Signs Body Research Articles

Degree and not type of iconicity affects sign language vocabulary acquisition.

Lexical iconicity-signs or words that resemble their meaning-is overrepresented in children's early vocabularies. Embodied theories of language acquisition predict that symbols are more learnable when they are grounded in a child's firsthand experiences. As such, pantomimic iconic signs, which use the signer's body to represent a body, might be more readily learned than other types of iconic signs. Alternatively, the structure mapping theory of iconicity predicts that learners are sensitive to the amount of overlap between form and meaning. In this exploratory study of early vocabulary development in American Sign Language (ASL), we asked whether type of iconicity predicts sign acquisition above and beyond degree of iconicity. We also controlled for concreteness and relevance to babies, two possible confounding factors. Highly concrete referents and concepts that are germane to babies may be amenable to iconic mappings. We reanalyzed a previously published set of ASL Communicative Development Inventory (CDI) reports from 58 deaf children learning ASL from their deaf parents (Anderson & Reilly, 2002). Pantomimic signs were more iconic than other types of iconic signs (perceptual, both pantomimic and perceptual, or arbitrary), but type of iconicity had no effect on acquisition. Children may not make use of the special status of pantomimic elements of signs. Their vocabularies are, however, shaped by degree of iconicity, which aligns with a structure mapping theory of iconicity, though other explanations are also compatible (e.g., iconicity in child-directed signing). Previously demonstrated effects of type of iconicity may be an artifact of the increased degree of iconicity among pantomimic signs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Body as subject().

The notion of subject in human language has a privileged status relative to other arguments. This special status is manifested in the behavior of subjects at the morphological, syntactic, semantic and discourse levels. Here we bring evidence that subjects have privileged status at the lexical level as well, by analyzing lexicalization patterns of verbs in three different sign languages. Our analysis shows that the sublexical structure of iconic signs denoting state of affairs in these languages manifests an inherent pattern of form-meaning correspondence: the signer's body consistently represents one argument of the verb, the subject. The hands, moving in relation to the body, represent all other components of the event - including all other arguments. This analysis shows that sign languages provide novel evidence in support of the centrality of the notion of subject in human language. It also solves a typological puzzle about the apparent primacy of object in sign language verb agreement, a primacy not usually found in spoken languages, in which subject agreement ranks higher. Our analysis suggests that the subject argument is represented by the body and is part of the lexical structure of the verb. Because it is always inherently represented in the structure of the sign, the subject is more basic than the object, and tolerates the omission of agreement morphology.

Can constructed action be considered obligatory?

A communicative device that a signer can take advantage of in the visual–gestural modality is the use of the signer's body to depict the actions and movements of an object—whether that object be animate or inanimate. This communicative device (referred to within this abstract as becoming the object) is used frequently in signed narratives, but it also appears in other genres of signing. Whether or not becoming the object is dependent on the use of traditional linguistic devices (e.g., signs, so-called “classifier” constructions, word order structures, etc.) is open to question, so its role as a necessary part of ASL or any signed language may be the source of debate. This study seeks to explore the degree to which becoming the object is obligatory. To that end, production and judgment data are discussed, and it is suggested that specific examples of becoming the object appear to be obligatory for the depiction of some actions of animate objects. Further, commonly used alternative strategies to becoming the object are also discussed. The overall findings suggest that some instantiations of becoming the object can be considered obligatory in some contexts—especially for some signers. Implications of these results are discussed, especially as they concern the use of mimetic versus linguistic representations within both modalities—sign and speech.

Sign language generation in an ALE HPSG

During the past fifty years sign languages have been recognised as genuine languages with their own syntax and distinctive phonology. In the case of sign languages, phonetic description characterises the manual and non-manual aspects of signing. The latter relate to facial expression and upper torso position. In the case of manual components these characterise hand shape, orientation and position, and hand/arm movement in three dimensional space around the signer's body. These phonetic charcaterisations can be notated as HamNoSys descriptions of signs which has an executable interpretation to drive an avatar. The HPSG sign language generation component of a text to sign language system prototype is described. The assimilation of SL morphological features to generate signs which respect positional agreement in signing space are emphasised.

The facial behavior of deaf signers: evidence of a complex language.

Contrary to popular assumptions, American Sign Language is not simply a manual language, and the signer's face does much more than show emotions. A review of the major findings of linguistic research on the nonmanual components of ASL shows that the signer's face, head, torso, and eyegaze have important linguistic roles. The author's study illustrates how different combinations of facial and head movements signal different kinds of questions: yes-no, wh-, and rhetorical. Awareness of these nonmanual signals may help teachers communicate their questions more effectively to students and understand their students' questions better. Learning how to distinguish linguistic facial behaviors from affective facial behaviors may also help teachers avoid misunderstandings.