* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Eye gaze and verb agreement in ASL
Polish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Macedonian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ojibwe grammar wikipedia , lookup
Chinese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old Irish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old Norse morphology wikipedia , lookup
Navajo grammar wikipedia , lookup
Proto-Indo-European verbs wikipedia , lookup
Portuguese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ukrainian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Japanese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Swedish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Modern Hebrew grammar wikipedia , lookup
Germanic strong verb wikipedia , lookup
Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup
Russian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Germanic weak verb wikipedia , lookup
Icelandic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Spanish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old English grammar wikipedia , lookup
Yiddish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Georgian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Lexical semantics wikipedia , lookup
American Sign Language grammar wikipedia , lookup
Sotho verbs wikipedia , lookup
Hungarian verbs wikipedia , lookup
Italian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Serbo-Croatian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Eye gaze and verb agreement in ASL Robin Thompson University of California, San Diego. The Salk Institute for Biological Studies Karen Emmorey The Salk Institute for Biological Studies A unique aspect of sign language structure that is shaped by the visual modality is the use of eye gaze to express linguistic contrasts. For example, Neidle, Kegl, MacLaughlin, Bahan, and Lee (NKMBL, 2000) propose that eye gaze in American Sign Language (ASL) functions independently as a feature-checking mechanism for verb agreement. On this view, eye gaze is seen as marking agreement features of a noun in much the same way that inflectional morphology does in traditional syntax. NKMBL claim that all verb types in ASL (agreeing, spatial, and plain) must mark agreement for subject and object. Verbs can be marked with either manual agreement (verb directed toward locations associated with the subject/object), nonmanual agreement (eye gaze toward the object/head-tilt toward the subject), or through the use of an overt pronoun/nominal. We conducted a language production experiment using head-mounted eye-tracking to a) investigate NKMBL’s proposed analysis, b) to clarify the grammatical functions of eye gaze in ASL, and c) to determine the extent to which eye gaze behavior in ASL corresponds to agreement patterns found cross-linguistically. Eye-tracking technology allows us to examine with high accuracy and precision exactly where signers are looking, and thus we can pinpoint where and how eye gaze is directed during verb production. Wearing an iView eye tracking system mounted on a bicycle helmet, 10 native signers told a story designed to elicit all three verb types to another native signer. Participants were also given a list of verbs (12 plain, 7 agreeing, and 7 spatial verbs) and were asked to make up sentences forming a story about two characters (Jack and Jill) using each verb in turn. The results were inconsistent with NKMBL’s claims. While eye gaze accompanying (morphologically) agreeing verbs was most frequently directed toward the location of the syntactic object, eye gaze accompanying plain verbs was seldom directed toward the location of the syntactic object. Further, eye gaze accompanying spatial verbs was toward the locative argument, rather than the object of transitive verbs/subject of intransitive verbs as predicted by NKMBL. Plain verbs were never produced with null object pronouns, the only environment where eye gaze would function independently from morphological agreement. To further investigate the nature of eye gaze in ASL, we asked the following questions: a) Do speakers alter their gaze when producing English verbs? b) Is directing eye gaze toward verb argument locations so “natural” it is observed even for novice ASL signers? c) Do fluent latelearners of ASL acquire the correct eye gaze behavior, even though such behavior has never been explicitly taught? Using the same methodology, we studied fluent hearing non-native signers (10 or more years of sign exposure beginning after age 15), novice hearing non-native signers (2 or less years of sign exposure), and hearing non-signers. English translations of the ASL verbs were used for the non-signers. The results showed that hearing speakers rarely varied eye gaze when producing English verbs, directing their gaze toward the addressee over 90% of the time. Novice signers did not direct their gaze appropriately when producing ASL verbs. For all verb types, novice signers varied their eye gaze across spatial locations and the addressee. The results from the speakers and novice signers indicate that the linguistic use of eye gaze does not arise ‘naturally’ and must be learned. The fluent late-learners of ASL followed the eye gaze patterns we observed for native signers with one exception: they overgeneralized eye gaze agreement to plain verbs. The pattern of eye gaze agreement we observed with both native and fluent signers can be summed up as follows: A. Gaze occurring with agreeing verbs marks the object -the direct object for transitive verbs -the indirect object for ditransitive verbs B. Eye gaze with spatial verbs marks the locative We propose to account for this pattern by appealing to the Accessibility Hierarchy put forth by Keenan and Comrie (1977). The hierarchy, originally proposed to account for patterns of relative clause formation across languages appears to capture a universal ‘natural’ ordering of arguments and has been used to account for other phenomena such as causativization and case marking (see Comrie 1976; Croft 1988). The Accessibility Hierarchy applies to verbal arguments, not adjuncts, and we argue that locatives are in fact arguments of spatial verbs in ASL. Evidence for this proposal is the fact that locatives are required by spatial verbs. ASL spatial verbs are produced at a location in signing space (e.g., the one-handed form of STAND); however, when no specific location in signing space is encoded, a neutral base hand must be added to the sign. We propose that when a base hand is added to a spatial verb. It serves as an argument filler for the locative. In addition, our eye-tracking results revealed that signers consistently directed their gaze lower in signing space to mark locative agreement than when marking object agreement. Thus, signers produced a clear distinction between locative and object agreement with respect to eye gaze. To capture the facts about eye gaze behavior for both spatial and agreeing verbs, we propose the following eye gaze agreement hierarchy: Subject < Direct Object < Indirect Object < Locative. Within this hierarchy, eye gaze marks the lowest argument. Thus, a unique agreement marker, namely eye gaze, still follows a predictable pattern in natural languages. Further, while fluent late-learners correctly apply this hierarchy to their eye gaze patterns, they overgeneralize and employ it when producing plain verbs as well. By following a universal language pattern (the Accessibility Hierarchy) and ignoring an idiosyncratic feature of ASL (marking agreement on only a subset of verbs), fluent signers create a divergent grammar that is more consistent with language universals (see Sorace 1993). In conclusion, our proposed hierarchy can account for both eye gaze and manual agreement and may have larger applications within the study of natural language processes. References Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of causative constructions: cross-linguistic similarities and differences. In M. Shibatani (ed), The syntax of causative constructions. Syntax and semantics,Vol. 6, Academic Press, New York. Croft, William. 1988. Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In M. Barlow and C. Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA, pp. 159-179. Keenan, Edward. & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar.Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-99. Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Benjamin Bahan, and Robert Lee. 2000. The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Sorace, Antonella. 1993. Incomplete vs divergent representations of unaccusativity in non-native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9, 22-47.