DOCSLIB.ORG

Variation in Mouth Actions with Manual Signs (Chapter 2)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Variation in Mouth Actions with Manual Signs (Chapter 2) PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen The following full text is a publisher's version. For additional information about this publication click this link. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/133714 Please be advised that this information was generated on 2021-10-01 and may be subject to change. The ubiquity of mouthings in NGT A corpus study Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6111 Trans 10 3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl Cover illustration: (stemmed) word cloud of this dissertation, from tagul.com. ISBN: 978-94-6093-158-1 NUR 616 Copyright © 2014: Richard Bank. All rights reserved. The ubiquity of mouthings in NGT A corpus study Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. dr. Th. L. M. Engelen volgens besluit van het college van decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 30 januari 2015 om 12.30 uur precies door Richard Bank Geboren op 1 augustus 1969 te Amsterdam Promotor: Prof. dr. Roeland van Hout Copromotor: Dr. Onno Crasborn Manuscriptcommissie: Prof. dr. Pieter Muysken Prof. dr. Jens Heßmann (Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal, Duitsland) Prof. dr. Bencie Woll (DCAL, University College London, Groot-Brittannië) Table of contents Dankwoord ..................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 1.1 Sign languages: a general introduction ..................................................................... 2 1.1.1 A short history of sign languages...................................................................... 3 1.1.2 Research and recognition .................................................................................. 4 1.1.3 The recent history of NGT ................................................................................ 5 1.1.4 Deaf education in the Netherlands and influence of spoken language .......... 6 1.2. Mouth actions, Mouthings and Mouth Gestures ................................................... 8 1.2.1 Mouth actions, mouth gestures, mouthings .................................................... 9 1.2.2 The linguistic status of mouthings ................................................................. 10 1.2.3 Sign language without mouthings? ................................................................ 11 1.3 The Corpus NGT and its annotation...................................................................... 12 1.3.1 Written, spoken and signed language corpora .............................................. 13 1.3.2 Construction and contents of the Corpus NGT ............................................ 14 1.3.3 Annotation of mouth actions ......................................................................... 15 1.4 Research questions and outline of this thesis ......................................................... 17 1.4.1 Variation in mouth actions with manual signs (Chapter 2) ......................... 18 1.4.2 The spreading of mouthings (Chapter 3)....................................................... 18 1.4.3 The prominence of spoken language elements (Chapter 4) ......................... 19 1.4.4 Bimodal code-mixing (Chapter 5).................................................................. 19 Chapter 2: Variation in mouth actions with manual signs .................................. 21 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 21 2.1.1 Background ...................................................................................................... 21 2.1.2 Research questions .......................................................................................... 24 vi | Table of contents 2.2 Methodology and data description ......................................................................... 26 2.3 Results....................................................................................................................... 31 2.3.1 Coding categories and quantitative results .................................................... 31 2.3.2 Mouthing variants ........................................................................................... 34 2.3.3 Temporal reduction ........................................................................................ 36 2.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................ 38 2.4.1 Frequency ......................................................................................................... 38 2.4.2 Variation .......................................................................................................... 39 2.4.3 Temporal reduction ........................................................................................ 40 2.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 42 2.5.1 General conclusion .......................................................................................... 42 2.5.2 Concluding remarks on methodology ........................................................... 43 Chapter 3: Alignment of two languages: The spreading of mouthings ................ 47 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 47 3.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 52 3.2.1 The Corpus NGT ............................................................................................. 52 3.2.2 Participants ...................................................................................................... 53 3.2.3 Data .................................................................................................................. 54 3.3 Results on direction and scope ............................................................................... 57 3.3.1 Direction of spreading..................................................................................... 58 3.3.2 Scope of spreading ........................................................................................... 59 3.3.3 Spreading over pointing signs ........................................................................ 59 3.3.4 Regressive spreading at the sign level ............................................................. 60 3.4 Results on the relative length of spreadings ............................................................ 61 3.4.1 Length of spreadings ....................................................................................... 61 3.4.2 Length of signs ................................................................................................. 62 3.5 Discussion ................................................................................................................ 63 3.5.1 Direction and scope of spreadings ................................................................. 63 3.5.2 Spreading over PT and relative length of spreadings ..................................... 64 3.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 65 Table of contents | vii Chapter 4: The prominence of spoken language elements in a sign language ..... 67 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 67 4.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 73 4.3 Results....................................................................................................................... 75 4.3.1 Results on mouth action frequency as compared to manual signs............... 75 4.3.2 Results on mouthing frequencies for various sociolinguistic variables........ 76 4.3.3 Results for combinations of mouth actions and pointings ........................... 78 4.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................ 81 4.4.1 Proportion of mouth actions and mouthings compared to signs ................ 81 4.4.2 Mouthing frequencies related to various sociolinguistic variables ............... 82 4.4.3 Combinations of mouth actions and pointing signs ..................................... 83 4.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 84 Chapter 5: Bimodal code-mixing: speech supported signing is the norm for deaf NGT signers ........................................................................................................ 87 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 87 5.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 92 5.3 Results....................................................................................................................... 94 5.3.1 Standard mouthings ........................................................................................ 95 5.3.2 Solo mouthings used in backchanneling ........................................................ 96 5.3.3
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]
  • CENDEP WP-01-2021 Deaf Refugees Critical Review-Kate Mcauliff
    CENDEP Working Paper Series No 01-2021 Deaf Refugees: A critical review of the current literature Kate McAuliff Centre for Development and Emergency Practice Oxford Brookes University The CENDEP working paper series intends to present work in progress, preliminary research findings of research, reviews of literature and theoretical and methodological reflections relevant to the fields of development and emergency practice. The views expressed in the paper are only those of the independent author who retains the copyright. Comments on the papers are welcome and should be directed to the author. Author: Kate McAuliff Institutional address (of the Author): CENDEP, Oxford Brookes University Author’s email address: [email protected] Doi: https://doi.org/10.24384/cendep.WP-01-2021 Date of publication: April 2021 Centre for Development and Emergency Practice (CENDEP) School of Architecture Oxford Brookes University Oxford [email protected] © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-No Derivative Works (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 License. Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Deaf Refugee Agency & Double Displacement .............................................................................
    [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]
  • The Signing Space for the Synthesis of Directional Verbs in NGT
    The signing space for the synthesis of directional verbs in NGT Shani E. Mende-Gillings Layout: typeset by the author using LATEX. Cover illustration: Unknown artist The signing space for the synthesis of directional verbs in NGT Shani E. Mende-Gillings 11319836 Bachelor thesis Credits: 18 EC Bachelor Kunstmatige Intelligentie University of Amsterdam Faculty of Science Science Park 904 1098 XH Amsterdam Supervisor dr. F. Roelofsen Institute for Logic, Language and Computation Faculty of Science University of Amsterdam Science Park 107 1098 XG Amsterdam 26 June 2020 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor Floris Roelofsen for his guidance during this project. I am also very grateful to John Glauert and Richard Kennaway for proving valuable insight into SiGML and the JASigning software. Special thanks go to Inge Zwitserlood, Onno Crasborn and Johan Ros for providing the database of encoded NGT signs, without which this project would not have been possible. Last, but not least, I would also like to thank Marijke Scheffener for providing evaluation material and valuable feedback on the program. Preface This paper describes an individual contribution to a larger project executed in close collaboration with [1] and [2]. The first parts of these three papers describe the overall project and were jointly written, making them largely identical. Section 1.2 describes the global research question, and sections 2 and 3 provide the- oretical context and set up a hypothesis. Section 5.1.1 shows the overall program created, including the components of the other projects, and section 5.2.1 evaluates the result. These previously mentioned chap- ters and sections have been written in joint collaboration with [1] and [2] An introduction to and motivation for the overall project are provided in section 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Sign Classification in Sign Language Corpora with Deep Neural Networks
    Sign Classification in Sign Language Corpora with Deep Neural Networks Lionel Pigou, Mieke Van Herreweghe, Joni Dambre Ghent University flionel.pigou, mieke.vanherreweghe, [email protected] Abstract Automatic and unconstrained sign language recognition (SLR) in image sequences remains a challenging problem. The variety of signers, backgrounds, sign executions and signer positions makes the development of SLR systems very challenging. Current methods try to alleviate this complexity by extracting engineered features to detect hand shapes, hand trajectories and facial expressions as an intermediate step for SLR. Our goal is to approach SLR based on feature learning rather than feature engineering. We tackle SLR using the recent advances in the domain of deep learning with deep neural networks. The problem is approached by classifying isolated signs from the Corpus VGT (Flemish Sign Language Corpus) and the Corpus NGT (Dutch Sign Language Corpus). Furthermore, we investigate cross-domain feature learning to boost the performance to cope with the fewer Corpus VGT annotations. Keywords: sign language recognition, deep learning, neural networks 1. Introduction In previous work (Pigou et al., 2015), we showed that deep neural networks are very successful for gesture recognition SLR systems have many different use cases: corpus anno- and gesture spotting in spatiotemporal data. Our developed tation, in hospitals, as a personal sign language learning system is able to recognize 20 different Italian gestures (i.e., assistant or translating daily conversations between signers emblems). We achieved a classification accuracy of 97.23% and non-signers to name a few. Unfortunately, unconstrained in the Chalearn 2014 Looking At People gesture spotting SLR remains a big challenge.
    [Show full text]
  • Gesture and Sign Language Recognition with Temporal Residual Networks
    Gesture and Sign Language Recognition with Temporal Residual Networks Lionel Pigou, Mieke Van Herreweghe and Joni Dambre Ghent University {lionel.pigou, mieke.vanherreweghe, joni.dambre}@ugent.be Abstract SLR using recurrent CNNs [6]. A task that is closely related to SLR is gesture recog- Gesture and sign language recognition in a continuous nition. Deep neural networks have proven to be success- video stream is a challenging task, especially with a large ful for this problem, given a small vocabulary (20 gestures) vocabulary. In this work, we approach this as a framewise [22, 30] and/or with a multi-modal approach [24, 18]. classification problem. We tackle it using temporal con- In this work, we investigate large vocabulary gesture volutions and recent advances in the deep learning field recognition and SLR using deep neural networks with up- like residual networks, batch normalization and exponen- to-date architectures, regularization techniques and training tial linear units (ELUs). The models are evaluated on methods. To achieve this, we approach the problem as a three different datasets: the Dutch Sign Language Corpus continuous framewise classification task, where the tempo- (Corpus NGT), the Flemish Sign Language Corpus (Cor- ral locations of gestures and signs are not given during eval- pus VGT) and the ChaLearn LAP RGB-D Continuous Ges- uation. The models are tested on the Dutch Sign Language ture Dataset (ConGD). We achieve a 73.5% top-10 accu- Corpus (Corpus NGT) [4, 5], the Flemish Sign Language racy for 100 signs with the Corpus NGT, 56.4% with the Corpus (Corpus VGT) [27] and the ChaLearn LAP RGB-D Corpus VGT and a mean Jaccard index of 0.316 with the Continuous Gesture Dataset (ConGD) [28].
    [Show full text]
  • A Lexical Comparison of South African Sign Language and Potential Lexifier Languages
    A lexical comparison of South African Sign Language and potential lexifier languages by Andries van Niekerk Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters in General Linguistics at the University of Stellenbosch Supervisors: Dr Kate Huddlestone & Prof Anne Baker Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Department of General Linguistics March, 2020 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za DECLARATION By submitting this thesis electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. Andries van Niekerk March 2020 Copyright © 2020 University of Stellenbosch All rights reserved 1 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za ABSTRACT South Africa’s history of segregation was a large contributing factor for lexical variation in South African Sign Language (SASL) to come about. Foreign sign languages certainly had a presence in the history of deaf education; however, the degree of influence foreign sign languages has on SASL today is what this study has aimed to determine. There have been very limited studies on the presence of loan signs in SASL and none have included extensive variation. This study investigates signs from 20 different schools for the deaf and compares them with signs from six other sign languages and the Paget Gorman Sign System (PGSS). A list of lemmas was created that included the commonly used list of lemmas from Woodward (2003).
    [Show full text]
  • The Signed Languages of Indonesia: an Enigma
    DigitalResources Electronic Survey Report 2014-005 ® The Signed Languages of Indonesia: An Enigma Hope M. Hurlbut The Signed Languages of Indonesia: An Enigma Hope M. Hurlbut SIL International® 2014 SIL Electronic Survey Report 2014-005, April 2014 © 2014 SIL International® All rights reserved 1 2 Abstract In 2003–2005, SIL International undertook a lexicostatistical survey of the signed languages of Indonesia. Wordlists and stories were collected from each of the nineteen states where one or more schools for the Deaf were run privately or by the government. The wordlists were video recorded and transcribed by hand using the SignWriting orthography. The results of the wordlist comparisons point out the need for intelligibility testing between users of the various varieties of Indonesian Sign Language. Intelligibility testing should be carried out sometime in at least eleven of the nineteen states where the similarity between the signs in the list is low. This paper focuses on the results of the lexicostatistical survey. There are at least two signed languages in use in Indonesia, Indonesian Sign Language and Bengkala Sign Language. Bengkala Sign Language is an isolect found in northern Bali in the village of Bengkala where there is a high proportion of Deaf among the inhabitants. It has been called Bali Sign Language in the past, but since it seems to be more or less confined to the village of Bengkala, it seems better to call it Bengkala Sign Language. The rest of the Deaf on the island use a form of Indonesian Sign Language. At the time of the survey there were two Deaf youth from Bengkala going to school in the Deaf school (or a Deaf class) in Singaraja which is about 17 kilometers from Bengkala Village.
    [Show full text]
  • Variation and Change in English Varieties of British Sign Languagei
    Variation and change in English varieties of BSL 1 Variation and change in English varieties of British Sign Languagei Adam Schembri, Rose Stamp, Jordan Fenlon and Kearsy Cormier British Sign Language (BSL) is the language used by the deaf community in the United Kingdom. In this chapter, we describe sociolinguistic variation and change in BSL varieties in England. This will show how factors that drive sociolinguistic variation and change in both spoken and signed language communities are broadly similar. Social factors include, for example, a signer’s age group, region of origin, gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status (e.g., Lucas, Valli & Bayley 2001). Linguistic factors include assimilation and co-articulation effects (e.g., Schembri et al. 2009; Fenlon et al. 2013). It should be noted, however, some factors involved in sociolinguistic variation in sign languages are distinctive. For example, phonological variation includes features, such as whether a sign is produced with one or two hands, which have no direct parallel in spoken language phonology. In addition, deaf signing communities are invariably minority communities embedded within larger majority communities whose languages are in another entirely different modality and which may have written systems, unlike sign languages. Some of the linguistic outcomes of this contact situation (such as the use of individual signs for letters to spell out written words on the hands, known as fingerspelling) are unique to such communities (Lucas & Valli 1992). This picture is further complicated by patterns of language transmission which see many deaf individuals acquiring sign languages as first languages at a much later age than hearing individuals (e.g., Cormier et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Typology of Signed Languages: Differentiation Through Kinship Terminology Erin Wilkinson
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of New Mexico University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Linguistics ETDs Electronic Theses and Dissertations 7-1-2009 Typology of Signed Languages: Differentiation through Kinship Terminology Erin Wilkinson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ling_etds Recommended Citation Wilkinson, Erin. "Typology of Signed Languages: Differentiation through Kinship Terminology." (2009). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ling_etds/40 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Linguistics ETDs by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TYPOLOGY OF SIGNED LANGUAGES: DIFFERENTIATION THROUGH KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY BY ERIN LAINE WILKINSON B.A., Language Studies, Wellesley College, 1999 M.A., Linguistics, Gallaudet University, 2001 DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Linguistics The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico August, 2009 ©2009, Erin Laine Wilkinson ALL RIGHTS RESERVED iii DEDICATION To my mother iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks to Barbara Pennacchi for kick starting me on my dissertation by giving me a room at her house, cooking me dinner, and making Italian coffee in Rome during November 2007. Your endless support, patience, and thoughtful discussions are gratefully taken into my heart, and I truly appreciate what you have done for me. I heartily acknowledge Dr. William Croft, my advisor, for continuing to encourage me through the long number of months writing and rewriting these chapters.
    [Show full text]
  • What Corpus-Based Research on Negation in Auslan and PJM Tells Us About Building and Using Sign Language Corpora
    What Corpus-Based Research on Negation in Auslan and PJM Tells Us About Building and Using Sign Language Corpora Anna Kuder1, Joanna Filipczak1, Piotr Mostowski1, Paweł Rutkowski1, Trevor Johnston2 1Section for Sign Linguistics, Faculty of the Polish Studies, University of Warsaw, Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28, 00-927 Warsaw, Poland 2Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2109 {anna.kuder, j.filipczak, piotr.mostowski, p.rutkowski}@uw.edu.pl, [email protected] Abstract In this paper, we would like to discuss our current work on negation in Auslan (Australian Sign Language) and PJM (Polish Sign Language, polski język migowy) as an example of experience in using sign language corpus data for research purposes. We describe how we prepared the data for two detailed empirical studies, given similarities and differences between the Australian and Polish corpus projects. We present our findings on negation in both languages, which turn out to be surprisingly similar. At the same time, what the two corpus studies show seems to be quite different from many previous descriptions of sign language negation found in the literature. Some remarks on how to effectively plan and carry out the annotation process of sign language texts are outlined at the end of the present paper, as they might be helpful to other researchers working on designing a corpus. Our work leads to two main conclusions: (1) in many cases, usage data may not be easily reconciled with intuitions and assumptions about how sign languages function and what their grammatical characteristics are like, (2) in order to obtain representative and reliable data from large-scale corpora one needs to plan and carry out the annotation process very thoroughly.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenge of Sign Language Phonology 45 • LI03CH03-Sandler ARI 7 December 2016 16:57
    ANNUAL REVIEWS Further Click here to view this article's online features: t%PXOMPBEmHVSFTBT115TMJEFT t/BWJHBUFMJOLFESFGFSFODFT t%PXOMPBEDJUBUJPOT The Challenge of Sign t&YQMPSFSFMBUFEBSUJDMFT t4FBSDILFZXPSET Language Phonology Wendy Sandler Sign Language Research Laboratory, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel; email: [email protected], [email protected] Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2017. 3:43–63 Keywords First published online as a Review in Advance on sign language, phonology, simultaneity, iconicity, duality of patterning, September 21, 2016 language emergence by [email protected] on 03/18/17. For personal use only. The Annual Review of Linguistics is online at linguist.annualreviews.org Abstract Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2017.3:43-63. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org This article’s doi: Comparing phonology in spoken language and sign language reveals that 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034122 core properties, such as features, feature categories, the syllable, and con- Copyright c 2017 by Annual Reviews. ⃝ straints on form, exist in both naturally occurring language modalities. But All rights reserved apparent ubiquity can be deceptive. The features themselves are quintessen- tially different, and key properties, such as linearity and arbitrariness, al- though universal, occur in inverse proportions to their counterparts, simul- taneity and iconicity, in the two modalities. Phonology does not appear full blown in a new sign language, but it does gradually emerge, accruing lin- guistic structure over time. Sign languages suggest that the phonological component of the language faculty is a product of the ways in which the physical system, cognitive structure, and language use among people inter- act over time.
    [Show full text]