The associative learning of the deaf: The effects of word imagery and signability

Abstract

In two experiments, deaf and hearing subjects learned paired associate lists in which rated visual imagery and signability (a measure of the ease with which a word can be represented as a gestural sign) were orthogonally varied. Visual presentation of three alternating study-recall trials resulted in significant positive effects of imagery for both deaf and hearing subjects, whereas signability facilitated recall only for deaf subjects. Examination of the relation between item attributes and reported learning strategy indicated that both deaf and hearing subjects used imaginal mediators more frequently for high-imagery than low-imagery pairs. A gestural sign strategy was reported almost exclusively by deaf subjects, particularly for high-signability pairs. These results suggest that an examination of the effects of sign language variables will contribute to an understanding of the qualitative differences in the associative learning of the deaf and hearing. Paivio and Okovita (1971) demonstrated that the word attribute of imagery concreteness is modality specific. They found that congenitally blind subjects learned word pairs with high auditory imagery (that is, with auditory referents) more easily than pairs low in auditory imagery; however, high visual imagery was not similarly helpful. On the other hand, the associative recall performance of sighted subjects was positively affected by visual but not by auditory word imagery. This finding is consistent with the view that different groups of subjects avail themselves of different coding strategies. Not only may the effectiveness of a particular word attribute vary somewhat with the sUbject population being considered, but also particular attributes may be relevant to one group and not to another.The word attribute of signability apparently is an instance of the latter type. In American sign language (ASL), some words must be fingerspelled; others are conveyed by relatively simple manual configurations or gestures; still others are related, either semantically or syntactically, to words that can be signed directly. The word as spoken either has or does not have an ASL equivalent for a given individual; in this sense, word signability is an index of the ease with which words can be represented as gestural signs. The extent and, to a certain degree, the topology of the sign vocabulary varies across individuals; accordingly, the signabiJity dimension assesses commonality of response. In summary, three points concerning the signabiJity dimension can be made: A word high in rated signability is easily Based in part on research completed in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the MA degree by the first author under the direction of the second autho~. The research was supported in part by grants from the National Research Council of Canada (APA-0087). We are grateful for the cooperation given us by the staff and students at the Ontario School for the Deaf (Milton), Central Secondary School (London), and the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (Rochester). A...

The Effectiveness of the Graphic Representation of Signs in Developing Word Identification Skills for Hearing Impaired Beginning Readers

“…These results suggest that hearing impaired individuals remember printed English words by recoding them into sign. Conlin and Paivio (1975) reported similar findings in their study of highly signable words, low signable words, high imagery words, and low imagery words, as did Treiman and Hirsh-Pasek (1983) in a task involving sentences. Their subjects had more difficulty judging sentences containing formationally similar signs than control sentences that did not contain similar signs.…”

Memory for Language in Deaf Adults and Children

“…Studies by Conlin & Paivio (1975) and Bonvillian (1983) first suggested that deaf individuals use some kind of veridical visual imagery code in place of ''verbal'' coding, although more recent studies have shown no greater visual imagery ability or non-verbal imaginal coding among deaf than hearing persons (Marschark, 1993). In this light, a reasonable alternative is that deaf individuals might make use of sign languagebased memory codes, and a variety of studies have demonstrated that lists of signs made with similar handshapes tend to disrupt memory performance while the relative availability of a sign (i.e., whether or not there is a familiar sign for a concept) is strongly related to recall (e.g., Bellugi et al, 1974;Poizner et al, 1981;Wilson & Emmorey, 1997).…”

Signs for Developing Reading : Sign Language and Reading Development in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children

“…On the other hand, DHH signing children have sign-based representations which may support development of word reading skills. Indeed, experimental evidence indicates that there is a signbased route to word reading for DHH signers (Barca, Pezzulo, Castrataro, Rinaldi, & Caselli, 2013;Conlin & Paivio, 1975;Kubus, Villwock, Morford, & Rathman, 2015;Morford, Kroll, Piñar, & Wilkinson, 2014;Morford, Wilkinson, Villwock, Piñar, & Kroll, 2011;Ormel, Hermans, Knoors, & Verhoeven, 2012;Pan, Shu, Wang, & Yan, 2015;Treiman & Hirsh-Pasek, 1983). This is quite remarkable given that sign language and written language do not correspond in sub-lexical structure.…”