Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 22:1 (2019) ► pp.83–111
Researcher’s Resources

Rethinking handshape

A new notation system for sign language

 | North-West University, South Africa
Concerted attention in sign language linguistics has focused on finding ways to document signs. Until now, most notation systems rely on a complex plethora of symbols and are under-specific, to the extent that visual images are still the most widely accepted way of recording primary data. This paper presents a novel phonetic notation of handshape in a step towards deriving an International Phonetic Alphabet for sign languages, based on digit shape (configuration) and position in terms of reference coordinates, aiming at both readability and precision. It is sufficiently hybrid to allow for both accurate measurements and estimates of digit positions, thereby affording a way of representing handshapes suitable for lexicography, studying phonetic variation and avatar programming. Originally tailored to describe handshapes in South African Sign Language, it can also notate gestures. After discussing transcription methods and hand physiology, digit configurations are defined in terms of joint angles. Variations in configuration positions are then specified in terms of Cartesian reference coordinates.
Keywords: SaNoSysH, sign language notation systems, handshape, phonetics, South African Sign Language, transcription, research tools
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.On the representation of signs
    • 2.1Glosses
    • 2.2Notation systems
    • 2.3Multi-tier annotation software systems
  • 3.Developing a phonetic notation system
  • 4.Creating reference coordinates
    • 4.1Finger configuration variations
    • 4.2Thumb configurations
    • 4.3Combining the configurations
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18001.weh
References (44)
References
Baker-Shenk, Charlotte & David Cokely. 1981. American Sign Language: a teacher’s resource text on grammar and culture. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Bébian, Roch-Ambroise. 1825. Mimographie ou essai d’écriture mimique, propre à regulariser le langage des sourds-muets. [URL]. (23 Mar 2018.)
Brentari, Diane. 2011. Handshape in sign language phonology. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elisabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 195–222. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno. 2015. Transcription and notation systems. In Eleni Orfanidou, Bencie Woll and Gary Morgan (eds.), Research methods in sign language studies: a practical guide, 74–88. New York: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno & Han Sloetjes. 2008. Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora. In Onno Crasborn, Thomas Hanke, Eleni Efthimiou, Inge Zwitserlood & Ernst Thoutenhoofd (eds.), Construction and Exploitation of Sign Language Corpora. 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages, 39–43. Paris: ELDA.Google Scholar
Eccarius, Petra & Diane Brentari. 2008. Handshape coding made easier: a theoretically based notation for phonological transcription. Sign Language & Linguistics 11(1). 69–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eccarius Petra, Rebecca Bour & Robert A. Scheidt. 2012. Dataglove measurements of joint angles in sign language handshapes. Sign Language & Linguistics 15(1). 39–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ELAN (Version 5.2) [Computer software]. (2018, April 04). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Retrieved from [URL].
Fenlon, Jordan, Kearsy Cormier, Ramas Rentelis, Adam Schembri, Katherine Rowley, Robert Adam & Bencie Woll. 2014. BSL SignBank: A lexical database of British Sign Language (First Edition). London: Deafness, Cognition and Language Research Centre, University College London. [URL]. (13 Sep 2018.)
Friedman, Lynn. 1977. Formational properties of American Sign Language. In Lynn Friedman (ed.), On the other hand: new perspectives on American Sign Language, 13–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hanke, Thomas. 2004. HamNoSys – representing sign language data in language resources and language processing contexts. In Oliver Streiter & Chiara Vettori (eds.), LREC 2004, Workshop proceedings: Representation and processing of sign languages, 1–6. Paris: European Languages Resources Association.Google Scholar
. 2010. HamNoSys – Hamburg Notation System for Sign Languages. [URL]. (23 Aug 2018.)
Hoiting, Nini & Dan Slobin. 2002. Transcription as a tool for understanding: the Berkeley transcription system for sign language research (BTS). In Gary Morgan & Bencie Woll (eds.), Directions in sign language acquisition, 55–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honna, Nobuyuki, Okda Kanda & Mihoko Kato. 1984. A notation system of sign language. Journal of the Japanese Society of Sign Language Studies 71. n.p.Google Scholar
Johnson, Robert & Scott Liddell. 2011. Towards a phonetic representation of hand configuration: the fingers. Sign Language Studies 12(1). 5–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Towards a phonetic representation of hand configuration: the thumb. Sign Language Studies 12(2). 316–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 2010. From archive to corpus: transcription and annotation in the creation of signed language corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(1). 106–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Auslan Corpus Annotation Guidelines. [URL]. (23 Mar 2018.)
Kakumasu, Jan. 1968. Urubu sign language. International Journal of American Linguistics 34(4). 275–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kanis, Jakub & Zdeněk Krňoul. 2008. Interactive HamNoSys Notation Editor for Signed Speech Annotation, 88–93. In LREC Proceedings 2008. [URL]. (18 Sep 2018.)
Kato, Mihoko & Nobuyuki Honna. 1989. A study of sign language writing system: an application of Sutton SignWriting System to Japanese Sign Language. Journal of Hakuba Kaki Genngo Gakkai Ronbunshuu [Hakuba Summer Institute of Linguistics] 31. n.p.Google Scholar
Kato, Mihoko. 2008. A study of notation and sign writing systems for the Deaf. Intercultural Communication Studies 17(4). 97–114.Google Scholar
Keane, Jonathan, Diane Brentari & Jason Riggle. 2015. Segmentation and pinky extension in ASL fingerspelling. In Eric Raimy & Charles Cairns (eds.), The segment in phonology and phonetics, 103–128. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Koizumi, Atsuko, Hirohiko Sagawa & Masaru Takeuchi. 2002. An annotated Japanese Sign Language corpus. In LREC Proceedings 2002. [URL]. (10 Sep 2018.)
Konrad, Reiner. 2011. Die lexikalische Struktur der Deutschen Gebärdensprache im Spiegel empirischer Fachgebärdenlexikographie zur Integration der Ikonizität in ein korpusbasiertes Lexikonmodell. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kuar, Pushdeep & Parteek Kumar. 2016. HamNoSys to SiGML conversion system for sign language automation. Procedia Computer Science 891. 794–803. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeson, Lorraine & John Saeed. 2012. Irish Sign Language: a cognitive linguistic account. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
McKee, Rachel & David McKee. 2013. Making an online dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language. Lexikos 231. 500–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Chris. 2000. Notationists of the world, unite! [URL]. (23 Mar 2018.)
Paabo, Regina, Monika Födisch & Liivi Hollman. 2009. Rules for Estonian Sign Language transcription. TRAMES 13(4). 401–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Priest, Lorna. 2012. Towards a Unicode encoding for Stokoe notation. [URL]. (20 Mar 2018.)
Prillwitz, Siegmund & Heiko Zienert. 1990. Hamburg Notation System for sign language. Development of a sign writing with computer application. In Siegmund Prillwitz & Thomas Vollhaber (eds.), Current trends in European sign language research. Proceedings of the 3rd European Congress on Sign Language Research, Hamburg, July 26–29, 1989, 355–379. Hamburg: Signum-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam. 2010. Documenting sign languages. In Peter Austin (ed.) Language documentation and description. Vol. 71, 105–143. London: SOAS.Google Scholar
SignWriting. 2018. [URL]. (23 Mar 2018.)
Slevinsky, Steven. 2016. The SignPuddle standard for SignWriting text. [URL]. (23 Mar 2018.)
Stokoe, William. 1960/2005. Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. Reprinted in Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10(1). 3–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, William, Dorothy Casterline & Carl Croneberg. 1965. A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Washington, DC.: Gallaudet College Press.Google Scholar
Sutton, Valerie. N.d. A global writing system for a global age. [URL]. (23 Mar 2018.)
Tkachman, Oksana, Kathleen Hall, Andre Xavier & Bryan Gick. 2016. Sign language phonetic annotation meets phonological corpus tools: towards a sign language toolset for phonetic notation and phonological analysis. In Hansson Gunnar, Ashley Farris-Trimble, Kevin McMullin & Douglas Pulleyblank (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology 2015, Vol. 3. DOI logo. (10 Sep 2018.)Google Scholar
Vicars, William. N.d. Sign language: Dr. Bill’s ASL fingerspelling and handshape art. [URL]. (3 March 2018.)
Wehrmeyer, Ella. 2013. A critical investigation of Deaf comprehension of signed TV news interpretation. Pretoria: University of South Africa DLitt et Phil thesis.Google Scholar
. 2016. An annotation system for signed language interpreting corpora. Hermeneus 171. 279–318.Google Scholar
. 2019. A corpus for signed language interpreting research. Interpreting 21(1). 62–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Dai, Zexi, Sathiamoorthy Manoharan, Ross Millar & Xinfeng Ye
2022. 2022 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer Science and Data Engineering (CSDE), ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Wehrmeyer, Ella
2022. Psycholinguistic errors in signed simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:2 ► pp. 192 ff. DOI logo
Wehrmeyer, Ella
2023. Chapter 1. Sign language corpus linguistics. In Advances in Sign Language Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 108], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Farooq, Uzma, Mohd Shafry Mohd Rahim, Nabeel Sabir, Amir Hussain & Adnan Abid
2021. Advances in machine translation for sign language: approaches, limitations, and challenges. Neural Computing and Applications 33:21 ► pp. 14357 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.