Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Methods
Hearing Participants: Iconicity Ratings
Materials
Procedure
Frequency Rating Procedure
Iconicity Rating Procedure
Phonological Transcription Procedures
Results and Discussion
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Phonology

ASL-LEX: A lexical database of American Sign Language

Profile image of Zed Sevcikova SehyrZed Sevcikova Sehyr
https://doi.org/10.3758/S13428-016-0742-0
visibility

…

description

18 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

ASL-LEX is a lexical database that catalogues information about nearly 1,000 signs in American Sign Language (ASL). It includes the following information: subjective frequency ratings from 25–31 deaf signers, iconicity ratings from 21–37 hearing non-signers, videoclip duration, sign length (onset and offset), grammatical class, and whether the sign is initialized, a fingerspelled loan sign, or a compound. Information about English translations is available for a subset of signs (e.g., alternate translations, translation consistency). In addition, phonological properties (sign type, selected fingers, flexion, major and minor location, and movement) were coded and used to generate sub-lexical frequency and neighborhood density estimates. ASL-LEX is intended for use by researchers, educators, and students who are interested in the properties of the ASL lexicon. An interactive website where the database can be browsed and downloaded is available at http://asl-lex.org.

Figures (5)
Fig. 1 Frequency distribution of neighborhood density measurements. Note that the axes are not the same definition. The first (Maximal Neighborhood Density, column AJ) defines neighbors as signs that share any four of the five sub-lexical properties described above. Because these five sub-lexical properties offered in ASL-LEX do not uniquely identify each sign, the neighborhood density definitions of- fered here differ from the traditional definitions of neighbor- hood density used for spoken language in that here neighbors are not necessarily true minimal pairs. The distribution for Maximal Neighborhood Density values was extremely skewed toward fewer neighbors (Mdn = 27; see Fig. 1A). The distribution of spoken English neighborhood density in the English Lexicon Project (Balota et al., 2007) is also skewed toward fewer neighbors (Min = 0, ha = 48, Mdn = 0). Signed languages are thought to have unusually small numbers of neighbors relative to spoken languages (true minimal pairs are extremely rare; van der Kooij, 2002), so Maximal Neighborhood Density may not fully capture the phonological structure of the lexicon. For this reason, an ad- ditional neighborhood density measure (Minimal eighborhood Density, column AJ) was added that defines neighbors as signs that overlap in at least one feature of any kind with the target. The median Minimal Neighborhood Density is 780 (see Fig. 1B). Because Minimal Neighoborhood Density includes quite distant neighbors, the distribution is skewed toward more neighbors. There is also a The neighborhood density measures described above calcu- ate the number of shared sub-lexical properties irrespective of he type of property (i.e., location, movement, handshape). However, much of the linguistic work on sign languages has focused on the relationship between signs that share a partic- ular sub-lexical feature (e.g., location) and the “neighborhood density” for that sub-lexical feature (e.g., location neighbor- hood density, handshape neighborhood density; Baus, Gutiérrez-Sigut, Quer, & Carrieras, 2008; Baus, Gutiérrez & Carreiras, 2014; Corina & Emmorey, 1993; Corina & Hildebrandt, 2002; Corina & Knapp, 2006; Dye & Shih,
Fig. 1 Frequency distribution of neighborhood density measurements. Note that the axes are not the same definition. The first (Maximal Neighborhood Density, column AJ) defines neighbors as signs that share any four of the five sub-lexical properties described above. Because these five sub-lexical properties offered in ASL-LEX do not uniquely identify each sign, the neighborhood density definitions of- fered here differ from the traditional definitions of neighbor- hood density used for spoken language in that here neighbors are not necessarily true minimal pairs. The distribution for Maximal Neighborhood Density values was extremely skewed toward fewer neighbors (Mdn = 27; see Fig. 1A). The distribution of spoken English neighborhood density in the English Lexicon Project (Balota et al., 2007) is also skewed toward fewer neighbors (Min = 0, ha = 48, Mdn = 0). Signed languages are thought to have unusually small numbers of neighbors relative to spoken languages (true minimal pairs are extremely rare; van der Kooij, 2002), so Maximal Neighborhood Density may not fully capture the phonological structure of the lexicon. For this reason, an ad- ditional neighborhood density measure (Minimal eighborhood Density, column AJ) was added that defines neighbors as signs that overlap in at least one feature of any kind with the target. The median Minimal Neighborhood Density is 780 (see Fig. 1B). Because Minimal Neighoborhood Density includes quite distant neighbors, the distribution is skewed toward more neighbors. There is also a The neighborhood density measures described above calcu- ate the number of shared sub-lexical properties irrespective of he type of property (i.e., location, movement, handshape). However, much of the linguistic work on sign languages has focused on the relationship between signs that share a partic- ular sub-lexical feature (e.g., location) and the “neighborhood density” for that sub-lexical feature (e.g., location neighbor- hood density, handshape neighborhood density; Baus, Gutiérrez-Sigut, Quer, & Carrieras, 2008; Baus, Gutiérrez & Carreiras, 2014; Corina & Emmorey, 1993; Corina & Hildebrandt, 2002; Corina & Knapp, 2006; Dye & Shih,
Fig. 2. Frequency histograms showing the distribution of raw iconicity ratings [A] raw frequency ratings [B] of signs in ASL-LEX
Fig. 2. Frequency histograms showing the distribution of raw iconicity ratings [A] raw frequency ratings [B] of signs in ASL-LEX
Fig. 3 Frequency distribution of phonological properties in ASL-LEX. For selected fingers, m = middle finger, r= ring finger, p = pinky, i= index finge: For Sign Type, HS = handshape
Fig. 3 Frequency distribution of phonological properties in ASL-LEX. For selected fingers, m = middle finger, r= ring finger, p = pinky, i= index finge: For Sign Type, HS = handshape
Table 1 Spearman correlations among continuous lexical properties Non-parametric correlations were used because many of these properties were not normally distributed, and some of the data was ordinal *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001
Table 1 Spearman correlations among continuous lexical properties Non-parametric correlations were used because many of these properties were not normally distributed, and some of the data was ordinal *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001
The data are also available for browsing and searching from the ASL-LEX website, http://asl-lex.org. As depicted in Fig. 4A, signs are represented visually by nodes. Larger nodes indicate signs with higher subjective frequency. Signs are organized into parameter-based neighborhoods The entire database is available for download as a set of CSV files through the Open Science Framework (http://osf.io/ Fig. 4 Screenshots of http://asl-lex.org. The entire lexicon can be seen in [A], the lexicon filtered so that only the signs that select the index finger can b: seen in [B], and the information for the sign FURNITURE can be seen in [C] Using ASL-LEX
The data are also available for browsing and searching from the ASL-LEX website, http://asl-lex.org. As depicted in Fig. 4A, signs are represented visually by nodes. Larger nodes indicate signs with higher subjective frequency. Signs are organized into parameter-based neighborhoods The entire database is available for download as a set of CSV files through the Open Science Framework (http://osf.io/ Fig. 4 Screenshots of http://asl-lex.org. The entire lexicon can be seen in [A], the lexicon filtered so that only the signs that select the index finger can b: seen in [B], and the information for the sign FURNITURE can be seen in [C] Using ASL-LEX

Related papers

A Lexicon for Translating American Sign Language to English
Robbin Chapman

1997

A new method is presented for computer translation of American Sign Language (ASL) to English by exploiting ASL morphological properties. A feature-based ASL lexicon is developed, referenced by manual and non-manual sign information. Manually produced sign segments (phonemes) consist of sig (movement), tab (location), dez (handshape), and ori (hand orientation). Non-manually produced signals consist of specific facial and body configurations. A camera captures the sign and segments the image into its morphological properties. Image segments are analyzed and values are assigned to the morpheme (sig, tab, dez, ori, etc.). These values are stored in a data structure which is referenced during lexical search. The first search key is sig, the most recognizable sign feature, followed by the other sign morphemes, as necessary, until a single lexical entry can be identified. Non-manual segments convey additional linguistic information to the output string, which is parsed and formatted for ...

View PDFchevron_right
NEW shared & interconnected ASL resources: SignStream® 3 Software; DAI 2 for web access to linguistically annotated video corpora; and a sign bank
Dimitris Metaxas

2018

2017 marked the release of a new version of SignStream® software, designed to facilitate linguistic analysis of ASL video. SignStream® provides an intuitive interface for labeling and time-aligning manual and non-manual components of the signing. Version 3 has many new features. For example, it enables representation of morpho-phonological information, including display of handshapes. An expanding ASL video corpus, annotated through use of SignStream®, is shared publicly on the Web. This corpus (video plus annotations) is Web-accessible—browsable, searchable, and downloadable—thanks to a new, improved version of our Data Access Interface: DAI 2. DAI 2 also offers Web access to a brand new Sign Bank, containing about 10,000 examples of about 3,000 distinct signs, as produced by up to 9 different ASL signers. This Sign Bank is also directly accessible from within SignStream®, thereby boosting the efficiency and consistency of annotation; new items can also be added to the Sign Bank. S...

View PDFchevron_right
LSE-Sign: A lexical database for Spanish Sign Language
Brendan Costello

Behavior research methods, 2015

The LSE-Sign database is a free online tool for selecting Spanish Sign Language stimulus materials to be used in experiments. It contains 2,400 individual signs taken from a recent standardized LSE dictionary, and a further 2,700 related nonsigns. Each entry is coded for a wide range of grammatical, phonological, and articulatory information, including handshape, location, movement, and non-manual elements. The database is accessible via a graphically based search facility which is highly flexible both in terms of the search options available and the way the results are displayed. LSE-Sign is available at the following website: http://www.bcbl.eu/databases/lse/ .

View PDFchevron_right
American Sign Language Lexicon Video Dataset (ASLLVD) corpus
Carol Neidle

The American Sign Language Lexicon Video Dataset (ASLLVD) consists of videos of >3,300 ASL signs in citation form, each produced by 1-6 native ASL signers, for a total of almost 9,800 tokens. This dataset, including multiple synchronized videos showing the signing from different angles, will be shared publicly once the linguistic annotations and verifications are complete. Linguistic annotations include gloss labels, sign start and end time codes, start and end handshape labels for both hands, morphological and articulatory classifications of sign type. For compound signs, the dataset includes annotations for each morpheme. To facilitate computer vision-based sign language recognition, the dataset also includes numeric ID labels for sign variants, video sequences in uncompressed-raw format, camera calibration sequences, and software for skin region extraction. We discuss here some of the challenges involved in the linguistic annotations and categorizations. We also report an example computer vision application that leverages the ASLLVD: the formulation employs a HandShapes Bayesian Network (HSBN), which models the transition probabilities between start and end handshapes in monomorphemic lexical signs. Further details and statistics for the ASLLVD dataset, as well as information about annotation conventions, are available from http://www.bu.edu/asllrp/lexicon.

View PDFchevron_right
Computer-based tracking, analysis, and visualization of linguistically significant nonmanual events in American Sign Language (ASL)
Dimitris Metaxas

2014

OpenBU http://open.bu.edu BU Open Access Articles BU Open Access Articles 2014-01-01 Computer-based tracking, analysis, and visualization of linguistically significant nonmanual events...

View PDFchevron_right
Linking lexical and corpus data for sign languages: NGT Signbank and the Corpus NGT
Richard Bank, Frouke van Winsum, Ellen Ormel
View PDFchevron_right
Psycholinguistic norms for more than 300 lexical signs in German Sign Language (DGS)
Nina-Kristin Pendzich

Behavior Research Methods, 2021

Sign language offers a unique perspective on the human faculty of language by illustrating that linguistic abilities are not bound to speech and writing. In studies of spoken and written language processing, lexical variables such as, for example, age of acquisition have been found to play an important role, but such information is not as yet available for German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache, DGS). Here, we present a set of norms for frequency, age of acquisition, and iconicity for more than 300 lexical DGS signs, derived from subjective ratings by 32 deaf signers. We also provide additional norms for iconicity and transparency for the same set of signs derived from ratings by 30 hearing non-signers. In addition to empirical norming data, the dataset includes machine-readable information about a sign's correspondence in German and English, as well as annotations of lexico-semantic and phonological properties: one-handed vs. two-handed, place of articulation, most likely lexical class, animacy, verb type, (potential) homonymy, and potential dialectal variation. Finally, we include information about sign onset and offset for all stimulus clips from automated motion-tracking data. All norms, stimulus clips, data, as well as code used for analysis are made available through the Open Science Framework in the hope that they may prove to be useful to other researchers:

View PDFchevron_right
Challenges in development of the American Sign Language Lexicon Video Dataset (ASLLVD) corpus
Stan Sclaroff

The American Sign Language Lexicon Video Dataset (ASLLVD) consists of videos of >3,300 ASL signs in citation form, each produced by 1-6 native ASL signers, for a total of almost 9,800 tokens. This dataset, including multiple synchronized videos showing the signing from different angles, will be shared publicly once the linguistic annotations and verifications are complete. Linguistic annotations include gloss labels, sign start and end time codes, start and end handshape labels for both hands, morphological and articulatory classifications of sign type. For compound signs, the dataset includes annotations for each morpheme. To facilitate computer vision-based sign language recognition, the dataset also includes numeric ID labels for sign variants, video sequences in uncompressed-raw format, camera calibration sequences, and software for skin region extraction. We discuss here some of the challenges involved in the linguistic annotations and categorizations. We also report an example computer vision application that leverages the ASLLVD: the formulation employs a HandShapes Bayesian Network (HSBN), which models the transition probabilities between start and end handshapes in monomorphemic lexical signs. Further details and statistics for the ASLLVD dataset, as well as information about annotation conventions, are available from http://www.bu.edu/asllrp/lexicon.

View PDFchevron_right
Sign Language Phonetic Annotation meets Phonological CorpusTools: Towards a sign language toolset for phonetic notation and phonological analysis
Oksana Tkachman

Proceedings of the annual meetings on phonology, 2016

The field of sign language linguistics is still very young, and many tools and methods that have been available to spoken language linguists for decades are yet to be adapted or developed for their signlanguage colleagues. One such tool that is lacking is a unified system of phonetic transcription of the formational features of signs. There is a growing understanding in the field that some kind of a common notation system is required in order to enable cross-project and cross-linguistic comparison of data. Without such a common notation system there is no way to ensure that the results of individual projects are adequately reported, and that cross-linguistic and universal claims and models are made on comparable datasets. The lack of a unified and universally accepted system, analogous to the IPA for spoken languages, results in much research that focuses on theoretical issues of sign language linguistics rather than physical output mechanisms (Tyrone 2002), and it has especially heavy consequences for the fields of sign language phonetics and phonology. Existing studies often use notation systems that are only comprehensible to the researchers using it, and they report their results in very general ways with only a few line pictures, captions, or even verbal descriptions of the signs to illustrate some specific points (Garcia & Sallandre 2012). The reader might get a general understanding of the findings, but the details are obscure and replications and comparisons are difficult if not impossible. Another problem that results from the absence of a sign language IPA is felt in corpus studies and experimental approaches. As technology becomes more accessible to researchers and more kinds of software are developed for linguistic research, the need for adequate notation of the data becomes especially pronounced. However, new technology often brings more questions than answers. At the moment, several big sign-language corpora are being assembled in different countries and for different sign languages (e.g., for Australian Sign Language (Auslan)). 1 The focus of those corpora, however, is mostly syntax, semantics, and discourse, which is a natural outcome of the fact that those corpora often aim to answer more general questions of sign language structure, and to help with standardization and recognition of sign languages. This approach to corpus construction, however, often results in modes of annotation that are the opposite of what sign language phoneticians and phonologists would wish for. One such notable practice is lemmatization, the practice of assembling all related phonetic, phonological and morphological variants under one lemma (Johnston 2008), thus losing all the information on different variants of the same sign, the environment in which the sign was produced, etc. Beside the issue of lemmatization, sign language corpus studies face issues of optimization of data annotation tasks, automated processing of large corpora, and the possibility of sharing corpora for cross-linguistic comparisons (see Garcia & Sallandre 2012 for a detailed elaboration on these three issues, and Frishberg, Hoiting, & Slobin 2008). Thus, the field is under pressure not just to develop a reliable notation system, but also to make this notation system suitable for mechanization of data storing and processing (see also Hochgesang 2014). Another interesting development in the field is the use of technology such as dataglove (Eccarius, Bour, & Scheidt 2012) or various motion-tracking systems; and analyzing such data provides new insights

View PDFchevron_right
Sign Language Corpora for Analysis, Processing and Evaluation
Laurence Bolot

Language Resources and Evaluation, 2010

Sign Languages (SLs) are the visuo-gestural languages practised by the deaf communities. Research on SLs requires to build, to analyse and to use corpora. The aim of this paper is to present various kinds of new uses of SL corpora. The way data are used take advantage of the new capabilities of annotation software for visualisation, numerical annotation, and processing.

View PDFchevron_right

References (73)

  1. Ann, J. (1996). On the relation between ease of articulation and frequency of occurrence of handshapes in two sign languages. Lingua, 98(1), 19-41.
  2. Baayen, R. H., R. Piepenbrock, & L. Gulikers. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database [CD-ROM]. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania [Distributor], Philadelphia, PA.
  3. Balota, D. A., Pilotti, M., & Cortese, M. J. (2001). Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory & Cognition, 29(4), 639-647.
  4. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., … Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445-459.
  5. Bates, E., D'amico, S., Jacobsen, T., Andonova, E., Devescovi, A., Herron, D., … Tzeng, O. (2003). Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(2), 344-380.
  6. Battison, R. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring: Linstok Press.
  7. Baus, C., Gutiérrez, E., & Carreiras, M. (2014). The role of syllables in sign language production. Frontiers in Psychology, 5.
  8. Baus, C., Gutiérrez-Sigut, E., Quer, J., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Lexical access in Catalan Signed Language (LSC) production. Cognition, 108(3), 856-865.
  9. Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M., Girand, C., & Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational english. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 92-111.
  10. Behav Res
  11. Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  12. Brentari, D. (2007). Sign language phonology: Issues iconicity and universality. In E. Pizzuto, P. Pietrandrea, & R. Simone (Eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies (p. 59). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  13. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond kučera and francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the intro- duction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977-990.
  14. Carreiras, M., Gutiérrez-Sigut, E., Baquero, S., & Corina, D. (2008). Lexical processing in Spanish Sign Language (LSE). Journal of Memory and Language, 58(1), 100-122.
  15. Caselli, N. K., Caselli, M. K., & Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. (2015). Inflected words in production: Evidence for a morphologically rich lexicon. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, (just-accepted), 1-53.
  16. Caselli, N. K., & Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. (2014). Lexical access in sign language: A computational model. Frontiers in Psychology, 5.
  17. Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. (2015). Abstract and lexically specific informa- tion in sound patterns: Evidence from/r/-sandhi in rhotic and non- r h o t i c v a r i e t i e s o f e n g l i s h . L a n g u a g e a n d S p e e c h , 0023830914567168.
  18. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33(4), 497-505.
  19. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, T., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. Attention & Performance VI, 535-555. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  20. Corina, D. P., & Emmorey, K. (1993). Lexical priming in American Sign Language. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomics Society.
  21. Corina, D. P., & Hildebrandt, U. C. (2002). Psycholinguistic investiga- tions of phonological structure in ASL. In R. Meier, K. Cormier, & D. Quinto-Pozos (Eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spo- ken languages (pp. 88-111). NY: Cambridge University Press New York.
  22. Corina, D. P., & Knapp, H. P. (2006). Lexical retrieval in American Sign Language production. In L. M. Goldstein, D. H. Whalen & C. T. Best (Eds.), Varieties of phonological competence (pp. 213-240) Varieties of phonological competence.
  23. Crasborn, O., Bank, B., Zwitserlood,I., van der Kooij, E., de Meijer, A., & Sáfár, A. (2015) Annotation Conventions for the Corpus NGT, version 3. Centre for Language Studies & Department of Linguistics, Radboud University Nijmegen. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2. 1.1779.4649
  24. Dolch, E. W. (1936). A basic sight vocabulary. The Elementary School Journal, 36(6), 456-460.
  25. Dye, M. W., & Shih, S. (2006). Phonological priming in British Sign Language. In L. M. Goldstein, D. H. Whalen, & C. T. Best (Eds.), Papers in laboratory of phonology (8th ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  26. Eccarius, P. N. (2008). A constraint-based account of handshape contrast in sign languages. Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University.
  27. Emmorey, K., Grabowski, T., McCullough, S., Damasio, H., Ponto, L., Hichwa, R., & Bellugi, U. (2004). Motor-iconicity of sign language does not alter the neural systems underlying tool and action naming. Brain and Language, 89(1), 27-37.
  28. Emmorey, K., Petrich, J. A. F., & Gollan, T. H. (2013). Bimodal bilingualism and the frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18(1), 1-11. doi:10.1093/deafed/ ens034
  29. Fenlon, J., Cormier, K., & Schembri, A. (2015). Building BSL SignBank: The lemma dilemma revisited. International Journal of Lexicography, 28(2), 169-206.
  30. Fenlon, J., Schembri, A., Rentelis, R., Vinson, D., & Cormier, K. (2014). Using conversational data to determine lexical frequency in British Sign Language: The influence of text type. Lingua, 143, 187-202.
  31. Frauenfelder, U. H., Baayen, R. H., & Hellwig, F. M. (1993). Neighborhood density and frequency across languages and modal- ities. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(6), 781-804.
  32. Frishberg, N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 696-719.
  33. Fry, E. (1957). Developing a word list for remedial reading. Elementary English, 456-458.
  34. Gahl, S. (2008). Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84(3), 474-496.
  35. Gahl, S., Yao, Y., & Johnson, K. (2012). Why reduce? phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 789-806.
  36. Germine, L., Nakayama, K., Duchaine, B. C., Chabris, C. F., Chatterjee, G., & Wilmer, J. B. (2012). Is the web as good as the lab? compa- rable performance from web and lab in cognitive/perceptual exper- iments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(5), 847-857.
  37. Gutierrez-Sigut, E., Costello, B., Baus, C., & Carreiras, M. (2015). LSE- sign: A lexical database for spanish sign language. Behavior Research Methods, , 1-15.
  38. Hanke, T. (2004). HamNoSys -representing sign language data in lan- guage resources and language processing contexts. Paper presented at the LREC: Representation and Processing of Sign Languages, Paris, 4, 1-6.
  39. Haptonstall-Nykaza, T. S., & Schick, B. (2007). The transition from fingerspelling to english print: Facilitating english decoding. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(2), 172-183.
  40. Henner, J., Geer, L. C., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2013). Calculating frequency of occurrence of ASL handshapes. Paper presented at the LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts.
  41. Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala, J. J. (2006). Sound symbolism Cambridge University Press.
  42. Johnston, T. (2012). Lexical frequency in sign languages. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(2), 163-193. doi:10.1093/deafed/ enr036
  43. Johnston, T. (2014). The reluctant oracle: Using strategic annotations to add value to, and extract value from, a signed language corpus. Corpora, 9(2), 155-189.
  44. Johnson, R. E., & Liddell, S. K. (2011). A segmental framework for representing signs phonetically. Sign Language Studies, 11(3), 408-463.
  45. Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language Harvard University Press.
  46. Landauer, T. K., & Streeter, L. A. (1973). Structural differences between common and rare words: Failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(2), 119-131.
  47. Liddell, S. K., & Johnson, R. E. (1989). American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies, 64(1), 195-277.
  48. Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19(1), 1-36.
  49. Mayberry, R. I., Hall, M. L., & Zvaigzne, M. (2014). Subjective frequen- cy ratings for 432 ASL signs. Behavior Research Methods, 46(2), 526-539.
  50. McKee, D., & Kennedy, G. D. (2006). The distribution of signs in New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 6(4), 372-390.
  51. McQuarrie, L., & Abbott, M. (2013). Bilingual deaf students' phonolog- ical awareness in ASL and reading skills in english. Sign Language Studies, 14(1), 80-100.
  52. Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: a lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39-41.
  53. Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. J. (1990). Introduction to wordnet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4), 235-244.
  54. J. P., & MacFarlane, J. (2003). Frequency characteristics of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 3(2), 213-225.
  55. Nadolske, M. A., & Rosenstock, R. (2007). Occurrence of mouthings in American Sign Language: A preliminary study. In P. M. Perniss, R. Pfau, & M. Steinbach (Eds.), Visible Variation: Cross-Linguistic Studies in Sign Language Structure (pp. 35-62). Berlin: Mouton.
  56. New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 516-524.
  57. Orlansky, M. D., & Bonvillian, J. D. (1984). The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49(3), 287-292.
  58. Padden, C. A., Meir, I., Hwang, S., Lepic, R., Seegers, S., & Sampson, T. (2013). Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture, 13(3), 287-308.
  59. Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Providence: Walter de Gruyter.
  60. Schembri, A., Fenlon, J., Rentelis, R., & Cormier, K. (2011). British Sign Language corpus project: A corpus of digital video data of British Sign Language 2008-2010.
  61. Siple, P. (1978). Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies, 19(1), 95-110.
  62. Stokoe, W. (1965). Dictionary of the American Sign Language based on scientific principles.
  63. Taub, S. F. (2001). Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language Cambridge University Press.
  64. Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). The link be- tween form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical pro- cessing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 550.
  65. van Bon, W. H., Bouwmans, M., & Broeders, I. N. (2006). The preva- lence of poor reading in dutch special elementary education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 482-495.
  66. van der Hulst, H. (1993). Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology, 10, 209-241.
  67. van der Hulst, H., & van der Kooij, E. (2006). Phonetic implementation and phonetic pre-specification in sign language phonology.
  68. van der Kooij, E. (2002). Phonological categories in sign language of the netherlands. Utrecht: The Role of Phonetic Implementation and Iconicity. LOT.
  69. Vinson, D. P., Cormier, K., Denmark, T., Schembri, A., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). The British Sign Language (BSL) norms for age of acquisi- tion, familiarity, and iconicity. Behavior Research Methods, 40(4), 1079-1087.
  70. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (2004). A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 481-487.
  71. Whitworth, A., Webster, J., & Howard, D. (2014). A cognitive neuropsy- chological approach to assessment and intervention in aphasia: A clinician's guide Psychology Press.
  72. Wilbur, R. (2003). Representations of telicity in ASL. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 39(1), 354- 368.
  73. Woodward, J. C. (1972). Implications for sociolinguistic research among the deaf. Sign Language Studies, 1(1), 1-7.

Related papers

An alternative method for building a database for American sign language
Mary Davidson, Rosalee Wolfe

… and Persons with …, 2000

Research shows that English literacy of deaf people in the United States is much lower than that of hearing people. Most deaf adults read English at the third or fourth grade level. That is because English and American Sign Language (ASL), the native language used by the Deaf community in the US, have very different syntactic structures. Because of the lack of reading fluency, English-based assistive technology such as closed captioning on television offers some help in making the hearing world accessible to deaf people, but can only serve as a partial aid. In order to fully bridge the gulf between the deaf and hearing worlds, alternative assistive technologies based on sign language are needed.

View PDFchevron_right
ASL Video Corpora & Sign Bank: Resources Available through the American Sign Language Linguistic Research Project (ASLLRP)
Dimitris Metaxas, Carol Neidle, Augustine Opoku

arXiv, 2022

The American Sign Language Linguistic Research Project (ASLLRP) provides Internet access to high-quality ASL video data, generally including front and side views and a close-up of the face. The manual and non-manual components of the signing have been linguistically annotated using SignStream®. The recently expanded video corpora can be browsed and searched through the Data Access Interface (DAI 2) we have designed; it is possible to carry out complex searches. The data from our corpora can also be downloaded; annotations are available in an XML export format. We have also developed the ASLLRP Sign Bank, which contains almost 6,000 sign entries for lexical signs, with distinct English-based glosses, with a total of 41,830 examples of lexical signs (in addition to about 300 gestures, over 1,000 fingerspelled signs, and 475 classifier examples). The Sign Bank is likewise accessible and searchable on the Internet; it can also be accessed from within SignStream® (software to facilitate linguistic annotation and analysis of visual language data) to make annotations more accurate and efficient. Here we describe the available resources. These data have been used for many types of research in linguistics and in computer-based sign language recognition from video; examples of such research are provided in the latter part of this article.

View PDFchevron_right
The Creation of Keysigns: American Sign Language Metadata
Ellen Hibbard
View PDFchevron_right
Sign Language Lexicography
Mireille (Micky) Vale

International Handbook of Modern Lexis and Lexicography, 2017

Sign language dictionaries have been motivated by dual needs for language documentation and standardized learning resources, and both purposes have contributed to valorizing sign languages over the past 50 years. Concepts and techniques of sign language lexicography have progressed from compilations of captioned illustrations to contemporary multimedia, online dictionaries. This chapter introduces key features of signed lexicon, sketches historical development in sign language dictionaries, summarizes current developments of sign language corpora, and identifies future directions.

View PDFchevron_right
A lexicon for translation of American Sign Language to English
Robbin Chapman

1997

A new method is presented for computer translation of American Sign Language (ASL) to English by exploiting ASL morphological properties. A feature-based ASL lexicon is developed, referenced by manual and non-manual sign information. Manually produced sign segments (phonemes) consist of sig (movement), tab (location), dez (handshape), and ori (hand orientation). Non-manually produced signals consist of specific facial and body configurations. A camera captures the sign and segments the image into its morphological properties. Image segments are analyzed and values are assigned to the morpheme (sig, tab, dez, ori, etc.). These values are stored in a data structure which is referenced during lexical search. The first search key is sig, the most recognizable sign feature, followed by the other sign morphemes, as necessary, until a single lexical entry can be identified. Non-manual segments convey additional linguistic information to the output string, which is parsed and formatted for ...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Sign Language
  • Phonology
  • American Sign Language
  • Lexical Frequency
  • Linguistic iconicity
  • Phonological Neighborhood Density

    • Cited by

    Real-time lexical comprehension in young children learning American Sign Language
    Virginia A Marchman

    Developmental science, 2018

    When children interpret spoken language in real time, linguistic information drives rapid shifts in visual attention to objects in the visual world. This language-vision interaction can provide insights into children&#39;s developing efficiency in language comprehension. But how does language influence visual attention when the linguistic signal and the visual world are both processed via the visual channel? Here, we measured eye movements during real-time comprehension of a visual-manual language, American Sign Language (ASL), by 29 native ASL-learning children (16-53 mos, 16 deaf, 13 hearing) and 16 fluent deaf adult signers. All signers showed evidence of rapid, incremental language comprehension, tending to initiate an eye movement before sign offset. Deaf and hearing ASL-learners showed similar gaze patterns, suggesting that the in-the-moment dynamics of eye movements during ASL processing are shaped by the constraints of processing a visual language in real time and not by dif...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Age, frequency, and iconicity in early sign language acquisition: Evidence from the Israeli Sign Language MacArthur–Bates Communicative Developmental Inventory
    Rama Novo

    Applied Psycholinguistics

    The current study described the development of the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Developmental Inventory (CDI) for Israeli Sign Language (ISL) and investigated the effects of age, sign iconicity, and sign frequency on lexical acquisition of bimodal-bilingual toddlers acquiring ISL. Previous findings bring inconclusive evidence on the role of sign iconicity (the relationship between form and meaning) and sign frequency (how often a word/sign is used in the language) on the acquisition of signs. The ISL-CDI consisted of 563 video clips. Iconicity ratings from 41 sign-naïve Hebrew-speaking adults (Study 1A) and sign frequency ratings from 19 native ISL adult signers (Study 1B) were collected. ISL vocabulary was evaluated in 34 toddlers, native signers (Study 2). Results indicated significant effects of age, strong correlations between parental ISL ratings and ISL size even when age was controlled for, and strong correlations between naturalistic data and ISL-CDI scores, supporting the ...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Phonological Proximity in Costa Rican Sign Language
    Jesús Peral, Mario Chacon-Rivas

    Electronics

    The study of phonological proximity makes it possible to establish a basis for future decision-making in the treatment of sign languages. Knowing how close a set of signs are allows the interested party to decide more easily its study by clustering, as well as the teaching of the language to third parties based on similarities. In addition, it lays the foundation for strengthening disambiguation modules in automatic recognition systems. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind for Costa Rican Sign Language (LESCO, for its Spanish acronym), and forms the basis for one of the modules of the already operational system of sign and speech editing called the International Platform for Sign Language Edition (PIELS). A database of 2665 signs, grouped into eight contexts, is used, and a comparison of similarity measures is made, using standard statistical formulas to measure their degree of correlation. This corpus will be especially useful in machine learning approa...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Iconicity in Signed and Spoken Vocabulary: A Comparison Between American Sign Language, British Sign Language, English, and Spanish
    Robin L Thompson

    Frontiers in psychology, 2018

    Considerable evidence now shows that all languages, signed and spoken, exhibit a significant amount of iconicity. We examined how the visual-gestural modality of signed languages facilitates iconicity for different kinds of lexical meanings compared to the auditory-vocal modality of spoken languages. We used iconicity ratings of hundreds of signs and words to compare iconicity across the vocabularies of two signed languages - American Sign Language and British Sign Language, and two spoken languages - English and Spanish. We examined (1) the correlation in iconicity ratings between the languages; (2) the relationship between iconicity and an array of semantic variables (ratings of concreteness, sensory experience, imageability, perceptual strength of vision, audition, touch, smell and taste); (3) how iconicity varies between broad lexical classes (nouns, verbs, adjectives, grammatical words and adverbs); and (4) between more specific semantic categories (e.g., manual actions, clothe...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Preoutput Language Monitoring in Sign Production
    Linda Nadalet

    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

    A domain-general monitoring mechanism is proposed to be involved in overt speech monitoring. This mechanism is reflected in a medial frontal component, the error negativity (Ne), present in both errors and correct trials (Ne-like wave) but larger in errors than correct trials. In overt speech production, this negativity starts to rise before speech onset and is therefore associated with inner speech monitoring. Here, we investigate whether the same monitoring mechanism is involved in sign language production. Twenty deaf signers (American sign language [ASL] dominant) and 16 hearing signers (English dominant) participated in a picture–word interference paradigm in ASL. As in previous studies, ASL naming latencies were measured using the keyboard release time. EEG results revealed a medial frontal negativity peaking within 15 msec after keyboard release in the deaf signers. This negativity was larger in errors than correct trials, as previously observed in spoken language production....

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved