conférences Johnston, Schembri & Johnson (compléments)

[AROUI Jean-Louis]

[même annonce que précédemment, mais avec les résumés des DEUX conférences et 
un changement de premier auteur pour la première conférence]

L'UMR 7023 a le plaisir de vous convier, dans le cadre des séances de son 
séminaire,

le lundi 16 juin 2008
14h30-17h30 [attention : horaires spéciaux]
au Laboratoire Structures Formelles du Langage de l'UMR 7023 sur le site : 
CNRS/UPS-Pouchet 59, rue Pouchet 75017 Paris, France
- salle de conférence (RDC) [attention : lieu inhabituel ]
Metro : Guy Môquet (ligne 13), Sortie : "Rue de la Jonquière". Plan sur le
site :  <http://www.umr7023.cnrs.fr/article.php3?id_article=86>

aux conférences suivantes :

- 14h30-16h 
Trevor Johnston (Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, 
Australia) & Adam Schembri (Deafness, Cognition and Language research centre, 
UCL, London, UK) :
"Lexicalisation and lemmatization in the annotation of signed language 
corpora"
Résumé :
In this paper we discuss on-going work on the creation of corpora for signed 
language (SL) research, especially the Auslan (Australian Sign Language) 
corpus. In particular, we address the issue of machine-readability and the 
use of lemmatised glosses (or ID-glosses). Plans for the creation of new SL 
corpora in Europe and North America will be seriously flawed if they do not 
take into account the issue of lemmatisation.
SL corpora are needed to empirically ground generalisations on signed language 
vocabularies and grammars, and to facilitate peer review of these 
descriptions and the theories which draw on them. Of course, corpora are 
important for the testing of language hypotheses in all language research. 
However, this is especially true of deaf signing communities which (like 
creole spoken languages) are inevitably young minority language communities. 
Although introspection and observation can help develop hypotheses, because 
SLs lack written forms or standardised varieties, and have interrupted 
transmission and few native users, intuitions and researcher observations may 
fail due to the absence of clear native signer consensus. The past reliance 
on the intuitions of very few informants and isolated textual examples 
(essentially inaccessible for peer review) has been problematic in the field. 
It should also go without saying that SL corpora—as with all modern 
linguistic corpora—should be representative, well-documented (i.e., with 
relevant metadata) and machine-readable (i.e., able to be annotated and 
tagged consistently and systematically). This requires dedicated technology 
(e.g., ELAN), standards and protocols (e.g., IMDI metadata descriptors), and 
transparent and agreed grammatical tags (e.g., grammatical class labels). 
However, we argue that it also requires the identification of lemmata. 
Lemmatisation—the classification or identification of related forms under a 
single label or lemma (the equivalent of headwords or headsigns in a 
dictionary)—is fundamental to the process of corpus creation. A successful 
corpus project team should already have available a reference dictionary or 
lexical database to facilitate lemma identification and consistency in 
lemmatisation (using ID-glosses). A robust understanding of the processes of 
lexicalisation in SLs is thus essential, and, reflecting this, annotation 
conventions that discriminate between, and treat consistently, different 
types of signs found within any SL text need to be articulated and adhered 
to.

- 16h-17h30
Robert E. Johnson (Department of Linguistics, Gallaudet University, Washington 
DC) :
"Rethinking Double Articulation in Signed Languages: Implications for the 
Design of Phonetic Notation Systems"
Résumé :
In the 1950’s William Stokoe introduced the idea that signs contain a
sublexical structure, consisting of cheremes that function in much the same
way that phonemes function in spoken languages.  The cheremic principle
argues that a set of several oppositional parameters of sign formation
combine simultaneously to create the meaningful units of the language
without the use of sequential contrast.  The purported absence of sequence
does not interfere with the claim that ASL has a form of double
articulation, demonstrated by the existence of minimal pairs of signs. This
view remains the prominent and most-stated perspective on the structure of
ASL and other signed languages. Beginning with the notion of double
articulation of spoken languages, I will demonstrate that claims of
“duality” for signed languages typically misrepresent the fundamental
concepts of opposition, contrast, and phoneme.  Drawing on these
observations, I will show that dual patterning does in fact exist in sign
languages, but that its notice requires an approach to phonetic
representation that recognizes sequences of all formational properties of
signs.  I will show the elements of a system of phonetic representation,
addressing issues of abstractness of representation in phonetics that grow
from the need to represent sequence.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/parislinguists/attachments/20080606/af71775a/attachment.htm>