1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Sign Language & Linguistics
  4. Volume 26, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 26, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Anaphoric pronoun resolution in spoken language has been shown to be influenced by the first mention bias. While this bias has been well investigated in spoken languages, less is known about a similar bias in sign languages. In sign languages, pronominal pointing signs () are directed towards referential locations in the signing space typically associated with discourse referents. In German Sign Language (DGS), signers follow an ipsi-contralateral default pattern while tracking referents, i.e., the first referent is associated with the ipsilateral and the second referent with the contralateral area of the signing space. Hence, directing a pronoun to either the ipsi- or the contralateral side of the signing space refers to either the first or the second discourse referent. The present event-related potential study reanalyzes the data from Wienholz et al. (2018) and examines the first mention effect during pronoun resolution in ambiguous contexts in DGS. The original study presented participants with sentence sets containing two referents without overt localization in the first and a sentence-initial pronominal sign in the second sentence directed to either the ipsilateral or contralateral side of the signing space. Based on the direction of the sign, our analysis reveals an N400 for contralateral signs suggesting increased processing costs triggered by a violation of the first mention effect. Thus, the current study provides first experimental evidence for a first mention effect in DGS and highlights the modality-independent nature of this effect.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.22006.wie
2023-04-18
2024-12-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sll.22006.wie
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ariel, Mira
    2001 Accessibility theory: An overview. InTed J. M. Sanders, Joost Schilperood, & Wilbert Spooren (eds.), Text representation. Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.8.04ari
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.04ari [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnold, Jennifer E., Janet Eisenband, Sarah Brown-Schmidt & John C. Trueswell
    2000 The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition76(1). B13–B26. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00073‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00073-1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barberà Altimira, Gemma
    2012 The meaning of space in sign language. Reference, specificity and structure in Catalan Sign Language discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bornkessel, Ina D., Christian Fiebach & Angela D. Friederici
    2004 On the cost of syntactic ambiguity in human language comprehension: An individual differences approach. Cognitive Brain Research21(1). 11–21. 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.05.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky
    2009 Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bouchard, Denis & Colette Dubuisson
    1995 Grammar, order & position of wh-signs in Quebec Sign Language. Sign Language Studies87(1). 99–139. 10.1353/sls.1995.0007
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1995.0007 [Google Scholar]
  7. Burgess, Curt & Christine Chiarello
    1996 Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying metaphor comprehension and other figurative language. Metaphor and Symbol11(1). 67–84. 10.1207/s15327868ms1101_4
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1101_4 [Google Scholar]
  8. Capek, Cheryl M., Giordana Grossi, Aaron J. Newman, Susan L. McBurney, David Corina, Brigitte Röder & Helen J. Neville
    2009 Brain systems mediating semantic and syntactic processing in deaf native signers: Biological invariance and modality specificity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106(21). 8784–8789. 10.1073/pnas.0809609106
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809609106 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carreiras, Manuel, Morton Ann Gernsbacher & Victor Villa
    1995 The advantage of first mention in Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review2(1). 124–129. 10.3758/BF03214418
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214418 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cormier, Kearsy
    2012 Pronouns. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 227–244. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.227
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.227 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cormier, Kearsy, Adam Schembri & Bencie Woll
    2013 Pronouns and pointing in sign languages. Lingua1371. 230–247. 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.09.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  12. Crawley, Rosalind A. & Rosemary J. Stevenson
    1990 Reference in single sentences and in texts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research19(3). 191–210. 10.1007/BF01077416
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01077416 [Google Scholar]
  13. Crawley, Rosalind A., Rosemary J. Stevenson & David Kleinman
    1990 The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research19(4). 245–264. 10.1007/BF01077259
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01077259 [Google Scholar]
  14. Emmorey, Karen
    2002 Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Emmorey, Karen & Diane Lillo-Martin
    1995 Processing spatial anaphora: Referent reactivation with overt and null pronouns in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes10(6). 631–653. 10.1080/01690969508407116
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407116 [Google Scholar]
  16. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
    1993 Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Federmeier, Kara D. & Marta Kutas
    1999 Right words and left words: Electrophysiological evidence for hemispheric differences in meaning processing. Cognitive Brain Research8(3). 373–392. 10.1016/S0926‑6410(99)00036‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(99)00036-1 [Google Scholar]
  18. Frederiksen, Anne Therese & Rachel I. Mayberry
    2022 Pronoun production and comprehension in American Sign Language: The interaction of space, grammar, and semantics. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience37(1). 80–102. 10.1080/23273798.2021.1968013
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1968013 [Google Scholar]
  19. Geraci, Carlo
    2014 Spatial syntax in your hands. InJyoti Iyer & Leland Kusmer (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 123–134. Amherst, MA: GLSA. https://sites.google.com/site/carlogeraci76/home
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gernsbacher, Morton Ann
    1990 Language comprehension as structure building. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.21236/ADA221854
     https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA221854 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gernsbacher, Morton Ann & David J. Hargreaves
    1988 Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language27(6). 699–717. 10.1016/0749‑596X(88)90016‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90016-2 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, David J. Hargreaves & Mark Beeman
    1989 Building and accessing clausal representations: The advantage of first mention versus the advantage of clause recency. Journal of Memory and Language28(6). 735–755. 10.1016/0749‑596X(89)90006‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90006-5 [Google Scholar]
  23. Greenhouse, Samuel W. & Seymour Geisser
    1959 On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika24(2). 95–112. 10.1007/BF02289823
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289823 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hänel-Faulhaber, Barbara, Nils Skotara, Monique Kügow, Uta Salden, Davide Bottari & Brigitte Röder
    2014 ERP correlates of German Sign Language processing in deaf native signers. BMC Neuroscience15(1). 62. 10.1186/1471‑2202‑15‑62
     https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-15-62 [Google Scholar]
  25. Happ, Daniela & Marc-Oliver Vorköper
    2006 Deutsche Gebärdensprache: Ein Lehr-und Arbeitsbuch. Frankfurt am Main: Fachhochschulverlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Haupt, Friederike S., Matthias Schlesewsky, Dietmar Roehm, Angela D. Friederici & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
    2008 The status of subject–object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture. Journal of Memory and Language59(1). 54–96. 10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hickok, Gregory, Margaret Wilson, Kevin Clark, Edward S. Klima, Mark Kritchevsky & Ursula Bellugi
    1999 Discourse deficits following right hemisphere damage in deaf signers. Brain and Language66(2). 233–248. 10.1006/brln.1998.1995
     https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1998.1995 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hosemann, Jana, Annika Herrmann, Markus Steinbach, Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky & Matthias Schlesewsky
    2013 Lexical prediction via forward models: N400 evidence from German Sign Language. Neuropsychologia51(11). 2224–2237. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.07.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.07.013 [Google Scholar]
  29. Järvikivi, Juhani, Roger P. van Gompel, Jukka Hyönä & Raymond Bertram
    2005 Ambiguous pronoun resolution: Contrasting the first-mention and subject-preference accounts. Psychological Science16(4). 260–264. 10.1111/j.0956‑7976.2005.01525.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01525.x [Google Scholar]
  30. Kim, Sung-il, Jae-ho Lee & Morton Ann Gernsbacher
    2004 The advantage of first mention in Korean. The temporal contributions of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research33(6). 475–491. 10.1007/s10936‑004‑2667‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-004-2667-5 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kimura, Motohiro, Erich Schröger & István Czigler
    2011 Visual mismatch negativity and its importance in visual cognitive sciences. Neuroreport22(14). 669–673. 10.1097/WNR.0b013e32834973ba
     https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e32834973ba [Google Scholar]
  32. Krebs, Julia, Evie Malaia, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Dietmar Roehm
    2018 Subject preference emerges as cross-modal strategy for linguistic processing. Brain Research16911. 105–117. 10.1016/j.brainres.2018.03.029
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2018.03.029 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2019 Interaction between topic marking and subject preference strategy in sign language processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience35(4). 1–19. 10.1080/23273798.2019.1667001
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1667001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kutas, Marta, & Kara D. Federmeier
    2000 Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences4(12), 463–470. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01560‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01560-6 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kutas, Marta & Kara D. Federmeier
    2011 Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology621. 621–647. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kutas, Marta, Helen J. Neville & Phillip J. Holcomb
    1987 A preliminary comparison of the N400 response to semantic anomalies during reading, listening and signing. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology Supplement391. 325–330.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Lau, Ellen F., Colin Phillips & David Poeppel
    2008 A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience9(12). 920–933. 10.1038/nrn2532
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2532 [Google Scholar]
  38. Leeson, Lorrain & John Saeed
    2012 Word order. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 245–265. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.245
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.245 [Google Scholar]
  39. Leuckefeld, Kerstin
    2005 The development of argument processing mechanisms in German: An electrophysiological investigation with school-aged children and adultsUnpublished PhD dissertation, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences Leipzig.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1976 Subject and topic: A new typology of language. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 459–489. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Liddell, Scott K.
    1990 Four functions of a locus: Re-examining the structure of space in ASL. InCeil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 176–198. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Lillo-Martin, Diane
    1986 Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory4(4). 415–444. 10.1007/BF00134469
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134469 [Google Scholar]
  43. Lillo-Martin, Diane & Edward S. Klima
    1990 Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. InSusan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, Volume 1: Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Loew, Ruth C., Judy A. Kegl & Howard Poizner
    1997 Fractionation of the components of role play in a right-hemispheric lesioned signer. Aphasiology11(3). 263–281. 10.1080/02687039708248469
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02687039708248469 [Google Scholar]
  45. Luck, Steven J.
    2005 An introduction to the event-related brain potential technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Meir, Irit
    2002 A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory20(2). 413–450. 10.1023/A:1015041113514
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015041113514 [Google Scholar]
  47. Meir, Irit & Wendy Sandler
    2008 A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Nuhbalaoglu, Derya
    2018 Comprehension and production of referential expressions in German Sign Language and Turkish sign Language: An empirical approach. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Göttingen. ediss.uni-goettingen.de/handle/21.11130/00-1735-0000-0003-C152-6
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Perniss, Pamela
    2012 Use of sign space. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 412–431. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.412
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.412 [Google Scholar]
  50. Pfau, Roland
    2011 A point well taken: On the typology and diachrony of pointing. InDonna J. Napoli & Gaurav Mathur (eds.), Deaf around the world: The impact of language, 144–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
    2013 PERSON climbing up a tree (and other adventures in sign language grammaticalization). Sign Language & Linguistics16(2). 189–220. 10.1075/sll.16.2.04pfa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.16.2.04pfa [Google Scholar]
  52. Rathmann, Christian
    2003 The optionality of agreement phrase: Evidence from German Sign Language (DGS). InWilliam Earl Griffin (ed.), The role of agreement in natural language: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Texas Linguistics Society Conference, 181–192. Austin, TX: Texas Linguistic Forum.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2006 Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139163910
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163910 [Google Scholar]
  54. Schlenker, Philippe
    2013 Anaphora: Insights from sign language. InStephen R. Anderson, Jaques Moeschler & Fabienne Reboul (eds.), The Language-cognition interface: Actes du 10e Congrès International des Linguistes. Paris: Librairie Droz.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 2017 Sign language and the foundations of anaphora. Annual Review of Linguistics31, 149–177. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011415‑040715
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040715 [Google Scholar]
  56. Schlesewsky, Matthias & Ina Bornkessel
    2006 Context-sensitive neural responses to conflict resolution: Electrophysiological evidence from subject–object ambiguities in language comprehension. Brain Research1098(1). 139–152. 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.04.080
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.04.080 [Google Scholar]
  57. St George, Marie, Marta Kutas, Antigona Martinez & Martin I. Sereno
    1999 Semantic integration in reading: Engagement of the right hemisphere during discourse processing. Brain122(7). 1317–1325. 10.1093/brain/122.7.1317
     https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/122.7.1317 [Google Scholar]
  58. Steinbach, Markus & Edgar Onea
    2016 A DRT analysis of discourse referents and anaphora resolution in sign language. Journal of Semantics33(3). 409–448. 10.1093/jos/ffv002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffv002 [Google Scholar]
  59. Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Bencie Woll
    1999 The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167048
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167048 [Google Scholar]
  60. Von Eckardt, Barbara & Mary C. Potter
    1985 Clauses and the semantic representation of words. Memory & Cognition13(4). 371–376. 10.3758/BF03202505
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202505 [Google Scholar]
  61. Wang, Luming, Matthias Schlesewsky, Balthasar Bickel & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
    2009 Exploring the nature of the ‘subject’-preference: Evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes24(7–8). 1180–1226. 10.1080/01690960802159937
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802159937 [Google Scholar]
  62. Wienholz, Anne, Derya Nuhbalaoglu, Nivedita Mani, Annika Herrmann, Edgar Onea & Markus Steinbach
    2018 Pointing to the right side? An ERP study on anaphora resolution in German Sign Language. PLoS ONE13(9). e0204223. 10.1371/journal.pone.0204223
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204223 [Google Scholar]
  63. Winston, Elizabeth A.
    1996 Spatial mapping in ASL discourse. InDavid M. Jones (ed.), Assessing our work: Assessing our worth, 1–28. Little Rock, AR: CIT Conference Proceedings.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Wittenburg, Peter, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann & Han Sloetjes
    2006 ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. Proceedings of LREC, 2006, 1556–1559.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.22006.wie
Loading
Neurophysiological evidence for the first mention effect during pronominal reference resolution in German Sign Language
Sign Language & Linguistics 26, 117 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.22006.wie
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.22006.wie
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.22006.wie
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Brief Report
Keyword(s): event-related potentials; first mention effect; German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebaerdensprache: DGS); N400; referential processing

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error