Prosody in a communication system developed without a language model

"Rear bias" in spatial auditory perception: Attentional and affective vigilance to sounds occurring outside the visual field

Presented studies explored the rear bias phenomenon, that is, the attentional and affective bias to sounds occurring behind the listener. Physiological and psychological reactions (i.e., fEMG, EDA/SCR, Simple Reaction Task-SRT, and self-assessments of affect-related states) were measured in response to tones of different frequencies (Study 1) and emotional vocalizations (Study 2) presented in rear and front spatial locations. Results showed that emotional vocalizations, when located in the back, facilitate reactions related to attention orientation (i.e., auricularis muscle response and simple reaction times) and evoke higher arousal-both physiological (as measured by SCR) and psychological (self-assessment scale). Importantly, observed asymmetries were larger for negative and threat-related signals (e.g., anger) than positive/nonthreatening ones (e.g., achievement). By contrast, there were only small differences for the relatively higher frequency tones. The observed relationships are discussed in terms of one of the postulated auditory system's functions, which is monitoring of the environment in order to quickly detect potential threats that occur outside of the visual field (e.g., behind one's back).

Prosody Improves Detection of Spoonerisms Versus Both Sensible and Nonsense Phrases

Prosody is the pattern of inflection, pitch, and intensity that communicates emotional meaning above and beyond the individual meanings of lexical items and gestures during spoken language. Research has often addressed prosody extending most clearly across multiple speech chunks and carrying properties specific to individual speakers and individual intents. However, prosody exerts effects on intended meaning even for relatively brief speech streams with minimal syntactic cues. The present work seeks to test whether prosody may actually clarify the intended meaning of a two-word phrase even when the basic phonemic sequence of the words is distorted. Thirty-eight undergraduate participants attempted to correctly categorize auditorily presented two-word phrases as belonging to one of three categories: nonsensical phrases; sensible phrases; and spoonerisms. Mixed Poisson modeling of cumulative accuracy found a significant positive interaction of prosody with phrase type indicating that conversational prosody made participants 8.27% more likely to accurately detect spoonerisms. Prosody makes spoken-language comprehension of two-word phrases more robust to distortions of phonemic sequence.

Language Emergence

Language emergence describes moments in historical time when nonlinguistic systems become linguistic. Because language can be invented de novo in the manual modality, this offers insight into the emergence of language in ways that the oral modality cannot. Here we focus on homesign, gestures developed by deaf individuals who cannot acquire spoken language and have not been exposed to sign language. We contrast homesign with (a) gestures that hearing individuals produce when they speak, as these cospeech gestures are a potential source of input to homesigners, and (b) established sign languages, as these codified systems display the linguistic structure that homesign has the potential to assume. We find that the manual modality takes on linguistic properties, even in the hands of a child not exposed to a language model. But it grows into full-blown language only with the support of a community that transmits the system to the next generation.

Gesture, sign, and language: The coming of age of sign language and gesture studies

How does sign language compare with gesture, on the one hand, and spoken language on the other? Sign was once viewed as nothing more than a system of pictorial gestures without linguistic structure. More recently, researchers have argued that sign is no different from spoken language, with all of the same linguistic structures. The pendulum is currently swinging back toward the view that sign is gestural, or at least has gestural components. The goal of this review is to elucidate the relationships among sign language, gesture, and spoken language. We do so by taking a close look not only at how sign has been studied over the past 50 years, but also at how the spontaneous gestures that accompany speech have been studied. We conclude that signers gesture just as speakers do. Both produce imagistic gestures along with more categorical signs or words. Because at present it is difficult to tell where sign stops and gesture begins, we suggest that sign should not be compared with speech alone but should be compared with speech-plus-gesture. Although it might be easier (and, in some cases, preferable) to blur the distinction between sign and gesture, we argue that distinguishing between sign (or speech) and gesture is essential to predict certain types of learning and allows us to understand the conditions under which gesture takes on properties of sign, and speech takes on properties of gesture. We end by calling for new technology that may help us better calibrate the borders between sign and gesture.

Studying the mechanisms of language learning by varying the learning environment and the learner

Language learning is a resilient process, and many linguistic properties can be developed under a wide range of learning environments and learners. The first goal of this review is to describe properties of language that can be developed without exposure to a language model - the resilient properties of language - and to explore conditions under which more fragile properties emerge. But even if a linguistic property is resilient, the developmental course that the property follows is likely to vary as a function of learning environment and learner, that is, there are likely to be individual differences in the learning trajectories children follow. The second goal is to consider how the resilient properties are brought to bear on language learning when a child is exposed to a language model. The review ends by considering the implications of both sets of findings for mechanisms, focusing on the role that the body and linguistic input play in language learning.

Watching language grow in the manual modality: nominals, predicates, and handshapes

All languages, both spoken and signed, make a formal distinction between two types of terms in a proposition--terms that identify what is to be talked about (nominals) and terms that say something about this topic (predicates). Here we explore conditions that could lead to this property by charting its development in a newly emerging language--Nicaraguan Sign Language (NSL). We examine how handshape is used in nominals vs. predicates in three Nicaraguan groups: (1) homesigners who are not part of the Deaf community and use their own gestures, called homesigns, to communicate; (2) NSL cohort 1 signers who fashioned the first stage of NSL; (3) NSL cohort 2 signers who learned NSL from cohort 1. We compare these three groups to a fourth: (4) native signers of American Sign Language (ASL), an established sign language. We focus on handshape in predicates that are part of a productive classifier system in ASL; handshape in these predicates varies systematically across agent vs. no-agent contexts, unlike handshape in the nominals we study, which does not vary across these contexts. We found that all four groups, including homesigners, used handshape differently in nominals vs. predicates--they displayed variability in handshape form across agent vs. no-agent contexts in predicates, but not in nominals. Variability thus differed in predicates and nominals: (1) In predicates, the variability across grammatical contexts (agent vs. no-agent) was systematic in all four groups, suggesting that handshape functioned as a productive morphological marker on predicate signs, even in homesign. This grammatical use of handshape can thus appear in the earliest stages of an emerging language. (2) In nominals, there was no variability across grammatical contexts (agent vs. no-agent), but there was variability within- and across-individuals in the handshape used in the nominal for a particular object. This variability was striking in homesigners (an individual homesigner did not necessarily use the same handshape in every nominal he produced for a particular object), but decreased in the first cohort of NSL and remained relatively constant in the second cohort. Stability in the lexical use of handshape in nominals thus does not seem to emerge unless there is pressure from a peer linguistic community. Taken together, our findings argue that a community of users is essential to arrive at a stable nominal lexicon, but not to establish a productive morphological marker in predicates. Examining the steps a manual communication system takes as it moves toward becoming a fully-fledged language offers a unique window onto factors that have made human language what it is.