Learner Errors and ASL Parameters
to be presented in ASL
This poster describes a study investigating the accuracy of sign parameters and features in
ASL signs produced by hearing adult second-language learners. Signs produced during
unscripted conversations between 34 beginning ASL students were coded for accuracy on five
dimensions. Non-target forms were also transcribed phonetically and compared to target forms.
The highest error rates are seen in the handshape and movement parameters, but patterns vary
widely between participants and between lexical items. In addition, a number of interesting
patterns emerged at the feature level: the relationships between the target forms and the
produced forms are not random substitutions of unrelated units, but typically involve
substitutions of a parameter unit that shares multiple lower-level features with the target.
Multiple models for the phonology of ASL have been proposed over the past fifty years.
Models based on Stokoe’s 1960 work, in which every sign is treated as having one element for
each of several simultaneously produced parameters, remain common. Most frequently, the
major parameters of signs are said to be handshape, location, movement, and palm orientation.
Also common is the theory that for any pair of linguistic structures, one is more highly marked
than the other. Some studies (Siedlecki & Bonvillian 1993, Conlin et al 2000) have examined
the relative markedness of different parameters, while others (McIntire 1977, Boyes-Braem
1990, Bonvillian & Siedlecki 1996) have focused on the relative markedness of units within a
parameter inventory. In child L1 acquisition, less-marked elements are acquired earlier,
produced more accurately, and substituted for more-marked elements (Siedlecki & Bonvillian
1997; Marentette & Mayberry 2000; Cheek et al 2001). Research focused on L2 learners has
been more limited, but has indicated that markedness, transfer, and motor skills may all affect
learner productions (Chen Pichler 2011, Mirus et al 2001, Rosen 2004).
In this study, 3203 produced signs corresponding to 246 lexical items were coded for
accuracy on five dimensions: the four traditional major parameters and a fifth addressing the
number of hands and the relationship between them. Each dimension was treated as a complex
variable comprising multiple lower-level features, and coded on a trivalent scale (correct/
partially correct/incorrect). In productions with non-target forms (one or more incorrect or
partially correct parameter values), phonetic features were also transcribed and compared to the
features of posited target forms. In this data set, most learner errors occur in the handshape and
movement parameters. These errors typically involve the substitution of phonetically similar
forms for targets, but there is no correlation between traditional markedness hierarchies and
error rates for the target forms.
This study uses the phonetic details of ASL signs produced by L2 learners to examine the
nature and frequency of learner errors. Results indicate that learner errors occur in patterns that
are distinct from those displayed by children acquiring ASL as a first language: in learner
errors, the handshape and movement parameters involve similar error rates, and neither error
rates nor produced forms are correlated with markedness hierarchies for parameter inventories.
References
Bonvillian, John D. and Theodore Siedlecki Jr.. 1996. Young children’s acquisition of the
location aspect of American Sign Language signs: Parental report findings. Journal of
Communication Disorders 29:1, 13–36.
Boyes-Braem, Penny. 1990. Acquisition of the handshape in American Sign Language: A
preliminary analysis. In Virginia Volterra and Carol Erting, editors, From gesture to
language in hearing and deaf children, 107–127. Springer Verlag.
Chen Pichler, Deborah. 2011. Sources of handshape error in first-time signers of ASL. In Gaurav
Mathur and Donna Jo Napoli, editors, Deaf around the world: The impact of language,
96–121. Oxford University Press.
Conlin, Kimberly E., Gene R. Mirus, Claude Mauk, & Richard P. Meier. 2000. The acquisition of
first signs: Place, handshape and movement. In Jill P. Morford and Rachel I. Mayberry,
editors, Language acquisition by eye, 51–69. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marentette, Paula F. & Rachel I. Mayberry. 2000. Principles for an emerging phonological
system: a case study of early ASL acquisition. In Jill P. Morford and Rachel I. Mayberry,
editors, Language acquisition by eye, 71–90. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McIntire, Marina L.. 1977. The acquisition of American Sign Language hand configuration. Sign
Language Studies 16, 247–266.
Mirus, Gene R., Christian Rathmann, & Richard P. Meier. 2001. Proximalization and
distalization of sign movement in adult learners. In Valerie L. Dively, Melanie Metzger,
Sarah Taub, and Anne Marie Baer, editors, Signed Languages: Discoveries from
International Research, 103–119. Gallaudet University Press.
Rosen, Russel S.. 2004. Beginning L2 production errors in ASL lexical phonology: A cognitive
phonology model. Sign Language & Linguistics 7:1, 31-61.
Siedlecki Theodore & John D. Bonvillian. 1993. Location, handshape & movement: Young
children's acquisition of the formational aspects of American Sign Language. Sign
Language Studies 78, 31-52.
Stokoe, William C.. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication
systems of the American deaf (Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers 8). Buffalo, NY:
University of Buffalo.