Frequency distribution and spreading behavior of different types of mouth actions in three sign languages

Abstract

In this paper, we present a comparative study of mouth actions in three European sign languages: British Sign Language (BSL), Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands, NGT), and Swedish Sign Language (SSL). We propose a typology for, and report the frequency distribution of, the different types of mouth actions observed. In accordance with previous studies, we find the three languages remarkably similar — both in the types of mouth actions they use, and in how these mouth actions are distributed. We then describe how mouth actions can extend over more than one manual sign. This spreading of mouth actions is the primary focus of this paper. Based on an analysis of comparable narrative material in the three languages, we demonstrate that the direction as well as the source and goal of spreading may be language-specific.

Scope-taking strategies and the order of clausal categories in German Sign Language

“…For this reason, we chose examples with clear nonaffective facial expressions in this article. Another class of NMMs that we excluded from our proposal are so-called "semantically empty mouth gestures" and "enacting mouth gestures" (Crasborn et al 2008), which are lexically-specified and cannot spread over other manual material. 11 We explicitly include other lexical NMMs when the possibility of 11 An example of a semantically empty mouth gesture in DGS is a variant of the verb sign to-have that is accompanied by a mouthing resembling the rounded variant of the phoneme [∫] (this mouthing probably also has an enacting background as the turbulent flow of the fricative [∫] usually seems to appear on manual signs that include wiggling movements).…”

“…13 We are not concerned with the place of articulation of manual a real action or the movements of the hand is the DGS sign to-chew, which is accompanied by enacted chewing (see Crasborn et al 2008;Pfau & Quer 2010 and also Woll 2001 on so called "echo phonology"). Those two types of mouth gestures are excluded from our proposal as well as mouthings.…”

The phonology of focus in Sign Language of the Netherlands

“…Non-manual features play a limited role in the lexicon of signed languages. Aside from the pervasive use of mouth actions across the whole lexicon (see papers in Boyes Braem & Sutton-Spence 2001 for various languages; for NGT see Crasborn et al 2008a, van de Sande & Crasborn 2009, Bank, Crasborn & van Hout 2011, all other non-manual features only occur sporadically in the lexicon. It is clearly not the case that they function as distinctive phonological features in the lexicon of NGT.…”

“…Some of these actions clearly derive from Dutch words (and often are the full, yet silent, articulation of a word, thus adding to the specific meaning of the manual sign ; these are called ' mouthings'), while a minority does not appear to be derived from a spoken language (' mouth gestures '). Within the latter category one can distinguish lexically specified meaningless articulations from bound morphemes with an adverbial function and from mouth actions that form part of an overall affective facial expression (see Crasborn et al 2008a for further discussion).…”

“…While the first dictionaries of NGT included a mouthing for only 16 % of the entries (Schermer 1990), Crasborn et al (2008a) showed that in narratives in three signed languages, including NGT, 60-90 % of all manual signs were accompanied by some mouth action. For the two NGT signers, mouthings accompanied 20-30 % of all signs.…”