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
This resource establishes European standards for sign languages for professional purposes in line with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and provides an overview of assessment descriptors and approaches. Drawing on preliminary work undertaken in adapting the CEFR to sign languages, the project Signed languages for professional purposes (PRO-Sign) is the first to specify proficiency levels for sign languages establishing European standards for use in Deaf Studies and interpreting programmes offered at tertiary level across Europe and beyond. This website seeks to act as a point of reference for teachers, teacher trainers and curriculum developers of sign languages in tertiary educational environments. It may also support the work of international non-governmental organisations such as the European Union of the Deaf (EUD), the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD), the European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters (efsli) and other relevant international organisations. This website provides ‘Can Do’ descriptors for reception, interaction and production from A1 all the way up to C2 level. The descriptions also include ‘plus levels’ (e.g. A2+).
LINK
In this paper, we report on interview data collected from 14 Deaf leaders across seven countries (Australia, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States) regarding their perspectives on signed language interpreters. Using a semi-structured survey questionnaire, seven interpreting researchers interviewed two Deaf leaders each in their home countries. Following transcription of the data, the researchers conducted a thematic analysis of the comments. Four shared themes emerged in the data, as follows: (a) variable level of confidence in interpreting direction, (b) criteria for selecting interpreters, (c) judging the competence of interpreters, and (d) strategies for working with interpreters. The results suggest that Deaf leaders share similar, but not identical, perspectives about working with interpreters, despite differing conditions that hold regarding how interpreting services are provided in their respective countries. When compared to prior studies of Deaf leaders’ perspectives of interpreters, these data indicate some positive trends in Deaf leaders’ experience with interpreters; however, results also point to a need for further work in creating an atmosphere of trust, enhancing interpreters’ language fluency, and developing mutual collaboration between Deaf leaders and signed language interpreters. De url van de uitgeversversie van het artikel is: http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/084.2017.18.1.5
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
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 chapter deals with the study of how deaf and hearing signers, and others, understand sign languages by themselves and in relationship to other languages and modalities. By doing linguistic ethnography, it is possible to investigate these language attitudes and ideologies as they unfold in everyday practice, towards ideas such as the status of sign languages and particular varieties; discourses surrounding linguistic authority, authenticity and ownership; and the emergence (or development) of new sign languages and new subject-specific vocabulary. The methods discussed in this chapter are ethnographic research methods and visual methods: participant observation, ethnographic filmmaking, and language portraits. The main points of the chapter are illustrated by means of three case studies: (1) participant observation in multilingual tourist spaces in Bali, in which Indonesian Sign Language, International Sign, and American Sign Language are used; (2) ethnographic filmmaking within an international multi-sited research project focusing on International Sign; and (3) the use of language portraits with new signers and heritage signers in Flanders, who mostly use Flemish Sign Language and Dutch
LINK
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
Communication between healthcare professionals and deaf patients has been particularly challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have explored the possibility to automatically translate phrases that are frequently used in the diagnosis and treatment of hospital patients, in particular phrases related to COVID-19, from Dutch or English to Dutch Sign Language (NGT). The prototype system we developed displays translations either by means of pre-recorded videos featuring a deaf human signer (for a limited number of sentences) or by means of animations featuring a computer-generated signing avatar (for a larger, though still restricted number of sentences). We evaluated the comprehensibility of the signing avatar, as compared to the human signer. We found that, while individual signs are recognized correctly when signed by the avatar almost as frequently as when signed by a human, sentence comprehension rates and clarity scores for the avatar are substantially lower than for the human signer. We identify a number of concrete limitations of the JASigning avatar engine that underlies our system. Namely, the engine currently does not offer sufficient control over mouth shapes, the relative speed and intensity of signs in a sentence (prosody), and transitions between signs. These limitations need to be overcome in future work for the engine to become usable in practice.
DOCUMENT
This extensive, well-researched and clearly formatted lexicon of a wide variety of linguistic terms is a long overdue. It is an extremely welcome addition to the bookshelves of sign language teachers, interpreters, linguists, learners and other sign language users, and of course of the Deaf themselves. Unique to this lexicon is not only the inclusion of many terms that are used especially for sign languages, but also the fact that for the terms, there are not only examples from spoken languages but there are also glossed and translated examples from several different sign languages. There are many interesting features to this lexicon. There is an immediate temptation to find examples of terms in the sign language one is studying as well as determining how many of the most used concepts would be signed in the local language. As there are to date still almost no reference grammars of sign languages, the definitions of many of these concepts would be extremely helpful for those linguists planning to make a reference grammar of their sign language.
DOCUMENT
