2: -handshape, place of articulation: non-dominant hand,
movement: path, straight, continuous contact
4. Categories and Features in the Revisited HTM
In this section, we discuss in detail the modified HTM. In each subsection, we focus on
one of the main categories (the hand configuration, the place, and the movement). We
show the strong and weak aspects of Sandler’s HTM and make suggestions that account
for more accurate descriptions of the contrasts in ČZJ data. The schematic picture of
the fully specified model including our modifications is in the Appendix (Figure C).
4.1 The Hand Configuration
The first category of the model is the most complex, as seen in Figure 2. It reflects the
shape of the hand(s). In this section, we proceed from the number of hands involved in
the articulation to the configuration of the selected and unselected fingers of the
dominant hand (the hand that moves).
Figure 2. Hand configuration.
4.1.1 The Number of Hands
TOWARDS A PHONOLOGICAL MODEL OF CZECH SIGN LANGUAGE: A CASE STUDY OF LEXICALVARIANTS
368
In ČZJ, as in all known SLs, signs can be articulated with one (dominant) hand or two
hands. The two-handed signs are further classified into symmetrical (both hands move)
and asymmetrical signs (only the dominant hand moves). For the one-handed signs in
HTM, the hand configuration category bears the hand’s features (DEAF in the
Appendix, Figure D). The phonological form of the two-handed symmetrical signs is
described by the Symmetry Condition, in (3).
(3) The Symmetry Condition: (a) if both hands of a sign move independently during
its articulation, then (b) both hands must be specified for the same handshape, the
same movement (whether performed simultaneously or in alternation), and the
specifications for orientation must be either symmetrical or identical.
(Battison 1978 [1973])
Assuming the constraint, the hand configuration node branches and creates a copy of
the dominant hand without evaluating the features for the non-dominant hand
independently CONSEQUENCE (in theAppendix, Figure E). This architecture reflects
the observation that both hands act as equal articulators.The two-handed asymmetrical
signs are subject to the Dominance Condition, in (4).
(4) The Dominance Condition: (a) if the hands of a two-handed sign do not share the
same specification for handshape (i.e., they are different), then (b) one hand must
be passive while the active hand articulates the movement and (c) the specification
of the passive handshape is restricted to be one of a small set: A,S,B,G,C,O.
(Battison 1978 [1973])
The HTM parts form the assumption that the non-dominant hand act as a place of
articulation. It remains static while the dominant hand performs the movement.119
Consequently, the complex subcategory of h2 (non-dominant hand) appears under the
parameter of place. The specification of the dominant hand (h1) remains in the category
of hand configuration. See the partial representation of the sign TEST in the Appendix
(Figure F).
4.1.2 Selected Fingers
A selected finger is a prominent finger, i.e., extended or otherwise differing from the
rest of the fingers (curved index finger in WANT, or the extended index and middle
fingers in RESPONSIBILITY). In cases where the handshape is comprised of all
fingers in the same position, all fingers are selected (ATOM).
119
We are aware of borderline cases like SHOW that violate the Symmetry and the Dominance
constraint (hands with different shapes moving with continuous contact). However, we must
postpone the discussion of such cases on another occasion.
HANA STRACHOŇOVÁ AND LUCIAVLÁŠKOVÁ
369
What we intuitively understand as ‘fingers’ is in HTM divided into two
subcategories: fingers and thumb. The motivation behind asserting an individual feature
class to the thumb lies in the higher number of possible positions. Therefore, a special
set of features is needed to capture them (Ann 1993; Greftegreff 1993; Sandler 1995).
Let us focus on the first subclass of the selected fingers category: the fingers. In
this subclass, there are four features: [index], [middle], [ring] and [pinky]. Specifying
a sign for a selected finger (or their combination) means placing the respective
feature(s) into the underlying phonological model. Moreover, the feature [joined] is
also connected to selected fingers (the contrast between MEANING and
IMPORTANT). [joined] is placed outside the fingers class because it can also apply to
the thumb.
Various revisions of the HTM employed various features for the thumb position,
but we decided to depart from Sandler and consult medical literature (Olson and
Pawlina 2008) to describe the anatomical possibilities appropriately. We propose the
following set of features, also partly reflected in van der Kooij (2002): [extended]:
(EXPLAIN), [abducted]: (TOGETHER), [adducted]: (REPEAT), [flexed]:
(KING).
In HTM, there was another thumb feature, [opposed], described as the thumb
being in contact with the fingertip of the selected finger(s). We propose to eliminate
this feature from the model due to its redundancy. To explain, let us first look more
closely at the next class of features called finger position. There are two tiers of
contrast: the selected finger(s) can either be [open] (as in OWN) or [closed] (as in
FRIEND), and their position can be determined wrt two finger joints. This way we get
the minimal pair of FIRST (thumb: [flexed], aperture: [open] + [closed], joints: [flex])
and MINUTE (thumb: [flexed], aperture: [open] + [closed], joints: [flex] + [base]). The
feature [closed] involves contact between the thumb and the fingers (Sandler 2006,
154). Thus, every handshape with the thumb touching any finger is sufficiently
described with the position feature [closed], making the thumb feature [opposed]
redundant.
The last feature subclass of selected fingers is orientation. The orientation of the
hand has long been under discussion. Some researchers treated orientation as a main
parameter on a par with handshape, place, and movement (e.g., Battison 1978 [1973]),
while others argued for its subordinate position under the handshape parameter
(originally in Newkirk et al. 1980). We follow the treatment of HTM and understand
orientation as a subclass of the selected fingers category within the handshape
parameter. However, we found that the features proposed by Sandler cannot account
for the data attested in ČZJ. Sandler uses [palm] when the palm faces the place of
articulation and [wrist] in the opposite case. [radial] describes signs with the thumb side
of the hand turned towards the place and [ulnar] when the pinky side faces it.
[fingertips] is for signs where the hand’s fingertips are aimed at the place of articulation,
TOWARDS A PHONOLOGICAL MODEL OF CZECH SIGN LANGUAGE: A CASE STUDY OF LEXICALVARIANTS
370
with no counterpart, although it is anatomically possible (and indeed attested) that such
signs can be formed.
Based on the logic that there should be three pairs of features for the six possible
ways a hand can be oriented, we propose to add [back] to the model. This feature
describes signs where the hand faces the place of articulation with its back, as in YOUR
(the counterpart for [palm]). This orientation was formerly analyzed as [wrist], but we
have kept the [wrist] feature and redefined it like the hand facing the place of
articulation with its wrist (CHILD). For an overview and comparison of Sandler’s
orientation features and our proposal, see Table 1. To avoid the clash between our and
Sandler’s understanding of [wrist], we rename the original feature to [back] (the back
of a hand).
Sandler’s
model
Our proposal
[palm] [wrist] [radial] [ulnar] [fingertips]
[palm] [back] [radial] [ulnar] [fingertips] [wrist]
Example from
ČZJ
WANT YOUR INTERESTING HALF TEST CHILD
Table 1. Comparison of the orientation features
Note that the dominant hand in HALF is not oriented with its ulnar side towards the
neutral signing space but the non-dominant hand. We specify the sign by [ulnar]
because orientation in HTM is evaluated relative to the place of articulation (the neutral
signing space in CHILD, the signer’s body in INTERESTING, or h2 in HALF);
Sandler (2006, 167).
We propose one important addition to the orientation features: the notion of three
spatial planes implemented as features [horizontal], [frontal], and [sagittal] with the
mutually disjoint distribution. Such signs would be articulated in alignment with the
given plane while also preserving the given orientation. This proposal is motivated by
the inability of HTM to properly distinguish the orientation of signs such as TIDY-UP
and COMPARE, uniformly described as [wrist]. We avoid this clash by modelling the
orientation of TIDY-UP as [wrist] + [sagittal] and the orientation of COMPARE as
[wrist] + [horizontal]. Note that not all combinations of orientation and plane features
are anatomically possible, i.e., [wrist] + [frontal]. Although the addition of plane
features proved useful in distinguishing the orientation of many sign-pairs, some cases
still need further attention (e.g., COMPARE and CHILD, both analyzed as [wrist] +
[horizontal]).
Finally, two elements bring together the orientation and position subclasses of
features: internal and secondary movement. Both the orientation and position features
can be branched into two sets, and in that way, multiple (even contradictory) features
can be associated with a single hand configuration. Moreover, the branching classes
can be temporally linked to a sign’s different initial and final locations (Figure G in the
Appendix).
HANA STRACHOŇOVÁ AND LUCIAVLÁŠKOVÁ
371
The internal movement within a sign with a single location is produced when there
are two specifications for orientation (TRANSLATE [palm] and [back]) or finger
position (LAMP [closed] and [open]).
The secondary movement, also described as “rapid repetition of handshape or
orientation change, or else finger wiggle” (Sandler 2006, 197), is treated by [rep] and
[wiggle]. In signs with rapid opening and closing of the fingers (SHOWER), [rep] is
added to the subclass of finger position. On the other hand, signs with quick orientation
changes (NO) are supplemented with [rep] within the orientation subclass. We follow
Sandler (2006), a.o., in understanding the finger wiggle (HOW-MANY) as a type of
secondary movement, and model it with a separate [wiggle] feature at the level of
selected fingers.
4.1.3 Unselected Fingers
The last subclass of the selected fingers category is the unselected fingers. The
unselected fingers and their position features ([open], [closed]) are in a subordinate
relation wrt to the selected ones. They are dependent on the selected fingers and largely
predictable. We are following Corina (1993) and her Unselected Fingers Redundancy
Rule: “If specified fingers are closed, unspecified fingers are open; otherwise,
unspecified fingers are closed.” An example of open unselected fingers is FRIEND. In
KING, the unselected fingers are closed. Both positions are predictable from the
Redundancy Rule and therefore are not represented in the underlying model.
Another predictable property of the unselected fingers is the joined vs. spread
opposition. We follow Sandler (1995, 121) and her addition to the Redundancy Rule:
“When the unselected fingers are open, they must be spread.” To the best of our
knowledge, this is in accordance with all the ČZJ data attested so far.
However, there are cases where the position of the unselected fingers is not
predictable, e.g., in signs with internal or secondary movement. In the absence of
Sandler’s treatment of such cases, we propose an additional constraint: when the
selected finger position is branched, the position of the unselected fingers must be
specified in the underlying model. This pertains to signs with internal movement (10AM
vs. WHERE) and with secondary movement (BETTER vs. NOON).
4.2 Place
The category of place includes five main areas: the neutral signing space
(PRAGUE#1), the trunk (BROTHER-IN-LAW#1), the head (COFFEE#1), the arm
(COUNTRY#1), and the non-dominant hand (BROTHER-IN-LAW#2). In HTM, the
neutral signing space is considered a default option. Therefore it is not specified with
any feature. The rest of the areas is represented by respective values: [trunk], [head],
[arm], and a complex subcategory h2. Each area is further described with features
specifying the exact location (setting): [high] for placing the hand higher than the center
of the area, [low] for the lower part, [contra] for the part that is on the opposite side
TOWARDS A PHONOLOGICAL MODEL OF CZECH SIGN LANGUAGE: A CASE STUDY OF LEXICALVARIANTS
372
from the dominant hand, [ipsi] for the part that is on the same side, [prox] for the hand
in a proximal location, and [dist] for the hand in a distal location; see Figure 3. The
category of place branches into locations in case the sign contains a path movement
(NORMAL). Each location is then specified with setting features, as in Figure 4.
Figure 3. Place of articulation.
Figure 4. Place of articulation branching into two locations.
HANA STRACHOŇOVÁ AND LUCIAVLÁŠKOVÁ
373
Examples from ČZJ illustrating the specific location features are the following: THINK
([head], [high], [ipsi], [prox]), THROW ([head], [high], [ipsi], [dist]), RED ([head],
[low]), FRIEND ([trunk], [high], [contra]). The signs articulated in the middle of the
neutral space (AREA) do not have any place features since this configuration is
considered the default. FATHER contains two locations (L1, L2): the movement begins
at the forehead (L1: [head], [high]), and it ends at the chin (L2: [head], [low]). The
same features transfer to the non-dominant hand, which serves as a place of articulation
in two-handed asymmetrical signs. Consider BEGINNING: The movement of the
dominant hand starts with the contact on the fingertips of the non-dominant hand. The
dominant hand moves with continuous contact toward the wrist of the non-dominant
hand. The specification for place contains two locations (L1: h2 and [high]; L2: h2 and
[low]).
Sandler (2006, 171) pointed out that in signs that contain both the internal
movement and the path movement, the first position of the fingers temporally coincides
with the first location; and analogically for the second position and location. Consider
an example HOME. The hand starts from the proximal location to the head.All selected
fingers and thumb are extended and open ( ). While moving to the distal location from
the head, the hand keeps closing. At the final location, the fingers are closed ( ). The
correspondence between the two finger positions and the two locations of the hand is
captured by the link between the branching nodes of the hand configuration category
and the category of place. See Figures G–J in the Appendix for AREA, FATHER,
BEGINNING, and HOME.
The non-dominant hand (h2) is a complex subcategory within the place. Besides
the features employed for the rest of the areas, h2 inherits the specifications for hand
configuration. The shape of h2 in two-handed asymmetrical signs is defined by the
Dominance Condition (in (4) above) and revisited by Sandler, who pointed out that h2
either has one of the unmarked shapes or as a copy, it mimics the shape of h1 (Sandler
2006, 184). The HTM implements the Dominance Condition by allowing the
handshape specification of h2 to be as complex as the specification of h1 (in case h2 is
a copy). ČZJ can provide examples of variant pairs that exploit both strategies.
Consider the pair of COUNTRY#1 (unmarked shape on h2) and COUNTRY#2 (h2
copies h1).
The boundary between the area of the non-dominant hand and the arm is defined
by the wrist (belonging to h2).120
In our modifications of HTM, we suggest the
extension of the orientation features to the arm (as an area that shares certain
physiological properties of h2).5
In HTM, the arm is a simple feature within the
category of place. By adding the set of orientation features, we redefine arm as a
120
A similar transitive area is between the head and the trunk (the neck forms part of the head).
5 Only the orientation features that are physiologically possible are inherited (that excludes, e.g.,
[fingertips]).
TOWARDS A PHONOLOGICAL MODEL OF CZECH SIGN LANGUAGE: A CASE STUDY OF LEXICALVARIANTS
374
complex subcategory. This update allows us to adequately describe the difference, e.g.,
between signs that employ contact on the opposite sides of the forearm (COUNTRY#1
vs. BLOOD).
The last two features are [contact] and [rep] (repetition). [contact] can be placed
on the main area of articulation (MASK: [head] and [contact]), on one of the two
locations (APARTMENT: [contact] on L2), or at both locations (COFFEE#1).
COFFEE#2 shows the application of [rep] with [contact] on head, specified by location
features [low] and [ipsi]; See Figure K in the Appendix for the full specification.
4.3 Movement
The movement category is the simplest among the three; see Figure 5. It covers only
the primary (path) movement. As we have explained in Section 4.1.2, the secondary
and internal movements are accounted for in the hand configuration category.
Figure 5. Movement.
It is common (Sandler 2006, a.o.) to account for signs with a straight movement
between L1 and L2 as having no movement features (FATHER). When two locations
are determined between which the hand(s) must move, a straight path is a phonetic
necessity.
When [contact] is defined on movement, two situations are possible: (i) the sign
exhibits a brushing movement (the hand only touches the place during the movement
and not on the locations; NUDE); or (ii) the sign exhibits a continuous contact (the
hand touches the place throughout the whole articulation; TEA); Sandler (2006, 202).
The circular movement is more complex. We follow Sandler (1989, 1990, 2006)
and Corina (1990) in modeling circular movements as a series of arcs with opposite
concavity. The default arc movement defined with [arc] (WORLD) is concave,
meaning that both L1 and L2 are closer to the body or the middle of the signing space
than the midpoint of the movement. The opposite effect is derived by [convex]
(DRESS). When combined, these features describe a circular movement (HOUR).
However, HTM could not account for distinctions between a near-minimal pair of
signs such as HOUR and WE. The two signs would have to be defined in the same way
wrt to their place, and movement (L1 in the middle of the neutral space, L2 on the
ipsilateral side of the neutral space; and the movement between them as a series of arcs
defined for [arc] and [convex]). Such a model does not reveal the difference between
the two movements without the additional features for the planes. The features can
HANA STRACHOŇOVÁ AND LUCIAVLÁŠKOVÁ
375
distinguish the movements in the horizontal (WE), frontal (HOUR), and sagittal
(YEAR) plane. Therefore, we propose adding the corresponding features to the
movement segment as well.
Another feature that has already been mentioned is [rep]. When applied
individually, it gives rise to signs with a repeated straight path movement between
two locations (TOURISM). In combination with [contact], we get signs such as
BATHROOM, where the hand(s) contact the place of articulation or each other during
the repeated movement. The most complex case is represented by signs such as
TORNADO#1 and TORNADO#2 (combination of [arc], [convex], and [rep]). We
part from the HTM here. Sandler regards every arc as an individual temporal
segment, but this prevents her from combining circular and path movements
(TORNADO#2). In our solution, the circular movement fills a regular timing slot for
movements, which accounts for TORNADO#1, and is also compatible with defined
initial ([high], [ipsi]) and final ([low], [ipsi]) locations (TORNADO#2). In this way,
we account for the simultaneous articulation of the path and the circular movement.
There are other types of path movements attested in the literature and also in ČZJ
(FAMOUS or THREE), a so-called α-movement (FACTORY; Pfau and Quer 2007), or
the ASL movement ‘7’ (Sandler 2006, 197). Some of these could be considered iconic
movements, together with the movement in classifier constructions, and therefore are
not part of the underlying phonological representation. In any case, more research in
this area is needed to determine what is the correct way of analyzing these types of
complex movements.
5. Conclusion
The HTM outlined above has proven to be useful in describing ASL and ČZJ data.
However, in applying the HTM descriptions to ČZJ, we encountered some theoretical
problems of the model, to which we proposed solutions based on certain refinements.
The main adjustments are: (i) addition of features [horizontal], [frontal], and [sagittal]
into the categories of handshape (namely orientation) and movement in order to
propose a solution to the problems of phonologically distinguishing certain types of
hand orientation or movement direction; (ii) explicitly characterizing the position and
conditions of use of the [rep] within all three main parameters; (iii) addition of the
orientation feature [back] and the redefinition of [wrist], according to the anatomical
possibilities of the hand orientation; (iv) removal of the thumb feature [opposed] due
to its redundancy; and (v) redefinition of the arm as a subcategory of the place
parameter with its orientation features, rather than keeping it as an individual feature
[arm].
6. References
Anderson, John, and Colin Ewen. 1987. Principles of Dependency Phonology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TOWARDS A PHONOLOGICAL MODEL OF CZECH SIGN LANGUAGE: A CASE STUDY OF LEXICALVARIANTS
376
Ann, Jean. 1993. “A Linguistic Investigation into the Relation Between Physiology
and Handshape.” PhD diss., University of Arizona.
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, Carol Padden, and Wendy Sandler. 2004. “Morphological
Universals and the Sign Language Type.” In Yearbook of Morphology 2004,
edited by Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 19–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Battison, Robbin. 1978 [1973]. Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver
Spring: Linstok Press.
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Clements, George N. 1985. “The Geometry of Phonological Features.” Phonology 2
(1): 225–252.
Corina, David. 1990. “Reassessing the Role of Sonority in Syllable Structure: Evidence
from Visual-Gestural Language.” Papers from the Chicago Linguistic Society 26
(2): 33–44.
Corina, David. 1993. “To Branch or Not to Branch: Underspecification in ASL
Handshape Contours.” In Current Issues in ASL Phonology, edited by Geoffrey
R. Coulter, 63–95. New York: Academic Press.
Dictio: Multilingual Online Dictionary. 2020. Brno: Masaryk University. Accessed
October 31, 2021. www.dictio.info.
Durand, Jacques. 1986. Dependency and Non-Linear Phonology. London: Croom
Helm.
Channon, Rachel. 2002a. “Beads on a String? Representations of Repetition in Spoken
and Signed Languages.” In Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken
Language, edited by Richard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier, and David Quinto-Pozos,
65–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Channon, Rachel. 2002b. “Signs Are Single Segments: Phonological Representations
and Temporal Sequencing in ASL and Other Sign Languages.” PhD diss.,
University of Maryland.
Čermák, František. 1995. “Paradigmatika a syntagmatika slovníku: možnosti a
výhledy.” In Manuál lexikografie, edited by František Čermák and Renata Blatná,
90–115. Jinočany: H&H.
Fenlon, Jordan, Kearsy Cormier, and Adam Schembri. 2015. “Building BSL
SignBank: The Lemma Dilemma Revisited.” International Journal of
Lexicography 28 (2): 169–206.
Filipec, Josef. 1995. “Teorie a praxe jednojazyčného slovníku výkladového.” In Manuál
lexikografie, edited by František Čermák and Renata Blatná, 14–49. Jinočany:
H&H.
Greftegreff, Irene. 1993. “Anatomy and Features in Sign Language Handshapes.” Ms.,
University of Trondheim.
Liddell, Scott K. 1984. “THINK and BELIEVE: Sequentiality in American Sign
Language.” Language 60: 372–392.
HANA STRACHOŇOVÁ AND LUCIAVLÁŠKOVÁ
377
Liddell, Scott K. 1990. “Structures for Representing Handshape and Local Movement
at the Phonemic Level.” In Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, edited
by Susan Fischer and Patricia Siple, 37–65. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Liddell, Scott K., and Robert E. Johnson. 1989 [1985]. “American Sign Language: The
Phonological Base.” Sign Language Studies 64 (1): 195–277.
Newkirk, Don, Ed Klima, Carlene Canady Pedersen, and Ursula Bellugi. 1980.
“Linguistic Evidence from Slips of the Hand”. In Errors in Linguistic
Performance: Slips of the Tongue and Hand, edited by Victoria Fromkin, 165–
197. New York: Academic Press.
Oberfalzerová, Anna. 2015. “Tvary ruky českého znakového jazyka a typy jeho znaků
(frekvenční analýza komunikace českých neslyšících).” Bachelor’s thesis. Charles
University in Prague.
Olson, Todd R. and Wojciech Pawlina. 2008. “Upper Limb.” In A.D.A.M. Student Atlas
of Anatomy, edited by Todd R. Olson and Wojciech Pawlina, 277–346.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perlmutter, David. 1992 [1993]. “Sonority and Syllable Structure in American Sign
Language.” Linguistic Inquiry 23: 407–442.
Pfau, Roland and Josep Quer. 2007. “On the Syntax of Negation and Modals in
German Sign Language (DGS) and Catalan Sign Language (LSC).” In Visible
Variation: Cross-linguistic Studies on Sign Language Structure, edited by
Pamela Perniss, Roland Pfau, and Markus Steinbach, 129–161. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Sagey, Elizabeth. 1986. “The Representation of Features and Relations in Non-linear
Phonology.” PhD diss., MIT.
Sandler, Wendy. 1986. “The Spreading Hand Autosegment of American Sign
Language”. Sign Language Studies 50: 1–28.
Sandler, Wendy. 1987a. “Assimilation and Feature Hierarchy in American Sign
Language.” Papers from the Chicago Linguistic Society, Parasession on
Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology: 266–278. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic
Society.
Sandler, Wendy. 1987b. “Sequentiality and Simultaneity in American Sign Language.”
PhD diss., University of Texas.
Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological Representation of the Sign: Linearity and
Nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Sandler, Wendy. 1990. “Temporal Aspect and American Sign Language.” In
Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, edited by Susan Fischer and
Patricia Siple, 103–129. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sandler, Wendy. 1995. “Markedness in the Handshapes of Signs: A Componential
Analysis.” In Leiden in Last: Holland Institute of Linguistics Phonology Papers,
edited by Jeroen van der Weijer and Harry van der Hulst, 369–399. The Hague:
Holland Academie Graphics.
TOWARDS A PHONOLOGICAL MODEL OF CZECH SIGN LANGUAGE: A CASE STUDY OF LEXICALVARIANTS
378
Sandler, Wendy. 2006. “Phonology.” In Sign Language and Linguistic Universals,
edited by Wendy Sandler and Diane Lillo-Martin, 111–278. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Silovská, Zuzana. 2012. “Minimální páry v českém znakovém jazyce.” Bachelor’s
thesis. Charles University in Prague.
Stokoe, William C. 1960. “Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual
Communication Systems of the American Deaf.” Studies in Linguistics: Occasional
Papers. Buffalo: University of Buffalo. van der Hulst, Harry. 1989. “Atoms of
Segmental Structure: Components, Gestures and Dependency.” Phonology 6: 253–284.
van der Hulst, Harry. 1993. “Units in the Analysis of Signs.” Phonology 10: 209–242.
van der Kooij, Els. 1998. “The Position of Unselected Fingers.” In Linguistics in the
Netherlands 1998, edited by Renée van Bezooijen and René Kager, 149–162.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van der Kooij, Els. 2002. “Phonological Categories in Sign Language of the
Netherlands: The Role of Phonetic Implementation and Iconicity.” PhD diss.,
Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
Vlášková, Lucia, and Hana Strachoňová. 2021. “Sign Language Lexicography: A Case
Study of an Online Dictionary.” Slovenščina 2.0: Empirical, Applied and
Interdisciplinary Research 9 (1): 90–122. Accessed October 31, 2021.
https://revije.ff.uni-lj.
si/slovenscina2/article/view/9860.
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2003. “Towards a Notion of ‘Word’ in Sign Languages.” In Word: A
Cross-linguistic Typology, edited by Robert M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y.
Aikhenvald, 153–179. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HANA STRACHOŇOVÁ AND LUCIAVLÁŠKOVÁ
379
7. Appendix
Figure A. BROTHER-IN-L
A
W#1.
Figure B.
BROTHER-IN-L
A
W#2.
TOWARDS A PHONOLOGICAL MODEL OF CZECH SIGN LANGUAGE: A CASE STUDY OF LEXICALVARIANTS
380
Figure C. HTM with terminal features.
HANA STRACHOŇOVÁ AND LUCIAVLÁŠKOVÁ
381
Figure D. DE
A
F.
Figure F. TE
S
T.
Figure E. CONSEQUENCE.
TOWARDS A PHONOLOGICAL MODEL OF CZECH SIGN LANGUAGE: A CASE STUDY OF LEXICALVARIANTS
382
Figure G. HOME.
HANA STRACHOŇOVÁ AND LUCIAVLÁŠKOVÁ
383
Figure I. FATHER. Figure J. BEGINNING.
Figure H. AR
E
A.
TOWARDS A PHONOLOGICAL MODEL OF CZECH SIGN LANGUAGE: A CASE STUDY OF LEXICALVARIANTS
384
Figure K. COFFEE#2.
Language Use and Linguistic Structure
Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2021
June 10–12, 2021
Faculty of Arts, Palacký University Olomouc, Czech
Republic http://olinco.upol.cz e-mail: olinco@upol.cz
Edited by Markéta Janebová, Joseph Emonds, and Ludmila Veselovská
Series: Olomouc Modern Language Series Inhouse
editor: Otakar Loutocký
Typesetting and cover design: Gobak DTP
Published by Palacký University Olomouc
Křížkovského 8, 771 47 Olomouc, Czech Republic
vydavatelstvi.upol.cz Olomouc 2022
First edition
ISBN 978-80-244-6148-9
(online: iPDF; available at https://anglistika.upol.cz/olinco2021proceedings/)
DOI: 10.5507/ff.22.24461489
Not for sale