Language experience in LSF development: Behavioral evidence from a sentence repetition task

Abstract

In psycholinguistics and clinical linguistics, the Sentence Repetition Task (SRT) is known to be a valuable tool to screen general language abilities in both spoken and signed languages. This task enables users to reliably and quickly assess linguistic abilities at different levels of linguistic analysis such as phonology, morphology, lexicon, and syntax. To evaluate sign language proficiency in deaf children using French Sign Language (LSF), we designed a new SRT comprising 20 LSF sentences. The task was administered to a cohort of 62 children– 34 native signers (6;09–12 years) and 28 non-native signers (6;08–12;08 years)–in order to study their general linguistic development as a function of age of sign language acquisition (AOA) and chronological age (CA). Previously, a group of 10 adult native signers was also evaluated with this task. As expected, our results showed a significant effect of AOA, indicating that the native signers repeated more signs and were more accurate than non-native signers. A similar pattern of results was found for CA. Furthermore, native signers made fewer phonological errors (i.e., handshape, movement, and location) than non-native signers. Finally, as shown in previous sign language studies, handshape and movement proved to be the most difficult parameters to master regardless of AOA and CA. Taken together, our findings support the assumption that AOA is a crucial factor in the development of phonological skills regardless of language modality (spoken vs. signed). This study thus constitutes a first step toward a theoretical description of the developmental trajectory in LSF, a hitherto understudied language.

Unraveling the impact of congenital deafness on individual brain organization

“…An additional variable that may contribute to the observed outcomes is the comparable language abilities within our cohort of delayed signers. In fact, all deaf participants self-reported consistent levels of sign language proficiency, a factor that is typically affected following delayed language acquisition (Bogliotti et al, 2020; Caselli et al, 2021; Cheng & Mayberry, 2021; Tomaszewski et al, 2022). Furthermore, a subset of delayed deaf signers acquired sign language before the age of 6 (N = 6, see also Supplementary Table 2), potentially rendering them less susceptible to the impact of language deprivation.…”

How do signers mark conditionals in German Sign Language? Insights from a Sentence Reproduction Task on the use of nonmanual and manual markers

“…and Bongartz (2021). For information on SRTs in sign languages, see Mayberry, Fischer and Hartfield (1983), Hauser, Paludneviciene, Supalla and Bavelier (2008), Supalla, Hauser, and Bavelier (2014), and Corina et al (2020 for ASL, Cormier, Adam, Rowley, Woll and Atkinson (2012) and Marshall et al (2015) for BSL, Kubus and Rathmann (2012) for DGS, Rinaldi, Caselli, Lucioli, Lamano and Volterra (2018) for Italian Sign Language (LIS), Bogliotti, Aksen and Isel (2020) for French Sign Language (LSF), and Schönström and Hauser (2021) for Swedish Sign Language (STS). 6 We used and adapted stimulus videos from an unpublished questionnaire rating study on conditional sentences in DGS and ISL based on data collected from deaf participants (see (i) a short report (context) signed by signer A (ii) a follow-up question signed by signer B (iii) the answer (test sentence) signed by signer A The participants were asked to memorise the answer (test sentence) provided by signer A (i.e., (iii)) and reproduce this answer after a repetition of the short report (context) and the question (i.e., (i) and (ii)).…”

Preliminary Considerations on the Development of a Bicultural Trilingual Education Model for Deaf Children in the Tunisian Context

“…Allen and Morere (2020) explain that the Possession of strong ASL skills contribute significantly to future academic success. Other researchers such as Holmer et al (2016), Bogliotti et al (2020) and Lillo-Martin and Henner (2021) explain that earlier access and exposure to SL input results in better language and academic outcomes. Conversely, delay in access and exposure to SL may result in cognitive delays and limited health literacy (Hall, 2015).…”