nonmanual

 signal  is  absolutely  necessary.    In  the  case  of  co-­‐occurring  morphological  

nonmanual  signals  and  manual  classifiers,  the  two  reinforce  each  other.  Although  the  

sentences  lacking  an  appropriate  nonmanual  signal  are  usually  understandable,  

participants  were  in  consensus  that  the  sentences  are  clearer  when  a  nonmanual  signal  is  

present.      

When  morphological  nonmanual  signals  co-­‐occurred  with  facial  expressions  

depicting  affect,  both  were  distinctly  perceived.  Participants  correctly  identified  both  the  

emotional  state  of  the  avatar  and  the  meaning  of  the  morphological  nonmanual  signal.    

Further,  co-­‐occurring  syntactic  and  affect  information  were  distinguishable.    Participants  

could  discern  both  the  emotional  state  of  the  avatar,  and  that  the  sentence  being  signed  was  

a  question.  

Table  10  shows  a  drop  in  clarity  that  may  indicate  that  some  participants  

misunderstood  the  purpose  of  the  Likert  scale  that  measures  emotion.  It  depicts  a  range  

from  unhappy  to  happy,  which  was  intended  to  measure  the  perceived  emotional  state  of  

the  avatar.    However,  some  participants  may  have  assumed  that  it  was  a  measure  of  their  

own  emotional  reaction  after  having  viewed  the  animation.  Comments  made  by  participants  

who  answered  with  a  neutral  rating  prompt  this  observation.  One  said  “She  looks  angry”  

and  “She  comes  across  as  negative”.  Another  remarked,  “I  don’t  like  that.  Make  her  look  

friendlier.”  

The  order  in  which  the  animations  played  may  have  influenced  responses.  The  

animations  depicting  an  angry  signer  were  perceived  as  very  angry,  perhaps  due  to  the  

contrast  between  them  and  the  previous  animations  depicting  a  happy  signer.  

  43