Variation in mouth actions with manual signs in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT)

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 248-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Bank ◽  
Onno A. Crasborn ◽  
Roeland van Hout
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Lexical Item ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Corpus Study ◽  
Natural Data ◽  
Manual Signs ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
The Way

Mouthings and mouth gestures are omnipresent in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Mouthings in NGT commonly have their origin in spoken Dutch. We conducted a corpus study to explore how frequent mouthings in fact are in NGT, whether there is variation within and between signs in mouthings, and how frequent temporal reduction occurs in mouthings. Answers to these questions can help us classify mouthings as being specified in the sign lexicon or as being instances of code-blending. We investigated a sample of 20 frequently occurring signs. We found that each sign in the sample co-occurs frequently with a mouthing, usually that of a specific Dutch lexical item. On the other hand, signs show variation in the way they co-occur with mouthings and mouth gestures. By using a relatively large amount of natural data, we succeeded in gaining more insight into the way mouth actions are utilized in sign languages.

The prominence of spoken language elements in a sign language

Linguistics ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Bank ◽  
Onno Crasborn ◽  
Roeland van Hout
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Visual Modality ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Level Of Education ◽  
Code Mixing ◽  
Regional Origin ◽  
Manual Signs ◽  
Information Streams

Abstractin sign languages consist of simultaneously articulated manual signs and spoken language words. These “mouthings” (typically silent articulations) have been observed for many different sign languages. The present study aims to investigate the extent of such bimodal code-mixing in sign languages by investigating the frequency of mouthings produced by deaf users of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT), their co-occurrence with pointing signs, and whether any differences can be explained by sociolinguistic variables such as regional origin and age of the signer. We investigated over 10,000 mouth actions from 70 signers, and found that the mouth and the hands are equally active during signing. Moreover, around 80 % of all mouth actions are mouthings, while the remaining 20 % are unrelated to Dutch. We found frequency differences between individual signers and a small effect for level of education, but not for other sociolinguistic variables. Our results provide genuine evidence that mouthings form an inextricable component of signed interaction. Rather than displaying effects of competition between languages or spoken language suppression, NGT signers demonstrate the potential of the visual modality to conjoin parallel information streams.

scholarly journals Towards a Classification of Weak Hand Holds

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vadim Kimmelman ◽  
Anna Sáfár ◽  
Onno Crasborn
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
American Sign Language ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
The Other ◽  
American Sign ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Linguistic Study ◽  
Corpus Data

AbstractThe two symmetrical manual articulators (the hands) in signed languages are a striking modalityspecific phonetic property. The weak hand can maintain the end position of an articulation while the other articulator continues to produce additional signs. This weak hand spreading (hold) has been analysed from various perspectives, highlighting its prosodic, syntactic, or discourse properties. The present study investigates corpus data from Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) and Russian Sign Language (RSL), two unrelated sign languages, in order to question the necessity of a sign-language specific notion of ‘buoy’ introduced in the discourse analysis of American Sign Language by Liddell (2003). Buoys are defined as weak hand holds that serve as a visible landmark throughout a stretch of discourse, and several types are distinguished based on their function and form. In the analysis of nearly two and a half hours of narratives and conversations from NGT and RSL, we found over 600 weak hand holds. We show that these holds can be analysed in terms of regular phonetic, syntactic, semantic, or discourse notions (or a combination thereof) familiar from the linguistic study of spoken languages, without the need for a sign language-specific notion of ‘buoy’.

People Are Less Susceptible to Illusion When They Use Their Hands to Communicate Rather Than Estimate

2021 ◽  
pp. 095679762199155
Author(s):  
Amanda R. Brown ◽  
Wim Pouw ◽  
Diane Brentari ◽  
Susan Goldin-Meadow
Keyword(s):  
American Sign Language ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
American Sign ◽  
Estimation Task ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Lyer Illusion ◽  
Description Task ◽  
The Way

When we use our hands to estimate the length of a stick in the Müller-Lyer illusion, we are highly susceptible to the illusion. But when we prepare to act on sticks under the same conditions, we are significantly less susceptible. Here, we asked whether people are susceptible to illusion when they use their hands not to act on objects but to describe them in spontaneous co-speech gestures or conventional sign languages of the deaf. Thirty-two English speakers and 13 American Sign Language signers used their hands to act on, estimate the length of, and describe sticks eliciting the Müller-Lyer illusion. For both gesture and sign, the magnitude of illusion in the description task was smaller than the magnitude of illusion in the estimation task and not different from the magnitude of illusion in the action task. The mechanisms responsible for producing gesture in speech and sign thus appear to operate not on percepts involved in estimation but on percepts derived from the way we act on objects.

Frequency distribution and spreading behavior of different types of mouth actions in three sign languages

2008 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Onno A. Crasborn ◽  
Els van der Kooij ◽  
Dafydd Waters ◽  
Bencie Woll ◽  
Johanna Mesch
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Frequency Distribution ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Spreading Behavior ◽  
British Sign Language ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
British Sign

In this paper, we present a comparative study of mouth actions in three European sign languages: British Sign Language (BSL), Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands, NGT), and Swedish Sign Language (SSL). We propose a typology for, and report the frequency distribution of, the different types of mouth actions observed. In accordance with previous studies, we find the three languages remarkably similar — both in the types of mouth actions they use, and in how these mouth actions are distributed. We then describe how mouth actions can extend over more than one manual sign. This spreading of mouth actions is the primary focus of this paper. Based on an analysis of comparable narrative material in the three languages, we demonstrate that the direction as well as the source and goal of spreading may be language-specific.

What is the chin doing?: An analysis of interrogatives in Austrian sign language

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 133-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharina Schalber
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Language Contact ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Syntactic Position ◽  
Common Foundation ◽  
Wh Questions ◽  
Manual Signs ◽  
Chin Down

The aim of this paper is to investigate the structure of polar (yes/no questions) and content questions (wh-questions) in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS), analyzing the different nonmanual signals, the occurrence of question signs and their syntactic position. As I will show, the marking strategies used in ÖGS are no exception to the crosslinguistic observations that interrogative constructions in sign languages employ a variety of nonmanual signals and manual signs (Zeshan 2004). In ÖGS polar questions are marked with ‘chin down’, whereas content questions are indicated with ‘chin up’ or ‘head forward’ and content question signs. These same nonmanual markers are reported for Croatian sign language, indicating common foundation due to historical relations and intense language contact.

scholarly journals Signing not (or not): A typological perspective on standard negation in Sign Language of the Netherlands

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marloes Oomen ◽  
Roland Pfau
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Detailed Comparison ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Negative Element ◽  
Grammaticality Judgment ◽  
Corpus Data ◽  
Typological Variation

AbstractThe expression of standard negation by means of manual and/or non-manual markers has been described for a considerable number of sign languages. Typological comparisons have revealed an intriguing dichotomy: while some sign languages require a manual negative element in negative clauses (manual-dominant sign languages), in others negation can be realized by a non-manual marker alone (in particular a headshake; non-manual-dominant sign languages). We are here adding data from Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) to the picture, and we demonstrate that NGT belongs to the latter group. Still, detailed comparison suggests that NGT patterns differently from other non-manual-dominant sign languages, thereby improving our understanding of the typological variation in this domain. A novel contribution of the present study is that it is based on naturalistic corpus data, showing more variation than often found in elicitation and grammaticality judgment studies of sign languages, but also presenting new problems of interpretation.

Weak hand holds in two sign languages and two genres

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Sáfár ◽  
Vadim Kimmelman
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Linguistic Analysis ◽  
Genre Analysis ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Modality Effects ◽  
Corpus Data

In this paper, we provide a quantitative analysis of weak hand holds based on corpus data. We include both a cross-linguistic analysis of these holds in narrative data from Russian Sign Language (RSL) and Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT), and a language-internal, cross-genre analysis comparing NGT narrative and conversational data. We classified the functions of all holds found in two corpora of RSL and NGT, and analyzed their formal characteristics. We found that holds in RSL and NGT have similar functions. However, holds are significantly more frequent in RSL than in NGT. In addition, we found that the distribution of holds across different functions varies between different genres in NGT. The similarities between RSL and NGT in the domain of holds may be attributed to modality effects. The differences in frequency of holds ask for a language-specific explanation, and we discuss several possible scenarios.

scholarly journals Event representations constrain the structure of language: Sign language as a window into universally accessible linguistic biases

2015 ◽  
Vol 112 (19) ◽  
pp. 5968-5973 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brent Strickland ◽  
Carlo Geraci ◽  
Emmanuel Chemla ◽  
Philippe Schlenker ◽  
Meltem Kelepir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Visual Cues ◽  
Prior Experience ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Visual Form ◽  
Visual Boundary ◽  
Event Representations

According to a theoretical tradition dating back to Aristotle, verbs can be classified into two broad categories. Telic verbs (e.g., “decide,” “sell,” “die”) encode a logical endpoint, whereas atelic verbs (e.g., “think,” “negotiate,” “run”) do not, and the denoted event could therefore logically continue indefinitely. Here we show that sign languages encode telicity in a seemingly universal way and moreover that even nonsigners lacking any prior experience with sign language understand these encodings. In experiments 1–5, nonsigning English speakers accurately distinguished between telic (e.g., “decide”) and atelic (e.g., “think”) signs from (the historically unrelated) Italian Sign Language, Sign Language of the Netherlands, and Turkish Sign Language. These results were not due to participants' inferring that the sign merely imitated the action in question. In experiment 6, we used pseudosigns to show that the presence of a salient visual boundary at the end of a gesture was sufficient to elicit telic interpretations, whereas repeated movement without salient boundaries elicited atelic interpretations. Experiments 7–10 confirmed that these visual cues were used by all of the sign languages studied here. Together, these results suggest that signers and nonsigners share universally accessible notions of telicity as well as universally accessible “mapping biases” between telicity and visual form.

scholarly journals Phonological restrictions on nominal pluralization in Sign Language of the Netherlands: evidence from corpus and elicited data

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cindy van Boven
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Lateral Side ◽  
Midsagittal Plane ◽  
Comprehensive Description ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Corpus Data ◽  
Plural Marking ◽  
Complex Movement

Abstract This study focuses on nominal pluralization in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). The aim is to offer a comprehensive description of nominal pluralization processes in the language, based on both corpus data and elicited data, taking into account potential phonological restrictions. The results reveal that NGT nouns can undergo several pluralization processes, the main ones being simple reduplication (i.e., repeating the noun sign at one location) and sideward reduplication (i.e., repeating the noun sign while moving the hand sideward). The choice of pluralization process depends on phonological properties of the base noun: (i) nouns that are body-anchored or involve a complex movement undergo simple reduplication; (ii) nouns articulated at the lateral side of the signing space undergo sideward reduplication; (iii) nouns articulated on the midsagittal plane can undergo both simple and sideward reduplication. Strikingly, the data show considerable variation, and all types of nouns can be zero-marked, that is, plural marking on the noun is not obligatory. The results further suggest that all nouns can undergo at least one type of reduplication. Thus, while phonological properties of the base noun influence the type of reduplication, they do not block reduplication altogether. Plural reduplication in NGT is therefore less constrained than has been reported for other sign languages, where certain noun types cannot undergo reduplication. This shows that reduplication – despite being iconically motivated – is subject to language-specific grammatical constraints.

Het Gebruik Van Gebaren In Het Onderwijs Aan Doven

1986 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 90-99
Author(s):  
H. Knoors
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Bilingual Education ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Empirical Results ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Way

From a psycholinguistic point of view, asking for the reasons for using signs in the education of the deaf has become superfluous, for the answers are by now obvious. There remains however another question to be answered, a question concerning the way in which signs should be used. It is possible to use signs in the form of Signed Dutch; the signs support the spoken Dutch, consequently the order of the signs will be same as the wordorder in Dutch. Another possibility is to use Dutch Sign Language. This leads to bilingual education of deaf children. At this moment a choice between both methods is, as far as the Netherlands are concerned, merely a theoretical matter. Although there are some problems involved in combining speech with support-ing signs and although there is reason to consider the bilingual option seriously, a real choice cannot be made. We first have to wait for empirical results with respect to the use of Signed Dutch in the educational process. We also need more information about the structure of Dutch Sign Language and about the acquisition of aspects of this language. Then, i.e. in the future, a choice can be made if necessary. Meanwhile we have to realise that deaf children are in fact in a bilingual situation and that they have to acquire a sign language without appropriate models. A situation which calls for a solution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document