Psycholinguistic norms for more than 300 lexical signs in German Sign Language (DGS)

Trettenbrein, Patrick C.; Pendzich, Nina-Kristin; Cramer, Jens-Michael; Steinbach, Markus; Zaccarella, Emiliano

doi:10.31234/osf.io/9nsz3

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(74 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The remaining 22 signs were assessed to have a median degree of iconicity ranging from 3 to 5. For five signs from our dataset, norms for iconicity are available (Trettenbrein et al, 2021). The mean and median degree of iconicity in our rating is consistent with these values or differs by at most one point (see Appendix).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 65%

Sign learning of hearing children in inclusive day care centers—does iconicity matter?

Goppelt-Kunkel,

Stroh,

Hänel-Faulhaber

2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasing number of experimental studies suggest that signs and gestures can scaffold vocabulary learning for children with and without special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND). However, little research has been done on the extent to which iconicity plays a role in sign learning, particularly in inclusive day care centers. This current study investigated the role of iconicity in the sign learning of 145 hearing children (2;1 to 6;3 years) from inclusive day care centers with educators who started using sign-supported speech after a training module. Children’s sign use was assessed via a questionnaire completed by their educators. We found that older children were more likely to learn signs with a higher degree of iconicity, whereas the learning of signs by younger children was less affected by iconicity. Children with SEND did not benefit more from iconicity than children without SEND. These results suggest that whether iconicity plays a role in sign learning depends on the age of the children.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 65%

Sign learning of hearing children in inclusive day care centers—does iconicity matter?

Goppelt-Kunkel,

Stroh,

Hänel-Faulhaber

2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The stimuli were designed with the aid of deaf informants and recorded in the professional filming facilities of the SignLab at the University of Göttingen by one of the authors who is a deaf native signer of DGS. To make the stimulus materials look as natural as possible, the signer produced mouthings and non-manuals spontaneously in the same manner as they would produce them in normal signed discourse (Pendzich, 2020;Trettenbrein, Pendzich, et al, 2021). All clips were annotated following a pre-defined coding scheme that was based on the so-called long view of the sign (Jantunen, 2015), before flashes were inserted using a fully automated video-editing procedure (see file "add_clicks_to_stimuli.Rmd" in online resources).…”

Section: Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…In cases where corpus data is not available for a certain language (e.g., as for many sign languages), subjective ratings can be used to establish psycholinguistic parameters (e.g., Caselli et al, 2017;Trettenbrein, Pendzich, et al, 2021).…”

Section: Am2: the Materials Employed Are Capable Of Testing The Hypot...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cleaning up the Brickyard: How Theory and Methodology Shape Experiments in Cognitive Neuroscience of Language

van der Burght,

Friederici,

Maran

et al. 2023

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The capacity for language is a defining property of our species, yet despite decades of research, evidence on its neural basis is still mixed and a generalized consensus is difficult to achieve. We suggest that this is partly caused by researchers defining “language” in different ways, with focus on a wide range of phenomena, properties, and levels of investigation. Accordingly, there is very little agreement among cognitive neuroscientists of language on the operationalization of fundamental concepts to be investigated in neuroscientific experiments. Here, we review chains of derivation in the cognitive neuroscience of language, focusing on how the hypothesis under consideration is defined by a combination of theoretical and methodological assumptions. We first attempt to disentangle the complex relationship between linguistics, psychology, and neuroscience in the field. Next, we focus on how conclusions that can be drawn from any experiment are inherently constrained by auxiliary assumptions, both theoretical and methodological, on which the validity of conclusions drawn rests. These issues are discussed in the context of classical experimental manipulations as well as study designs that employ novel approaches such as naturalistic stimuli and computational modeling. We conclude by proposing that a highly interdisciplinary field such as the cognitive neuroscience of language requires researchers to form explicit statements concerning the theoretical definitions, methodological choices, and other constraining factors involved in their work.

show abstract

Psycholinguistic norms for more than 300 lexical signs in German Sign Language (DGS)

Cited by 5 publications

References 48 publications

Sign learning of hearing children in inclusive day care centers—does iconicity matter?

Sign learning of hearing children in inclusive day care centers—does iconicity matter?

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

Cleaning up the Brickyard: How Theory and Methodology Shape Experiments in Cognitive Neuroscience of Language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About