Folk definitions in linguistic fieldwork

Dingemanse, Mark

doi:10.1075/clu.17.09din

“…Folk definitions are paraphrases by native speakers of a language; however, given the nature of Deaf communities, true native sign language users who have acquired the language from birth are scarce. Finally, the frequent language contact between spoken and signed languages and the largely bilingual status of the Deaf community will impact on the collection of signed folk definitions, since participants may typically rely on spoken or written explanation strategies in their everyday life, rather than having signed "natural explanatory routines" (Dingemanse, 2015). These last two issues will be addressed further in Chapter 6 -Folk definitions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Folk definitions, defined by Dingemanse (2015) as "native, informal, multi-modal explanations of linguistic items", were first used as data on word meaning by researchers carrying out linguistic fieldwork in the anthropological tradition. There are a number of parallels between such fieldwork and sign language documentation and lexicography.…”

Section: Folk Defini;ons As Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In section 3.4.9 -Corpora and corpus-based lexicography , I commented on a similar situation for sign language research. Dingemanse (2015) argued that folk definitions call on natural explanatory routines that are near to native language users' experiences. This has the benefit of significantly widening the number of people from whom data can be gathered, since no expert knowledge is required beyond native language competence.…”

Section: Folk Defini;ons As Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A small number of anthropologists and linguists have employed folk definitions as a fieldwork tool in documenting languages, especially oral languages. Dingemanse (2015) has made a convincing case for reviving this method of gathering rich data while postponing the translation stage of language documentation. Sign languages, as unwritten languages for which language description and documentation are often still at an early stage (see Chapter 2 -Sign languages and the sign language lexicon and Chapter 3 -Sign language lexicography), could benefit from this approach to data gathering.…”

Section: Introduc;onmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Folk Definitions as a Model for Sign Language Dictionary Definitions: A User-Focused Study of the Online Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language

Vale¹

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>This thesis addresses the question whether signed definitions, made possible by advances in electronic lexicography, should be introduced to sign language dictionaries. The thesis comprises four interrelated studies investigating different aspects of this question through a user-focused case study of the Online Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language (ODNZSL). A preliminary study investigated current use of the ODNZSL in order to identify what user needs signed definitions might fulfil. The study drew on two data sets: website log data for the ODNZSL, and a think-aloud protocol and interview with representatives of user groups. Results showed that in addition to a large volume of casual browsers, the most frequent and intensive users of the dictionary are beginner and intermediate students of New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL). These (hearing) language learners mostly search for frequent vocabulary with the aims of language production and vocabulary learning. Findings also identified reasons for unsuccessful dictionary consultations that may impact on the effectiveness of definitions. In the second study, a review of ODNZSL entries highlighted categories of lexical items for which the current description through English glosses, examples, and usage notes is inadequate. A test was developed to assess whether these categories of signs were problematic for the user group identified in the first study: hearing intermediate learners of NZSL. Twenty-one participants took a computer-based error correction test with both comprehension and production sections comprising fifty items in six different categories: culture-bound; idiomatic; polysemous; metaphoric/metonymic; vocabulary type / word class; and other. Quantitative results indicated that a small number of test items were problematic, but that none of the test categories were good predictors of the difficulties learners experienced. A qualitative examination identified linguistic factors and issues with the current dictionary information that may be improved by the addition of signed definitions. The central proposition tested in the third study was that folk definitions—informal explanations of sign meaning by Deaf sign language users—can be applied as a template for dictionary definitions. This study took fifteen of the signs that were identified as problematic for learners in the previous study, and asked thirteen Deaf NZSL users to explain the meaning of these signs. A qualitative analysis found that the folk definitions by different NZSL users shared common semantic categories and embedded information about situational and sociolinguistic variation as well as grammatical structures. Some semantic relationships that occur frequently in spoken language folk definitions, such as exemplification and synonymy, were also common in signed folk definitions. Other semantic relationships such as attribution, function, operation, and spatial relationships occurred less frequently because they were inherent in the sign construction. Due to the bilingual status of the participants, many folk definitions included reference to English words in the form of mouth patterns and fingerspelling. In the fourth study, twelve pilot dictionary definitions were created on the basis of common features found in the folk definitions and an evaluation of definition formats by Deaf NZSL users. The error correction test from the second study was repeated with a new cohort of intermediate NZSL learners. This time twelve test items were accompanied by a pilot definition; for the remaining items participants were shown a video example sentence from the ODNZSL entry. Results showed no significant improvements in scores for the test items with definitions. However, feedback from test participants showed that the definitions were comprehensible and perceived as valuable for language learning. The overall conclusion of these studies is that a selective approach should be taken to introducing signed definitions in existing multifunctional sign language dictionaries. For hearing learners of sign language, signed definitions do not meet immediate communicative (comprehension and production) needs, but they may contribute to wider vocabulary learning goals. The main contribution of this thesis is that it suggests a user-focused methodology for creating signed definitions, driven by evidence from the first empirical user study of an online sign language dictionary and therefore taking into account the particular challenges of sign language lexicography. Furthermore, the analysis of features of signed folk definitions contributes to the semantic description of sign languages.</p>

show abstract

“…Other studies (e.g. Casagrande & Hale, 1967;Manes, 1980;Dingemanse, 2015) elicited definitions by presenting native speakers with a pre-determined list of words. Given the context-embedded features of folk definitions, the observation method would at first sight be preferable; however, when the purpose of the study is to concentrate on specific vocabulary (such as Dingemanse's study on ideophones), this method cannot be relied on.…”

Section: Methodology Of Folk Defini;on Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Folk Definitions as a Model for Sign Language Dictionary Definitions: A User-Focused Study of the Online Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language

Vale¹

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>This thesis addresses the question whether signed definitions, made possible by advances in electronic lexicography, should be introduced to sign language dictionaries. The thesis comprises four interrelated studies investigating different aspects of this question through a user-focused case study of the Online Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language (ODNZSL). A preliminary study investigated current use of the ODNZSL in order to identify what user needs signed definitions might fulfil. The study drew on two data sets: website log data for the ODNZSL, and a think-aloud protocol and interview with representatives of user groups. Results showed that in addition to a large volume of casual browsers, the most frequent and intensive users of the dictionary are beginner and intermediate students of New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL). These (hearing) language learners mostly search for frequent vocabulary with the aims of language production and vocabulary learning. Findings also identified reasons for unsuccessful dictionary consultations that may impact on the effectiveness of definitions. In the second study, a review of ODNZSL entries highlighted categories of lexical items for which the current description through English glosses, examples, and usage notes is inadequate. A test was developed to assess whether these categories of signs were problematic for the user group identified in the first study: hearing intermediate learners of NZSL. Twenty-one participants took a computer-based error correction test with both comprehension and production sections comprising fifty items in six different categories: culture-bound; idiomatic; polysemous; metaphoric/metonymic; vocabulary type / word class; and other. Quantitative results indicated that a small number of test items were problematic, but that none of the test categories were good predictors of the difficulties learners experienced. A qualitative examination identified linguistic factors and issues with the current dictionary information that may be improved by the addition of signed definitions. The central proposition tested in the third study was that folk definitions—informal explanations of sign meaning by Deaf sign language users—can be applied as a template for dictionary definitions. This study took fifteen of the signs that were identified as problematic for learners in the previous study, and asked thirteen Deaf NZSL users to explain the meaning of these signs. A qualitative analysis found that the folk definitions by different NZSL users shared common semantic categories and embedded information about situational and sociolinguistic variation as well as grammatical structures. Some semantic relationships that occur frequently in spoken language folk definitions, such as exemplification and synonymy, were also common in signed folk definitions. Other semantic relationships such as attribution, function, operation, and spatial relationships occurred less frequently because they were inherent in the sign construction. Due to the bilingual status of the participants, many folk definitions included reference to English words in the form of mouth patterns and fingerspelling. In the fourth study, twelve pilot dictionary definitions were created on the basis of common features found in the folk definitions and an evaluation of definition formats by Deaf NZSL users. The error correction test from the second study was repeated with a new cohort of intermediate NZSL learners. This time twelve test items were accompanied by a pilot definition; for the remaining items participants were shown a video example sentence from the ODNZSL entry. Results showed no significant improvements in scores for the test items with definitions. However, feedback from test participants showed that the definitions were comprehensible and perceived as valuable for language learning. The overall conclusion of these studies is that a selective approach should be taken to introducing signed definitions in existing multifunctional sign language dictionaries. For hearing learners of sign language, signed definitions do not meet immediate communicative (comprehension and production) needs, but they may contribute to wider vocabulary learning goals. The main contribution of this thesis is that it suggests a user-focused methodology for creating signed definitions, driven by evidence from the first empirical user study of an online sign language dictionary and therefore taking into account the particular challenges of sign language lexicography. Furthermore, the analysis of features of signed folk definitions contributes to the semantic description of sign languages.</p>

show abstract

“How do you even know what ideophones mean?”

Nuckolls

¹

2020

GEST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using data from the Northern Pastaza (qvc) and Upper Napo Quichua (quw) dialects of Amazonian Ecuador, this paper argues that the semantics of ideophones, a highly marked form class of expressive words, is principled and describable with a combination of sensori-semantic features and a fine-grained typology of gestures, based on insights from Streeck (2008) and others. Specifically, ideophones’ sensori-semantics are broken down into a semantic map consisting of 3 super- and 7 subcategorical distinctions. The greater the number of categories encoded by an ideophone’s semantics, the greater are the range of gestures used. Finally, gesture types identified by Streeck (2008) and others, were found among a very different group of people who are not western, educated, industrialized, rich, or democratic. Further research into ideophones and their gestures may find broader significance for ideophone semantics, and more generally, for the interrelations between language and gesture.

show abstract

Folk definitions in linguistic fieldwork

Cited by 9 publications

References 35 publications

Folk Definitions as a Model for Sign Language Dictionary Definitions: A User-Focused Study of the Online Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language

Folk Definitions as a Model for Sign Language Dictionary Definitions: A User-Focused Study of the Online Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language

Folk Definitions as a Model for Sign Language Dictionary Definitions: A User-Focused Study of the Online Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language

“How do you even know what ideophones mean?”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About