Benjamin Anible

Benjamin Anible
Norwegian University of Science and Technology | NTNU · Department of Language and Literature

PhD

About

16
Publications
7,679
Reads
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
97
Citations
Introduction
My research centers on bilingual bimodal perception and production of iconic and metaphorical constructions. I use psycholinguistic exploration (reaction time, eye-tracking) of this topic informed by a cognitive linguistics perspective.
Additional affiliations
September 2013 - present
University of New Mexico
Position
  • Research Assistant
Description
  • Instructing Linguistics 101/Anthropology 110.
November 2011 - May 2014
University of New Mexico Hospitals
Position
  • Research Assistant
Description
  • Collaboration on VL2 research. Jill Morford, PI
Education
September 2010 - May 2016
University of New Mexico
Field of study
  • Linguistics
September 2008 - May 2010
University of Rochester
Field of study
  • Linguistics
September 2004 - May 2008
Rochester Institute of Technology
Field of study
  • ASL-English Interpretation

Publications

Publications (16)
Article
Full-text available
In 1939, NYU Professor of German, Murat Roberts warned readers about the potentially harmful effects of societal bilingualism: “When two languages come to be spoken by the same society for the same purposes, both of these languages are certain to deteriorate. The sense of conflict disturbs in both of them the basis of articulation, deranges the pro...
Article
Full-text available
Native speakers of English are sensitive to the likelihood that a verb will appear in a specific subcategorization frame, known as verb bias. Readers rely on verb bias to help them resolve temporary ambiguity in sentence comprehension. We investigate whether deaf sign-print bilinguals who have acquired English syntactic knowledge primarily through...
Article
Full-text available
Do signers of different signed languages establish and maintain reference the same way? Here we compare how signers of five Western deaf signed languages coordinate fully conventionalized forms with more richly improvised semiotics to identify and talk about referents of varying agency. The five languages (based on a convenience sample) are Auslan,...
Article
Full-text available
Iconicity has traditionally been considered an objective, fixed, unidimensional property of language forms, often operationalized as transparency for experimental purposes. Within a Cognitive Linguistics framework, iconicity is a mapping between an individual’s construal of form and construal of meaning, such that iconicity is subjective, dynamic,...
Article
Full-text available
Reaction times for a translation recognition study are reported where novice to expert English–ASL bilinguals rejected English translation distractors for ASL signs that were related to the correct translations through phonology, semantics, or both form and meaning (diagrammatic iconicity). Imageability ratings of concepts impacted performance in a...
Article
Full-text available
This article describes how deaf signers of Auslan (a deaf signed language of Australia) coordinate fully conventionalised forms (such as lexical manual signs and English fingerspelling and/or mouthing) with more richly improvised semiotics (such as indicating verbs, pointing signs, depicting signs, visible surrogates and/or invisible surrogates) to...
Article
Full-text available
Investigations of iconicity in signed language processing often rely on non-signer ratings to determine whether signs are iconic, implying that iconicity can be objectively evaluated by individuals with no prior exposure to a linguistic form. We question the assumption that iconicity is an objective property of the form of a sign and argue that ico...
Conference Paper
Full-text available

Network

Cited By

Projects

Projects (3)
Project
How does our experience (broadly construed) influences language. Using experimental, corpus-based, and elicitation methods, we approach this question from several angles to better understand the individual contributions of sensory-motor experience, socio-cultural experience, language-use/linguistic experience, and general cognition/embodied experiences on the emergence, organization, and processing of language.