219-7677 10 7500817 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 201611101725 ONIX title feed eng 01 EUR
622011269 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code BCT 53 Eb 15 9789027271747 06 10.1075/bct.53 13 2013015230 DG 002 02 01 BCT 02 1874-0081 Benjamins Current Topics 53 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Nonmanuals in Sign Language</TitleText> 01 bct.53 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/bct.53 1 B01 Annika Herrmann Herrmann, Annika Annika Herrmann University of Göttingen 2 B01 Markus Steinbach Steinbach, Markus Markus Steinbach University of Göttingen 01 eng 203 v 197 LAN009000 v.2006 CFZ 2 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.GEST Gesture Studies 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.SIGN Signed languages 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 06 01 In addition to the hands, sign languages make extensive use of nonmanual articulators such as the body, head, and face to convey linguistic information. This collected volume focuses on the forms and functions of nonmanuals in sign languages. The articles discuss various aspects of specific nonmanual markers in different sign languages and enhance the fact that nonmanuals are an essential part of sign language grammar. Approaching the topic from empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, the book is of special interest to sign language researchers, typologists, and theoretical as well as computational linguists that are curious about language and modality. The articles investigate phenomena such as mouth gestures, agreement, negation, topicalization, and semantic operators, and discuss general topics such as language and modality, simultaneity, computer animation, and the interfaces between syntax, semantics, and prosody.<br />Originally published in <i>Sign Language &#38; Linguistics</i> 14:1 (2011). 05 For sign language linguists, this is a very welcome addition to the growing literature on the subject. For general linguists (and for gesture researchers) it can also serve as an introduction to the breadth of the subject. Michael W. Morgan, in: LINGUIST List 25.2309, May 26, 2014 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/bct.53.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027202727.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027202727.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/bct.53.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/bct.53.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/bct.53.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/bct.53.hb.png 10 01 JB code bct.53.01art Section header 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Articles</TitleText> 10 01 JB code bct.53.02her 1 6 6 Article 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Nonmanuals in sign languages</TitleText> 1 A01 Annika Herrmann Herrmann, Annika Annika Herrmann University of Göttingen 2 A01 Markus Steinbach Steinbach, Markus Markus Steinbach 10 01 JB code bct.53.03chu 7 46 40 Article 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Syntax and prosodic consequences in ASL</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Evidence from multiple WH-questions</Subtitle> 1 A01 Sarah Churng Churng, Sarah Sarah Churng University of Washington 01 This study investigates three different multiple wh-question types in American Sign Language (ASL). While the three are strikingly similar, subtle but systematic differences in their prosody make them semantically distinct. I derive these distinctions from their syntax, via extensions of Koopman and Szabolcsi&#8217;s (2000) remnant movement and Sportiche&#8217;s (1988) stranded movement, and I propose that multiple wh-questions in ASL involve Parallel Merge structures of the kind proposed by Citko (2005). I also present new generalizations to characterize their prosody, whereby A-bar movement gives rise to prosodic breaks and &#8216;prosodic resets&#8217;. 10 01 JB code bct.53.04gok 47 72 26 Article 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Negation in Turkish Sign Language</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">The syntax of nonmanual markers</Subtitle> 1 A01 Kadir Gökgöz Gökgöz, Kadir Kadir Gökgöz Purdue University 01 This paper presents a detailed description of manual and nonmanual markers (NMMs) in negative sentences in Turkish Sign Language (T&#304;D). It has been argued that T&#304;D has a manual dominant pattern for negation with a backward head tilt being the major NMM in negative sentences. By contrast, in this paper I argue that, when it comes to negation, T&#304;D is not a strictly manual dominant language. I will consider spreading of NMMs such as headshake, brow-lowering, and brow-raising and argue that these spreading NMMs play a syntactic role in T&#304;D negative sentences. They mark the syntactic domain of negation, either through c-command, a spec-head-relation or both. In addition, I offer a generative analysis of the syntax of negation in T&#304;D based on the syntactic background provided for T&#304;D and the distributional patterns of NMMs. 10 01 JB code bct.53.05hos 73 90 18 Article 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Eye gaze and verb agreement in German Sign Language</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">A first glance</Subtitle> 1 A01 Jana Hosemann Hosemann, Jana Jana Hosemann University of Göttingen 01 Eye gaze as a nonmanual component of sign languages has not yet been investigated in much detail. The idea that eye gaze may function as an agreement marker was brought forward by Bahan (1996) and Neidle et al. (2000), who argued that eye gaze is an independent agreement marker occurring with all three verb types (plain verbs, spatial verbs, and agreeing verbs) in American Sign Language (ASL). Thompson et al. (2006) conducted an eye-tracking experiment to investigate the interdependency between eye gaze and ASL verb agreement in depth. Their results indicate that eye gaze in ASL functions as an agreement marker only when accompanying manual agreement, marking the object in agreeing verbs and the locative argument in spatial verbs. They conclude that eye gaze is <i>part</i> of an agreement circumfix. Subsequently, I conducted an eye-tracking experiment to investigate the correlation of eye gaze and manual agreement for verbs in German Sign Language (DGS). The results differ from Thompson et al.&#8217;s, since eye gaze with agreeing verbs in the DGS data did not occur as systematically as in ASL. Nevertheless, an analysis of verb duration and the spreading of a correlating eye gaze suggests that there is a dependency relation between eye gaze and manual agreement. 10 01 JB code bct.53.06lew 91 110 20 Article 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Mouth gestures in British Sign Language</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">A case study of tongue protrusion in BSL narratives</Subtitle> 1 A01 Donna Lewin Lewin, Donna Donna Lewin University College London 2 A01 Adam C. Schembri Schembri, Adam C. Adam C. Schembri La Trobe University 01 This article investigates the claim that tongue protrusion (&#8216;th&#8217;) acts as a nonmanual adverbial morpheme in British Sign Language (BSL) (Brennan 1992; Sutton-Spence &#38; Woll 1999) drawing on narrative data produced by two deaf native signers as part of the European Cultural Heritage Online (ECHO) corpus. Data from ten BSL narratives have been analysed to observe the frequency and form of tongue protrusion. The results from this preliminary investigation indicate tongue protrusion occurs as part of the phonological formation of lexical signs (i.e., &#8216;echo phonology&#8217;, see Woll 2001), as well as a separate meaningful unit that co-occurs (sometimes as part of constructed action) with classifier constructions and lexical verb signs. In the latter cases, the results suggest &#8216;th&#8217; sometimes appears to function as an adverbial morpheme in BSL, but with a greater variety of meanings than previously suggested in the BSL literature. One use of the adverbial appears similar to a nonmanual signal in American Sign Language described by Liddell (1980), although the form of the mouth gesture in our BSL data differs from what is reported in Liddell&#8217;s work. Thus, these findings suggest the mouth gesture &#8216;th&#8217; in BSL has a broad range of functions. Some uses of tongue protrusion, however, remain difficult to categorise and further research with a larger dataset is needed. 10 01 JB code bct.53.07sze 111 142 32 Article 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Nonmanual markings for topic constructions in Hong Kong Sign Language</TitleText> 1 A01 Felix Y.B. Sze Sze, Felix Y.B. Felix Y.B. Sze The Chinese University of Hong Kong 01 Across sign languages, topic constructions are marked by nonmanual features such as a brow raise and head tilt. This study investigates whether a topic constituent is marked nonmanually in Hong Kong Sign Language. Spontaneous and elicited data show that the majority of &#8216;scene-setting&#8217; topics, which provide a temporal, spatial or individual framework for the proposition in the sentence, are accompanied with a brow raise and a specific head/body position different from the rest of the sentence. In contrast, &#8216;aboutness&#8217; topics that represent what a sentence is about are neither marked by nonmanuals consistently nor separated intonationally from the rest of the sentence. Grammatical objects fronted to the sentence-initial position are not marked nonmanually, either. The findings suggest that there are cross-linguistic differences with respect to the functions of nonmanuals in the information structuring of sign languages. 10 01 JB code bct.53.08wil 143 173 31 Article 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Nonmanuals, semantic operators, domain marking, and the solution to two outstanding puzzles in ASL</TitleText> 1 A01 Ronnie B. Wilbur Wilbur, Ronnie B. Ronnie B. Wilbur Purdue University 01 This paper provides an analysis of certain nonmanuals from a semantic perspective with respect to the different types of semantic operators they are associated with. The categories of operators include simple/monadic and tripartite/dyadic. This semantic analysis will explain different phonological spreading among upper face/head nonmanuals: negative headshake, brow lowering, and structurally varied use of brow raise. Negative headshake and [+wh]-question brow lowering spread over their c-command domain. However, brow raise does not spread over its c-command domain, and its spreading domain is harder to characterize. The operator analysis provides a coherent explanation for the spreading domain. This distinction underlies a new analysis of the derived sign understand&#8242;, and helps resolve two puzzling issues related to its use: (1) why it has brow raise; and (2) what position it occupies in CP. This solution offers additional evidence in support of the claim that ASL has the spec,CP on the left. 10 01 JB code bct.53.09wol 175 194 20 Article 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Linguistics as structure in computer animation</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Toward a more effective synthesis of brow motion in American Sign Language</Subtitle> 1 A01 Rosalee Wolfe Wolfe, Rosalee Rosalee Wolfe DePaul University 2 A01 Peter Cook Cook, Peter Peter Cook Columbia College Chicago 3 A01 John C. McDonald McDonald, John C. John C. McDonald Bowling Green State University 4 A01 Jerry Schnepp Schnepp, Jerry Jerry Schnepp 01 Computer-generated three-dimensional animation holds great promise for synthesizing utterances in American Sign Language (ASL) that are not only grammatical, but well-tolerated by members of the Deaf community. Unfortunately, animation poses several challenges stemming from the necessity of grappling with massive amounts of data. However, the linguistics of ASL may aid in surmounting the challenge by providing structure and rules for organizing animation data. An exploration of the linguistic and extralinguistic behavior of the brows from an animator&#8217;s viewpoint yields a new approach for synthesizing nonmanuals that differs from the conventional animation of anatomy and instead offers a different approach for animating the effects of interacting levels of linguistic function. Results of formal testing with Deaf users have indicated that this is a promising approach. 10 01 JB code bct.53.10ind 195 197 3 Article 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20130620 2013 John Benjamins B.V. 02 WORLD 13 15 9789027202727 01 JB 3 John Benjamins e-Platform 03 jbe-platform.com 09 WORLD 21 01 00 85.00 EUR R 01 00 71.00 GBP Z 01 gen 00 128.00 USD S 745011268 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code BCT 53 Hb 15 9789027202727 13 2013015230 BB 01 BCT 02 1874-0081 Benjamins Current Topics 53 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Nonmanuals in Sign Language</TitleText> 01 bct.53 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/bct.53 1 B01 Annika Herrmann Herrmann, Annika Annika Herrmann University of Göttingen 2 B01 Markus Steinbach Steinbach, Markus Markus Steinbach University of Göttingen 01 eng 203 v 197 LAN009000 v.2006 CFZ 2 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.GEST Gesture Studies 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.SIGN Signed languages 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 06 01 In addition to the hands, sign languages make extensive use of nonmanual articulators such as the body, head, and face to convey linguistic information. This collected volume focuses on the forms and functions of nonmanuals in sign languages. The articles discuss various aspects of specific nonmanual markers in different sign languages and enhance the fact that nonmanuals are an essential part of sign language grammar. Approaching the topic from empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, the book is of special interest to sign language researchers, typologists, and theoretical as well as computational linguists that are curious about language and modality. The articles investigate phenomena such as mouth gestures, agreement, negation, topicalization, and semantic operators, and discuss general topics such as language and modality, simultaneity, computer animation, and the interfaces between syntax, semantics, and prosody.<br />Originally published in <i>Sign Language &#38; Linguistics</i> 14:1 (2011). 05 For sign language linguists, this is a very welcome addition to the growing literature on the subject. For general linguists (and for gesture researchers) it can also serve as an introduction to the breadth of the subject. Michael W. Morgan, in: LINGUIST List 25.2309, May 26, 2014 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/bct.53.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027202727.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027202727.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/bct.53.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/bct.53.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/bct.53.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/bct.53.hb.png 10 01 JB code bct.53.01art Section header 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Articles</TitleText> 10 01 JB code bct.53.02her 1 6 6 Article 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Nonmanuals in sign languages</TitleText> 1 A01 Annika Herrmann Herrmann, Annika Annika Herrmann University of Göttingen 2 A01 Markus Steinbach Steinbach, Markus Markus Steinbach 10 01 JB code bct.53.03chu 7 46 40 Article 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Syntax and prosodic consequences in ASL</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Evidence from multiple WH-questions</Subtitle> 1 A01 Sarah Churng Churng, Sarah Sarah Churng University of Washington 01 This study investigates three different multiple wh-question types in American Sign Language (ASL). While the three are strikingly similar, subtle but systematic differences in their prosody make them semantically distinct. I derive these distinctions from their syntax, via extensions of Koopman and Szabolcsi&#8217;s (2000) remnant movement and Sportiche&#8217;s (1988) stranded movement, and I propose that multiple wh-questions in ASL involve Parallel Merge structures of the kind proposed by Citko (2005). I also present new generalizations to characterize their prosody, whereby A-bar movement gives rise to prosodic breaks and &#8216;prosodic resets&#8217;. 10 01 JB code bct.53.04gok 47 72 26 Article 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Negation in Turkish Sign Language</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">The syntax of nonmanual markers</Subtitle> 1 A01 Kadir Gökgöz Gökgöz, Kadir Kadir Gökgöz Purdue University 01 This paper presents a detailed description of manual and nonmanual markers (NMMs) in negative sentences in Turkish Sign Language (T&#304;D). It has been argued that T&#304;D has a manual dominant pattern for negation with a backward head tilt being the major NMM in negative sentences. By contrast, in this paper I argue that, when it comes to negation, T&#304;D is not a strictly manual dominant language. I will consider spreading of NMMs such as headshake, brow-lowering, and brow-raising and argue that these spreading NMMs play a syntactic role in T&#304;D negative sentences. They mark the syntactic domain of negation, either through c-command, a spec-head-relation or both. In addition, I offer a generative analysis of the syntax of negation in T&#304;D based on the syntactic background provided for T&#304;D and the distributional patterns of NMMs. 10 01 JB code bct.53.05hos 73 90 18 Article 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Eye gaze and verb agreement in German Sign Language</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">A first glance</Subtitle> 1 A01 Jana Hosemann Hosemann, Jana Jana Hosemann University of Göttingen 01 Eye gaze as a nonmanual component of sign languages has not yet been investigated in much detail. The idea that eye gaze may function as an agreement marker was brought forward by Bahan (1996) and Neidle et al. (2000), who argued that eye gaze is an independent agreement marker occurring with all three verb types (plain verbs, spatial verbs, and agreeing verbs) in American Sign Language (ASL). Thompson et al. (2006) conducted an eye-tracking experiment to investigate the interdependency between eye gaze and ASL verb agreement in depth. Their results indicate that eye gaze in ASL functions as an agreement marker only when accompanying manual agreement, marking the object in agreeing verbs and the locative argument in spatial verbs. They conclude that eye gaze is <i>part</i> of an agreement circumfix. Subsequently, I conducted an eye-tracking experiment to investigate the correlation of eye gaze and manual agreement for verbs in German Sign Language (DGS). The results differ from Thompson et al.&#8217;s, since eye gaze with agreeing verbs in the DGS data did not occur as systematically as in ASL. Nevertheless, an analysis of verb duration and the spreading of a correlating eye gaze suggests that there is a dependency relation between eye gaze and manual agreement. 10 01 JB code bct.53.06lew 91 110 20 Article 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Mouth gestures in British Sign Language</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">A case study of tongue protrusion in BSL narratives</Subtitle> 1 A01 Donna Lewin Lewin, Donna Donna Lewin University College London 2 A01 Adam C. Schembri Schembri, Adam C. Adam C. Schembri La Trobe University 01 This article investigates the claim that tongue protrusion (&#8216;th&#8217;) acts as a nonmanual adverbial morpheme in British Sign Language (BSL) (Brennan 1992; Sutton-Spence &#38; Woll 1999) drawing on narrative data produced by two deaf native signers as part of the European Cultural Heritage Online (ECHO) corpus. Data from ten BSL narratives have been analysed to observe the frequency and form of tongue protrusion. The results from this preliminary investigation indicate tongue protrusion occurs as part of the phonological formation of lexical signs (i.e., &#8216;echo phonology&#8217;, see Woll 2001), as well as a separate meaningful unit that co-occurs (sometimes as part of constructed action) with classifier constructions and lexical verb signs. In the latter cases, the results suggest &#8216;th&#8217; sometimes appears to function as an adverbial morpheme in BSL, but with a greater variety of meanings than previously suggested in the BSL literature. One use of the adverbial appears similar to a nonmanual signal in American Sign Language described by Liddell (1980), although the form of the mouth gesture in our BSL data differs from what is reported in Liddell&#8217;s work. Thus, these findings suggest the mouth gesture &#8216;th&#8217; in BSL has a broad range of functions. Some uses of tongue protrusion, however, remain difficult to categorise and further research with a larger dataset is needed. 10 01 JB code bct.53.07sze 111 142 32 Article 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Nonmanual markings for topic constructions in Hong Kong Sign Language</TitleText> 1 A01 Felix Y.B. Sze Sze, Felix Y.B. Felix Y.B. Sze The Chinese University of Hong Kong 01 Across sign languages, topic constructions are marked by nonmanual features such as a brow raise and head tilt. This study investigates whether a topic constituent is marked nonmanually in Hong Kong Sign Language. Spontaneous and elicited data show that the majority of &#8216;scene-setting&#8217; topics, which provide a temporal, spatial or individual framework for the proposition in the sentence, are accompanied with a brow raise and a specific head/body position different from the rest of the sentence. In contrast, &#8216;aboutness&#8217; topics that represent what a sentence is about are neither marked by nonmanuals consistently nor separated intonationally from the rest of the sentence. Grammatical objects fronted to the sentence-initial position are not marked nonmanually, either. The findings suggest that there are cross-linguistic differences with respect to the functions of nonmanuals in the information structuring of sign languages. 10 01 JB code bct.53.08wil 143 173 31 Article 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Nonmanuals, semantic operators, domain marking, and the solution to two outstanding puzzles in ASL</TitleText> 1 A01 Ronnie B. Wilbur Wilbur, Ronnie B. Ronnie B. Wilbur Purdue University 01 This paper provides an analysis of certain nonmanuals from a semantic perspective with respect to the different types of semantic operators they are associated with. The categories of operators include simple/monadic and tripartite/dyadic. This semantic analysis will explain different phonological spreading among upper face/head nonmanuals: negative headshake, brow lowering, and structurally varied use of brow raise. Negative headshake and [+wh]-question brow lowering spread over their c-command domain. However, brow raise does not spread over its c-command domain, and its spreading domain is harder to characterize. The operator analysis provides a coherent explanation for the spreading domain. This distinction underlies a new analysis of the derived sign understand&#8242;, and helps resolve two puzzling issues related to its use: (1) why it has brow raise; and (2) what position it occupies in CP. This solution offers additional evidence in support of the claim that ASL has the spec,CP on the left. 10 01 JB code bct.53.09wol 175 194 20 Article 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Linguistics as structure in computer animation</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Toward a more effective synthesis of brow motion in American Sign Language</Subtitle> 1 A01 Rosalee Wolfe Wolfe, Rosalee Rosalee Wolfe DePaul University 2 A01 Peter Cook Cook, Peter Peter Cook Columbia College Chicago 3 A01 John C. McDonald McDonald, John C. John C. McDonald Bowling Green State University 4 A01 Jerry Schnepp Schnepp, Jerry Jerry Schnepp 01 Computer-generated three-dimensional animation holds great promise for synthesizing utterances in American Sign Language (ASL) that are not only grammatical, but well-tolerated by members of the Deaf community. Unfortunately, animation poses several challenges stemming from the necessity of grappling with massive amounts of data. However, the linguistics of ASL may aid in surmounting the challenge by providing structure and rules for organizing animation data. An exploration of the linguistic and extralinguistic behavior of the brows from an animator&#8217;s viewpoint yields a new approach for synthesizing nonmanuals that differs from the conventional animation of anatomy and instead offers a different approach for animating the effects of interacting levels of linguistic function. Results of formal testing with Deaf users have indicated that this is a promising approach. 10 01 JB code bct.53.10ind 195 197 3 Article 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20130620 2013 John Benjamins B.V. 02 WORLD 08 530 gr 01 JB 1 John Benjamins Publishing Company +31 20 6304747 +31 20 6739773 bookorder@benjamins.nl 01 https://benjamins.com 01 WORLD US CA MX 21 65 22 01 02 JB 1 00 85.00 EUR R 02 02 JB 1 00 90.10 EUR R 01 JB 10 bebc +44 1202 712 934 +44 1202 712 913 sales@bebc.co.uk 03 GB 21 22 02 02 JB 1 00 71.00 GBP Z 01 JB 2 John Benjamins North America +1 800 562-5666 +1 703 661-1501 benjamins@presswarehouse.com 01 https://benjamins.com 01 US CA MX 21 22 01 gen 02 JB 1 00 128.00 USD