Body leans and the marking of contrast in American sign language

Wilbur, Ronnie Β.; Patschke, Cynthia

doi:10.1016/s0378-2166(98)00003-4

Cited by 117 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They are used in interrogatives, to indicate topicalization, in imperatives, in conditional and relative clauses, to convey affirmation or negation, and to convey contrastive and comparative discourse (Liddell 1978(Liddell , 1980Wilbur and Patschke 1998;Wilbur 1999;Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999;van der Kooij et al 2006). An example of non-manual use is the way in which raised eyebrows, possibly accompanied by a tilt of the head, are an important element of interrogatives (Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999;Johnston and Schembri 2007).…”

Section: Non-manual Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But while this facilitates an anatomically detailed analysis of facial expression, it fails to encompass non-manual features that make use of the head and upper body, though these have also been acknowledged to have prosodic functions. For example, Wilbur and Patschke (1998) examined forward and backward leans of the body in American Sign Language, detailing prosodic, lexical and semantic functions, all relating to the notion of contrast. This complexity and multi-functionality is also a feature of Fenlon's (2010) exploration of prosodic markers in narrative BSL.…”

Section: Non-manual Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, while the literature on prosody in signed language has tended to focus on the use of the upper-face and body (Wilbur and Patschke 1998;Sandler and Lillo-Martin 2006;Dachovsky and Sandler 2009;de Vos et al 2009), research on politeness in signed languages (Roush 1999;Hoza 2001Hoza , 2007George 2011) has concentrated more on the use of the mouth. Data from the present study highlights use of both the lower and upper parts of the face, and I will discuss each in turn.…”

Section: The Facementioning

confidence: 99%

“…These variations can be considered as one feature to allow for idiosyncratic variation (Wilbur and Patschke 1998) and because the intent appears to be the same in all cases. In the elicited data side tilts were more frequently used in the higher imposition requests, and for the annual leave request in particular, suggesting the feature may be more likely to accompany higher imposition requests to higher status interlocutors.…”

Section: Side Tiltmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wilbur and Patschke (1998) discuss prosodic use of the shrug, a variant of the backward lean, which they propose contrasts exclusive, rather than inclusive (forward lean) categories during discourse. They detail its use in conjunction with signs meaning just, any and only, suggesting that both ASL and BSL may use a similar feature as a hedge or a downtoner.…”

Section: Polite Duckmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Polite appearances: How non-manual features convey politeness in British Sign Language

Mapson

2014

Journal of Politeness Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores how non-manual features are key to conveying linguistic politeness in British Sign Language (BSL). Data were collected through five semi-structured interviews incorporating the elicitation of two speech acts commonly associated with research on linguistic politeness: requests and apologies. The data from this exploratory study suggest that nonmanual features (including specific mouth gestures and movements of the head and upper body) are more crucial for linguistic politeness than manual signs. The data indicate a degree of commonality between the features used for politeness in BSL and those previously identified in American Sign Language (Roush 1999;Hoza 2001Hoza , 2007. While non-manual features convey both linguistic and paralinguistic meaning in signed language (Sandler and Lillo-Martin 2006), their use in politeness highlights the complexity of the interaction between these two functions and illuminates an aspect of politeness frequently overlooked in much research: the use of intonation. Analysis of the use of nonmanual features for politeness also problematizes the categorization of politeness strategies using existing frameworks developed on spoken languages, such as the internal modifications outlined by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989).

show abstract

Section: Non-manual Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Non-manual Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Facementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Side Tiltmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Polite Duckmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Polite appearances: How non-manual features convey politeness in British Sign Language

Mapson

2014

Journal of Politeness Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

References

2011

The Handbook of Phonological Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-local attachment of clauses

Schlenker

2020

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that some parenthetical-like clauses in ASL can take both intermediate and maximally wide scope outside of if-clauses and attitude verbs. Specifically, we investigate embedded coordinations, of the form … SAY [IF Clause-1 Clause-2 PLUS Clause-3, …], and argue that Clause-2 may in some cases be interpreted with wide and intermediate scope (above SAY, or between SAY and IF). The key to our paradigm is that we mark the scope of IF and SAY with non-manual markers (Brow Raise and/or Role Shift). By exempting Clause-2 from these non-manuals, we force it to outscope the relevant operator, including when it might be expected to create a syntactic island. Wide scope replicates the behavior of parentheticals and appositives in other languages. Intermediate scope is particularly interesting because it mirrors with full clauses the behavior predicted by some theories for some English appositives (Schlenker 2010, to appear a). The ASL data might thus lend support to the existence of a mechanism of high attachment in situ (McCawley 1981(McCawley , 1998. Alternatives in terms of islandescaping covert movement or in situ indexing face significant challenges.

show abstract

Body leans and the marking of contrast in American sign language

Cited by 117 publications

References 12 publications

Polite appearances: How non-manual features convey politeness in British Sign Language

Polite appearances: How non-manual features convey politeness in British Sign Language

References

Non-local attachment of clauses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About