Brief training with co-speech gesture lends a hand to word learning in a foreign language

Language and Cognitive Processes (v.24-2)
by Spencer D. Kelly; Tara McDevitt; and Megan Esch

Abstracts

Recent research in psychology and neuroscience has demonstrated that co-speech gestures are semantically integrated with speech during language comprehension and development. The present study explored whether gestures also play a role in language learning in adults. In Experiment 1, we exposed adults to a brief training session presenting novel Japanese verbs with and without hand gestures. Three sets of memory tests (at five minutes, two days and one week) showed that the greatest word learning occurred when gestures conveyed redundant imagistic information to speech. Experiment 2 was a preliminary investigation into possible neural correlates for such learning. We exposed participants to similar training sessions over three days and then measured event-related potentials (ERPs) to words learned with and without co-speech gestures. The main finding was that words learned with gesture produced a larger Late Positive Complex (indexing recollection) in bi-lateral parietal sites than words learned without gesture. However, there was no significant difference between the two conditions for the N400 component (indexing familiarity). The results have implications for pedagogical practices in foreign language instruction and theories of gesture-speech integration.

This one is from the "Who would've guessed" dept. It turns out that whether an instructor performs certain gesture types while teaching new words can have an affect on the students' retention of that word.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Gesture is a critical component of language and it belongs in our unification theory.

But I don't really understand what the point of the ERP study was... Looking forward to the followup article.

Rhotacization and the 'Beijing Smooth Operator': The social meaning of a linguistic variable

Journal of Sociolinguistics (v.12-2)
by Zhang, Qing

Abstracts

Recent sociolinguistic studies on style have focused much attention on the construction of social meaning in situated discursive practices. Despite a general recognition that the linguistic resources used are often already imbued with social meanings, little research has been done on what these meanings may be. Focusing on rhotacization, a sociolinguistic variable in Beijing Mandarin, this article explores its imbued social meanings and sociocultural associations. I demonstrate that rhotacization takes on semiotic saliency through co-occurrence with key Beijing cultural terms and frequent use in written representations of authentic Beijing-ness. Furthermore, this feature is associated with the 'Beijing Smooth Operator,' a salient male local character type, and is ideologically construed as reflecting its characterological attributes. The findings of this study shed light on the meaning potential of a linguistic variable, rhotacization in this case, which can enhance understanding of the possibilities and constraints for its use and meaning in new contexts.

This one is from the "Put your tongue right here..." dept. My favorite bits of sociolinguistics are usually those studies that involve speakers making linguistic choices to exhibit their cultural and social identities. Here we have a perfect example.

My understanding of the situation: The upper crust socialites associate themselves with the Beijing Powerful (or Hip) by making some of their vowels a bit more r-like. I don't really know which vowels, though when I watch "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" the rhoticization that is most evident to my naive ears is that which comes after voiceless palatal fricatives. When I hear mandarin from family members, this rhotic vowel just doesn't seem to be there... ever.

So this article here attempts to discover the "meaning" of rhoticizing. Sounds awesome, but good luck with the quantitative analysis...

Complex Predicates and the Functional Sequence

Nordlyd (v.35-1)
by Peter Svenonius

Abstract

In this paper I argue that a fine-grained functional hierarchy of semantically contentful categories such as Tense, Aspect, Initiation, and Process has explanatory power in understanding the crosslinguistic distribution of complex predicates. Complex predicates may involve adjunction, control, or raising, and show other variables as well. In a Minimalist framework, specific parameters cannot be invoked to allow or disallow different kinds of serial verbs, light verbs, resultatives, and so on. Instead, what variation is observed must come from the specifications of lexical items. This places a great burden on the learner, a burden which, I argue, is partly alleviated by the functional sequence.

This one is from our "the program doesn't allow for that sort of rubbish" Dept. What makes this abstract crazy isn't really the proposed analysis. I'm sure the author here has something very enlightening to say about complex predicates. What I really think is crazy is the line "In a minimalist framework, specific parameters cannot be invoked to allow or disallow different kinds of serial verbs, light vers, resultatives, and so on."

I read that and I imagine a committee of hooded Minimalists sitting at a round, poorly lit table discussing what the minimalist program will allow to be invoked and what it will forbid the invocation of.

Chief minimalists (in unison): "WE hereby forbid the invocation of our beloved parameters for the act of allowing and/or disallowing different kinds of syntactic elements. SO LET IT BE WRITTEN!"

Graduate student minimalist (watching from the shadows): "but won't this place a great burden on the learner? Won't anyone please think of the children!"

Chief minimalists (in unison): "SILENCE! quit your groveling. It is your duty to discover how the child manages to overcome these adversities. Now, BE GONE!"

SFL and CDA: Contributions of the Analysis of the Transitivity System in the Study of the Discursive Construction of National Identity

The Linguistics Journal (v.3-3)
by Ángela Alameda-Hernández

Abstract

This article analyses the contribution of systemic-functional linguistics (SFL) to discourse studies. It adheres to the scholarly paradigm known as critical discourse analysis (CDA) which is based on the view that language, as social practice, is a central element in social life and, hence, analyses discourse in relation to the wide social and historical context in which it occurs. This paper explores this SFL-CDA connection and focuses on the representation of the discursive construction of the Gibraltarian identity as drawn from the linguistic analysis of the transitivity system in a body of texts taken from the printed media. Gibraltar is a community in which political conflicts are common but has quite frequently been ignored in the academic world, despite its great interest and uniqueness. The analysis focuses on the period surrounding the holding of the last referendum in Gibraltar (November 2002), when the governments of Britain and Spain discussed the future of this British colony. Hence, the application of SFL categories in this critical discursive analysis has helped to discover that Gibraltar was mainly represented as a passive entity, affected by the actions and decisions of other. Its identity was generally built on this community’s inner-self because of the relevance given to Gibraltar in mental processes as a senser participant. Gibraltar’s agency was mainly limited to the expression of its wishes and opinions. Thus, the discursive representation of Gibraltar was that of a community with little power to exert and influence on its present situation or to manage its future.

From the "syntactic structures as Freudian slips" dept. I'm not sure that I understood the underlying thesis of this abstract, but I believe that I was led to understand that the overuse of valance modifying elements such as the passive voice when referring to Gibraltar should be taken as an indicator of the speakers' impression of Gibraltar as having little power.

I guess that may be true, but I object to the argumentation methodology. Critical discourse theory may seem like a crock because I don't really understand it, but am I the only one who feels this way? You'd hope that there was some way to quantify this result, otherwise, it sounds like some academic is stating an opinion, by definition, subjective. Isn't this why the plebs have such a negative opinion of so many academics?

But I do have to give props to this author for writing a pretty damned comprehensible abstract (relative to most other Critical Discourse Theory abstracts). This abstract defines its terms and makes their use clear in the analysis summary. This might be because the venue it was published in is more general, but why can't all Semiotica abstracts be just as clear?

Prosodic Description: An Introduction for Fieldworkers

Language Documentation and conservation (v.2-2)
by Nikolaus P. Himmelmann and D. Robert Ladd

Abstract:

This article provides an introductory tutorial on prosodic features such as tone and accent for researchers working on little-known languages. It specifically addresses the needs of non-specialists and thus does not presuppose knowledge of the phonetics and phonology of prosodic features. Instead, it intends to introduce the uninitiated reader to a field often shied away from because of its (in part real, but in part also just imagined) complexities. It consists of a concise overview of the basic phonetic phenomena (section 2) and the major categories and problems of their functional and phonological analysis (sections 3 and 4). Section 5 gives practical advice for documenting and analyzing prosodic features in the field.

From our "the way it should be" Dept. If there is one type of linguist worthy of admiration it would be the fieldwork specialist. These guys are doing all us other linguists a huge favor, not to mention the world. But it's hard to be a good field linguist because so much depends on your being a jack of all (linguistic and anthropological) trades. So here we have a wonderful crazy abstract that hopes to help these wonderful fieldworkers. Hopefully, now people who study prosody in the lab will benefit from what fieldworkers (who read this article) can collect out there in the world.

On a separate note, I'm really loving the journal this article is published in. You can get all the articles from the website. Hurray for open access digital articles!

The Functions of Silence

Journal of Pragmatics (v.40-11)
by Michal Ephratt

Abstract:

The roles of eloquent silence in each of the six functions of language in Roman Jakobson's communicative model (1960) are considered. First, pause, being outside language, is differentiated from (eloquent) silence, a means chosen by the speaker for significant verbal communication alongside speech; it is not the listener's silence nor the silencing of the speaker. Linguistic and non-linguistic contributions to the study of eloquent silence are then briefly reviewed. Next, the roles of eloquent silence in Jakobson's model are analyzed. (Eloquent) silence, as a linguistic sign, conveys information in the referential function (zero-sign and passive constructions); it is an iconic affective way of expressing emotions (e.g., emptiness, intimacy) in the emotive function. In respect of the conative function, (eloquent) silence performs direct and indirect speech acts. Caesura, metaphors and ellipses are just a few examples of poetic silence. Silence is a means of maintaining contact and alliance in the phatic function. The various roles of silence in the metalinguistic function range from its being a discourse marker to reflecting the ‘right to silence’.

This one comes from our "I never thought about that, but now that I have I wished that I hadn't" dept. How awesome is this? A whole paper in the Journal of Pragmatics that's simply about the use of silence in discourse! Boy, I wish that I had that kind of time: To spend a few weeks thinking about the times that we shut up rather than when we're talking and then to do some research, write out an article, send it to a journal etc.

I bet most linguists forget that there is a communicative purpose to silence. I think we oughtn't because it might provide some useful CV padding.

I think, if I'm ever crazy enough to work in syntax, I'm going to attempt to create a theory of syntactic structure which incorporates deliberate pauses. I will not call these pauses overt null elements. But their leaf nodes will be labeled with a lower case 'p'.