Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: This special issue of Sign Language Studies spotlights where language lives and breathes—in the body during face-to-face interaction. Though we do not often think of it in this way, language emerges from the body, extending across two (or more) individuals (Stivers 2021) during a sheer diversity of daily communicative events and contexts. While written language renders the body invisible, most interactions, including those that transpire through tactile and kinesthetic channels (Mesch and Raanes 2023), require close monitoring of the other's body for cues that permit discourse to unfold (Goodwin 1981). Because there is no written form to transcribe them, signed language (henceforth, SL) interactions, in particular ... Read More PubDate: 2024-05-29T00:00:00-05:00
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: In his discussion of the uniquely human practice of intersubjectivity, or achieving mutual understanding, Sidnell (2014) identifies three primary structures in its "architecture," including turn construction, action sequencing, and repair. The term repair refers to strategies deployed by language users to resolve breakdowns in communication, and early work by Jefferson (1972) and Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks (1977) highlighted the centrality and frequency of these mechanisms to the functioning of human language. As Sidnell (2015, 180) points out, language itself would look quite different if "its users did not have recourse to the practices of repair." Repairs can be triggered by a variety of factors; language ... Read More PubDate: 2024-05-29T00:00:00-05:00
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Minimal expressions are at the heart of conversation: Interjections like "Huh'" and "Mhm" keep conversations flowing by establishing and reinforcing intersubjectivity among interactants (Dingemanse 2024). These expressions have gained recent prominence in the study of spoken languages. For example, crosslinguistic research has shown that similar interactional environments can yield structurally similar words across unrelated languages (Dingemanse, Torreira, and Enfield 2013). In research on signed languages, too, there is growing interest in interactional phenomena such as backchanneling (e.g., Fenlon, Schembri, and Sutton-Spence 2013; Mesch 2016) and repair initiation (e.g., Byun et al. 2017; Manrique 2016; ... Read More PubDate: 2024-05-29T00:00:00-05:00
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: While work in the field of conversation analysis has generally focused on spoken languages, there has recently been a growing interest in interaction across different language modalities. The collection of articles in Hou and Kusters (2020) reflects the increased interest in the study of interaction in visual sign languages, and despite the very small total body of work on tactile sign languages, descriptions of language in interaction have played a particularly prominent role (e.g., Mesch 2001, 2011, 2013; Willoughby et al. 2014; Edwards and Brentari 2020, Edwards 2022; Bono et al. 2018). One obvious reason for the interactional perspective in much of the research on tactile languages is that it is not possible ... Read More PubDate: 2024-05-29T00:00:00-05:00
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Questions have been of interest to signed language researchers since the 1970s. Studies have predominantly focused on polar and content questions, with some also considering alternative questions. Polar questions are those that seek a confirmation (yes) or disconfirmation (no) response (e.g., "Would you like coffee'"). Content questions, also called wh-questions or information questions, on the other hand, seek more specific information about a proposition (e.g., "What are you drinking'"). Alternative questions use the disjunctive "or" to proffer (at least) two choices for the interlocutor to pick from (e.g., "Would you like coffee or tea'"). While alternative questions offer two (or more) options, similar to polar ... Read More PubDate: 2024-05-29T00:00:00-05:00
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: The turn-taking system is known to govern conversations in that it coordinates interactional discourses by different means, such as interruptions to show speakership competition, overlaps to foster rapport, and physical cues to maintain or make a bid for the floor (Tannen 1994). Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) introduced how conversation participants mediate their turns with a sophisticated turn-taking mechanism. More specifically, Sacks and colleagues identified points in conversations where the turn-taking mechanism is being activated, labeling them turn relevance places or TRPs. These TRPs, such as a pause or slowing of the speaking speed, are often the principal focus of discourse analysis—including in ... Read More PubDate: 2024-05-29T00:00:00-05:00
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Interpreting requires a constant (re)adjustment of the meaning produced in the target language. This phenomenon, strategic by nature (Heyerick 2021), has been largely studied from an individual perspective. Co-interpreting, or deaf-hearing team interpreting, in all its forms known so far, is the process whereby a hearing interpreter (HI) and a deaf interpreter (DI) collaborate closely as a team. The HI acts as a pivot or feeder: They translate the oral source speech into a signed discourse for the DI (interlingual interpreting). The DI, in turn, acts as a relay: They rephrase and relay the discourse from the feeder to the deaf audience in the same sign language (SL) the HI uses (intralingual interpreting). This ... Read More PubDate: 2024-05-29T00:00:00-05:00
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Face-to-face interaction is accounted for as the core matrix for human sociality, evolution, and language (Holler and Levinson 2019, Stivers et al. 2009). One of the cornerstones of language is our human ability to effectively and jointly coordinate knowledge and behavior to build and maintain mutual understanding in conversation, a process known as grounding (Clark and Brennan 1991). Example 1 (Dingemanse et al. 2015) and example 2 (Dideriksen et al. 2019) below illustrate this process. However, while example 1 signals a need to reestablish mutual understanding in the form of a repair request (e.g., "What'"), example 2 signals ongoing attention and tracking in the form of a backchannel (e.g., "Yeah"):Example 1. ... Read More PubDate: 2024-05-29T00:00:00-05:00
Subscription journal
[305 journals]
