Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:11:28.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - Acceptability Judgments in Sign Linguistics

from Part III - Experimental Studies of Specific Populations and Language Families

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

By
Vadim Kimmelman
Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

Much of the current research on grammar of sign languages involves using acceptability judgments by native signers. In contrast to spoken languages, very little research has been done to investigate the validity and reliability of this method. In this chapter, I discuss the current practice of using acceptability judgments in sign linguistics. I further discuss some cases of empirical disagreement among researchers working on the same phenomena demonstrating the need for more thorough methodological research. I also argue that the fact that sign languages exist in the visual modality, and some unusual sociolinguistic features of sign languages, can also influence the use of acceptability judgments, which should be investigated further. I conclude with some practical recommendations for collecting acceptability judgments from native signers, and include an example of a hypothetical study designed according to these recommendations.

Keywords

sign languageacceptability judgmentsmodality effectsiconicitysimultaneitybimodal bilingualism
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 561 - 584
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abner, N. (2013). Gettin’ together a posse: The primacy of predication in ASL possessives. Sign Language & Linguistics, 16(2), 125–156.Google Scholar
Adam, R. (2012). Language contact and borrowing. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 841–862.Google Scholar
Arendsen, J., Doorn, A. J. van, & Ridder, H. de. (2010). Acceptability of sign manipulations. Sign Language & Linguistics, 13(2), 101–155.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Sandler, W. (2005). The paradox of sign language morphology. Language, 81(2), 301–344.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavelier, D., Tomann, A., Hutton, C., … & Neville, H. (2000). Visual attention to the periphery is enhanced in congenitally deaf individuals. Journal of Neuroscience, 20(17), RC93–RC93.Google Scholar
Börstell, C. (2017). Object marking in the signed modality: Verbal and nominal strategies in Swedish Sign Language and other sign languages. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, D. & Dubuisson, C. (1995). Grammar, order & position of wh-signs in Quebec Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 1087(1), 99–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudreault, P. & Mayberry, R. I. (2006). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(5), 608–635.Google Scholar
Boutla, M., Supalla, T., Newport, E. L., & Bavelier, D. (2004). Short-term memory span: Insights from sign language. Nature Neuroscience, 7(9), 997–1002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branchini, C., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., Donati, C., & Geraci, C. (2013). Wh-duplication In Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sign Language & Linguistics, 16(2), 157–188.Google Scholar
Burkova, S. (2015). Russian Sign Language Corpus. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from http://rsl.nstu.ru/Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. & Davidson, K. (2011). Ask, and tell as well: Question–answer clauses in American Sign Language. Natural Language Semantics, 19(4), 323–371.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C. (2012). Sentence types. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 292–315.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C., & Zucchi, S. (2009). Another way to mark syntactic dependencies: The case for right-peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language, 85(2), 278–320.Google Scholar
Cormier, K., Schembri, A., Vinson, D., & Orfanidou, E. (2012). First language acquisition differs from second language acquisition in prelingually deaf signers: Evidence from sensitivity to grammaticality judgement in British Sign Language. Cognition, 124(1), 50–65.Google Scholar
Couvee, S. & Pfau, R. (2018). Structure and grammaticalization of serial verb constructions in Sign Language of the Netherlands: A corpus-based study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00993CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crasborn, O., Zwitserlood, I., & Ros, J. (2008). Corpus NGT: An Open Access Digital Corpus of Movies with Annotations of Sign Language of the Netherlands. Retrieved from www.ru.nl/corpusngtuk/introduction/welcome/Google Scholar
Davidson, K. (2013). “And” or “or”: General use coordination in ASL. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6. DOI: 10.3765/sp.6.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, K. (2014). Scalar implicatures in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 17(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, K. (2015). Quotation, demonstration, and iconicity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38(6), 477–520.Google Scholar
de Beuzeville, L., Johnston, T., & Schembri, A. C. (2009). The use of space with indicating verbs in Auslan: A corpus-based investigation. Sign Language & Linguistics, 12(1), 53–82.Google Scholar
Divjak, D. (2017). The role of lexical frequency in the acceptability of syntactic variants: Evidence from that-clauses in Polish. Cognitive Science, 41(2), 354–382.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. & Herzig, M. (2003). Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In Emmorey, K., ed., Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Signed Languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 222–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, S. (2007). Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(3). DOI: 10.1515/TL.2007.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenlon, J., Schembri, A., & Cormier, K. (2018). Modification of indicating verbs in British Sign Language: A corpus-based study. Language, 94(1), 84–118.Google Scholar
Geraci, C., Battaglia, K., Cardinaletti, A., … & Mereghetti, E. (2011). The LIS Corpus project: A discussion of sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon. Sign Language Studies, 11(4), 528–574.Google Scholar
Geraci, C., Gozzi, M., Papagno, C., & Cecchetto, C. (2008). How grammar can cope with limited short-term memory: Simultaneity and seriality in sign languages. Cognition, 106(2), 780–804.Google Scholar
Gökgöz, K. (2013). The nature of object marking in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette.Google Scholar
Henner, J., Caldwell-Harris, C. L., Novogrodsky, R., & Hoffmeister, R. (2016). American Sign Language syntax and analogical reasoning skills are influenced by early acquisition and age of entry to signing schools for the deaf. Frontiers in Psychology, 07. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoza, J., Neidle, C., MacLaughlin, D., Kegl, J., & Bahan, B. (1997). A unified syntactic account of rhetorical questions in American Sign Language. In Neidle, C., MacLaughlin, D., & Lee, R. G., eds., Syntactic Structure and Discourse Function: An Examination of Two Constructions in American Sign Language. Boston, MA: ASLLRP Publications, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S. & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60–99.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, V. (2012). Word order in Russian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 12(3), 414–445.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, V. (2018). Impersonal reference in Russian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 21(2), 204–231.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, V., Klomp, U., & Oomen, M. (2018). Where methods meet: Combining corpus data and elicitation in sign language research. In Proceedings of 8th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Involving the Linguistic Community. Paris: ELRA, pp. 95–100.Google Scholar
Krebs, J., Wilbur, R. B., & Roehm, D. (2017). Two agreement markers in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Sign Language & Linguistics, 20(1), 27–54.Google Scholar
Kuhn, J. & Aristodemo, V. (2017). Pluractionality, iconicity, and scope in French Sign Language. Semantics and Pragmatics, 10(6). DOI: 10.3765/sp.10.6Google Scholar
Langsford, S., Perfors, A., Hendrickson, A. T., Kennedy, L. A., & Navarro, D. J. (2018). Quantifying sentence acceptability measures: Reliability, bias, and variability. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 37. DOI:10.5334/gjgl.396Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D., & Meier, R. P. (2011). On the linguistic status of “agreement” in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics, 37(3–4). DOI: 10.1515/thli.2011.009Google Scholar
Loos, C. (2017). The syntax and semantics of resultative constructions in Deutsche Gebärdensprache (DGS) and American Sign Language (ASL). Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Meier, R. P. (2012). Language and modality. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 77–112.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. E. & Karchmer, M. A. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4(2), 138–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, J. (2009). The design and analysis of small-scale syntactic judgment experiments. Lingua, 119(3), 425–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, D. J. & Sutton-Spence, R. (2014). Order of the major constituents in sign languages: Implications for all language. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00376CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neidle, C., Kegl, J., Bahan, B., Aarons, D., & MacLaughlin, D. (1997). Rightward wh-movement in American Sign Language. In Beerman, D., LeBlanc, D., & Van Riemsdijk, H., eds., Rightward Movement. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 247–278.Google Scholar
Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, B., & Lee, R. G. (2000). The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Neidle, C., MacLaughlin, D., Lee, R. G., Bahan, B., & Kegl, J. (1998). The rightward analysis of wh-movement in ASL: A reply to Petronio and Lillo-Martin. Language, 74(4), 819–831.Google Scholar
Neville, H. & Lawson, D. S. (1987). Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task: An event-related potential and behavioral study (Parts I, II, III). Brain Research, 405, 253–294.Google Scholar
Novogrodsky, R., Henner, J., Caldwell-Harris, C., & Hoffmeister, R. (2017). The development of sensitivity to grammatical violations in American Sign Language: Native versus nonnative signers: Sensitivity to grammatical violations in ASL. Language Learning, 67(4), 791–818.Google Scholar
Oomen, M. & Pfau, R. (2017). Signing not (or not): A typological perspective on standard negation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Linguistic Typology, 21(1), 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orfanidou, E., Woll, B., & Morgan, G., eds. (2015). Research Methods in Sign Language Studies: A Practical Guide. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227Google Scholar
Petronio, K. & Lillo-Martin, D. (1997). WH-movement and the position of Spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language, 73(1), 18–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R. & Quer, J. (2010). Nonmanuals: their prosodic and grammatical roles. In Brentari, D., ed., Sign Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds. (2012). Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M. de, Lillo-Martin, D., & Chen Pichler, D. (2016). Bimodal bilingualism: Sign language and spoken language. In Marschark, M. & Spencer, P. E., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 181–196.Google Scholar
Rietveld-van Wingerden, M. (2003). Educating the deaf in The Netherlands: A methodological controversy in historical perspective. History of Education, 32(4), 401–416.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, D. C. (2006). Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sandler, W., Meir, I., Padden, C., & Aronoff, M. (2005). The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(7), 2661–2665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schembri, A. & Johnston, T. (2012). Sociolinguistic aspects of variation and change. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 788–816.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2014). Iconic features. Natural Language Semantics, 22(4), 299–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2017). Super monsters I: Attitude and Action Role Shift in sign language. Semantics and Pragmatics, 10(9). DOI: 10.3765/sp.10.9Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. & Sprouse, J. (2014). Judgment data. In Sharma, D. & Podesva, R., eds., Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–50.Google Scholar
Sehyr, Z. S. & Cormier, K. (2015). Perceptual categorization of handling handshapes in British Sign Language. Language and Cognition, 8(4), 501–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senghas, A., Kita, S., & Özyürek, A. (2004). Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science, 305(5691), 1779–1782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248.Google Scholar
Stamp, R., Schembri, A., Fenlon, J., & Rentelis, R. (2015). Sociolinguistic variation and change in British Sign Language number signs: Evidence of leveling? Sign Language Studies, 15(2), 151–181.Google Scholar
Styles, E. A. (2008). The Psychology of Attention. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Taub, S. F. (2012). Iconicity and metaphor. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 388–412.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., Woll, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British Sign Language. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1443–1448.Google Scholar
Van Gijn, I. (2004). The quest for sytactic dependency: Sentential complementation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Van Herreweghe, M. & Vermeerbergen, M. (2012). Handling sign language data. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1023–1045.Google Scholar
Wheatley, M. & Pabsch, A. (2012). Sign Language Legislation in the European Union, 2nd ed. Brussels: European Union of the Deaf.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. (1996). Evidence for function and structure of wh-clefts in American Sign Language. In Edmondson, W. H. & Wilbur, R., eds., International Review of Sign Linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 209–256.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. (2008). Complex predicates involving events, time, and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In Quer, J., ed., Signs of the Time: Selected Papers from TISLR 2004. Hamburg: Signum, pp. 217–250.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. & Schick, B. S. (1987). The effects of linguistic stress on ASL signs. Language and Speech, 30(4), 301–323.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. & Emmorey, K. (1997). A visuospatial “phonological loop” in working memory: Evidence from American Sign Language. Memory & Cognition, 25(3), 313–320.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (1994). Describing Variation in American Sign Language: Implicational Lects on the Deaf Diglossic Continuum. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, I. (2012). Classifiers. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B., eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 158–186.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×