Lexical access in sign language: a computational model

Abstract

Psycholinguistic theories have predominantly been built upon data from spoken language, which leaves open the question: How many of the conclusions truly reflect language-general principles as opposed to modality-specific ones? We take a step toward answering this question in the domain of lexical access in recognition by asking whether a single cognitive architecture might explain diverse behavioral patterns in signed and spoken language. Chen and Mirman (2012) presented a computational model of word processing that unified opposite effects of neighborhood density in speech production, perception, and written word recognition. Neighborhood density effects in sign language also vary depending on whether the neighbors share the same handshape or location. We present a spreading activation architecture that borrows the principles proposed by Chen and Mirman (2012), and show that if this architecture is elaborated to incorporate relatively minor facts about either (1) the time course of sign perception or (2) the frequency of sub-lexical units in sign languages, it produces data that match the experimental findings from sign languages. This work serves as a proof of concept that a single cognitive architecture could underlie both sign and word recognition.

Modality-Independent Effects of Phonological Neighborhood Structure on Initial L2 Sign Language Learning

“…Secondly, the differentiation in acquisition of signs based on their overlapping sublexical features contribute to the small but growing field of the study of lexical access in sign language as well as concurrently reinforcing our understanding of the lexicon generally. Facilitated acquisition of signs that share handshape features relative to those with location features parallel previous findings that handshape neighbors facilitate lexical retrieval in deaf signers (Carreiras et al, 2008;Caselli & Cohen-Goldberg, 2014). In turn, these findings support previous theories that suggest the structure of the lexicon itself influence both first and second language acquisition.…”

“…Previously, greater facilitative effects for handshape during lexical sign retrieval have been found, but greater inhibition for location features (Carreiras et al, 2008;Caselli & Cohen-Goldberg, 2014;Emmorey & Corina, 1990). Caselli & Cohen-Goldberg (2014) simulated computational activation of the sign lexicon and concluded that handshape neighbors have lower resting state activation and introduce inhibitory input for less time relative to location neighbors. These findings might be applicable to sign language learning as well insofar as decreased inhibition from sign neighbors relative to location neighbors aids in the acquisition of signs.…”

“…Neighborhood density in sign language can be defined based on minimal pairs that share two of the three sublexical features (Mayberry and Witcher, 2005). Since there are few minimal pairs in sign language, other studies have taken different approaches to phonological similarity (van der Kooij, 2002) insofar as phonological similarity (i.e., neighborhood density) is defined as those signs that share only one sublexical feature (Carreiras et al, 2008;Caselli & Cohen-Goldberg, 2014). Definition of one-parameter overlap separates neighborhood density into different types: handshape, location, or movement neighborhood density.…”

“…Corina & Emmorey (1993) found similar inhibitory effects when signs primed with neighbors that shared the location feature. Caselli and Cohen-Goldberg (2014) used computational models to simulate behavioral effects found in previous studies (e.g., Carreiras et al, 2008) and found that inhibitory effects of location arise due to the early identification in the time course of sign perception or their richer sublexical frequency. Early identification creates greater inhibition to the lexical sign over a longer period of time.…”

LSE-Sign: A lexical database for Spanish Sign Language

“…For instance, priming studies with sign languages have shown the expected facilitatory effect of a semantic relation (Mayberry & Witcher 2005) but not always clear effects of the phonological parameters. Phonological parameters (location, handshape, and movement) influence sign recognition in a different manner, with some parameters showing an inhibitory effect and others showing facilitation Gutierrez, Williams, Grosvald, & Corina, 2012; see also Caselli & Cohen-Goldberg, 2014, for a computational model). Furthermore, results are not consistent: for example, some studies have found location to have an inhibitory effect on lexical retrieval (Corina & Hildebrandt, 2002;Carreiras et al, 2008), while other studies have found a facilitatory effect of location combined with movement (Baus, Gutiérrez & Carreiras, 2014;Dye & Shih, 2006).…”