On the acquisition of complex classifier constructions by L2 learners of a sign language

Abstract

Sign language learners with a spoken language background face the challenge of acquiring a second language in a different modality. In the course of this endeavor, one of the modality-specific phenomena they encounter is the use of classifier predicates, also known as depicting signs. Classifier predicates contain a meaningful hand configuration that refers to an entity, denoting a salient characteristic of this entity (Zwitserlood, 2003). The use of a classifier predicate allows the signer to indicate the location, motion and orientation of a referent. If two classifier predicates are used simultaneously, the signer can represent the spatial arrangement of both referents (Schembri, Jones and Burnham, 2001). This visual representation is new for learners with a spoken language background. Since there is a paucity of literature on second language (L2) sign language acquisition, there is no empirical evidence on the developmental stages that L2 learners go through in acquiring the devices to produce such visual representations. In this study, we followed 14 novel learners of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) over a period of two years. The learners were asked to produce sign language descriptions of prompts containing various objects (e.g. cars, bicycles, trucks, human beings and animals) that could be depicted by a classifier predicate. Analyses show that after a year of instruction, the majority of learners are capable of producing scene descriptions featuring two classifier predicates to denote the spatial layout of the objects. The first classifier predicates appear in the data at an early stage, suggesting that the strategy of denoting an object with a meaningful handshape representing the object is not difficult to learn. Furthermore, the data show that learners initially struggle with the orientation of objects and handshape selection. This study is the first to systematically elicit classifier predicates from novel learners for an extended period of time. The results have important implications for the field of sign language pedagogy and teaching.

Introduction to the Special Issue: Learning Sign Languages as Additional Languages: Considering Language‐ and Modality‐Specific Factors

“…In her contribution to this Special Issue, Boers‐Visker (2023) analyzed plurality production in NGT by hearing learners. Plurality in NGT is expressed in classifier predicates by topographical distribution of noun signs, whereby noun signs are repeated across the signing space, and numeral incorporation, whereby nouns are modified for referent number.…”

“…Plurality in NGT is expressed in classifier predicates by topographical distribution of noun signs, whereby noun signs are repeated across the signing space, and numeral incorporation, whereby nouns are modified for referent number. Boers‐Visker (2023) found that the learners used lexical signs to express numbers (i.e., pluralization) and nouns. Numeral incorporation for pluralization was the most difficult for the learners to produce correctly.…”

“…Hofweber and colleagues (2023), in a study of L2/Ln British Sign Language (BSL) learners, explore the role of iconicity in their investigation of implicit learning of signs. The difficulty of hearing L2/Ln learners of The Sign Language of the Netherlands (Nederlandse Gebarentaal, NGT) in producing plural forms due to language and modality differences is examined by Boers‐Visker (2023). Quinto‐Pozos et al.…”

Simultaneous structures in sign languages: Acquisition and emergence

“…Nonetheless, their error patterns, especially in the acquisition of CCs, exhibit similarities to those of child learners. Boers-Visker (2021) looked at two-handed CCs in 14 M2L2 learners of NGT and found that learners produced omission errors well into the second year of their studies. In contrast to L1 learners, however, they sometimes self-corrected their productions, adding in the Ground on the non-dominant hand while holding the dominant hand in place.…”

“… Ferrara and Nilsson (2017) report that NTS learners (approximately 1.5 years of study) sometimes crossed their arms in depicting an entity’s movement, misjudging the hands’ distance from each other; they would place entities higher in signing space than others that were at the same height in real space. Boers-Visker (2021) noted that learners of NGT had similar difficulties judging the size of the available space and would sometimes have the hands (almost) touching although the objects they represented further apart, or the hands would run out of signing space (e.g., colliding with the torso). Again, the problem may be both cognitive and motoric, requiring the correct estimation of how much space is needed for a given representation and how the two hands need to be positioned toward each other in order to complete their movement unimpeded.…”