Phonological theories meet sign language: two theories of the two hands

We explore two models of the nonpreference hand in sign language phonology. These models are fully developed by the authors elsewhere. Here, we compare and contrast the models, paying special attention to the relationship between the models and the theories behind them. In the process, we address questions of broad theoretical interest: (I) Does the existence of two anatomically similar articulators in sign languages require a phonological model that is fundamentally different from models of spoken language? (2) In what ways does the particular phonological theory adopted shape the investigation and its results? The model of Sandler (1989, 1994a) is motivated by theories of Feature Geometry (e.g., Clements 1985), while that of van der Hulst (1993, to appear) is motivated by principles of Dependency Phonology. These theories are not. mutually exclusive, but each approaches the issue of phonological structure from a somewhat different perspective. We. show that each model of the nonpreference hand has certain advantages over the other in account-ing for the sign language data, and that the two models have independent theoretical and empirical consequences as well. In each model, the presence of two similar articulators, leads to structural differences between signed and spoken languages, but in neither case do these differences violate general principles of phonological structure. That is, each phoonological theory can accommodate the facts in a principled way. We find that each model serves to explain somewhat different properties of the aspects of sign language phonology examined. The particular phenomena that we analyze do not conclusively select one phonological theory over the other, but we do not see this as a shortcoming of the investigation. On the contrary, our results indicate that adopting different theories for sound reasons can expand our understanding of phonological phenomena, while at the same time shedding light on the scope and explanatory power of the theories