CREU 2013 – Fall – Week Nine

November 15, 2013 § Leave a comment

My latest reading in Segouat has been the sections on variation in timing of components that don’t vary in value and his proposed model of coarticulation in LSF in the domain of train announcements.  Segouat compares variations in duration by the announcement, component (gaze, dominant hand, non-dominant hand), and segment.  There’s a lot of enumerating of the data that basically comes down to it’s noisy, some are shorter some are longer, often with variations of more than 10 or 20%.  He does however propose a few generalizations.  At the announcement level he observes that the informational announcements showed less variation in duration of components than incident announcements.  From his comparison of components he notes that gaze durations are likely to be longer in context while the duration of handshapes is reduced.  From the segments he remarks on how the stations and numbers are faster in context, possibly because the precision makes recognition easier.

He then makes a brief proposal for a model of coarticulation in LSF train announcements:

  1. Analyze the semantics of the announcement for key information, these signs will be precise, and if relaxed in isolation will be more tense and precise in context.
  2. Stations and numbers are signed precisely taking into account any variations in signs for certain stations.
  3. Take into account phonetic context, the previously determined handshake effect the ones around them, (cause a slight increase in tension).
  4. Add in any influence the dominant hand has on the non-dominant hand.

In discussing the model he also makes a list of the different aspects considered in the model.

  • Semantic context
  • Eye gaze raised
  • Add gazes to points in space (in anticipation of the hands signs)
  • Suppression of signs
  • Coarticulation (phonetic context)
  • Handshape
  • Assimilation
  • Preservation
  • Dominant hand influence on non-dominant hand
  • Gaze direction
  • Minimum delay between two identical gaze directions
Advertisements

CREU 2013 – Fall – Week Eight

November 1, 2013 § Leave a comment

I’ve finished the section of Segouat’s dissertation analyzing how the variations in value of the handshape, correspond to the parts of speech of the sign those handshapes occur in. Segouat finds that the modifications in handshape due to coarticulation were found only in the lexical signs, and that handshapes that were modified as parts of lexical signs were not modified when used as numbers or as an iconic sign.  He hypothesizes that this is due numeric signs and fingerspelling requiring precise handshapes in order to be clearly understood and thus have minimal dependence on context.

Where Am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for November, 2013 at aslmstumbo.