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

Abstract

The present study aimed to identify predictors of one aspect of sign language acquisition, sign learning, in hearing nonsigners. Candidate predictors were selected based on the theory that the observed relationship between phonological short-term memory and L2 lexical learning is due in part to common perceptual-motor processes. Hearing nonsigning adults completed a sign learning task, three assessments of short-term memory for movements (movement STM; two of which used sign-like stimuli), and two visuospatial STM tasks. The final sample included 103 adults, ranging between 18 and 33 years of age. All predictors were moderately to strongly correlated with the sign learning task and to each other. A series of regression analyses revealed that both movement and visuospatial STM uniquely contributed to the prediction of sign learning. These results suggest that perceptual-motor processes play a significant role in sign learning and raise questions about the role of phonological processing.

Individual differences in lexical learning across two language modalities: Sign learning, word learning, and their relationship in hearing non-signing adults

“…In the NSPT, participants must judge whether target pseudosigns differ from their reproductions (see Figure 5). Martinez and Singleton (2018) observed moderate to strong correlations between it, a sign learning task, two visuospatial STM tasks, and another putative task of signed-PSTM, the Nonsign Repetition Task (Mann et al, 2010), providing evidence of the validity of the NSPT as a measure of signed-PSTM.…”

“…Thus, in ASL, APPLE and CANDY are minimal pairs (lexical items that differ by one phoneme; for an English example, consider rat and bat). At least one study has found that signed-PSTM tasks, utilizing sign-like material, are related to sign learning (Martinez & Singleton, 2018). Given the scarcity of research investigating signed-PSTM and sign learning, it is also worth noting that signed-PSTM tasks are related to other language outcomes in deaf children who sign (Marshall et al, 2015;Mason et al, 2010) as well as in hearing sign language interpreters (Gómez, Molina, Benítez, & de Torres, 2007;Shaw, 2011)-relationships that are analogous to those observed in spoken language research (Daneman & Merikle, 1996;Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990).…”

“…However, there is evidence that hearing non-signers do not immediately process signs linguistically, instead processing them as nonverbal movements (Martinez & Singleton, 2018;Newman-Norlund, Frey, Petitto, & Grafton, 2006;Siple, Caccamise, & Brewer, 1982; J. T. Williams, Darcy, & Newman, 2016b). The other two common processing components, perceptual and motor processes, are undoubtedly different across signed and spoken languages.…”

“…The NSPT used here is a shortened version of the original NSPT used by Martinez and Singleton (2018). In the NSPT, participants must judge whether target pseudosigns differ from their reproductions (see Figure 5).…”

“…Importantly, however, the vast majority of individual differences research on lexical learning in adults has been conducted with spoken languages (e.g., Hundal & Horn, 1977;Kyllonen, Tirre, & Christal, 1991;Underwood, Boruch, & Malmi, 1978) and has largely overlooked lexical learning in signed languages (cf., Martinez & Singleton, 2018;Stone, 2017; T. Williams, Darcy, & Newman, 2016a). As a consequence, we know very little about the cognitive factors engaged while learning signs and whether they are similar and relied upon to the same degree as those employed during word learning.…”