|
Abstract:
The comparison of signed and spoken language
production yields a unique opportunity to assess modality effects
in processing. Although the PF-interfaces are clearly
different in both modalities (aural-oral vs. visual- gestural),
under the null-hypothesis, processing is amodal in nature.
There is only one structural format for the representation of
language.
From a typological perspective, languages
serialize their units to different degrees. Basically,
all sign languages display a very high degree of simultaneity
in phonology, morphology, and syntax whereas spoken languages
display a broader range of variation. With regard to
morphology, for example, we distinguish concatenative languages
such as Turkish and English and non-concatenative languages
such as Hebrew and other semitic languages. Sign
languages pattern with the latter.
We will contrast data from German Sign Language
(Deutsche Gebaerdensprache DGS) and spoken German, more
precisely, repairs of slips of the hand and tongue. Until
now, there has been no research on repairs of slips in sign
languages. Our knowledge of monitoring relies exclusively
on the investigation of spoken language production
errors.
Given that representations are grammatically
structured and that processing accesses representations,
processing is structure-sensitive, too. This is what is
found in spoken language error repairs: The major cut-off point
in repairs of slips is after a possible syllable.
Typically, signs are monosyllabic. The
articulation of a syllable/sign in sign language, however,
takes twice as long as the articulation of a syllable in spoken
language. This asymmetry offers a fantastic opportunity
to investigate the nature of monitoring: is it anchored
structurally (with respect to representations) or temporally
(in terms of internal time units irrespective of
content)? If the monitor is structure-sensitive, we
expect the major cut-off point to be located after the
syllable/sign. This, however, is not borne out by the
data. The monitor typically interrupts erroneous signs
within a syllable.
We conclude that monitoring, in general, is not
structure-sensitive. Rather, monitoring disregards the
content of what is processed. In sign language, the mean
physical duration of truncated slips corresponds to the
physical duration of spoken syllables. This means that
processing is indeed amodal: Sign languages are processed and
monitored on a par with spoken languages.
We will present data in support of this
conclusion and discuss further consequences.
|
