Short-term memory and sign languages: sign span and its linguistic implications
Abstract
In this paper we discuss two distinct, although related questions. The first question is what explains the well-known fact that short-term memory (span) is lower for signs than for words. We review some explanations that have been proposed for this fact at the light of the results of a novel experiment involving gating of signs. The second question is how signers can process fully-fledged grammatical systems like sign languages even if they rely on a limited short-term memory. In order to deal with this issue, we discuss the distribution in sign languages of the configuration that is most challenging for short-term memory, namely center embedding. The conclusion is that center embedding is possible only if special strategies based on the use of space are used that are likely to reduce the short-term memory burden.
References
Alba, C. 2016. Wh-questions in Catalan Sign Language, Doctoral dissertation, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona.
Arendsen, J., A.J. van Doorn & H. de Ridder. 2009. When do people start to recognize signs? Gesture 9 (2), 207-236.
Baddeley, A. D. & G. Hitch. 1974. Working memory. In G. A. Bower, (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation, 47-90. New York: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D. & G. Hitch. 1994. Developments in the concept of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8, 485-493.
Bates, D. & M. Maechler. 2010. Matrix: sparse and dense matrix classes and methods. R package version 0.999375-43, URL http://cran.rproject.org/package=Matrix.
Bavelier, D., E.L. Newport, M. Hall, T. Supalla & M. Boutla. 2008. Ordered short term memory differs in signers and speakers: Implications for models of short term memory. Cognition, 107, 433–459.
Bellugi, U., E. S. Klima & P. Siple. 1975. Remembering in signs. Cognition, 3, 93–125.
Boutla, M., T. Supalla, E. L Newport & D. Bavelier. 2004. Short term memory span: Insight from sign language. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 997–1002.
Branchini, C. & C. Donati. 2009. Relatively different. Italian Sign Language Relative Clauses in a Typological Perspective. In A. Liptàk (Ed.), Correlatives Crosslinguistically, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 157–191.
Brentari, D. 2012. Phonology. Chapter 3 of R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign language. An international handbook (HSK - Handbooks of linguistics and communication science), Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 21-54.
Caplan, D. & G.S. Waters. 1999. Verbal short-term memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 77-126.
Cecchetto, C. & C. Papagno. 2011. Bridging the Gap between Brain and Syntax. A Case for a Role of the Phonological Loop. In C. Boeckx, C. & A. M.Sciullo, (Eds.), The Biolinguistic Entreprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of Human Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 440-460.
Cecchetto, C., C. Geraci & S. Zucchi. 2006. Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 945-975.
Clark, L. E., & F. Grosjean. 1982. Sign recognition processes in American Sign Language - the effect of context. Language and Speech, 25, 325-340.
Darwin, C. J., M. T. Turvey & R. G. Crowder. 1972. An auditory analogue of the sperling partial report procedure: Evidence for brief auditory storage. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 255–267.
Emmorey, K. & D. Corina. 1990. Lexical recognition in sign language - effects of phonetic structure and morphology. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 1227-1252.
Frauenfelder, U. H. & L. K. Tyler. 1987. The process of spoken word recognition: An introduction. Cognition, 25, 1-20.
Gelman, A. & J. Hill. 2006. Data analysis using regression and multilevel / hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geraci, C. 2014. Spatial syntax in your hands. In J. Iyerand & L. Kusmer, (Eds.), NELS 44: Proceedings of the Forty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, Amherst: GLSA Vol 1,123-134.
Geraci, C. & V. Aristodemo. 2016. An in-depth tour into sentential complementation in Italian Sign Language. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & A. Herrmann, (Eds.), A Matter of Complexity: Subordination in Sign Languages. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 95-150.
Geraci, C., C. Cecchetto & S. Zucchi. 2008. Sentential Complementation in Italian Sign Language. In M.Grosvald & D. Soares (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-eighth Western Conference on Linguistics, 46-58. http://wecol.ucdavis.edu/WECOL08%20 provisional%207-28-09.pdf. ISBN 1-879890-19-4.
Geraci, C., M. Gozzi., C. Papagno, C. & C. Cecchetto. 2008. How grammar can cope with limited short-term memory: Simultaneity and seriality in sign languages. Cognition, 106, 780–804.
Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
Grosjean, F. 1980. Spoken Word Recognition Processes and the Gating Paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics, 28, 267-283.
Grosjean, F. 1981. Sign and word recognition: A first comparison. Sign Language Studies, 28, 195-220.
Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holt, G. ten, A.J. van Doorn, H. de Ridder, M.J.T. Reinders & E.A. Hendriks. 2009. Which fragments of a sign enable its recognition? Sign Language Studies 9, 211-239.
Jantunen, T. 2015. How long is the sign? Linguistics 53, 93-124.
Klima, E. S. & U. Bellugi. 1979. The Signs of Language. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Lindfield, K. C., A. Wingfield, & H. Goodglass. 1999. The role of prosody in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 68, 312-317.
Logan, K., R. Mayberry & J. Fletcher. 1996. The short-term memory of profoundly deaf people for words, signs, and abstract spatial stimuli. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 105-119.
Marshall, C. R., W. Mann, & G. Morgan. 2011. Short term memory in signed languages: not just a disadvantage for serial recall. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 102.
Miller, G. A., & N. Chomsky. 1963. Finitary models of language users. In R. D.Luce, R. Bush, & E. Galanter, (Eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology. New York: John Wiley, 419-492.
Papagno, C., C. Cecchetto, F. Reati & L. Bello. 2007. Processing of syntactically complex sentences relies on verbal short-term memory. Evidence from a STM patient, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 292-311.
Pfau, R. & M. Steinbach. 2005. Relative clauses in German Sign Language: Extraposition and reconstruction. In L. Bateman & C. Ussery, (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35), Vol. 2. Amherst: GLSA, 507-521.
Quer, J. 2012. A modality-free account of the position of clausal arguments. Paper presented at Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory (FEAST), Warsaw, June 2012.
Romero Lauro, L., J. Reis, L. G. Cohen, C. Cecchetto & C. Papagno. 2010. A case for the involvement of phonological loop in sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 48, 4003–4011.
Rönnberg J., M. Rudne M. Ingva. 2004. Neural correlates of working memory for sign language. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 165-182.
Sperling, G. 1960. The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 74, 1–29.
Wilson, M. & K. Emmorey. 1997a. A visuo-spatial ‘phonological loop’ in working memory: Evidence from American Sign Language. Memory & Cognition, 25, 313–320.
Wilson, M. & K. Emmorey. 1997b. Working memory for sign language: a window into the architecture of the working memory system. Deaf Studies and Deaf Education: Special Issue on Memory and Cognition, 2:121–130.
Wilson, M. & K. Emmorey. 1998. A ‘word-length effect’ for sign language: Further evidence for the role of language in structuring working memory. Memory & Cognition, 26, 584–590.
Zucchi, S. 2009. Along the time line: Tense and time adverbs in Italian Sign Language.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Linguística Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Universidade do Porto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.