The overview paper that came from this workshop covers a wide range of issues at the heart of European research in mouthings and mouth gestures in sign languages. There is a broad agreement that there are at least two (and probably more) clearly identifiable types of mouth patterns. Mouth patterns used in a sign language may be derived from a spoken language or they may have formed from within the sign languages and bear no relation at all to the mouth movement of a spoken language. Issues of terminology in this area were discussed in depth, as we tried to agree on terms used for mouth patterns derived from spoken languages and not derived from spoken languages. We also needed to refer unambiguously to mouth components that are produced over two or more signs. Terms such as "loan”, "borrowing” and even "word” also needed clear definition in this area. Notation systems for mouth patterns used by different researchers were described and their relative uses considered. Other major areas of discussion centred on the consistency of mouthings and mouth gestures. We considered obligatoriness of collocations of sign and mouth pattern, especially in relation to situational, regional and social variation.
The evidence presented from so many different sign languages was remarkably similar, allowing the working group to propose two theoretical ideas for further development.
On the matter of mouthings, it was necessary to consider the effect of cultural suppression of sign languages by spoken languages, especially by an oral education system but it might be claimed that mouthings are coincidental to sign languages, rather than a part of them. On the matter of mouth gestures, research from several countries supported the suggestion that the movements of the hand and body drive the movements of the mouth.
The participants in this workshop represented seven European sign languages. They are detailed here in order to show the wide range of languages studied. The precise topics discussed are given at the end of this paper.
| Bencie Woll | British Sign Language (BSL) |
| Rachel Sutton-Spence & Linda Day | British Sign Language (BSL) |
| Horst Ebbinghaus & Jens Heßmann | German Sign Language (DGS) |
| Daniela Happ & Annette Hohenberger | German Sign Language (DGS) |
| Jörg Keller | German Sign Language (DGS) |
| Päivi Rainò | Finnish Sign Language (FSL) |
| Marit Vogt-Svendsen | Norwegian Sign Language (NSL) |
| Jane Coerts | Sign Language of the Netherlands (SLN) |
| Trude Schermer & Wim Emmerik | Sign Language of the Netherlands (SLN) |
| Brita Bergman & Lars Wallin | Swedish Sign Language (SSL) |
| Penny Boyes-Braem & Carmen Steiner | Swiss German Sign Language (SGSL) |
In addition to presentations concerning these European sign languages, Christopher Miller provided input concerning Quebec Sign Language (LSQ) and Wendy Sandler made additional comments based on her knowledge of Israeli Sign Language. Subsequent to all presentations on specific sign languages, Susanne Kaiser spoke on the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) which is generally relevant to the study of mouth configurations, especially for their notation.
It was a matter of no small satisfaction to the workshop members that the data presented from these different sign languages were essentially similar. Very few of the features described in one sign language were not recognised by people who knew other sign languages. In most of the languages described, the same phenomena were reported. Repeatedly, researchers found more mouthings with nouns and uninflected forms of verbs, while mouth gestures were seen more with verbs. Mouthings were used with homonyms (although context helps disambiguate homonyms, too) in several languages. Reported sociolinguistic variations were also recognised in other languages. Mouth gestures similarly formed and driven were seen in most languages. Marit Vogt-Svendsen neatly summed up the great similarities between the mouth patterns in European sign languages by recalling how she had watched "The Snowman” in twelve different sign languages and seen Norwegian Sign Language mouth gestures in all of them.
Most of the presentations at the workshop were based on analysis of signing corpora, although some work was based on introspection by fluent signers. The data used as the basis for presentations and discussions had been collected from deaf signers over a period of several years. Some work referred to data collected in the late 1970s and some to data collected recently. Much of the analysis had been carried out on narratives and several corpora had been elicited using the story of "The Snowman” by Raymond Briggs (a healthy example of possible cross-border standardisation of materials). Other data came from citation forms in sign language dictionaries or from elicited single signs.
A primary aim of the workshop was to standardise the terms used when sign linguists describe and discuss mouth configurations and movements. In particular, we wished to reach a consensus on what to call different types of mouth patterns. In the workshop presentations, a wide range of terms was used. Some had been used in the past and others are currently in use. There was a broad agreement that there are at least two (and probably more) clearly identifiable types of mouth patterns. Those mouth patterns derived from the spoken language have been termed spoken components, word pictures, and mouthings. The mouth patterns not derived from spoken languages have been termed mouth gestures, oral adverbials, mouth arrangements, and oral components. (Jane Coerts reminded us that mouth patterns linked to emotion should be regarded as a separate group.)
During presentations and discussions, several researchers reported finding mouth components that are produced over two or more signs (for example the mouth pattern from the word "deaf” produced during the articulation of two manual signs DEAF YOU). Terms for this phenomenon included stretched, extended, final hold, lengthening, final lengthening and spreading. These needed to be contrasted with the observation that some mouthings are lengthened over one manual sign. For example, when the sign DRIFT was inflected to show that the drifting continued for a long time, the manual sign was lengthened and the mouth pattern derived from "drift” was also lengthened to accompany the sign.
A third area of potential confusion arose when it became clear that mouthings often need to be considered in the light of bilingualism and language contact. Terms such as loans, borrowings and words were sometimes used with slightly different meanings than might have been expected in most spoken language bilingualism research. For example, mouth patterns from spoken languages were sometimes thought of as words. Some members of the workshop preferred to use the term to refer only to spoken language words, while others felt it could be applied to any minimal free form in either spoken or signed language.
Lengthy discussions on these topics failed to produce a consensus. Some of the proposed terms were already being used outside of the field of sign language research; some did not translate well in different languages; some were felt to be too widely encompassing and some were misleading. It was further argued that predetermined labels tend to predispose what is looked for, and ultimately what is seen in data.
In a true spirit of European compromise, the members of the workshop agreed to continue working without a consensus. However, the discussion had highlighted the fact that everyone should be aware of the importance of precisely defining the terms they use in their own work. (Note that we have chosen to use the terms mouthings and mouth gestures for this paper.)
The ESF workshop that followed the workshop reported here was addressing issues of notation, transcription and phonology of sign languages so the participants discussed the question of notation of mouth patterns in some depth.
Marit Vogt-Svendsen had used pictographic symbols in her early work on mouth gestures. As a pioneer in this area of research she had used pictures of the jaw, lips, cheeks and tongue, with marking for air movements. Penny Boyes-Braem and Carmen Steiner were using the FACS for their reference to mouth gestures. Rachel Sutton-Spence and Linda Day had devised a "tree diagram” in which mouth patterns were described according to the position of cheeks and tongue and the visibility of the teeth. The mouth patterns at the ends of branches of the diagram were allocated numbers and these numbers were used to describe mouth gestures. Jörg Keller argued for the usefulness of a kinetic notation of lip and mouth movement. Brita Bergman and Lars Wallin had chosen to use a system of phonetic descriptions working with a restricted set of distinctive features (e.g. bilabials). In many cases, we recognised that these systems could equally as well be used to represent mouthings and this was noted for possible future developments.
In general, most researchers reported that they had used the orthography of whole word to represent mouthings. Everyone acknowledged that this system had theoretical and practical shortcomings, and yet most had accepted that the ease of transcription had outweighed the disadvantages for the short-term. Paivi Rainò, however, reported making a deliberate decision to use orthography for only the parts of words that were clearly visible.
For those who consider mouthings to be essentially a part of sign language phonology, the obligatory nature of the mouthings is important. We discussed the priority for noting obligatoriness at this point. Brita Bergman argued it is more important to notate first what we see and worry about obligatoriness later, while Jens Hessmann considered the idea of obligatoriness to be simply an extreme end of a scale of frequency of occurrence of collocation. Despite this view, Jane Coerts had found some SLN mouthings occur obligatorily (e.g. in SLN signs glossed as BROTHER and SISTER)
It became clear that the phonological question of what mouthings might be considered obligatory was complicated by sociolinguistic variables. Studies of different registers showed difference in mouthings (so that for example, interviews, story telling and signing to children generated different amounts of mouthing). Generation variation was also significant. In some countries older generations used more mouthings and in other countries, they used fewer. Penny Boyes-Braem and Carmen Steiner found age of acquisition also influenced mouthings. The amount used is similar, but the form and functions of these mouthings differed. Daniela Happ and Annette Hohenberger reported on the effect of individual variation amongst signers. Horst Ebbinghaus & Jens Hessmann and Jorgen Keller found mouthing differences in the regional dialects of northern and southern Germany.
The consistency of adjectival mouth gestures was taken as being outside our area of discussion. Although there was a general acceptance that these were important, we felt that theoretically they are not a challenge to the workshop. The lexical consistency of mouth gestures was of greater interest to the group. Brita Bergman & Lars Wallin and Paivi Rainò found that SSL and FSL used identical mouth gestures for their respective signs glossed as PIG. Overall, the consensus was that mouth gestures seemed to be more firmly bound into the unit than mouthings.
As so often happens, the workshop created more questions than it answered. We realised that we were unable to answer many of the questions that arose, but we felt it was worth highlighting these areas for future work.
It is clear that mouthings arise in a situation of language mixing in bilingual, strong language contact situations. Daniela Happ reminded the group that the cultural suppression of sign language in Germany caused increase in the amount of mouthing, identifying the primarily oral educational system as a major factor. Horst Hessmann claimed that mouthings and signs provide the contexts for better understanding of each other. The exact status and function of mouthings are still to be resolved and need considerable further research. Much of it was felt to be sociolinguistic research.
Bencie Woll described the synchrony of mouth and hand movements opening and closing in BSL, and Bergman & Wallin reported that timing of opening and closing of the mouth co-ordinated with body contact and hand closure. The meeting concluded that, to a certain extent, the mouth is obliged to move when some signs are articulated.
Harry van der Hulst suggested a scheme in which the primacy of hands and mouth vary according to the central modality of the language. In spoken languages, the mouth performs the primary, grammatical functions and the hands are secondary and dependent on the mouth. In signed languages, however, the hands perform the primary, grammatical functions and the mouth and face are secondary. He suggested that many of the mouth elements observed in sign languages might be seen as being in a transitional state between having a secondary function and achieving primacy.
Three theoretical areas emerged as needing further thought. The proposal that "The hands drive the head” had received strong support from the workshop. However, time and further work are needed to develop the idea further. The idea that mouthings are not a part of sign languages but merely coincidental to them needs considerably more thought. Members of the workshop held opposing views over the status of mouthings. Without further research, the status and function of mouthings will not be clarified. It was also agreed that we might find it useful to use kinematics as an approach to the study of mouth patterns.
The workshop unanimously agreed that it was a very good idea to set up a database containing examples of different sign languages using mouthings and mouth gestures. However, it was pragmatically unanimous in deciding that it was not practical at this time. It would be useful if such a database could link up with the ESF database currently being run by ESF but unfortunately the ESF could not support the database from within the Intersign project. We accepted Hessmann’s compromise suggestion to encourage all those who presented papers at the workshop to submit at least some of their sign language data that could be produced on a CD as part of the publication emerging from the workshop.
Brita Bergman & Lars Wallin (University of Stockholm)
Mouth Gestures and Mouthings in Swedish Sign Language
Penny Boyes Braem & Carmen Steiner (Swiss German Sign Language Databank, Zürich)
Mouthings and Mouth Gestures in Swiss German Sign Language
Jane Coerts (University of Amsterdam)
What is the linguistic status of non-manual features accompanying single signs?
Horst Ebbinghaus & Jens Heßmann (Berlin / Potsdam)
On the categorical difference between mouth gestures and mouthings in GSL
Daniela Happ & Annette Hohenberger (University of Frankfurt)
On the linguistic primacy of signs and mouth gestures over mouthings
Susanne Kaiser (University of Geneva)
Facial Action Coding System (FACS) (Geneva)
Jörg Keller (University of Hamburg)
Multimodal representations and the linguistic status of mouthings in German Sign Language
Christopher Miller (University of Quebec)
Mouthings, Syntax & Discourse in Quebec Sign Language (LSQ)
E. Raduzky, R. Ajello, L. Mazzoni, F. Nicolai (Rome, Pisa)
Mouthings and Mouth Gestures in Italian Sign Language
Päivi Rainò (Helsinki)
Mouthings and Mouth Gestures in Finnish Sign Language
Trude Schermer and Wim Emmerik (NSDSK, Amsterdam)
Mouth movements in SLN: Some implications for the representations of signs in dictionaries
Rachel Sutton-Spence and Linda Day (Centre for Deaf Studies, University of Bristol, England)
Mouth Gestures and Mouthings in British Sign Language
Marit Vogt-Svendsen (University of Trondheim, Norway)
Mouth Gestures and Mouthings in Norwegian Sign Language
Bencie Woll (City University London)
Echo Phonology
Posted: 9.12.99