Describing spatial layouts as an L2M2 signed language learner

Abstract

This study explores the L2M2 acquisition of Norwegian Sign Language by hearing adults, with a focus on the production and use of depicting signs. A group of students and their instructors were asked to respond to prompt questions about directions and locations in Norwegian Sign Language, and their responses were then compared. An examination of the students’ depicting signs shows that they struggled more with the phonological parameters orientation and movement, rather than with handshape. In addition, they used fewer depicting signs than their instructors, and instead relied more on lexical signs. Finally, students were found to struggle with the coordination of depicting signs within the signing space and in relation to their own bodies. It is hoped that the findings from this study can be used to inform future research as well as curricula development and pedagogy.

The challenges of viewpoint-taking when learning a sign language: Data from the ‘frog story’ in British Sign Language

“…Also on the theme of expressing spatial relationships, findings by Ferrara and Nilsson (2017) are relevant. They asked learners of sign to describe spatial layouts of routes and buildings with which they were familiar, and found that learners not only used fewer classifiers than native signers but also struggled to coordinate classifiers within the signing space and relative to their own bodies.…”

“…These learners are therefore sometimes termed "Second Modality, Second Language" learners, or M2L2 learners for short (e.g. Chen-Pichler and Koulidobrova, 2016;Ferrara and Nilsson, 2017;Williams and Newman, 2016).…”

Use and acquisition of mouth actions in L2 sign language learners

“…To date, previous research has focused on articulation/phonological studies regarding the learning of an SL as an L2, specifically with regard to American Sign Language (Mirus, Rathmann & Meier 2001;Rosen 2004;Bochner et al 2011), but also, to some extent, British Sign Language (Ortega 2013). Furthermore, some single studies have looked at L2 acquisition of characteristic sign language structures such as depicting signs/classifier constructions (Marshall & Morgan 2015) and viewpoints of BSL (Gulamani, Marshall & Morgan 2020), and use of spatial constructions in NTS (Ferrara & Nilsson 2017). The mouth actions of hearing L2 sign language learners have so far not been studied.…”

Space Oddities: The Acquisition of Agreement Verbs by L2 Learners of Sign Language of the Netherlands

“…7 The M2L2 acquisition of other spatial devices-in Norwegian Sign Language and NGT, respectively-is addressed in Ferrara & Nilsson (2017) and Boers-Visker & van den Bogaerde (2019). For overviews of M2L2 acquisition, see Quinto-Pozos (2011), Woll (2013), and Chen Pichler & Koulidobrova 20158 Recall from the "Optionality of Agreement" section that-at least in some sign languages-agreement is not obligatory, and syntactic relations can be expressed using other devices.…”

“…77The M2L2 acquisition of other spatial devices—in Norwegian Sign Language and NGT, respectively—is addressed in Ferrara & Nilsson (2017) and Boers–Visker & van den Bogaerde (2019). For overviews of M2L2 acquisition, see Quinto–Pozos (2011), Woll (2013), and Chen Pichler & Koulidobrova (2015)…”