Phonological substitution errors in L2 ASL sentence processing by hearing M2L2 learners

Abstract

In the present study we aimed to investigate phonological substitution errors made by hearing second language (M2L2) learners of American Sign Language (ASL) during a sentence translation task. Learners saw sentences in ASL that were signed by either a native signer or a M2L2 learner. Learners were to simply translate the sentence from ASL to English. Learners' responses were analysed for lexical translation errors that were caused by phonological parameter substitutions. Unlike previous related studies, tracking phonological substitution errors during sentence translation allows for the characterization of uncontrolled and naturalistic perception errors. Results indicated that learners made mostly movement errors followed by handshape and location errors. Learners made more movement errors for sentences signed by the M2L2 learner relative to those by the native signer. Additionally, high proficiency learners made more handshape errors than low proficiency learners. Taken together, this pattern of results suggests that late M2L2 learners are poor at perceiving the movement parameter and M2L2 production variability of the movement parameter negatively contributes to perception.

Predicting sign learning in hearing adults: The role of perceptual-motor (and phonological?) processes

“…Neuroimaging studies corroborate the behavioral studies reported above (Bavelier et al, 2008; Campbell, MacSweeney, & Waters, 2008; Pa, Wilson, Pickell, Bellugi, & Hickok, 2008; Rönnberg, Rudner, & Ingvar, 2004; Rudner, 2015; Rudner, Andin, & Rönnberg, 2009; Williams, Darcy, & Newman, 2015, 2016b). In general, researchers find differences in modality-specific areas, such that hearing individuals show greater activation of areas associated with auditory processing while deaf individuals exhibit greater activation of visual and motor areas.…”

“…In support of the latter view, participants in our study were not instructed on whether they should rehearse any of the movements, and few spontaneously chose to do so. Moreover, research on the perception and production of signs by adult signers and nonsigners typically finds that the movement parameter is the most error prone, followed by handshape and orientation, and finally location (Bochner et al, 2011, 2016; Mann et al, 2010; Ortega & Morgan, 2015; Williams & Newman, 2016b). Handshape, orientation, and location are features that can be represented in static visual imagery.…”

Spoken Language Activation Alters Subsequent Sign Language Activation in L2 Learners of American Sign Language

“…Similar to native signers, bimodal bilinguals (and M2L2 learners of sign language) identify location with few errors in perception (Bochner et al 2011;Williams and Newman 2016a). Unlike native signers, bimodal bilinguals and M2L2 learners have higher error rates for handshape but perceive it early in sign recognition, relatively at the same time as location (Morford and Carlson 2011;Grosvald et al 2012;Morford et al 2008;Williams and Newman 2016b). In summary, previous studies have shown that lexical access in sign language occurs at both sublexical and lexical stages of processing, but may differ based on sublexical features (i.e., handshape or location) and on language experience.…”

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

“…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).…”