Between narrator and protagonist in fables of German Sign Language

Herrmann, Annika; Pendzich, Nina-Kristin

doi:10.1075/la.247.12her

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The two sentences in this example were adapted and modified from narrative data (CSLDS 2018, Sylvester-Tweety_ad_CKN), which consists of both action role shift (Ac-rs) and attitude role shift (At-rs) (c.f. similar examples in DGS, Steinbach (2021) and Herrmann and Pendzich (2018)). Nevertheless, it is still clear that in attitude role shift, wh-extraction is not acceptable.…”

Section: Role Shift: Quotation-like and Non-quotation-likesupporting

confidence: 54%

Shifted indexicals in Hong Kong Sign Language with(-out) role shift

Gan¹

2021

FEAST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates shifted indexicals in Hong Kong Sign Language (hereafter HKSL). In elicited data, shifted indexicals are attested in utterances with and without attitude role shift. The data further show that attitude role shift has both quotation-like and nonquotation-like characteristics, leading to the conclusion that neither of the two major accounts for role shift, the Demonstration Account by Davidson (2015) or the Indexical Shifting Operator Account by Schlenker (2017b, 2017a) suffices to fully explain role shift. Moreover, the interpretations of the indexicals seem to depend on the exact form of the embedding predicate. Crucially, a shifted interpretation is available only under what I notate as VERB-2 but not VERB-3. I propose that VERB-2 can act as neutral agreement that leads to ambiguous interpretations of the sentences.

show abstract

Section: Role Shift: Quotation-like and Non-quotation-likesupporting

confidence: 54%

Shifted indexicals in Hong Kong Sign Language with(-out) role shift

Gan¹

2021

FEAST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additional analyses revealed effects of topicalization and uncertainty for both groups. We discuss these findings by highlighting the simultaneous and time-shifted presence of syntax-relevant cues (i.e., hands, mouthings, and non-manuals) in the sign stream and argue that non-signers attend to some non-manual cues despite their lack of sign language knowledge, because they resemble communicative gestures (Hermann & Pendzich, 2018;Pendzich, 2020).…”

Section: Extraneous Visual Signals and Sign Language Syntaxmentioning

confidence: 90%

Detection of Extraneous Visual Signals Does Not Reveal the Syntactic Structure of German Sign Language (DGS)

Trettenbrein,

Maran,

Pohl

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sentences are not just mere strings of words or signs but manifest a complex internal structure. Linguistic research has demonstrated that sign languages and spoken languages both exhibit hierarchical constituent structure which determines how individual elements in a sentence relate to each other. Here, we report the first adaptation of the psycholinguistic “click” paradigm, which aims to demonstrate the relevance of hierarchical constituent structure during auditory language processing, to the visuo-spatial modality of sign languages. We performed two independent online experiments: The main experiment with a group of 53 deaf signers using German Sign Language (DGS) as their primary means of communication and a control experiment with a group of 53 hearing non-signers. Both groups were shown videos of syntactically complex sentences in DGS. A white flash (mimicking the “click” in the auditory domain) to which participants had to respond could occur as an overlay to the video at different levels in the constituent structure. Our pre- registered inferential analyses yielded no effect for our syntactic manipulations, neither in the group of signers nor in the group of non-signers. Additional exploratory analyses suggest general effects of attention during the processing of communicative signals, as even the group of non-signers’ behaviour was influenced by non-manual cues despite their lack of knowledge of DGS. We conclude that the simultaneous and time-shifted presence of different syntax-relevant cues (i.e., hands, mouthings, and non-manuals) makes the sign stream robust against disruption by extraneous visual signals and argue that non-signers attend to some non-manual cues due to their resemblance of communicative gestures.

show abstract

“…Nonmanuals, including gaze as well as head and torso, are also cited as more frequent in BSL than British English enactment (Earis and Cormier, 2013). According to Herrmann and Pendzich (2018), in DGS non-quotational enactment too, there are cross-modal differences in the recruited articulators: unlike DGS signers, speakers use their legs to enact referents. Further work may be warranted as the use of the lower half of the body has been attested in other SLs, like ASL, FinSL or LSFB (Quinto-Pozos and Mehta, 2010;Jantunen et al, 2020;Vandenitte, 2021).…”

Section: Use Of Enacting Articulators and Manners Of Articulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This form should stand in contrast with its non-quotational counterpart in SLs or any form (quotational or otherwise) of enactment in SpLs. For instance, one could expect a constrained set of articulators, perhaps systematically articulated in specific manners (see Herrmann and Steinbach, 2012;Herrmann and Pendzich, 2018;Quer, 2019). Indeed, Steinbach (2021, p. 356) proposes that…”

Section: Accounting For Cross-modal Differences In Enactmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Referents Seen and Heard Across Signed and Spoken Languages: Documenting and Interpreting Cross-Modal Differences in the Use of Enactment

Vandenitte

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differences in language use and structures between signed and spoken languages have often been attributed to so-called language “modality.” Indeed, this is derived from the conception that spoken languages resort to both the oral-aural channel of speech and the visual-kinesic channel of visible bodily action whereas signed languages only resort to the latter. This paper addresses the use of enactment, a depictive communicative strategy whereby language users imitate referents in signed and spoken languages. Reviewing comparative research on enactment, this paper highlights theoretical and methodological shortcomings in prior works. First, a broader set of causal explanations needs to be taken into account when interpreting differences between signing and speaking communities. A more comprehensive conceptual toolbox ensures that differences are not automatically attributed to modality. In particular, less-studied factors of language diversity, like sociolinguistic and cultural ecologies, and how they interact with other factors should be considered. Second, diversity in enactment across signed and spoken languages is shown to be inadequately and insufficiently documented. It is argued that by comparing enactment across more diverse signing and speaking communities and using large, directly comparable corpora, solid analyses can be carried out, enabling a better understanding of how and why different communities use enactment in similar or different ways.

show abstract

Between narrator and protagonist in fables of German Sign Language

Cited by 10 publications

References 50 publications

Shifted indexicals in Hong Kong Sign Language with(-out) role shift

Shifted indexicals in Hong Kong Sign Language with(-out) role shift

Detection of Extraneous Visual Signals Does Not Reveal the Syntactic Structure of German Sign Language (DGS)

Making Referents Seen and Heard Across Signed and Spoken Languages: Documenting and Interpreting Cross-Modal Differences in the Use of Enactment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About