Empirical methods in signed language research

Author(s):  
Sherman Wilcox ◽  
Jill P. Morford
2001 ◽  
Vol 4 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 29-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Antinoro Pizzuto ◽  
Paola Pietrandrea

This paper focuses on some of the major methodological and theoretical problems raised by the fact that there are currently no appropriate notation tools for analyzing and describing signed language texts. We propose to approach these problems taking into account the fact that all signed languages are at present languages without a written tradition. We describe and discuss examples of the gloss-based notation that is currently most widely used in the analysis of signed texts. We briefly consider the somewhat paradoxical problem posed by the difficulty of applying the notation developed for individual signs to signs connected in texts, and the more general problem of clearly identifying and characterizing the constituent units of signed texts. We then compare the use of glosses in signed and spoken language research, and we examine the major pitfalls we see in the use of glosses as a primary means to explore and describe the structure of signed languages. On this basis, we try to specify as explicitly as possible what can or cannot be learned about the structure of signed languages using a gloss-based notation, and to provide some indications for future work that may aim to overcome the limitations of this notation.


2022 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Capirci ◽  
Chiara Bonsignori ◽  
Alessio Di Renzo

Since the beginning of signed language research, the linguistic units have been divided into conventional, standard and fixed signs, all of which were considered as the core of the language, and iconic and productive signs, put at the edge of language. In the present paper, we will review different models proposed by signed language researchers over the years to describe the signed lexicon, showing how to overcome the hierarchical division between standard and productive lexicon. Drawing from the semiotic insights of Peirce we proposed to look at signs as a triadic construction built on symbolic, iconic, and indexical features. In our model, the different iconic, symbolic, and indexical features of signs are seen as the three sides of the same triangle, detectable in the single linguistic sign (Capirci, 2018; Puupponen, 2019). The key aspect is that the dominance of the feature will determine the different use of the linguistic unit, as we will show with examples from different discourse types (narratives, conference talks, poems, a theater monolog).


Author(s):  
Greg Evans

Linguistic theory has traditionally defined language in terms of speech and has, as a result, labelled sign languages as non-linguistic systems. Recent advances in sign language linguistic research, however, indicate that modern linguistic theory must include sign language research and theory. This paper examines the historical bias linguistic theory has maintained towards sign languages and refutes the classification of sign languages as contrived artificial systems by surveying current linguistic research into American Sign Language. The growing body of American Sign Language research demonstrates that a signed language can have all the structural levels of spoken language despite its visual-spatial mode. This research also indicates that signed languages are an important source of linguistic data that can help further develop a cognitive linguistic theory.


2001 ◽  
Vol 4 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 29-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Antinoro Pizzuto ◽  
Paola Pietrandrea

This paper focuses on some of the major methodological and theoretical problems raised by the fact that there are currently no appropriate notation tools for analyzing and describing signed language texts. We propose to approach these problems taking into account the fact that all signed languages are at present languages without a written tradition. We describe and discuss examples of the gloss-based notation that is currently most widely used in the analysis of signed texts. We briefly consider the somewhat paradoxical problem posed by the difficulty of applying the notation developed for individual signs to signs connected in texts, and the more general problem of clearly identifying and characterizing the constituent units of signed texts. We then compare the use of glosses in signed and spoken language research, and we examine the major pitfalls we see in the use of glosses as a primary means to explore and describe the structure of signed languages. On this basis, we try to specify as explicitly as possible what can or cannot be learned about the structure of signed languages using a gloss-based notation, and to provide some indications for future work that may aim to overcome the limitations of this notation.


2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-16
Author(s):  
Jade H. Coston ◽  
Corine Myers-Jennings

To better prepare the professionals and scholars of tomorrow in the field of communication sciences and disorders (CSD), a research project in which undergraduate students collected and analyzed language samples of child-parent dyads is presented. Student researchers gained broad and discipline-specific inquiry skills related to the ethical conduct of research, the literature review process, data collection using language assessment techniques, language sample analysis, and research dissemination. Undergraduate students majoring in CSD developed clinical research knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for future graduate level study and professional employment. In addition to the benefits of student growth and development, language samples collected through this project are helping to answer research questions regarding communicative turn-taking opportunities within the everyday routines of young children, the effects of turn-taking interactions on language development, and the construct validity of language sampling analysis techniques.


2001 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristin Bjornsdottir

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document