Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-558cb97cc8-rx7pk Total loading time: 0.338 Render date: 2022-10-06T17:25:40.106Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Perceptual categorization of handling handshapes in British Sign Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2015

ZED SEVCIKOVA SEHYR*
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Language and Cognitive Neuroscience, San Diego State University, USA
KEARSY CORMIER
Affiliation:
Deafness, Cognition and Language Research Centre, University College London, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Z. Sevcikova Sehyr, San Diego State University Research Foundation; Laboratory for Language and Cognitive Neuroscience, 6495 Alvarado Road, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92120. e-mail: zsevcikova@mail.sdsu.edu

Abstract

Sign languages like British Sign Language (BSL) include partially lexicalized constructions depicting object handling or manipulation – handling constructions. Object sizes gradiently vary, yet it is unclear whether handling handshapes depict handled objects categorically or gradiently. This study investigates the influence of sign language experience on perception of handling handshapes. Deaf signers and hearing non-signers completed perceptual handshape identification and discrimination tasks. We examined whether deaf BSL signers perceived handshape continua categorically or continuously compared with hearing non-signers, and whether reaction times were modulated by linguistic representations. The results revealed similar binary categorization of dynamically presented handling handshapes as deaf and hearing perceivers displayed higher discrimination accuracy on category boundaries, and lower, but above chance, within-category discrimination, suggesting that perceptual categorization was not uniquely mediated by linguistic experience. However, RTs revealed critical differences between groups in processing times; deaf signers’ RTs reflected stronger category bias and increased sensitivity to boundaries, suggesting underlying linguistic representations. Further, handshape variability within categories influenced deaf signers’ discrimination RTs in a manner that suggested graded category organization, with handshape prototype grounding the category. These findings provide an insight into the internal organization of handling handshapes and highlight the complex relationship between sign language, cognition, and gesture.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2015 

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

references

Abramson, A. S. (1961). Identification and discrimination of phonemic tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33(6), 842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aslin, R. N., & Pisoni, D. B. (1980). Some developmental processes in speech perception In Yeni-Komshian, G. H., Kavanagh, J. F., & Ferguson, C. A. (Eds.), Child phonology, Vol. 2 (pp. 6796): New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baker, S., Idsdardi, W. J., Golinkoff, R. M., & Petitto, L. (2005). The perception of handshapes in American Sign Language. Memory & Cognition, 33(5), 887904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W. (1993). Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In Collins, A. C., Gathercole, S. E., & Conway, M. A. (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp. 29101). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577660.Google ScholarPubMed
Bastian, J., Eimas, P. D., & Liberman, A. M. (1961). Identification and discrimination of phonemic vowel duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 34, 743.Google Scholar
Battison, R. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Beale, J. M., & Keil, F. C. (1995). Categorical effects in the perception of faces. Cognition, 57, 217239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Best, K. T., Mathur, G., Miranda, K. A., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2010). Effects of sign language experience on categorical perception of dynamic ASL pseudosigns. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(3), 747762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornstein, M. H., & Korda, N. O. (1984). Discrimination and matching within and between hues measured by reaction times: some implications for categorical perception and levels of information processing. Psychological Research, 46, 207222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, M. (1992). The visual world of BSL: an introduction. In Brien, D. (Ed.), Dictionary of British Sign Language / English (pp. 1133). London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (2005). Representing handshapes in sign languages using morphological templates. In Leuninger, H. & Happ, D. (Eds.), Gebärdensprachen: Struktur, Erwerb, Verwendung: Linguistische Berichte (Sonderheft 13) (pp. 145–178). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Mazzoni, L., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30, 130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brentari, D., & Eccarius, P. (2010). Handshape contrast in sign languages. In Brentari, D. (Ed.), Sign languages (pp. 284311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R., Woll, B., Benson, P. J., & Wallace, S. B. (1999). Categorical perception of face actions: their role in sign language and in communicative facial displays. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A(1), 6795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curious Labs (2006). Poser (Version 6.0) [Software]. Online: <www.curiouslabs.com> or <http://my.smithmicro.com/>.
Damper, R. I., & Harnad, S. R. (2002). Neural network models of categorical perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 52(4), 843867.Google Scholar
de Matteo, A. (1977). Visual imagery and visual analogues in American Sign Language. In Friedman, L. A. (Ed.), On the other hand – new perspectives on American Sign Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Diehl, R. L., Lotto, A. J., & Holt, L. L. (2004). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 149179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eccarius, P., & Brentari, D. (2010). A formal analysis of phonological contrast and iconicity in sign language handshapes. Sign Language & Linguistics, 13(2), 156181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eimas, P. D. (1963). The relation between identification and discrimination along speech and nonspeech continua. Language and Speech, 6, 206217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K., & Herzig, M. (2003). Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 221246). Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., McCullough, S., & Brentari, D. (2003). Categorical perception in American Sign Language. Language & Cognitive Processes, 18(1), 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrero, F. E., Pelamatti, G. M., & Vagges, K. (1982). The identification and discrimination of synthetic vowels. Language and Speech, 5, 171189.Google Scholar
Gerrits, E., & Schouten, M. E. H. (2004). Categorical perception depends on the discrimination task. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(3), 363376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 155.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., Mylander, C., & Butcher, C. (1995). The resilience of combinatorial structure at the word level: morphology in self-styled gesture systems. Cognition, 56, 195262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstone, R. L., & Hendrickson, A. T. (2009). Categorical perception: a review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(1), 6978.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (1987). Categorical perception: the groundwork of cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der (1995). Composition of handshapes. Trondheim Working Papers, 23, 117.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: an exemplar model. In Johnson, K. & Mullenix, J. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 145166). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Rosner, B. S., Cutting, J. E., Foard, C. F., & Smith, L. B. (1977). Categorical perception of nonspeech sounds by 2-month-old infants. Perception and Psychophysics, 21, 5054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluender, K. R., & Kiefte, M. (2006). Speech perception within a biologically-realistic information-theoretic framework. In Gernsbacher, M. A. & Traxler, M. (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 153199). London: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, H., Boyes-Braem, P., & Bellugi, U. (1976). Preliminaries to a distinctive feature analysis of handshapes in American Sign Language. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 263289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., Harris, K., Horffmann, H. S., & Griffith, B. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 358368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, A. M., Harris, K., Kinney, J. A., & Lane, H. (1961). The discrimination of relative onset-time of the components of certain speech and nonspeech patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 379388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liddell, S. K. (2003a). Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (2003b). Sources of meaning in ASL classifier predicates. In Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 199220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. A., Kaplan, H. L., & Creelman, C. D. (1977). The psychophysics of categorical perception. Psychological Review, 84, 452471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandel, M. (1977). Iconic devices in American Sign Language. In Friedman, L. A. (Ed.), On the other hand: new perspectives on American Sign Language (pp. 57107). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Massaro, D. W. (1987). Categorical partition: a fuzzy logical model of categorical behavior. In Harnad, S. (Ed.), Categorical perception: the groundwork of cognition (pp. 254283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCullough, S., & Emmorey, K. (2009). Categorical perception of affective and linguistic facial expressions. Cognition, 110, 208221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, B. H. (1982). Aspects of the American Sign Language predicate system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Morford, J. P., Grieve-Smith, A. B., MacFarlane, J., Staley, J., & Waters, G. (2008). Effects of language experience on the perception of American Sign Language. Cognition, 109, 4153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: what gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Özgen, E., & Davies, I. R. L. (1998). Categorical effects in colour perception: cross-language differences and category learning. Perception, 27 ECVP Abstract Supplement.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (Eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 137157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisoni, D. B. (1973). Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination of consonants and vowels. Perception & Psychophysics, 13(2), 253260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pisoni, D. B., & Tash, J. (1974). Reaction times to comparisons within and across phonetic categories. Perception & Psychophysics, 15(2), 285290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosch, E. H. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Moore, T. E. (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111144). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. H. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 104, 192232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. H., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances – studies in internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. H., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, S., & Howell, P. (1987). Explanations of categorical perception in speech. In Harnad, S. (Ed.), Categorical perception: the groundwork of cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schembri, A. (1996). The structure and formation of signs in Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Sydney: North Rocks Press.Google Scholar
Schembri, A. (2003). Rethinking ‘classifiers’ in signed languages. In Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives in classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 334). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schouten, B., Gerrits, E., & van Hessen, A. (2003). The end of categorical perception as we know it. Speech Communication, 41, 7180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schouten, B., & van Hessen, A. (1992). Modelling phoneme perception, I: categorical perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92, 18411855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sevcikova, Z. (2013). Categorical versus gradient properties of handling handshapes in British Sign Language (BSL): evidence from handling handshape perception and production by deaf signers and hearing speakers. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Slobin, D., Hoiting, N., Kuntze, M., Lindert, R., Weinberg, A., Pyers, J., … Thumann, H. (2003). A cognitive/functional perspective on the acquisition of ‘classifiers’. In Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 271296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign language structure: an outline of the communication systems of the American deaf. Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo.Google ScholarPubMed
Studdert-Kennedy, M., Lieberman, A. M., Harris, K. S., & Cooper, F. S. (1970). The motor theory of speech perception: a reply to Lane’s critical review. Psychological Review, 77(3), 234249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Studdert-Kennedy, M., Liberman, A. M., & Stevens, K. N. (1963). Reaction time to synthetic stop consonants and vowels at phoneme centers and at phoneme boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35, 1900 (Abstract). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supalla, T. (1986). The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Craig, C. (Ed.), Noun classification and categorization (pp. 181214). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supalla, T. (2003). Revisiting visual analogy in ASL classifier predicates. In Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 249257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Thierry, G., Athanasopoulos, P., Wiggett, A., Dering, B., & Kuipers, J. (2009). Unconscious effects of language-specific terminology on preattentive color perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(11), 45674570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Kooij, E. (2002). Phonological categories in sign language of the Netherlands: the role of phonetic implementation and iconicity: Utrecht: LOT.
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1983). Developmental changes across childhood in the perception of non-native speech sounds. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 278286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zwitserlood, I. (2003). Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
8
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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.

Perceptual categorization of handling handshapes in British Sign Language
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

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

Perceptual categorization of handling handshapes in British Sign Language
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

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

Perceptual categorization of handling handshapes in British Sign Language
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *