The online processing of classifier constructions in Austrian sign language (ÖGS): An ERP study
(presentation in ENGLISH)
One of the main issues in human sentence processing is the question to what degree language processing
strategies can be regarded as universal strategies applicable to all languages or whether processing strategies
are guided by language-specific information. Despite this typological approach almost all experimental studies are
based on spoken languages and moreover to an overwhelming degree on English. In contrast, investigation of
sign language is still in its very infancy. Indeed, there are only few studies investigating online processing with
event-related potentials (ERPs) and only recently researchers started to use non-interrupted videos for stimulus
presentation to assure a natural rate of signing (e.g. Capek et al., 2009; Hoseman et al., 2011).
Previous studies of lexical-semantic processing in sign language have shown that semantically deviant structures
lead to N400 effects similar to spoken/written language. The picture for morphosyntactic processing is less clear.
Capek et al. (2009) and Hosemann et al. (2011) report an early negativity–late positivity (LAN/P600) pattern for
verb agreement violations (path movement violations). However, little or none is known about the processing of
classifier constructions (CLs) although classifiers are regarded as highly specific and unique for sign language
(Emmorey, 2003). A special characteristic of CLs is that they meet the phonological form for a single, simple sign
but are morphosyntactically complex.
The present study investigates whether violations of CLs in ÖGS lead to lexical-semantic processing effects
(N400) or morphosyntactic processing effects (LAN/P600). Two conditions in which the sentence final classifier
sign either was correct (1) or incorrect (2) were presented as real-time videos to 15 deaf native signers (see
Figure 1). ERPs were calculated with respect to two trigger points reflecting different parameters in sign
production: (i) offset of the pre-critical sign (“WHAT”), and (ii) handshape of the classifier (a widely accepted
indicator of the start of a sign).
The Results show that incorrect compared to correct classifiers elicit an LAN / P600 pattern which typically shows
up for morphosyntactic violations in spoken/written language (see Figure 2). These findings lend credence to the
postulated complexity of classifier constructions.
_______________________wh
1). MOTORBIKE B-CL OPPOSITE+PART WHAT MOTORBIKE B-CL.
upward-movement
palm side
downward-movement
palm side
A motorbike goes uphill is the opposite of a motorbike goes downhill.
_______________________wh
2). * MOTORBIKE B-CL OPPOSITE+PART WHAT MOTORBIKE B-CL.
upward-movement
palm side
downward-movement
palm down
A motorbike goes uphill is the opposite of a motorbike goes downhill.
References:
Capek, C., Grossi, G., Newman, A.J., McBurney, S.L., Corina, D., Roeder, B. & Neville, H.J. (2009). Brain
systems mediating semantic and syntactic processing in deaf native signers: Biological invariance and
modality specificity. PNAS 106, 8784–8789.
Emmorey, K. (2003). Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Lawrence Erlbaum and
Associates: Mahwah, NJ.
Hosemann, J., Herrmann, A., Steinbach, M. & Schlesewsky, M. (2011). Processing of Sign Language Agreement
– Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials. Poster presented at CUNY 2011, Stanford, January 24 26.
Figure 1:
Example of a classifier condition (see A, B): In the sentence ”MOTORBIKE B-CL OPPOSITE+PART WHAT
MOTORBIKE B-CL“ (A motorbike goes uphill is the opposite of a motorbike goes downhill) the sentence final Bclassifier is either correct with the palm facing to the side followed by a downward movement (last two frames
upper row) or incorrect with the palm facing down (last two frames lower row) thereby leading to an incongruency
with the previous sign MOTORBIKE (despite the correct downward movement of the hand).
(a)
(b)
Figure 2:
Grand average ERPs at electrode Cz for congruent classifiers (black line) and incongruent classifiers (red line).
Negativity is plotted upwards. Alignment point for averaging (vertical line) is trigger point (ii; handshape of the
classifier). Difference maps indicate the topography of (a) the LAN (20-260 ms) and of (b) the late positivity (500650 ms time window).