Studying Sign Language Acquisition

Lieberman, Amy M.; Mayberry, Rachel I.

doi:10.1002/9781118346013.ch15

Cited by 59 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Deaf children of deaf parents (i.e., native signers) are therefore a very interesting population theoretically, but they are also very difficult to recruit to research studies. Not only are there a very small number of children in this group, but measuring their skills requires carefully-designed tasks and a researcher fluent in the particular sign language under consideration (Lieberman and Mayberry, 2015 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deaf children's non-verbal working memory is impacted by their language experience

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several recent studies have suggested that deaf children perform more poorly on working memory tasks compared to hearing children, but these studies have not been able to determine whether this poorer performance arises directly from deafness itself or from deaf children's reduced language exposure. The issue remains unresolved because findings come mostly from (1) tasks that are verbal as opposed to non-verbal, and (2) involve deaf children who use spoken communication and therefore may have experienced impoverished input and delayed language acquisition. This is in contrast to deaf children who have been exposed to a sign language since birth from Deaf parents (and who therefore have native language-learning opportunities within a normal developmental timeframe for language acquisition). A more direct, and therefore stronger, test of the hypothesis that the type and quality of language exposure impact working memory is to use measures of non-verbal working memory (NVWM) and to compare hearing children with two groups of deaf signing children: those who have had native exposure to a sign language, and those who have experienced delayed acquisition and reduced quality of language input compared to their native-signing peers. In this study we investigated the relationship between NVWM and language in three groups aged 6–11 years: hearing children (n = 28), deaf children who were native users of British Sign Language (BSL; n = 8), and deaf children who used BSL but who were not native signers (n = 19). We administered a battery of non-verbal reasoning, NVWM, and language tasks. We examined whether the groups differed on NVWM scores, and whether scores on language tasks predicted scores on NVWM tasks. For the two executive-loaded NVWM tasks included in our battery, the non-native signers performed less accurately than the native signer and hearing groups (who did not differ from one another). Multiple regression analysis revealed that scores on the vocabulary measure predicted scores on those two executive-loaded NVWM tasks (with age and non-verbal reasoning partialled out). Our results suggest that whatever the language modality—spoken or signed—rich language experience from birth, and the good language skills that result from this early age of acquisition, play a critical role in the development of NVWM and in performance on NVWM tasks.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deaf children's non-verbal working memory is impacted by their language experience

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While much research remains to be done, there is ample evidence that, when learners have early access to fluent signers, their development of a sign language progresses along the same timeline as expected given previous research on the development of a variety of spoken languages (Baker & Woll 2008, Chen Pichler 2012, Chen Pichler et al 2017a, Lieberman & Mayberry 2015, Lillo-Martin 2016, Meier 2016, Morgan 2014). In the following paragraphs, we review three classic examples.…”

Section: Early Milestones Are Parallel To Those For Spoken Languagesmentioning

confidence: 70%

Acquisition of Sign Languages

Lillo‐Martin

Henner

2021

Annu. Rev. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural sign languages of deaf communities are acquired on the same time scale as that of spoken languages if children have access to fluent signers providing input from birth. Infants are sensitive to linguistic information provided visually, and early milestones show many parallels. The modality may affect various areas of language acquisition; such effects include the form of signs (sign phonology), the potential advantage presented by visual iconicity, and the use of spatial locations to represent referents, locations, and movement events. Unfortunately, the vast majority of deaf children do not receive accessible linguistic input in infancy, and these children experience language deprivation. Negative effects on language are observed when first-language acquisition is delayed. For those who eventually begin to learn a sign language, earlier input is associated with better language and academic outcomes. Further research is especially needed with a broader diversity of participants. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Linguistics, Volume 7 is January 14, 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

show abstract

“…The highly visual nature of early interactions with deaf children can be illustrated by a recent American study showing that deaf children of deaf parents score significantly higher in following their parents' gaze than their hearing peers (Brooks, Singleton & Meltzoff, 2019). Furthermore, child-directed language plays an important role in these early interactions and visual training (Lieberman & Mayberry, 2015;Lieberman, Hatrak, & Mayberry, 2014;Masataka, 2000). This less complex use of language facilitates language acquisition and may play a positive affective role in children's early social and emotional development (Masataka, 2000).…”

Section: Visual Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey datasets of VIKKE assessment tool on children's Finnish Sign Language development

Syrj�l�,

Kanto

2024

Jyx

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taking as a case in point Cypriot Arabic (CyAr), a severely endangered language spoken in Cyprus, this paper discusses the results of the research project MapCyArS (Mapping Cypriot Arabic speakers: An investigation into linguistic demography and the sociolinguistic profile of Kormakiote Maronites), funded by the A G Leventis Foundation at the University of Cyprus (2017-2020), and highlights the need to change the way we consider language testing and assessment to fit the sociolinguistic situation of less widely spoken, oral and/or endangered languages and their communities. In the case of CyAr, we need to consider the fact that it is a language of oral tradition that has suffered severe reduction on all linguistic levels and it is not a first language for people under 40 anymore.1 Although the CEFR is designed also for lesser used and taught languages, it has nevertheless been applied to very few, among them: Catalan, Galician, Basque, Friulan or Welsh, etc., which are officially recognized within their respective areas of use. Conversation Verbal L2 vs Verbal L1The task consists of using CyGr or translanguaging to provide short answers to questions asked in CyAr LEVEL 1 LEVEL 0 Fails to understand CyAr and correctly respond in SG 3 /(Cy)Gr Correctly understands CyAr and responds in SG/(Cy)Gr 5 Conversation Verbal L2 vs Verbal L2 The task consists of using CyAr to provide short answers to questions asked in CyAr LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 0 Fails to understand and correctly respond in CyAr Correctly understands common sentences and responds in CyAr Correctly understands a wide range of conversation 6 Metalinguistic/ Grammatical Verbal L2 vs Verbal L2The task consists of completing orally metalinguistic or grammatical tasks such as declining a verb, giving the plural of a noun, translating etc. LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 0Unable to accomplish any metalinguistic task Able to accomplish simple metalinguistic tasks Able to accomplish complex metalinguistic tasks Conclusion 3Designing an assessment test for an endangered oral language like CyAr is a complex objective that needs to take into consideration the oral character of CyAr, its endangered situation and the advanced state of its replacement by (Cy)Gr.The oral character of CyAr suggests that we move away from reading and writing as means to evaluate oral skills. Its endangered situation suggests that traditional approaches in testing and assessment by level of competence (A1, A2, etc.) should be abandoned in favour of a more flexible type of evaluation. The advanced state of CyAr replacement by (Cy)Gr leads towards a more flexible use of language resources to evaluate speakers' proficiency, and invites us to capitalize on the use of (Cy)Gr or translanguaging to do so. The project is, therefore, also an opportunity to re-examine the baselines of language assessment used for modern languages in order to adapt them to conditions of orality and severe endangerment.

show abstract

Studying Sign Language Acquisition

Cited by 59 publications

References 55 publications

Deaf children's non-verbal working memory is impacted by their language experience

Deaf children's non-verbal working memory is impacted by their language experience

Acquisition of Sign Languages

Survey datasets of VIKKE assessment tool on children's Finnish Sign Language development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About