Title: Development of perspective-taking skills by deaf signing children
Language of presentation: ASL
Signed language users capitalize on the space in front of their bodies for describing the
locations, orientations, and movements of animate and inanimate objects with respect to each other;
this has been termed topographic or diagrammatic use of the signing space.1 Objects are often
represented with linguistic classifiers and the interpretation of the locations, orientations, and
movements of objects within a space may require that the interlocutor envision the objects from a
different visual perspective (e.g., signer’s).2 Thus, visual-spatial skills are needed for comprehending
linguistic content that involves spatial descriptions.
The implication for child language acquisition is that the development of perspective-taking
skills must accompany sign language development. Studies have shown that normal adult fluent
signers possess enhanced visual-spatial skills in mental rotation or detection of mirror reversals,3,4,5,6
but references to deaf children’s visual-spatial development are limited.7 Research on hearing
children’s visual perspective-taking skills generally focuses on young children, and older children’s
abilities are generally not considered.8
Visual-spatial skills can be assessed via non-linguistic means (e.g. block design and mental
rotation tests), but such tests do not provide insight about a child’s use of perspective taking while
simultaneously engaging in linguistic processing. Our team has developed such an instrument and
piloted it on deaf children.
In the American Sign Language Perspective Taking Comprehension Test (ASL-PTCT) the testtaker is presented with 20 signed phrases via a computer, each of which describes two objects with
classifiers in specific arrangements and orientations. Here, arrangement refers to whether a specific
object is located on the left or the right (both objects are always facing in the same direction), and
orientation refers to whether one of the objects in the scene has fallen outward or inward (with respect
to the upright object) as indicated by the signer’s articulation of classifiers. The arrangements and
orientations of the classifiers are systematic across items, and objects are counter-balanced for equal
representation of both features. The task for the test-taker is to view each signed phrase and then
choose a picture, from four choices for each item, that corresponds with the arrangements and
orientations of the objects as indicated by the signer (Figure 1). Generally, the pictures force the testtaker to consider viewpoints, or visual perspectives, that differ from the default perspective of the
stimulus video. Accuracy and response time are measured for each item.
ASL-PTCT data come from 94 deaf students (mean age 15;8, median age 16;6 range 7;7-20;4,
42 females; 12 native signers) tested at a bilingual (ASL-English) school. Native signers did not
significantly outperform non-native signers. However, a generalized linear mixed model revealed a
main effect for age, with older children outperforming younger children (F(1,1858) = 9.45, p < .01;
Figure 2). This suggests that deaf children’s visual perspective-taking skills are developing throughout
their childhood & adolescent years, which could influence their linguistic comprehension of
topographic space. Reaction time differences across children and trends in male/female performance
will also be discussed. These results have implications for theoretical approaches to the acquisition of
spatial devices in sign.
Word count: 500
Figure 1: Example item from the ASL Perspective-Taking Comprehension Test (ASL-PTCT)
Final frame of video stimulus:
Participant options for this item (appear all at once following video stimulus):
a
b
c
d
English glosses (only for purposes of this example; not shown to the test-taker):
DOG CL-animal-facing-forward (rt hand), CAR CL-vehicle-facing-forward-turned-on-right-side (lf hand)
English translation (only for purposes of this example; not shown to the test-taker):
“A dog facing away from the signer is to the right of the car, which is facing in the same direction and
resting on its right side (with the top of the car facing the dog).”
Choices (c) and (d) are incorrect because the dog is to the left of the car, and choice (a) is
incorrect because the car is resting on its left side. Choice (c) is also the egocentric foil. Choice (b) is the correct
answer for this item, and it requires a 90º perspective shift for the interlocutor to the right.
% correct Figure 2: Deaf children’s performance on ASL-PTCT by Age (n=94)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 36.25 38.13 7-­‐9 10-­‐12 55.72 56.68 16-­‐18 19-­‐20 42.25 13-­‐15 Ages References
1 Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates: Mahwah,
NJ.
2 Emmorey, K., Kosslyn, S., & Bellugi, U. (1993). Visual imagery and visual-spatial language: Enhanced imagery abilities in deaf and hearing
ASL signers. Cognition, 46, 139-181.
3 Emmorey, K., Klima, E. S., & Hickok, G., (1998). Mental rotation within linguistic and nonlinguistic domains in users of American Sign
Language. Cognition, 68, 221-246.
4 Masataka, N. (1995). Absence of mirror-reversal tendency in cutaneous pattern perception and acquisition of a signed language in deaf
children. Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 97-106.
5 McKee, D. (1987). An analysis of specialized cognitive functions in deaf and hearing signers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University
of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
6 Talbot, K. F., & Haude, R. H. (1993). The relationship between sign language skill and spatial visualization ability: Mental rotation of threedimensional objects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 1387-1391.
7 Bellugi, U., O’Grady, L., Lillo-Martin, D., O’Grady, M., van Hoek, K., & Corina, D. (1990). Enhancement of spatial cognition in deaf
children. In V. Volterra & C. Erting (Eds.), From gesture to language in hearing and deaf children (pp. 278-298). New York: Springer.
8 Moll, H., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2011). Perspective-taking and its foundation in joint attention. In N. Eilan, H. Lerman, & J. Roessler (Eds.),
Perception, causation, and objectivity. Issues in philosophy and psychology (pp. 286-304). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.