Fingerspelling: a definition

This semester we are doing a module concentrating on fingerspelling and numbers in Auslan. We started off by critiquing four existing definitions of fingerspelling from the literature. Some were pretty complicated and some used airy-fairy terms such as “writing in the air”. Then our teacher asked us to come up with our own definition. As per usual, I came up with an even more incomprehensible alternative, cramming way too many concepts into the definition using words that were way too cumbersome. After reflection, I realise that it’s actually pretty simple. The core concepts are:

• the two languages (one signed, one written)
• the signs and letters within those languages that make up alphabets

I came up with two more potential definitions of fingerspelling:

The use of signs in a sign language or manual code that represent letters in a spoken and written language, enabling the spelling of words from the spoken and written language using only one’s hands.

Use of the signs in a signed language or code that represent the letters in the alphabet of a written language to transliterate units of meaning from a written language into a signed language.

Neither are as elegant as they could be, but the concepts included (and those excluded) work for me because: the definition is generalisable worldwide they include both signed languages and signed codes (e.g. signed English) which both use fingerspelling. they include the element of transfer between languages or a language to a code. Thinking about this prompted me to look up fingerspelling in some nearby dictionaries. At work, we have access to the Australian Macquarie Dictionary It defines “fingerspell” like this:

A form of sign language in which the letters of the word are signed individually to spell it out.

I think this definition has at least these problems:

1. It implies that fingerspelling is a sign language of its own. As fingerspelling only consists of a meagre 26 (in Anglophone contexts) signs, this really cannot be true. It would be more accurate to say that fingerspelling is a part of sign language, not a form.
2. Restricting fingerspelling to use within a sign language also means that signed codes such as signed English are given the status of language. Because they are not productive in the sense that natural languages are productive, signed codes cannot be called languages. Yet, signed English does use fingerspelling, so I think manual codes and sign languages both need to be specified within the definition.
3. This definition does not mention the source language from which the concepts of letters and words come. In fact it seems to assume that sign languages inherently have letters and words. Not being a written language, Auslan would have no need for letters if it existed on its own. It is only through Auslan’s close contact with English that Auslan has adopted the concepts of letters, necessitating a way to represent them with ones’ hands (i.e. fingerspelling). The concept of “word” is also borrowed from English, as the equivalent in sign language is “sign”. Therefore reference to both the source language of the written/spoken letters and the target language of the equivalent signed letters is required within the definition.

I think Wikipedia is pretty close to the perfect definition:

Fingerspelling (or dactylology) is the representation of the letters of a writing system, and sometimes numeral systems, using only the hands.

Elegant and complete! Thank you lay lexicographers of the interwebs!
Think I might write to the Macquarie people...