Universal dependencies (UD) is a framework for morphosyntactic annotation of human language, which to date has been used to create treebanks for more than 100 languages. In this article, we outline the linguistic theory of the UD framework, which draws on a long tradition of typologically oriented grammatical theories. Grammatical relations between words are centrally used to explain how predicate–argument structures are encoded morphosyntactically in different languages while morphological features and part-of-speech classes give the properties of words. We argue that this theory is a good basis for cross-linguistically consistent annotation of typologically diverse languages in a way that supports computational natural language understanding as well as broader linguistic studies.

What do spelling errors look like in children with sign language knowledge but with variation in hearing background, and what strategies do these children rely on when they learn how to spell in written language? Earlier research suggests that the spelling of children with hearing loss is different, because of their lack of hearing, which requires them to rely on other strategies. In this study, we examine whether, and how, different variables such as hearing degree, sign language knowledge and bilingualism may affect the spelling strategies of children with Swedish sign language, Svenskt teckenspråk, (STS) knowledge, and whether these variables can be mirrored in these children’s spelling. The spelling process of nineteen children with STS knowledge (mean age: 10.9) with different hearing degrees, born into deaf families, is described and compared with a group of fourteen hearing children without STS knowledge (mean age: 10.9). Keystroke logging was used to investigate the participants’ writing process. The spelling behavior of the children was further analyzed and categorized into different spelling error categories. The results indicate that many children showed exceptionally few spelling errors compared to earlier studies, that may derive from their early exposure of STS, enabling them to use the fingerspelling strategy. All of the children also demonstrated similar typing skills. The deaf children showed a tendency to rely on a visual strategy during spelling, which may result in incorrect, but visually similar, words, i.e., a type of spelling errors not found in texts by hearing children with STS knowledge. The deaf children also showed direct transfer from STS in their spelling. It was found that hard-of-hearing children together with hearing children of deaf adults (CODAs), both with STS knowledge, used a sounding strategy, rather than a visual strategy. Overall, this study suggests that the ability to hear and to use sign language, together and respectively, play a significant role for the spelling patterns and spelling strategies used by the children with and without hearing loss.

How does bimodal bilingualism—a signed and a spoken language—influence the writing process or the written product? The writing outcomes of twenty deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) children and hearing children of deaf adults (CODA) (mean 11.6 years) with similar bimodal bilingual backgrounds were analyzed. During the writing of a narrative text, a keylogging tool was used that generated detailed information about the participants’ writing process and written product. Unlike earlier studies that have repeatedly shown that monolingual hearing children outperform their DHH peers in writing, there were few differences between the groups that likely were caused by their various hearing backgrounds, such as in their lexical density. Signing knowledge was negatively correlated with writing flow and pauses before words, and positively correlated with deleted characters, but these did not affect the written product negatively. Instead, they used different processes to reach similar texts. This study emphasizes the importance of including and comparing participants with similar language experience backgrounds. It may be deceptive to compare bilingual DHH children with hearing children with other language backgrounds, risking showing language differences. This should always be controlled for through including true control groups with similar language experience as the examined groups.

This article describes the lexical and syntactic development of written narratives in 24 deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students aged between 8 and 18 and takes into account how their varying linguistic backgrounds may predict their written performance. All participants use spoken Swedish, but the study also considers their proficiency in Swedish Sign language, which ranged from zero to fluent. Their narrative texts were analyzed in regard to syntax and lexicon, which demonstrated a strong developmental trend in which increased age predicted more complex texts. Age of acquisition did not predict any writing outcome, which is suggested to occur because all participants were exposed to language early, that is, within the critical time window for language acquisition. Sign language proficiency showed a tendency to predict adjective density and number of clauses, which encourages future research in this area, especially since this connection argues for the benefits of early access to a language and the positive relationship between sign language proficiency and writing.

The small body of research on writing and writing processes in the group of deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) children has shown that this group struggles more with writing than their hearing peers. This article aims to explore in what ways the DHH group differs from their peers regarding the written product and the writing processes. Participants are all in the age span 10–12 years old and include: (a) 12 DHH children with knowledge of Swedish sign language (Svenskt teckenspråk, STS) as well as spoken Swedish, (b) 10 age-matched hearing children of deaf adults (CODA) who know STS, (c) 14 age-matched hearing peers with no STS knowledge. More specifically we investigate how text length and lexical properties relate to writing processes such as planning (measured through pauses) and revision, and how the background factors of age, gender, hearing and knowledge of STS predict the outcome in product and process. The data consists of picture-elicited narratives collected with keystroke logging. The overall results show that age is a strong predictor for writing fluency, longer texts and more sophisticated lexicon for all the children. This confirms theories on writing development which stress that when children have automatized basic low-level processes such as transcription and spelling, this will free up cognitive space for engaging in high-level processes, such as planning and revision—which in turn will result in more mature texts. What characterizes the DHH group is slower writing fluency, higher lexical density, due to omitted function words, and extensive revisions (both deletions and insertions) on word level and below. One explanation for the last finding is that limitations in the auditory input lead to more uncertainty regarding correct and appropriate lexical choices, as well as spelling. The article contributes with more specific knowledge on what is challenging during writing for DHH children with knowledge of STS and spoken Swedish in middle school, in the developmental stage when basic writing skills are established.