3.1.4. Weak hand drop

Signs that are lexically specified for articulation with two hands (i.e., two-handed signs, see PHONOLOGY 1.4) can sometimes be articulated with only the dominant hand. This process is called weak hand drop, and is observed, for example, in “sloppy” or fast signing and in whispering.

Certain phonological specifications may constrain the application of this process, that is, it might be that not every sign formally allows weak hand drop. However, this does not seem to be the case for NGT. One author looked into phonological specifications that could potentially block weak hand drop in NGT, and concludes that weak hand drop is allowed for both symmetrical and asymmetrical two-handed signs, and that properties such as alternating movement, crossing, and (continuous) contact do not block weak hand drop either. She also considered signs which have the weak hand as location specification, and again, this was not found to be a constraint. Below, we provide examples of different types of two-handed signs that can undergo weak hand drop. In Figure 2.60, the sign visit, a symmetrical sign,is displayedin a two-handed and a one-handed version. In Figure 2.61, the sign read , an asymmetrical sign, is shown in a two-handed and a one-handed version.


a. visit (two-handed)	b. visit (one-handed)

Figure 2.60. Two-handed (a) and one-handed (b) version of the symmetrical two-handed sign visit (2.60a Crasborn et al. 2020, symbols added).


a. read (two-handed)	b. read (one-handed)

Figure 2.61. Two-handed (a) and one-handed (b) version of the asymmetrical two-handed sign read (2.61a Crasborn et al. 2020, symbols added).

It was also noted, that asymmetrical signs in which the weak hand has the w-handshape (or one of its allophones, see PHONOLOGY 1.1.1.), such as read, in particular allow weak hand drop.

Although not phonological, there are other factors that do block weak hand drop in NGT, namely, an iconic or semantic motivation for the two-handedness feature. The signs meet (symmetrical) and turtle (asymmetrical), for instance, are clearly motivated in their two-handedness. In meet (Figure 2.62), the two B-hands iconically represent two persons moving towards each other. If the weak hand was dropped, important information would be lost; therefore, weak hand drop is blocked in this case in NGT.

Figure 2.62. The symmetrical two-handed sign meet, which does not allow weak hand drop due to iconic motivation.

The same reasoning applies to turtle, shown in Figure 2.62, since the weak hand depicts the shield of the turtle. If the weak hand was dropped, important semantic information would be lost:

Figure 2.63. The asymmetrical two-handed sign turtle, which does not allow weak hand drop due to iconic motivation.

Interestingly, van der Kooij points out that sometimes non-manual aspects can compensate for the weak hand. An example is the sign for islam, a symmetrical sign which generally does not allow weak hand drop, except when the non-manual features – bowing of the head in line with the hand movement – are clearly visible. This phenomenon has, however, not been investigated systematically. Furthermore, it is not clear whether iconic or semantic features can account for all signs that do not allow weak hand drop.