Rhythmic structures in French Sign Language (LSF) nursery rhymes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research over the past three decades has brought attention to various ways in which linguistic structures are exploited to build poetic form in sign languages. These include recurring patterns of phonological elements (similar to rhyme, alliteration or assonance) that play a role in the structure of verses and strophes, as well as uses of metaphor and modifications of the form of signs that contribute to an overall fluidity of movement distinct from non-poetic signed discourse. In this paper we concentrate our attention on the role of rhythmic structure and the ways in which it interacts with syntactic structure to build poetic form. Our data consist of nursery rhymes, either original LSF creations or adaptations from French nursery rhymes, which were composed by Deaf adults and children. This type of poetry, as a genre of oral literature, is essentially performance-related and is highly variable in form. Despite the difference in modality (oral vs. gestural), LSF and French nursery rhymes show similar characteristics (repetition of phonological units, non-significant gesture, similar subject matter etc.), and rhythmic structure is central to their overall structure. This paper isolates rhythmic templates in LSF nursery rhymes via the analysis of accentual prosody (speed, intensity and manner of movement) and compares the nursery rhymes with an equivalent corpus of non-poetic performances. This research is relevant to the question of the universality of infant rhythmic structure and the importance of nursery rhymes in first language acquisition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".