DOCSLIB.ORG

Categorical Versus Gradient Properties of Handling Handshapes in British Sign Language (BSL)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Categorical Versus Gradient Properties of Handling Handshapes in British Sign Language (BSL) Categorical versus gradient properties of handling handshapes in British Sign Language (BSL) Evidence from handling handshape perception and production by deaf BSL signers and hearing speakers ZDENKA SEVCIKOVA University College London A dissertation submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Cognitive, Perceptual and Brain Sciences, University College London, London, 2014 1 Declaration I, Zdenka Sevcikova confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Candidate’s signature: 2 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... 8 ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................... 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 12 1.1 CATEGORISATION AND CATEGORICAL PERCEPTION ........................................................................... 12 1.2 DEPICTING CONSTRUCTIONS .................................................................................................................. 13 1.3 DEPICTING CONSTRUCTIONS AND THE RELATIONSHIP TO GESTURE ............................................... 17 1.4 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................. 18 1.5 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS ......................................................................................................................... 20 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 22 2.1 STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF SIGNS ..................................................................................................... 22 2.1.1 Discrete and analogue patterning in language ................................................................. 22 2.1.2 Lexical signs and their components ........................................................................................ 24 2.1.3 Less conventionalised constructions ...................................................................................... 29 2.1.3.1 Depicting constructions ...................................................................................................................................... 29 2.1.3.2 Depicting constructions and the lexicon ...................................................................................................... 32 2.1.3.3 Handling constructions and handling handshapes ................................................................................. 34 2.2 THE LANGUAGE AND GESTURE INTERFACE .......................................................................................... 36 2.2.1 Language and co-speech gesture ............................................................................................. 36 2.2.2 Conventional and non-conventional gesture ...................................................................... 37 2.2.3 Dissociation between language and pantomime .............................................................. 38 2.2.4 Characterising complex utterances ........................................................................................ 40 2.2.5 Handling constructions and viewpoint gestures ............................................................... 41 2.2.6 Handling as constructed action ................................................................................................ 43 2.3 DEPICTING CONSTRUCTIONS: PREVIOUS THEORETICAL ACCOUNTS ................................................ 44 2.3.1 Traditional approaches to depicting constructions ........................................................ 45 2.3.2 Depicting constructions as grounded blends ...................................................................... 49 2.4 CATEGORICITY OF DEPICTING HANDSHAPES – INSIGHTS FROM EMPIRICAL RESEARCH .............. 50 2.4.1 Size and shape encoding in depicting constructions ....................................................... 51 2.4.2 Discrete encoding of size in conventional gestures ......................................................... 53 2.5 INSIGHTS FROM CATEGORICAL PERCEPTION RESEARCH ................................................................... 58 2.5.1 Categorical perception: a definition ....................................................................................... 58 2.5.2 Categorical perception in speech ............................................................................................. 60 2.5.3 Handshape perception in sign language .............................................................................. 61 2.5.4 Categorisation of familiar gestures ........................................................................................ 65 2.6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 67 CHAPTER 3 CATEGORICAL PERCEPTION FOR HANDLING HANDSHAPES IN BRITISH SIGN LANGUAGE ............................................................................................................................ 70 3.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 70 3.1.1 Conditions and criteria for categorical perception ......................................................... 70 3.1.2 Categorical perception for sign language handshapes .................................................. 75 3.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 77 3.3 STUDY DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................... 77 3.4 METHOD ..................................................................................................................................................... 78 3.4.1 Participants ....................................................................................................................................... 78 3.4.2 Materials and stimuli .................................................................................................................... 79 3.4.3 Procedure ........................................................................................................................................... 81 3 3.5 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 83 3.5.1 Handling handshape identification ........................................................................................ 84 3.5.2 Handling handshape discrimination ...................................................................................... 89 3.6 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................... 94 3.7 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 101 CHAPTER 4 CATEGORICAL AND GRADIENT ENCODING OF OBJECT SIZE IN HANDLING CONSTRUCTIONS IN BSL, CO-SPEECH GESTURE AND PANTOMIME .... 103 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 103 4.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 105 4.3 STUDY DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................ 106 4.4 METHOD .................................................................................................................................................. 107 4.4.1 Participants ..................................................................................................................................... 107 4.4.2 Materials ........................................................................................................................................... 109 4.4.2.1 Materials for elicitation of handling handshapes .................................................................................. 109 4.4.2.2 Procedure for elicitation of handling handshapes ................................................................................ 111 4.4.3 Stimuli ................................................................................................................................................ 112 4.4.4 Procedure ........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sign Language Typology Series
    SIGN LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SERIES The Sign Language Typology Series is dedicated to the comparative study of sign languages around the world. Individual or collective works that systematically explore typological variation across sign languages are the focus of this series, with particular emphasis on undocumented, underdescribed and endangered sign languages. The scope of the series primarily includes cross-linguistic studies of grammatical domains across a larger or smaller sample of sign languages, but also encompasses the study of individual sign languages from a typological perspective and comparison between signed and spoken languages in terms of language modality, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to sign language typology. Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages Edited by Ulrike Zeshan Sign Language Typology Series No. 1 / Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages / Ulrike Zeshan (ed.) / Nijmegen: Ishara Press 2006. ISBN-10: 90-8656-001-6 ISBN-13: 978-90-8656-001-1 © Ishara Press Stichting DEF Wundtlaan 1 6525XD Nijmegen The Netherlands Fax: +31-24-3521213 email: [email protected] http://ishara.def-intl.org Cover design: Sibaji Panda Printed in the Netherlands First published 2006 Catalogue copy of this book available at Depot van Nederlandse Publicaties, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag (www.kb.nl/depot) To the deaf pioneers in developing countries who have inspired all my work Contents Preface........................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • A Lexicostatistic Survey of the Signed Languages in Nepal
    DigitalResources Electronic Survey Report 2012-021 ® A Lexicostatistic Survey of the Signed Languages in Nepal Hope M. Hurlbut A Lexicostatistic Survey of the Signed Languages in Nepal Hope M. Hurlbut SIL International ® 2012 SIL Electronic Survey Report 2012-021, June 2012 © 2012 Hope M. Hurlbut and SIL International ® All rights reserved 2 Contents 0. Introduction 1.0 The Deaf 1.1 The deaf of Nepal 1.2 Deaf associations 1.3 History of deaf education in Nepal 1.4 Outside influences on Nepali Sign Language 2.0 The Purpose of the Survey 3.0 Research Questions 4.0 Approach 5.0 The survey trip 5.1 Kathmandu 5.2 Surkhet 5.3 Jumla 5.4 Pokhara 5.5 Ghandruk 5.6 Dharan 5.7 Rajbiraj 6.0 Methodology 7.0 Analysis and results 7.1 Analysis of the wordlists 7.2 Interpretation criteria 7.2.1 Results of the survey 7.2.2 Village signed languages 8.0 Conclusion Appendix Sample of Nepali Sign Language Wordlist (Pages 1–6) References 3 Abstract This report concerns a 2006 lexicostatistical survey of the signed languages of Nepal. Wordlists and stories were collected in several towns of Nepal from Deaf school leavers who were considered to be representative of the Nepali Deaf. In each city or town there was a school for the Deaf either run by the government or run by one of the Deaf Associations. The wordlists were transcribed by hand using the SignWriting orthography. Two other places were visited where it was learned that there were possibly unique sign languages, in Jumla District, and also in Ghandruk (a village in Kaski District).
    [Show full text]
  • Categorical Perception of Natural and Unnatural Categories: Evidence for Innate Category Boundaries1
    UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, vol.13, December 2005 Papers in Psycholinguistics 2, Okabe & Nielsen (eds.) CATEGORICAL PERCEPTION OF NATURAL AND UNNATURAL CATEGORIES: EVIDENCE FOR INNATE CATEGORY BOUNDARIES1 JILL GILKERSON [email protected] The results reported here support the claim that naturally occurring phonemic contrasts are easier to acquire than unnatural contrasts. Results are reported from two experiments in which English speakers were exposed to non-native phonemic categories using a bi-modal statistical frequency distribution modeled after Maye and Gerken (2000). Half of the participants heard a distribution in which the category boundary was that of the Jordanian Arabic uvular/pharyngeal contrast, while the other half heard a distribution with an unnatural category boundary. Immediately after exposure, participants completed an A-X delayed comparison task, where they were presented with stimuli that crossed category boundaries. Results indicated that participants in the natural training group responded “different” to across-category pairs significantly more often than participants in the unnatural training group. 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this research is to investigate whether adult acquisition of non-native phonemic contrasts is solely dependent on general learning principles or whether it is influenced by principles specific to natural language. Theories of innate grammar claim that humans are endowed with a genetically predetermined system specifically designed to facilitate language acquisition (cf. Chomsky 1965, among others). Nativists maintain that humans are “prewired” with sensitivity to linguistically relevant information in the input. Others have suggested that there are no learning mechanisms specific to language acquisition; it is facilitated by an interaction between statistical distribution of elements in the input and general learning mechanisms not specific to language (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bilingual & the Bicultural Person in the Hearing & in the Deaf World
    The Bilingual & the Bicultural Person In the Hearing & in the Deaf World François Grosjean Sign Language Studies, Volume 77, Winter 1992, pp. 307-320 (Article) Published by Gallaudet University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1992.0020 For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/506985/summary Access provided by Universite de Neuchatel (14 Oct 2018 20:54 GMT) THE BILINGUAL &THE BICULTURAL PERSON IN THE HEARING & IN THE DEAF WORLD Frangois Grosjean Abstract If we define the bilingual as a person who uses two or more lan- guages (or dialects) in everyday life, then most Deaf people who sign and who use the majority language regularly (in its written form, for example) are bilingual. Deaf bilinguals share many simi- larities with hearing bilinguals (their diversity, the perception they have of their own bilingualism, their use of various language modes, etc.) but they are also characterized by a number of specificities (the lack of recognition of their bilingual status, the maintenance over time of their languages, the competence they have in certain language skills, their varying patterns of language knowledge and use, etc.). As concerns the bicultural, whom we can define as a person who lives in two or more cultures, who adapts to each and who blends aspects of each, there is little doubt that many Deaf are indeed bicultural. Some of the implica- tions for the bilingual and bicultural education of Deaf children that emerge from these considerations are discussed in the paper. The bilingual person. Despite the fact that more than half the world's population uses two or more languages in everyday life, many erroneous beliefs still surround the notion of bilingualism.
    [Show full text]
  • Sign Language Endangerment and Linguistic Diversity Ben Braithwaite
    RESEARCH REPORT Sign language endangerment and linguistic diversity Ben Braithwaite University of the West Indies at St. Augustine It has become increasingly clear that current threats to global linguistic diversity are not re - stricted to the loss of spoken languages. Signed languages are vulnerable to familiar patterns of language shift and the global spread of a few influential languages. But the ecologies of signed languages are also affected by genetics, social attitudes toward deafness, educational and public health policies, and a widespread modality chauvinism that views spoken languages as inherently superior or more desirable. This research report reviews what is known about sign language vi - tality and endangerment globally, and considers the responses from communities, governments, and linguists. It is striking how little attention has been paid to sign language vitality, endangerment, and re - vitalization, even as research on signed languages has occupied an increasingly prominent posi - tion in linguistic theory. It is time for linguists from a broader range of backgrounds to consider the causes, consequences, and appropriate responses to current threats to sign language diversity. In doing so, we must articulate more clearly the value of this diversity to the field of linguistics and the responsibilities the field has toward preserving it.* Keywords : language endangerment, language vitality, language documentation, signed languages 1. Introduction. Concerns about sign language endangerment are not new. Almost immediately after the invention of film, the US National Association of the Deaf began producing films to capture American Sign Language (ASL), motivated by a fear within the deaf community that their language was endangered (Schuchman 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • The 5 Parameters of ASL Before You Begin Sign Language Partner Activities, You Need to Learn the 5 Parameters of ASL
    The 5 Parameters of ASL Before you begin Sign Language Partner activities, you need to learn the 5 Parameters of ASL. You will use these parameters to describe new vocabulary words you will learn with your partner while completing Language Partner activities. Read and learn about the 5 Parameters below. DEFINITION In American Sign Language (ASL), we use the 5 Parameters of ASL to describe how a sign behaves within the signer’s space. The parameters are handshape, palm orientation, movement, location, and expression/non-manual signals. All five parameters must be performed correctly to sign the word accurately. Go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrkGrIiAoNE for a signed definition of the 5 Parameters of ASL. Don’t forget to turn the captions on if you are a beginning ASL student. Note: The signer’s space spans the width of your elbows when your hands are on your hips to the length four inches above your head to four inches below your belly button. Imagine a rectangle drawn around the top half of your body. TYPES OF HANDSHAPES Handshapes consist of the manual alphabet and other variations of handshapes. Refer to the picture below. TYPES OF ORIENTATIONS Orientation refers to which direction your palm is facing for a particular sign. The different directions are listed below. 1. Palm facing out 2. Palm facing in 3. Palm is horizontal 4. Palm faces left/right 5. Palm toward palm 6. Palm up/down TYPES OF MOVEMENT A sign can display different kinds of movement that are named below. 1. In a circle 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Building BSL Signbank: the Lemma Dilemma Revisited
    Fenlon, Jordan, Kearsy Cormier & Adam Schembri. in press. Building BSL SignBank: The lemma dilemma revisited. International Journal of Lexicography. (Pre-proof draft: March 2015. Check for updates before citing.) 1 Building BSL SignBank: The lemma dilemma revisited Abstract One key criterion when creating a representation of the lexicon of any language within a dictionary or lexical database is that it must be decided which groups of idiosyncratic and systematically modified variants together form a lexeme. Few researchers have, however, attempted to outline such principles as they might apply to sign languages. As a consequence, some sign language dictionaries and lexical databases appear to be mixed collections of phonetic, phonological, morphological, and lexical variants of lexical signs (e.g. Brien 1992) which have not addressed what may be termed as the lemma dilemma. In this paper, we outline the lemmatisation practices used in the creation of BSL SignBank (Fenlon et al. 2014a), a lexical database and dictionary of British Sign Language based on signs identified within the British Sign Language Corpus (http://www.bslcorpusproject.org). We argue that the principles outlined here should be considered in the creation of any sign language lexical database and ultimately any sign language dictionary and reference grammar. Keywords: lemma, lexeme, lemmatisation, sign language, dictionary, lexical database. 1 Introduction When one begins to document the lexicon of a language, it is necessary to establish what one considers to be a lexeme. Generally speaking, a lexeme can be defined as a unit that refers to a set of words in a language that bear a relation to one another in form and meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Sign Language Glove
    Prototyping a Portable, Affordable Sign Language Glove A Major Qualifying Project Submitted to the Faculty of Worcester Polytechnic Institute In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science Electric and Computer Engineering By ____________________________ Princesa Cloutier ____________________________ Alex Helderman ____________________________ Rigen Mehilli Date: April 27, 2016 Project Advisors: ___________________________________ Professor Alexander Wyglinski, Advisor ___________________________________ Professor Alexander Emanuel, Advisor This report represents work of WPI undergraduate students submitted to the faculty as evidence of a degree requirement. WPI routinely publishes these reports on its web site without editorial or peer review. For more information about the projects program at WPI, see http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Projects. Abstract Communication between speakers and non-speakers of American Sign Language (ASL) can be problematic, inconvenient, and expensive. This project attempts to bridge the communication gap by designing a portable glove that captures the user’s ASL gestures and outputs the translated text on a smartphone. The glove is equipped with flex sensors, contact sensors, and a gyroscope to measure the flexion of the fingers, the contact between fingers, and the rotation of the hand. The glove’s Arduino UNO microcontroller analyzes the sensor readings to identify the gesture from a library of learned gestures. The Bluetooth module transmits the gesture to a smartphone. Using this device, one day speakers of ASL may be able to communicate with others in an affordable and convenient way. ii | P a g e Acknowledgements Without the guidance and motivation of several groups of people, this project would not have achieved as much as it did.
    [Show full text]
  • Alignment Mouth Demonstrations in Sign Languages Donna Jo Napoli
    Mouth corners in sign languages Alignment mouth demonstrations in sign languages Donna Jo Napoli, Swarthmore College, [email protected] Corresponding Author Ronice Quadros, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, [email protected] Christian Rathmann, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, [email protected] 1 Mouth corners in sign languages Alignment mouth demonstrations in sign languages Abstract: Non-manual articulations in sign languages range from being semantically impoverished to semantically rich, and from being independent of manual articulations to coordinated with them. But, while this range has been well noted, certain non-manuals remain understudied. Of particular interest to us are non-manual articulations coordinated with manual articulations, which, when considered in conjunction with those manual articulations, are semantically rich. In which ways can such different articulators coordinate and what is the linguistic effect or purpose of such coordination? Of the non-manual articulators, the mouth is articulatorily the most versatile. We therefore examined mouth articulations in a single narrative told in the sign languages of America, Brazil, and Germany. We observed optional articulations of the corners of the lips that align with manual articulations spatially and temporally in classifier constructions. The lips, thus, enhance the message by giving redundant information, which should be particularly useful in narratives for children. Examination of a single children’s narrative told in these same three sign languages plus six other sign languages yielded examples of one type of these optional alignment articulations, confirming our expectations. Our findings are coherent with linguistic findings regarding phonological enhancement and overspecification. Keywords: sign languages, non-manual articulation, mouth articulation, hand-mouth coordination 2 Mouth corners in sign languages Alignment mouth demonstration articulations in sign languages 1.
    [Show full text]
  • What Sign Language Creation Teaches Us About Language Diane Brentari1∗ and Marie Coppola2,3
    Focus Article What sign language creation teaches us about language Diane Brentari1∗ and Marie Coppola2,3 How do languages emerge? What are the necessary ingredients and circumstances that permit new languages to form? Various researchers within the disciplines of primatology, anthropology, psychology, and linguistics have offered different answers to this question depending on their perspective. Language acquisition, language evolution, primate communication, and the study of spoken varieties of pidgin and creoles address these issues, but in this article we describe a relatively new and important area that contributes to our understanding of language creation and emergence. Three types of communication systems that use the hands and body to communicate will be the focus of this article: gesture, homesign systems, and sign languages. The focus of this article is to explain why mapping the path from gesture to homesign to sign language has become an important research topic for understanding language emergence, not only for the field of sign languages, but also for language in general. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. How to cite this article: WIREs Cogn Sci 2012. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1212 INTRODUCTION linguistic community, a language model, and a 21st century mind/brain that well-equip the child for this esearchers in a variety of disciplines offer task. When the very first languages were created different, mostly partial, answers to the question, R the social and physiological conditions were very ‘What are the stages of language creation?’ Language different. Spoken language pidgin varieties can also creation can refer to any number of phylogenic and shed some light on the question of language creation.
    [Show full text]
  • Top 300 Masters 2020
    TOP 300 MASTERS 2020 2020 Top 300 MASTERS 1 About Broadcom MASTERS Broadcom MASTERS® (Math, Applied Science, Technology and Engineering for Rising Stars), a program of Society for Science & the Public, is the premier middle school science and engineering fair competition, inspiring the next generation of scientists, engineers and innovators who will solve the grand challenges of the 21st century and beyond. We believe middle school is a critical time when young people identify their personal passion, and if they discover an interest in STEM, they can be inspired to follow their passion by taking STEM courses in high school. Broadcom MASTERS is the only middle school STEM competition that leverages Society- affiliated science fairs as a critical component of the STEM talent pipeline. In 2020, all 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students around the country who were registered for their local or state Broadcom MASTERS affiliated fair were eligible to compete. After submitting the online application, the Top 300 MASTERS are selected by a panel of scientists, engineers, and educators from around the nation. The Top 300 MASTERS are honored for their work with a $125 cash prize, through the Society’s partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense as a member of the Defense STEM education Consortium (DSEC). Top 300 MASTERS also receive a prize package that includes an award ribbon, a Top 300 MASTERS certificate of accomplishment, a Broadcom MASTERS backpack, a Broadcom MASTERS decal, a one-year family digital subscription to Science News magazine, an Inventor's Notebook, courtesy of The Lemelson Foundation, a one-year subscription to Wolfram Mathematica software, courtesy of Wolfram Research, and a special prize from Jeff Glassman, CEO of Covington Capital Management.
    [Show full text]
  • My Five Senses Unit Two: Table of Contents
    Unit Two: My Five Senses Unit Two: Table of Contents My Five Senses I. Unit Snapshot ................................................................................................2 II. Introduction .................................................................................................. 4 Interdisciplinary Unit of Study III. Unit Framework ............................................................................................ 6 NYC DOE IV. Ideas for Learning Centers ............................................................................10 V. Foundational and Supporting Texts ............................................................. 27 VI. Inquiry and Critical Thinking Questions for Foundational Texts ...................29 VII. Sample Weekly Plan ..................................................................................... 32 VIII. Student Work Sample .................................................................................. 37 IX. Family Engagement .....................................................................................39 X. Supporting Resources ................................................................................. 40 XI. Foundational Learning Experiences: Lesson Plans .......................................42 XII. Appendices ...................................................................................................59 The enclosed curriculum units may be used for educational, non- profit purposes only. If you are not a Pre-K for All provider, send an email to [email protected]
    [Show full text]