Facial Expressions, Emotions, and Sign Languages

Elliott, Eeva A.; Jacobs, Arthur

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00115

Cited by 55 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of these meanings clearly overlap the values of 'carelessly' or 'with ease' that are attributed to this mouth gesture in signed languages. However, the apparent specificity of these meanings to these signed languages has much to do with how one describes the meanings of various facial expression (Elliot & Jacobs, 2013). The research of Smith et al (1974), for example, shows that there are really only two underlying functions of tongue protrusion: (a) indexing distaste/displeasure/disgust; and (b) expressing 'social exclusion' (i.e., a desire to be uninterrupted or a rejection of social engagement), with the former probably lying at the basis of the latter (one can readily appreciate how physical rejection could extend metaphorically to social rejection).…”

Section: Form/meaning Pairings In Auslanmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Conventionalization of Mouth Actions in Australian Sign Language

Johnston¹,

Roekel

Schembri

2015

Lang Speech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the conventionalization of mouth actions in Australian Sign Language. Signed languages were once thought of as simply manual languages because the hands produce the signs which individually and in groups are the symbolic units most easily equated with the words, phrases and clauses of spoken languages. However, it has long been acknowledged that non-manual activity, such as movements of the body, head and the face play a very important role. In this context, mouth actions that occur while communicating in signed languages have posed a number of questions for linguists: are the silent mouthings of spoken language words simply borrowings from the respective majority community spoken language(s)? Are those mouth actions that are not silent mouthings of spoken words conventionalized linguistic units proper to each signed language, culturally linked semi-conventional gestural units shared by signers with members of the majority speaking community, or even gestures and expressions common to all humans? We use a corpus-based approach to gather evidence of the extent of the use of mouth actions in naturalistic Australian Sign Language-making comparisons with other signed languages where data is available--and the form/meaning pairings that these mouth actions instantiate.

show abstract

Section: Form/meaning Pairings In Auslanmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Conventionalization of Mouth Actions in Australian Sign Language

Johnston¹,

Roekel

Schembri

2015

Lang Speech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eye gaze tracking studies have observed that, during SL communication, signers maintain their gaze on the face of their interlocutor rather that looking at the hands of that individual (Agrafiotis, Canagarajah, Bull, & Dye, 2003;Emmorey, Korpics, & Petronio, 2009;Mastrantuono, Saldaña, & Rodríguez-Ortiz, 2017;Muir & Richardson, 2005). Subtle visual (phonological) distinctions (Siple, 1978) as well as grammatical markings (Brentari & Crossley, 2002;Elliott & Jacobs, 2013;Grossman & Kegl, 2007) that occur on the face of the signer, likely require signers to foveate the face to maintain the high levels of visual acuity required.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sign language experience redistributes attentional resources to the inferior visual field

Stoll

Dye²

2019

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While a substantial body of work has suggested that deafness brings about an increased allocation of visual attention to the periphery there has been much less work on how using a signed language may also influence this attentional allocation. Signed languages are visualgestural and produced using the body and perceived via the human visual system. Signers fixate upon the face of interlocutors and do not directly look at the hands moving in the inferior visual field. It is therefore reasonable to predict that signed languages require a redistribution of covert visual attention to the inferior visual field. Here we report a prospective and statistically powered assessment of the spatial distribution of attention to inferior and superior visual fields in signers-both deaf and hearing-in a visual search task. Using a Bayesian Hierarchical Drift Diffusion Model, we estimated decision making parameters for the superior and inferior visual field in deaf signers, hearing signers and hearing non-signers. Results indicated a greater attentional redistribution toward the inferior visual field in adult signers (both deaf and hearing) than in hearing sign-naïve adults. The effect was smaller for hearing signers than for deaf signers, suggestive of either a role for extent of exposure or greater plasticity of the visual system in the deaf. The data provide support for a process by which the demands of linguistic processing can influence the human attentional system.

show abstract

“…It may well be that in the case of deaf individuals using sign languages, the fact that facial expression contributes to the composition of semantic, and iconic dimension of the sign. It is possible that sign language use of facial expressions interferes with the interpretation of the same facial movements in their "raw" form as bearing emotion-related meaning [6], [13], [30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%