Meurant, Laurence

Notarrigo, Ingrid

Repository of the University of Namur

RESEARCH OUTPUTS / RÉSULTATS DE RECHERCHEAuthor(s) - Auteur(s) :Publication date - Date de publication :Permanent link - Permalien :Rights / License - Licence de droit d’auteur :Bibliothèque Universitaire Moretus PlantinInstitutional Repository - Research PortalDépôt Institutionnel - Portail de la Rechercheresearchportal.unamur.beMarkers of (dis)fluency across signers' profiles in French Belgian Sign Language(LSFB). A comparative analysis between Native, Near-Native and Late SignersNotarrigo, Ingrid; Meurant, LaurencePublication date:2015Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordLink t  publicationCitation for pulished version (HARVARD):Notarrigo, I & Meurant, L 2015, 'Markers of (dis)fluency across signers' profiles in French Belgian Sign Language(LSFB). A comparative analysis between Native, Near-Native and Late Signers', 2nd International Conferenceon Sign Language Acquisition, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1/07/15 - 3/07/15.General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.            • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.            • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain            • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Download date: 23. Jun. 2020Markers of (dis)fluency across signers’ profiles in French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB)  A comparative analysis between Native, Near-Native and Late Signers REFERENCES Götz, S. (2013). Fluency in Native and Nonnative English Speech. Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 53. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Mayberry, R. I. (1991). The long-Lasting Advantage of Learning Sign Language in Childhood: Another Look at the Critical Period for Language Acquisition. In Journal of memory and language 30:4, pp. 486-512.  Meurant, L. (2008). The speakers'eye gaze. Creating deictic, anaphoric and pseudo-deictic spaces of reference. In R. M. de Quadros (ed.) Sign Languages: spinning and unraveling the past, present and future. TILSR 9, Florianopolis, Brazil, pp. 403-414. Meurant, L. et Notarrigo, I. (2014). Nonmanuals and markers of (dis)fluency in French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB). Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Beyond the Manual Channel. Reykjavik, pp. 135-142. Parisot A.-M. and Villeneuve S. (2007). Profil phonologique de l’interprète français/langue des signes québécoise : l’interprète débutant et l’interprète expert. In Silexicales 5, Syntaxe, interprétation, lexique dans langues signées, pp. 137-155. 2. Background 1. Research question 4. Methodology ACKNOWLEGMENT  Research funded by F.R.S. – FNRS Research Fellow Grant FRESH FC 60970 In collaboration with the University of Louvain-la-Neuve (A.R.C. n12/17-044)   Thank you very much to:  Calogero Notarrigo for logistics management  Simon Delauvaux for layout  LSFB-Lab for data and glosses 5. Results 7. Discussion 8. Further issues  3 groups : Native, Near-Native and Late Signers   Several linguistic criteria involved in (Dis)Fluency 3.1) Data selection on extra-linguistic criteria 3.2) Annotation of linguistic criteria in ELAN  Impact of a delayed L1 Acquisition at the level of Proficiency and Comprehension (Mayberry 1991)  Lack of studies at the level of Fluency and Production 4 min/signer of unprepared semi-interactive discourse Deaf signers of LSFB 4 Native   4 Near-Native 4 Late Parents status Deaf Hearing Hearing Age of LSFB acquisition From birth Before 6 After 9 Education  With Deafs  With Deafs With Hearings  Holds of hands   Repeated signs  Phonological economy (Parisot & Villeneuve 2007) Stops of the hands between signs Palm-ups Word search gestures Markers of (dis)fluency (fluencemes):   Palm-ups  Stops of the hands between signs  Word search gestures  Truncations   Gaze directions  Co-occurring non-manuals 6. Summary  No distinction in the frequency of linguistic criteria involved in (Dis)Fluency between signers with different language background That is for palm-ups, stops between signs, word search gestures, and floating gazes   Except for rate of articulation: Native Signers (LSFB from birth) faster versus Near-Native/Late Signers (delayed LSFB) slower And therefore, for the number of hands involved in signing and the number of addressed/spatialized gazes (positive correlation p<0,05)  3.3) Data analysis in Excel and SPSS  Speed and use of both hands  Frequency and Ratio of fluencemes  Mean comparison and correlation  Combinations of fluencemes  Functions of fluencemes  Additional signers Different behaviour according to language background? Componential approach of (Dis)Fluency (Götz, 2013)   Combination of measurable markers (fluencemes)   Not only interruptions of the flow of speech, hesitations  But also strategies to manage the discourse 3. Theoretical framework Two hands One hand Neutral On the body Crossed Waving Back Clapping Rubbing Flying index     Signs articulated with one hand Preferred Non-preferred Signs articulated with two hands Asymmetrical Symmetrical Simultaneous Gaze directions (Meurant 2008)  Towards  the interlocutor Towards  meaningful positions  in space Addressed Spatialized_1 Spatialized_2 Towards  the frontal space with actualization of a role-play Towards  the floor,  the side or  in the air  Floating  Relative impact of L1 delayed acquisition on Production and Fluency  Acquisition of some markers of (dis)fluency locked in time  Acquisition of some other markers of (dis)fluency achieved at any time Why ?  No influence of above fluencemes No influence of break time           Maybe different articulation strategies  Track: activation of one or two hands Co-occurring Non-manuals (Notarrigo & Meurant 2014): Native Signers prefer modality and phatic functions  Near-Native and Late Signers prefer using emphasis Slight tendency: Native Signers do more truncations (4/min vs 3/min) than Near-Native and Late Signers Ingrid Notarrigo and Laurence Meurant  ingrid.notarrigo@unamur.be & laurence.meurant@unamur.be  2nd International Conference on Sign Language Acquisition (ICSLA)  1-3 July 2015, Amsterdam 

English

Markers of (dis)fluency across signers' profiles in French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB). A comparative analysis between Native, Near-Native and Late Signers

RESEARCH OUTPUTS / RÉSULTATS DE RECHERCHEAuthor(s) - Auteur(s) :Publication date - Date de publication :Permanent link - Permalien :Rights / License - Licence de droit d’auteur :Bibliothèque Universitaire Moretus PlantinInstitutional Repository - Research PortalDépôt Institutionnel - Portail de la Rechercheresearchportal.unamur.beMarkers of (dis)fluency across signers' profiles in French Belgian Sign Language(LSFB). A comparative analysis between Native, Near-Native and Late SignersNotarrigo, Ingrid; Meurant, LaurencePublication date:2015Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordLink to publicationCitation for pulished version (HARVARD):Notarrigo, I & Meurant, L 2015, 'Markers of (dis)fluency across signers' profiles in French Belgian Sign Language(LSFB). A comparative analysis between Native, Near-Native and Late Signers', Amsterdam, Netherlands,1/07/15 - 3/07/15, .General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.            • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.            • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain            • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Download date: 21. May. 2019Markers of (dis)fluency across signers’ profiles in French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB)  A comparative analysis between Native, Near-Native and Late Signers REFERENCES Götz, S. (2013). Fluency in Native and Nonnative English Speech. Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 53. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Mayberry, R. I. (1991). The long-Lasting Advantage of Learning Sign Language in Childhood: Another Look at the Critical Period for Language Acquisition. In Journal of memory and language 30:4, pp. 486-512.  Meurant, L. (2008). The speakers'eye gaze. Creating deictic, anaphoric and pseudo-deictic spaces of reference. In R. M. de Quadros (ed.) Sign Languages: spinning and unraveling the past, present and future. TILSR 9, Florianopolis, Brazil, pp. 403-414. Meurant, L. et Notarrigo, I. (2014). Nonmanuals and markers of (dis)fluency in French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB). Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Beyond the Manual Channel. Reykjavik, pp. 135-142. Parisot A.-M. and Villeneuve S. (2007). Profil phonologique de l’interprète français/langue des signes québécoise : l’interprète débutant et l’interprète expert. In Silexicales 5, Syntaxe, interprétation, lexique dans langues signées, pp. 137-155. 2. Background 1. Research question 4. Methodology ACKNOWLEGMENT  Research funded by F.R.S. – FNRS Research Fellow Grant FRESH FC 60970 In collaboration with the University of Louvain-la-Neuve (A.R.C. n12/17-044)   Thank you very much to:  Calogero Notarrigo for logistics management  Simon Delauvaux for layout  LSFB-Lab for data and glosses 5. Results 7. Discussion 8. Further issues  3 groups : Native, Near-Native and Late Signers   Several linguistic criteria involved in (Dis)Fluency 3.1) Data selection on extra-linguistic criteria 3.2) Annotation of linguistic criteria in ELAN  Impact of a delayed L1 Acquisition at the level of Proficiency and Comprehension (Mayberry 1991)  Lack of studies at the level of Fluency and Production 4 min/signer of unprepared semi-interactive discourse Deaf signers of LSFB 4 Native   4 Near-Native 4 Late Parents status Deaf Hearing Hearing Age of LSFB acquisition From birth Before 6 After 9 Education  With Deafs  With Deafs With Hearings  Holds of hands   Repeated signs  Phonological economy (Parisot & Villeneuve 2007) Stops of the hands between signs Palm-ups Word search gestures Markers of (dis)fluency (fluencemes):   Palm-ups  Stops of the hands between signs  Word search gestures  Truncations   Gaze directions  Co-occurring non-manuals 6. Summary  No distinction in the frequency of linguistic criteria involved in (Dis)Fluency between signers with different language background That is for palm-ups, stops between signs, word search gestures, and floating gazes   Except for rate of articulation: Native Signers (LSFB from birth) faster versus Near-Native/Late Signers (delayed LSFB) slower And therefore, for the number of hands involved in signing and the number of addressed/spatialized gazes (positive correlation p<0,05)  3.3) Data analysis in Excel and SPSS  Speed and use of both hands  Frequency and Ratio of fluencemes  Mean comparison and correlation  Combinations of fluencemes  Functions of fluencemes  Additional signers Different behaviour according to language background? Componential approach of (Dis)Fluency (Götz, 2013)   Combination of measurable markers (fluencemes)   Not only interruptions of the flow of speech, hesitations  But also strategies to manage the discourse 3. Theoretical framework Two hands One hand Neutral On the body Crossed Waving Back Clapping Rubbing Flying index     Signs articulated with one hand Preferred Non-preferred Signs articulated with two hands Asymmetrical Symmetrical Simultaneous Gaze directions (Meurant 2008)  Towards  the interlocutor Towards  meaningful positions  in space Addressed Spatialized_1 Spatialized_2 Towards  the frontal space with actualization of a role-play Towards  the floor,  the side or  in the air  Floating  Relative impact of L1 delayed acquisition on Production and Fluency  Acquisition of some markers of (dis)fluency locked in time  Acquisition of some other markers of (dis)fluency achieved at any time Why ?  No influence of above fluencemes No influence of break time           Maybe different articulation strategies  Track: activation of one or two hands Co-occurring Non-manuals (Notarrigo & Meurant 2014): Native Signers prefer modality and phatic functions  Near-Native and Late Signers prefer using emphasis Slight tendency: Native Signers do more truncations (4/min vs 3/min) than Near-Native and Late Signers Ingrid Notarrigo and Laurence Meurant  ingrid.notarrigo@unamur.be & laurence.meurant@unamur.be  2nd International Conference on Sign Language Acquisition (ICSLA)  1-3 July 2015, Amsterdam 

https://pure.unamur.be/ws/files/12598679/I.Notarrigo_L.Meurant_Markers_of_dis_fluency_ICSLA2015.pdf

Markers of (dis)fluency across signers' profiles in French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB). A comparative analysis between Native, Near-Native and Late Signers

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repository of the University of Namur

Repository of the University of Namur