Publications

Displaying 601 - 604 of 604
  • Zora, H., Bowin, H., Heldner, M., Riad, T., & Hagoort, P. (2024). The role of pitch accent in discourse comprehension and the markedness of Accent 2 in Central Swedish. In Y. Chen, A. Chen, & A. Arvaniti (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2024 (pp. 921-925). doi:10.21437/SpeechProsody.2024-186.

    Abstract

    In Swedish, words are associated with either of two pitch contours known as Accent 1 and Accent 2. Using a psychometric test, we investigated how listeners judge pitch accent violations while interpreting discourse. Forty native speakers of Central Swedish were presented with auditory dialogues, where test words were appropriately or inappropriately accented in a given context, and asked to judge the correctness of sentences containing the test words. Data indicated a statistically significant effect of wrong accent pattern on the correctness judgment. Both Accent 1 and Accent 2 violations interfered with the coherent interpretation of discourse and were judged as incorrect by the listeners. Moreover, there was a statistically significant difference in the perceived correctness between the accent patterns. Accent 2 violations led to a lower correctness score compared to Accent 1 violations, indicating that the listeners were more sensitive to pitch accent violations in Accent 2 words than in Accent 1 words. This result is in line with the notion that Accent 2 is marked and lexically represented in Central Swedish. Taken together, these findings indicate that listeners use both Accent 1 and Accent 2 to arrive at the correct interpretation of the linguistic input, while assigning varying degrees of relevance to them depending on their markedness.
  • Zwitserlood, I., Ozyurek, A., & Perniss, P. M. (2008). Annotation of sign and gesture cross-linguistically. In O. Crasborn, E. Efthimiou, T. Hanke, E. D. Thoutenhoofd, & I. Zwitserlood (Eds.), Construction and Exploitation of Sign Language Corpora. 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages (pp. 185-190). Paris: ELDA.

    Abstract

    This paper discusses the construction of a cross-linguistic, bimodal corpus containing three modes of expression: expressions from two sign languages, speech and gestural expressions in two spoken languages and pantomimic expressions by users of two spoken languages who are requested to convey information without speaking. We discuss some problems and tentative solutions for the annotation of utterances expressing spatial information about referents in these three modes, suggesting a set of comparable codes for the description of both sign and gesture. Furthermore, we discuss the processing of entered annotations in ELAN, e.g. relating descriptive annotations to analytic annotations in all three modes and performing relational searches across annotations on different tiers.
  • Zwitserlood, I. (2008). Grammatica-vertaalmethode en nederlandse gebarentaal. Levende Talen Magazine, 95(5), 28-29.
  • Zwitserlood, I. (2008). Morphology below the level of the sign - frozen forms and classifier predicates. In J. Quer (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR) (pp. 251-272). Hamburg: Signum Verlag.

    Abstract

    The lexicons of many sign languages hold large proportions of “frozen” forms, viz. signs that are generally considered to have been formed productively (as classifier predicates), but that have diachronically undergone processes of lexicalisation. Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands; henceforth: NGT) also has many of these signs (Van der Kooij 2002, Zwitserlood 2003). In contrast to the general view on “frozen” forms, a few researchers claim that these signs may be formed according to productive sign formation rules, notably Brennan (1990) for BSL, and Meir (2001, 2002) for ISL. Following these claims, I suggest an analysis of “frozen” NGT signs as morphologically complex, using the framework of Distributed Morphology. The signs in question are derived in a similar way as classifier predicates; hence their similar form (but diverging characteristics). I will indicate how and why the structure and use of classifier predicates and “frozen” forms differ. Although my analysis focuses on NGT, it may also be applicable to other sign languages.

Share this page