Post on 16-Oct-2021
ABSTRACT
LEARNING THE PHONOLOGY OF ASL BY L2 HEARING ADULT LEARNERS
ASL has received a large influx in interest with ASL courses seeing higher
enrollment over the course of the past few years. As more hearing adults seek to
learn ASL, it is beneficial to better understand how these adults learn a manual
language and where challenges may occur in language acquisition. This paper
explores hearing learners’ abilities in acquiring the five phonological parameters
of signs: handshape, movement, location, palm orientation, and non-manual
signals (NMS). This was done by examining ASL 2 (second semester) and ASL 4
(fourth semester) students’ perception of sign parameters through a minimal
pairs task and multiple choice task related to accurate sign production.
Additionally, students were asked to produce signs both in isolation and in a
sentence. Results indicate that learners are generally able to perceive differences,
but struggle to determine when signs are correctly articulated. In perception,
learners made the least errors in location and palm orientation alterations,
followed by movement and handshape. NMS were more difficult for more
advanced students, indicating that this is the last parameter that learners acquire.
More advanced students are more accurate in production and perform at the
same level of their perceptual accuracy, but they are no more perceptually
accurate than less advanced learners. For learners to improve in their perception
and production abilities, they may require explicit teaching of parameters and
their importance in sign formation.
Dina Bailey May 2013
LEARNING THE PHONOLOGY OF ASL BY L2 HEARING
ADULT LEARNERS
by
Dina Bailey
A thesis
submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Linguistics
in the College of Arts and Humanities
California State University, Fresno
May 2013
APPROVED
For the Department of Linguistics:
We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree. Dina Bailey
Thesis Author
Jidong Chen (Chair) Linguistics
Chris Golston Linguistics
Brian Agbayani Linguistics
For the University Graduate Committee:
Dean, Division of Graduate Studies
AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION
OF MASTER’S THESIS
X I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or
in its entirety without further authorization from me, on the
condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction
absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of
authorship.
Permission to reproduce this thesis in part or in its entirety must
be obtained from me.
Signature of thesis author:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to the many people who supported and encouraged me in this
project: to my advisor, Jidong Chen for going through different versions, helping
to straighten out massive amounts of data, your excitement about the topic, and
encouraging me to present my research at a conference. To all my committee
members, Jidong, Chris Golston, and Brian Agbayani, for all the input, direction,
and calm when I was less than calm. Special thanks to Joe Lind and Rosemary
Diaz for their roles in video creation and review. Without all of you, this thesis
would not have been possible.
I also want to thank Patti, the Fresno Deaf Church, and Deaf community
for their encouragement and support. Thank you to Jennifer and Jonathan for
fielding my questions at random times and places. Thanks to Third Day Fresno
for their interest and belief in me, and Joseph and Kathy for their encouragement
and good home cooking (and barbeque) when I needed it most. Mom and Dad,
thanks for providing a listening ear, and a very sincere thank You to God for
giving me the grace to get through it all.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 4
2.1 Learning a Manual Language as an L2 ........................................................... 4
2.2 Learner Errors in Perception ............................................................................ 7
2.3 Learner Errors in Production ........................................................................... 8
2.4 Research Questions .......................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 3: PERCEPTION: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS ......................... 12
3.1 Participants ....................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Experiment 1: Minimal Pair Discrimination Task ....................................... 14
3.3 Experiment 2: Multiple Choice Sign Discrimination Task ......................... 19
CHAPTER 4: PRODUCTION: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS ....................... 26
4.1 Experiments 3 and 4: Production of Signs in Isolation and in Sentences ..................................................................................................... 26
4.2 Results ................................................................................................................ 28
4.3 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................... 33
5.1 Acquisition of Phonological Parameters ...................................................... 33
5.2 Influence of Proficiency and Exposure on Acquisition .............................. 39
5.3 Summary ........................................................................................................... 40
5.4 Pedagogical Implications ................................................................................ 41
5.5 Conclusion......................................................................................................... 43
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 45
Page
vi vi
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 50
APPENDIX A: EXPERIMENT 1 ................................................................................... 51
APPENDIX B: EXPERIMENT 2 ................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX C: 40 SIGNS USED IN EXPERIMENTS 2, 3, AND 4 ........................... 55
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Summary of Areas With 40% or Greater Error Rate ........................................ 23
Table 2 Target Items With Consistent Errors Among Learners .................................... 32
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. ASL signs for BABY (on the left) and STAND (on the right). .................... 4
Figure 2. Accuracy percentage by parameter in minimal pair perception task .... 16
Figure 3. Sample signs with different NMS: STUDY with ‘sta’ NMS (left) and ‘mm’ NMS (right) .......................................................................................... 17
Figure 4. Sample signs with different locations: DAD (left) and DEER (right) ..... 18
Figure 5. Correct version of OLYMPICS (left) and high location (right) ................ 18
Figure 6. Accuracy percentage by parameter in multiple choice task .................... 21
Figure 7. Distribution of errors by parameter............................................................. 22
Figure 8. Incorrectly perceived handshapes from left to right: Bent-B, Flat-O, 1, L, and Open-8 ............................................................................................. 24
Figure 9. Average number of production errors in isolation ................................... 29
Figure 10. Average number of production errors in sentences ................................ 29
Figure 11. Correct production of FINISH (left) and incorrect palms down (right). .............................................................................................................. 34
Figure 12. From Left to Right – ASL sign for YEAR, A-handshape, S-handshape....................................................................................................... 36
Figure 13. Correct production of PAY (left) and production with incorrect X handshape for PAY (right) ........................................................................... 37
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This study explores hearing adult acquisition of American Sign Language
(ASL) as a second language, focusing on learners’ phonological knowledge of
signs, specifically, sign parameters. This is done by examining their abilities to
recognize minimally paired signs and determine correctly articulated signs along
with an examination of the learners’ productions of target signs. My study is the
first to examine L2 acquisition of a signed language by hearing adults with
empirical data exploring the acquisition of phonological parameters in both
perception and production. The majority of the very few prior studies mainly
focus on non-signers (e.g., hearing adults with no or very minimal exposure to
sign language) rather than learners (Chen Pichler, 2011; Mirus, Rathmann, &
Meier, 2001; Ortega & Morgan, 2010). The developmental process has also not
been addressed in those studies. My study compares learners of different
proficiency levels to address the issues of development.
A recent influx in ASL has occurred within the last decade. Between 2006
and 2009, enrollment in ASL courses at colleges and universities increased 16.4%,
putting it among the top languages to see growth in enrollment and making it
the fourth most studied language in colleges during the fall of 2009 (MLA, 2010).
In order to better instruct these new ASL learners, an understanding of how
hearing adults learn manual languages is required, necessitating research apart
from a strictly pedagogical study (Gass & Selinker, 2000). While ASL has
received recognition as a language as a result of work done by Stokoe (1960,
2005) and interest in learning the language has grown, very minimal research has
been conducted to discover how hearing learners acquire a manual language,
2 2
with most sign language acquisition study focusing on deaf or hard of hearing
children and adolescents in schools and homes (Moores et al. 2008).
Ortega and Morgan (2010) clearly state the issue for hearing adult learners
of a signed language: “Second language learners have an established lexicon that
can be used to learn new L2 words; however, hearing adults using a sign
language are in a different situation given that the differences in modality do not
allow direct phonological transfers of a phonological category in a spoken
language to a signed language” (p. 70). Because acquiring a language in a
different modality brings about vast differences in learning, Chen Pichler (2011)
goes as far as referring to these learners as M2, “second modality” learners,
rather than L2 learners (p. 97). When learning a second spoken language,
transfer may occur between phonemes, either positively because forms are
identical, or negatively because forms are too similar to be perceived by the
learner and are instead added to a pre-existing phonemic category (Best, 1995;
Chen Pichler, 2011). Most introductory language textbooks begin with an
explanation (and CD) of speech sounds in the new language, usually presented
in the form of an alphabet. Students then have the opportunity to practice the
components that differ from their L1.
When it comes to learning a manual language, an ASL textbook, such as
Signing Naturally (2008), will mention the five parameters of signs in ASL:
handshape (HS), movement, palm orientation, location, and non-manual signals
(NMS). Further discussion on what those parameters are comprised of does not
take place; therefore, learners are unaware of their make-up, and phonemic
components are not practiced. The signed English alphabet is presented, but not
in terms of possible ASL handshapes. Additionally, the English alphabet only
utilizes 22 of the available ASL handshapes. This gives learners a limited view of
3 3
the structures available within the five parameters, which include at least 36
handshapes, 24 types of movements, 24 locations, 7 palm orientations, and 12 (to
17) NMS (Bridges & Metzger, 1996; Corina, 1990; Valli, Lucas & Mulrooney,
2005).
Unlike spoken languages where distinctive features are produced in a
linear order (or two at once in the case of tonal languages), ASL distinctive
features are produced at the same time to varying degrees of complexity (Stokoe,
1960, 2005; Vogler & Metaxas, 2004). This doesn’t make a signed language more
difficult to learn than a spoken language, but it does introduce a unique
characteristic to sign language acquisition. Each sign carries with it at least three
parameters at any given time: handshape, location, and palm orientation. These
three parameters are needed to produce a sign as simple as the number FOUR:
the 4 HS, location of neutral space, and palm orientation facing back. If any one
of these change, the meaning or intent of the sign changes with it. The
complexity can grow to where a sign may require all five parameters to be
produced at once. In the case of two handed signs, a sign may require the use of
two different handshapes, moving in two different ways, to two different
locations, with two different palm orientations as in the sign for SCARF. A
learner’s task is to take in and process all of this information at once.
This thesis will begin with a review of past literature in the area of hearing
adult’s acquisition of sign language (chapter 2). Chapter 3 will introduce the
participants and the perceptual experiments, describing the procedures and
presenting the results. The next chapter will focus on the production
experiments, their procedures and results. The final chapter will discuss the
cumulative findings and examine the development of perception and production
and how they are related.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Although little research has been done in the area of L2 sign language
acquisition by hearing adults, several studies have been produced in the past
decade focusing primarily on one or more of the phonological parameters.
These include Mirus et al. (2001) who examine proximal and distal movement in
hearing adults, Rosen (2004) who gives an overview production errors in all five
parameters of ASL, Ortega and Morgan (2010) who examine sign production
accuracy in the areas of handshape, movement, and location, and Chen Pichler
(2011) with an examination of handshape errors. Most of these studies have
examined non-signers (adults with little to no exposure to sign language rather
than L2 learners) with the exception of Rosen (2004) who examined learner
productions at the end of a 15-week course. One older study, McIntire and Reilly
(1988), examined two levels of L2 learners in the area of NMS. These have laid a
good foundation for research in L2 hearing adult acquisition of sign language.
2.1 Learning a Manual Language as an L2
ASL has elements of iconicity in its lexicon, meaning that a sign may be
related to the object or action which it represents (Meier, 1987). For example, the
sign for BABY is a visual picture of what holding a baby looks like, and the sign
for STAND is a visual picture of what standing looks like, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. ASL signs for BABY (on the left) and STAND (on the right).
5 5
Children are also able to start using the language quickly. Both deaf and
hearing children generally produce their first sign before a hearing child speaks
his first word, and the first 2-3 sign combinations occur before speaking children
produce 2-3 word utterances (Meier, 1987; Bonvillian, Orlansky, & Novack,
1983). Brown’s (1978) study goes as far to claim that manual languages are easier
to acquire than spoken languages due in part to iconicity.
However, this idea that sign language is easy to learn is strongly refuted
by Kemp (1998), who asserts that ASL can prove to be challenging for learners.
He cites social dominance and attitude of hearing learners, L1 to L2 grammar
transfer, language shock, culture shock, and motivation as reasons for these
challenges, along with the false belief among hearing individuals that sign
language is pictures and gestures (Kemp, 1998). Because of this false belief in the
simplicity of ASL, learners may prematurely believe they have command of the
language and be unaware of their lack in proficiency, to the point of wanting to
teach ASL classes after only one or two semesters of exposure to the language
(Kemp, 1998).
Beyond the attitudes and perceptions of hearing adult learners, a more
compelling reason for difficulty in acquisition of ASL by hearing adults is the
issue of learning not only a new language, but a new language within a new
modality. This necessitates the learning of a new motor skill and using that skill
to produce an entirely new phonology with a set of new articulators, none of
which overlap with the native phonology (Chen Pichler, 2011; Mirus et al., 2001).
For this reason, some have used the term “second modality”, abbreviated M2 or
L2M2, to refer to the unique position that hearing adult learners find themselves
in when learning sign language (Chen Pichler, 2011). Learners whose L1 is a
signed language, such as German Sign Language (DGS), and are learning a
6 6
second signed language, such as ASL, are simply L2 ASL learners, because in this
case both their L1 and L2 are in the same modality.
Rosen (2004) studied the production of signs and errors made by first
semester ASL hearing adult learners, all of who were graduate students. In the
study, Rosen (2004) proposes the Cognitive Phonology Model (CPM) to explain
production errors made by L2M2 learners. He defines CPM as “a cognitive
processing paradigm that involves the psycholinguistic use of the body as a
means for perceiving, recalling, producing, and communicating phonologies.
For effective production of phonology, individuals need cognitive imposition of
linguistic features on their psychomotor skills” (p. 36). In other words, learners
must learn to apply linguistic components to articulation of movement rather
than articulation of sound, and this change in linguistic modality puts extra
cognitive load on learners.
Two areas of cognitive processing exist in this model: perceptual accuracy
and production accuracy. Perceptual accuracy deals with how learners view
signs produced by teachers or deaf users of ASL, causing learners to mirror or
parallel the signs they have perceived. Mirroring is defined within the areas of
location and movement, resulting in the learner’s production of the sign in the
opposite location (right instead of left) or move in the opposite direction (left to
right instead of right to left), creating a “mirroring” effect of what they have
observed (Rosen, 2004). Parallelization refers to palm orientation and occurs
when learners produce signs in parallel fashion to what they have observed
(Rosen, 2004). In other words, if a learner sees a teacher’s palms (palms facing
out) during the production of a sign, the learner produces the sign such that they
continue to see palms (palms facing in) during sign production. Rosen also
mentions that learners may not detect certain sign features, particularly location
7 7
and contact features, causing these features to be omitted or produced incorrectly
(Rosen, 2004).
Production accuracy or dexterity refers to “the anatomical ability to align
fingers, hands, and faces. It is a function of cognitive control of the psychomotor
processing of linguistic information that shapes the use of the body to produce
signs,” (Rosen, 2004, p. 37). In these cases, learners have properly perceived the
sign, but are unable to correctly form the sign during production. This is a
cognitive issue due to the full maturation of the adult learner’s body but the
mind’s immaturity to produce manual phonological articulation. Production
dexterity problems lead to substitution of one handshape or non-manual feature
for another, displacement of features (overextending one feature over another),
switching features, and incomplete production of a feature (Rosen, 2004).
In an effort in part to address learner perceptual issues (such as mirroring
and paralleling), Berrett (2012) conducted a study to determine if students learn
ASL with better accuracy if they are shown videos of sign production from non-
traditional camera angles (e.g., from over the shoulder). Based on Rosen’s (2004)
CPM, which results in mirrored and paralleled production of signs, it would be
expected that students shown signs from the signer’s perspective would better
learn those signs. However, Berrett’s initial study showed no statistical
improvement for students who were shown signs from different camera angles
compared to those who were not (2012). The question then remains: what
accounts for the magnitude of errors made by hearing, adult learners?
2.2 Learner Errors in Perception
In the area of perception, Rosen (2004) observed errors to varying degrees
in the areas of location, movement, palm orientation, and non-manuals.
8 8
Handshape errors were not recorded in this category. Location errors included
mirrorization, making additional contact (e.g., tapping twice instead of once), or
omitting contact points (no tap instead of one tap). Mirrorization also results in
perceptual movement type errors, while parallelization results in palm
orientation errors. The most noted nonmanual error of perception was complete
omission of the required non-manual feature (Rosen, 2004).
All of these errors can be explained by the CPM. The mind’s maturity
falls behind the body’s maturity in the area of movement and articulation for the
purposes of communication. Additionally, the learner does not imagine sign
production from the signer’s perspective, and instead produces the sign based on
what they have observed from their own perspective (Rosen, 2004).
A limited number of experiments have been conducted with non-signers
to examine their ability to perceive and/or produce signs, generally by way of
asking the participant to copy a sign they observe when produced by a native
signer (Chen Pichler, 2011; Ortega & Morgan, 2010). However, it may not be
clear if the production errors are due to gaps in the participants’ perception of
the signs or challenges in their motor skills when producing signs.
2.3 Learner Errors in Production
For L1 learners, certain handshapes have been found to be more or less
marked or unmarked, and have been categorized into a handshape markedness
hierarchy, often based on the anatomy of the hand, reflects the order of
acquisition for sign language handshapes for L1 learners (Boyes-Braem, 1990). In
this hierarchy, A is the “maximally unmarked handshape”, with handshapes S,
L, baby-O, G/1, 5 and C in Stage I. Stage II is comprised of B, F, and O followed
by I, Y, D, P, E, V, H, and W in Stage III, and finally 8, 7, X, R, T, M, and N in
9 9
Stage IV (Boyes-Braem, 1990; Chen Pichler, 2011). While this hierarchy has been
observed among L1 learners, little is known about how handshape markedness
applies to L2 adult learners, and opinions differ on the matter. Rosen (2004)
down-plays the role of markedness of handshape in L2 acquisition, reasoning
that adults have fully developed motor skills and cognitive capabilities.
However, Chen Pichler (2011) disagrees, stating that when adults learn a new
motor skill, such as playing a sport, a musical instrument, or learning to sign,
practice is required and the beginning stages of performance are awkward.
Mirus et al. (2001) hypothesize that adults learning a sign language for the
first time face the challenge of learning a new motor skill, similar to the problems
adults would encounter in trying to write with their non-dominant hand,
utilizing movement from the wrist joint more than from finger joints (Chen
Pichler, 2011). This proximalization of movement, articulating movement from a
joint closer to the torso than the prescribed articulatory joint, has been observed
among infants and children learning ASL, for example, producing HORSE by
moving the wrist rather than moving the finger knuckles or producing BLACK
by moving the shoulder rather than rotating the forearm (Meier, Mauk, Mirus, &
Conlin, 1998; Meier, 2005). Proximalization errors have also been observed
among hearing non-signers and early signers. Non-signers were observed to
replace wrist movement with movement from either the elbow or shoulder in
signs like GALLAUDET (Mirus et al., 2001). For learners who had completed
one semester of ASL, similar errors continued to surface in signs like MACHINE
with movement articulated only from the elbows rather than utilizing the wrist
joint (Rosen, 2004).
A detailed account of production errors made by beginning learners is
presented by Rosen (2004), using the CPM to predict and explain each error. The
10 10
sign production of these students was observed at the end of a 15-week course,
and the errors were made during the production of a single sign, rather than
production within a sentence. He divides these errors into two categories:
dexterity-based errors and perceptually-based errors, keeping in line with CPM.
In the area of dexterity, errors were observed to varying degrees in all
areas of sign production: handshape, location, movement, palm orientation, and
non-manual signals. The area of handshape produced the greatest number of
error types. These errors included handshape formation that was incomplete,
substitution of one handshape for another in one or two-handed signs, inversion
of handshapes in two-handshape sequences, and over-extension of handshape in
two-handshape signs. Location errors involved hand arrangement in relation to
each other or to the body. Movement errors included incomplete movements,
switched directionality of movement, and displacement of movement (e.g.,
articulating movement at the elbows rather than the wrists). Palm orientation
errors of dexterity involve switching palm orientation (e.g., ‘in’ to ‘out’ or ‘up’ to
‘down’) or twisting the forearm which results in a different orientation. The final
error of dexterity, errors in non-manual signals, consisted of switching features
(eyebrows up instead of down) or substituting features (stiff lips instead of
puffed cheeks) (Rosen, 2004).
2.4 Research Questions
Rosen (2004) briefly mentions that one perceptual issue, apart from
paralleling and mirroring, may be learners’ inability to perceive every segment
within a sign. It is then possible that learners simply don’t recognize or
assimilate the various phonological aspects of signs when they are produced,
resulting in partial lexical knowledge of the sign. If this is the case, additional
11 11
errors in location, movement, and orientation could be attributed to perceptual
errors, as well as errors in handshape also resulting from perceptual errors. In
order to explore the possibility of perceptual errors in greater depth, this study
seeks to answer the following research questions:
i.) What phonological parameters do hearing L2 adult learners
experience most difficulty with in perception and production?
ii.) How do overall proficiency and exposure to ASL influence the
acquisition of the major phonological parameters?
It is expected that handshape and NMS will be the most difficult. It is also
predicted that ASL 4 students will perform at a higher level and make fewer
errors in all areas compared to ASL 2, as a result of the extra year of instruction
and exposure ASL 4 students have received.
CHAPTER 3: PERCEPTION: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
The perception portion of this study aims to examine learner perceptual
abilities related to the phonological parameters of ASL signs. Two perception
tasks were designed. The first is a minimal pair discrimination task, designed to
ascertain how learners perceive a change in only one sign parameter. The second
perception task is a multiple choice sign discrimination task, designed to
ascertain learners abilities to choose the correct sign form among multiple
productions.
3.1 Participants
Participants in this study are ten second semester ASL (ASL 2) students
and ten fourth semester ASL (ASL 4) students from local colleges. Signed
consent was obtained from all participants. An optional, video release form was
also offered for the purposes of further study and use of snapshots in this paper.
All participants filled out a survey to collect background information on their
exposure to other spoken languages, sign language, participation in the Deaf
community, and knowledge of ASL parameters. Students received classroom
instruction either two or three class periods per week for a total of 3 hours per
week. Participants ranged in age from 19-24. Three participants were male and
the rest were female. Most were mono-lingual English speakers, all with some
exposure to a second language in high school. Three were bilinguals and one
acquired French as a second language. ASL 2 students reported going to Deaf
events or socializing in the Deaf community infrequently – generally only twice
per semester, the number of times required per class. ASL 4 students attended
events and socialized in the Deaf community anywhere from twice a semester to
at least weekly. The ASL 4 curriculum required students to participate in 15
13 13
hours of service at a Deaf organization, but their use of ASL in these settings
could vary widely.
Attempts were made to assure that all learners performed at the same
level in their respective classes, and all participants indicated that they
anticipated receiving an ‘A’ or ‘B’ grade in their class; however, one ASL 4
learner was excluded from the production results due to very poor performance.
The learners participated in all four experiments which were conducted in
one day. Students were met with individually or in pairs, but the researcher did
not remain in the room as the participants completed the tasks in order to avoid
negative affective influence created by her presence. Experiments 1 and 2
investigated learner performance in sign perception tasks and Experiments 3 and
4 investigated learner performance in sign production tasks. Forty signs were
chosen to be used in Experiments 2, 3, and 4. Most students were able to finish
all four experiments in an hour, although some took longer if they spent more
time on the production tasks. The researcher verified with the participants that
they knew all the signs. If a participant could not recall a sign, they were shown
the sign one time only before beginning any of the experiments. Once the
experiments began, they were not shown any signs. This was done because this
research is focused on learners’ attention to and acquisition of ASL phonology,
rather than examining their lexical knowledge. The method of asking non-
signers to copy signs after viewing the signs as produced by a native signer has
been used in the past to examine the articulation of a manual phonological
system among hearing adults who have no experience in signing (Chen Pichler,
2011; Ortega & Morgan, 2010).
The production experiments were administered before the perception
experiments in order to avoid influencing learner production, either positively or
14 14
negatively as a result of viewing the signs during the perception tasks; however,
the perception portion of this study was designed first and the production added
later in order to analyze learner production performance against their receptive
performance. Additionally, Experiment 1 (Minimal Pair Discrimination) was
actually administered last so that students would not infer my intentions in the
study. Because the study is based on analyzing learner perception of signs,
perception results are presented initially, beginning with the simplest task
(minimal pairs), followed by the production results.
3.2 Experiment 1: Minimal Pair Discrimination Task
The purpose of the minimal pair task was to assess the learners’ abilities to
differentiate between minimally paired signs in each of the five parameters of
ASL.
3.2.1 Experiment 1 Stimuli
The minimal pairs differed in one of five parameters: handshape,
movement, location, orientation, and non-manual signals (NMS). Each
parameter consisted of five trials. In addition, 10 control sign pairs with no
change to any parameters were recorded and included. The total number of test
trials was 35. The minimal pairs may be actual signs (which may or may not
have been known by the learners), or one sign may be paired with an incorrect
production of a sign. For example, the signs for DAD and DEER were paired
because they differ slightly only in the area of location. The sign ESTABLISH
which is produced with the non-dominant hand palm orientation down was
paired with the palm orientation changed to face up. A native ASL signer was
video recorded while producing the various signs. Each sign video was
15 15
approximately three seconds in length. This task was approximately 5:48
minutes in length.
3.2.2 Experiment 1 Procedure
The paired videos were assembled randomly into a PowerPoint
presentation and viewed by learners on a 15” laptop at a distance of
approximately three feet. A one second pause was inserted between each sign
and a three second pause between each pairing. Additionally, three different
orders of presentations were created to avoid a possible effect of order on
learners’ judgments of signs. Each presentation started with two sets of paired
signs for a warm up. After the warm up, the researcher paused the video to
verify that the participants understood the directions before continuing with the
test. The participants were asked to complete a judgment survey that included
the following questions on paper: “Are these signs the same?” with options of
“Same” or “Different” and circled “Same” or “Different” for each pair (see
Appendix A).
3.2.3 Experiment 1 Data Analysis
The test results were compiled for each student as either correct or
incorrect. Results were compiled as percentage by parameter and total
percentage out of 35 possible correct responses.
3.2.4 Experiment 1 Results
Participants in the ASL 2 group were able to correctly determine if two
signs were the same or not nearly 76.86% of the time. The ASL 4 group was
accurate nearly 80.86% of the time. Both groups performed best in palm
16 16
orientation and handshape. NMS was most difficult for ASL 2 and location for
ASL 4 (see Figure 2). There was a slight overall gain of 4% from ASL 2 to ASL 4.
Figure 2. Accuracy percentage by parameter in minimal pair perception
task
Students were most accurate when the signs were the same (no change
was made in the production) or when the minimal pairs involved a change in
either palm orientation or handshape. They were less accurate in the other three
parameters, particularly location and NMS where accuracy went as low as 52%
among ASL 2 students. Students did improve between ASL 2 and ASL 4 in most
areas. The greatest areas of improvement were seen in NMS with a 12% gain and
movement with a 10% gain.
3.2.5 Experiment 1 Discussion
Same sign production, palm orientation, and handshape were the easiest
areas for participants to perceive accurately. NMS and location were the hardest
for learners to accurately perceive differences. It was anticipated that students
would struggle with NMS, as these are known to be problematic for learners
(McIntire & Reilly, 1988). Among the observed errors, a pattern emerged. If a
17 17
sign occurred close to the face, learners were more likely to perceive a difference
in the NMS. This was the case with FULL-OF-FOOD vs FED-UP or FINALLY vs
FINALLY with no NMS. However, if the sign was produced further from the
face, learners were more likely to miss any change in the NMS. This may be due
to learners placing greater focus on the hands and movement in order to
determine handshape and movement, giving less attention to the face. When
signs were produced close to the face, learners were better able to see hands,
movement, and facial expressions at once. The least amount of accuracy
occurred when the sign was produced away from the face and two different
NMS were used (rather than one production with an NMS contrasted with no
NMS in production) (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Sample signs with different NMS: STUDY with ‘sta’ NMS
(left) and ‘mm’ NMS (right)
One surprising result is that learners performed better in handshape than
in location, and that learners did poorly in the area of location in general. Part of
this may have to do with the pairing of handshapes and locations, as only five
pairs were chosen within each parameter. Learners made errors half the time
when signs were produced in different locations yet in close proximity to each
18 18
other on the face, as in the signs DEER and DAD or BIRD produced on the
mouth and nose (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Sample signs with different locations: DAD (left) and
DEER (right)
Surprisingly, a stark change in location for the sign OLYMPICS resulted in
a high error rate among participants (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Correct version of OLYMPICS (left) and high location
(right)
Although it is uncertain if learners noticed the difference in the sign pairs
BIRD or the DEER / DAD pairing, it’s difficult to imagine that the learners did
not see the different location in the OLYMPICS pairing. Best (1995) states that,
“Perceptual learning entails discovering the critically distinctive features, the
most telling differences among objects and events that are of importance to the
perceiver. Information that does not serve this purpose tends not to be picked
19 19
up” (p. 184). The same phenomenon is observed in this case for manual
languages. The implication is that hearing adults place a low level of importance
on location as playing a distinctive role in contributing to lexical meaning. On
the other hand, the tendency of learners to correctly identify change in
handshape implies that they do place importance on the handshape parameter
for lexical meaning. Additionally, these results indicate that learners’ lexical
knowledge and perceived lexical knowledge played a role in their performance
in a highly contrastive task and influenced their judgment as to whether or not
something was the ‘same’ or ‘different’.
3.3 Experiment 2: Multiple Choice Sign Discrimination Task
The purpose of the multiple choice sign discrimination task was to
examine learners’ sensitivity to the five parameters through the use of correctly
and incorrectly articulated signs.
3.3.1 Experiment 2 Stimuli
For this experiment, 40 signs were chosen from ASL 1 and 2 coursework
and from ASL University online, developed for ASL 1 and 2 students (Smith,
Lentz, & Mikos, 2008; Vicars, 2012). These signs were reviewed with a local ASL
2 instructor to assure that ASL 2 students would have been exposed to the signs.
Within the 40 signs, 15 incorrect productions were recorded for each of the five
parameters, for a total of 75 incorrect productions out of 120 total productions (45
of which were correct). For example, the target lexical item CLASS was
presented to the participants. They watched three different articulations of the
sign and indicated which sign was acceptable for CLASS. In some instances,
more than one articulation was correct, for example, if the sign had two widely
20 20
accepted productions (RUN and DOCTOR) or if the sign was directional
(THROW and TAKE). The same native ASL user from Experiment 1 was used to
record the videos in Experiment 2. Sign productions were approximately 3
seconds in length. This task was approximately 11:18 minutes in length.
3.3.2 Experiment 2 Procedure
The grouped videos were assembled randomly into a PowerPoint
presentation and viewed by learners on a 15” laptop at a distance of
approximately three feet. A two second pause was inserted between each
articulation and a four second pause between each lexical item. Additionally,
three different orders of presentations were created to avoid a possible effect of
order on learners’ judgments of signs.
The presentation started with two sets of grouped signs for a warm up.
After the warm up, the researcher paused the video to verify that the participants
understood the directions before continuing with the task. Participants
evaluated the acceptability of three signs for a single meaning. They were given
a sheet of paper with the English translation of a sign and lettered options A, B,
or C (see Appendix B). Participants circled which letter(s) on the video they
thought to be the correct sign(s) for the lexical item.
3.3.3 Experiment 2 Data Analysis
The responses were evaluated in two ways. The first evaluation was
overall percentage, indicating the percentage of target items where the learner
made no errors. The second evaluation was accuracy percentage by parameter.
Error analysis was also conducted to show the distribution of parameter errors,
and errors of missing the correct target sign.
21 21
3.3.4 Experiment 2 Results
Performance on the minimal pair task did not predict performance on the
multiple choice task, but rather, different parameters surfaced both as being
easier and more challenging for learners. The mean percentage of correct
response was 63.75% for ASL 2 learners and 67.5% for ASL 4 learners (about 13%
below Experiment 1), with a gain of about 4% for ASL 4 learners. All learners in
both groups did well in the areas of location and palm orientation, with at least
90% accuracy in each. Performance from most accurate to least accurate was as
follows (the symbol “>” is used to indicate easier acquisition on the left end than
on the right):
ASL 2: Location > Palm Orientation > NMS > Handshape > Movement.
ASL 4: Location > Palm Orientation > Handshape > Movement > NMS.
The most improvement for ASL 4 learners was in handshape and movement;
however, they declined in NMS. The accuracy percentage is reported by
parameter in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Accuracy percentage by parameter in multiple choice task
Improvement was seen between ASL 2 and ASL 4 in all parameters,
except for NMS where there was an increase in the number of errors made by
22 22
learners. The greatest area of improvement occurred within the handshape and
movement parameters. ASL 4 learners performed at 10% greater accuracy than
ASL 2 learners in the area of handshape and were also over 15% more accurate in
movement. For movement, this was a reduction of errors by nearly 50%.
The distribution of errors also changed between ASL 2 and ASL 4, which
can be seen in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Distribution of errors by parameter
Palm orientation and location remained static between both groups and
accounted for less than 20% of total errors. However, movement saw a reduction
in overall error percentage while NMS made up a larger percentage of errors for
ASL 4 students compared to ASL 2 students.
3.3.5 Experiment 2 Discussion
Learners in both groups were fairly accurate, with over 70% accuracy in
almost every parameter. They were most accurate in the areas of location and
palm orientation. While palm orientation was a strong area for both groups in
Experiment 1, accuracy in location was much lower in Experiment 1 compared to
Experiment 2. This discrepancy is likely due to learners’ reliance upon lexical
23 23
knowledge to determine if a location was ‘same’ or not in Experiment 1
(discussed in section 3.2.5), while in Experiment 2 learners were instructed to
choose the correct articulation. Movement and NMS continued to present
somewhat of a problem. In Experiment 1, handshape was one of the most
accurate areas, but in Experiment 2 it was one of the least accurate. While
learners may be able to see a handshape change between two video clips, their
memories are foggier in terms of recalling the correct handshape (seen at some
point in the past).
Some perceptual errors surfaced consistently (40% or more error rate) by
at least one group. The summary of these data can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1
Summary of Areas With 40% or Greater Error Rate
Handshape Errors ASL 2 ASL 4
A / S 60% 50%
Flat-O / Bent-B 60% 20%
1 / X 50% 40%
1 / Open-8 40% 40%
1 / L 40% 0%
S-to-S / S-to-5 40% 30%
NMS Errors
Puffed Cheeks (UGLY) 40% 60%
TH (STILL) 40% 50%
CS (NEED & FAST) 15% 50%
Movement Errors
Backward (Circular) 50% 20%
Incorrect Tapping 40% 20%
Continuous (deleted stopping
point)
90% 30%
Palm Orientation Err
Front (not down) with
movement and contact
50% 30%
Location Errors
None over 40%
24 24
In this study, location errors were sparse and learners did not consistently
make errors in any one area. Palm orientation only had one problem area for
learners, and only ASL 2 learners made the error (palms facing front rather than
down). This indicates that location and then palm orientation are the first to be
acquired by hearing adults. ASL 2 students made consistent errors in three areas
of movement, but those errors largely disappeared by ASL 4, indicating that
movement is next in order of acquisition. (It may be worth noting that other
errors were made, but they were not consistent. One or two learners may have
consistently made errors in movement, making the overall accuracy appear
lower for learners, particularly for the ASL 2 group. This indicates that certain
learners may have greater difficulties in acquiring movement, but it is not the
typical case for all learners.) ASL 2 students also consistently mistook an
incorrect handshape for the correct handshape in more areas than any of the
other parameters (some problem handshapes are shown in Figure 8). By ASL 4,
learners consistently made errors in only half as many handshape areas.
Figure 8. Incorrectly perceived handshapes from left to right: Bent-B, Flat-
O, 1, L, and Open-8
Within the NMS parameter, the error rate increased between ASL 2 and
ASL 4. Although handshape may initially surface as the parameter with the
greatest difficulty in acquisition for first year learners, these perceptual errors
begin to dissipate by the second year of language exposure, and NMS becomes
the most challenging parameter for learners. Based on these results, the order of
25 25
acquisition for hearing adult learners is location, palm orientation, movement,
handshape, and finally NMS.
CHAPTER 4: PRODUCTION: METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
The production portion of this study aims to examine learner production
accuracy and errors in relation to their perceptual accuracy in Experiments 1 and
2. Two production tasks were designed. The first is an isolated production task
to observe how learners produce signs with as little interference (e.g.,
interference from attending to ASL grammar when trying to form a sentence) as
possible. The second production is a sentence production task, in order to
examine how sign performance changes when learners must attend to the
formation of surrounding signs and ASL grammar.
4.1 Experiments 3 and 4: Production of Signs in Isolation and in Sentences
The purpose of this experiment was to catalog isolated production of signs
without the interference of surrounded signs in a sentence or consideration of
ASL grammar. The same participants in Experiments 1 and 2 participated in
Experiments 3 and 4.
4.1.1 Stimuli and Procedure
The 40 target signs in Experiment 2 were used in Experiments 3 and 4 (see
Appendix C). Experiment 3 required the participants to sign the target sign in
isolation. For Experiment 4, the target signs were put into a sentence. Sentences
were created using ASL 1 and ASL 2 vocabulary. Most sentences were simple
statements such as, “My dad likes trains,” or “She doesn’t like elevators.” A few
sentences were slightly more complicated, such as, “The average cost of a TV is
$300.” A few interrogatives were used as well, for example, “Where is the soda
machine,” and “Do you run in the morning?”
27 27
For Experiment 3, learners were given a list of individual signs in English.
They were asked to sign the list of signs and then stop the video camera. At the
conclusion of Experiment 3, the participants were then given the list of sentences
to sign in front of the camera for Experiment 4. They were instructed to use ASL
grammar to the best of their knowledge and to fingerspell any signs they could
not remember. To avoid a possible effect of order of the signs in the lists, three
different orders of the Experiment 3 and Experiment 4 lists were created and
randomly assigned to the learners. The signing process was recorded using
either an iMac video camera or a Zoom Q3 Handy Video Recorder mounted on a
tripod for both Experiments 3 and 4. Experiment 3 took approximately 2 to 5
minutes, and Experiment 4 took approximately 8 to 15 minutes to complete,
depending on the learner.
4.1.2 Experiment 3 Data Analysis
The accuracy of the learners’ production of signs was analyzed in terms of
the five parameters by the researcher with the help of a fluent, native ASL signer.
The fluent ASL user reviewed the video for anything that was overlooked and
additional errors. I acknowledge that there is a degree of variation among signs,
and while we don’t intend to place one production over another, certain
productions may have been marked incorrect according to acceptability in
California, as these are the productions seen by learners. Some learners had a
tendency to mouth the words as they signed, making it difficult to observe NMS
in some cases, such as FINISH which has the NMS of ‘fish’. In these cases, if the
mouthing was not more pronounced than it was on other words, it was tallied as
omission of the NMS.
28 28
4.2 Results
The following sections will briefly outline the results of learner
performance in Experiments 3 and 4. One ASL 4 participant was excluded from
these results due to unusually low performance.
4.2.1 Experiment 3: Isolated Production Results
The ASL 2 group had a mean sign production accuracy of 47.5%. The ASL
4 group performed much better than the ASL 2 group, with a mean sign
production accuracy of 65.28%.
Both groups performed the best in NMS, palm orientation, and location.
ASL 2 learners omitted or missed the sign (e.g., signing BUY instead of PAY) six
times more often than ASL 4 students. ASL 2 learners made the most errors in
handshape, then movement; however, ASL 4 learners reduced the number of
handshape errors by half and made the most errors in movement. Although ASL
4 learners produced on average six more signs than ASL 2 learners, they still
made fewer overall errors than ASL 2 learners (Figure 9). The production
performance from most accurate (fewest errors) to least accurate (most errors) is
as follows:
ASL2: Location>Palm Orientation=>NMS>Movement>Handshape
ASL4: Location>Palm Orientation>NMS>Handshape>Movement
4.2.2 Experiment 4: Sentence Production Results
The mean correct sign production percentage of target items for the ASL 2
group was approximately 44.75%. The ASL 4 group’s percentage accuracy was
near 61.67%. These results are slightly below sign production performance in
Experiment 3, but they parallel the results of Experiment 3.
29 29
Figure 9. Average number of production errors in isolation
As in isolation, both groups performed the best in palm orientation,
location, and NMS. ASL 2 learners omitted or missed the sign nearly three times
more often than ASL 4 students. As in isolation, ASL 2 learners make the most
errors in handshape followed by movement. ASL 4 students reduced the
number of handshape errors by half and made the most errors in movement.
ASL 4 students produced more signs and reduced the number of errors in
production (Figure 10). The production performance from most accurate (fewest
errors) to least accurate (most errors) is as follows
ASL 2: NMS>Location>Palm Orientation>Movement>Handshape
ASL 4: Location>NMS>Palm Orientation>Handshape>Movement
Figure 10. Average number of production errors in sentences
30 30
4.3 Discussion
Little difference was seen in the accuracy of signs produced in isolation
compared to their production within a sentence for either group. The production
results from Experiments 3 and 4 strongly paralleled one another in which
parameters saw the most to fewest errors, with the exception of NMS which
produced slightly fewer errors in sentences (compare Figures 9 & 10).
Accuracy in perception (as seen in Experiment 2) did appear to have an
influence on performance in production. Excluding NMS for a moment, location
then palm orientation were the most accurate in both perception and production.
Movement was the least accurate for both groups in perception and for ASL 4 in
production. Handshape was the least accurate parameter for ASL 2 learners.
The improvement in handshape production among ASL 4 learners could be due
to improved dexterity and fine motor skills, allowing learners to better align their
fingers for handshape formation. While ASL 4 learners did improve some in
movement production, they did not improve as much as they did in handshape
production. The reason for this is unclear and is a point for further research. It
is, however, worth noting that the main movement error in production,
backward movement in the sign PARENTS, was not one of the movement error
trials in perception.
The change in accuracy from perception to production for NMS could
seem odd initially, but this is largely due to the data set. Experiment 2 was
highly controlled, with at most 15 possible errors in each parameter. Although
the same target signs were use, this was not the case for production. In
perception, NMS were put on signs that do not use an NMS lexically. Only
seven signs required an NMS in their lexical forms. While in perception learners
31 31
tend to overgeneralize their acceptability, they did not tend to overgeneralize in
producing them.
The task of producing signs in isolation was given to learners first in order
to activate the vocabulary being used in the experiments, in hopes that the
vocabulary would be used in the sentences. Despite these efforts, many more
target signs were omitted, replaced, or signed incorrectly in sentences in
Experiment 4 compared to isolation in Experiment 3.
It was also expected that ASL 4 students would out-perform ASL 2
students both in isolated and sentence production. This was seen with the
handshape parameter in both isolation and production; however, the other
results of the other parameters showed little difference between the two groups
(Figures 9 & 10 above).
Certain signs saw consistent errors (40% or more) by at least one group.
The ASL 4 group made consistent errors about half as often as the ASL 2 group.
The summary of these data can be seen in Table 2.
32 32
Table 2
Target Items With Consistent Errors Among Learners
Error Type
ASL 2
Isolation
ASL 4
Isolation
ASL 2
Sentences
ASL 4
Sentences
NMS
VERY-CLOSE 50% 50% 60% 40%
NOT-YET 40% 40% - -
FINISH 30% 20% 40% 0%
UGLY 20% 50% 10% 10%
Handshape
THROW (various) 60% 60% 10% 60%
YEAR (A) 50% 10% 40% 20%
COPY (O-to-5) 40% 0% 30% 10%
VERY-FAR (Bent-B) 40% 0% 20% 10%
SEE 40% 0% 20% 0%
TAKE 30% 50% 40% 50%
TELL 20% 0% 50% 0%
GIVE 10% 20% 10% 60%
Movement
PARENTS 60% 50% 50% 60%
NEED 60% 30% 30% 40%
UGLY 20% 0% 40% 0%
Palm Orientation
FINISH 50% 40% 90% 20%
TELL 50% 0% 10% 0%
Location
TELL 0% 10% 70% 10%
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
I have examined the performance of ASL 2 and ASL 4 learners in both
their perception and production of 40 target signs in order to examine hearing
learners’ perceptions of the phonological parameters of signs and how
perception is related to production. This chapter will discuss these results in
terms of the research questions: (1) what phonological parameters are most
difficult for learners, and (2) how does proficiency and exposure influence the
acquisition of the parameters?
5.1 Acquisition of Phonological Parameters
The first research question posed in this study dealt with the difficulty of
perception and production of the phonological parameters of ASL for hearing
adult learners. Based on the results of these studies, a possible order of
acquisition emerges for hearing adults, starting with location as the first, then
palm orientation, movement, handshape, and NMS as the last acquired. I will
discuss each of these from the first acquired to last.
5.1.1 Location
Neither group of learners made consistent errors in the area of location for
any one sign, either in perception or production. The largest instance of errors
made was related to no contact (e.g., omitting contact of the 1 handshape to the
chin in the sign TELL in production) by ASL 2 learners. Those errors most often
occurred in sentence production rather than in isolation, supporting dexterity
errors related to the CPM (Rosen, 2004). By ASL 4, the dexterity issue related to
completion of contact had been resolved.
34 34
5.1.2 Palm Orientation
Both ASL 2 and 4 students faced minimal difficulties in the perception of
palm orientation. ASL 2 students only made errors with the sign AGREE,
accepting palms forward as the end orientation instead of palms down. Palm
orientation errors did show up in production, either turning a back facing palm
to the side or forward (TELL) or not turning the palms forward at the end of
FINISH (Figure 11). In isolation, ASL 2 learners made a palm orientation error in
FINISH half the time, but only one learner did not make the error in production.
This suggests that learners have largely acquired the parameter perceptually, but
dexterity issues play a role in articulating the correct production (Rosen, 2004).
This error may also be related to movement, as some learners included a
sweeping movement with the wrist, rather than a forearm twist (Mirus et al.,
2001).
Figure 11. Correct production of FINISH (left) and incorrect palms down (right).
5.1.3 Movement
Learners had very little trouble differentiating between a correct
movement and incorrect movements using the wrong hand, the wrong joint,
incomplete movement, brushing instead of slides, or slides instead of taps. ASL
2 learners had perceptual difficulties in the areas of backward movement,
continuous movement, and doubling of movement, demonstrating a lack of
35 35
acquisition among ASL 2 students. The contrast between stopping points and
the absence of a stop was particularly challenging to the less advanced learners:
only one learner did not make this error. While students could not perceive the
difference, they did not produce signs such as SEE without a stop, as observed
by Rosen’s (2004) ASL 1 students, indicating that the production problem has
been resolved, even though the perceptual problem remains.
By ASL 4, learners had begun acquiring all of these movement types
which were challenging for first year students, including sensitively to the
presence or absence of a stop. Some areas of movement were still problematic
for both groups, observed in the production of the sign PARENTS with
backward movement, reversing the correct bottom-up chin to forehead
movement. Repeated movement also appeared to be an issue; however, the
target items did not allow for a clear picture to be drawn.
5.1.4 Handshape
Rosen (2004) explained handshape errors as errors of dexterity: learners
knew the correct form, but because of the cognitive load of sign production for
hearing adults, they inadvertently produced the incorrect handshape. Based on
the results of Experiment 2 (multiple choice sign discrimination), this may not
fully explain certain types of handshape errors. In Experiment 2, learners often
accepted the A-HS in place of the S-HS in signs like YEAR (Figure 12). This
indicates that a high number of errors may not be only due to dexterity, but also
due to issues of perception and a lack of acquisition of the handshape parameter.
ASL 2 learners made this error both in perception and production, therefore,
their errors could result from both a lack of acquisition in perception and
problems in dexterity. On the other hand, ASL 4 learners only made this error in
36 36
perception but infrequently in production. ASL 4 learners have begun to acquire
the form and improved in dexterity; however, they still have difficulties in
discriminating between the two handshapes.
Figure 12. From Left to Right – ASL sign for YEAR, A-handshape, S-
handshape
Chen Pichler (2011) further postulates that these S handshape errors are a
result of negative transfer from American gestures, which include a “fist”
category (Wagner & Armstrong, 2003). These are two of the least marked
handshapes in terms of acquisition, but because of the similarities between the A
and S handshapes to the general “fist” category, they are simply assimilated into
the more broad category (Best, 1995; Chen Pichler, 2011). Additionally,
handshape is not as visually salient as movement or location and some
handshapes can be difficult to differentiate (e.g., SEVEN and EIGHT) (Meier,
2005). Handshape also does not carry with it linguistic meaning in English,
resulting interference from the spoken language when learning the manual
language (Chen Pichler, 2011).
Some perceptual errors were made, for example Open-8 or X in place of
the 1 handshape, which were infrequently made in production. In these cases,
learners are still in the process of acquiring the correct form, but they are
generally blocked from making the error because of dexterity, as Open-8 and X
handshapes come later than the 1 handshape in individual handshape
37 37
acquisition (Ann, 2006; Boyes-Braem, 1990). It is, however, still possible for adult
learners to make these errors because their bodies are mature (Mirus et al., 2001;
Rosen, 2004). For example, almost half the participants accepted the incorrect X
handshape in the production of PAY, but only one made this error in production
(Figure 13).
Figure 13. Correct production of PAY (left) and production with
incorrect X handshape for PAY (right)
Learners infrequently made errors in the perception of signs with two
handshapes (e.g., OUT and THROW), but were more likely to produce incorrect
forms, including forms they rejected in perception. This was observed with the
sign THROW, which is highly iconic. Dexterity as well as the iconicity and act of
throwing a ball may interfere with the production of this sign, particularly since
it saw the greatest variety of handshape configurations: C-to-C (or Claw-to-
Claw), C-to-5, C-to-1, E-to-5, S-to-L, and O-to-5 handshape combinations.
5.1.5 Non Manual Signals
NMS is the only area where ASL 4 students showed no improvement over
ASL 2 students in perception. They also consistently made the same errors more
than ASL 2 students. ASL 4 students over-generalized the use of NMS on signs,
often accepting a NMS on a sign that didn’t need one. Overgeneralizations
among more advanced learners were also observed by McIntire and Reilly
38 38
(1988). This is evidence of a U-shaped learning curve for NMS among hearing
adult learners (Albright & Hayes, 2001; Marcus et al., 1992; Stemberger,
Bernhardt, & Johnson, 1999). The U-shaped learning curve explains the
phenomenon when new learners memorize certain forms but do not know the
rules or constraints for the forms. As learners attempt to map the forms to
various constraints, their performance decreases due to overgeneralizations until
the constraint mapping is developed and memorization of irregulars has
improved, resulting in an improvement in performance again (Albright & Hayes,
2001). ASL 4 students understand the importance of NMS, but are uncertain as
to their application and tend to accept them whenever one is present.
In production, ASL 2 and 4 students performed equally, using either the
wrong NMS or using none where one was required. In no instance did a learner
use a NMS when there should be none, even though they accepted these cases in
the perception task.
NMS is another area in which interference of the spoken L1 may play a
role in acquisition. While facial expressions accompany spoken languages
during the course of communication, these expressions do not convey linguistic
data as they do in ASL. As with gestures, learners therefore struggle to segment
the broad category of ‘facial expressions’ into specific pieces of linguistic data
(Best, 1995). Additionally, facial expressions are processed differently in the
brains of deaf individuals compared to hearing individuals. McCullough,
Emmorey, and Sereno (2005) examine facial expression processing in both
hearing and deaf adults. They show that deaf adults process facial expressions
using both facial recognition (emotional) and speech processing areas of the
brain, but when coupled with linguistic information, the speech processing area
takes over. Hearing adults do not process facial expressions in this way and
39 39
instead process facial expressions mainly in the facial recognition area (Emmorey
& McCullough, 2009; McCullough et al., 2005). Hearing adult learners must
overcome this difference in how the hearing brain processes facial information
and learn to recognize it as linguistic information.
5.2 Influence of Proficiency and Exposure on Acquisition
The second research question in this study related to the impact of
proficiency and exposure on the acquisition of the phonological parameters of
ASL. I will examine the perception and performance the ASL 2 and ASL 4
groups, two groups with differing levels of exposure and proficiency in ASL.
It was anticipated that gains would be made in perceptual accuracy
between ASL 2 and ASL 4; however, this was not the case in general. The overall
accuracy of both groups was very similar in both Experiments 1 and 2, within a
4% difference between the two groups. In Experiment 2 (sign recognition),
increases in perceptual accuracy among more advanced learners were only
observed in the handshape parameter (10% improved accuracy) and movement
(15% improved accuracy). General exposure and proficiency seem, therefore, to
positively influence acquisition of the handshape and movement parameters, but
exposure does not influence acquisition of the other parameters. NMS actually
saw a 10% decrease in accuracy among ASL 4 learners. Perhaps with increased
length of exposure, accuracy would begin to improve, but when and how this
may occur is unknown at present.
It was also anticipated that increase exposure to ASL would make ASL 4
learners more accurate in production than ASL 2 learners. This was clearly
observed. ASL 4 learners were approximately 17% more accurate overall in both
isolated production and production of target items within a sentence than ASL 2
40 40
learners. They showed the greatest improvement in handshape while little
improvement was made in other parameters, including movement, although
movement was an area of increased perceptual acquisition. The reason for this is
unclear and requires further study.
5.3 Summary
Learners perform better overall in perception tasks compared to
production tasks. Production tasks also increased in accuracy between ASL 2
and ASL 4. However, there is little improvement in perception between ASL 2
and ASL 4. Because perceptual accuracy remains static while production
accuracy shows improvement, ASL 2 students have greater difficulty with
dexterity as they learn a new motor skill (Chen Pichler, 2011; Rosen, 2004). ASL
4 students have become more skilled at using their hands for communication,
and their production accuracy (65%) has caught up with their perceptual
accuracy (67%). It is likely that a plateau will be reached in learner production if
their perceptual accuracy and understanding of phonological parameters is not
improved. The role of interference in the acquisition of parameters must be
considered.
Interference is not only a factor between spoken languages, it also occurs
when a learner who has a spoken L1 learns a manual language as an L2 (Odlin,
2003). This interference comes by way of the gestures which are used by the
learners with spoken language, impacting the acquisition of certain handshapes
(e.g., A and S) or certain movements (e.g., THROW) (Best, 1995; Chen Pichler,
2011). Interference also occurs in the acquisition of NMS due to the lack of
linguistic information attached to facial expressions in spoken language,
resulting from the hearing learner’s brain not attuning to facial expressions as
41 41
linguistic components (McCullough et al., 2005). A second type of interference is
encountered in the acquisition of NMS due to learner’s tendency to use English
(by way of mouthing the words) when signing, as observed in the production
portion of this study. These two types of interference make NMS the most
difficult to learn and the last to be acquired by hearing adult learners. In
contrast, location is easily seen and understood and palm orientation is limited in
the number of possible orientations, making these two parameters the first to be
acquired by hearing adults.
The use of English may cause general interference and delays in the
overall acquisition of ASL. It is not uncommon for learners to use English while
signing. If learners’ difficulty to produce NMS while mouthing English words is
any indication, they may also pay less attention to other visual information or be
more lax in their production as a result of using spoken language at the same
time. This may also account for only slight gains in performance between ASL 2
and ASL 4 in all tasks.
5.4 Pedagogical Implications
While learners generally performed well in discriminating between
minimal pairs, little improvement was seen between ASL 2 and ASL 4.
Additionally, learners did not do as well in differentiating between correctly and
incorrectly produced signs, with little change in performance between the
groups. Hearing adult learners may therefore benefit from increased explicit
instruction in the phonological parameters, particularly in the areas of
handshape and NMS. Based on this study, learners were often able to see a
difference in handshape, but they became less sensitive to handshape changes in
a task requiring them to choose the correct sign production. Learners also may
42 42
not understand the importance of the parameters in sign meaning. Evidence for
this can be seen in the number of location errors made in Experiment 1, even
though location was one of the most accurate areas in all other experiments.
Learners seemed to not place importance on location and would discount a
change if it seemed lexically irrelevant (Best, 1995). Schmidt (1993, 1995) strongly
supports the importance of awareness for L2 acquisition. Explicit instruction
could therefore help learners with interference issues from gestures and draw
attention to similar handshapes in iconic signs (flat-O and bent-B, which differ
only in the position of the thumb). Explicit instruction would also highlight the
importance of each parameter. This would require teaching learners all ASL
handshapes (rather than only teaching the 22 which are utilized in the signed
English alphabet) and discussing types of movements, locations, and palm
orientations. Learners also need to know which signs always carry a NMS (e.g.,
FINISH and UGLY), which signs much carry one of a certain set of NMS (when
indicating size or distance, ‘cs’, ‘mm’, or ‘cha’), and possible NMS and their
meanings as outlined by Bridges and Metzger (1996). These things are taught,
but it is sometimes put off until later classes or reserved for a sign language
linguistics class. Learners could begin receiving instruction in these areas
beginning in ASL 1.
Stressing the five parameters to learners and even developing parameter
tests may also benefit hearing adults. While beginning ASL textbooks generally
contain a brief overview of the parameters, students quickly forget. Only one
ASL 2 and five ASL 4 learners were able to recall at least 4 parameters. Typically,
the remaining students were able to recall only one. Tests could be given
vocabulary tests by asking learners to indicate which distinctive feature within
the parameters is required for a given sign. For example, students could be
43 43
asked to describe two parameters for the sign YEAR (Handshape: S; Movement:
circular). This could help learners better commit the phonological aspects of the
sign to memory, result in improved lexical knowledge, and heighten awareness
of the parameters and their importance.
5.5 Conclusion
This study has examined the performance of hearing adult learners in ASL
2 and ASL 4 through perception and production tasks. I examined their
performance within the five sign parameters across four tasks: minimal pair
discrimination, multiple choice sign recognition, isolated production, and
production within a sentence. An order of acquisition for these parameters
emerged, beginning with location and palm orientation, then movement,
handshape, and finally NMS. The greatest gain in perception was seen in the
areas of movement, where errors that were persistently a problem for ASL 2
learners were not errors persistently made by ASL 4 learners. Perceptual
performance decreased from ASL 2 to ASL 4 in the area of NMS, adding to the
evidence for a U-shaped learning curve in this parameter (McIntire & Reilly,
1988). Overall, ASL 4 learners were more accurate in sign production than ASL 2
learners, showing the most improvement in the area of handshape. Production
performance in isolation compared to within a sentence did not show much
change for either group.
The role of interference was also examined in the cases of gestures and
iconicity on the perception and production of handshape and movement. The
use of facial expressions for non-linguistic data and mouthing of English words
also creates negative interference on the acquisition the NMS. Location and palm
orientation may face some negative interference (along with handshape and
44 44
movement) through the use of English while signing, but errors are few and
sporadic.
Performance on one perceptual task did not predict performance on
another, nor did perceptual performance predict performance in production.
Performance in the minimal pair experiment did not predict which parameters
would be most troublesome for learners, nor did performance on the multiple
choice sign recognition experiment predict how students would perform in
producing those signs in isolation or within sentences. Performance in sign
production in isolation did give an indication of overall performance in
sentences.
Further in depth study is required to determine which aspects of sign
parameters pose the greatest challenges in hearing adults’ acquisition of sign
language (e.g., backward movement and repeated movement). Additionally,
further study is needed on the influence of a learner’s knowledge of sign
parameters on acquisition of the parameters.
This study examined ASL 2 and ASL 4 perception and production of signs
within the five parameters, and compared acquisition of ASL between these two
groups of learners.. It did not examine hearing adult learners’ acquisition of ASL
in comparison to (early or late) deaf adults, deaf children, or deaf adults. These
are also left as areas for further research.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Albright, A., & Hayes B. (2001). An automated learner for phonology and morphology.
Retrieved from http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/
hayes/learning/learner.pdf.
Ann, J. (2006). Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Sign Language
Handshapes: The Taiwanese Example. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University
Press.
Berrett, B. (2012). Using Computer-Assisted Language Learning in an American
Sign Language course. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 29-
43.
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W.
Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-
language research (pp. 171-204). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Bonvillian, J. D., Orlansky, M. D., & Novack, L. L. (1983). Developmental
Milestones: Sign Language Acquisition and Motor Development. Child
Development, 54(6), 1435-1445.
Boyes-Braem, P. (1990). Acquisition of the handshape in American Sign
Language: A preliminary analysis. In V. Volterra & C. J. Erting (Eds.), From
gesture to language in hearing and deaf children (pp. 107-127). Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Bridges, B., & Metzger, M. (1996). Deaf tend your: non-manual signals in American
Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Sign Enhancers.
Brown, R. (1978). Why are signed languages easier to learn than spoken
languages? Part two. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
32(3), 25-44.
Chen Pichler, D. (2011). Sources of handshape error in first-time signers of ASL.
In D. Napoli & G. Mathur (Eds.), Deaf around the world (pp. 96-121). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Corina, D. P. (1990). Handshape assimilations in hierarchical phonological
representation. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues
(pp. 27-49). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
47 47
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2000). Second language acquisition: An introductory
course. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Emmorey, K., & McCullough, S. (2009). The bimodal bilingual brain: Effects of
sign language experience. Brain and language, 109(2), 124-132.
Kemp, M. (1998). Why is learning American sign language a challenge? American
Annals of the Deaf, 143(3), 255-259.
Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T. J., Xu, F., &
Clahsen, H. (1992). Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs
of the Society for research in child development; 57(4), i-178.
McCullough, S., Emmorey, K., & Sereno, M. (2005). Neural organization for
recognition of grammatical and emotional facial expressions in deaf ASL
signers and hearing nonsigners. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(2), 193-203.
McIntire, M. L., & Reilly, J. S. (1988). Nonmanual behaviors in L1 and L2 learners
of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 61, 351-375.
Meier, R. P. (1987). Elicited imitation of verb agreement in American Sign
Language: Iconically or morphologically determined? Journal of Memory and
Language, 26(3), 362-376.
Meier, R. P. (2005). The form of early signs: Explaining signing children's
articulatory development. In B. Schick, M. Marschark, & P. E. Spencer
(Eds.), Advances in the Sign Language Development of Deaf Children (pp. 202-
230). Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.
Meier, R. P., Mauk, C., Mirus, G.R., & Conlin, K. E. (1998). Motoric constraints on
early sign acquisition. In E. Clark (Ed.), The proceedings of the twenty-ninth
annual child language research forum (pp. 63-72). Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Mirus, G., Rathmann, C., & Meier, R. (2001). Proximalization and distalization of
sign movement in adult learners. In V. V. Dively, M. Metzger, S. Taub, & A.
M. Baer (Eds.), Signed languages: Discoveries from international research (pp.
103-119). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
48 48
MLA. (2010). New MLA survey report finds that the study of languages other
than English is growing and diversifying at US colleges and universities.
Retrieved from http://www.mla.org/pdf/2009_enrollment_survey_pr.pdf
Moores, D., Anderson, K., Ayers, K., Krantz, K., Lafferty, M., Locke, A., Smith,
A.-M.H., & Weide, R. V. (2008). Issues and trends in American annals of the
deaf publications 2001 to 2007. American Annals of the Deaf, 153(2), 99-120.
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),
The handbook of second language acquisition. Blackwell handbooks in linguistics
(pp. 436-486). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ortega, G., & Morgan, G. (2010). Comparing child and adult development of a
visual phonological system. Language, Interaction & Acquisition, 1(1), 67-81.
Rosen, R. S. (2004). Beginning L2 production errors in ASL lexical phonology: A
cognitive phonology model. Sign Language &# 38; Linguistics, 7(1), 31-61.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on
the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.),
Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawai’i Press.
Smith, C., Lentz, E. M., & Mikos, K. (2008). Signing naturally: Student workbook
level one. Berkeley, CA: Dawn Sign Press.
Stemberger, J. P., Bernhardt, B. H., & Johnson, C. E. (1999). “Regressions (“u”
shaped learning) in the acquisition of prosodic structure. Poster presented
at the sixth International Child Language Congress, San Sebastian, Spain,
July 1999.
Stokoe Jr., W. C. (1960, 2005). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual
communication systems of the American deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf education, 10(1), 3-37.
Valli, C., Lucas, C., & Mulrooney, K. (2005). Linguistics of American Sign Language:
An introduction. Washington, DC: Clerc Books.
49 49
Vicars, W.G. (1997, 2012). ASLU Retrieved from http://www.lifeprint.com/
index.htm.
Vogler, C., & Metaxas, D. (2004). Handshapes and movements: Multiple-channel
American Sign Language recognition. In A. Camurri and G. Volpe (Eds.),
Gesture-Based Communication in Human-Computer Interaction, 5th International
Gesture Workshop, GW 2003, Genova, Italy, April 15-17, 2003, Selected Revised
Papers (pp. 247-258). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Wagner, M., & Armstrong, N. (2003). Field guide to gestures: How to identify and
interpret virtually every gesture known to man. Philadelphia, PA: Quirk Books.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: EXPERIMENT 1
52 52
You will watch pairs of signs. Indicate if these two signs are the same or different.
EXAMPLE 1: SAME DIFFERENT
EXAMPLE 2: SAME DIFFERENT
1. SAME DIFFERENT
2. SAME DIFFERENT
3. SAME DIFFERENT
4. SAME DIFFERENT
5. SAME DIFFERENT
6. SAME DIFFERENT
7. SAME DIFFERENT
8. SAME DIFFERENT
9. SAME DIFFERENT
10. SAME DIFFERENT
11. SAME DIFFERENT
12. SAME DIFFERENT
13. SAME DIFFERENT
14. SAME DIFFERENT
15. SAME DIFFERENT
16. SAME DIFFERENT
17. SAME DIFFERENT
18. SAME DIFFERENT
19. SAME DIFFERENT
20. SAME DIFFERENT
21. SAME DIFFERENT
22. SAME DIFFERENT
23. SAME DIFFERENT
24. SAME DIFFERENT
25. SAME DIFFERENT
26. SAME DIFFERENT
27. SAME DIFFERENT
28. SAME DIFFERENT
29. SAME DIFFERENT
30. SAME DIFFERENT
31. SAME DIFFERENT
32. SAME DIFFERENT
33. SAME DIFFERENT
34. SAME DIFFERENT
35. SAME DIFFERENT
APPENDIX B: EXPERIMENT 2
54 54
You will see signs for a particular English word presented in sets of three. Determine
which sign or signs are acceptable as being the correct sign(s) for the word.
Example #1: Email A B C
Example #2: Cow A B C
1. MACHINE A B C
2. NOT-YET A B C
3. PRINCIPAL A B C
4. YEAR A B C
5. TELL A B C
6. HUGE A B C
7. SHOW A B C
8. STOP A B C
9. TEACH A B C
10. CLASS A B C
11. SEE A B C
12. FINISH A B C
13. TAKE A B C
14. DOOR A B C
15. ELEVATOR A B C
16. RUN A B C
17. AGREE A B C
18. VERY-CLOSE A B C
19. MONTH A B C
20. TIME A B C
21. PARENTS A B C
22. COPY A B C
23. AVERAGE A B C
24. DOCTOR A B C
25. RUDE A B C
26. OUT A B C
27. UGLY A B C
28. SECRET A B C
29. MAKE A B C
30. THROW A B C
31. HUNGRY A B C
32. NEED A B C
33. STILL A B C
34. TRAIN A B C
35. PREFER A B C
36. PLACE A B C
37. FAST A B C
38. GIVE A B C
39. VERY-FAR A B C
40. PAY A B C
APPENDIX C: 40 SIGNS USED IN EXPERIMENTS 2, 3, AND 4
56 56
1. NOT-YET
2. YEAR
3. VERY-BIG
4. STOP
5. CLASS
6. FINISH
7. DOOR
8. RUN
9. VERY-CLOSE
10. MONTH
11. PARENTS
12. AVERAGE /ABOUT-HALF
13. RUDE
14. UGLY
15. MAKE
16. HUNGRY
17. STILL
18. PREFER / FAVORITE
19. GIVE
20. PAY
21. VERY-FAR
22. FAST
23. PLACE
24. TRAIN
25. NEED
26. THROW
27. SECRET
28. OUT
29. DOCTOR
30. COPY
31. TIME
32. AGREE
33. ELEVATOR
34. TAKE
35. SEE
36. TEACH
37. SHOW
38. TELL
39. PRINCIPAL
40. MACHINE
Fresno State
Non-Exclusive Distribution License
(to archive your thesis/dissertation electronically via the library’s eCollections database)
By submitting this license, you (the author or copyright holder) grant to Fresno State Digital
Scholar the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate (as defined in the next paragraph),
and/or distribute your submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print and electronic
format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video.
You agree that Fresno State may, without changing the content, translate the submission to
any medium or format for the purpose of preservation.
You also agree that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to grant
the rights contained in this license. You also represent that your submission does not, to the
best of your knowledge, infringe upon anyone’s copyright.
If the submission reproduces material for which you do not hold copyright and that would not
be considered fair use outside the copyright law, you represent that you have obtained the
unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant Fresno State the rights required by
this license, and that such third-party material is clearly identified and acknowledged within
the text or content of the submission.
If the submission is based upon work that has been sponsored or supported by an agency or
organization other than Fresno State, you represent that you have fulfilled any right of review
or other obligations required by such contract or agreement.
Fresno State will clearly identify your name as the author or owner of the submission and will
not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license, to your submission. By typing
your name and date in the fields below, you indicate your agreement to the terms of this
distribution license.
Embargo options (fill box with an X).
Make my thesis or dissertation available to eCollections immediately upon submission.
Embargo my thesis or dissertation for a period of 2 years from date of graduation.
Embargo my thesis or dissertation for a period of 5 years from date of graduation.
Type full name as it appears on submission
Date
Dina Bailey
April 10, 2013
X