Gloss annotations in the Swedish Sign Language Corpus

Mesch, Johanna; Wallin, Lars

doi:10.1075/ijcl.20.1.05mes

Cited by 25 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Glossing is the transcription of signed languages sign-by-sign, where every sign has a unique identifier. While various sign language corpus projects have provided gloss annotation guidelines (Mesch and Wallin, 2015;Johnston and De Beuzeville, 2016;Konrad et al, 2018), again, there is no single agreed-upon standard. Linear gloss annotations are also an imprecise representation of signed language: they do not adequately capture all information expressed simultaneously through different cues (i.e.…”

Section: Representations Of Signed Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Including Signed Languages in Natural Language Processing

Yin¹,

Moryossef²,

Hochgesang³

et al. 2021

Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Confer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Signed languages are the primary means of communication for many deaf and hard of hearing individuals. Since signed languages exhibit all the fundamental linguistic properties of natural language, we believe that tools and theories of Natural Language Processing (NLP) are crucial towards its modeling. However, existing research in Sign Language Processing (SLP) seldom attempt to explore and leverage the linguistic organization of signed languages. This position paper calls on the NLP community to include signed languages as a research area with high social and scientific impact. We first discuss the linguistic properties of signed languages to consider during their modeling. Then, we review the limitations of current SLP models and identify the open challenges to extend NLP to signed languages. Finally, we urge (1) the adoption of an efficient tokenization method; (2) the development of linguistically-informed models; (3) the collection of real-world signed language data; (4) the inclusion of local signed language communities as an active and leading voice in the direction of research.

show abstract

Section: Representations Of Signed Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Including Signed Languages in Natural Language Processing

Yin¹,

Moryossef²,

Hochgesang³

et al. 2021

Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Confer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All selected data are annotated with sign glosses in the tiers "Gloss_DH" (dominant hand manual signing) and "Gloss_NonDH" (non-dominant hand manual signing when it is independent, not parallel for two-handed signs) following the annotation conventions for STS (Mesch & Wallin 2015;Wallin & Mesch 2018). The translation tiers are also added.…”

Section: Coding and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Use and acquisition of mouth actions in L2 sign language learners

Mesch

Schönström

2020

SL&L

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article deals with L2 acquisition of a sign language, examining in particular the use and acquisition of non-manual mouth actions performed by L2 learners of Swedish Sign Language. Based on longitudinal data from an L2 learner corpus, we describe the distribution, frequency, and spreading patterns of mouth actions in sixteen L2 learners at two time points. The data are compared with nine signers of an L1 control group. The results reveal some differences in the use of mouth actions between the groups. The results are specifically related to the category of mouthing borrowed from spoken Swedish. L2 signers show an increased use of mouthing compared to L1 signers. Conversely, L1 signers exhibit an increased use of reduced mouthing compared with L2 signers. We also observe an increase of adverbial mouth gestures within the L2 group. The results are discussed in relation to previous findings, and within the framework of cross-linguistic influence.

show abstract

“…Going deeper into the modern use of this sign in Swedish Sign Language, Börstell (2017) finds that the sign is used across signers in the Swedish Sign Language Corpus (Mesch et al 2012), showing that it is not restricted to a certain register or lectal variation. 5 Although it is used alongside the lexical noun person, and a noun classifier with similar form, also derived from person (cf.…”

Section: Dom In Swedish Sign Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Differential object marking in sign languages

Börstell

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sign languages are sometimes claimed to lack argument marking, yet they exhibit many devices to track and disambiguate referents. In this paper, I will argue that there are devices found across sign languages that demonstrate how object marking is a prevalent property and that these devices show clear parallels to differential object marking (DOM) as described for spoken languages. This includes animacy/prominence effects on word order and verbal modification, as well as dedicated object markers used exclusively with [+human] objects. Thus, I propose that DOM phenomena need to be taken into account in any future research on sign language structure, but also that sign languages should be accounted for in typological work on DOM.

show abstract

Gloss annotations in the Swedish Sign Language Corpus

Cited by 25 publications

References 11 publications

Including Signed Languages in Natural Language Processing

Including Signed Languages in Natural Language Processing

Use and acquisition of mouth actions in L2 sign language learners

Differential object marking in sign languages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About