Literature DB >> 21524012

Sensitivity to visual prosodic cues in signers and nonsigners.

Diane Brentari1, Carolina González, Amanda Seidl, Ronnie Wilbur.   

Abstract

Three studies are presented in this paper that address how nonsigners perceive the visual prosodic cues in a sign language. In Study 1, adult American nonsigners and users of American Sign Language (ASL) were compared on their sensitivity to the visual cues in ASL Intonational Phrases. In Study 2, hearing, nonsigning American infants were tested using the same stimuli used in Study I to see whether maturity, exposure to gesture, or exposure to sign language is necessary to demonstrate this type of sensitivity. Study 3 addresses nonsigners' and signers' strategies for segmenting Prosodic Words in a sign language. Adult participants from six language groups (3 spoken languages and 3 sign languages) were tested.The results of these three studies indicate that nonsigners have a high degree of sensitivity to sign language prosodic cues at the Intonational Phrase level and the Prosodic Word level; these are attributed to modality or'channel' effects of the visual signal.There are also some differences between signers' and nonsigners' sensitivity; these differences are attributed to language experience or language-particular constraints.This work is useful in understanding the gestural competence of nonsigners and the ways in which this type of competence may contribute to the grammaticalization of these properties in a sign language.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21524012     DOI: 10.1177/0023830910388011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lang Speech        ISSN: 0023-8309            Impact factor:   1.500


  10 in total

1.  Language Emergence.

Authors:  Diane Brentari; Susan Goldin-Meadow
Journal:  Annu Rev Linguist       Date:  2017

2.  Sign Languages: Contribution to Neurolinguistics from Cross-Modal Research.

Authors:  Evie Malaia; Ronnie Wilbur
Journal:  Lingua       Date:  2010-12-01

3.  Prosody in a communication system developed without a language model.

Authors:  Lauren Applebaum; Marie Coppola; Susan Goldin-Meadow
Journal:  Sign Lang Linguist       Date:  2014

4.  Effects of deafness and sign language experience on the human brain: voxel-based and surface-based morphometry.

Authors:  Stephen McCullough; Karen Emmorey
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 2.331

5.  When forgetting fosters learning: A neural network model for statistical learning.

Authors:  Ansgar D Endress; Scott P Johnson
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2021-02-17

6.  Phonological reduplication in sign language: Rules rule.

Authors:  Iris Berent; Amanda Dupuis; Diane Brentari
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-06-10

7.  Neural Networks Supporting Phoneme Monitoring Are Modulated by Phonology but Not Lexicality or Iconicity: Evidence From British and Swedish Sign Language.

Authors:  Mary Rudner; Eleni Orfanidou; Lena Kästner; Velia Cardin; Bencie Woll; Cheryl M Capek; Jerker Rönnberg
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  Visual attention for linguistic and non-linguistic body actions in non-signing and native signing children.

Authors:  Rain G Bosworth; So One Hwang; David P Corina
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-09-09

9.  Amodal aspects of linguistic design.

Authors:  Iris Berent; Amanda Dupuis; Diane Brentari
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Production and Comprehension of Prosodic Markers in Sign Language Imperatives.

Authors:  Diane Brentari; Joshua Falk; Anastasia Giannakidou; Annika Herrmann; Elisabeth Volk; Markus Steinbach
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-05-23
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.