Search

American Sign Language (ASL) uses the face to express grammar and inflection, in addition to emotion. Research in this area has mostly used photographic stimuli. The purpose of this paper is to present data on how deaf signers and hearing non-signers recognize and categorize a variety of communicative facial expressions in ASL using dynamic stimuli rather than static pictures. Stimuli included six expression types chosen because they share overt similarities but express different content. Hearing participants were more accurate in their categorizations but expressed overall lower confidence regarding their performance. Keywords ASL * Dynamic facial expressions * Categorization * Accuracy * Confidence

Despite the constantly varying stream of sensory information that surrounds us, we humans can discern the small building blocks of words that constitute language (phonetic forms) and perceive them categorically (categorical perception, CP). Decades of controversy have prevailed regarding what is at the heart of CP, with many arguing that it is due to domain-general perceptual processing and others that it is determined by the existence of domain-specific linguistic processing. What is most key: perceptual or linguistic patterns? Here, we study whether CP occurs with soundless handshapes that are nonetheless phonetic in American Sign Language (ASL), in signers and nonsigners. Using innovative methods and analyses of identification and, crucially, discrimination tasks, we found that both groups separated the soundless handshapes into two classes perceptually but that only the ASL signers exhibited linguistic CP. These findings suggest that CP of linguistic stimuli is based on linguistic categorization, rather than on purely perceptual categorization.

Byline: John T.E. Richardson (1), Alan Woodley (2) Keywords: approaches to studying; Approaches to Studying Inventory; deaf students; distance education; hearing loss; sign language Abstract: This investigation examined approaches to studyingamong deaf students taking courses by distance learning whopreferred to communicate using either sign language or spokenlanguage. In comparison with hearing students, the deaf studentsobtained higher scores on comprehension learning, surfaceapproach, improvidence and fear of failure. Whilst they obtainedhigher scores on reproducing orientation, their qualitativeresponses indicated that this was not because they had beendriven to use rote memorisation. In addition, the deaf studentsseemed just as capable as the hearing students of adopting ameaning orientation. In the specific context of distanceeducation, there were no differences in approaches to studyingrelated to the students' preferred mode of communication.However, communicating by sign language rather than speech haddifferent practical consequences for the students' effectiveworkload. Author Affiliation: (1) Department of Human Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, U.K. (2) Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, U.K. Article History: Registration Date: 10/10/2004

We report a sign length effect in deaf users of American Sign Language that is analogous to the word length effect for speech. Lists containing long signs (signs that traverse relatively long distances) produced poorer memory performance than did lists of short signs (signs that do not change in location). Further, this length effect was eliminated by articulatory suppression (repetitive motion of the hands), and articulatory suppression produced an overall drop in performance. The pattern of results, together with previous findings (Wilson & Emmorey, 1997), provides evidence for a working memory system for sign language that consists of a phonological storage buffer and an articulatory rehearsal mechanism. This indicates a close equivalence of structure between working memory for sign language and working memory for speech. The implications of this equivalence are discussed.

Byline: Brenda C. Seal (1), John D. Bonvillian (2) Abstract: Sign language production of 14 low-functioning students diagnosed with autistic disorder was examined. Videotapes of the students signing with their teachers were analyzed for frequency and accuracy of sign location, handshape, and movement production. The location aspect of signs was produced more accurately by the subjects than either the handshape or movement aspects. Wide individual differences were evident among the students in the number of signs they produced, accuracy of sign formation, and performance on measures of motor functioning. Students' sign vocabulary size and accuracy of sign formation were highly correlated with their performance on two measures of apraxia and with their fine motor age scores. Author Affiliation: (1) Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 22807 (2) University of Virginia, USA Article History: Registration Date: 08/09/2004

In two studies, we find that native and non-native acquisition show different effects on sign language processing. Subjects were all born deaf and used sign language for interpersonal communication, but first acquired it at ages ranging from birth to 18. In the first study, deaf signers shadowed (simultaneously watched and reproduced) sign language narratives given in two dialects, American Sign Language (ASL) and Pidgin Sign English (PSE), in both good and poor viewing conditions. In the second study, deaf signers recalled and shadowed grammatical and ungrammatical ASL sentences. In comparison with non-native signers, natives were more accurate, comprehended better, and made different kinds of lexical changes; natives primarily changed signs in relation to sign meaning independent of the phonological characteristics of the stimulus. In contrast, non-native signers primarily changed signs in relation to the phonological characteristics of the stimulus independent of lexical and sentential meaning. Semantic lexical changes were positively correlated to processing accuracy and comprehension, whereas phonological lexical changes were negatively correlated. The effects of non-native acquisition were similar across variations in the sign dialect, viewing condition, and processing task. The results suggest that native signers process lexical structure automatically, such that they can attend to and remember lexical and sentential meaning. In contrast, non-native signers appear to allocate more attention to the task of identifying phonological shape such that they have less attention available for retrieval and memory of lexical meaning.

In this study, we investigated bases for encoding linguistic stimuli in short-term memory. Past research has provided evidence for both phonological (sound-based) and cherological (sign-based) encoding, the former typically found with hearing subjects and the latter with deaf users of sign language. In the present experiment, encoding capabilities were delineated from encoding preferences, using 58 subjects comprising six groups differing in hearing ability and linguistic experience. Phonogically related, cherologically related, and control lists were presented orally, manually, or through both modalities simultaneously. Recall performance indicated that individuals encode flexibly, the code actually used being biased by incoming stimulus characteristics. Subjects with both sign and speech experience recalled simultaneous presentations better than ones presented orally or manually alone, which reveals the occurrence of enhanced encoding as a function of linguistic experience. Total linguistic experience appeared to determine recall accuracy following different types of encoding, rather than determining the encoding basis used.