Science Daily has an article about intonations in sign language.
Like the intonation of individual spoken languages, sign languages also have their own unique "sound," and, as with spoken languages, the intonation of one community's language is different from that of another community, according to a new study at the University of Haifa. "Our discovery that sign languages also have unique intonation patterns once again demonstrates that sign languages share many central properties with spoken languages. It turns out that intonation is an essential component of any human language, including languages without sound," explained Prof. Wendy Sandler, who led the study.
On a personal note, I find it interesting to compare this to emoticons and acronyms like LOL or ROFL in an email setting as well.
(Score: 1) by dmbasso on Monday October 27 2014, @12:05AM
The "intonation" is properly called "prosody", and is almost always performed in the right cortical hemisphere, as opposed to the actual language semantics and syntax, which usually occurs in the left side (Wernicke's area for analysis, Broca's for production).
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday October 27 2014, @03:29AM
So, you are saying the right hemisphere of the brain controls the middle finger of both hands?
(Score: 2) by TGV on Monday October 27 2014, @09:11AM
Quick and wrong neuro info. Broca's and Wernicke's areas are involved in both analysis and production, as are their right hemisphere counterparts. At least, they show activity on MEG and fMRI. For the rest: this kind of information is irrelevant to any discussion about prosody in sign language (of which intonation is only a part, by the way, but it's a bit unclear what the homolog of intonation in signing would be).
The quote's conclusion "It turns out that intonation is an essential component of any human language" seems far-fetched. Written communication has gone without intonation for quite a few centuries now, and the fact that something creeps in doesn't mean it's essential. There could be all sorts of reasons why it shows up in sign language, and it could be as simple as that a large part of the signers is capable of speaking or listening, and therefore is familiar with intonation, and use it in their signing, which can cause others to follow their example. This is not to deny that intonation carries information, just that the conclusion overreaches.
(Score: 1) by dmbasso on Monday October 27 2014, @02:09PM
Quick and wrong neuro info.
No, my info is correct, I stand by what I said.
Broca's and Wernicke's areas are involved in both analysis and production,
If you suffer a stroke in Broca's area you still can understand language, but cannot speak or write.
Likewise, if you damage only Wernicke's you can express yourself, but you can't understand what you read or listen.
as are their right hemisphere counterparts.
Except the functions affected are the prosody counterparts.
At least, they show activity on MEG and fMRI.
So your criticism is based on brain imaging... wow, you sure are a specialist.
For the rest: this kind of information is irrelevant to any discussion about prosody in sign language (of which intonation is only a part, by the way, but it's a bit unclear what the homolog of intonation in signing would be).
My point was that the "intonation" is processed in Broca's and Wernicke's right-side counterparts, how is this not relevant? If you suffer damage in those cortical areas, you wouldn't be able to perform it.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
(Score: 2) by TGV on Monday October 27 2014, @02:16PM
> So your criticism is based on brain imaging... wow, you sure are a specialist.
Ok, we can see who has the biggest. What's your experience in psycholinguistics and neuroscience?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 27 2014, @03:51PM
Nerd fight! Nerd fight! Nerd fight!
(Score: 1) by dmbasso on Monday October 27 2014, @04:59PM
So your criticism is based on brain imaging... wow, you sure are a specialist.
Ok, we can see who has the biggest.
I apologize for being a dick... I shouldn't have let your self-confident assertion that it was "quick and wrong neuro info" tint my response.
What's your experience in psycholinguistics[1] and neuroscience[2]?
[1] none
[2] I'm a PhD candidate on computational neuroscience; my thesis is about motion perception and cortical functional models, but I love the whole field of study.
But you got me curious, what is your expertise? Why were you so sure that I was wrong? What I explained in my posts is given in any introductory neuroscience class...
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
(Score: 2) by TGV on Monday October 27 2014, @09:46PM
I've got a PhD and two postdocs in computational neuroscience and psycholinguistics, and worked on applied NLP (not Neuro-Linguistic Programming, but Natural Language Processing) as well. For the last years, I worked on a dynamic model for human syntactic understanding, including modelling degrading performance towards aphasia. Some interesting points of the model were that syntactic trees can be some sort of emergent property, and that a stack is not needed. I worked with aphasia researchers from, and supervised some MSc and PhD students testing some predictions on the model. From the aphasia literature, it's quite clear that in many cases, damage to Broca or Werknice impairs both perception and production. Imaging studies also consistently show activity in both areas. The rough assumption amongst some of my more influential ex-colleagues is that Broca does syntactical and Wernicke lexical work, but the fashion shifts, and there are other schools. Although literature rarely reports it, fMRI and MEG experiments often show activation outside these areas as well: in the right hemisphere, and also e.g. in the basal ganglia. Some studies convincingly suggest the right pSTS is involved in keeping track of a conversation. So it's much more messy than the handbooks say, and language processing apparently uses a rather complex network of brain areas, which is not really that surprising, given the complexity of the task.
BTW, I quit the field a few years ago, and am now a programmer (or: software architect, as title inflation goes): there's no funding for computational modelling of language processes. If you want to stay afloat in your field, make sure your work is mainstream, and make sure you publish in journals with a reasonable impact score, that are recognized by the faculties you want to work in. E.g., psychology departments over here don't recognize publications in conference proceedings of the ACM or the ACL. If not, it's one temporary contract after another, until it's too late.
(Score: 1) by dmbasso on Monday October 27 2014, @10:50PM
[...] it's quite clear that in many cases, damage to Broca or Werknice impairs both perception and production. Imaging studies also consistently show activity in both areas.
Of course, and the reason is analogous to the relation of mirror neurons and action production & recognition.
[...] is that Broca does syntactical and Wernicke lexical work [...]
That doesn't make much sense, and it is easily falsifiable by the clinical cases where you have language recognition or (specially) production with correct form and complementary function damaged.
Also, just from an architectural point of view, Broca's proximity to the motor cortices and Wernicke's proximity to sensor cortices are consistent with the idea of them performing production and recognition, respectively.
[...] fMRI and MEG experiments often show activation outside these areas as well: in the right hemisphere, [...]
That's the non-verbal processing, prosody.
and also e.g. in the basal ganglia.
Without whom there wouldn't be the actual motor activation (among other things).
So it's much more messy than the handbooks say
That's a given, isn't it? ;)
But there there are some well-established data, such as the separation of verbal (left hemisphere) and non-verbal (right h.) communication. Perhaps you were not aware of it because your focus on NLP limited the kind of research papers you read.
About the future, I'll probably follow the same path you took... right now I have a research contract to build some psychophysical experiments on a CAVE setup, but after it ends I guess I'll have to find something more stable / long term...
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
(Score: 2) by TGV on Tuesday October 28 2014, @06:11AM
> Of course, and the reason is analogous to the relation of mirror neurons and action production & recognition.
Actually, large groups of researchers are of the opinion that mirror neurons (as such) do no exist. There can be brain functions that relate perception and production, but the normal learning paradigm is sufficient for this. There is no need for specialized neurons, and it's hard to imagine how they could fit in processes as complex as language, unless you assume that the human brain was designed as such. The idea of mirror neurons comes from, IMO, a "limited" understanding of the role of a neuron, the kind of understanding that would lead us to believe that everyone is born with a Jennifer Aniston neuron.
> and it is easily falsifiable
It is not easily falsifiable. There are enough patients with a lesion in those regions that have lost more than one function. Furthermore, we cannot think that everybody's brain is identical. Scans show differences on many high level tasks, so it's likely that localized damage cannot inform us fully.
> That's the non-verbal processing, prosody.
In reading tasks? Why would prosody be non-verbal? It needs to integrate with the rest of the linguistic processing, otherwise it's useless, and you cannot communicate by prosody (alone).
> But there there are some well-established data, such as the separation of verbal (left hemisphere) and non-verbal (right h.) communication.
There is no such thing, from what I've read. Where do you get that from? And what is "non-verbal" communication? There is no reason to believe that the right hemisphere is not involved in linguistic tasks.