<html>
<font size=3>Hello all,<br>
<br>
I have been working in this area for over a decade. I think it does make
a difference, and here are some reasons why I am worried. People
have been making sweeping generalizations and I find it disturbing.<br>
<br>
1) Prosody typically includes: intonation, rhythm, and stress. In
speech, intonation is tracked by fundamental frequency (f0) /pitch, which
ASL may or may not have an analog to, empirically determined as Joerg
indicated.<br>
<br>
2) I worked on stress during the 80s and 90s (see a summary in Language
& Speech 1999) and determined both where word and phrasal stress are
placed and how stress is represented physically (high peak
velocity).<br>
<br>
3) I've also worked on rhythm, the establishment of a pattern of beats
and the breaking of that pattern to highlight stressed items (Allen et
al, below). Furthermore, rhythmic patterns are maintained over changes in
signing rate (another prosodic factor).<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3>4) That leaves
questions about intonation. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>a) Do we
mean strictly analogous to speech, e.g., fundamental frequency?
Poizner has done work on the frequencies (Fourier transforms) of various
verb movements and aspectual modifications, but I don't think that's at
all intonation.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>b) When we
talk about intonation in spoken English on say, a yes/no question with
subject-aux inversion ("Can you speak French?"), the intonation
is billed as a question marker (i.e. a syntactic or pragmatic function),
but the question would still be a question without the question
intonation. What <i>is</i> the role of intonation in speech, and how
would we know if we had an analog? <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>c)
Consider the brow raise on yes/no questions in ASL... also, what do we
say about the brow raise on the other structures that are not
questions? Coulter 1978 argued that these structures were all one
structure, marked by brow raise, and they were "modified" by
other nonmanuals to create different versions (allomorphs?) of the basic
form. But Coulter's data excluded other structures that also have
brow raise, rendering his original analysis void. My work on brow raise
shows that the presence of brow raise can be predicted from the (formal)
semantics of the structure (whether there is a restrictive operator
at work) and where the brow raise will go (that part that is the
restrictor of the operator). <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>d) SO
let's assume that I'm correct, and that there is a predicable semantic
basis for brow raise placement and scope - do we say that the brow raise
is or is not intonation? What do we make of the fact that the actual
number of brow raises (counting times brows go up and down) is affected
by signing rate (fewer when signing faster, more when signing slower),
whereas the actual structures covered by brow raise (determined
semantically) is unaffected by rate of signing? What about my earlier
thought that the brow raise was a morphological marker of the operator
(FLSM 1995)? I'm withholding final judgment now that I'm more cautious
about making analogies.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>e)
Similarly, inhibited periodic eyeblinks are predictable. But the
predictor, the right edge of Selkirk's Intonational Phrases, is not a
strictly intonationally defined concept - it is derived instead from a
syntactic configuration, the ungoverned maximal projection. What if it's
not possible to separate intonation from syntax, or semantics, or
pragmatics? This is a theoretical as well as an empirical issue,
but it is also heavily dependent on thorough knowledge of the theories
involved - intonational, syntactic, semantic, etc.<br>
Here are some of my references related directly to these issues - you can
see from the titles that I've struggled with how to interpret each of
these concepts: <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=2>wilbur, R. B. & A.
Martinez (in press). Physical correlates of prosodic structure in
American Sign Language. <i>Chicago Linguistic Society </i>38.<br>
wilbur, R. B. (2000). Phonological and prosodic layering of non-manuals
in American Sign Language. In Lane, H. and Emmorey, K. (eds.), <i>The
signs of language revisited: Festschrift for Ursula Bellugi and Edward
Klima</i>, pp. 213-241. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.<br>
wilbur, R. B. (1999). Stress in ASL: Empirical evidence and linguistic
issues. <i>Language & Speech</i> 42: 229-250.<br>
wilbur, R. B. & C. Patschke (1999). Syntactic correlates of brow
raise in ASL. <i>Sign Language & Linguistics</i> 2: 3-40.<br>
wilbur, R. B. (1999). Metrical structure, morphological gaps, and
possible grammaticalization in ASL. <i>Sign Language &
Linguistics</i> 2: 217-244. <br>
wilbur, R. B. (1995). What the morphology of operators looks like: A
formal analysis of ASL browraise. In L. Gabriele, D. Hardison, & R.
Westmoreland (eds.), <i>FLSM VI: Formal Linguistics Society of
MidAmerica: Vol. 2. Syntax II & semantics/pragmatics,</i> pp. 6778.
Bloomington, IN: IULC Publications.<br>
wilbur, R. B. (1994). Eyeblinks and ASL phrase structure. <i>Sign
Language Studies</i> 84: 221240.<br>
Allen, G. D., R. B. wilbur & B. S. Schick (1991). Aspects of rhythm
in American Sign Language. <i>Sign Language Studies</i> 72:<i>
</i>297320.</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3> <br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=2>wilbur, R. B. (1991).
Intonation and focus in American Sign Language. In Y. No & M. Libucha
(Eds.), <i>ESCOL '90: Eastern States Conference on Linguistics,</i> pp.
320331. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.<br>
wilbur, R. B. & B. S. Schick (1987). The effects of linguistic
stress on ASL signs. <i>Language & Speech</i> 30: 301-323.<br>
wilbur, R. B. & S. B. Nolen (1986). Duration of syllables in ASL.
<i>Language & Speech</i> 29 (3): 263-280.<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><font size=3>At 03:06 AM 10/10/2002 , Jörg Keller wrote:<br>
>Hi all<br>
>as such an equation of non-manual with prosodic as well as prosodic
with <br>
>intonational is an empirical and a theoretical matter, I don't really
see <br>
>any reason to worry. <br>
><br>
>If the boundaries of a non-manual marking of say a wh-constituent in
one <br>
>modality corresponds to an intonational marking of such a constituent
in <br>
>another, well, fine - call it the same or equate terms. But then,
maybe one <br>
>might find that e.g. the exclusively non-manual indication of
adverbial <br>
>modification has no counterpart in an intonational pattern in spoken
<br>
>language. Well, even better, as we know more and will have to
differentiate <br>
>terms with respect to functions. And turning to prosodic units that
crosscut <br>
>constituent boundaries such as assimilatory processes or
cliticization, we <br>
>know even more, as these will help to segregate and separate
intonation from <br>
>prosody. Well, great - or in other words: we all know that non-manual
<br>
>markings do not constitute a uniform set. So anyone who argues for
the <br>
>equation of non-manual with prosodic or prosodic with intonational
has the <br>
>burden of proof. So, nothing to worry in my opinion - just an
exciting puzzle!<br>
>Cheers <br>
>Jörg<br>
</font><br>
<div>Ronnie Wilbur, Ph.D.</div>
</html>