NOT ALL FINGERS AND THUMBS: THE DEVELOPMENT OF...

Sign Language Research Lab, University of Haifa

The Grammar of the BodyGRAMBY

1

GRAMBY Workshop (3)Thursday 9th March 2017

NOT ALL FINGERS AND THUMBS: THE DEVELOPMENT OF

LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY OF BODILY ARTICULATORS IN A YOUNG SIGN LANGUAGE

Svetlana Dachkovsky, Rose Stamp & Wendy Sandler

GRAMBY: BRIEF REVIEW

Body articulators (e.g., torso, head, facial expressions) are used in sign languages to signal an array of linguistic functions (Liddell 1980; Padden 1988; Nespor & Sandler 1999; Dachkovsky & Sandler 2009; Dachkovsky, Healy & Sandler 2013; inter alia)

Articulators are recruited gradually to signal grammatical functions as the language matures (Sandler, 2012)

The use of the body becomes increasingly compositional: becoming more efficient in expressing complex messages (Sandler, 2012)

2

Brow raise marks a question

HANDS HEAD FACE BODY

S1 XS2 X XS3

S4

XXXX X X X

Brow raise marks a question

Squint marks shared info

Svetlana Dachkovsky, Rose Stamp & Wendy Sandler,

presented at the GRAMBY workshop 2017

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Study 1: Form (what it looks like?)

How is the body being recruited in ISL and does this change diachronically?

Study 2: Linguistic function (what does it signal?)

Do generational differences in body organisation reflect more linguistic complexity?

3

ISRAELI SIGN LANGUAGE (ISL)

Nichols, 1984; Newmeyer, 2000, 2006



ROADMAPMethodology: Study 1 & 2

Study 1: Form

• Results:

• Younger signers are more efficient in their use of the body

• Younger signers move their articulators more than older signers

Study 2: Function

• Analysis: Functions

• Results:

• Younger signers exhibit a higher number of complex constructions

• Signals marking more complex relations between propositions emerge gradually4Svetlana Dachkovsky, Rose Stamp & Wendy Sandler,


ISRAELI SIGN LANGUAGE (MEIR & SANDLER 2008)

Came into existence 1930-50s

A Deaf Community Sign Language (Meir et al 2009, 2013)

Heterogeneous population, different language backgrounds

Estimated 10,000 signers

5Svetlana Dachkovsky, Rose Stamp & Wendy Sandler,


METHODOLOGY: DATASET

6

• Discourse level - spontaneous narratives (2 mins)

• 15 ISL signers (3 age groups):• 5 younger (18-30)• 5 middle (31-50)• 5 older (51+)

• Apparent Time Hypothesis (Labov 1963)

• Utterances divided into intonational phrases (IPs) on the basis of manual signals (Nespor & Sandler 1999)

INTONATIONAL PHRASE (IP)

Intonational phrases often correspond to thought units (e.g., Chafe 1984, Du Bois 1985) 7

I ate fruit and cream pie.

I ate fruit and cream pie.

IP

IP IP



METHODOLOGY: PARTICIPANTS



METHODS: CODING*Coding of movements of the face and head follow FACS (Ekman, Friesen & Hager 1978/2002)

Head movement

Head turn left*

Head forward*

Head down*

Head up*

Head back*

Head nod

Head turn right*

Head tilt left*

Head tilt right*9

Upper & lower face Brow raise*

Brow lower*

Closed eyes* (droop)

Upper lid raise* (eye widen)

Lid tightener* (squint)

Torso movementsTorso up

Torso downTorso forward

Torso backTorso turn left

Torso turn rightTorso tilt left

Torso tilt rightSvetlana Dachkovsky, Rose Stamp & Wendy Sandler,


STUDY 1: FORM RESULTS



1. SIMILAR NUMBER OF IPS ACROSS AGE GROUPS

Older Middle Younger

IPs 501 473 499

Similar numbers of intonational phrases across age groups

10

Similar findings by Sandler et al. (2011) in ABSL



2. SIGNING RATE INCREASES AS THE LANGUAGE MATURES

*SIGNIFICANT (older-younger) p<0.05


Signs/min* 103.5 121.3 153.2

Signs/IP* 2.13 2.62 3.07

Rate of signing *INCREASESNumbers of signs per IP *INCREASES

Similar findings by Sandler et al. (2011) in ABSL



3. FEWER MOVEMENTS BY OLDER SIGNERS

OLDER MIDDLE YOUNGER

Movements of any articulator 1915 2109 2250

Movements/IP 3.83 4.45 4.49



4. YOUNGER SIGNERS MORE OFTEN ACTIVATE HEAD AND TORSO SEPARATELY THAN OLDER

14

YoungerOlder

head forward; torso tilted right

26% (74%) 38% (62%)

head & torso forward &

down



FORM: INTERIM SUMMARY

As a language matures, signers become more efficient in their use of the body

younger signers sign faster

younger signers use more signs/ip

Older and younger have similar numbers of IPs

Younger signers more often activate head and torso separately than older

Younger signers move their articulators more than older signers

Why?15

(Similar to Bellugi & Fischer, 1972)



STUDY 2: FUNCTION



DISCOURSE STRUCTURE

Discourse — characterised by cohesion

Main aspects of discourse structuring:

segmentation

discourse relations

• putting units together

• hierarchy of bigger units

• nesting of units inside bigger units

(Lehmann, 1985; Grosz & Sidner 1986; Venditti & Hirschberg 2005)



DISCOURSE STRUCTURE AND INTONATION

Intonation plays important role:

segmentation — e.g., high pitch up at the beginning, low at the end of an utterance

discourse relations — e.g., pitch rise for continuation

• putting prosodic units together

• hierarchy of bigger prosodic units

• nesting of units inside bigger units

(e.g., Venditti & Hirschberg, 2005; Gussenhoven 2004, Ladd 1996)



COMPLEXITY OF DISCOURSE STRUCTURING

19

com

plex

ity

segmentation into units

putting units together

hierarchy of units

nesting of units inside complex units

(e.g., Sporran & Sanders, 2008; Berman)



COMPLEXITY OF DISCOURSE STRUCTURING

20emer

genc

e of

sig

nals

How do the mechanisms signalling discourse structuring emerge and develop in a language?

Which mechanisms come first? Which — later?

com

plex

ity

segmentation into units

putting units together

hierarchy of units

nesting of units inside complex unitsSvetlana Dachkovsky, Rose Stamp & Wendy Sandler,


METHODS: FUNCTION

Constructed Action Ease of production IP Boundaries

Manner Lexical

Affective Affirmation Listing

Gestural Negation Topic-Comment

Cognitive Assertion Dependency

Emphasis Shared Information Contrast

Agreement with space Asking for confirmation

Temporal Referential Shift

Question Parenthetical

Direction-related



METHODS: FUNCTION✦ 777 tokens of functions of varying complexities, identified based on

reliable markers of the body, which have been verified in the literature on ISL (Nespor & Sandler 1999, Sandler & Dachkovsky 2009, Dachkovsky et al., 2013)



FUNCTIONS DEFINING FEATURE MARKERS

NON-MANUAL SIGNALS OF IP BOUNDARIES

reinforce segmentation into units head up/down, nods, eye closure

LISTINGsimple unordered addition of units:

I met Dani, Bob and Kate. head thrusts

TOPIC-COMMENTAsymmetry between units below the

level of proposition: Dani, I met him yesterday.

head forward, brow raise

DEPENDENCYAsymmetry between units above the

level of proposition: After I met Dani yesterday, I left.

head forward, brow raise

CONTRASTSymmetrical relation between units:

Yesterday I met Dani and today — Yossi

opposite head or body tilt/turns

NESTING One relation inside another:

After the guests ate all the food they said good-bye but didn’t leave.

layering of features

23

com

plex

ity



STUDY 2: FUNCTION RESULTS



0

9.5

19

28.5

38

Marking of segmentation

33

38

29


RESULTS: NON-MANUAL MARKERS OF IP BOUNDARIES



RESULTS: SIGNALS OF DISCOURSE STRUCTURING

0

7.5

15

22.5

30

Listing Topic-Comment Contrast Dependency




0

6.5

13

19.5

26

Listing Topic-Comment

17

10

25

15

20

9


RESULTS: SIGNALS OF MORE BASIC RELATIONS



0

7.5

15

22.5

30

Listing Topic-Comment Contrast Dependency


28

RESULTS: SIGNALS OF DISCOURSE STRUCTURING



0

4.5

9

13.5

18

Contrast Dependency

1718

8

14

46


* p=.000028 * p<.00001

RESULTS: BODY SIGNALS COMPLEX RELATIONS



0

2

4

6

8

Nestings

8

6

1


* p<.00001

RESULTS: BODY SIGNALS OF NESTING



FUNCTIONS: INTERIM SUMMARY

• No age-related differences in the frequency of marking of the three basic aspects of discourse structuring:

1. Segmentation 2. Listing 3. Topic-Comment

• Significant differences in the occurrence of markers of complex relations — dependencies and contrast — across age groups

• Younger signers exhibit a significantly higher number of nesting markers — they more often explicitly incorporate one relation within another (e.g., dependency within contrast)



TOPIC-COMMENT MARKING: OLDER

COMMENT: Head back

32

TOPIC: Head and torso forward, brow

raise



COMMENT: Head back

My father and his wife they both had to stay.[TWO-OF-THEM WIFE FATHER] [TWO-OF-THEM STAY]

33

TOPIC-COMMENT MARKING: OLDER

TOPIC: Head and torso forward, brow

raise



MOVIE

DEPENDENCY MARKING: MIDDLE

PART1: Head forward,

brow raise

PART2: Head back



(Doctor said)…because you’re not getting vitamin B12, you need injections.[BECAUSE B-12 NO] [NEED INJECTION]

35

PART1: Head forward,

brow raise

PART2: Head back

DEPENDENCY MARKING: MIDDLE



MOVIE

CONTRAST MARKING: MIDDLE

CONTRAST1: head tilt right

CONTRAST2: head tilt left



As well as sign language, I don’t rule out the importance of spoken language.[ALSO LANGUAGE SIGN-LANGUAGE] [ALSO IX(me) NO RULE-OUT IMPORTANT ORAL]

37

CONTRAST1: head tilt right

CONTRAST2: head tilt left

CONTRAST MARKING: MIDDLE



MOVIE

38

NESTING MARKING : YOUNGERDEPENDENCY WITHIN CONTRAST



MOVIE

As I attended that school, they closed the deaf program,


I moved to another school

contrast

opposite tilts Svetlana Dachkovsky, Rose Stamp & Wendy Sandler,


As I attended that school, they closed the deaf program,


I moved to another school

contrast

opposite tilts

head forward head back

dependency




As I attended that school, they closed the deaf program, I moved to another school

contrast

opposite tilts


dependency

Func

tion

Form





contrast

dependency

Func

tion





contrast

opposite tilts


dependency

Func

tion

Form



45




MOVIE

MORE INDEPENDENT USE OF HEAD AND TORSO FOR SEPARATE FUNCTIONS SIMULTANEOUSLY FOR YOUNGER

46

YoungerOlder FORM:head & torso

forward & down

FUNCTION:topic

FORM:torso tilt righthead forward

FUNCTION:contrast

dependency

Dependency Contrast



CONCLUSIONSLinguistic complexity emerges gradually

Non-manual markers of IP boundaries (segmentation) appear first

More basic discourse relations also appear at earlier stages: topic-comment, listing

More complex relations between propositions emerge later: dependency, contrast

Younger signers can nest one complex relation inside another relation, unlike older signers

As articulators become emancipated, the complexity of the relations is gradually mapped onto the complexity of body articulations.

47

Dependency

Contrast

Function

Head Forward

Opposite tilts

FormSvetlana Dachkovsky, Rose Stamp & Wendy Sandler,


REFERENCES

Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (2013). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Psychology Press. Dachkovsky, S., Healy, C., & Sandler, W. (2013). Visual intonation in two sign languages. Phonology, 30(02), 211-252. Dachkovsky, S., & Sandler, W. (2009). Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech, 52(2-3),

287-314. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Hager, J. (2002). Emotional facial action coding system. Manual and investigators guide. CD-ROM. Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational linguistics, 12(3),

175-204. Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge University Press. Labov, W. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19(3), 273-309. Ladd, D. R. (2008). Intonational phonology. Cambridge University Press. Lehmann, C. (1985). The role of grammaticalization in linguistic typology. Language invariants and mental operations,

41-52.Liddell, S. K. (1980). American sign language syntax (Vol. 52). Mouton De Gruyter. Nespor, M., & Sandler, W. (1999). Prosody in Israeli sign language. Language and Speech, 42(2-3), 143-176. Newmeyer, F. J. (2000). Language form and language function. MIT press. Newmeyer, F. J. (2003). Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language, 79(4), 682-707. Nichols, J. (1984). Functional theories of grammar. Annual review of Anthropology, 13(1), 97-117. Padden, C. A. (2016/ 1988). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Routledge. Sandler, W. (2012). Dedicated gestures and the emergence of sign language. Gesture, 12(3), 265-307. Sandler, W., Meir, I., Dachkovsky, S., Padden, C., & Aronoff, M. (2011). The emergence of complexity in prosody and syntax.

Lingua, 121(13), 2014-2033. Venditti, J. J., & Hirschberg, J. (2003). Intonation and discourse processing. In Proceedings of the international congress of

phonetic sciences (pp. 315-318). Saarbrücken,, Germany: University of Saarbrücken.



Muneera Abu-Roken

Roni Beit-Hallahmi

Shai Davidi

Safwat Halabi

THANK YOU!!



NOT ALL FINGERS AND THUMBS: THE DEVELOPMENT OF...

Documents

Transcript of NOT ALL FINGERS AND THUMBS: THE DEVELOPMENT OF...