The Grammatical Imperative of Nonmanual Markers in American Sign Language A Critique of Baker and Padden (1978)

The Grammatical Imperative of Nonmanual Markers in American Sign Language: A Critique

of Baker and Padden (1978)

Summary

Katarina Giulia Anderson

University of Cincinnati

Beginning American Sign Language I

2024-07-17

Bibliographic

Entry Baker, C., & Padden, C. (1978). Focusing on Nonmanual Components of ASL

Grammar. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding Language Through Sign Language Research (pp.

27-50). Academic Press.

Abstract

This summary critically examines Baker and Padden's seminal chapter, "Focusing on

Nonmanual Components of ASL Grammar," which posits nonmanual markers (NMMs) as

indispensable grammatical elements within American Sign Language (ASL), rather than mere

paralinguistic embellishments. The authors meticulously delineate various NMM categories,

including facial expressions, head movements, and body shifts, demonstrating their integral

roles in syntactic structuring, morphological inflection, and discourse organization. By

analyzing the simultaneous occurrence of NMMs with manual signs, Baker and Padden argue

for a comprehensive understanding of ASL that transcends a purely manual-centric

perspective. The article's enduring contribution lies in its rigorous linguistic analysis, which

solidified ASL's status as a fully fledged natural language and laid foundational groundwork

for subsequent research into ASL phonology, syntax, and pedagogical methodologies,

particularly concerning L2 acquisition challenges.

Main Arguments

Baker and Padden's primary contention is that nonmanual markers are not peripheral to

American Sign Language but are, in fact, core components of its grammatical system,

functioning simultaneously with manual signs to convey meaning. They systematically

categorize NMMs and illustrate their diverse linguistic functions:

First, the authors detail the role of specific facial expressions in grammatical

disambiguation. For instance, raised eyebrows and a forward head tilt typically accompany

Yes/No questions, while furrowed eyebrows, a slight head tilt, and sometimes a specific mouth

movement (e.g., "squint" for "how much") mark Wh-questions (who, what, when, where, why,

how). Without these NMMs, the manual signs alone might be interpreted as declarative

statements, leading to significant communicative ambiguity. Second, NMMs are shown to

carry adverbial and adjectival information, modifying verbs and nouns in ways that spoken

languages achieve through lexical items or intonation. The authors cite examples such as the

"cha" mouth morpheme, indicating something large or voluminous; the "mm" mouth

morpheme, denoting something normal or typical; and the "th" mouth morpheme, conveying

carelessness or clumsiness. These nonmanual adverbials are not merely expressive but are

grammatically required to convey specific semantic nuances. For example, the sign BIG

accompanied by the "cha" mouth morpheme conveys "very big" or "huge," a distinct meaning

from BIG with a neutral mouth. Third, Baker and Padden discuss NMMs' role in syntactic

structuring, particularly in topicalization and conditional clauses. Topicalization, where a noun

phrase is moved to the beginning of a sentence for emphasis, is often marked by raised

eyebrows and a slight head tilt during the topic sign, followed by a pause before the comment.

Similarly, conditional clauses ("if...then...") are typically introduced with raised eyebrows and

a forward head tilt during the "if" clause, signaling its subordinate status. These NMMs

delineate clause boundaries and indicate syntactic relationships between sentence components.

Fourth, the article highlights the function of NMMs in negation and affirmation. While manual

signs for negation (e.g., NOT, DON'T KNOW) exist, a head shake is an ubiquitous NMM that

can negate a statement even without a manual negative sign, or reinforce a manual negation.

Conversely, head nods frequently accompany affirmations or agreement. Finally, the authors

emphasize the simultaneous nature of NMMs. Unlike spoken languages where prosodic

features often unfold linearly, NMMs in ASL occur concurrently with manual signs, creating

a multi-layered linguistic signal. This simultaneity is a defining characteristic of ASL grammar

and a key differentiator from spoken language structures, requiring signers to process and

produce information across multiple channels simultaneously. Their analysis underscores that

a complete understanding of ASL requires attention to this intricate interplay of manual and

nonmanual elements, challenging earlier, reductionist views that treated ASL as merely a visual

representation of English words.

Methodology

Baker and Padden's conclusions in "Focusing on Nonmanual Components of ASL

Grammar" derive from a rigorous application of descriptive linguistic methodology, typical of

the burgeoning field of ASL linguistics in the 1970s. Their approach can be characterized by

several key features:

1. Observational Linguistics and Data Collection: The authors primarily relied on

extensive observation and analysis of naturalistic ASL discourse produced by native Deaf

signers. This involved recording and meticulously reviewing videotapes of conversations,

narratives, and presentations within the Deaf community. This empirical approach ensured that

their findings reflected actual language use rather than prescriptive rules or intuitions of non-

native signers.

2. Structural Analysis: Drawing inspiration from structuralist linguistics, Baker and

Padden systematically identified recurring patterns and contrasts in ASL. They segmented

utterances into their constituent parts (manual signs, facial expressions, head movements, body

postures) and analyzed how these components co-occurred and varied to produce different

meanings. This involved identifying minimal pairs where a change in an NMM alone altered

the grammatical function or semantic interpretation of an utterance.

3. Comparative Linguistics (Implicit): While not explicitly a comparative study with

spoken languages, the underlying framework often implicitly contrasted ASL's visual-gestural

modality with the auditory-vocal modality of spoken languages. By demonstrating the complex

grammatical functions of NMMs, they challenged the notion that sign languages were merely

simplified or iconic forms of communication, asserting their status as fully developed linguistic

systems with distinct grammatical structures.

4. Ethnographic Context: The researchers were deeply embedded within the Deaf

community, with Padden herself being a native signer. This insider perspective provided

invaluable insights into the cultural context and natural communicative practices of ASL users,

ensuring that their linguistic analysis was grounded in authentic usage. This ethnographic

understanding helped to differentiate truly grammatical features from idiosyncratic or stylistic

variations.

5. Categorization and Exemplification: A significant part of their methodology

involved categorizing various NMMs based on their form and function. They then provided

clear, illustrative examples from their collected data to demonstrate each category's role in ASL

grammar, making abstract linguistic concepts accessible and verifiable. This systematic

classification was crucial for building a comprehensive model of ASL grammar. By employing

these methods, Baker and Padden moved beyond anecdotal observations to establish a robust,

evidence-based understanding of NMMs as integral to ASL's linguistic structure, thereby

significantly advancing the academic recognition and study of American Sign Language.

Critical Evaluation

Baker and Padden's 1978 chapter represents a pivotal contribution to American Sign

Language linguistics, yet like any foundational work, it possesses distinct strengths and

limitations when viewed through a contemporary lens. Strengths: 1. Linguistic Legitimacy:

The most significant strength is its unequivocal assertion and demonstration of ASL's status as

a natural language with a complex, rule-governed grammar. At a time when ASL was often

dismissed as a system of gestures or a manual encoding of English, this work, alongside others

by Stokoe, Liddell, and C. Baker, provided irrefutable linguistic evidence for its autonomy and

sophistication. This was crucial for challenging audist perspectives and advocating for Deaf

rights and education. 2. Pioneering Categorization: The chapter offered one of the earliest

systematic categorizations of NMMs, moving beyond general observations to specific analyses

of facial expressions, head movements, and body postures. This granular breakdown provided

a framework for subsequent, more detailed phonological and syntactic studies of NMMs. 3.

Emphasis on Simultaneity: By highlighting the simultaneous nature of NMMs with manual

signs, Baker and Padden accurately captured a fundamental aspect of ASL grammar that

differentiates it from linearly structured spoken languages. This insight is critical for

understanding ASL's efficiency and visual-gestural modality. 4. Foundational for Pedagogy:

The explicit identification of NMMs as grammatical elements provided a crucial theoretical

basis for ASL instruction. It shifted pedagogical approaches from merely teaching vocabulary

to emphasizing the integrated production of manual and nonmanual features, thereby

promoting more natural and grammatically correct signing among L2 learners. Weaknesses: 1.

Limited Phonological Detail: As an early work, the chapter primarily focused on the

grammatical functions of NMMs rather than a deep dive into their precise phonological or

phonetic parameters. Subsequent research, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, developed more

sophisticated frameworks for analyzing the specific articulatory features and timing of NMMs,

which are not fully elaborated here. 2. Scope and Generalizability: The analysis is specific to

ASL, and while it provides insights into general principles of visual-gestural languages, it does

not extensively discuss variations across different sign languages or regional dialects within

ASL. The implicit assumption of a relatively homogenous ASL grammar, while necessary for

foundational work, has been nuanced by later sociolinguistic studies. 3. Absence of

Acquisition Focus: While the work implicitly informs L2 acquisition, it does not explicitly

address the specific challenges or developmental stages of acquiring NMMs for non-native

signers. This area became a significant focus in later research, recognizing the particular

difficulty L2 learners often face in mastering the subtle and simultaneous production of NMMs.

4. Theoretical Evolution: Linguistic theories have evolved since 1978. While the structuralist

approach was appropriate for the time, later generative and cognitive linguistic frameworks

offered alternative ways to conceptualize and model the integration of NMMs into ASL

grammar, such as through Distributed Morphology or Construction Grammar, which are

naturally absent from this foundational text. Despite these limitations, Baker and Padden's

chapter remains an indispensable text for its groundbreaking contributions to the understanding

and validation of ASL's grammatical complexity. Its insights continue to resonate in

contemporary ASL research and pedagogy.

Relevance

Baker and Padden's work on nonmanual markers holds profound and enduring

relevance for the field of American Sign Language, particularly for students in "Beginning

American Sign Language I" at the University of Cincinnati, where experiential learning and

practical application are paramount. For students in Beginning ASL I, the article's core message

is transformative. It unequivocally establishes that ASL is not merely a collection of manual

signs corresponding to English words, but a distinct, visually-based language with its own

intricate grammar. Understanding that NMMs are grammatical, not just expressive, prevents

the common pitfall of "spoken English on the hands" – a literal translation approach that results

in ungrammatical and unnatural signing. Early exposure to this concept is crucial for

developing authentic ASL fluency. Practically, this research directly impacts communicative

competence. Students learn that failing to incorporate the correct NMMs can lead to

miscommunication or awkward interactions. For instance, signing "YOU GO WHERE"

without the appropriate Wh-question NMM (furrowed brows, head tilt) will be interpreted as

a statement ("You go somewhere") rather than a question, creating significant communicative

breakdown. Mastering NMMs from the outset is essential for expressing nuances such as

negation, affirmation, agreement, adjectival modification, and clause boundaries. This skill is

directly applicable in real-world conversations with Deaf individuals, fostering clearer and

more respectful communication. From a pedagogical standpoint, Baker and Padden's work

underpins current ASL teaching methodologies. Modern ASL curricula, including those at the

University of Cincinnati, integrate NMM instruction from day one. Instructors emphasize the

simultaneous production of NMMs and manual signs, utilizing visual aids and direct modeling

to help students internalize these complex features. This theoretical grounding explains why

certain facial expressions or head movements are mandatory, rather than just presenting them

as arbitrary rules. Moreover, the article's insights are critical for fostering cultural

understanding within the Deaf community. NMMs are an integral part of Deaf communication

style and visual culture. Recognizing their grammatical role helps students appreciate the

richness and distinctiveness of Deaf identity and communication norms, moving beyond a

medical or deficit model of deafness. This cultural sensitivity is vital for any professional

interaction within the Deaf community, aligning with the University of Cincinnati's emphasis

on preparing students for diverse professional environments through its Co-op program. For

those pursuing careers involving ASL, such as interpreting, education, or social work, a deep

understanding of NMMs is non-negotiable. Interpreters must accurately convey both manual

and nonmanual information to ensure fidelity between ASL and spoken language. Educators

of Deaf children rely on this knowledge to teach ASL effectively. Professionals interacting

with Deaf clients in legal, medical, or corporate settings must be acutely aware of how NMMs

convey crucial information, including tone, intent, and grammatical structure, to avoid

misunderstandings that could have serious consequences. In essence, Baker and Padden's

foundational work transforms NMMs from a peripheral curiosity into a central pillar of ASL

grammar, equipping beginning students with the theoretical framework and practical

imperative to approach ASL as a complete, complex, and culturally rich language from their

very first lesson.