Article-Journal

Abstract

This study investigates head nods in natural dyadic German Sign Language (DGS) interaction, with the aim of finding whether head nods serving different functions vary in their phonetic characteristics. Earlier research on spoken and sign language interaction has revealed that head nods vary in the form of the movement. However, most claims about the phonetic properties of head nods have been based on manual annotation without reference to naturalistic text types and the head nods produced by the addressee have been largely ignored. There is a lack of detailed information about the phonetic properties of the addressee’s head nods and their interaction with manual cues in DGS as well as in other sign languages, and the existence of a form-function relationship of head nods remains uncertain. We hypothesize that head nods functioning in the context of affirmation differ from those signaling feedback in their form and the co-occurrence with manual items. To test the hypothesis, we apply OpenPose, a computer vision toolkit, to extract head nod measurements from video recordings and examine head nods in terms of their duration, amplitude and velocity. We describe the basic phonetic properties of head nods in DGS and their interaction with manual items in naturalistic corpus data. Our results show that phonetic properties of affirmative nods differ from those of feedback nods. Feedback nods appear to be on average slower in production and smaller in amplitude than affirmation nods, and they are commonly produced without a co-occurring manual element. We attribute the variations in phonetic properties to the distinct roles these cues fulfill in turn-taking system. This research underlines the importance of non-manual cues in shaping the turn-taking system of sign languages, establishing the links between such research fields as sign language linguistics, conversational analysis, quantitative linguistics and computer vision.

Published online on 15 May 2023

Abstract

We examine the binary classification of sentiment views for verbal multiword expressions (MWEs). Sentiment views denote the perspective of the holder of some opinion. We distinguish between MWEs conveying the view of the speaker of the utterance (e.g., in “The company reinvented the wheel” the holder is the implicit speaker who criticizes the company for creating something already existing) and MWEs conveying the view of explicit entities participating in an opinion event (e.g., in “Peter threw in the towel” the holder is Peter having given up something). The task has so far been examined on unigram opinion words. Since many features found effective for unigrams are not usable for MWEs, we propose novel ones taking into account the internal structure of MWEs, a unigram sentiment-view lexicon and various information from Wiktionary. We also examine distributional methods and show that the corpus on which a representation is induced has a notable impact on the classification. We perform an extrinsic evaluation in the task of opinion holder extraction and show that the learnt knowledge also improves a state-of-the-art classifier trained on BERT. Sentiment-view classification is typically framed as a task in which only little labeled training data are available. As in the case of unigrams, we show that for MWEs a feature-based approach beats state-of-the-art generic methods.

Published online on 9 July 2020

Abstract

Alleviating pain is good and abandoning hope is bad. We instinctively understand how words like alleviate and abandon affect the polarity of a phrase, inverting or weakening it. When these words are content words, such as verbs, nouns and adjectives, we refer to them as polarity shifters. Shifters are a frequent occurrence in human language and an important part of successfully modeling negation in sentiment analysis; yet research on negation modeling has focused almost exclusively on a small handful of closed class negation words, such as not, no and without. A major reason for this is that shifters are far more lexically diverse than negation words, but no resources exist to help identify them.