Segmentation of British Sign Language (BSL): Mind the gap!

Abstract

This study asks how users of British Sign Language (BSL) recognize individual signs in connected sign sequences. We examined whether this is achieved through modality-specific or modality-general segmentation procedures. A modality-specific feature of signed languages is that, during continuous signing, there are salient transitions between sign locations. We used the sign-spotting task to ask if and how BSL signers use these transitions in segmentation. A total of 96 real BSL signs were preceded by nonsense signs which were produced in either the target location or another location (with a small or large transition). Half of the transitions were within the same major body area (e.g., head) and half were across body areas (e.g., chest to hand). Deaf adult BSL users (a group of natives and early learners, and a group of late learners) spotted target signs best when there was a minimal transition and worst when there was a large transition. When location changes were present, both groups performed better when transitions were to a different body area than when they were within the same area. These findings suggest that transitions do not provide explicit sign-boundary cues in a modality-specific fashion. Instead, we argue that smaller transitions help recognition in a modality-general way by limiting lexical search to signs within location neighbourhoods, and that transitions across body areas also aid segmentation in a modality-general way, by providing a phonotactic cue to a sign boundary. We propose that sign segmentation is based on modality-general procedures which are core language-processing mechanism

Lexical Recognition in Deaf Children Learning American Sign Language: Activation of Semantic and Phonological Features of Signs

“…Unsurprisingly, sign processing in native‐signing deaf adults involves recognition of sub‐lexical features of signs (Carreiras et al., 2008; Caselli & Cohen‐Goldberg, 2014; Mayberry & Witcher, 2005). Signers identify signs on the basis of sign location neighborhoods and phonotactic cues (e.g., a major location change signifying a sign boundary), further paralleling spoken language processing (Orfanidou, McQueen, Adam, & Morgan, 2015).…”

Breaking Into Language in a New Modality: The Role of Input and Individual Differences in Recognising Signs

“…The problem of breaking down continuous linguistic input generalises to sign languages, yet in sign languages still less is known about how this is achieved, even in artificial language learning situations (exceptions are Orfanidou et al, 2010 , 2015 ). The literature on spoken/written languages suggests that item frequency should matter for sign language too, but this prediction has not yet been tested.…”

Transcranial magnetic stimulation during British Sign Language production reveals monitoring of discrete linguistic units in left superior parietal lobule

“…Such fine deviations may have existed in our dataset, but went unnoticed by the coder because they fell within the "acceptable" range of possible variation in producing a given sign (c.f. false positives in tasks involving nonsense signs, Orfanidou et al, 2015), while phonological feature errors were simply more evident. Finally, the lack of visual guidance in sign language production may fundamentally change the nature of the motor representations that are needed for correct production, compared to other motor tasks where vision plays an essential role.…”