A magyar jelnyelv szublexikális szintjének leírása

A magyar jelnyelv szublexikális szintjének leírása

1

Philosophiae Doctores A sorozatban megjelent kötetek listája a kötet végén található.

2

Szabó Mária Helga A magyar jelnyelv szublexikális szintjének leírása

AKADÉMIAI KIADÓ, BUDAPEST 3

Témavezetõ Kassai Ilona

ISBN 978 963 05 8548 4 ISSN 1587-7930

Kiadja az Akadémiai Kiadó, az 1795-ben alapított Magyar Könyvkiadók és Könyvterjesztõk Egyesülésének tagja 1117 Budapest, Prielle Kornélia u. 19. www.akkrt.hu www.szakkonyv.hu

Elsõ magyar nyelvû kiadás: 2007 © Szabó Mária Helga, 2007

Minden jog fenntartva, beleértve a sokszorosítás, a nyilvános elõadás, a rádió- és televízióadás, valamint a fordítás jogát, az egyes fejezeteket illetõen is. Printed in Hungary

4

TARTALOMJEGYZÉK

1. Bevezetés a jelnyelvrõl és a jelnyelvhasználó közösségrõl .......... 1.1. A siketség és a jelnyelv: nyelvi rendellenesség vs. nyelvi kreativitás ................................................................................. 1.2. A jelnyelvet használó közösség ............................................. 1.3. A siketség fogalmának és gyógypedagógiai tartalmának változásai .................................................................................. 1.3.1. Az elutasítástól az elfogadásig: a siketekkel való foglalkozás gyökerei ............................................................ 1.3.2. Ókor és középkor ........................................................... 1.3.3. A siketoktatás kezdetei ................................................... 1.3.4. A milánói döntés mint a modern szurdopedagógia egyik sarkköve ..................................................................... 1.3.5. A magyar siketoktatás történeti fordulópontjai és ezek háttere ................................................................................... 1.4. A jelnyelvkutatás helye a nyelvtudomány történetében ........ 1.5. A dolgozat tárgya és célja ...................................................... 2. Mibõl áll egy vizuális-gesztikuláris nyelv „hangtana”? ................ 2.1. A jelnyelv szintjei a nyelvleírás felõl vizsgálva .................... 2.1.1. A jelnyelvek szublexikális összetevõinek felfedezése ... 2.1.2. Kézforma vs. kézkonfiguráció ....................................... 2.1.3. Kézformák ...................................................................... 2.1.4. A tenyér és az ujjhegyek iránya ...................................... 2.1.5. Mozgási komponensek ................................................... 2.1.6. Az artikulációs helyek és a jelelési tér ........................... 2.1.7. Érintkezés ....................................................................... 2.1.8. Non-manuális összetevõk .............................................. 2.1.8.1. A mimikai komponens ............................................ 2.1.8.2. Egy másik non-manuális elem: a szájkép ............... 2.2. A terminológia és a nyelvi modalitások összefüggései .........

9 9 15 19 19 23 25 27 30 35 37 40 40 40 42 43 44 46 46 48 49 50 51 51 5

2.3. A dolgozatban alkalmazott lejegyzési rendszerekrõl ............ 2.3.1. A lexikai átírásról ........................................................... 2.3.2. A fonológiai jellegû transzkripció egyik válfaja: az ikonikus szimbólumkészlet .................................................. 2.3.3. A fonológiai lejegyzés másik lehetséges módja: az alfanumerikus rendszer .............................................................. 2.4. Az elemkészletek jellegzetességei és a lehetséges sorozatok szabályszerûségei ............................................................... 2.5. A kerémák pszichológiai realitása .........................................

53 54 58 63 64 69

3. A jelnyelvi fonológiai elméletek áttekintése ................................. 3.1. Különbözõ elméletek a szublexikális összetevõk pontos leírására .................................................................................... 3.1.1. Megkülönböztetõ jegyek keresése a jelnyelv szublexikális szintjén ........................................................................ 3.1.2. A fenti kísérlet megismétlése változtatásokkal .............. 3.1.3. Kísérlet a kerémák generatív leírására ........................... 3.1.4. Egy artikulációs alapú jegyrendszer .............................. 3.1.5. Kísérlet egy univerzális osztályozási rendszer megalkotására .................................................................................... 3.1.6. A valódi kézformák és a kéz mint artikulációs hely elkülönítése ................................................................................. 3.1.7. Egy újabb generatív próbálkozás ................................... 3.1.8. Az alternáns jelnyelvek fonológiájának tanulságai ........ 3.1.9. A fonológiai jegyek hierarchikus szervezõdése ............. 3.2. Szimultán vagy szekvenciális struktúrájúak-e a jelek? .........

72

4. A magyar jelnyelv kerémái függõségi fonológiai keretben ........... 4.1. A kéz anatómiájának és a függõségi fonológiának a kapcsolata ............................................................................................ 4.1.1. Az emberi kéz felépítése ................................................ 4.1.2. Függõségi fonológia a jelnyelvekre alkalmazva ............ 4.2. Kézformák ............................................................................. 4.2.1. A kutatás menete ............................................................ 4.2.2. A magyar jelnyelv kézformaállománya .......................... 4.2.3. Szórványelemek ............................................................. 4.2.4. Az eredmények alkalmazott nyelvészeti hasznosíthatósága ...................................................................................... 4.3. Artikulációs helyek, mozgások, orientációk ..........................

92

6

72 72 75 78 80 83 84 85 86 88 89

92 92 96 111 111 112 115 117 119

4.4. Nonmanuális komponensek ................................................... 4.4.1. Anatómiai szempontok a mimika mûködéséhez ............ 4.4.2. A grammatikai szerepû mimikai komponensek áttekintése .......................................................................................

120 120

5. A kétkezes jelek fonológiai szerkezete ......................................... 5.1. Egy- és kétkezes jelek ............................................................ 5.1.1. A kétkezes jelek felfedezése .......................................... 5.1.2. A szimmetria ereje .......................................................... 5.2. A kétkezes jelek korlátozott/megszorított fonémahasználata 5.2.1. Battison alaptézise ......................................................... 5.2.2. A magyar jelnyelvben található kétkezes lexikai elemek vizsgálata ............................................................................. 5.2.3. Az alkategóriákba nem sorolható különleges kétkezes jelekrõl ...................................................................................... 5.3. A kétkezes jelek kezelése a függõségi fonológia keretében .. 5.4. Akadályozott artikuláció kétkezes jelek esetén .....................

127 127 127 129 130 130

6. Szótagok a jelekben ....................................................................... 6.1. A mozgási komponens típusai ............................................... 6.2. A mozgás szerepe a szótagképzésben .................................... 6.3. A kézformaváltozást tartalmazó szótagtípus ......................... 6.4. A szótagok kezelése az autoszegmentális, illetve a függõségi elmélet keretében ......................................................................

145 145 147 152

7. Fonológiai folyamatok lexikai egységen belül és azon túl ........... 7.1. A jelnyelvi szófajokról ........................................................... 7.2. Lexikai egységen belül történõ hasonulás ............................. 7.2.1. Aszimmetrikus kétkezes jelek ........................................ 7.2.2. Jelösszetételek ................................................................ 7.2.2.1. Számnév–számnév összetételek ............................. 7.2.2.2. Számnév és névmás összeolvadása ........................ 7.2.2.3. Számnév és idõhatározói elem egybeépülése ......... 7.2.2.4. Számnév és névszói jellegû jelek hasonulása ........ 7.3. Morfológiai folyamatok ......................................................... 7.3.1. A névmások képzett formái ............................................ 7.3.2. Cselekvésjelek egyeztetése a szereplõkkel .................... 7.3.3. Igei aspektusok és akcióminõségek ............................... 7.3.4. Névszói modulációk: többes szám és méretbeli különbségek ....................................................................................

156 156 158 158 159 159 160 165 166 169 169 170 173

123

132 140 141 143

153

177 7

7.3.5. Tulajdonságjelek jelentésmódosulásai ........................... 7.3.6. Az idõhatározók sajátos irányultsága ............................. 7.3.7. Képzett számnévi formák ............................................... 7.4. A fonológiai folyamatok kezelése a Hand-Tier modellben ...

177 177 181 188

8. Neurolingvisztikai és pszicholingvisztikai kitekintés ................... 8.1. Jelnyelv és modularitás .......................................................... 8.1.1. A nyelv mûködésének kognitív megközelítése .............. 8.1.2. A jelnyelv a modularitási elmélet tükrében .................... 8.2. Apraxia vagy afázia? – Egy meggyõzõ neurolingvisztikai bizonyíték ................................................................................. 8.2.1. Balagyfélteke-sérülés következménye a jelnyelvhasználatra ................................................................................... 8.2.2. Jobbagyfélteke-sérülés következménye a jelnyelvhasználatra ...................................................................................

191 191 191 195

9. Összegzés, következtetések ........................................................... 9.1. Az értekezés tudományos eredményei ................................... 9.2. A fonetikai jellemzõk és a fonológiai folyamatok ismerete a nyelvleírásban ........................................................................... 9.3. További kutatási lehetõségek ................................................. 9.4. Epilógus .................................................................................

207 207

Summary ............................................................................................

213

Felhasznált irodalom .........................................................................

231

8

201 202 205

208 209 212

Summary

Introduction Hearing impairment hinders the access to the acoustic signals, and thereby to the linguistic input; the central processes and vocal tracts are intact; only they cannot be wearing-in, because they fail self-checking feedback. The absence of hearing does not indicate incapability for acquisition or use of a language system; it is in view of Deaf community an insulting and pathological approach. Deaf people, vegetating not alone but discovered each other, succeed in overcoming this difficulty using sign languages as an alternative language system of full value. However, this difficult linguistic code, compared to the acoustic language “norm”, is considered a substituting (surrogate) language. Sign language in its pure form can be regarded as an entirely independent discourse mode, the spoken language surrounding it has no influence (or in the least deagree) on its rules and elements. Code mixing exists between signed and spoken languages; moreover, we can separate more degrees in it, but neither of these belongs to the scope of my thesis. During the 19th century, oral techniques using lipreading and speech and any residual hearing became increasingly popular in the education of deaf students, although in 18th century Abbé Charles Michel de l’Epée played a vital role in formalizing the use of sign language in classroom teaching. Writers had been compiling sign vocabularies since about 1776, but all of them listed words of French or English followed by descriptions or drawings of signs they alleged would translate those words. Until the early 1970s, the prevailing view of the sign languages used by deaf people was similar to that which existed toward vernacular languages before the Reformation. For these reasons, systematic studies of the signing systems were not conducted until the late 1950s, when William Stokoe, a classicist and anthropologist, developed a way of analyzing and coding in writing the signs of American Sign Languages (ASL). He and later his associates initiated a series of studies that has evolved into a major ongoing program of research into the grammatical structure of ASL. 213

Research interest in the structure of sign languages has increased dramatically in the last forty years all over in the world. It is evident in current linguistics that sign language of deaf people is a natural human language system. Thanks to this intensive interest for this form of communication, deaf people are recognized as a language minority group in many countries. We are confident that it will be attained in our country, too.

Aims of the research In a wider sense, my research area is the Hungarian Sign Language (HSL). Choosing the scope of my thesis I undertook the description of sublexical (”phonological”) level of HSL. It was motivated by two factors. First, I will show how the least expected domain, phonology might work in a totally different modality, and I would like to draw parallel between spoken and sign language at this level. Second, considerable progress in researches in HSL can be carried out the sublexical elements are clear. To realize my target, I tried to approach this level of the language using the classical descriptive method, some basic ideas of modern theoretical phonology, or a short introduction to the physiological ground of articulating signs. I paid attention not only to the set of elements, but also to processes of assimilation and to the structure of syllables. The analysis of two-handed signs was also a step in surveying of HSL phonology; hereby not only the set of handshapes but also their occurrence and tendency to combine are revealed. Ca. 1500 signs published in picture or in graphic form constituted the basis of the corpus of my descriptive phonological research (Lancz–Berbeco 1999; Vincze 1992, 1993). These signs were analyzed through detailed transcription of their phonological structure. Another part of the corpus contained appropriate video records about 1100 dialectic variations of signs and about 800 other signs, never published or mostly not standardized. This latter group was not described exactly; they served only for eliciting certain details that came up in the course of the research. My informants were of great help to me giving examples, comments and presenting variants of a single sign; but I could rely on my sign language knowledge, too.

214

The structure of thesis Language modality and terminology The first dilemma at the beginning of any sign language research project is always the question of terminology. Which is better: to develop a new terminology for the new modality or to use the existing terminology developed purposely for and during the research of spoken languages. In this regard, disagreement of some degree is observable up to the present in the field. Natural human languages are double articulated systems, and this is characteristic not only of acoustic languages, but also of sign languages. The key differences between spoken and sign languages lie in the elements of the code and in the channel used. Phonology is the study of the abstract system underlying the selection and use of minimally contrastive units in natural languages. Traditionally, phonologists have focused on oral languages; however, the recent realization that human languages can evolve outside the oral-aural modality, forces a broader understanding of abstract phonological systems. Because signed languages are not based on sounds, W. C. Stokoe (1960) suggested new terms substituting for phoneme, phonology etc. with coinages chereme (‘manual element’), cherology etc. It is assumed here that phonological units will be grounded in the modality in which they are realized. However, the abstract systems of constraints and processes affecting these units will be similar across spoken and signed languages, a reflection of the putative human linguistic capacity. Studying the structure of sign languages one could try to develop an entirely new terminology, but making analogies with spoken languages phonology is difficult to avoid and also undesirable. Although it is in principle entirely correct to state that the construction of a model for the grammar and especially for phonology of sign language must be based on evidence from languages in the gestural-visual modality alone, we ultimately wish develop a model of the language capacity that generalizes over language structure in all modalities. Developing a totally new terminology prevents one from setting up false analogies, but, at the same time, it may conceal crossmodality universals. In order to demonstrate in a rigorous way that signed and spoken language have much in common structurally, the definition of term ‘phonology’ must be changed. For the sake of this cause, the term ‘phonology’ refers to the meaningless but linguistically significant elements of structure in either modality. 215

Sublexical parameters and rules On the sublexical level of sign languages, several distinct types of elements can be found. Stokoe (1960) proposed to decompose the phonological shape of signs into three components: location (TAB), movement (SIG) and handshape (DEZ). Other researchers (Friedman 1976; Brennan et al. 1984) added orientation (ORI) as well, because it also has a linguistically significant role. The phoneme status of the facial expressions was a matter in dispute for a long time, but nowadays they are also recognized as a type in sublexical level (Prillwitz 1989; Prillwitz and Wudtke 1990; Boyes-Braem 1992). Thanks to the results of studies by various linguists, sign language research currently recognizes the following categories (sublexical elements): – Handshape – Movement – Place of articulation – Orientation (of the palm and/or the fingertips) – Facial expression – Oral components A sublexical element is (like a phoneme in spoken languages) the minimum phonemic unit that is not further analyzable into smaller units susceptible of concomitant occurrence, and also capable of differentiating signs, i.e. lexical units. Minimal pairs can be found in all sign languages, they differ only in one of the afore-mentioned parameters. Some components have close relationship between them, e.g. the combination of handshape and orientation together make up the hand configuration; while other components have less influence on one another. In different sign languages, the set of different handshapes is the most variable component; in contrast, the possible hand movements, locations and orientations have an anatomically limited repertoire, and can be considered as identical in all the sign languages. There is a linguistically oriented comprehensive formal notation system, namely the HamNoSys (Hamburg Notation System; see Prillwitz et al.1989), in which researchers are able to transcript all possible components constituted in any sign languages; it is similar to APhI notation system for acoustic languages. Using this transcription, the set of sublexical elements of a sign language can be revealed. The set of components is finite, as well as the set of their combinations is limited. Some combinations are simply formally restricted; some other combinations just have no meaning. It is parallel to phonotactic rules in 216

spoken languages. In sign languages are also observable some universal phonological rules, which originate from the physiological bounds and barriers of the hand.

Major steps of sign language research During the outset of sign language research, first all researchers learned new things by fitting them into knowledge they had already possessed. Later, in 1980s theories of sign language phonology tried to synchronize the sublexical character of spoken and sign languages applying fundamental concepts of current phonological theories, such as Generative Phonology (Chomsky and Halle 1968), Autosegmental Model (Clements 1985), and Dependency Phonology (Clements 1985, Anderson and Ewen 1987). In 1976, Harlan Lane–Penny Boyes-Braem–Ursula Bellugi tried a psycholinguistic experiment to reveal the distinctive features of ASL phonology. Their analysis focused on a type of sublexical segments, the structures of handshapes. They tried to unveil the possible distinctive features of the handshapes by an empirical research on perception. As conclusions, they suggested to register a list of 11 binary features by hand configurations. Stungis (1981) set up a revised edition of the model mentioned above, and stated precisely Lane’s results. Ronnie Wilbur (1979) started from the principle that ASL can be described in a generative frame as any other natural language, and of course, the phonological level of the grammar and its components can be also interpreted in this context. She pointed out the fact that there must be more than 19 DEZ listed by Stokoe and associates. Although she cannot work out a solution of full value because of supposing handshape variations, but tried to sketch a possible model; in which it the relations of different handshapes to each other, the manner of contact, in some cases also the movement component take a prominent part. In contrast with the approaches mentioned above, Mandel (1981) set a target to describe the phonological and morphological relations and rules existing in ASL by means of construction of available patterns. For description of hand configuration, Mandel supposed a scheme of features based on new articulation principles. In the focus of characterization of handshapes, is the ”Finger Position Constraint” (FPC), in addition to, the concept of ”selected fingers” (in contrast with ”unselected fingers”) plays an important role. Fingers in a certain handshape come into prominence, and can assume 217

more positions than unselected fingers, therefore they can be curved, bent, crossed etc. Unselected fingers can be only closed or extended. Mandel’s other innovation is that he initiates the markedness into the feature analysis. The conventions of markedness can be revealed through environment. Nearly a decade later, Prillwitz and his associates developed a notation system for the purpose of linguistic studies on the various national sign languages, because several individual notation styles were developed earlier by various sign language researchers. The transcription of glosses primarily intends to reproduce the content of a sign language utterance. Formal transcription such HamNoSys (Hamburg Notation System), on the other hand, makes an attempt to reproduce the external features of signed utterances. The basic structural principles of signs established by Stokoe and the sign writing he derived from that continue to form the most important basis for almost all subsequent formal notation systems up until today. After the pioneer period of the broad description of sign languages, however, further differentiations were required as a result of new findings in wordwide sign language research. HamNoSys, too, follows the traditions of the Stokoe’s approach. The team of the Center for German Sign Language and Communication of the Deaf tried to open up new opportunities for differentiation and to make the symbols as transparent as possible. Not only the finger alphabet is not sufficiently differentiated for these purposes, but there is also no uniform finger alphabet, which makes it difficult to use the notation system internationally. Another essential aspect was to create, at least in part, new iconic symbols for handshapes, as well. HamNoSys attempts to incorporate several, often diverging factors, e.g.: an anatomic and organic classification of handshapes into certain form groups; an iconic relationship between symbols and their referents in as many cases as possible; an efficient system which can be used with computer programs; a capacity for a variety of differentiations within the framework of a system which is as consistent as possible. Summing up, it may be said that HamNoSys with its more than 150 symbols is a strongly differentiated notation system, which enables us to give a formal description of sign languages on a virtually phonetic level. The symbols have a high degree of clearness and vividness, which should make them quite easy to learn them and the use of the finger alphabet for the description of handshapes was avoided. Such a computer sign notation opens up a whole range of new opportunities for sign language research. On the basis of a sign language corpus, which is coded in HamNoSys, search, selection and connective processes can be used to edit linguistic analyses. Moreover, it also provides an opportunity for an international exchange of 218

data, and this objective of international compatibility should make the work of a general and comparative sign language research much easier. Stokoe (1960, 1966) and many others believed that the feature of hand configuration, location, and movement are simultaneously organized with respect to each other, and not linearly, as are the consonants and vowels of spoken language. However, beginning in the late 1970s, evidence of linear structure in ASL began to accumulate, culminating in Liddell and Johnson’s (1989) explicitly linear autosegmental model of ASL phonology. According to that model, signs consist of sequences of static segments (holds) and dynamic segments (movements), each characterized by a bundle of features of location, hand configuration, and other types. Liddell and Johnson mentioned more than 150 underlying hand configurations in lexical items of ASL, but they do not enter into details. According to their hypothesis, hand configurations are characterized on basis of thirteen “mostly binary features”; and they take the view that this taxonomy enables the description of hand configurations of any sign languages. Wendy Sandler’s 1989 and 1996 works served as frame of sublexical analysis of HSL. Sandler’s root ideas are motivated by both articulatory and phonological factors. Articulatory evidence for a hand configuration node derives from the observation that certain finger configurations apply exhaustively to all specified fingers; in contrast, there are features, which may vary from finger to finger in handshapes. A representation in which specified fingers are independently represented allows us to capture the physiological facts: relative independence among articulators. According to these physiologically based ideas Sandler’s model incorporates a skeletal tier consisting of L-units for location, and M-units for movement to which the HC (hand configuration) node associates, as well as features expressing locational (or place) properties and movement properties. The latter specify, among others, the shape of the movement. Sandler proposes to regard Orientation as a subcomponent of HC, together with handshape; and also proposes to incorporate Mandel’s (1981) suggestion to decompose Handshape into Finger Selection and Finger Position nodes.

219

Location

Movement

Hand Configuration (HC)

Orientation

Handshape

Selected Fingers

Finger Position

Figure 1. The basic structure of Hand-Tier model

Sandler associates L as a unit to morphemic templates. This parameter is represented on the first level because the location and movement always appear sequentially together. The whole body-surface, the distance between the articulator and body, and manner of contact of a body part are represented under L-node. Sandler proposes to attach phonological and morphological rules to the movement as well as to the place, referring to their outstanding characteristics. The features of movement apply only to the real lexical movements (they can be described as a path); the hand internal movements (micro movements) are specified under HC node. Sandler proposes a node HC which subsumes the shape of the hand and its orientation. Both of them necessarily take along subordinate classes in assimilation processes. Handshape (selected finger node) may not assimilate without orientation. Orientation, lower in hierarchy, may assimilate alone. Handshape is further subdivided in a node Selected Fingers and a node Finger Position. The latter one specifies whether the fingers are bent, curved, and whether they make contact with the thumb. The articulatory signing space can be divided in a fixed number of subspaces. There is only one place of articulation specified in a morpheme, and this ‘place harmony’ can be represented by double binding this feature to the M and L nodes. The existence of marked and unmarked sets of handshapes and their relevance in language use (errors, acquisition / breakdown processes) offer grounds for that the features of articulation of simple and complex handshapes can be represented in Hand Tier model.

220

HC

Palm orientation [up]

Fingers [t]

[i]

[m]

[r]

[in]

[prone]

[contra]

[p]

Position

[open]

[closed]

[curved]

[bent]

[spread]

Figure 2. Sandler’s 1989 model

The sublexical level of Hungarian Sign Languages The first step of my research was to describe the set of cheremes of HSL exhaustively. 1500 signs, constituting the basis of the corpus, were analyzed through detailed transcription of their phonological structure into HamNoSys symbols. The results were explained quantitatively (see figure 4.16, in the main text). The constant handshape inside a certain sign was regarded as onset; in case of changing handshapes, the first one was considered as onset, the next one as rhyme. According to the results, there are 54 regular handshapes in HSL (see figure 4.16 in main text), from these: – 36 macro phonemes (occur without any restriction) – 18 micro phonemes 221

– only in onset position: 15 – only in rhyme position: 3 They are basic and derived forms altogether, but it is obvious that some of them are variants of other ones and the location of articulation influence their occurrence. To continue the research into this direction, a wider corpus would be required. Some rare handshapes appeared in the corpus, too, which occur sporadic in a few signs (see figure 4.17 in the main text). The number of these uncommon shapes is 10, they can be listed into three categories. One type refers to the initial letter of their equivalent in spoken language, in Hungarian. The second type borrows from a foreign sign language. The last one contains markedly iconic signs. Considering the structure of all these signs, they can be one-handed, two-handed, and compounds as well. As I wrote above, the possible hand movements, locations and orientations have an anatomically limited repertoire, and can be considered as identical in all the sign languages. Only the frequency of occurrence can be varying, but there are no statistics available for comparison in this field. Sign languages also convey essential information through a regulated use of facial expressions and head and body positions, too. The wrinkle of forehead, eyebrows, eyes, nose, cheeks, mouth and head and body positions are relevant to produce or interpret facial expressions. A certain nonmanual signal is produced along with certain lexical items. We can make a distinction between lexical and syntactical facial expressions. If the nonmanual signal is in the scope of a single lexical item, it can be regarded as a lexical facial expression. Syntactical facial expressions include the whole sentences of features, e.g. identification of speech acts (question, command, request, negation, confirmation etc.) or a change of speakers or references in sentences (conditional, causal, temporal etc.). There are a lot of adverbial nonmanual morphemes; optional manual signs may accompany them. However, the description of facial expressions would still be desirable. Many researchers are now working on way to accomplish that.

The phonological structure of two-handed signs Sign languages differ from spoken languages in having two distinct, anatomically similar articulators. Potentially, sign languages could exploit these independently within the limits of motor coordination. Yet, while many signs do involve both hands, they do not have equal roles. The one-handed 222

signs are articulated by the active hand alone, and it has lead in two-handed signs as well. The passive or ”weak” hand takes part in articulation, too, but plays a subordinate role only in two-handed signs. Battison (1978) describes two constraints on the non-dominant hand: the symmetry condition, and the dominance condition. Symmetry condition means: if both hands move independently during articulation of a sign, then both hands must be specified for the same handshape and the same movement (simultaneously or in alternation), and specialization for orientation must be symmetrical or identical. Dominance condition means: if the two hands do not share the same specification for handshape, then the specification of the passive hand must belong to a restricted set (see below: unmarked set of handshapes). In other words, the non-dominant hand (H2) has two distinct functions; this distinction divides two-handed signs into two groups as well. One class is referred to as ”echo articulator”; in these both hands are in the same configuration and typically articulate the same movement and locations. In the other class, the non-dominant hand functions as a place of articulation. In these cases H2 is specified for a different HC than the dominant hand (H1); H2 is stationary, only H1 moves to articulate the locations and path movement. In addition, the dominant hand does not make contact with any part of body other than H2 which is typical of this class of signs.

223

224 224 Figure 3. Types of two-handed signs

Studying two-handed signs of HSL, I took as a basis the same corpus as in description of the set of cheremes. It was be found 845 two-handed from about 1500 signs, but from these 47 proved to be false, the passive hand assumes an undefinite shape. The percentage of the various types is included in the table below.

Two-handed signs altogether: 845 Real two-handed: 798 Asymmetrical: 261 Different shape: 136

Same shape: 125

Symmetrical: 537 Mirrored: 494

Parallel: 43

Simultaneous: Alternating: Simultaneous: Alternating: 369 db 125 db 1 42

The restriction of the nondominant hand to unmarked shapes is stated in Battison’s (1978) Dominance Condition. He found that the specification of the passive hand in asymmetric signs must be belong only to the set of unmarked handshapes: A, S, B, 5, G, C, O (see figure 5.4 in main text). These handshapes are easier to articulate motorically than more marked shapes. Battison’s conditions leave open the possibility that H2 may have the same handshape as H1, even in signs in which the two hands do not move independently – it is a case of phonological assimilation. However, in the HSL corpus some uncommon, marked shapes occur on passive hand without assimilation: B-4, B+, O/, V, H, H/, L, Ä-O. The frequency of occurrence in the case of the active forms and symmetrical forms is the same as in one-handed signs, but there are some restrictions, too. In mirrored type, more shapes occur than in parallel class. In fact, it is quite possible to sign intelligibly using only one hand. Such one-handed signing often occurs, for example, if one hand is holding something. 225

Syllables in signs Many significant similarities between oral and sign languages have been found to exist. It has been suggested by many investigators that the phonological units of sign language are organized into syllables (see Sandler 1995; Kylander–Unger 1995). They restrict attention to models of the syllable that claim sequential structure, for the sake of comparison with spoken language. Within these models (Liddell and Johnson 1989; Perlmutter 1992), static (location) elements correspond to consonants, and dynamic (movement) elements correspond to vowels, such the same as an LML syllable may be compared to CVC. The differences between spoken and sign languages are perhaps most obvious in syllable structure. Unlike spoken language, sign languages have no “consonant” clusters. It is physically impossible for two locations to follow each other without a movement in between. This movement may be epenthetic, but it exists. Signs can be grouped into different kinds of categories depending on the kind of movement used in the sign. Basically, a sign consists of one or two hands moving from one position to another in space, either in the neutral space right in front of the signer, or close to / in contact with a body part. If the sign has only one articulator, the body part can be either the other (passive) hand or some other part of the body. The flow of signs in the continuous production of sign utterances is composed of hands with distinctive handshapes moving within the signing area. However, on a lexical or phonological level, a sign does not necessarily contain a movement, and when it does contain a movement, this does not need to be a macro movement. By dividing movement into ‘macro movement’ and ‘micro movement’ it becomes clear how the motion component in signs is structured. The movement performed between the two points can be referred to as macro movement (path movement). This movement, which can be further divided into lexical movement and transitional movement, is characterized by the displacement of the hand between two dislocated points in the space. The purpose of the transitional movement is to bring the articulator(s) back to the starting position of the lexical (primary) movement which is done – within signs (as in signs with repeated unidirectional movement) – between adjacent lexical units – getting the hands from a resting position to the point where the sign starts. The single unidirectional movement, the repeated unidirectional movement and the cyclic movement constitute different categories. 226

There is also a type of movement in signs that can be referred to as micro movement (local or hand internal movement). Four different types of micro movement can be identified: – movement in fingers; handshape change – movement in fingers; e.g. wiggle – movement in wrist; e.g. beat – rotation of lower arm; twist Handshapes that are made with all fingers selected show the biggest array of finger configuration. Handshape changes can be involved only in finger configurations: from close to open shapes or vice versa. Other changes are restricted (see e.g. Sandler 1993b; van der Hulst 1995a).

Phonological processes One type of phonological processes is inside of a lexical item: if the shape of the passive hand assimilates to the active’s form, or if more signs form a compound (numeral + numeral; numeral + pronoun; numeral + adverb of time; numeral + object/action sign). Signs can be extremely complex morphologically. Derivation causes changes in sublexical level to bring forth systematical changes in meaning as well (derivated forms of pronouns; change of aspects or action arts; to express plural or differences in size). Morphophonological processes often take place between lexical items. Inflection is a characteristic feature of sign language grammar, in this case the phonological structure of signs changes again. There is an important part of grammar in which each hand may act relatively independently: the system of verbs of motion and location. In this system, finite lists of movement and location roots combine with classifiers representing semantic classes. From the point of view of discursive dramaturgy, “verb signs” (object/action signs) are divided into two groups depending on their morphological structure (and meaning as well). Verbs articulated (“bounded”) on the body have only one standard constructing way where the character can be joined to the action only with pointing to its spatial index; while verbs articulated on an arbitrary point of the space can incorporate the spatial index of the character(s) flexibly and so the morphological features of the given lexical item are modified. In this case the direction of the motional component accommodates to the situation. 227

The psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic ground of sign languages The fundamental question about the human language function is that whether it must be postulated a general cognitive system or the language is an autonomic, and what is more, hereditary skill (Fromkin 1999). The latter one seems to be proven through more evidences. More experiments looked closely at the question of different coding processes and memory for signs. Fictitious signs were presented to adult hearing and deaf subjects (Siple et al. 1982), then a recall task required them to produce each sign. There is considerable evidence that deaf people can use cheremically based coding systems, therefore they could recall lexical items more precisely and successfully than hearing subjects, they could not apply linguistic strategies to memorize the presented signs, but regarded them as holistic gestures. Bellugi et al (1975) pointed out that, similar to phonological mistakes of hearing peoples, deaf people make sometimes chereologically based errors, suggesting that they encode linguistic information in STM using sublexical elements and rules. In his 1985 monograph, The Modularity of Mind, Jerry Fodor sets out a theory of cognitive organization, in which certain cognitive, linguistic, perceptive etc. functions are bounded to different modules; they are coordinated and controlled by central processes. According to Fodor, the cognitive organization in itself is influenced by the language module, its domain specificity and informational encapsulation, but this idea Sandler (1993a) considers unacceptable. Clearly, the physical stimulus domain for sign languages is visual and not acoustic. It is not only purely physiological grounds that sign language presents a challenge to the claim about domain specificity, but on computational grounds as well. Transducers transmit sensory information and preserve the informational content of their inputs. A conservative reading of this notion implies minimally that visual information is still visual and auditory information is still auditory when it reaches the purposed language module. It is the job of the module to interpret the transducers output in such a way as to ultimately make available to the central processes. The organization of phonological features is quite similar in spoken and signed languages, however it seems very clear that the process of organizing transducers’ output into this form cannot be the same in the two modalities. While the hierarchical representation of phonological features in spoken and signed languages have a lot in common, the input to the computations would have to be qualitatively and formally distinct, and 228

therefore computations themselves must also be distinct. That is to say that at computational level, as well as at the biological level, signed and spoken languages do not belong to the same domains. The second problem for the notation of informal encapsulation of a language module is the fact of horizontal encapsulation. That means that sign language takes information from another purposed module, namely, vision and not hearing, thereby violating horizontal encapsulation. (Fodor allows that the language module subsumes some part of the auditory module.) However, if the language module had equal access to all sensory modules, this would also be a violation of horizontal encapsulation. This observation does not necessarily argue against modularity, purely disproves the assumed close connection between the language module and the acoustic-auditive modality. The set of input systems is claimed to contain the perceptual system and language; it is a kind of asymmetry, referred to also by Fodor. Modules are claimed to be innate and hardwired, research in sign language and deafness reveals for these proposed properties as well. Helen Neville (Neville–Lawson 1987) has made some interesting discoveries about brain activity in hearing and deaf peoples. Hearing and congenitally deaf subjects have different patterns of brain activity when perceiving visual stimuli projected to the periphery of the visual field. Deaf subjects show more activity in the left temporal and parietal cortex than hearing subjects do for peripheral, but not foveal, visual stimuli. What is remarkable about this finding, is that these cortical areas subserve auditory functions in hearing people. This finding is two-pronged. First, the researchers suggest that the areas of cortex under discussion are responsive to both visual and auditory stimuli in neonates, and become more specialized for auditory processing with auditory experience. In the absence of such stimuli, in congenitally deaf people, there is an increased visual responsiveness in these areas due to lack of competition from auditory input. Second, they suggest that particular experience that accounts for this behavior with peripheral stimuli, and not with stimuli presented to the center of the visual field, in perception of sign language. The case studies of deaf aphasics also suggest (Poizner et al 1987) that as in spoken language, distinct type of language breakdown may be associated with particular focal lesions. They show also that there are similarities in the hemispheric organization of language skills in hearing and congenitally deaf people. These arguments strongly suggest that Fodor’s language module hypothesis is not compatible with the existence of sign language, nevertheless throws light on that the language competence, according to Chomsky’s 1967 principles, can be regarded as innate, but its relation to the physiology of 229

the organism makes no specific claims. Assuming that humans are specialized by evolution for use of spoken languages, sign languages represent an adapted system. What, then might be the principles according to which the mind organizes movement of the hands and movements of the vocal appa-ratus, each perceived by distinct systems, into similar phonological form? Are there some particular properties that characterize language, and, perhaps the cognitive system can manage linguistic and non-linguistic signals sepa-rated? The linguistic input influences neurological specialization of the same area of cortex to use for processing visual or auditory stimuli and modality, but why doesn’t it intervene in the non-linguistic visual/auditory signals? Sign languages are shown to be a challenge for the development of a comprehensive theory of language, which, it is suggested, should aim to predict both similarities and differences between natural languages in the two modalities.

Results of the dissertation This work is the first monographic treatment of national sign language research over the past fifteen years which provides a comprehensive analysis of sublexical level of HSL. Strength of the empirical data and used theories, the basic level of grammar is revealed: the set of cheremes, data about their frequency, and also the phonological rules as well. The deficiency of the work is that the nonmanual components are presented superficially. That facilitates the further research on higher grammatical level.

Conclusions and further work There are a lot of descriptive and applied linguistic field, where the result of this work can be utilized: – Morphological and syntactic research – A recent dictionary based on phonological characteristic of HSL – Study of handshape changes in time – Study of acquisition and breakdown processes in HSL users – Improvement of a program of sign language as a first language for deaf pupil – Improvement of a coursebook of sign language as a foreign language – Training course for sign language teachers – Reform of training course for sign language interpreters – Language planning (codification, standardization) 230

FELHASZNÁLT IRODALOM

Abonyi Nóra (1999) Mit kell tudni a cochleáris implantációról? (Tájékoztató füzet.) Budapest: SINOSZ. Ahn, Sung-Ho (1990) A Structured–Tiers Model for ASL Phonology. In: Lucas (ed.) pp. 11–26. Anderson, John M.–Durand, Jacques, eds (1987) Explorations in Dependency Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Anderson, John M.–Ewen, Colin J. (1987) Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arisztotelész (1969) Politika (ford.: Szabó Miklós). Budapest: Gondolat. Battison, Robbin (1974) Phonological Deletion in American Sign Language. In: Sign Language Studies 5, pp. 1–19. Battison, Robin (1978) Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring (Maryland): Linstok Press. Battison, Robbin (1980) Sign have parts: A simply idea. In: C. Baker–R. Battison (eds) Sign Language and the Deaf Community. Washington: National Association of the Deaf. Bellugi, Ursula–Fischer, Susan (1972) A comparison of signed language and spoken language. In: Cognition 1, pp. 173–200. Bellugi, Ursula–Klima, Edward S.–Siple, Patricia (1975) Remembering in signs. In: Cognition 3:2, pp. 93–125. Bellugi, Ursula–Klima, Edward (1991) Eigenschaften räumlich-visueller Sprachen. In: Prillwitz–Vollhaber (Hg.) pp. 134–166. Bellugi, Ursula–Newkirk, Don (1977) Formal devices for creating new signs in ASL. In: Stokoe, W. C. (ed.) Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Sign Language research and Teaching. Silver Spring: National Association of the Deaf. Bergman, Brita (1983) Verbs and adjectives: Some mophological processes in Swedish Sign Language. In: Kyle–Woll (eds) Bergman, Brita (1985) A comparison between some static sentences in Swedish Sign Language and in English. In: Tervoort, ed. (1986) pp. 52–56. Bergman, Britta–Wallin, Lars (1990) Gebärdensprachforschung und die

231

Gehörlosengemeinschaft. In: Prillwitz, S.–Vollhaber, T. (Hg.) Gebärdensprache in Forschung und Praxis, pp. 215–246. Bernstein Ratner, Nan (1993) Atypical Language Development. In: J. B. Gleason (ed.) The Development of Language, pp. 325–368. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company (3rd edition). Bonvillian, John D.–Nelson, K. E.–Charrow, V. R. (1978) Language and LanguageRelated Skills in Deaf and hearing Children. In: Stokoe (ed.) pp. 227–265. Bonvillian, J. D.–Orlansky, M. D.–Novack, L. L. (1983) Early sign language acquisition and its relation to cognitive and motor development. In: Kyle–Woll, B. (eds) pp. 116–125. Bonvillian, J. D.–Orlansky, M. D.–Novack, L. L.–Folven, J.R (1983) Early sign language acquisition and cognitive development. In: Rogers–Sloboda (eds) pp. 207–214. Boyes-Braem, Penny (1990) Zitat und Zitieren in der Gebärdensprachen der Gehörlosen. In Zeitschrift für Semiotik 14/1–2. (1992) pp. 79–109. Boyes-Braem, Penny (1992) Einführung in die Gebärdensprache und ihre Forschung. Hamburg: Signum Verlag (2. korrigierte Auflage). Brennan, Mary–Colville, Martin D.–Lawson, Lilian K.–Hughes, Gerry (1984) Words in hand. A structural analysis of the signs of British Sign Language Edinburgh: Moray House Coll. of Education. Brentari, Diane (1990) Licencing in ASL Handshape Change. In: Lucas (ed.) pp. 57–68. Brentari, Diane (1995) Sign Language Phonology: ASL. In: Goldsmith (ed.) pp. 615–639. Brian, David, ed. (1992) Dictionary of British Sign Language / English. London: Faber and Faber. Caselli, M. C. (1987) Language acquisition by Italian deaf children: some recent trends. In: Kyle (ed.) pp. 44–53. Chomsky, Noam (1995) [1967] Nyelv és elme. In: Chomsky, Noam: Mondattani szerkezetek – Nyelv és elme. Budapest: Osiris. Chomsky, Noam–Halle, Morris (1968) The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Clements, G. N. (1985) The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2, pp. 225–252. Cleve, John Vickrey van (1993) Deaf History Unveiled, Washington: Gallaudet University Press. Comrie, Bernard (1976) Aspect. Cambridge: University Press. Corina, David (1990) Handshape assimilations in hierarchical phonological representations. In: Lucas (ed.) pp. 27–29. Corina, David (1993) To branch or not to branch: Underspecification in ASL. Handshape Contours. In: Coulter, G. (ed.) Current Issues in ASL Phonology. New York: Academic Press.

232

Corina, David–Sagey, Elisabeth (1989) Are phonological hierarchies universal? Evidence from American Sign Language (Proceedings from Escol, 6) Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press. Crystal, David, szerk. (1998) A nyelv enciklopédiája. Budapest: Osiris. Csányi Vilmos (1998) A kultúra és a nyelv kialakulása az emberi evolúcióban: egy etológiai rekonstrukció. In: Pléh Cs.–Gyõri M. (szerk..) A kognitív szemlélet és a nyelv kutatása. Budapest: Pólya Kiadó, pp. 165–175. Deuchar, Margaret (1985) Implications of sign language research for linguistic theory In: Stokoe– Volterra (eds) pp. 239–246. Donald, Merlin (2001) Az emberi gondolkodás eredete. Budapest: Osiris. Dotter, Franz–Holzinger, Daniel (1995) Typologie und Gebärdensprache: Sequentialität und Simultanität. In: Sprachtypologische Universalien Forschung, Berlin 48 (1995) 4, pp. 311–349. Ebbinghaus, Horst (1998) Theoretische Sprachauffassung und Sprachliche Wirklichkeit. In: Das Zeichen 43. (März/1998) pp. 89–91. Edmondson, William H. (1990) Segments in Signed Languages: Do they exist and does it matter? In: Edmondson–Karlsson (eds) pp. 66–74. Edmondson, W. H.–Karlsson, Frederick, eds (1990) Sign Language Research ’87. Hamburg: Signum Press. Edmondson, William H.–Wilbur, Ronnie B., eds (1995) International Review of Sign Linguistics. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth–Pedersen, Annegrethe (1985) Proforms in Danish Sign Language, Their Usein Figurative Signing. In: Stokoe–Volterra (eds) pp. 202–209. Ewen, Colin J. (1995) Dependency Relations in Phonology. In: Goldsmith (ed.) pp. 570–585. Fischer, Susan. D.–Siple, Patricia, eds (1990) Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research. Volume 1: Linguistics. Chicago–London: University of Chicago Press. Fodor, J. A. (1985) Precis of The modularity of mind. In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8, pp. 1–42. Forgas, Joseph P. (1994) A társas érintkezés pszichológiája (2. kiadás). Budapest: Gondolat. Friedman, Lynne (1977) Formational properties of American Sign Language. In: Friedman, L. (ed.) On the other hand. New York: Academic Press; pp.13–56. Frishberg, Nancy (1975) Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. In: Language 51, pp. 696–719. Fromkin, Victoria A. (1999) Gondolatok az agy, az elme és a nyelv közti kapcsolatokról. In: Bánréti Z. (szerk.) Nyelvi struktúrák és az agy. Neurolingvisztikai tanulmányok. Budapest: Corvina, pp. 59–90. Furth, Hans G. (1972): Denkprozesse ohne Sprache. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann. Geerz, Clifford (1994) A bennszülöttek szemszögébõl (Az antropológiai megértés

233

természetérõl). In: Geerz, Clifford: Az értelmezés hatalma. Szerk. Niedermüller Péter. Budapest, Századvég Giddens, Anthony (1997) Szociológia. Budapest: Osiris. Glück, Susanne–Pfau, Roland (1998) Sprachtheorie und sprachliche Wirklichkeit. In: Das Zeichen 44 (Juni/1998) pp. 258–260. Goldsmith, J. A., ed. (1995) The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge: Blackwell. Gordosné Szabó Anna (1991) Gyógypedagógia-történet I–II. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Happ, Daniela–Hohenberger, Annette (1998) Gebärdensprache und Mundbild – Eine Entgegnung auf Ebbinghaus. In: Das Zeichen 44 (Juni/1998) pp. 262– 267. Harder, Rita–Schermer, Trude (1986) A first phonological analysis of handshapes in the Sign Language of the Netherlands (SLN). In: Tervoort, ed. (1986) pp. 47–51. Harris, Jennifer (1995) The Cultural Meaning of Deafness. Aldershot–Brookfield (USA)–Hong Kong–Singapure–Sidney: Avebury. Hewes, Gordon W. (1978) The Phylogeny of Sign Language. In: I. M. Schlesinger– L. Namir (eds) Sign Language of the Deaf. New York: Academic Press, pp. 11– 56. Holzinger, Daniel (1993) Forschungsbericht: Linguistische Analyse von Gebärdensprachen. Scientia 35 (Innsbruck). Horváth Brigitta (2001a) Egy egyetem, egy professzor és egy nyelv történetének összefonódása. In: Fejlesztõ Pedagógia 2001/2, pp. 47–50. Horváth Brigitta (2001b) Jelnyelvek leírására alkalmazható jelölésrendszerek (kiadatlan kézirat). Elõadásként: Nyelvészeti Doktorandusz Konferencia, Szeged, 2000. november Horváth Brigitta (2004) Nyelvi hátrány, hiányos-hibás nyelvi kompetencia (kiadatlan kézirat). Elõadásként: „Lehetõségek és korlátok.” OSI, Budapest: 2003. november Horváth László (1965) Funkcionális anatómia (gyógypedagógusok számára). I. kötet. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Hulst, Harry van der (1989) Atoms of segmental structure: components, gestures and dependency. In: Phonology 6, pp. 253–284. Hulst, Harry van der (1995a) The Composition of Handshapes. In: Working Papers in Linguistics – Special Issue on Sign Language Phonology Department of Linguistics, University of Thorndheim, 1995, pp. 1–17. Hulst, Harry van der (1995b) Dependency Relations in the Phonological Representation of Signs. In: Schermer–Bos (eds) SLR ’94, pp. 11–38. Ilosvai Ferenc (1995) Hallássérült óvodások anyanyelvi fejlõdése. In: Fejlesztõ Pedagógia 1995/1, pp. 22–23. Jackendoff, Ray (1994) American Sign Language. In: Jackendoff, Ray, Patterns in the Mind – Language and Human Nature; pp. 83–98.

234

Jakobson, Roman (1972) Hang – Jel – Vers. Gondolat: Budapest. Kendon, Adam (1988) Sign Languages of Aboriginal Australia. Cultural, Semiotic and Communicative Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. Kiefer Ferenc (1992) Az aspektus és a mondat szerkezete. In: Kiefer Ferenc (szerk.): Strukturális magyar nyelvtan – I. Mondattan, pp. 797–886. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Kimura, Doreen (1976) The neural basis of language qua gestures. In: Steklis, H. D.–Raleigh, M. J. (eds) Studies in Neurolinguistics. Vol. 2, pp. 197–219. Kimura, Doreen (1981) Neural mechanisms in manual signing. In: Sign Language Studies 10:33, pp. 291–312. Klima, Edward–Bellugi, Ursula (1979) The signs of language. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kósa Ádám–Lovászy László (1996) Rövid történeti áttekintés a hallássérültekrõl (kézirat). Krammer, Klaudia (1998) Der sublexikalische Baustein ’Handkonfiguration’ in Gebärdensprachen. Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft – Band 24. Universität Klagenfurt. Krammerbauer, Andreas (1993) Behindertenpolitik., Hamburg: Signum Verlag. Kylander-Unger, Catharina (1995) Reflections on Phonetic and Phonological Movement in Swedish Sign Language. In: Working Papers in Linguistics – Special Issue on Sign Language Phonology. Department of Linguistics, University of Thorndheim, 1995, pp. 38–53. Kuhl, P.–Miller, J. D. (1975) Speech perception by the chinchilla. In: Science 190, pp. 69–72. Lancz Edina–Steven Berbeco (szerk.) (1999) A Magyar Jelnyelv Szótára. Budapest: SINOSZ – SHL Hungary Kft. Lane, Harlan (1994) Die Maske der Barmherzigkeit. Unterdrückung von Sprache und Kultur der Gehörlosengemeinschaft., Hamburg: Signum Verlag. Lane, H.–Boyes-Braem, P.–Bellugi, U. (1976) Preliminaries to a distinctive feature analysis of handshapes in ASL. In: Cognitive Psychology 8, pp. 263–289. Leibnitz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1986) Válogatott filozófiai írások. (Ford. Endrefy Zoltán–Nyíri Tamás) Budapest: Európa. Liberman A. M.–Cooper, F.–Shankweiler, D.–Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967) The perception of speech code. In: Psychological Review 74, pp. 431–461. Liddell, Scott K.–Johnson, Robert E. (1989) American Sign Language: The phonological base. In: Sign Language Studies 64, pp. 195–277. Liddell, Scott K. (1990) Stuctures for representing handshape and local movement at the phonetic level. In: Fischer–Siple (eds) pp. 37–65. Litavecz Anna (1999) Gondolatok az integrációról. In: Balaskó M.–Kohn J. (szerk.) A nyelv mint szellemi és gazdasági tõke II. BDTF Szombathely, pp.377–382. Lucas, Ceil, ed. (1990) Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issue. Washington: Gallaudet Univ. Press.

235

Mandel, Mark A. (1981) Phonotactics and morphophonology in American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Berkeley: University of California. McCagg William O. (1993) Some Problems in the History of Deaf Hungarians. In: J. Vickrey van Cleve (ed.) pp. 252–271. McGurk, H.–MacDonald, J. (1976) Hearing lips and seeing voices. In: Nature 264, pp. 746–748. McIntrie, Martina L. (1980) The Acquisition of American Sign Language Hand Configuration. In: Stokoe, W. C., ed. (1980) Sign and Culture, pp. 186–205. Moser, Margaret (1990) The Regularity Hypothesis Applied to ASL. In: Lucas (ed.) pp. 50–56. Muhs, Johann (é. n.) Allgemeine Abriß der Gehörlosengeschichte. In: Sabine Fries– Joachim Klenk (Hg.) Gehörlos – nur eine Ohrsache? pp. 9–16. DAFEG (H. n.) Neville, Helen–Lawson, Donald (1987) Attention to central and peripheral visual space in movement detection tasks. An event-related potential and behavioural study. II: Congenital deaf adults. In: Brain Research 405, pp. 268–283. Newport, Elissa L.–Meier, Richard P. (1985) The Acquisition of American Sign Language In: Slobin, D. I. (ed.) pp. 881–938. Newport, Elissa L. (1982) Constraints on structure: Evidence from ASL and language learning. In: Collins, W. A. (ed.) Aspects of the development of competence. (The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology; 14.) Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 93–124. Papaspyrou, Chrissostomos (1990) Gebärdensprache und universelle Sprachtheorie. Versuch einer vergleichenden generative-transformationellen Interpretation von Gebärden- und Lautsprachen sowie der Erwurf einer Gebärdenschrift. Hamburg: Signum. Paunu, Juha (1983) Viito elävästi 2 [Jelelj életszerûen! 2] Helsinki–Jyväskylä: Kuurojen Liitto ry. Paunu, Juha (1994) Viito elävästi 1 [Jelelj életszerûen! 1] (4. változatlan kiadás) Helsinki–Tampere: Kuurojen Liitto ry. Perlmutter, David M. (1992) Sonority and syllable. Structure in American Sign Language. In: Linguistic Inquiry 23. (3) pp. 407–442. Poizner, Howard–Klima, Edward–Bellugi, Ursula (1987) Was die Hände über das Gehirn Verraten. Neuropsychologische Aspekte der Gebärdensprachforschung. Hamburg: Signum (Angol eredeti: MIT Press, 1987). Poizner, Howard–Bellugi, Ursula–Tweney, Ryan D. (1981) Processing of formational, semantic, and iconic information in ASL. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 7:5 (1981) pp.1146–1159. Prillwitz, Siegmund (1989) Hamburger Notations-System für Gebärdensprache. Entwicklung einer Gebärdenschrift mit Computeranwendung. In: Das Zeichen 2:6 (1988) pp.74–85.

236

Prillwitz, Siegmund (1991a) Der lange Weg zur Zweisprachigkeit Gehörloser im deutschen Sprachraum. In: Prillwitz–Vollhaber (Hg.) pp.17–22. Prillwitz, Siegmund, Hg. (1991b) Zeig mir beide Sprachen! (Elternbuch 2) Vorschulischer Erziehung gehörloser Kinder in Laut- und Gebärdensprache. Hamburg: Signum. Prillwitz, Siegmund–Leven, Regina–Zienert, Heiko–Hanke, Thomas–Henning, Jan et al. (1989) Hamburg Notation System for Sign Languages. Version 2.0. Hamburg: Signum. Prillwitz, Siegmund–Vollhaber, Tomas, eds (1990) Current Trends in European Sign Language Research. Hamburg: Signum Press. Prillwitz, Siegmund–Vollhaber, Tomas, Hg. (1991) Gebärdensprache in Forschung und Praxis. Hamburg: Signum. Prillwitz, Siegmund–Wudtke, Hubert (1990) Gebärdensprache in der vorschulischen Erziehung gehörloser Kinder. Hamburg: Signum. Radutzky, Elena (1990) The changing handshape in Italian Sign Language. In: Edmondson–Karlsson, F. (eds) SLR ’87, pp. 94–113. Reef, S.–Lane, H.–Battison, R. (1978) Visual persistence in handshapes in American Sign Language: an exploratory study. Boston: Northeastern University. Ribári Ottó (1990) Fül-orr-gégegyógyászat. Budapest: Medicina. Rissanen, Terhi (1986) The basic structure of Finnish Sign Language. In: Tervoort (ed.) Signs of life, pp. 42–46. Roda, Michael–Grove, Carl (1987) Language, cognition and deafness: Hillsdale, New Yersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assotiation. Rogers, Don–Sloboda, John A., eds (1983) The Acquisition of Symbolic Skills. New York–London: Plenum Press. Rozbora Gabriella (1996) A siketek természetes nyelve: a jelnyelv. Szakdolgozat, JPTE Nyelvtudományi Tanszék (Témavezetõ: Alberti Gábor). Sandler, Wendy (1986) The spreading hand autosegment of ASL. In: Sign Language Studies 15:50 (1986) pp. 1–28. Sandler, Wendy (1987) Assimilation and feature hierarchy in American Sign Language. In: Bosch, Anna (ed.) Papers from the 23. Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. P.1 The General Session. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 266–278. Sandler, Wendy (1989) Phonological representation in the sign: Linearity and non-linearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. Sandler, Wendy (1993a) Sign language and modularity. In: Lingua 89 (1993) pp. 315–351. Sandler, Wendy (1993b) Hand in hand: The roles of the nondominant hand in Sign Language Phonology. In: The Linguistic Review 10 (1993) pp. 337–390. Sandler (1993c) A sonority cycle in American Sign Language. In: Phonology 10, pp. 243–279. Sandler, Wendy (1995) Phonological Characteristics of Sign Languages. In:

237

Working Papers in Linguistics – Special Issue on Sign Language Phonology. Department of Linguistics, University of Thorndheim, 1995, pp. 18–37. Sandler, Wendy (1995) Representing Handshapes. In: Edmondson–Wilbur, R. (eds) pp. 115–158. Schermer, Trude (1990) In search of a language. Influences from spoken Dutch on Sign Language of the Netherlands. Rotterdam, Ebura. Schermer, Trude–Koolhof, Trude (1990) The Reality of Time-Lines. Aspects of Tense in Sign Language of the Netherlands (SLN). In: Prillwitz–Vollhaber, T. (eds) pp. 295–305. Schermer, Trude–Bos, Heleen, eds (1995) Sing Language Research 1994. Hamburg: Signum Press. Siple, Patricia–Caccamise, Frank–Brewer, Laurie (1982) Signs as pictures and signs as words: effect of language knowledge on memory for new vocabulary. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology 8:6 (1982) pp. 619–625. Stadler, C. (1968) Die sprachlich-geistige Situation des schwerhöriges Kindes. Bern–Stuttgart: Huber. Slobin, Dan I., ed. (1985) The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition: Volume I. The Data. Hillsdale (New Jersey): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Stokoe, William C. (1960) Sign Language Structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics. Occasional Papers 8. New York: Department of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo. Stokoe, William C. (1966) Linguistic description of sign languages. In: Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics 19, pp. 243–250. Stokoe, William C., ed. (1980) Sign and Culture. A Reader for Students of American Sign Language; pp. 3–52. Silver Spring (Maryland): Linstok Press. Stokoe, W. C.–Casterline, D. C.–Croneberg, C. G. (1976) [1965] A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Silver Spring (Maryland): Linstok Press. Stokoe, William C.–Volterra, Virginia, eds (1985) Sign Language Research ’83. Silver Spring (Maryland): Linstok Press. Stokols, D. (1972) On the distinction between density and crowling: some implications for future research. In: Psychological Review 79, pp. 275–278. Stungis, Jim (1981) Identification and discrimination of handshape in American Sign Language. In: Perception and Psychophysics 29:3 (1981) pp. 261–276. Suppala, T.–Newport, E. (1978) How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In: Siple, P. (ed.) Szabó M. Helga–Mongyi Péter (2003) A jelnyelv nyelvészeti megközelítései. (Tankönyv a jelnyelvi tolmácsképzés hallgatói számára.) Budapest: Fogyatékosok Esélye Közalapítvány. Takkinen, Riitva (1994) Kuuron lapsen viittomakielinen kehitys. [A siket gyer-

238

mek jelnyelvi fejlõdése.] In: Iivonen, A. et al. (eds) Lapsen normaali ja poikkeava kielen kehitys. [A gyermek normális és fogyatékos nyelvi fejlõdése] pp. 245–267. Helsinki: Suomen Kirjallisuuden Seura (SKS). Tervoort, Bernard. T., ed. (1986) Signs of Life. (Proceedings of 2nd European Congress on Sign Language Research) Amsterdam: The Dutch Foundation for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired Child – The Institute of General Linguistics of the University of Amsterdam – The Dutch Council of the Deaf. Vasák Iván (1997) A magyar siketek és nagyothallók egyesületi életének krónikája. Budapest: SINOSZ. Vincze Tamás (1992) Alapfokú kommunikációs tanfolyam. Budapest: HOSZ. Vincze Tamás (1993) Középfokú kommunikációs tanfolyam. Budapest: HOSZ. Wallin, Lars (1994) Polysynthetic Signs in Swedish Sign Language (English Summary of the Doctoral Dissertation). Stockholm: Stockholms Universitet.. Wersich, Regine (1992) Begriffsbildung bei hörbehinderten Vorschulkinder. Signum: Hamburg. Wilbur, Ronnie (1979) American Sign Language and sign systems. Baltimore: University Park Press. Wilbur, Ronnie B. (1990) What the notion means for the ASL research. In: Fischer– Siple (eds) pp. 81–108. Wolff, Sylvia (1998) Von der “Taubstummen-Unterrichtskunst” zur Didaktik des Gehörlosenunterrichts. In: Das Zeichen 43. (März/1998) pp. 10–18. Zahwe, Claudia (1995) Zur Phonologie der Deutschen Gebärdensprache. In: Das Zeichen 34 (Dez./1995) pp. 490–504.

239

Philosophiae Doctores A sorozatban megjelent kötetek 1. A. O. FRANK: The Philosophy of Virginia Woolf 2. PETÕCZ ÉVA: A nyelvi hiány fogalmának szövegtani értelmezése 3. ANDREA IMREI: Oniromancia – Análisis de símbolos en los cuentos de Julio Cortázar 4. Á. I. FARKAS: Will’s Son and Jake’s Peer – Anthony Burgess’s Joycean Negotiations 5. DÓRA FAIX: Horatio Quiroga como autor implícito 6. FEKETÉNÉ SZAKOS ÉVA: A felnõttek tanulása és oktatása – új felfogásban 7. CZETTER IBOLYA: Márai Sándor naplóinak nyelvi világa a retorikai alakzatok tükrében 8. GABRIELLA MENCZEL: Incipit y subtexto en los cuentos de Julio Cortázar y Abelardo Castillo 9. LÁSZLÓ VASAS: Ahondar deleitando: lecturas del Lazarillo de Tormes 10. JUDIT NÉNYEI: Thought Outdanced – The Motif of Dancing in Yeats and Joyce 11. TÖRÖK TAMÁS: Zoboralja földrajzi nevei a történeti térképek tükrében 12. ÁGNES CSELIK: El secreto del prisma – La ciudad ausente de Ricardo Piglia 13. JENEY ÉVA: A metafora és az elbeszélés bölcselete – Paul Ricoeur irodalomelmélete 14. MARÍA GERSE: Niveles narrativos en Todo verdor perecerá de Eduardo Mallea 15. DÓRA JANZER CSIKÓS: “Four Mighty Ones Are in Every Man” – The Development of the Fourfold in Blake 16. ZSUZSANNA CSIKÓS: El problema del doble en Cambio del piel de Carlos Fuentes 17. DR. RICHARD J. LANE: Functions of the Derrida Archive: Philosophical Receptions 240

18. HANSÁGI ÁGNES: Klasszikus – korszak – kánon 19. ÉVA PÉTERI: Victorian Approaches to Religion as Reflected in the Art of the Pre-Raphaelites 20. JUHÁSZ LAJOS: A közgazdasági feltételek és az agrárvállalkozások beruházási lehetõségei 21. KATALIN G. KÁLLAY: Going Home Through Seven Paths to Nowhere: Reading Short Stories by Hawthorne, Poe, Melville and James 22. ZOLTÁN SIMON: The Double-Edged Sword: The Technological Sublime in American Novels between 1900 and 1940 23. F. LASSÚ ZSUZSA: Barátok és barátnõk – együtt és egymás ellen 24. RACSMÁNY MIHÁLY: A munkamemória szerepe a megismerésben 25. NÓRA WENSZKY: Secondary Stress in English Words 26. BORS EDIT: Az idõ poétikája az önéletírásban 27. NÁBRÁDY MÁRIA: Az érzelmek a tranzakcióanalitikus szemszögébõl 28. JUDIT KISS-GULYÁS: The Acquisition of English Restrictive Relative Clauses by Hungarian Learners of English 29. PÁTROVICS PÉTER: Az aspektus története és tipológiája 30. NÉMETH MIKLÓS: Nyelvjárás, beszélt nyelv és spontánsztenderdizációs törekvések a XVIII. századi szegedi írnoki nyelvváltozatban 31. KATALIN MÓNOS: Learner Strategies of Hungarian Secondary Grammar School Students 32. KENESEI ZSÓFIA: A kapcsolati marketing jelentõsége a kereskedelmi banki tevékenységben 33. HARRO GRABOLLE: Verdun and the Somme 34. BORBÉLY JUDIT: The Reality of the Unreal –The city as metaphor in Henry James and his contemporaries 35. STEKLÁCS JÁNOS: Funkcionális analfabetizmus a hipotézisek, tények és számok tükrében 36. RITA HORVÁTH: “Never Asking Why Build–Only Asking Which Tools”: Confessional Poetry and the Construction of the Self 37. BENEDEK GÁBOR: Evolúciós gazdaságok szimulációja 38. JANKY BÉLA: Szolidaritás és jóléti preferenciák 39. BERETZKY ÁGNES: Scotus Viator és Macartney Elemér: Magyarországkép változó elõjelekkel (1905–1945) 40. MARJAINÉ SZERÉNYI ZSUZSANNA: A feltételes értékelés alkalmazhatósága Magyarországon 41. DEÁK ANDRÁS: Az orosz külpolitikai gondolkodás története (1992–1997) 42. CONSTANTINOVITSNÉ VLADÁR ZSUZSANNA: A latin nyelvû magyar nyelvészeti irodalom terminusai 241

43. UGLYAI GYÖRGY: Személyzeti marketing 44. GÉCSEG ZSUZSANNA: A francia nyelvû argumentum pozíciójú NP determinánsainak szintaxisa és szemantikája 45. GINTLI TIBOR: „Valaki van, aki nincs” – Személyiségelbeszélés és identitás Krúdy Gyula regényeiben 46. NÉMETH DEZSÕ: A nyelvi folyamatok és az emlékezeti rendszerek kapcsolata 47. IMRE GÁBOR MAJOROSSY: «Amors es bona volontatz» – Chapitres de la mystique de la poésie des troubadours 48. SZAVAI DOROTTYA: Bûn és imádság – A Pilinszky líra camus-i és kafkai szöveghagyományáról 49. ANNAMÁRIA ORBÁN: Community Action for Collective Goods 50. ZSUZSA RAWLINSON: “The Sphinx of Bloomsbury” – The Literary Essays and Biographies of Lytton Strachey 51. GYÖRGY SCHEIBL: Zwei Senatoren bestechen drei Vestalinnen – Nominalphrasen mit Numeralien und die referentiell-strukturelle Ambiguität im Deutschen 52. DÓRA GYÕRFFY: Democracy and Deficits – The New Political Economy of Fiscal Management Reforms in the European Union 53. KOPASZ MARIANNA: A vállalkozói potenciál területi különbségeinek magyarázata – A történeti-kulturális és társadalmi tényezõk szerepe

242