Interactive Functions of Palm-Up: Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Modal Insights from ASL, American English, LSFB and Belgian French

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper under consideration contributes a lot of insightful observations to the analysis of PALM-UP functions and distribution is signed and spoken languages. The research directly compares palm-up across modalities (signed and spoken) and across distinct language ecologies (Belgian French and American). The direct comparison presents an innovative approach to the function of PALM-UP. Moreover, the comparison is conducted in the context of semi-structured conversations, whereas most of the previous research examined PALM-Up usually in monologic texts. In addition, the present study took into account not only canonical forms of Palm-Up, but also some deviations of the canonical open palm form. 

Unfortunately, the merits of the paper go  together with some important drawbacks. See the attached document for a more detailed outline of these points. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1) The most problematic issue of the paper concerns Data Annotation and Coding, and Identification of PU functions, more specifically. The PU interactive functions were attributed to the PU forms based on the categories determined a priori. The attribution criteria are not explained or grounded. For instance, the example of PU regarding the delivery of information is illustrated by the following sentence and explanation: 

The authors claim that in this example, the speaker directs the PU in reference to the other participant’s lack of knowledge of the new topic at hand. How do the authors determine the information status of the information the speaker refers to when using PU? In the literature, there are specific criteria of new, old, shared, presupposed, etc. information. Unfortunately, they are not used here and not referred to. The authors simply postulate that the information is new. The actual co-text of PU might tell us quite a different story: a) In order to clarify the importance of the knowledge of the local languages, the speaker compares it (like..) to the ability to use basic phrases in a foreign language in a foreign country – the fact which is presented as common knowledge to the addressee, as it is used as the basis for comparison. It is impossible to compare a new piece of information to another piece of new information, but rather the comparison needs to take some common ground for granted. Please notice that the following example, illustrating a PU used for common ground, also starts with like. B) Moreover, the PU here appears here in the adverbial clause (when…), which almost never affirms new information. In some, the authors present no linguistic evidence for the phrase being characterized by a new information status. 

Response 1): We thank the reviewer for the critique. Interactive functions of gestures like the PU can be seen as challenging to annotate but they are not as difficult as those gestures that signal shifts in epistemic states whose meanings are largely internal to the speaker/signer. To define the interactive functions, we relied heavily on methodological frameworks established and replicated in prior work to guide each step of our annotation process. Our explication of our process was not detailed enough to relay this to the reader and we thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Our coding process required close viewing of visible and in some cases auditory signals with which each PU co-occurred (see Section 2, lines 387-443). We determined the forms of PU according to the selection criteria and then assigned functions as situated in the sequences of each exchange. Our work, in particular the data annotations, is grounded in the seminal studies carried out by Janet Bavelas and her colleagues (in 1992, 1995, and then summarized later in 2018). We also follow previous scholars who have published on the same topic and have conducted studies on signed languages that are similar to ours here.We adopt the same methodological approach as these studies (see Ferrara 2020, 2021, Gabarró-López 2017, 2019, 2024, Wallingford 2011). Additionally, we provide access to our data for review.
The reviewer's comments helped illuminate for us the areas in the manuscript where the explication of our methodology could be improved, particularly with respect to clarifying our functional categories (see below) and the means by which we arrived at our conclusions. We feel that this clarification will address the concerns the reviewer expressed with respect to the annotation process and the analysis of the data. 

First, we have added an appendix with the full annotation guide we used during the annotation process. Additionally, we have expanded our discussion of our coding process (Section 2, lines 387-444) to include explicit mention of the distinction between the delivery of new information and referring to information that is shared (in common ground) that is grounded in the literature on PU, interactive gestures, and Clark's (1996) definition of common ground. We also clarified how we determined the difference between a PU that was primarily turn-regulating and those that were used to deliver or mark information. Finally, we have revised our explications of each of the examples to incorporate clarifications in our coding and analysis. We believe these edits have enhanced the manuscript for clarity.

Comment 2): It seems that the contrasts the authors are trying to draw between the most frequent function of PU among hearing and deaf people are artificial and not clearly supported by the data. For example, the authors claim that the signers, unlike the speakers, most frequently use PU in the conversation structuring functions, e.g., turn-taking regulation, unlike hearing participants who used PU mostly as an information-status marker. This dichotomy between these two communicative dimensions of PU seems quite artificial. Clearly, the initiation of a new turn might be, at the same time, instigated by a need to convey new (and important) information. Therefore, the PU identification is confounded. 

Response 2): We thank the reviewer for this feedback. While we disagree with this reviewer’s conclusion regarding the artificial nature of our analysis and our results, we appreciate the critique and we feel that the improvement of Section 2 based on their feedback will address this concern. We have noted that prior work/studies have looked at discourse-related and interactive-oriented functions of the PU (e.g., McKee & Wallingford 2011 in NZSL; Van Loon 2012 in NGT; Arnold 2024 in BSL) and found similar results to our study for SL, we are even more confident in the results. More recently, we have learned of another study that compared the use of PU in German Sign Language and German and the two researchers find results very comparable and similar to ours. See below: Kuder and Debrelioska, Palm-up Open Hand in German and DGS 

• “there were also some clear differences. German speakers are significantly more likely than DGS signers to use PUOH gestures for presenting new(er) information. DGS signers, on the other hand, are more likely than German speakers to use PUOH gestures for signaling the beginning/ending of narratives” (…) Interestingly, this divide between the narrative and metanarrative level is echoed in preliminary findings from a different discourse type by XX & XX.” 

Finally: previous published work also show similar patterns with deaf signers: see Ferrara on the use of turn-regulating functions versus new/shared info in NTS: corroborating what we have here among ASL and LSFB signers. 

Comment 3): Another important question concerns the usage and analysis of wh- signs which are often based on PM. Did the authors exclude those forms? I was not able to find explanation in the Methodology section. For instance, the example presented in Fig. 5 illustrates the point. It seems that the signer produces a question word in the form of PU at the end of an alternative question, instead of the second alternative.  

Response 3): We thank the reviewer for this astute observation. We realize that the misinterpretation of the example is likely due to relying on screenshots rather than video to understand the example. In the video the signer clearly extends the PU toward her interlocutor—there is no possibility regarding the use of a Wh-sign in this context. We have attempted to further clarify this instance below. 

• Clarification regarding the example in figure 5 (lines: 587-589) The signer does not perform a question word in the form of PU at the end of an alternative question… She was interrupted by signer S041 during her turn and suspended her utterance. She then, performed the PU from the example to GIVE the turn to signer S041… this is why this PU has the function “turn-give”.
• Additionally, we have added a discussion of the signs (ASL sign) WHAT-PU in Section 1 (lines 201-230) to clarify the distinction between this unit and the ones of interest here. We then describe in Section 2 (lines 388-390) the process by which we excluded all instances of units that were classified as Wh-signs. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please read the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First of all, thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. Below are the responses and the revisions/corrections are highlighted in the re-submitted manuscript (in red). 

1. The use of acronyms should be explained the first time they show up (e.g., ELAN, line 346).

• Response: ELAN is in fact not an acronym but the name of a software developed at MPI. The website is added in the manuscript. 

2. The abstract should not contain references (line 18): deleted.

3. The keywords should highlight relevant terms in the text, which is not the case with “multimodality.” Ok 

No typos were found, but there are some formal issues that should be revised to comply with the APA Standards, namely:

4. Body text + 5. Final references -> All fixed. Thank you for pointing them out!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx