Sign Language Analysis Using CNN Algorithm

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFeature1 Apr 2003Serving Clients Who Use Sign Language Susanne Scott, and James H. Lee Susanne Scott Google Scholar More articles by this author and James H. Lee Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.08062003.6 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Many speech-language and hearing professionals now encounter clients who use sign languages as their primary mode of communication. Can these professionals serve these clients, or do they need to get interpreters or make referrals? ASHA is committed to meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse populations. All too often “linguistically diverse” is assumed to refer to users of spoken languages other than English. However, individuals who use a signed language, whether American Sign Language (ASL) or some other sign system, are also linguistically diverse. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine how many people in the United States use some form of sign language to communicate. It might be easier to try to determine the number of signing individuals that are seen in hearing and speech centers and in educational placements throughout the United States. In keeping with ASHA’s vision, it is important to ensure that there are an adequate number of speech-language and hearing professionals to serve this population. Although it may be necessary to use interpreters in some situations or locales or to make referrals to larger urban areas, programs, clinics, and schools throughout the country should be striving to better and more directly serve clients who use sign. The Population Clients who use a sign language/system are a very diverse population. Not only do these individuals differ in age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, and socio-economic status, but also in the sign language/system that they use. Often the sign language/system used is determined by the individual’s identity or, in the case of a child, the educational placement. An individual who identifies as a member of the deaf community/culture in the United States will most likely use American Sign Language. Individuals who depend on their residual hearing and identify as hard of hearing or hearing impaired, will most likely use an invented sign system (i.e., SEE II, Signed English) or more English-based sign. Children who are deaf or hard of hearing may use ASL, a sign system, or English-based sign as determined by the school’s educational/communication philosophy (see sidebar for definitions). Cultural and Linguistic Competence Cultural and linguistic competence can enhance clinical practice by: increasing the bond/relationship between the clinician and the client and the client’s significant others demonstrating respect and sensitivity enhancing service provision facilitating achievement of goals and carryover/generalization of skills And, importantly, it’s the right thing to do! The National Center for Cultural Competence ( www.georgetown.edu/ research/gucdc/ nccc/faqs.html) has identified six overarching reasons why cultural competence is important to health care providers. In brief, they are: 1. To respond to current and projected demographic changes in the United States 2. To eliminate long-standing disparities in the health status of people of diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds 3. To improve the quality of services and health outcomes 4. To meet legislative, regulatory, and accreditation mandates 5. To gain a competitive edge in the market place 6. To decrease the likelihood of liability/malpractice claims Strategies Clinicians who are able to sign should apply the following strategies in order to meet the communication needs of their clients: Respect the communication mode of your clients. The clinician should try to match the client’s mode of communication. Be willing to admit when you do not understand. Try not to “bluff” or use a passive behavior. Speech-language-hearing professionals should model appropriate communication strategies such as confirmation and repair strategies when the clinician is not able to understand the client’s signs. Use facial expressions and body movements with signs. Facial expressions and body movements are fundamental features of ASL. In spoken English, speakers often signal a question by using a rising vocal intonation. In ASL, users do so by raising the eyebrows and widening the eyes. ASL users may ask a question by tilting their bodies forward while signaling with their eyes and eyebrows. Try to be conceptually correct in the use of signs. Choose signs that appropriately convey the information you are trying to communicate. Remember each sign in a signed language/system is composed of a specific, unique combination of a hand shape, movement, palm orientation, and location. Changing any one of these aspects of the sign changes the meaning of the sign. Always fingerspell technical terms (e.g., audiogram, frequency) first before assigning a “made up” sign (e.g., “A” hand shape circling in front of the ear + sign for graph = audiogram; “F” hand shape moving like a “wave” from left to right = frequency). Always use visual aids to supplement your signs. Use pictures of the ear and the “audiogram of familiar sounds” to help explain unfamiliar concepts (e.g., type of hearing loss; sounds the client may never have heard). Working With an Interpreter If necessary, it may be best to obtain the services of a certified interpreter for the deaf. Certified interpreters follow a strict Code of Ethics developed by the Registry of Interpreters of the Deaf (RID). Interpreters can hold different types of RID certification. For example, a CI (Certificate of Interpretation) certificate indicates the interpreter can sign from English to ASL and ASL to English. A CT (Certificate of Transliteration) certificate means the interpreter has been evaluated and is proficient in interpreting from spoken English to a more English-based sign and vice versa. Some RID interpreters hold both certificates. In addition, the National Association of the Deaf also certifies interpreters using a system with varying skill levels. Finally, some states also have certification programs and tests for interpreters. It is essential to find out what is required in your area and obtain the services of qualified interpreters. When working with an interpreter, speech-language or hearing professionals should remember that they are consumers of interpreting services. Be sure to establish what you and your signing client need from the interpreter. For example, some signing individuals have intelligible speech and the interpreter would not need to voice what the signer expresses. Other times the speech may not be intelligible enough and the interpreter may need to voice the intent of the signing client. Finally, it is important to remember that the interpreter is a conduit of information between the clinician and the client. The signing client is addressed directly. The client should not be addressed through the interpreter (i.e., “Tell her…”). Instead the professional should speak directly to the client and allow the interpreter to convey the information. To facilitate this, it is often helpful to position the interpreter next to the hearing or speech-language professional and across from the signing client. This allows for a good visual environment. The signing client can see the interpreter and the professional. During interactions as much eye contact as possible should be maintained with the client. The signing client will need to divide the visual attention between the professional and the interpreter but the professional should remain focused on the client. Definitions American Sign Language (ASL) ASL is a complete, complex language that incorporates the use of hand shapes, position, palm orientation and movement, facial expressions, body movements and postures, and gestures and other visual cues to form its words. It is completely separate from English. ASL has its own rules for grammar, morphology, and sentence order. It is the first language of many North Americans who are deaf and is the fourth most commonly used language in the United States (www.aslinfo.com). Deaf Community/Culture A multi-cultural group of individuals who identify themselves as Deaf, as an ethnic identity, and not a physical condition. The Deaf community is composed of people who use American Sign Language as their primary means of communication. The Deaf Community considers itself a linguistic minority group, a separate entity because of its unique culture, language, and social norms. It is separate from other disability consumer groups by the virtue of communication process, not physical disabilities (www.signmedia.com/info/adc.htm). Finger Spelling (Dactylology) and Invented Sign Systems Finger spelling uses hand shapes to represent the letters of the English alphabet. Invented Sign Systems (Signing Exact English [SEE] and Signed English [SE]) use manual codes (use of the hands) to represent the structure of English. English-Based Signing English-based signing entails signing a combination of both English and ASL features executed in English word order. The language proficiency of the signer will determine the use of the features from either language. It is different from the invented sign systems because it does not follow a clear-cut set of principles. In the past, this type of signing has been labeled pidgin signed English (PSE) and more recently referred to as sign English or conceptually accurate sign English (CASE). It was not intended to model English or be used in an educational context or to teach English. Its purpose is for social communication. Print Publications Resources Paul P. V. (2001). Language and Deafness (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Thomson Learning. Google Scholar Vold F. C., Kinsella-Meier M., & Hughes Hilley M. C. (1990). Signing with your client: A practical manual for audiologists and speech/language pathologists. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. Google Scholar Web www.nad.org/infocenter/infotogo/dcc/difference.html http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/InfoToGo/549.html www.oregon.gov/DHS/odhhs/ References Author Notes Susanne Scott, is a supervising aural rehabilitationist in the department of audiology and speech-language pathology at Gallaudet University. In addition to clinical supervision, she teaches the Clinical Applications of Sign Communication classes to students in the clinical doctorate of audiology program. Contact her by e-mail at [email protected]. James H. Lee, is a clinical supervisor in the department of audiology and speech-language pathology at Gallaudet University. In addition to clinical supervision, he teaches Clinical Applications of Sign Communication to speech-language pathology graduate students. Contact him by e-mail at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 8Issue 6April 2003 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Apr 1, 2003 Metrics Current downloads: 4,634 Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2003 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

The Shape of Air: American Sign Language as Narrative Prosthesis in 21st Century North American Media

Introduction In this paper, I examine the practices of representing Deaf ‘voices’’ to hearing audiences in two recent US television crime dramas. More literally I look at how American Sign Language is framed and made visible on the screen through various production decisions. Drawing examples from an episode of CSI: New York that aired in December 2006 and an episode of Law and Order: Criminal Intent that aired in April 2007, I examine how the practices of filming Deaf people and the use of American Sign Language intersect with the production of a Deaf ‘voice’ on the screen. The problem of representing a Deaf ‘voice’ on the screen is akin to the problem of representing other minority languages. Film and television producers in the United States have to make choices about whether the majority audience of English speakers will have access to the minority language or not. In the face of this dilemma media producers have taken several approaches: subtitling foreign speech, translating foreign speech through other characters, or leaving the language inaccessible except to those who use it. The additional difficulty with representing national sign languages is that both the language and the recording medium are visual. Sometimes, filmmakers make the choice of leaving some portions of the signed dialogue inaccessible to a non-signing hearing audience. On the one hand this choice could indicate a devaluing of the signed communication, as its specific content is considered irrelevant to the plot. On the other hand it could indicate that Deaf people have a right to be visible on television using their own language without accommodating hearing people. A number of choices made in the filming and editing can subtly undermine positive representations of Deaf ‘voices’ particularly to a Deaf audience. These choices often construct an image of sign languages as objectified, exoticised, disjointed, incomplete, or a code for spoken language. Simple choices such as using simultaneous speaking and signing by Deaf characters, cropping the scene, translating or not translating the dialogue have powerful implications for the ways that Deaf ‘voices’ are becoming more visible in the 21st century. Typical filming and editing conventions effectively silence the Deaf ‘voice.’ Over 20 years ago, in the comprehensive book, Hollywood Speaks: Deafness and the Film Entertainment Industry (1988), Schuchman’s complaint that the filming and editing techniques of the day often did not attend to preserving the visibility and comprehensibility of sign language eon the screen, still applies today. As editing techniques have evolved over the years, fr om reliance on wide and medium shots to frequent intercutting of close-ups, the tendency to cut sign language off the screen, and out of the comprehensible view of the audience, may have even increased. Recent Portrayals of Deaf People on Television During one television season in the United States between August 2006 and April 2007, 30 episodes of six different serial television programs portrayed signing Deaf characters. Three of these programs had on-going Deaf characters that appeared in a number of episodes throughout the season, while three other programs portrayed Deaf people in a one-off episode with a Deaf theme. Initial air date for the season Program and Season # of Episodes 1 14 Aug. 2006 Weeds, Season 2 5 2 20 Sep. 2006 Jericho, Season 1 13 3 28 Jan. 2007 The L Word, Season 4 9 Table 1. Dramas with Ongoing Deaf Characters during the 2006-2007 USA Television Season Initial air date Program, Season, Episode Episode Title 1 13 Dec. 2006 CSI: New York, Season 3, Episode 12 “Silent Night” 2 3 Apr. 2007 Law and Order: Criminal Intent, Season 6, Episode 18 "Silencer" 3 12 Apr. 2007 Scrubs, Season 6, Episode 16 “My Words of Wisdom” Table 2. One-off Episodes with Signing Deaf Characters during the 2006-2007 USA Television Seasons Ironically, although the shows with ongoing characters sometimes allow the Deafness of the character to be incidental to the character, it is only the one-off crime dramas that show Deaf people relating with one another as members of a vibrant community and culture based in sign language. Often, in the ongoing series, the characters remain isolated from the Deaf community and their interactions with other Deaf people are sparse or non-existent. For example, out of the 27 episodes with an ongoing Deaf character only two episodes of The L-Word have more than one Deaf character portrayed. In both Weeds and The L-Word the Deaf character is the love interest of one of the hearing characters, while in Jericho, the Deaf character is the sister of one of the main hearing characters. In these episodes though some of realities about Deaf people’s lives are touched on as they relate to the hearing characters, the reality of signing Deaf people’s social lives in the Deaf community is left absent and they are depicted primarily interacting with hearing people. The two episodes, from CSI: New York, and Law and Order: Criminal Intent, focus on the controversial theme of cochlear implants in the Deaf community. Though it is true that generally the signing Deaf community in the U.S.A. sees cochlear implants as a threat to their community, there is no record of this controversy ever motivating violent criminal acts or murder as portrayed in these episodes. In the episode of CSI: New York entitled “Silent Night” a conflict between a young Deaf man and Deaf woman who were formerly romantically involved is portrayed. The murdered young woman who comes from a Deaf family does not want her Deaf baby to have a cochlear implant while the killer ex-boyfriend who has a cochlear implant believes that it is the best option for his child. The woman’s Deaf parents are involved in the investigation. The episode of Law and Order: Criminal Intent, entitled “Silencer,” is also ultimately about a conflict between a Deaf man and a Deaf woman over cochlear implants. In the end, it is revealed that the Deaf woman is exploring the possibility of a cochlear implant. Her boyfriend projecting the past hurt of his hearing sister leaving him behind to go off and live her own life, doesn’t want his girlfriend to leave him once she gains more hearing. So he shoots the cochlear implant surgeon in the hand to prevent him from being able to perform the surgery. Then he accidentally kills him by crushing his voice box to prevent him from screaming. Analyzing Two Crime Dramas In both television dramas, the filmmakers use both sound and video editing techniques to mark the experiential difference between hearing and Deaf characters. In comparing the two dramas two techniques are evident : muting/distorting sounds and extreme close-ups on lips talking or hands signing. Though these techniques may heighten awareness of deaf experience to a non-signing audience they also point to a disabling stereotyping of the experience of being Deaf as lacking — framing their experience as hearing loss rather than Deaf gain (Bauman & Murray; Shakespeare 199). By objectifying sign language through extreme close ups American Sign Language is portrayed as something strange and unusual that separates Deaf signers from hearing speakers. The auditory silences can either jolt the hearing non-signer into awareness of the sensory aspect of sound that is missing or it can jolt them into awareness of the visual world that they often don’t really see. In the opening few scenes of the episodes both CSI: New York and Law and Order: Criminal Intent use sound editing alternately muting or distorting sounds as they cut between a ‘deaf’ auditory perspective and a ‘hearing’ perspective on the action as it unfolds. Even though the sound editing does play a part in the portrayal of Deaf people’s experience as lacking sound, the more important aspects of film production to attend to are the visual aspects where Deaf people are seen authentically signing in their own language. Scene Analysis Methodology In taking a closer look at a scene from each episode we can see exactly how the filming and editing techniques work to create an image of sign language. I have chosen comparable scenes where a Deaf individual is interviewed or interrogated by the police using a sign language interpreter. In each scene it can be assumed that all the communication is happening in both English and ASL through an interpreter, so at all times some signing should be occurring. In transcribing the scenes, I noted each point when the editor spliced different camera shots adjacent to each other. Because of the different visual aesthetics in each program where one relied heavily on continuous panning shots, I also noted where the camera shifted focus from one character to another marking the duration of screen time for each character. This allowed for a better comparison between the two programs. In my transcripts, I included both glosses of the ASL signs visible on the screen as well as the flow of the spoken English on the audio track. This enabled me to count how many separate shifts in character screen time segments contained signing and how much of these contained completely visible signing in medium shots. CSI:NY Witness Interview Scene In the first signing scene, Gina (played by Marlee Matlin) is brought in for an interview with Detective Taylor and a uniformed officer interpreter. The scene opens with a medium shot on Detective Taylor as he asks her, “What do you think woke you up?” The shot cuts to an extreme close up of her face and hands and pans to only the hands

Contents: Preface. Part I: Reminiscences. L. Fant, Two Memorable Meals With Ursula and Ed. R.M. Battison, American Sign Language Linguistics 1970-1980: Memoir of a Renaissance. B. Bragg, A Fish Story for Ursula and Other Remembrances. Part II: Historical and Comparative Analyses of Sign Languages. J. Woodward, Sign Languages and Sign Language Families in Thailand and Vietnam. D. McKee, G. Kennedy, Lexical Comparisons of Signs From American, Australian, British, and New Zealand Sign Languages. H. Lane, R.C. Pillard, M. French, Origins of the American Deaf-World: Assimilating and Differentiating Societies and Their Relation to Genetic Patterning. Part III: Language in the Visual-Spatial Modality. E.L. Newport, T. Supalla, Sign Language Research at the Millennium. P. Siple, Attentional Resources and Working Memory: A New Framework for the Study of the Impact of Deafness on Cognition. M. Wilson, K. Emmorey, When Does Modality Matter? Evidence From ASL on the Nature of Working Memory. P.B. Braem, T. Bram, A Pilot Study of the Expressive Gestures Used by Classical Orchestra Conductors. N. Frishberg, An Interpreter Creates the Space. Part IV: Linguistic Analysis of Sign Languages. S.D. Fischer, More Than Just Handwaving: The Mutual Contributions of Sign Language and Linguistics. R.B. Wilbur, Phonological and Prosodic Layering of Nonmanuals in American Sign Language. R.C. Loew, C.T. Akamatsu, M. Lanaville, A Two-Handed Manual Alphabet in the United States. E. Pizzuto, V. Volterra, Iconicity and Transparency in Sign Languages: A Cross-Linguistic Cross-Cultural View. M. Kuntze, Codeswitching in ASL and Written English Language Contact. S.K. Liddell, Indicating Verbs and Pronouns: Pointing Away From Agreement. Part V: Language Acquisition. J.G. Bettger, Viewing Deaf Children in a New Way: Implications of Bellugi and Klima's Research for Education. R.P. Meier, Shared Motoric Factors in the Acquisition of Sign and Speech. A. Abrahamsen, Explorations of Enhanced Gestural Input to Children in the Bimodal Period. D. Lillo-Martin, Early and Late in Language Acquisition: Aspects of the Syntax and Acquisition of Wh-Questions in American Sign Language. J. Reilly, Bringing Affective Expression Into the Service of Language: Acquiring Perspective Marking in Narratives. C.A. Padden, V.L. Hanson, Search for the Missing Link: The Development of Skilled Reading in Deaf Children. L.A. Petitto, On the Biological Foundations of Human Language. Part VI: The Neural Organization of Sign Language. A.R. Damasio, H. Damasio, Language and the Brain. D.P. Corina, Some Observations Regarding Paraphasia in American Sign Language. H. Poizner, D. Brentari, M.E. Tyrone, J. Kegl, The Structure of Language as Motor Behavior: Clues From Signers With Parkinson's Disease. V.A. Fromkin, On the Uniqueness of Language.

Abstract: This paper presents a novel approach towards developing a unified Sign Language Recognition System catering to both American Sign Language (ASL) and British Sign Language (BSL) communities. Leveraging image processing techniques, our system aims to accurately interpret and translate sign gestures into textual or auditory outputs. By employing advanced algorithms and machine learning models, the system can effectively recognize complex sign patterns, allowing for seamless communication between signers and non-signers. We discuss the architecture and key components of our system, including image acquisition, preprocessing, feature extraction, and classification methodologies tailored to the distinct characteristics of ASL and BSL. Furthermore, we address challenges such as gesture variability, background noise, and lighting conditions, proposing solutions to enhance the robustness and accuracy of the recognition process. Through rigorous testing and evaluation, our system demonstrates promising results in real-world scenarios, showcasing its potential to bridge communication gaps and foster inclusivity for individuals within the deaf community.

Little is known about the nature of fingerspelling during sign language interpretation. In this small-scale, exploratory study, we examined the fingerspelling of interpreters working in five different sign languages: American Sign Language (ASL), Australian Sign Language (Auslan), British Sign Language (BSL), Irish Sign Language (ISL), and Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sixteen interpreters were video-recorded as they rendered President Barack Obama’s 2009 inaugural address in their country’s sign language. After completing their interpretations, the participants engaged in a retrospective interview about their work. The data were analyzed both quantitatively (for frequency and type of fingerspelling) and qualitatively (for factors influencing fingerspelling). Results indicate that the most fingerspelled items ( n = 137) were produced in the ASL interpretations and the fewest ( n = 18) were produced in the LIS interpretations; variation between the groups was found in lexicalized fingerspelling and the fingerspelling of place names. We suggest that the variation in fingerspelling both within and between groups may be explained by sociolinguistic factors, including interpreters’ language attitudes and perceptions of the deaf audience. This exploratory study provides a first step in investigating the fingerspelling of interpreters in a variety of sign languages.

Sign Language Recognition (SLR) has become an essential area of research due to its potential to promote understanding between the deaf and hearing communities through communication. This paper provides an in-depth study of various methodologies and models employed in SLR, focusing on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN). We analyze their application to datasets from various sign languages, such as Arabic Sign Language (ArSL), American Sign Language (ASL), and British Sign Language (BSL), and explore how these models improve the recognition of dynamic, multi-dimensional hand gestures. This research not only advances the understanding of deep learning applications in sign language recognition but also addresses critical challenges in data processing and real-time applications, paving the way for inclusive technologies in informatics and human-computer interaction. Despite the progress in applying deep learning techniques to SLR, several challenges remain, particularly in dataset limitations, handling large vocabularies, and ensuring consistent performance across diverse environments and signers. The paper also investigates the broader applications of SLR, such as virtual reality, healthcare, education, and accessibility, and discusses the integration of SLR with human-computer interaction systems. Furthermore, it highlights current limitations in the field, such as difficulties with video data handling, the need for standard datasets, and issues related to training computational models. Finally, the paper outlines future research directions, including developing more robust SLR systems that can function effectively in uncontrolled environments, improving data collection methodologies, and creating real-time, user-friendly applications to assist the community of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals.

IntroductionEarly linguistic background, and in particular, access to language, lays the foundation of future reading skills in deaf and hard-of-hearing signers. The current study aims to estimate the impact of two factors – early access to sign and/or spoken language – on reading fluency in deaf and hard-of-hearing adult Russian Sign Language speakers.MethodsIn the eye-tracking experiment, 26 deaf and 14 hard-of-hearing native Russian Sign Language speakers read 144 sentences from the Russian Sentence Corpus. Analysis of global eye-movement trajectories (scanpaths) was used to identify clusters of typical reading trajectories. The role of early access to sign and spoken language as well as vocabulary size as predictors of the more fluent reading pattern was tested.ResultsHard-of-hearing signers with early access to sign language read more fluently than those who were exposed to sign language later in life or deaf signers without access to speech sounds. No association between early access to spoken language and reading fluency was found.DiscussionOur results suggest a unique advantage for the hard-of-hearing individuals from having early access to both sign and spoken language and support the existing claims that early exposure to sign language is beneficial not only for deaf but also for hard-of-hearing children.

This paper deals primarily with the phonological structure of American Sign Language (ASL) and zmânî âmâžaî kurdî (ZAK) -Kurdish Sign Language. It is concerned with sign language (SL) and the types of sign language. One type is primary sign languages which are used by the Deaf people. Sign language is a visual-gestural language which relies on the use of the hands, facial expressions and body movements.Generally, there are myths about SLs. People believe that SLs are universal and have no grammatical structure. However, sign languages, as spoken languages, have lexicon, phonology, morphology and syntax. As far as the phonological structure of SLs includes handshape, location, movement and orientation of the hand. Therefore, some questions have been raised focusing on ASL and ZAK phonological structure. One of the questions is that: are the parameters of the phonological structure of ASL and ZAK the same? The aim of the paper is to apply ASL phonological aspects on ZAK. In this study, a mixed method is adopted. What is related to the hypothesis is that ZAK has three phonological parameters. One of the findings is that both ASL and ZAK have the same phonological parameters. As far as recommendation is concerned, more work can be carried out on the differences between ASL and ZAK at all linguistic levels.

In this article, we look at sign duration and signing rate in corpora of three sign languages – British Sign Language (BSL), Dutch Sign Language (NGT), and Swedish Sign Language (STS). We investigate whether token frequency and sociolinguistic variables (e.g., age, gender, region) influence the production rate of signing. Following Zipf’s law of abbreviation, we see that a sign’s duration is negatively correlated with its frequency. Both sign duration and signing rate are found to correlate with signer age, in that older signers have longer durations and lower rates than younger signers. Signers' gender, family (deaf or hearing), and age of exposure have no effect on duration or signing rate. For NGT and STS, there is no effect of region on either duration or rate. However, in the BSL data, duration and signing rate vary with region. The overall findings align with previous work on spoken languages, particularly that frequency and aging are correlated with word length and production rate, thus demonstrating such patterns across modalities of language.

Two differences between signed and spoken languages that have been widely discussed in the literature are: the degree to which morphology is expressed simultaneously (rather than sequentially), and the degree to which iconicity is used, particularly in predicates of motion and location, often referred to as classifier predicates. In this paper we analyze a set of properties marking agency and number in four sign languages for their crosslinguistic similarities and differences regarding simultaneity and iconicity. Data from American Sign Language (ASL), Italian Sign Language (LIS), British Sign Language (BSL), and Hong Kong Sign Language (HKSL) are analyzed. We find that iconic, cognitive, phonological, and morphological factors contribute to the distribution of these properties. We conduct two analyses—one of verbs and one of verb phrases. The analysis of classifierverbsshows that, as expected, all four languages exhibit many common formal and iconic properties in the expression of agency and number. The analysis of classifierverb phrases(VPs)—particularly, multiple-verb predicates—reveals (a) that it is grammatical in all four languages to express agency and number within a single verb, but also (b) that there is crosslinguistic variation in expressing agency and number across the four languages. We argue that this variation is motivated by how each language prioritizes, or ranks, several constraints. The rankings can be captured in Optimality Theory. Some constraints in this account, such as a constraint to be redundant, are found in all information systems and might be considered non-linguistic; however, the variation in constraint ranking in verb phrases reveals the grammatical and arbitrary nature of linguistic systems.

It may seem like unwarranted editorial privilege to be allowed the opportunity to reply to a review of one's own book, although I am assured that the invitation does not arise from my role as editor. My fantasy would be to actually review the book, but that would clearly be beyond the bounds of decency. In any event, if I am honest, I have to admit that Bradshaw's review is probably more positive and generous, and certainly more helpful, than my own review would have been. Bradshaw rightly notes an evangelical tendency, and there is perhaps a resemblance between the scientific literature and the Bible, in that one can usually find in both what one wants to find. There is therefore probably little point in debating here the finer details of whether other species have theory of mind or intentional control over their vocalisations, or whether chimpanzee gestures in the wild are learned; these are important issues, but they will have to be resolved empirically. The bottom line, I think, is that it has prove...

Theories of pronominal strength (e.g., Cardinaletti & Starke 1999) lead one to expect that sign language, just like spoken language, can have morphologically distinct strong pronominals. We suggest that American Sign Language (ASL) and French Sign Language (LSF) might have such pronominals, characterized here by the fact that they may associate with only even in the absence of prosodically marked focus.

We now know that natural signed languages such as American Sign Language, French Sign Language, British Sign Language and others are fully independent languages. But natural signed languages are only one way of conveying language in the visual/gestural modality. Signed languages also have mechanisms for representing the material of oral languages. Fingerspelling is one example of such a representational system. This book examines fingerspelling from a phonetic perspective. Several studies of the kinematics of fingerspelling articulators are reported. From these detailed analyses of articulator timings and velocities, conclusions are drawn which suggest that, like speech, fingerspelling may be explained in terms of coordinative structures and task dynamics. The thrust of the book is to explore the notion that signed and spoken languages can be compared not only as abstract linguistic systems but also at the physical level as dynamically structured articulations. An implication of these studies is that a common basis in gesture can be found for the production, perception, and neural organization of signed and spoken languages.

Understanding ‘not’: neuropsychological dissociations between hand and head markers of negation in BSL