Modality-dependent aspects of sign language production: Evidence from slips of the hands and their repairs in German Sign Language

Hohenberger, Annette; Happ, Daniela; Leuninger, Helen

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511486777.006

Cited by 72 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…dictionary (British Deaf Association, 1992), in contrast with 57 different handshapes. According to Hohenberger et al (2002), the reason why handshape is so frequently involved in production errors may have to do with the combination of a large inventory size and the need for fine motor programs, which may lead to mis-selection during sign production. Although there are no more movements than locations (34 types of movement are listed in the BSL dictionary, including internal movements), movement may be more complicated than location, as exemplified by the lack of consensus in the description and classification of the movement parameter.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Making sense of nonsense in British Sign Language (BSL): The contribution of different phonological parameters to sign recognition

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hohenberger, Happ, and Leuninger (2002) noted that hand orientation errors are very rare in slips of the hand in German Sign Language. For these reasons, we do not include orientation as a separate category, and instead report orientation errors in the handshape category.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Making sense of nonsense in British Sign Language (BSL): The contribution of different phonological parameters to sign recognition

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Analyses of errors involving signs have also shown that sign production is sensitive to similarity defined in terms of shared parameters (Hohenberger, Happ, & Leuninger, 2002;Newkirk, Klima, Pedersen, & Bellugi, 1980;Pyers, Gollan, & Emmorey, 2009;Thompson, Emmorey, & Gollan, 2005). This conclusion is further supported by results showing that signing a picture's name is facilitated by the concurrent presentation of a sign sharing some of the phonological constituents (Corina & Hildebrandt, 2002;Baus et al 2008).…”

Section: Experiments 1: Phonologically Related Signsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Activation cascading in sign production.

Navarrete

Peressotti

Lerose

et al. 2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we investigated how activation unfolds in sign production by examining whether signs that are not produced have their representations activated by semantics (cascading of activation). Deaf signers were tested with a picture–picture interference task. Participants were presented with pairs of overlapping pictures and named the green picture (target) while ignoring the red picture (distractor). In Experiment 1 we varied whether target and distractor pictures had similar signs. Signs were produced faster with sign-related picture pairs compared to unrelated picture pairs. The facilitation observed with sign-related pairs replicates the 1 obtained in speaking with sound-related pairs (e.g., bed–bell), a finding cited in support of cascading of activation. In Experiments 2A and 2B we focused on sign iconicity, anticipating that cascading of activation would lead to a facilitatory effect of iconicity. Consistent with this prediction, picture distractors with iconic signs induced faster responses. Furthermore, in Experiment 3, facilitation was found for iconic signs in picture naming. Altogether, our results reveal that cascading of activation is a fundamental aspect of language processing that is at play not only in speaking, but also in signing. Our results also help to define which signs are activated in sign production.

show abstract

“…Some sign language data suggest that these two levels may also apply to sign languages (Corina, 2000;Hohenberger, Happ, & Leuninger, 2002;Newkirk, Klima, Pedersen, & Bellugi, 1980;Thompson, Emmorey, & Gollan, 2005). In particular, Thompson et al (2005) showed that deaf participants in a tip-of-the-finger (TOF) state (which parallels TOT in spoken languages) had partial access to phonological information, Handshape, Orientation, Location and Movement, while no access to the whole sign, suggesting that there is a distinction between semantics and phonology in sign language.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Empirical evidence regarding sign language production, a research area still in its infancy, is very scarce and has been obtained mainly through sign production errors (Hohenberger et al, 2002), brain-damaged patients' signing performance (Newkirk et al, 1980) and only very recently from a TOF study (Thompson et al, 2005). However, the information obtained using these off-line tasks is limited and on-line methods are preferable to obtain more detailed information about production processes (see Meyer, 1992), allowing a better comparison between signed and spoken production.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%