English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
  Recognition of signed and spoken language: Different sensory inputs, the same segmentation procedure

Orfanidou, E., Adam, R., Morgan, G., & McQueen, J. M. (2010). Recognition of signed and spoken language: Different sensory inputs, the same segmentation procedure. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(3), 272-283. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.001.

Item is

Files

show Files
hide Files
:
Orfanidou_JML_2010.pdf (Publisher version), 717KB
File Permalink:
-
Name:
Orfanidou_JML_2010.pdf
Description:
-
OA-Status:
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
-
Copyright Info:
-
License:
-

Locators

show

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Orfanidou, Eleni1, Author
Adam, Robert1, Author
Morgan, Gary1, Author
McQueen, James M.2, Author           
Affiliations:
1Department of Language Communication Science, City University, London, UK, ou_persistent22              
2Language Comprehension Group, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society, ou_55203              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: -
 Abstract: Signed languages are articulated through simultaneous upper-body movements and are seen; spoken languages are articulated through sequential vocal-tract movements and are heard. But word recognition in both language modalities entails segmentation of a continuous input into discrete lexical units. According to the Possible Word Constraint (PWC), listeners segment speech so as to avoid impossible words in the input. We argue here that the PWC is a modality-general principle. Deaf signers of British Sign Language (BSL) spotted real BSL signs embedded in nonsense-sign contexts more easily when the nonsense signs were possible BSL signs than when they were not. A control experiment showed that there were no articulatory differences between the different contexts. A second control experiment on segmentation in spoken Dutch strengthened the claim that the main BSL result likely reflects the operation of a lexical-viability constraint. It appears that signed and spoken languages, in spite of radical input differences, are segmented so as to leave no residues of the input that cannot be words.

Details

show
hide
Language(s): eng - English
 Dates: 2009-12-012009-12-302010
 Publication Status: Issued
 Pages: -
 Publishing info: -
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Type: Peer
 Identifiers: DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.001
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source 1

show
hide
Title: Journal of Memory and Language
Source Genre: Journal
 Creator(s):
Affiliations:
Publ. Info: -
Pages: - Volume / Issue: 62 (3) Sequence Number: - Start / End Page: 272 - 283 Identifier: Other: 954928495417
ISSN: 0749-596X