This paper gives an overview of the most common procedures in research design, choice of subjects, transcription and documentation in the field of sign language acquisition.
DOCUMENT
ion of verb agreement by hearing learners of a sign language. During a 2-year period, 14 novel learners of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) with a spoken language background performed an elicitation task 15 times. Seven deaf native signers and NGT teachers performed the same task to serve as a benchmark group. The results obtained show that for some learners, the verb agreement system of NGT was difficult to master, despite numerous examples in the input. As compared to the benchmark group, learners tended to omit agreement markers on verbs that could be modified, did not always correctly use established locations associated with discourse referents, and made characteristic errors with respect to properties that are important in the expression of agreement (movement and orientation). The outcomes of the study are of value to practitioners in the field, as they are informative with regard to the nature of the learning process during the first stages of learning a sign language.
DOCUMENT
Presentatie op congres The Sign Language Proficiency Interview (SLPI) is a tool for assessing functional sign language skill. Based on the Language Aptitude Test, it uses a recorded 20 minute conversation between a skilled interviewer and the candidate. The interview uses an ad hoc series of probing and challenging questions to elicit the candidate’s best use of the sign language in topics relating to the candidate’s work, family/background, and leisure activities. This video language sample is then analyzed to determine the candidate’s rating on the SLPI Rating Scale. The rating process documents vocabulary, grammar and discourse, and follows a specified protocol that includes specific examples from the interview. The SLPI is used widely in the US and Canada with American Sign Language, and one of the presenters has adapted it for use with South African Sign Language. The presenters have recently adapted the SLPI for use with Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). While the interview process is the same regardless of the sign language, two aspects of the adaptation for NGT required work: 1) modifying the grammar analysis to match NGT grammar; and 2) modifying the Rating Scale to align with that of the Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR). This ICED presentation will include: 1) a thorough description of SLPI goals, processes and implementation; 2) modifications for NGT grammar; and 3) modifications to align with the CEFR.
DOCUMENT
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
This study reports on strategies to indicate plural referents in hearing learners of Sign Language of the Netherlands. This is the first explorative study that focuses on L2 expressions of plurality in a sign language. Using data from two datasets, I examined when learners start to express plural and which strategies they apply, and I noted typical learner characteristics. The first study examined spontaneous conversations of three learners, during the first 18 months of their learning. The second study analyzed elicited data from 11 learners during their first year of learning. The data reveal that learners are able to express plural referents in early stages, using strategies that are familiar to them (quantifiers) as well as strategies that do not occur in their mother tongue (reduplication of the noun, use of spatial devices). The early emergence might be explained by the salient nature of the devices and the resemblance with gestural portrayals.
DOCUMENT
In this paper we describe our work in progress on the development of a set of criteria to predict text difficulty in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). These texts are used in a four year bachelor program, which is being brought in line with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001). Production and interaction proficiency are assessed through the NGT Functional Assessment instrument, adapted from the Sign Language Proficiency Interview (Caccamise & Samar, 2009). With this test we were able to determine that after one year of NGT-study students produce NGT at CEFR-level A2, after two years they sign at level B1, and after four years they are proficient in NGT on CEFR-level B2. As a result of that we were able to identify NGT texts that were matched to the level of students at certain stages in their studies with a CEFR-level. These texts were then analysed for sign familiarity, morpheme-sign rate, use of space and use of non-manual signals. All of these elements appear to be relevant for the determination of a good alignment between the difficulty of NGT signed texts and the targeted CEFR level, although only the morpheme-sign rate appears to be a decisive indicator
DOCUMENT
Sign languages have been recognized as indigenous to Europe by the key European institutions. The European Parliament has passed resolutions on sign languages on three occasions (1988, 1998, 2016a). The Council of Europe’s (CoE) Parliamentary Assembly supported a resolution on sign languages in 2003 (Council of Europe, 2005), and the European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML; an organization established under the auspices of the CoE) has supported work on sign language teaching, learning and assessment (Leeson, Van den Bogaerde, Rathmann, & Haug, 2016
DOCUMENT
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
The following guidelines address issues related specifically to sign language tests and testing of children since most of the existing guidelines focus on tests for adult learners. Links are provided to existing guidelines for test development, such as from the International Testing Commission (ITC), or the European Association of Language Testing and Assessment (EALTA), which include more general, construct-independent issues on (language) tests to provide additional/in-depth information. The guidelines stated here serve as a point of reference to develop, evaluate, and use tests, both for children or adult learners of a sign language. To investigate specific topics more in-depth, we recommend using existing guidelines (see Additional resources and guidelines for (language) test development) or refer to publications on sign language test development and adaptation (see Selected references
DOCUMENT
Posterpresentatie op Conferentie. Introduction: Classifiers are handshapes (sometimes combined with a specific orientation) that, when combined with the other parameters of movement and location form a ‘verb of motion or location’. There is a limited body of research available on the acquisition of classifiers by children. The available studies have focused on deaf children of deaf (DOD) parents, who are native signers. Results show that classifiers emerge at 3 years and approach an adult like level at the age of 9 (Beal Alvarez & Easterbrooks, 2013). This small study was set out to investigate the production of classifiers in DOH children who acquire Sign Language of the Netherlands. Our expectation was that DOH children produce classifiers, but fail to use them correctly in all instances due to lack of pragmatic control (Slobin et al., 2003). Method: Four children (two girls, two boys) were recruited at a school for the Deaf in The Netherlands (5;10 – 6;8 years). All children were deaf or severely hearing-impaired from birth. Children used (sign supported) Dutch at home and sign language at school and had approximately three years of exposure to sign language. Narratives (Frog-story) were recorded. The recordings were transcribed and analyzed using ELAN-software. Analysis focused on type of classifier (entity and handling) and accuracy in production. Results: The children produced 22 classifiers in total, 20 entity classifiers and 2 handling classifiers. Ten percent of the entity classifiers was incorrect; the handshape to express the entity did not match the handshape frequently selected for that entity. Conclusion: DOH children produce classifiers after three years of exposure to sign language. Errors in classifier production involved errors in handshape selection. This compares to type of errors frequently found for DOD children. Results will be discussed in relation to the iconic and gestural properties of classifiers (Cormier et al., 2012). References: Beal-Alvarez, J.S. & Easterbrooks, S.R. (2013). Increasing children’s ASL classifier production: A multicomponent intervention. American Annals of the Deaf, 158, 311 – 333. Cormier, K., Quinto-Pozos, D., Sevcikova, Z., Schembri, A. (2012). Lexicalisation and de-lexicalisation processes in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language & Communication, 32, 329 – 348. Slobin, D., Hoiting, N., Kuntze, K., Lindert, R., Weinberg, A. Pyers, J., Anthony, M., Biederman, Y., Thumann, H. (2003). A cognitive/functional perspective on the acquisition of ‘classifiers’. In: Emmorey, K. (Ed.). Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Pp 297 – 310.
DOCUMENT
