Full text met HU account Although people all over the world learn sign languages as a second language (SL2), there is scant literature on sign language acquisition processes to guide professionals in the field. This study focuses on one of the modality-specific phenomena that SL2 learners with a spoken language background encounter that do not exist in their native language (L1): the use of space for grammatical reasons. We analyzed the sign language production data of two learners of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) who we followed for four years. Data comprise interviews that were coded for use of space. Use of space was operationalized by measuring the number of occasions of pointing signs, agreement verbs, classifier verbs, and spatially modified signs from the nominal domain. In addition, we identified examples of typical L2 signing (e.g. errors of overgeneralization, omissions, et cetera). Data show that learners initially produce modified signs that have a gestural counterpart. It might be that they "borrow" signs from the gestural domain, or they produce these highly iconic structures because their gestural inventory has helped them to acquire these structures. Furthermore, the data show that particularly classifier verbs and agreement verbs within a constructed action sequence pose challenges for the learners, and we observed some general error patterns that have been found in L1-learners, such as stacking and reversing the movement path of agreement verbs
LINK
The aim of this dissertation is to examine how adult learners with a spoken language background who are acquiring a signed language, learn how to use the space in front of the body to express grammatical and topographical relations. Moreover, it aims at investigating the effectiveness of different types of instruction, in particular instruction that focuses the learner's attention on the agreement verb paradigm. To that end, existing data from a learner corpus (Boers-Visker, Hammer, Deijn, Kielstra & Van den Bogaerde, 2016) were analyzed, and two novel experimental studies were designed and carried out. These studies are described in detail in Chapters 3–6. Each chapter has been submitted to a scientific journal, and accordingly, can be read independently.1 Yet, the order of the chapters follows the chronological order in which the studies were carried out, and the reader will notice that each study served as a basis to inform the next study. As such, some overlap in the sections describing the theoretical background of each study was unavoidable.
MULTIFILE
