Thanks to the many people who have responded to my query about hand
biomechanics -- I never expected such a great response! It'll give me
much to work on.
I probably should have given a little more background. Actually, I
did my Ph.D. thesis on the kinematics/dynamics of fingerspelling (the
manual alphabet), using 3-D motion analysis (WATSMART). That work will
be published by John Benjamins in Amsterdam in May or June 1992 as
"The Phonetics of Fingerspelling."
My interest in knowing more about hand biomechanics stems from a
frustration with approaches to signed language linguistics that are
based on abstracting away from the channel of transmission -- a
strategy which is of course derived from the practice of spoken
language linguistics and phonology.
For example, Herman suggested I contact Bellugi and her colleagues
at Salk. I know the folks there and their work on ASL quite well.
But I'm not convinced that their framework is compatible with what
I am looking for.
In a nutshell, I would come from a more "cognitive linguistic"
framework that sees linguistic, cognitive, and motor functioning as
intertwined. Salk favors a more formalist approach in which linguistic
and cognitive processes are "modular" -- autonomous -- and language is
amodal: "both speaking and signing reflect the same underlying
principles ... [that] do not originate in the constraints of a
particular transmission system"; "... language, independent of its
transmission mechanisms, emerges in a ... linguistically driven manner"
[this is from the book What the Hands Reveal About the Brain by
Poizner, Klima, & Bellugi, and also a review of that book by Doreen
Kimura in the journal Language & Speech 31(4), 1988].
As Kimura says in her review: "As B.F. Skinner noted, natural
selection must operate on overt behavior, not on mental events or
hypothesized psychological constructs. Linguists perhaps need this
reminder more than most."
That, to me, is a reminder that signed language linguists need to know
much more than we do about biomechanics and the actual "stuff" of
which signs are made.
--
Sherman
biomechanics -- I never expected such a great response! It'll give me
much to work on.
I probably should have given a little more background. Actually, I
did my Ph.D. thesis on the kinematics/dynamics of fingerspelling (the
manual alphabet), using 3-D motion analysis (WATSMART). That work will
be published by John Benjamins in Amsterdam in May or June 1992 as
"The Phonetics of Fingerspelling."
My interest in knowing more about hand biomechanics stems from a
frustration with approaches to signed language linguistics that are
based on abstracting away from the channel of transmission -- a
strategy which is of course derived from the practice of spoken
language linguistics and phonology.
For example, Herman suggested I contact Bellugi and her colleagues
at Salk. I know the folks there and their work on ASL quite well.
But I'm not convinced that their framework is compatible with what
I am looking for.
In a nutshell, I would come from a more "cognitive linguistic"
framework that sees linguistic, cognitive, and motor functioning as
intertwined. Salk favors a more formalist approach in which linguistic
and cognitive processes are "modular" -- autonomous -- and language is
amodal: "both speaking and signing reflect the same underlying
principles ... [that] do not originate in the constraints of a
particular transmission system"; "... language, independent of its
transmission mechanisms, emerges in a ... linguistically driven manner"
[this is from the book What the Hands Reveal About the Brain by
Poizner, Klima, & Bellugi, and also a review of that book by Doreen
Kimura in the journal Language & Speech 31(4), 1988].
As Kimura says in her review: "As B.F. Skinner noted, natural
selection must operate on overt behavior, not on mental events or
hypothesized psychological constructs. Linguists perhaps need this
reminder more than most."
That, to me, is a reminder that signed language linguists need to know
much more than we do about biomechanics and the actual "stuff" of
which signs are made.
--
Sherman