7RZDUGD3KRQHWLF5HSUHVHQWDWLRQRI6LJQV6HTXHQWLDOLW\DQG&RQWUDVW

5REHUW(-RKQVRQ6FRWW./LGGHOO

6LJQ/DQJXDJH6WXGLHV9ROXPH1XPEHU:LQWHUSS$UWLFOH

3XEOLVKHGE\*DOODXGHW8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
'2,VOV

)RUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKLVDUWLFOH
KWWSVPXVHMKXHGXDUWLFOH

Access provided by UFMS - Fundao Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul (23 Aug 2016 10:53 GMT)

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 241

ROBERT E. JOHNSON AND

S C OT T K . L I D D E L L

Toward a Phonetic
Representation of Signs:
Sequentiality and Contrast
This is the first of several papers that will describe the authors complete approach to the phonetic representation of signed languages. One paper will appear in each successive number of Sign Language Studies until the series is
completed. Future papers will deal with the topics of segmentation, hand configuration, placement, orientation, representation of analogical space, and phonological alternations.
The idea that sign languages exist as real human languages and
that they have a structural design like that found in vocally produced
languages is quite recent. Stokoes (1960) proposal that American Sign
Language (ASL) is a real language was considered preposterous by many
linguists because sign languages had never before been treated as fully
realized natural languages. People were used to thinking of them as simple systems of communication or as representations of spoken languages.
In addition, the field of linguistics was wedded to the idea that all languages must be produced vocally. From this perspective, because sign
languages are produced by the hands and body and perceived visually,
they would have to be something other than languages.
Over the course of the next two decades, however, numerous linguists came to accept Stokoes ideas and became involved in describing
Robert E. Johnson is Professor of Linguistics at Gallaudet University, Washington,
D.C. Scott K. Liddell is Adjunct Professor at the University of Utah.

241
Sign Language Studies Vol. 11 No. 2 Winter 2010

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 242

242 | Sign Language Studies

the structure of ASL and other sign languages. The idea that sign languages have grammars similar to those of vocally produced languages
gradually gained nearly universal acceptance during the late 1970s and
the early 1980s. Today it would be difficult to find a professional linguist
arguing that sign languages are not real languages.
The most obvious and immediate difference between spoken and
signed languages, of course, lies in the manner of their production and
perception. This difference, often described as a modality difference, is
manifested in the physical activities required to create and perceive
the language signal. Speakers of a vocally produced language coordinate different articulatory systems within the vocal tract that produce
groups of sounds recognizable as words. Signers coordinate activities
of the hands, arms, torso, face, and head to produce groups of visible
physical gestures recognizable as signs. Similarly, different sets of receptors are required to understand the signals. On the one hand, variations in sound waves must be recognized by the auditory system,
and, on the other, variations in light waves must be recognized by the
visual system.
Since the sign language signal is so different from that of a vocally
produced language signal, one cannot simply impose on signs phonetic
structures known to exist in vocally produced languages. Rather, analysts must attempt to understand the phonetic structure of signs on
their own terms. There have been a number of such attempts. In this
article, which is the first in a series of articles proposing a phonetic theory of signed languages, we discuss Stokoes original proposal regarding the underlying physical structure of signs, as well as some of the
subsequent attempts to conceive of signs as being composed of sequential segments. We conclude that while the evidence for segmenting signs is compelling, each of the proposed systems of segmentation
has significant problems, and in subsequent articles in the series we argue for a new way of conceiving of signs as sequentially organized
segments. The new proposal differs in the numbers and types of segments that compose signs. It also differs in that we concentrate on representing segments phonetically rather than trying to conceive of sign
structure at a more abstract phonemic level. Finally, this series of articles taken together proposes a usable transcription system for representing signs phoneticallyone that can be applied to a wide variety

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 243

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 243

of signed languages and refined or rejected on the basis of the description of naturally occurring linguistic events.

Stokoes System
Cheremes and Claims of Simultaneity

Stokoe (1960) was the first to propose that signs have an internal structure equivalent to the phonemic level in vocally produced languages.
In order to mark the modality difference, he coined the term chereme
as the sign language equivalent of a phoneme, modeling his system after the phonetic and phonemic system of the American Structural
School (Sapir 1925, 1933; Bloomfield 1933; Swadesh 1934; Pike 1947;
Trager and Bloch 1941).1 In Stokoes system every sign is divided into
three parts or aspects: the place of articulation (tabula or tab, commonly
called placement), the active hand (designator or dez, commonly called
handshape), and the action of producing the sign (signation or sig, commonly called movement). Sign language cheremes, like phonemes in vocally produced languages, are said to have the property of distinguishing
one (signed) word from another.
In Stokoes cheremic system cheremes combine simultaneously
rather than sequentially in forming signs. In his model every simple sign
is composed of one location (tab), one oriented handshape (dez), and
one or more movements (sig). This schematic structure was applied to
all of the signs in the Dictionary of American Sign Language (Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg 1965). Although the dictionary claims that the
three aspects of a sign combine simultaneously to form a sign, movements could be specified sequentially. For example, consider the sign
CHICAGO, illustrated in figure 1. In producing this sign the hand first
makes a rightward movement, then a downward movement.
In Stokoes cheremic system CHICAGO is represented as C>V
(1965, 50), where the location in space in front of the body is represented by the symbol , the handshape is a C, and the two sequential movements are > (rightward) and subsequently V (downward).2,3
The fact that Stokoe was attempting an emic level of representation is evident in his use of the symbol representing the torso [] (tab).
Although the signs GUILTY, PLEASE, ASSERTIVE, DISGUSTING, and RUSSIA are all represented as being produced at the torso location [] , each

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 244

244 | Sign Language Studies

Figure 1.

CHICAGO:

C>v

must contact the torso in a different place. GUILTY makes contact on

the upper-left part of the torso, PLEASE contacts the upper-central
part of the chest, and ASSERTIVE makes contact on the upper right
and upper left. DISGUSTING is made centrally on the torso, while the
two-handed ASL sign RUSSIA4 is made at both sides of the torso at
waist level. It is important to note that attempting to produce GUILTY
at the waist level or RUSSIA at the chest level would result in nonexistent forms that did not convey the intended meaning. Thus, though
there are differences in the location of these signs, Stokoe considered
them all to be members of one emic category, that is, to all share the
chereme [].
It is unclear how Stokoe concluded that each of these signs shares
a chereme for tab, but it appears that he relied on the notion of minimal pairs in order to treat these various locations on the chest as constituting a single cheremic location. That is, if it were possible to find
some other sign with a hand configuration and movement equivalent
to that of GUILTY but produced at a different location on the torso,
that hypothetical sign and GUILTY, in Stokoes analysis, would constitute a minimal pair and could be used to demonstrate that there are
contrasting location cheremes on the torso. Given the lack of minimal pair evidence for distinguishing one location on the torso from
another, Stokoe proposed the single location chereme []. Thus, in
Stokoes analysis, all locations on the torso are allochers of [] and are
noncontrastive.
The abstract (emic) level of representation has consequences for
users of the system. It is highly significant, for example, that it does not
contain enough detail to go from notation to production. Although

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 245

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 245

a reader seeing the notation []Cx>x would know that a C hand configuration contacts the torso (x), moves to the right (>), then contacts
the torso again (x), the notation does not specify which part of the
torso is to be contacted. Since the system does not identify the conditions under which specific locations on the torso might be used, a
person unfamiliar with the sign CONGRESS would be unable to reproduce it solely on the basis of the notation.
The second aspect of signs identified by Stokoe et al. is what acts,
that is, the designator, or dez, now commonly referred to as handshape,
for which Stokoe proposes nineteen symbols. Just as the location symbols do not identify phonetically precise places of articulation for the
hand, the dez symbols do not identify phonetically precise hand configurations. For example, the contrastive hand configurations A, S, and
T are all represented as instances (allochers) of the A chereme. Similarly,
the contrastive hand configurations G, 1, and D are all represented as
instances of the G chereme. Because Stokoe does not specify the complementary distribution of these allochers, there is no principled way
to know which variant to use with which sign. Thus, again, a person
reading a notation for an unknown sign with an A chereme would be
unable to reproduce the signs hand configuration from its notation
alone.5
There is one more significant aspect of the representation of dez
symbols that needs to be mentioned here. The nineteen symbols constituting the dez system are presented without any reference as to how
the hands are oriented. In actual practice Stokoe frequently adds subscripts or other diacritics that describe certain perceptual details of
hand orientation. This is evident in the comparison of the Stokoe notations for BLACK and THINK, illustrated in example 1. BLACK (1a) begins with the fingertip oriented toward the left (G<), while in THINK
(1b), it is oriented toward the signer (Gt ).6
1.

uG x>
<

uG x
t

a. BLACK
b. THINK
(Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg 1965, 126, 128)

Thus, although the Dictionary of American Sign Language lists only

nineteen dez symbols, if the hand orientation is taken into account,

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 246

246 | Sign Language Studies

the number of possible dez symbols jumps well into the hundreds.
This argues for separating orientation from hand configuration in order to reduce the inventory of primitives from which signs may be
composed. Following Battison (1974), Frishberg (1975), Woodward
(1973), and others, it is now common to cite four independent manual aspects of sign formation: hand configuration, location, movement, and orientation.7
The third and final aspect of sign structure proposed by Stokoe is
signation (sig), the action of producing a sign, which is now commonly referred to as movement. While location and hand configuration
features are limited to one per sign, Stokoe allows multiple movements,
which may be simultaneous, sequential, or both. The sign BOARD-OFTRUSTEES, for example, is produced with the same sequence of directional movements as CONGRESS (contact, rightward movement, contact).
The hand initially contacts the far side of the upper chest with a B hand
configuration and the near side of the chest with a T hand configuration.
The movement to the right and the closing movement to a T hand
configuration would need to be represented as two simultaneous
movements between the initial and final contacting movements.
Stokoe also represents some signs without hand configuration changes
with simultaneous movements between other sequential movements,
as in KING, shown in example 2. The sign is produced by first contacting (x) the upper-left side of the chest with the radial side of a K hand
configuration. The hand then moves downward (v) and to the right
(>) simultaneously, followed by another contact (x) at the lower right
side of the torso.
2. [K

x>x
v

Stokoes system for representing the action of a sign consists of

twenty-four sig symbols. Ten of the symbols represent movements
of the hand along a path [^ v r > < z t f = @]. For example,
THANK-YOU (ljB t f), has the sig symbol f, which is described as
movement away from the signer. The initial tab is specified as the
mouth or chin of the signer l, and this is taken to be the lone location of the sign, though the hand does in fact move to a second location during the production of the sign. There is no information

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 247

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 247

about how far to move the hand or what to do with it when it arrives at its destination.
Four sig symbols (s, b, w, n) involve wrist movement rather than
movement along a path. The first two rotate the wrist in one direction or the other, the third represents a continuous oscillating rotation
of the wrist, and the fourth causes the wrist to flex.
The three sig symbols, ] (opening action), # (closing action), and
e (wiggling action) produce changes of hand configuration. In
Stokoes system each of the three signs in example 3 is considered to
be a sign produced with a single A handshape. Each is also represented
with an opening movement, which produces the final hand configuration specified in the square brackets after the symbol ] because
each of the signs ends with a different hand configuration. In this way,
then, he uses movement notations to account for sequential details of
hand configuration.
3.

] [5]

A=<

a. GAMBLE

] [4]

Af

b. SEND

] [G]
uAf

c. UNDERSTAND

The need to specify the second hand configuration in these signs

represents a defect in the cheremic system. If opening and closing
movements could really account for changes in hand configuration,
then it would not be necessary to add additional hand configuration
symbols to the cheremic representation. The fact that such symbols are
needed calls into question the entire concept of limiting signs to a single dez symbol and representing hand configuration changes with
movement symbols.
The symbol e indicates a wiggling action of the fingers, which
may or may not co-occur with path movement. Finally, the seven sig
symbols ), X, g, +, o, :, and ( represent interactions between
the hand and a location or between the two hands, indicating approach, contact, linking, crossing, entering, separating, and exchanging dominance, respectively.
The outcome of this conception of the structure of signs is that
Stokoe and subsequent linguists have used the concept of a simultaneous set of three aspects to represent sequences of articulatory events.
From this perspective the system uses movement symbols to represent

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 248

248 | Sign Language Studies

sequences of movements, of locations, of handshapes, and of orientations (though orientation was not seen as a fundamental aspect of sign
structure). This makes it possible to claim that signs with more than
one phonetic handshape, orientation, or location have only a single
handshape, orientation, or location because all such sequences are characterized using special movement symbols. In this way Stokoe (and by
extension, those who have adopted the central assumptions of his system) perpetuate the notion that all signs have a single handshape, location, and orientation. The outcome of this practice is that sequences
of handshape, location, and orientation become covert because they
are always interpreted as movements. We demonstrate later that this
practice is largely responsible for the mistaken notion that signs are not
organized as sequences of phonetic or phonological segments.
Problems with the Cheremic System

Problems with the Concept of Minimal Pair

The concept of minimal pairs is frequently used in assigning phones
to distinct phonemic categories. Minimal pairs are pairs of words that
share identical phones in all sequential positions except one. The set
of words that includes [rat] rot, [pat] pot, [lat] lot, [kat] cot, [sat] sot,
and [tat] tot may all be paired with one another to demonstrate the
notion of a minimal pair, as in figure 2. The fact that [pat] pot and [tat]
tot are distinct words with different meanings demonstrates the contrastive potential of the phonetic segments [p] and [t], which are
placed into different phonemic categories by virtue of the fact that
they occur in otherwise identical sequences within words with different meanings. This is said to demonstrate the contrastive potential of
the segments in sequence and is considered the definitive test of duality of patterning in a language because it illuminates both the oppositional potential of features (to distinguish [p] from [t]) and the
contrastive role of the segments [p] and [t] in distinguishing two
words. As such, it has become a crucial part of the process of isolating
the elemental phonetic and phonological units of previously unstudied languages. Employing this logic, the contrasts shown in figure 2
demonstrate that the phones [p], [t], [k], [l], [r], and [s] must each be
placed in distinct phonemic categories.8

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 249

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 249

Figure 2. Minimal pairs of words are drawn from sets of words that have distinct
meanings and are composed of identical sequences of segments except in one position.

Stokoe claims that signs have a structure parallel to that of spoken

languages in that a small number of meaningless elements combine to
create the meaningful elements of the language. Since Stokoe first
made this claim, numerous sign language linguists have reiterated it, refining it to include the notion of minimal pairs (Battison 1978; Klima
and Bellugi 1979; Baker and Cokely 1980). The following recent claim
by Meir et al. is very much in line with the tradition in which ASL
pairs such as APPLE and ONION were said to be minimal pairs, distinguished only by place:
From a phonological perspective, signs are comprised of three major
formational categories: Hand Configuration, Location, and Movement. . . . Israeli Sign Language (ISL) . . . exemplifies the fact that
each of these categories is made up of a list of contrastive features, just
as the consonant and vowel categories of spoken languages each have
contrastive phonological features. In ISL, the signs MOTHER and
NOON . . . are distinguished by features of . . . two handshapes. . . .
This is a minimal pair because the locations and movements are the
same in the two signs, which are distinguished by handshape alone.
The ISL signs HEALTH and CURIOSITY . . . are minimally distinguished
by features of location (chest vs. nose, respectively), while ESCAPE and

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 250

250 | Sign Language Studies

BETRAY are distinguished by movement alone, straight for ESCAPE and
arc for BETRAY. (Meir et al. 2007, 53739)

The notion that the contrastive features that constitute these signs
are made up in the same way as are vowels and consonants in spoken
languages is somehow correct. However, the idea that two signs that
differ by a single chereme constitute a minimal pair is not. In parallel
to the ISL examples MOTHER and NOON, cited earlier, the ASL signs
APPLE and ONION are frequently cited as an example of a minimal pair.
Both signs are made with an X handshape and a twisting movement,
but APPLE is produced at the cheek, while ONION is produced beside
the eye. In this approach, the oppositional potential of simultaneous
features is taken to be equivalent to the contrastive potential of sequential phones. Figure 3 demonstrates that the two types of minimal
pairs are not equivalent. In vocally produced languages (figure 3a) the
contrastive elements are segments, while in Stokoes representations
the contrastive elements are the descriptive features of a single simultaneous bundle, which is structurally equivalent to a single segment in
spoken languages.
Figure 3 illustrates the schematic geometric differences between
minimal pairs in speech and a putative minimal pair of signs. Minimal
pairs in speech are discovered when sequences of phones differ by a

a. a set of minimal pairs in English

eye

X
handshape

jaw

twist

b. the putative minimal pair APPLE and

ONION using Stokoes system

Figure 3. Schematic representation of minimal pairs from English compared with a

putative minimal pair formed using Stokoes system.

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 251

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 251

single sequential element, as in figure 3a. Thus, [pat] pot and [tat] tot
constitute minimal pairs in English. In figure 3b, where the concept
is applied to APPLE and ONION, the concept of sequentiality is omitted because of the assumption of simultaneity in Stokoes system of
representation. The analysis simply applies the concept of substitutability to the three simultaneous cheremes. Since the two signs differ only in location (cheek and beside the eye), the two signs are
claimed to constitute a minimal pair. The problem here is that substitutability (Saussures paradigmatic opposition) is not sufficient to demonstrate contrast (Saussures syntagmatic contrast).
It is even more problematic when one attempts to apply the concept of minimal pairs to a sign such as BRAVE, for which the Stokoe
notation is shown in example 4. Because the concept of sequence of
segments is integral to the definition of minimal pairs in speech and
because that concept is ignored in applying it to signs, an analyst
would have difficulty in applying the concept to BRAVE.
4.

BRAVE:

[ j5j5xf#

In BRAVE the tab, dez, and sig symbols[ ] (chest), j5j5 (two
5-hand configurations with forearm involvement [ j]), and X (contact)do indeed represent simultaneous articulation because the sign
begins with two 5-hand configurations in fingertip contact with the
torso. Subsequent to this simultaneous beginning, however, a second
simultaneous event involves the original handshapes, the torso, and
two different and subsequent movements: ^ (movement away from)
and # (closing action). Given the assumptions of the system, it is inescapable that Stokoes own representation of BRAVE involves a sequence of two simultaneous articulatory events. As to how the
concept of minimal pairs might apply to BRAVE and a hypothetical sign
differing from BRAVE only in hand configuration, the most straightforward answer is that the concept is impossible to apply. For example,
substituting some other hand configuration for the 5-hand configuration in BRAVE would mean that the new hand configuration occurred
in two simultaneous bundles: first with [ ] and X, and next with [ ], f,
and #. Recall that minimal pairs in speech can be identified only when

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 252

252 | Sign Language Studies

there is a pair of words in which only one segment within a sequence

of segments differs. Using the example of substituting handshape in
BRAVE, the handshape occurs as part of a sequence. Thus, using substitutability within Stokoes system would involve substitutability not
just within a single simultaneous set of cheremes but also within a sequence of simultaneous cheremes. This flies in the face of how minimal pairs are defined.
Claiming that ASL ONION and APPLE compose a minimal pair requires changing the definition to eliminate the concept of sequential
contrast. However, once the concept of minimal pairs is defined differently for speech and sign, it is no longer the same concept. Thus,
claiming that APPLE and ONION constitute a minimal pair is tantamount
to claiming that they are equivalent to the pair [pat] pot and [tat] tot. But
it appears so only because the fundamental definition of minimal pair
has been altered in order to make it fit Stokoes conception of the
structure of APPLE and ONION. From this perspective, then, APPLE and
ONION do not constitute a minimal pair in the same sense that the term
has been traditionally used in describing vocally produced languages.
However, the difficulties with applying the concept of minimal
pairs to signs as represented by Stokoes system do not end with this
observation. The function of minimal pairs is to guide the analyst in
assigning phones (i.e., elements at a phonetic level of representation)
to distinct phonemic categories. But Stokoes system is claimed to be
an emic system at its core. That is, symbols such as [ ], f, and # are described as cheremesequivalent to phonemes in speech, not as
cheres, which would be equivalent to phones in speech. Thus, the
claim that APPLE and ONION are a minimal pair is inconsistent with entire notion of minimal pairs. The minimal pair [pat] and [tat] allow the
analyst to place the phones [p] and [t] into distinct phonemic categories,
but Stokoes system claims to already represent signs at a cheremic level,
equivalent to a phonemic level in speech. This fact suggests that there
is, in fact, no linguistic value to be derived from observing pairs such as
APPLE and ONION other than documenting opposition.
Meir et al. also claim, in accordance with Stokoes claims, that the
handshapes, locations, and movements that compose the internal structure of signs function as meaningless building blocks just as phonemes
do in vocally produced languages. Second, they claim that this verifies

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 253

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 253

the notion that signed languages indeed exhibit a duality of patterning

equivalent to the universal feature of human languages since they have
both a phonological and a grammatical level of patterning:
The important observation here is that, in the signs of the ISL lexicon, the different handshapes, locations, and movements function as
meaningless building blocks, in the same way that phonemes like [t],
[k], and [a]9 do in spoken language. . . . In short, established sign languages that have been investigated have a phonological level of structure. This characteristic gives sign language duality of patterning
(Hockett 1960), the universal design feature of human language that
makes it possible to create a vast vocabulary of meaningful forms from
a relatively small number of units that form a system without reference to meaning. (Meir et al. 2007, 53739)

If one takes their claim about duality of patterning to mean simply that
all languages combine meaningless elements to form morphemes and
words and that meaningful words combine to form an unlimited
number of possible utterances, then their claim is valid because both
types of languages certainly have that. Once again, however, this requires changing the definition of duality of patterning to eliminate the
notion of syntagmatic contrast at the phonological level. That is, at the
phonological level, the definition of duality of patterning involves sequences of meaningless segments that compose morphemes or words.
The Stokoe model as described earlier has no segments and therefore
no sequences of segments. If, on the other hand, signs can be shown
to consist of sequences of segments, then the concept of minimal pairs
could be applied without the need to redefine the concept. Such a
demonstration would also propose that the signs described earlier as
minimal pairs would not meet the generally applied definition.
Problems with the Putative Simultaneity in Stokoes System
Recall Stokoes proposal that a simultaneous bundle of cheremes attaches to meaning as a single unit. Stokoe represents some signs as
consisting of three simultaneous cheremes. This fact is represented in
figure 4 as vertically arranged groups of features. This is in line with
current practice for the representation of simultaneous phenomena
within a linguistic event. For example, THINK (figure 4a) is represented
with the following three simultaneous cheremes: forehead, G hand-

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 254

254 | Sign Language Studies

shape, and contacting movement. GUESS (figure 4b) illustrates another type of simultaneity. It is represented by forehead, C handshape,
and two simultaneous movements: a leftward movement and a simultaneous closing movement. Thus, even though the sign utilizes
two movements, all of its aspects are nevertheless conceived of as
simultaneous.
The concept of a simultaneous bundle of symbols is no longer possible when we consider signs such as CHICAGO (figure 4c), which again
has two movements (rightward and downward), although they are sequential rather than simultaneous. In producing CHICAGO the hand
first moves rightward and then downward. The existence of signs such
as this one argues against the core notion of the Stokoe system, which
claims that a signs features constitute a single simultaneous bundle because the sign actually contains sequences of such features.
If CHICAGO were a unique exception to the notion of representing signs with a simultaneous bundle of symbols, it might be possible
to preserve the fundamentals of a simultaneous system and treat it as
a sign requiring an exceptional sequential representation. But CHICAGO
is not exceptional. Rather, it is representative of a large class of signs
produced with two sequential movements. In addition, Stokoe represents signs such as CONGRESS (figure 4d) with a sequence of three sequential movements: contact, rightward movement, and contact.
Other signs, such as BRAVE (figure 4e), are also represented with three
movement symbols: contact, outward movement, and closing movement. Unlike CONGRESS, however, contact occurs first and is followed
by two simultaneous movements: movement away from the body and

a
THINK
Location

forehead

Handshape

Movement

contact

b
GUESS
forehead
C
left
close

c
CHICAGO

d
CONGRESS

space

space

right down

contact right contact

e
BRAVE
trunk
5
contact away
close

Figure 4. Two simultaneous and three sequential arrangements of cheremes.

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 255

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 255

closing movement. That is, subsequent to contact, as the hands move

away from contacting the body the handshapes simultaneously close.
The classes of signs represented in figures 4c, 4d, and 4e clearly
demonstrate that the concept that signs consist of a single simultaneous bundle with no sequence is merely a convenient fiction that began with Stokoes original proposal in 1960a concept that he
himself did not adhere to in practice.
Problems Posed by Compound Signs
Since the 1970s Stokoes notation system has been used only nominally in the analysis of the phonological or morphological structures
of ASL. This constitutes a puzzle because his cheremic model and its
assumption of simultaneity have been widely accepted. Klima and
Bellugi (1979, chapter 9), for example, adopt the assumptions of the
Stokoe model and use them to present the first analysis of the highly
productive compound-formation process in ASL. Their presentation
of examples is founded in the notion that every sign is one simultaneous unit.
They collected and analyzed a large number of compound signs,
demonstrating that compounds acquire their own meanings and that
their forms differ from simple sequences of two signs. Consider, for
example, the sign meaning something like just barely adequate,
formed from GOOD and ENOUGH in that order. Figure 5 repeats Klima
and Bellugis illustrations of the manner in which a left-handed individual signed GOOD and ENOUGH and the same persons signing of the
compound GOOD^ENOUGH just barely adequate.
Klima and Bellugi demonstrate that the compound sign is an independent lexical item with its own meaning and a form that is different from that found in the two independent signs in sequence. It is
apparent in their illustrations that, although the compound begins with
the left hand located and oriented as it was at the beginning of GOOD,
the full sign GOOD is not produced. Instead, after leaving contact with
the chin, the left hand quickly reorients and relocates in such a way
that the palm brushes past the radial surface of the S handshape on the
right hand. The repetition in ENOUGH is also missing. Additionally, the
right hand is already in place during the part of the compound asso-

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 256

256 | Sign Language Studies

ciated with the one-handed GOOD, and the orientation of the S handshape of the right hand is different from its orientation when ENOUGH
is produced outside the compound.
Because Stokoes system does not provide a way to explain these
differences through changes in the structure of one or both signs,
Klima and Bellugi are forced to talk impressionistically about the re-

GOOD and ENOUGH and the compound sign GOOD^ENOUGH (figure 9.9, from
Klima and Bellugi [1979, 212]).

Figure 5.

Reprinted by permission of the publisher from THE SIGNS OF LANGUAGE by Edward Klima
and Ursula Bellugi, p. 212, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Copyright 1979 by
the President and fellows of Harvard College.

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 257

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 257

duced and weakened movement of the initial sign (1979, 216) and
about a smoothing of transition between signs (1979, 218). They
also describe the rhythm of the compound as being different from that
of a phrase. In compounds, the signs seemed closer together (1979,
211) than the same two signs in a phrase. They describe the initial sign
as losing stress and repetition, mentioning that one-handed signs tend
to reduce to a single brief contact or stopa duration of a few millisecondsas if representing just the onset of the sign (1979, 216).
The problem posed by this analysis is that, in Stokoes conception
of signs, no part of the cheremic structure is identifiable as the onset
of the sign. All of the aspects are viewed as being simultaneous, so it
is impossible to talk about a beginning or an ending in cheremic terms.
As a result, Klima and Bellugis description of compound formation
relies on impressionistic terms like stress, reduced, and weakened, as well as the notion of seeming closer together. Thus,
although the cheremic system of notation seemed adequate for representing signs in a dictionary, its lack of utility in solving phonological or morphological problems demonstrates that the simultaneous
cheremes model of sign structure has significant problems.10

Previous Arguments for Segmenting Signs

Sequentiality vs. Segmentability

In traditional linguistic treatments of phonetics a distinction has been

made between sequential articulatory events and phonological or
phonetic segments. For example, consider the affricate [c] in chat
/ct/. In order to produce [c], the tongue must first stop the flow of
air by making contact with the alveolar ridge, as if producing a [t].
Then the tongue must move into a position near the alveolar ridge to
produce the sh sound []. Thus, although producing [c] requires a
sequence of articulatory events in producing the phonetic segment [c],
it is commonly treated as a single articulatory segment. Similarly, an
aspirated stop such as [th] also requires a sequence of articulatory
events. First, during the onset, the tongue contacts the alveolar ridge
and closes off the flow of air. Next, during the closure, the pulmonary
system increases the air pressure in the mouth, and, last, the tongue

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 258

258 | Sign Language Studies

moves away from that contact in such a way as to cause aspiration,

known as the release. In spite of the sequence of events needed to produce [th], it is also treated as a single consonant segment. Stokoe recognizes the need to describe sequential activities as part of the articulation
of signs in his original proposal, but only within the single simultaneous unit that constitutes an entire sign. He sees sequence in movement
but nevertheless treats the cheremes within the sign as simultaneous.
The notion that signs may have internal sequential structures is not
new. As early as 1978, problems with the lack of segmentation in
Stokoes cheremic model were evident. Supalla and Newport (1978)
investigated formational differences between one hundred formationally similar pairs of nouns and verbs and discovered that nouns and
verbs differ in sequential aspects of their movements. They identified
three manners of movement: continuous, hold, and restrained,
demonstrating that the manner of movement at the beginning of a
sign may differ from that at the middle or end. For example, although
the Dictionary of American Sign Language describes both SIT and CHAIR
as having the same three aspects, Supalla and Newport found differences in their production. They described SIT as beginning with a unidirectional movement and ending with a hold. In contrast, they
proposed that CHAIR also begins with a unidirectional movement but
ends with a restrained manner (i.e., a bounce in the direction opposite to the original movement). Based on the sequential evidence
they gathered, they suggested that signs may have sequential internal segments, contrary to the predominant view that signs are simultaneous bundles of features (1978, 96).
More evidence for the need to segment movement appears in the
analysis of aspectual verb forms in ASL (Newkirk 1980, 1981). Newkirk
recognizes the importance of both movements and holds in the analysis of these aspectual verb forms. He also argues that the movement parameter needs to be segmented:
[A]t some level of abstraction there is evidence that at least one of
these parameters, Movement, exhibits a sequential-segmental organization, and that information relating to one of the other parameters,
Hand Configuration, must in some way be realized in the surface
form of a sign, in temporal coordination with the movement structure. (1981, 65)

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 259

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 259

Although Newkirk presents considerable evidence for segmenting

movement in aspectual verb forms and argues that hand configuration must be coordinated with movements, he fails to propose
that signs in general are composed of sequences of segments, finding no compelling reasons to parse the sign into discrete segments
(1981, 17).
Movements and Holds as Segments

Liddell (1982, 1984) provides the first arguments that simultaneous feature bundles compose phonological segments and that sequences of
such segments compose signs. We summarize those arguments in the
following sections.
Measuring Movements and Holds. Liddell uses timing data to demonstrate that ordinary signs are divisible into sequences of what he terms
movements (M) (i.e., periods of time when the hand is moving) and
holds (H) (i.e., periods of time when the hand is not moving). He
measured M and H periods in signs both in narratives and when
signed individually from a list. He observed that in both conditions
the hand spends as much time not moving as it does moving and that
in both conditions a consistent pattern of M and H sequences
emerged. Liddell argues that these timing data demonstrate that
whether produced quickly as part of a narrative or more slowly as
signs on a listthe signs have a fundamental and consistent sequential structure.
Noncontacting Contact Signs
Many signs tend to be produced with contact between the active hand
and the body when they are articulated in isolation or in careful discourse. The same signs, when produced in more rapid discourse, often approach the place at which they normally make contact but do
not actually contact. Liddell called these noncontacting contact signs,
the behavior of which was a mystery in the cheremic system. For example, Stokoe represented KNOW as uBtX (forehead location, B hand
configuration facing the signer, and a contacting movement). In producing the contacting form of this sign, the hand moves upward
toward the forehead. As it approaches the forehead it takes on the flat

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 260

260 | Sign Language Studies

B hand configuration with the four fingers bent over at the first joint
and the tips of the fingers oriented toward the forehead. The hand
continues its motion toward the forehead until the fingertips make
contact. This contact is then maintained for a noticeable length of
time (i.e., in Liddells terms, the sign ends with a hold). Representing
the sign in Stokoes system with the movement chereme X (contact)
implies that it is the contact with the forehead that is significant, not
the movement to get the hand into contact with the forehead. In addition, the notation does not carry any implication that maintenance
of the contact is a part of the signs structure. Stokoe observes that
KNOW can also be produced without contacting the forehead (1978,
29), though it still moves toward the forehead. He describes this form
of the sign as being produced in the space in front of the signer with
an upward movement (Bt^).
This constitutes a puzzle because, according to Stokoe, in producing the contacting form of KNOW, the hand moves toward the forehead for the purpose of making contact. If the contact chereme is
eliminated, there appears to be no reason for the hand to move at all
since it no longer has an instruction to contact anything. Stokoe replaces X (contactual action, touch) with ^ (upward movement) and replaces the location u (forehead) with (space in front of signer). Now
the sign is described as merely moving upward in space with no target other than a general upward movement and constitutes the claim
that the noncontacting form of KNOW has an entirely different structure, one that is not associated with the forehead. This does not reflect the actual behavior of the hand in the noncontacting form of
KNOW. Simply moving the hand vertically upward will not produce
a sign recognizable as KNOW. In actuality, the hand movement is still
directed toward a specific goalthe forehead. Even though the fingertips do not make contact with the forehead, the hand nevertheless
moves to a position near it and comes to a stop, maintaining this position for a noticeable length of time. Thus, the movement toward the
forehead and the following hold are properties common to both the
contacting and the noncontacting forms of KNOW. Drawing on this
observation, Liddell argues that both forms have the structure MH,
and in both cases the movement is toward the forehead. The difference between the two is where the hand is when it stops its move-

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 261

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 261

ment toward the forehead. In one case the hand is in contact with the
forehead, and in the other it is not. Viewed in these terms, the noncontacting form does not lose the forehead as the place that guides the
movement of the hand, and it does not lose its movement toward the
forehead. Rather, the difference between the two turns out to be just
what the prose descriptions of the two forms of KNOW states. In one
case the hand moves toward the forehead and makes contact, and in
the other it moves toward the forehead and stops without making
contact. Such a view is impossible in a purely simultaneous model of
sign structure. Liddell argues that if the two versions of the sign in fact
share the first two aspects of activity (where the hand starts and its
movement toward the forehead) and only the last part is different
(whether the hand makes contact or not at the forehead), then it must
have significant sequential ordering.
Compounds
Drawing on these same observations about compounds, Liddell demonstrates that the first sign of compounds such as BELIEVE, historically a
compound formed from THINK (uGtx) and MARRY (CCg), is reduced
to one H segment. Specifically, he proposes that if the first sign has a
contacting H segment, that segment will be retained, and the remainder of the sign will not be produced. Liddell proposes that these facts
about THINK in a compound cannot be explained using a model in
which all aspects of sign structure are represented as a simultaneous
bundle. The first element of THINK^MARRY has a structure different
from that of THINK produced alone because the initial movement
toward the forehead is not present in the compound form. There is
no initial movement toward the forehead when the structure of THINK
is understood to be uGtx. This is because the contacting movement x
is the only movement in the sign. Moreover, there is no final part to
be retained in the compound. Clearly, Liddell argues, in order to keep
only one sequential part of a sign, the sign must have sequential parts.
Sequences of Segments
Liddell proposes that signs composed of a single circling activity would
consist of a single M segment. He concludes that other signs, such as
STARE and BE-SITTING, which are produced without any hand move-

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 262

262 | Sign Language Studies

ment other than the transitional movement necessary to get the

hands into position, consist of only a single H segment. He argues that
it follows logically that a movement followed by a hold must therefore consist of two segments:
It seems reasonable to entertain the following idea: If an M sign consists of a bundle of primes, and so does an H sign, then a sign which
moves and holds consists of two bundles of primes. One specifies the
characteristics of the sign during the M, and the second specifies the
characteristics of the sign during the H. (1984, 382)

Nonmanual Evidence
Liddell (1984) observed that the production of some signs also involves
nonmanual articulatory sequences that are very tightly coordinated
with manual articulatory sequences. GIVE-IN, for example, begins with
a B hand held with the palm in contact with the chest and the fingertips pointing across the body. The hand then moves slightly down and
away from the chest and comes to a stop. By the time the hand reaches
this position, the wrist has rotated enough so that, from its lower position, the palm it is still facing the chest. This makes GIVE-IN a sign
with the structure HMH. In addition to these manual productions, the
nonmanual aspects of this sign are also sequential. The sign begins
with the lips pressed tightly together, followed by a rapid parting of
the lips as the hand moves away from the chest. The mouth is then
held in an open position during the final H. Regardless of the duration of the initial hold in GIVE-IN, the lip press is maintained throughout that hold. Similarly, regardless of the duration of the final hold,
the mouth will be held open throughout that interval of time. During the movement between the holds, a transition from lip press to
mouth open takes place. Although from this perspective lip press
can be identified as a feature of the production of GIVE-IN, a Stokoe
representation would provide no means of making this observation.
This is because lip press is not a feature of the sign as a whole but
rather is of only the initial hold. Similarly, mouth open is a feature
of the final hold only. The initial and final Hs serve an important function in that the manual and nonmanual features are aligned during
those segments.

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 263

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 263

Signs Already Known to Have Multiple Movements

In Stokoes original work a sign was said to be a single, simultaneous
bundle of location, hand configuration, and movement features, but
the movement aspect frequently involved sequences. This made signs
like CHICAGO less than a fully simultaneous bundle of features and
therefore somewhat illegitimate if Stokoes theoretical claim were correct. However, if signs are composed of sequential segments, each
with its own sets of features, then CHICAGO simply becomes one more
sign produced with a sequence of segments. Stokoe analyzed CHICAGO
(C>V) as having a sequence of two movements: > (rightward) and V
(downward). In Liddells (1984) proposal CHICAGO consists of a sequence of three segments: MMH. The hand moves rightward during
the first movement, downward during the second, and finally ends
with a hold.11
Stokoes treatment of such signs assumes that even though the hand
makes multiple movements, the location and hand configuration features remain constant. This is not correct. In addition to the obvious
fact that the hand starts in one place, moves to the right to a second
place, then moves down to a third, it also changes palm orientation.
During the initial movement the palm is oriented forward (away from
the signer), but this changes during the second movement such that at
the conclusion of the sign (during the final H) the palm is oriented
downward. This change of orientation must be coordinated exactly
with the final change of location, which suggests that sequences are
critical in the structure of signs.12
Other signs change hand configuration during multiple movements. DESTROY, for example, begins with two 5 hands. For a righthanded signer the right hand is placed ahead of the right side of the
torso, palm down, while the other hand is on the left side of the
torso, palm up. The hands cross (strong hand above weak hand) without any change in hand configuration. The two hands then return to
their initial locations but change to A hand configurations as they do
so. Liddells proposal treat DESTROY as an MMH sign, with a final
hand configuration different from the initial one and the change in
hand configuration timed to occur during the second change of
place.

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 264

264 | Sign Language Studies

Indicating Verbs
Liddell also observes that indicating verbs (Liddell 2003) must be specified for more than one location.13 For example, if GIVExy begins its
movement toward x (the addressee) and ends its movement directed
toward y (a woman standing next to the addressee), the sign is translated as you give (it) to her. The initial location of the sign identifies the addressee as the giver, and the final location identifies the
woman as the recipient. There is no way to describe the movement
of this sign by identifying only a single location for it. Suppose that the
addressee were the location of the sign. What possible movement
could ensure that the sign would end by pointing at the woman next
to the addressee? Similarly, if the woman was understood to be the recipient of the giving, and a location in her direction was specified as
the single location of the sign, what possible way would there be to
ensure that the hand begins directed toward the addressee? This leads
Liddell to conclude that such verbs entail a distinctive and unmistakably critical sequence of places, with movements between them.
Nonpath Movements and Local Movements
Stokoe proposed two types of movement: those that cause the hand
to move along a path and those that do not. Stokoes movement f, for
example, moves the hand on a path in a direction away from the
signer, while the movement ] simply causes the handshape to close.
In WHITE (example 5) the 5 handshape begins with the thumb and fingertips in contact with chest. As the hand moves away from the chest
the hand closes to an O handshape. In example 6 the two-handed sign
BRAVE begins with the thumb and fingertips of a 5 hand in contact
with the fronts of their respective shoulders. The hands then move
outward and end their movements in what the Stokoe system identifies as a (cheremic) A handshape, though the hands are actually in an
S handshape.
5.

] [O]
[5tf

WHITE

6.

] [A]
[55t

BRAVE

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 265

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 265

These two signs illustrate that the closing action symbol alone is
insufficient as a mechanism for producing the correct final handshape.
That is to say, there is more than one way to close the 5 hand. Stokoe
added the second handshape inside square brackets to represent this
fact. However, specifying a second hand is inconsistent with a system
that claims that signs have only one handshape and with calling it a
closing movement rather than a second handshape. Thus, Liddell
argues that these signs provide evidence of the need to specify hand
configuration sequences, a fact easily accommodated in a system that
admits sequences of segments.
A third type of movementlocal movements (often called hand-internal movements)also argues for the segmentation of signs. These
involve a type of repeated, secondary activity of the hands that may
co-occur with path movements. One such local movement is wiggling,
in which the fingers repeatedly wiggle due to muscle contractions in
the joint closest to the palm. Consider VERY-LONG-AGO. In Liddells
treatment VERY-LONG-AGO is an MH sign with the movement beginning well ahead of the shoulder with a 5-hand configuration with the
palm facing across the body. The fingers wiggle during this movement. When the hand approaches the shoulder, it stops its movement,
and the fingers also stop wiggling. The nonwiggling hand briefly
maintains a nonmoving configuration (H). The problem for a simultaneous representation is that wiggling cannot be assigned as a property of the sign. Rather, wiggling is a property only of the movement
toward the shoulder since there is no wiggling during the H. However, if the M and H have their own properties, then it is straightforward to assign wiggling as a property of one but not the other. As long
as each segment has its own features, it is straightforward to restrict
wiggling to the segment in which it actually occurs.
The Revised MH Model
The initial MH model (Liddell 1984) was considerably expanded and
revised in Liddell and Johnson (1989). It maintained Ms and Hs as the
two basic types of segments that compose signs but separated them as
timing units from features that configure not only the shape, orientation, and location of the hand but nonmanual signals as well. This

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 266

266 | Sign Language Studies

model was taught in Johnsons ASL phonology course at Gallaudet

University during the mid-1980s. In addition, unpublished versions of
handouts from the class, as well as an unpublished 1985 manuscript,
ASL: The Phonological Base, which explained the details of the system as it had evolved, were also widely distributed during this time.
The paper was eventually published as Liddell and Johnson (1989).
The model differed from Liddell (1984) in significant ways. First, it
provided a much more detailed description of handshape (renamed hand
configuration), the placement and orientation of both the active hand and
the weak hand, and the relationships between the active hand and the
specified location of the sign. It also showed that more detailed representations of signs help identify morpheme structure constraints and
phonological processes and lead to solutions to morphological problems.
The MH model and its development into the model presented in
Liddell and Johnson (1989) is the only attempt we are aware of that
creates a notation system capable of representing more phonetic details
of actual signing. Such details have been especially useful in the analysis of many morphological constructions in ASL: aspectual frames
(Liddell 1984; Johnson 1996), ASL compound-formation processes
(Liddell 1985; Liddell and Johnson 1986), numeral incorporation and
affixation (Liddell 1996), and reduplication (Liddell 2003). Liddell and
Johnson (1989) also explore phonological processes such as movement
epenthesis, hold deletion, metathesis, gemination, assimilation, reduction, perseveration, and anticipation. Aside from this work, this version
of the phonetic system has also been applied to the analysis of other
sign languages (Takkinen 2002; Fridman-Mintz 2006).
However, ASL phonologists have not been especially interested
in the detailed phonetic representation of signs. Sign language phonology has come to be directed largely at more abstract types of representations:
Using phonological behavior of hand configuration as a guideline for
its analysis implies that phonetic detail will be left to a different component of the grammar. (Sandler 1989, 45)
My hypothesis is that the closer our analyses are to the phonetics, the
more apparent the differences are between sign language and spoken
language, and that the closer our analyses are to grammatical function,
the more apparent the similarities become. (Brentari 1998, 3)

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 267

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 267

The goal of minimal specification of features in an emic-level system of representation is also a characteristic of the syllabic model proposed in Wilbur (1993):
Predictable phonetic detail and redundant feature specifications
should not be included in a truly phonemic-level representation.
(Wilbur 1993, 137)
The appropriate approach, then, is to posit the least amount of internal structure in lexical entries until such time that it is conclusively
shown that additional structure must be added to them. (Wilbur
1993, 149)

Because we are seeking to develop a system that will enable a description of and a solution to ordinary morphological or phonological
problems and since none of these proposals deal with phonetic-level
representations, we do not review them here. However, there remains
one proposal regarding segmentation to review here. It suggests that
movements need not be transcribed in the representation of ASL signs
and so is directly pertinent to our analysis.
A Movement-Less Model

Without presenting an explicit counterproposal, Hayes (1993) argues

that, in the analysis of spoken languages, phonologists have been moving away from dynamic features. Prior to the emergence of autosegmental phonology, the affricate was regarded as a single consonant
involving more than a single configuration. Its initial configuration,
represented in figure 6, resembles [t], and its final configuration resembles []. Given these correspondences, phonologists came to represent the affricate as a united sequence of two distinct, static
configurations rather than as a single consonant with the dynamic feature [+ delayed release].

C
delayed release

falling tone

hi

lo

Figure 6. An autosegmental approach to the structure of affricates and falling tones.

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 268

268 | Sign Language Studies

Hayes hypothesizes that it might be fruitful to search for dynamic

features in ASL and replace them with static ones. He observes that
both Liddell (1988) and Stack (1988) argue that signs produced with
a hooking movement can be described in terms of their endpoints.
For example, DREAM begins with a straight index finger in contact
with the side of the forehead. As the hand moves away from the forehead, it starts hooking by repeatedly contracting the second and
third joints of the index finger. When the movement comes to a stop,
the finger is stationary in the hooked position. Thus, the sign can be
described as one that begins with a straight index finger, concludes
with a hooked index finger, and rapidly oscillates between these two
configurations during the path movement.
Hayes observes that an M is probably the central dynamic element
of all (1993, 220). If there were a way to eliminate Ms from ASL
phonological representations, then they would look very much like
phonological representations in vocally produced languages. He conjectures that if Ms turned out to be completely predictable, they
would not appear in underlying forms at all.14
In the next article in this series we demonstrate that eliminating Ms
from ASL phonological or phonetic representations of structure obscures the fact that the means of getting from one configuration to another turns out to be significant and not predictable. Hayes himself
observes problems with specifying the shape of the movement path
(e.g., arc, straight), as well as with whether or not the movement is
stressed. He ends his proposal without solutions for either of these
problems. We demonstrate that a number of other aspects of getting
from one configuration to the next also need to be specified as part of
a movement.

Phonetic Transcriptions
Vocally Produced Languages

A phonetic transcription of a spoken utterance is a representation of

the sounds uttered by a given speaker on a specific occasion. How accurately a phonetic representation represents a speech event will differ according to the needs of the analyst performing the transcription.

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 269

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 269

At a minimum the phonetic system should capture the sound distinctions needed to distinguish one word from another. It is possible that
the phonetic transcriptions of multiple instances of the word play uttered by several speakers of different genders and ages could all be represented as [phleI]. This does not mean that all of the speakers
pronounced the word in exactly the same way. Rather, it means that
the analyst recognized the same sequence of phonetic units each time
one of the speakers produced the word. The three units are the initial aspirated consonant [ph], the consonant [l], and the diphthong [eI].
The actual productions of these instances of play could have differed
in the intonation of the voice, the pitch of the sound, the length of
the vowel, the degree of aspiration of the initial consonant, and so on.
That is, even though a womans or a childs voice is typically at a
higher pitch than a mans, the phonetic representation [phleI] does not
attempt to represent that fact. What the analyst attempts to do is identify linguistically significant phonetic units within the sound stream,
while ignoring other aspects of the sound stream that are the result of
linguistically insignificant, idiosyncratic phenomena.
Transcribing the word play phonetically requires making a decision
about whether the initial sound falls into the category of sounds represented phonetically as [ph] or the category of sounds represented
phonetically as [p]. A typical American speakers production of play
would be represented phonetically as [phleI]. Anyone who has listened
to a large number of speakers knows that there are many individual
differences in pronunciation. Yet, those differences are generally not
great enough to change phonetic categories. It is possible, however,
to find a speaker who pronounces play in a way that requires a different phonetic representation. We have observed a television personality, for example, whose production of play would have to be
represented phonetically as [pleI]. That is, he does not aspirate the initial p to a degree that warrants its categorization as aspirated.
We emphasize here that phonetic transcription symbols are symbols for abstract categories of sounds, but the categories are not as abstract as phonemic categories. The primary difference between
phonetic and phonemic categories is that phonemic categories are abstractions across (abstract) phonetic categories. That is, for English,

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 270

270 | Sign Language Studies

the abstract phonetic categories [ph] and [p] both fall within the still
more abstract phonemic category /p/. For other languages these two
abstract phonetic categories are potentially capable of distinguishing
one word from another and could therefore fall into different phonemic categories.
Signed Languages

Ideally, a phonetic representation system for signs should accomplish the

same goals as one for speech. It should provide a written, categorical
representation of what a signer actually produces. Such representations
could provide a basis for the analysis of various types of phonological
processes, including assimilation, perseveration, and so on.
We argue that an adequate phonetic representation for signs necessarily involves sequences of phonetic segments. The nature and type
of segments needed for that representation are the subject of the next
article in our series.

Notes
1. Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg (1965, xxix) describe the motivation for the term chereme as follows: (CARE-eem, the first syllable from a
Homeric Greek word meaning handy). The origin of the term is described
differently in Maher (1996, 67), who states that it comes from the Greek
word chirologiathe eighteenth- and nineteenth-century term for fingerspelling or signing.
2. By convention, Stokoe omits the symbol for the location in front of
the body (). His dictionary represents CHICAGO as C >V. We have added
the tab symbol here for clarity.
3. Although hand orientation is critical and although it changes during
the course of the sign, it is not described as an independent aspect in Stokoes
notation. If it is represented, it tends to be shown as a part of the handshape
(dez) or as a specific movement, such as p (supinating movement).
4. The native ASL two-handed sign is opposed to the one-handed sign
RUSSIA, borrowed from Russian Sign Language.
5. The use of such categories is often defended by saying that Stokoe was
not trying to do phoneticsthat he was interested only in emic representationand so such details are not relevant. It is not the case, however, that
representing phonemes of a spoken language makes the phonetics of the spoken language irrelevant. In fact, phonemes are used together with a set of

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 271

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 271

statements of distribution that make it always possible to retrieve the phonetic
representation from the phonemic representation. Thus, lacking statements of
the distribution of the allochers of cheremes, Stokoes categorizations of emic
categories are unjustified and unusable.
6. Note that Stokoe described all signs as they would be produced by
a right-handed signer. Thus, the leftward orientation of BLACK here means
leftward orientation of the right hand. His notation system addresses neither
the fact that there are left-handed signers nor the common practice of righthanded signers to sign as if they were left handed. This is a difficulty our proposals resolve.
7. In spite of the wide acceptance of this notion, Stokoe never separated
hand configuration and orientation. Thus, for Stokoes system, this theoryinternal contradiction (nineteen dez symbols but hundreds of possible dez
configurations) was never resolved. In addition, facial expression and other
details of nonmanual gestures also need to be represented for lexical, morphological, and syntactic reasons (inter alia Liddell 1977, 2003; Baker and
Padden 1978; Baker-Shenk and Cokely 1980).
8. A useful review of these concepts appears in Mannheim (1991).
9. Meir et al. use square brackets here to represent phonemes, whereas
we follow the traditional practice of representing phonemes in angled
brackets and phones in square brackets.
10. See Liddell (1984) and Liddell and Johnson (1986) for a more complete discussion of compounding and other difficulties inherent in the simultaneous view of sign structure.
11. Our analysis of CHICAGO in a later article differs from Liddells (1984)
in that the phonetic system we propose contains five segments.
12. Because Stokoe represented a sequence of two movements and because all other sequences were also represented as movements, his system was
able to represent the timing of the orientation change and the location
changes. He accomplished this by labeling changes of orientation as unitary
movements. In this case the movement would be labeled with the symbol n,
which is described as nodding. Nonetheless, this is not a kind of movement
but rather a single change of orientation that needs to be coordinated with the
final change of place.
13. Although these signs are commonly referred to as agreement verbs,
Liddell (2000) argues that they do not appear in constructions for which the
concept of grammatical agreement applies.
14. Uyechi (1995, 97) also proposes a model in which movement itself
does not emerge as a phonological construct of the model. Rather, she proposes a transition unit that is intended to account for changes in handshape,
location, and orientation while the hand moves from one configuration to
the next.

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 272

272 | Sign Language Studies

References
Baker, C., and C. Padden. 1978. American Sign Language: A Look at Its Story,
Structure, and Community. Silver Spring, Md.: TJ Publishers.
Baker, C., and D. Cokely. 1980. American Sign Language: A Teachers Resource
Text on Grammar and Culture. Washington, D.C.: Clerc Books.
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.
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.
Brentari, D. 1998. A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Fridman-Mintz, B. 2006. Tense and Aspect Inflections in Mexican Sign Language Verbs. PhD diss., Georgetown University.
Friedman, L. A. 1975. Space, Time, and Person Reference in American Sign
Language. Language 51: 94061.
Frishberg, N. 1975. Arbitrariness and Iconicity. Language 51: 696719.
Hayes, B. 1993. Against Movement: Comments on Liddells Article. In Current Issues in ASL Phonology, ed. G. R. Coulter. San Diego: Academic Press.
Hockett, C. 1960. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.
Johnson, R. E. 1996. The Continuative Aspect Inflection in ASL: Evidence
for Variable Phonological Feature Values. Plenary paper presented to the
Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Linguistics Conference, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada.
Klima, E., and U. Bellugi. 1979. The Signs of Language. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Liddell, S. K. 1977. An Investigation into the Syntactic Structure of American Sign Language. PhD diss., University of CaliforniaSan Diego.
. 1982. THINK and BELIEVE: Sequentiality in American Sign Language
Signs. Linguistic Society of America, University of Maryland, Summer
Session.
. 1984. THINK and BELIEVE: Sequentiality in American Sign Language.
Language 60: 37299.
. 1985. Compound Formation Rules in American Sign Language. In
SLR 83, Proceedings of the III. International Symposium on Sign Language Research . Silver Spring, Md.: Linstok Press.
. 1988. Structures for Representing Handshape and Local Movement
at the Phonemic Level. Unpublished manuscript, Gallaudet University,
Washington, D.C.
. 1996. Numeral Incorporating Roots and Non-incorporating Prefixes in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 92: 20126.

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 273

Toward a Phonetic Representation of Signs, 1 | 273

. 2000. Indicating Verbs and Pronouns: Pointing Away from Agreement. In K. Emmorey and H. Lane, eds., The Signs of Language Revisited:
An Anthology to Honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 30320. Mahwah,
N.J.: LEA.
. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
, 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.
Maher, J. 1996. Seeing Language in Sign: The Work of William C. Stokoe.
Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Mannheim, B. 1991. The Language of the Inka since the European Invasion. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Meir, I., C. Padden, M. Aronoff, and W. Sandler. 2007. Body as Subject.
Journal of Linguistics 43: 53163.
Newkirk, D. 1980. Rhythmic Features of Inflections in American Sign Language. Manuscript. La Jolla, Calif.: Salk Institute.
. 1981. On the Temporal Segmentation of Movement in American
Sign Language. Manuscript. La Jolla, Calif.: Salk Institute.
Pike, K. 1947. Phonemics: A Technique for Reducing Languages to Writing. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Sandler, W. 1989. Phonological Representation of the Sign. Dordrecht: Foris.
Sapir, E. 1925. Sound Patterns in Language. Language 1: 3751.
. 1933. La ralit psychologique des phonmes [The Psychological Reality of Phonemes]. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 30: 24765.
Stack, K. 1988. Tiers and Syllable Structure in American Sign Language:
Evidence from Phonotactics. Masters thesis, University of CaliforniaLos
Angeles.
Stokoe, W. C., Jr. 1960. Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual
Communication System of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics occasional papers, no. 8, Buffalo: Department of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.
, D. Casterline, and K. Croneberg. 1965. Dictionary of American Sign
Language. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet College Press.
Supalla, T., and E. Newport. 1978. How Many Seats in a Chair? The Derivation of Nouns and Verbs in American Sign Language. In P. Siple, ed.,
Understanding Language through Sign Language Research, 91132. New York:
Academic Press.
Swadesh, M. 1934. The Phonemic Principle. Language 10: 11729.
Takkinen, R. 2002. Ksimuotojen salat: Viittomakielisten lasten ksimuotojen omaksuminen 27 vuoden iss. (Vitskirja) [The Secrets of Hand-

17975-SLS11.2 12/17/10 10:17 AM Page 274

274 | Sign Language Studies

shapes: The Acquisition of Handshapes by Native Signers at the Age of
Two to Seven Years]. PhD diss., Kuurojen Liitto ry, Helsinki.
Trager, G. L., and B. Bloch. 1941. The Syllabic Phonemes of English. Language 17: 22346.
Uyechi, L. A. N. 1995. The Geometry of Visual Phonology. PhD diss., Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. (Published 1996 by CSLI Publications,
Stanford, Calif.)
Wilbur, R. 1993. Syllables and Segments: Hold the Movement and Move the
Holds! In G. R. Coulter, ed., Current Issues in ASL Phonology, 13568.
San Diego: Academic Press.
Woodward, J. A., Jr. 1973. Implicational Lects on the Deaf Diglossic Continuum. PhD diss., Georgetown University.