Delayed Phonological Development in ASL : Two Case Studies of Deaf Isolates

L’étude des langues signées a contribué à améliorer notre compréhension du processus d’acquisition du langage par l’être humain. Cet article résume la recherche sur l’acquisition des langues des signes et présente les résultats d’une étude longitudinale sur trois ans concernant deux sourds n’ayant appris la langue des signes américaine (ASL) qu’à l’adolescence. Cette étude est ciblée sur la maîtrise du paramètre phonologique de la configuration manuelle. Les deux sujets font preuve d’une compétence relativement bonne en production phonologique durant la première année d’exposition à l’ASL. Ces résultats sont étudiés en rapport avec les effets des différences de  modalité dans l’acquisition et avec la question de savoir pourquoi l’acquisition tardive a des conséquences négatives à long terme sur le développement du langage chez l’adulte.The study of signed languages has enriched our general understanding of how language is acquired by humans.  This article summarizes research on the acquisition of signed languages and reports the results of a three year longitudinal study of two deaf individuals who first learned American Sign Language (ASL) in adolescence.  The study focuses on the mastery of the phonological parameter of handshape.  Both individuals demonstrate relatively high levels phonological production accuracy within their first year of exposure to ASL.  These results are discussed with respect to the issues of modality differences in language acquisition and why delayed language acquisition has long-term detrimental outcomes on language processing in adults

Expressive and receptive use of speech and graphic symbols by typically developing children: What skills contribute to performance on structured sentence-level tasks?

Purpose: To explore expressive and receptive use of speech and graphic symbols and relationships with linguistic and cognitive skills in children with typical development. Method: Participants were 82 children with typical development (4 to 9 years). Measures of memory, visual analysis skills, and receptive language were used, along with five experimental tasks with speech or symbols as input (stimulus) or output (response), using single clause and compound clause stimuli. Cluster analysis grouped participants with similar performances patterns, who were then compared on linguistic and cognitive skill measures. Result: The lowest performing group sometimes accurately interpreted graphic symbol utterances that were visible during responding. The mid-performing group was stronger on expressive than receptive symbol utterances when the model did not remain visible. The highest group was comparable on expressive and receptive symbol tasks, but nonetheless stronger with spoken utterances. Relationships of linguistic and cognitive skills with task performance differed across the clusters. Conclusion: The findings help clarify the input-output modality asymmetry in graphic symbol communication. Spoken language proficiency does not directly transfer to sentence-level expressive and receptive graphic symbol use. Exploring potentially challenging sentence-level phenomena is important. Research is warranted to explore developmental progressions and potential clinical applications more systematically

Automaticity of lexical access in deaf and hearing bilinguals: Cross-linguistic evidence from the color Stroop task across five languages

The well-known Stroop interference effect has been instrumental in revealing the highly automated nature of lexical processing as well as providing new insights to the underlying lexical organization of first and second languages within proficient bilinguals. The present cross-linguistic study had two goals: 1) to examine Stroop interference for dynamic signs and printed words in deaf ASL-English bilinguals who report no reliance on speech or audiological aids; 2) to compare Stroop interference effects in several groups of bilinguals whose two languages range from very distinct to very similar in their shared orthographic patterns: ASL-English bilinguals (very distinct), Chinese-English bilinguals (low similarity), Korean-English bilinguals (moderate similarity), and Spanish-English bilinguals (high similarity). Reaction time and accuracy were measured for the Stroop color naming and word reading tasks, for congruent and incongruent color font conditions. Results confirmed strong Stroop interference for both dynamic ASL stimuli and English printed words in deaf bilinguals, with stronger Stroop interference effects in ASL for deaf bilinguals who scored higher in a direct assessment of ASL proficiency. Comparison of the four groups of bilinguals revealed that the same-script bilinguals (Spanish-English bilinguals) exhibited significantly greater Stroop interference effects for color naming than the other three bilingual groups. The results support three conclusions. First, Stroop interference effects are found for both signed and spoken languages. Second, contrary to some claims in the literature about deaf signers who do not use speech being poor readers, deaf bilinguals’ lexical processing of both signs and written words is highly automated. Third, cross-language similarity is a critical factor shaping bilinguals’ experience of Stroop interference in their two languages. This study represents the first comparison of both deaf and hearing bilinguals on the Stroop task, offering a critical test of theories about bilingual lexical access and cognitive control

What is the Source of Bilingual Cross-Language Activation in Deaf Bilinguals?

When deaf bilinguals are asked to make semantic similarity judgments of two written words, their responses are influenced by the sublexical relationship of the signed language translations of the target words. This study investigated whether the observed effects of ASL activation on English print depend on (a) an overlap in syllabic structure of the signed translations or (b) on initialization, an effect of contact between ASL and English that has resulted in a direct representation of English orthographic features in ASL sublexical form. Results demonstrate that neither of these conditions is required or enhances effects of cross-language activation. The experimental outcomes indicate that deaf bilinguals discover the optimal mapping between their two languages in a manner that is not constrained by privileged sublexical associations

An Exploratory Study of ASL Demonstratives

American Sign Language (ASL) makes extensive use of pointing signs, but there has been only limited documentation of how pointing signs are used for demonstrative functions. We elicited demonstratives from four adult Deaf signers of ASL in a puzzle completion task. Our preliminary analysis of the demonstratives produced by these signers supports three important conclusions in need of further investigation. First, despite descriptions of four demonstrative signs in the literature, participants expressed demonstrative function 95% of the time through pointing signs. Second, proximal and distal demonstrative referents were not distinguished categorically on the basis of different demonstrative signs, nor on the basis of pointing handshape or trajectory. Third, non-manual features including eye gaze and facial markers were essential to assigning meaning to demonstratives. Our results identify new avenues for investigation of demonstratives in ASL

Bilingual word recognition in deaf and hearing signers: Effects of proficiency and language dominance on cross-language activation

Recent evidence demonstrates that American Sign Language signs are active during print word recognition in deaf bilinguals who are highly proficient in both ASL and English. In the present study, we investigate whether signs are active during print word recognition in two groups of unbalanced bilinguals: deaf ASL-dominant and hearing English-dominant bilinguals. Participants judged the semantic relatedness of word pairs in English. Critically, a subset of both the semantically related and unrelated English word pairs had phonologically related translations in ASL, but participants were never shown any ASL signs during the experiment. Deaf ASL-dominant bilinguals (Experiment 1) were faster when semantically related English word pairs had similar form translations in ASL, but slower when semantically unrelated words had similar form translations in ASL, indicating that ASL signs are engaged during English print word recognition in these ASL-dominant signers. Hearing English-dominant bilinguals (Experiment 2) were also slower to respond to semantically unrelated English word pairs with similar form translations in ASL, but no facilitation effects were observed in this population. The results provide evidence that the interactive nature of lexical processing in bilinguals is impervious to language modality