Acquisition of phonology in child Icelandic Sign Language: Unique findings

Koulidobrova, Elena; Ivanova, Nedelina

doi:10.3765/plsa.v5i1.4697

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the current study, accuracy among the 22 ASL-signing children (mean age: 6;04) in the pseudosign repetition task was good, with an average of 91.4%. As indicated in Figure 5, overall, repetition accuracy increased with child age, echoing the results of other child pseudosign repetition tasks (Marshall et al, 2006;Mann et al, 2010;Cruz et al, 2014;Koulidobrova and Ivanova, 2020).…”

Section: Phonological Developmentsupporting

confidence: 71%

Phonological development in American Sign Language-signing children: Insights from pseudosign repetition tasks

Pichler²,

Kozak³

et al. 2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we conducted a pseudosign (nonce sign) repetition task with 22 children (mean age: 6;04) acquiring American Sign Language (ASL) as a first language (L1) from deaf parents. Thirty-nine pseudosigns with varying complexity were developed and organized into eight categories depending on number of hands, number of simultaneous movement types, and number of movement sequences. Pseudosigns also varied in handshape complexity. The children’s performance on the ASL pseudosign task improved with age, displaying relatively accurate (re)production of location and orientation, but much less accurate handshape and movement, a finding in line with real sign productions for both L1 and L2 signers. Handshapes with higher complexity were correlated with lower accuracy in the handshape parameter. We found main effects of sequential and simultaneous movement combinations on overall performance. Items with no movement sequence were produced with higher overall accuracy than those with a movement sequence. Items with two simultaneous movement types or a single movement type were produced with higher overall accuracy than those with three simultaneous movement types. Finally, number of hands did not affect the overall accuracy. Remarkably, movement sequences impose processing constraints on signing children whereas complex hands (two hands) and two simultaneous movement types do not significantly lower accuracy, indicating a capacity for processing multiple simultaneous components in signs. Spoken languages, in contrast, manifest greater complexity in temporal length. Hearing children’s pseudoword repetition still displays high levels of accuracy on disyllabic words, with complexity effects affecting only longer multisyllabic words. We conclude that the pseudosign repetition task is an informative tool for studies of signing children’s phonological development and that sheds light on potential modality effects for phonological development.

show abstract

Section: Phonological Developmentsupporting

confidence: 71%

Phonological development in American Sign Language-signing children: Insights from pseudosign repetition tasks

Pichler²,

Kozak³

et al. 2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The input that the child receives can vary depending on the language skills of the parents. The situation in Iceland is unique because most signing children of hearing parents begin their language acquisition process in ÍTM between the age of 0-3 years (Koulidobrova & Ivanova, 2020). Very few signing children of hearing parents from other countries start language acquisition at such an early age (Lu, Jones and Morgan, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Raising Handshape Awareness

Ivanova¹,

Sverrisdóttir

Þorvaldsdóttir³

2022

Hrvat. rev. rehabil. istraž. (Online)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although previous research shows that the use of rhyme in early language stimulation has a positive impact on children’s sign language development, this area of sign language acquisition has not been adequately researched. 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents who barely know sign language before their child is born, and yet they are the primary language role models in their child’s life. As L2 sign language users, hearing parents of deaf children teach language skills in their L2 to their deaf child who acquires sign language as one of their L1s. In this article, we focus on the potential application of the Icelandic Sign Language (ÍTM) handshape inventory in both early language intervention with signing children and in teaching ÍTM as an L2. We argue that the handshape inventory can be used as a teaching tool when teaching sign language as M2L2 to hearing adults and as a visual language stimulation tool for signing children (M1L1 or M2L1). The main purpose of using the handshape inventory is to raise phonological awareness of signing children and adults learning sign language. This can be done by explicitly teaching handshapes to adult learners and using signed rhymes in early language stimulation.

show abstract

“…According to (Stefánsdóttir et al 2015), this move towards almost universal implantation has led to the endangerment of the sign languages in many countries and, in particular, in Iceland. While no published research exists that manipulates this variable in terms of language acquisition or educational outcomes, some literature shows that some of these children attend the schools where ÍTM is used for instruction and learn the language itself, though others do not (Stefánsdóttir et al 2019;Guðmundsdóttir and Ísleifsdóttir 2006;Diego 2020;Koulidobrova and Ivanova 2020).…”

Section: Complexity Of Intergenerational Transmission and Intersectionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Ensure Bilingualism/Biliteracy in an Indigenous Context: The Case of Icelandic Sign Language

Koulidobrova

Sverrisdóttir

2021

Languages

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper discusses the implementation of a bilingual education language policy in the context of endangered indigenous sign language—Icelandic Sign Language (íslenskt táknmál, ÍTM). Unlike other indigenous endangered languages (e.g., Sámi), or other sign languages (e.g., American Sign Language, ASL), ÍTM has received certain recognition typically associated with equitable language policy—by law, it is considered the “first language” of the deaf/hard of hearing Icelanders; further, Iceland overtly states that ÍTM-signing children must be educated bilingually. However, we show that as a country that has committed itself to linguistic equality as well as the support of indigenous languages under the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, Iceland still has a way to go—both in terms of language attitudes and the associated implementations. We analyze the current situation focusing on the issues of bilingualism and biliteracy (vis-à-vis indigeneity and endangerment), explain the reason for the state of affairs by contextualizing the barrier to both for signers, and offer an explicit path forward which articulates the responsibilities of the power structures as well as potential outcomes related to revitalization, should these responsibilities be fulfilled.

show abstract

Acquisition of phonology in child Icelandic Sign Language: Unique findings

Cited by 5 publications

References 24 publications

Phonological development in American Sign Language-signing children: Insights from pseudosign repetition tasks

Phonological development in American Sign Language-signing children: Insights from pseudosign repetition tasks

Raising Handshape Awareness

How to Ensure Bilingualism/Biliteracy in an Indigenous Context: The Case of Icelandic Sign Language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About