Relevant bibliographies by topics / Nonmanual markers

Academic literature on the topic 'Nonmanual markers'

Author: Grafiati
Published: 10 December 2022
Last updated: 28 January 2023

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Contents

Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Nonmanual markers.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Journal articles on the topic "Nonmanual markers"

1

Kuhn, Ninoslava Šarac, and Ronnie B. Wilbur. "Interrogative structures in Croatian Sign Language: Polar and content questions." Sign Language and Linguistics 9, no. 1-2 (2006): 151–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sll.9.1-2.09kuh.

Full text
Abstract:
In this study, we investigate the interrogative structures in Croatian Sign Language (HZJ) with respect to the word order, manual question words, and nonmanual markers and their scope. Both polar and content questions mainly use specific nonmanual markers to indicate interrogative function. Polar questions use chin down and content questions use chin up as their prominent nonmanual markers. In addition to these markers, brows up occurs in both constructions leading to the suggestion that brows up may be a general question marker in HZJ. Brows down can also occur, particularly in content questions. Other nonmanual markers that appear in polar questions are head forward, and eyes wide open and those in content questions are head forward, headshake, shoulders up, and eyes closed.Both interrogative constructions use manual question words. Polar questions can use an optional manual sign je-li that was probably introduced to HZJ through Signed Croatian. je-li is not connected to the peak intensity of the nonmanual markers and we consider it to be an adjunct to the question structure. Content words are used in most HZJ content interrogatives. Question words can be represented by specific signs or can be formed by the content sign ‘5’ (i.e. handshape 5 or b-th moving side-to-side). This ‘5’ sign is further specified by mouthing the particular question word from spoken Croatian. Content words can appear in sentence initial, sentence final or both positions. In content questions, question words bear the highest peak of nonmanual intensity, thus we consider them to be operating as operators.Recent research shows that HZJ shares some features with Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS) because in the 19th century, Croatian deaf students attended Vienna’s Institute for the Deaf (Schalber this volume; Šarac 2003; Šarac et al in press). Upon finishing their education, they would return back to Croatia. Similarities between HZJ and ÖGS are found in their interrogative nonmanual markings but not in their syntactic structures. This can be seen by the fact that these two sign languages do not have the same canonical word order.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Kuhn, Ninoslava Šarac, and Ronnie B. Wilbur. "Interrogative structures in Croatian Sign Language." Investigating Understudied Sign Languages - Croatian SL and Austrian SL, with comparison to American SL 9, no. 1-2 (December 31, 2006): 151–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sll.9.1.09kuh.

Full text
Abstract:
In this study, we investigate the interrogative structures in Croatian Sign Language (HZJ) with respect to the word order, manual question words, and nonmanual markers and their scope. Both polar and content questions mainly use specific nonmanual markers to indicate interrogative function. Polar questions use chin down and content questions use chin up as their prominent nonmanual markers. In addition to these markers, brows up occurs in both constructions leading to the suggestion that brows up may be a general question marker in HZJ. Brows down can also occur, particularly in content questions. Other nonmanual markers that appear in polar questions are head forward, and eyes wide open and those in content questions are head forward, headshake, shoulders up, and eyes closed. Both interrogative constructions use manual question words. Polar questions can use an optional manual sign je-li that was probably introduced to HZJ through Signed Croatian. je-li is not connected to the peak intensity of the nonmanual markers and we consider it to be an adjunct to the question structure. Content words are used in most HZJ content interrogatives. Question words can be represented by specific signs or can be formed by the content sign ‘5’ (i.e. handshape 5 or b-th moving side-to-side). This ‘5’ sign is further specified by mouthing the particular question word from spoken Croatian. Content words can appear in sentence initial, sentence final or both positions. In content questions, question words bear the highest peak of nonmanual intensity, thus we consider them to be operating as operators. Recent research shows that HZJ shares some features with Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS) because in the 19th century, Croatian deaf students attended Vienna’s Institute for the Deaf (Schalber this volume; Šarac 2003; Šarac et al in press). Upon finishing their education, they would return back to Croatia. Similarities between HZJ and ÖGS are found in their interrogative nonmanual markings but not in their syntactic structures. This can be seen by the fact that these two sign languages do not have the same canonical word order.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Schalber, Katharina. "What is the chin doing?: An analysis of interrogatives in Austrian sign language." Sign Language and Linguistics 9, no. 1-2 (2006): 133–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sll.9.1-2.08sch.

Full text
Abstract:
The aim of this paper is to investigate the structure of polar (yes/no questions) and content questions (wh-questions) in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS), analyzing the different nonmanual signals, the occurrence of question signs and their syntactic position. As I will show, the marking strategies used in ÖGS are no exception to the crosslinguistic observations that interrogative constructions in sign languages employ a variety of nonmanual signals and manual signs (Zeshan 2004). In ÖGS polar questions are marked with ‘chin down’, whereas content questions are indicated with ‘chin up’ or ‘head forward’ and content question signs. These same nonmanual markers are reported for Croatian sign language, indicating common foundation due to historical relations and intense language contact.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Schalber, Katharina. "What is the chin doing?" Investigating Understudied Sign Languages - Croatian SL and Austrian SL, with comparison to American SL 9, no. 1-2 (December 31, 2006): 133–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sll.9.1.08sch.

Full text
Abstract:
The aim of this paper is to investigate the structure of polar (yes/no questions) and content questions (wh-questions) in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS), analyzing the different nonmanual signals, the occurrence of question signs and their syntactic position. As I will show, the marking strategies used in ÖGS are no exception to the crosslinguistic observations that interrogative constructions in sign languages employ a variety of nonmanual signals and manual signs (Zeshan 2004). In ÖGS polar questions are marked with ‘chin down’, whereas content questions are indicated with ‘chin up’ or ‘head forward’ and content question signs. These same nonmanual markers are reported for Croatian sign language, indicating common foundation due to historical relations and intense language contact.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Anderson, Diane E., and Judy S. Reilly. "The puzzle of negation: How children move from communicative to grammatical negation in ASL." Applied Psycholinguistics 18, no. 4 (October 1997): 411–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0142716400010912.

Full text
Abstract:
ABSTRACTIn American Sign Language (ASL), in addition to manual signs, specific nonmanual behaviors play a crucial role in the grammar of the language. For example, conditionals and relative clauses are signaled by obligatory nonmanual markers. This study focuses on the acquisition of negation in ASL, which is signaled by manual signs as well as an obligatory headshake. In particular, we address the developmental relationship between the communicative and grammatical (or linguistic) headshakes for negation. Study 1 includes naturalistic data from a cross-sectional sample of 51 deaf children, ranging in age from 1: 0 to 4: 11, who are acquiring ASL as their primary language. Study 2 includes longitudinal data from 16 of these children.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Wilbur, Ronnie B. "Effects of Varying Rate of Signing on ASL Manual Signs and Nonmanual Markers." Language and Speech 52, no. 2-3 (June 2009): 245–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0023830909103174.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Pendzich, Nina-Kristi, Jens-Michael Cramer, Thomas Finkbeiner, Annika Herrmann, and Markus Steinbach. "How do signers mark conditionals in German Sign Language? Insights from a Sentence Reproduction Task on the use of nonmanual and manual markers." Hrvatska revija za rehabilitacijska istraživanja 58, Special Issue (October 12, 2022): 206–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.31299/hrri.58.si.11.

Full text
Abstract:
This paper presents the results of a Sentence Reproduction Task (SRT) investigating conditional sentences in German Sign Language (DGS). We found that participants mark conditional sentences in DGS by systematically using different non-manual markers on the antecedent and the consequent. In addition, these non-manual markers were frequently used in combination with one or two manual signs. However, the manual markers were omitted in the test sentences, i.e., the input stimuli the participants were asked to reproduce. The results of our experimental study are, on the one hand, consistent with descriptions of manual and non-manual strategies used to mark conditional sentences in different unrelated sign languages. On the other hand, our findings provide new insights on the multi-layered marking of conditional sentences in DGS.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Gökgöz, Kadir. "Negation in Turkish Sign Language." Nonmanuals in Sign Language 14, no. 1 (August 11, 2011): 49–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sll.14.1.04gok.

Full text
Abstract:
This paper presents a detailed description of manual and nonmanual markers (NMMs) in negative sentences in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). It has been argued that TİD 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, TİD 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 TİD 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 TİD based on the syntactic background provided for TİD and the distributional patterns of NMMs.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Hunger, Barbara. "Noun/Verb Pairs in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS)." Investigating Understudied Sign Languages - Croatian SL and Austrian SL, with comparison to American SL 9, no. 1-2 (December 31, 2006): 71–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sll.9.1.06hun.

Full text
Abstract:
The present work provides the evidence for a measurable distinction between members of formationally related Noun/Verb Pairs in ÖGS. Like similar investigations in other sign languages, such as American (ASL), Australian (Auslan) and British (BSL), this empirical study investigates nouns and verbs of related pairs in ÖGS from several perspectives. The primary investigation focuses on the movement component of signs, which is identified as the major differentiating factor between related nouns and verbs. The study also briefly examines nonmanual markers and the adjacent lexical categories of nouns and verbs in context. The findings are compared with the distinctions reported for other sign languages and show that ÖGS also follows the distinction model that other sign languages use for distinguishing between related nouns and verbs, in particular, distinctions in the movement components of signs. The formational difference between related ÖGS nouns and verbs is systematically shown in their duration, with verbs substantially longer in duration than their comparable nouns. It is not known whether this observed difference will generalize to the wider comparison of ÖGS unrelated verbs and nouns.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Krause, Jean C., and Andrew K. Hague. "Signing Exact English Transliteration: Effects of Accuracy and Lag Time on Message Intelligibility." Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 25, no. 2 (December 8, 2019): 199–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enz042.

Full text
Abstract:
Abstract This paper, the fourth in a series concerned with the level of access afforded to students who use educational interpreters, focuses on the intelligibility of interpreters who use Signing Exact English (SEE). Eight expert receivers of SEE were employed to evaluate the intelligibility of transliterated messages that varied in accuracy and lag time. Results of intelligibility tests showed that, similar to Cued Speech transliterators, (a) accuracy had a large positive effect on transliterator intelligibility, (b) overall intelligibility (69%) was higher than average accuracy (58%), and (c) the likelihood that an utterance reached 70% intelligibility was somewhat sigmoidal in shape, with the likelihood of reaching 70% intelligibility dropping off fastest for accuracy values <65%. Accuracy alone accounted for 53% of the variance in transliterator intelligibility; mouthing was identified as a secondary factor that explained an additional 11%. Although lag time accounted for just .4% of the remaining variance, utterances produced with lag times between .6 and 1.2 s were most likely to exceed 70% intelligibility. With 36% of the variance still unexplained, other sources of transliterator variability (for example, facial expression, nonmanual markers, and mouth/sign synchronization) may also play a role in intelligibility and should be explored in future research.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
More sources

Conference papers on the topic "Nonmanual markers"

1

Michael, Nicholas, Peng Yang, Qingshan Liu, Dimitris Metaxas, and Carol Neidle. "A Framework for the Recognition of Nonmanual Markers in Segmented Sequences of American Sign Language." In British Machine Vision Conference 2011. British Machine Vision Association, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.5244/c.25.124.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
You might also be interested in the extended bibliographies on the topic 'Nonmanual markers' for particular source types:
Journal articles
We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!

To the bibliography