DOCSLIB.ORG

Real Space Blends in Swedish Sign Language As an Indicator of Discourse Complexity in Relation to Interpreting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Real Space Blends in Swedish Sign Language As an Indicator of Discourse Complexity in Relation to Interpreting Real Space blends in Swedish Sign Language as an indicator of discourse complexity in relation to interpreting Anna-Lena Nilsson Contents Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ v List of tables .................................................................................................................. v Introduction ..................................................................................................... 6 Theoretical background................................................................................... 7 Real Space blending ..................................................................................................... 8 Surrogate blends and partitionable zones ..................................................................... 9 Creating and understanding Real Space blends ......................................................... 10 Interpreting studies...................................................................................................... 11 Interpreters and their linguistic background ................................................................. 15 The study ...................................................................................................... 17 Aims and hypothesis ................................................................................................... 18 Materials and methods ................................................................................................ 19 Description and analysis ............................................................................... 22 Analyzed segments ..................................................................................................... 22 Segment 1 .................................................................................................................. 22 Content and structure ............................................................................................ 22 Interpretation ......................................................................................................... 28 Segment 2 .................................................................................................................. 33 Content and structure ............................................................................................ 33 Interpretation ......................................................................................................... 37 Segment 3 .................................................................................................................. 41 Content and structure ............................................................................................ 41 Interpretation ......................................................................................................... 50 The interpretations in more detail .......................................................................... 54 Concluding discussion .................................................................................. 61 Identifying discourse entities and perspectives ........................................................... 61 Interpreting unexpected content .................................................................................. 64 Final comments on interpreting ................................................................................... 66 References .................................................................................................... 68 Appendix 1: Transcription key ....................................................................... 73 Appendix 2: Glossing and translation of the segments in the study. ............ 76 Appendix 3: Translation of the whole discourse. .......................................... 81 Abbreviations AIIC International Association of Conference Interpreters ASL American Sign Language CIT Conference of Interpreter Trainers EKR Elisabeth Kübler Ross ELAN EUDICO Linguistic Annotator NSL Norwegian Sign Language RID Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf RSB Real Space blend List of tables Table 1. Analyzed segments 22 Table 2. RSB table, segment 1, chunk 1–3 24 Table 3. Interpretation segment 1 30 Table 4. Interpretation chunk 2 31 Table 5. RSB table, segment 2, chunk 4–6 34 Table 6. Interpretation, segment 2 40 Table 7. RSB table, segment 3, chunk 25–26 43 Table 8. Interpretation segment 3 52 Introduction The present study builds directly on knowledge gained while working with three previous studies on the same signed discourse: Nilsson 2004, 2007 & 2008. In this study, an initial analysis is also made of additional material comprising eight interpretations of that signed discourse into spoken Swe- dish. Before any of the studies were undertaken, the signed discourse was used as part of an admittance test for a diploma program for Swedish Sign Lan- guage interpreters at Stockholm University. Grading that test, I had noted that certain passages in the signed discourse seemed to pose greater prob- lems for the interpreters than other passages. In addition, there was variation in the degree of difficulty such passages presented to different interpreters. Thus I became interested in identifying factors that make a piece of dis- course more complex and therefore make it harder to understand and more difficult to interpret. Identifying such factors could both increase our know- ledge of discourse structure in Swedish Sign Language in general and help determine what makes a piece of signed discourse easy or difficult to under- stand. Such knowledge could also benefit the training of interpreting stu- dents and improve the quality of interpretation between Swedish Sign Lan- guage and spoken Swedish. The study consists of two main parts. First, an analysis is performed on three segments of signed discourse, describing them in terms of their Real Space blend (RSB) structure. The aim of this analysis is to provide increased knowledge regarding the creation of RSBs in Swedish Sign Language. Se- condly, an initial analysis of eight interpretations of these segments into spo- ken Swedish is conducted, specifically focusing on whether the interpreters managed to identify preselected content units in the discourse correctly in their spoken renditions of it. It was hypothesized that the more Real Space blends a piece of signed discourse contained, the more problems there would be for interpreters to produce an equivalent target language discourse in terms of content units. 6 Theoretical background The present study is grounded in Cognitive Linguistics, in particular Mental Space Theory (Fauconnier, 1985) and Conceptual Blending Theory (Faucon- nier & Turner, 1998). More specifically, the study applies a comprehensive, descriptive model for the use of space in signed language developed by Lid- dell for American Sign Language (ASL).1 The model was developed over several years and resulted in an expansion of Mental Space Theory. This can be followed in a number of publications, e.g. Liddell 1990, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2000, and 2003. Central to Liddell’s model is the fact that signers “frequently conceive of areas of the space around them, or even themselves, as if they were something else” (2003:141). The concepts of Real Space and Real Space blending, which Liddell uses to describe how signers do this, are described briefly below. According to Mental Space Theory, all entities that we speak about are conceptual entities that exist within conceptual structures called mental spaces. Mental spaces are “small conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk, for purposes of local understanding and action” (Fauconnier & Turner, [1998] 2006:307). They can be veridical, i.e. be an accurate model of (some part of) reality, but they can also be hypothetical, fictional, counter- factual, or represent the desires or hopes of a speaker (Taylor, 2002:590). Linguistic structures prompt the construction of mental spaces in the listener as well, and in order for us to understand each other, the mental spaces con- structed by speaker and listener need to correspond. Conceptual Blending Theory, or the Theory of Conceptual Integration, has its roots in Mental Space Theory and deals with a special type of relation between mental spaces called blending. Blending is a general cognitive process, and it operates on two (or more) input spaces to yield a new mental space – the blended space, or the blend. When blending occurs, structure from the input spaces is projected onto the new blended space. This blended space (or blend) does not inherit all of the entities and relations of the input spaces. A blend can also contain emergent structure which was not present in the inputs. A more detailed account of the theory can be found in e.g. Fau- connier & Turner (1998), Liddell (2003) and Selvik (2006). 1 The same theoretical framework is used in Nilsson (2008), and described in some more detail there. 7 Real Space blending According to Liddell, a person’s mental representation of the immediate surroundings constitutes a special type of mental space: Real Space.2 Liddell defines Real Space as “a person’s current conceptualization of the immediate environment based on sensory input” (2003:82, referring to 1995). In order to produce or understand a stretch of signed discourse, signers and addres- sees must know that signs that seem to be pointing to an empty area in space are actually directed towards invisible blended entities in Real Space. Real Space, as
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Sign Language Recognition
    Sign Language Recognition by Carol-lee Aquiline OffidciLrecognition ojsign languages is an important aimpursued by WFD and many ojits member orqaniza­ nons. What exactly does "official recognition" mean? This may varyfrom country to country depending onthe legal system and which government bodies have responsibilityjorproviding services and enjorcing laws. ollowing is information that WFD nition around the world:' ' decided to put sign language under the has received from -~ountries world­ Sweden: The Swedish Parliament protection of cultural diversity, instead Fwidethat havesome level of recog­ accepted Swedish Sign Language in an of recognizing it as an official language nition of their national sign language: educational policy. Policies, as created as demanded by Deaf people. _ In national constitution: Brazil, Czech by the SwedishParliament, usuallyhave Finland: The Finnish Constitution Republic,_Ecuador, Finland, Greece, legal enforcement. Swedish Sign Lan- clearlyregardssignlanguageas an official Portugal, South Africa, Uganda; and guage has not been accepted as an language. This Constitution acceptsboth Venezuela. official languagebut it has been accepted the dominant and minority languages; In government legislation or policy: as a truelanguage. Uganda:The Ugandan Constitution was Australia, Belarus, Canada, Colombia, United States: The Americans with the first in the world to recognize sign Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Disabilities Act (ADA) acceptsAmerican language as an official language (see p. Finland,France,Iceland,Lithuania,Nor­ Sign Language (ASL) for accessibility 10). This Constitution was enacted in way, Peru, Poland, Russian Federation, reasons. In this sense,ASL is a protected 1995and clearlypromotes thedevelop­ Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United language. ment of sign language for Deaf people. States of America, Uruguay,Zimbabwe, Slovak Republic: The Slovakian law is Colombia: The Colombian law has 14 and some German states.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretation of Swedish Sign Language Using Convolutional Neural Networks and Transfer Learning
    DEGREE PROJECT IN INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY, FIRST CYCLE, 15 CREDITS STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2020 Interpretation of Swedish Sign Language using Convolutional Neural Networks and Transfer Learning Gustaf Halvardsson & Johanna Peterson KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE Authors Gustaf Halvardsson & Johanna Peterson [email protected] & [email protected] The School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science KTH Royal Institute of Technology Place for Project KTH Royal Institute of Technology & Prevas AB Stockholm, Sweden Examiner Benoit Baudry - KTH Royal Institute of Technology Supervisors César Soto Valero - KTH Royal Institute of Technology Maria Månsson - Prevas AB ii Abstract The automatic interpretation of signs of a sign language involves image recognition. An appropriate approach for this task is to use Deep Learning, and in particular, Convolutional Neural Networks. This method typically needs large amounts of data to be able to perform well. Transfer learning could be a feasible approach to achieve high accuracy despite using a small data set. The hypothesis of this thesis is to test if transfer learning works well to interpret the hand alphabet of the Swedish Sign Language. The goal of the project is to implement a model that can interpret signs, as well as to build a user-friendly web application for this purpose. The final testing accuracy of the model is 85%. Since this accuracy is comparable to those received in other studies, the project’s hypothesis is shown to be supported. The final network is based on the pre-trained model InceptionV3 with five frozen layers, and the optimization algorithm mini-batch gradient descent with a batch size of 32, and a step-size factor of 1.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Finnish Sign Language [Fse] (A Language of Finland)
    “Finnish Sign Language [fse] (A language of Finland) • Alternate Names: FinSL, Suomalainen viittomakieli, SVK, Viittomakieli • Population: 5,000 (2006 Institute for the Languages of Finland–KOTUS). 5,000 deaf and 10,000 hearing signers (2006 Institute for the Languages of Finland–KOTUS). 5,000 deaf signers (2014 EUD). 26,500 (2014 IMB). • Location: Scattered • Language Status: 5 (Developing). Recognized language (2011, No. 61, Institute for sign language status). • Dialects: 2 major dialects from the Finnish (17 schools) and Swedish (1 school) communities. Signed Finnish, used by some teachers of the deaf, is distinct. Developed originally out of Swedish Sign Language [swl], but now distinct. Closely-related to Finland- Swedish Sign Language (FinSSL) [fss], but FinSL users generally have difficulty understanding FinSSL unless FinSSL users adapt towards FinSL. Some borrowing from Finnish [fin]. (Hoyer 2004.) Not intelligible with Danish Sign Language [dsl]. • Typology: One-handed fingerspelling. • Language Use: Used by deaf people whose families speak Finnish [fin] and who attended schools that used Finnish as the language of instruction (Hoyer 2004).The government pays interpreters to accompany the deaf to hospitals, college, church, etc. Interpreters required in court. • Language Development: Films. TV. Videos. Dictionary. Grammar. Bible portions: 1989. • Other Comments: Fingerspelling system similar to French Sign Language [fsl]. First deaf school founded 1850s. Government-paid interpreters. Interpreters required in court. Instruction for parents of deaf children. Many classes for hearing people. Christian (Protestant).” Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds.) 2015. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Eighteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Sign Language Types
    Chapter 2 Sign language types This chapter defines four different sign language types, based on the infor- mation available in the respective sources. Before introducing the types of sign languages, I first report on the diachronic developments in the field of typological sign language research that gave rise to the distinction of the various sign language types. Sign language research started about five decades ago in the United States of America mainly due to the pioneering work of Stokoe (2005 [1960]), Klima and Bellugi (1979), and Poizner, Klima and Bellugi (1987) on American Sign Language (ASL). Gradually linguists in other countries, mainly in Europe, became interested in sign language research and started analyzing European sign languages e.g. British Sign Language (BSL), Swedish Sign Language (SSL), Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) and German Sign Language (DGS). Most of the in-depth linguistic descrip- tions have been based on Western sign languages. Therefore, it has long been assumed that some fundamental levels of linguistic structure, such as spatial morphology and syntax, operate identically in all sign languages. Recent studies, however, have discovered some important variations in spatial organization in some previously unknown sign languages (Washabaugh, 1986; Nyst, 2007; Marsaja, 2008; Padden, Meir, Aronoff, & Sandler, 2010). In the context of growing interest in non-Western sign languages towards the end of the 1990s and more recently, there have been efforts towards developing a typology of sign languages (Zeshan, 2004ab, 2008, 2011b; Schuit, Baker, & Pfau, 2011). Although it has been repeatedly emphasized in the literature that the sign language research still has too little data on sign languages other than those of national deaf communities, based in Western or Asian cultures (Zeshan, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Sign Language Acronyms
    Sign language acronyms Throughout the Manual, the following abbreviations for sign languages are used (some of which are acronyms based on the name of the sign language used in the respective countries): ABSL Al Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language AdaSL Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana) ASL American Sign Language Auslan Australian Sign Language BSL British Sign Language CSL Chinese Sign Language DGS German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache) DSGS Swiss-German Sign Language (Deutsch-Schweizerische Gebärdensprache) DTS Danish Sign Language (Dansk Tegnsprog) FinSL Finnish Sign Language GSL Greek Sign Language HKSL Hong Kong Sign Language HZJ Croatian Sign Language (Hrvatski Znakovni Jezik) IPSL Indopakistani Sign Language Inuit SL Inuit Sign Language (Canada) Irish SL Irish Sign Language Israeli SL Israeli Sign Language ÍTM Icelandic Sign Language (Íslenskt táknmál) KK Sign Language of Desa Kolok, Bali (Kata Kolok) KSL Korean Sign Language LIS Italian Sign Language (Lingua dei Segni Italiana) LIU Jordanian Sign Language (Lughat il-Ishaara il-Urdunia) LSA Argentine Sign Language (Lengua de Señas Argentina) Libras Brazilian Sign Language (Língua de Sinais Brasileira) LSC Catalan Sign Language (Llengua de Signes Catalana) LSCol Colombian Sign Language (Lengua de Señas Colombiana) LSE Spanish Sign Language (Lengua de Signos Española) LSF French Sign Language (Langue des Signes Française) LSQ Quebec Sign Language (Langue des Signes Québécoise) NGT Sign Language of the Netherlands (Nederlandse Gebarentaal) NicSL Nicaraguan Sign Language NS Japanese Sign Language (Nihon Syuwa) NSL Norwegian Sign Language NZSL New Zealand Sign Language DOI 10.1515/9781501511806-003, © 2017 Josep Quer, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati, Carlo Geraci, Meltem Kelepir, Roland Pfau, and Markus Steinbach, published by De Gruyter.
    [Show full text]
  • TEFL for Deaf Pupils in Norwegian Bilingual Schools: Can Deaf Primary School Pupils Acquire a Foreign Sign Language?
    PATRICIA PRITCHARD British to-handed alphabet TEFL for deaf pupils in Norwegian bilingual schools: Can deaf primary school pupils acquire a foreign sign language? Norwegian one-handed alphabet Masters Thesis in Special Education Dept. of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences & Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Trondheim, Norway December 2004 Summary TEFL for deaf pupils in Norwegian bilingual schools: Can deaf primary school pupils acquire and understand a foreign sign language? Both hearing and deaf people in Norway need skills in English to cope with the demands of modern society. The question is how can deaf pupils best acquire English? A National Curriculum was implemented in 1997 (L97) based on sign bilingualism and a socio-cultural approach to language learning. British Sign Language (BSL) was introduced into the English syllabus for Primary School deaf pupils as a first step in foreign language learning, before the introduction of English. The curriculum for deaf pupils (EfDP) was implemented without research underpinning and further education of in-service teachers, although some teaching aids were produced. This study looks at the BSL receptive skills of Norwegian Deaf pupils in class 4. and tries to pinpoint variables that played a part in their acquisition of BSL. The study makes use of theories created for hearing children acquiring a second spoken language. This is seen as defensible because they deal with the acquisition of languages of the same modality. A quantitative method was chosen to answer the research question of whether deaf Norwegian pupils in class 4 understood BSL and three language tests were used to measure their BSL receptive skills.
    [Show full text]
  • Marcin Mizak Sign Language – a Real and Natural Language
    LUBELSKIE MATERIAŁY NEOFILOLOGICZNE NR 35, 2011 Marcin Mizak Sign Language – A Real and Natural Language 1. Introduction It seems reasonable to begin a discussion on the “realness” and “naturalness” of sign language by comparing it to other human languages of whose “real” and “natural” status there can be no doubt whatsoever. They will be our reference point in the process of establishing the status of sign language. The assumption being made in this paper is that all real and natural languages share certain characteristics with one another, that they all behave in a certain way and that certain things happen to all of them. If it transpires that the same characteristics and behaviours are also shared by sign language and that whatever happens to real and natural languages also happens to sign language then the inevitable conclusion follows: sign language is indeed a real and natural language 1. 2. The number of languages in the world One of the first things to be noticed about real and natural languages is their great number. Ethnologue: Languages of the World , one of the most reliable and comprehensive encyclopedic reference publications, catalogues in its 16 th edition of 2009 6,909 known living languages in 1 The designation “sign language,” as used in this article, refers to the languages used within communities of the deaf. American Sign Language, for example, is a sign language in this sense. Artificially devised systems, such as Signed English, or Manual English, are not sign languages in this sense. Sign Language – A Real and Natural Language 51 the world today 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Dependencies for Swedish Sign Language
    Universal Dependencies for Swedish Sign Language Robert Ostling,¨ Carl Borstell,¨ Moa Gardenfors,¨ Mats Wiren´ Department of Linguistics Stockholm University robert,calle,moa.gardenfors,mats.wiren @ling.su.se { } Abstract annotation is limited to Australian Sign Language, which contains some basic syntactic segmentation We describe the first effort to annotate and annotation (Johnston, 2014). Apart from this, a signed language with syntactic depen- smaller parts of the corpora of Finnish Sign Lan- dency structure: the Swedish Sign Lan- guage (Jantunen et al., 2016) and Polish Sign Lan- guage portion of the Universal Depen- guage (Rutkowski and Łozinska,´ 2016), have had dencies treebanks. The visual modality some syntactic segmentation and analysis, and an- presents some unique challenges in anal- other such project is under way on British Sign ysis and annotation, such as the possi- Language.1 bility of both hands articulating separate To the best of our knowledge, we present the signs simultaneously, which has implica- first dependency annotation and parsing experi- tions for the concept of projectivity in de- ments with sign language data. This brings us one pendency grammars. Our data is sourced step closer to the goal of bridging the gap in avail- from the Swedish Sign Language Corpus, ability between written, spoken and sign language and if used in conjunction these resources natural language processing tools. contain very richly annotated data: de- pendency structure and parts of speech, 2 Universal Dependencies video recordings, signer metadata, and since the whole material is also translated The Universal Dependencies project aims to pro- into Swedish the corpus is also a parallel vide uniform morphological and syntactic (in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Nonmanuals by Adult L2 Signers in Swedish Sign Language – Annotating the Nonmanuals
    Use of Nonmanuals by Adult L2 Signers in Swedish Sign Language – Annotating the Nonmanuals Krister Schönström, Johanna Mesch Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Nonmanuals serve as important grammatical markers for different syntactic constructions, e.g. marking clause types. To account for the acquisition of syntax by L2 SSL learners, therefore, we need to have the ability to annotate and analyze nonmanual signals. Despite their significance, however, these signals have yet to be the topic of research in the area of SSL as an L2. In this paper, we will provide suggestions for annotating the nonmanuals in L2 SSL learners. Data is based on a new SSL as L2 corpus from our ongoing project entitled “L2 Corpus in Swedish Sign Language.” In this paper, the combination of our work in grammatical analysis and in the creation of annotating standards for L2 nonmanuals, as well as preliminary results from the project, will be presented. Keywords: Swedish Sign Language, L2 signers, nonmanuals 1. Introduction In SSL, nonmanuals serve as important grammatical 2. Building L2 Corpus in Swedish Sign markers for different constructions, in particular with Language respect to the syntax required to mark negation and The first part of the L2 corpus - dataset collections 1 and 2 distinguish between different clause types (e.g. - consists of video recordings from 18 (14 female and 4 wh-questions and relative clauses). General L2 theories, male) non-native signers, ranging from 18 to 40 years of such as Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1998), age (Table 1).
    [Show full text]