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