Think and Believe: Sequentiality in American Sign Language

Liddell, Scott K.

doi:10.2307/413645

Cited by 203 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1). Since [10], many sign phonologists have claimed that a sequence of three phonological elements are necessary to account for the form of a sign in which the hand moves from one location to another (the claim has been made at least for American Sign Language (ASL) and SLN). The sequence is Hold--Movement--Hold, using the terminology of [4].…”

Section: Sign Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Movement phases in signs and co-speech gestures, and their transcription by human coders

Kita

Gijn

Hülst

1998

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

275

218

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Sign Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Movement phases in signs and co-speech gestures, and their transcription by human coders

Kita

Gijn

Hülst

1998

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

275

218

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Recent investigation has shown ASL to be structured like a natural language, but unlike English. For example, the ASL lexicon is constructed from a finite set of articulatory units such that signed words are decomposable into meaningless units (Liddell, 1984;Liddell & Johnson, 1985;Wilbur, 1987). ASL syntax and inflectional morphology are highly spatial.…”

Section: Sign Language Dialectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: The bottleneck of non-native sign language processing

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two studies, we find that native and non-native acquisition show different effects on sign language processing. Subjects were all born deaf and used sign language for interpersonal communication, but first acquired it at ages ranging from birth to 18. In the first study, deaf signers shadowed (simultaneously watched and reproduced) sign language narratives given in two dialects, American Sign Language (ASL) and Pidgin Sign English (PSE), in both good and poor viewing conditions. In the second study, deaf signers recalled and shadowed grammatical and ungrammatical ASL sentences. In comparison with non-native signers, natives were more accurate, comprehended better, and made different kinds of lexical changes; natives primarily changed signs in relation to sign meaning independent of the phonological characteristics of the stimulus. In contrast, non-native signers primarily changed signs in relation to the phonological characteristics of the stimulus independent oflexical and sentential meaning. Semantic lexical changes were positively correlated to processing accuracy and comprehension, whereas phonological lexical changes were negatively correlated. The effects of non-native acquisition were similar across variations in the sign dialect, viewing condition, and processing task. The results suggest that native signers process lexical structure automatically, such that they can attend to and remember lexical and sentential meaning. In contrast, non-native signers appear to allocate more attention to the task of identifying phonological shape such that they have less attention available for retrieval and memory of lexical meaning.Recent research has uncovered numerous linguistic and psychological parallels between speech and sign language. These striking similarities demonstrate that the process of deriving meaning from linguistic form is very abstract. Changing the peripheral sensory and motor channel of language expression and comprehension from audition and oral articulation to vision and manual articulation does not appear to alter the basic way in which language is processed (Grosjean, 1980;Poizner, Klima, & Bellugi, 1987;Siple, 1982). However, the recent discoveries about sign language characterize the processing of the most

show abstract

“…Posteriormente en los años ochenta aparece el modelo secuencial de Liddell (1984) y posteriormente de Liddell y Johnson (1986), con un claro objetivo lingüístico, en el que se proponía realizar una descripción fonéti-ca de las mismas. No tienen por propósito la escritura, sino la descripción fonética de las lenguas de señas.…”

Section: Las Lenguas De Señas Y Los Sistemas De Transcripción Y De Esunclassified

Reflexión en torno a la aplicación de herramientas para operar sobre las lenguas y el caso de la lengua de señas uruguaya (LSU)

Peluso

2015

REVEDFIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMENExisten básicamente cuatro herramientas que se han aplicado a las lenguas con el fin de operar sobre ellas, si bien se podrían considerar algunas más que estas cuatro según se adopte un criterio más o menos amplio del concepto de herramienta. Estas herramientas son: los sistemas de escritura y sus diferentes soportes de materialización; las herramientas de registro o grabación; las herramientas de gramatización; y las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación. En este trabajo, consideraré la situación de todas estas herramientas, pero me detendré particularmente en los sistemas de escritura, dado que es la herramienta central que la humanidad ha aplicado sobre las lenguas y que impone estructuras y funciones sobre las otras.Palabras clave: Sistemas de escritura. Herramientas de registro. Instrumentos de Gramatización. Lenguas de Señas. ABSTRACTThere are four basic tools that have been applied to languages in order to operate on them, although, depending on the concept of tool adopted, some more could be mentioned. These tools are: writing systems, recording devices (audio or video recorders), grammatization instruments (grammars and dictionaries), and technologies of information and communication. In this paper, I will consider the situation of these tools and their application to sign languages, specifically Uruguayan Sign Language (LSU). I will focus particularly on writing systems, since they are the basic tool that humanity has applied to languages, and that, in turn, imposes structures and functions on the other tools.

show abstract

Think and Believe: Sequentiality in American Sign Language

Cited by 203 publications

References 7 publications

Movement phases in signs and co-speech gestures, and their transcription by human coders

Movement phases in signs and co-speech gestures, and their transcription by human coders

Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: The bottleneck of non-native sign language processing

Reflexión en torno a la aplicación de herramientas para operar sobre las lenguas y el caso de la lengua de señas uruguaya (LSU)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About