Acquisition of ASL from three
perspectives
Perspectives on L1, L2 and Bilingual
Acquisition of ASL
• L1 acquisition of syntax
– order of first sign combinations
• L2/M2 acquisition of phonology
– accent in sign language: perception and
production
Deborah Chen Pichler
Gallaudet University
Department of Linguistics
[email protected]
1
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
2
ASL canonical word order: SVO
Contradictory conclusions
Fischer 1975, Liddell 1980
L1 acquisition of word order
• SVO is the most pragmatically neutral order,
with no “intonation breaks” (topicalization)
• NVN sequences with reversible arguments
interpreted as SVO
Early word order in ASL
is strictly SVO!
Hoffmeister 1978
– MAN NOTICE CHILD
‘The man noticed the child’
#‘The child noticed the man’
• Sentences with clausal objects must be SVO:
Schick & Gale 1996;
Schick 2002
There is no preferred
word order in early
ASL!
– HUSBAND KISS-HAND [WATCH TV]
‘My husband loves [to watch TV]’
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
4
Early Word order in ASL
Early Word order in ASL
Chen Pichler (2001)
Canonical SV and VO production (Chen Pichler 2001)
SAL: SV/total S+V
NED: SV/total S+V
NED: SV/total S+V
75%
SAL: SV/total S+V
75%
100%
100%
50%
50%
75%
75%
25%
25%
50%
50%
5
28
26
22
24
30
30
NED: VO/total V+O
ABY: SV/total S+V
50%
75%
25 May 2009
30
28
26
24
20
age (in months)
JIL: VO/total V+O
100%
100%
75%
75%
75%
50%
50%
50%
25%
25%
0%
0%
25%
age (in months)
30
28
26
0%
24
30
28
26
24
22
28
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
20
26
age (in months)
30
24
22
20
28
30
26
20
24
30
SAL: VO/total V+O
100%
age (in months)
0%
28
26
0%
25%
22
30
28
26
24
20
22
22
age (in months)
0%
22
25%
50%
25%
50%
20
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
75%
100%
50%
75%
age (in months)
25 May 2009
age (in months)
100%
JIL: SV/total S+V
75%
100%
ABY: SV/total S+V
20
30
28
26
22
20
24
age (in months)
100%
0%
25%
28
age (in months)
0%
JIL: SV/total S+V
24
• Spontaneous production, collected every 1-2 weeks
• 20-30 months for each child (NED, SAL, JIL and ABY)
• Transcriptions include child and adult signing, nonmanual
information (limited) and context
26
22
20
30
24
28
26
20
22
25%
age (in months)
0%
24
0%
0%
25%
• DRINK WATER (JIL 24.5 mo)
• DAD WORK
(ABY 24.75 mo)
• DOG PLAY++ (SAL )
100%
100%
22
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
– codeswitching and code blending
20
25 May 2009
• bimodal bilingual acquisition
age (in months)
6
1
Noncanonical orders in ASL
Noncanonical orders in ASL
VS with Subject-pronoun copy (Padden 1983)
Aspectual, Spatial and Handling OV
MOTHER FINISH EXPLAIN IX(mother)
OVagreement
BOOK 1GIVE2
OVaspect
(PICK) APPLE PICK[asp:cont]
‘(While) we were picking apples (…)’
OVspatial
IX(self) MONEY PUT[loc:can]
Fischer 75, Kegl 76
‘My mother already explained (about it), she did.’
Liddell 80, Romano 91,
Fischer&Janis 92,
MY HUSBAND IXa LIKE SUSHI IXa
‘My husband likes sushi.’
Liddell 1980
FUNNY YOU
OVhandling
‘You’re funny!’
Liddell 1980, Fischer &
Janis 1997, Braze
2004; Meir 1999
‘(I’ll) give you the book.’
‘I put the money in the coffee can’
FLOOR SWEEP[inst:broom]
‘(He) swept the floor with a broom’
SHOES TAKE-OFF[theme:shoes]
‘(They) take their shoes off’
25 May 2009
Noncanonical orders in ASL
Chen Pichler 2001
• Subject-pronoun copy
postverbal subject is a pronoun
• Aspectual verb
verb is repeated with large movement
• Spatial verb
verb is directed towards specific location,
with matching eye gaze
• Handling verb
verb is signed with a handling classifier
• Subject pronoun copy
– IX(picture) WET IX(picture)
– PULL-ON-SHIRT CAN YOU
– CAT SEARCH [asp]
(JIL, 26 mo.)
– YELLOW THROW[there]
– HAT BRING[here] WAIT-A-MIN
– HEY++ BAG IX(bag) PICK-UP[by handle]
25 May 2009
Reordering morphology
Chen Pichler 2001
JIL: Adult-like V+O
SAL: Adult-like V+O
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
25%
25%
25%
25%
0%
0%
age (in months)
ABY: Adult-like S+V
100%
NED: Adult-like V+O
75%
100%
100%
75%
75%
50%
50%
75%
75%
50%
50%
50%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
0%
25 May 2009
30
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
30
28
26
24
20
age (in months)
22
30
26
0%
28
age (in months)
24
28
22
26
24
22
0%
20
28
20
age (in months)
30
26
24
0%
22
age (in months)
20 30
28
26
20
24
22
0%
age (in months)
age (in months)
30
28
24
26
20
30
26
28
22
24
20
28
24
26
30
age (in months)
JIL: Adult-like V+O
SAL: Adult-like V+O
100%
100%
20
age (in months)
JIL: Adult-like S+V
0%
0%
22
30
24
28
22
26
0%
22
25%
20
30
75%
28
100%
75%
26
100%
75%
24
100%
75%
22
100%
75%
20
100%
(SAL, 26 mo.)
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
Percentage target-like S+V and V+O combinations
age (in months)
(SAL, 26 mo.)
(SAL, 26 mo.)
• Handling OV:
Early word order in ASL
NED: Adult-like V+O
(SAL, 26 mo.)
• Spatial OV:
9
SAL: Adult-like S+V
(SAL, 26 mo.)
• Aspect OV
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
NED: Adult-like S+V
8
Production of noncanonical VS & OV
Criteria for child production
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
10
• Generalization: Aspectual, spatial and
handling morphology grouped together as
reordering morphology, with effects on word
order.
• When reordering morphology is present on
the verb, OV order is an adult-like option.
• Early acquisition of canonical order, but
effects obscured by early use of certain
reordering morphology as well
11
2
Production of canonical SV in NGT
Accent in sign languages?
Coerts and Mills (1994)
Layman discussions online
• 3 Deaf subjects, from 1;6 to 2;6
• longitudinal, spontaneous production
• Production of canonical SV as well as
noncanonical VS
• Reluctant conclusion: late acquisition of
canonical SV order
• Reanalysis after Bos (1992) report of
sentence-final subjects in NGT: Early
acquisition of SV and grammatical VS
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
ARE THERE SUCH THIGS AS ACCENTS AMONG SIGNER
FROM DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE COUNTRY OR WORLD?
… a native user of BSL who learned ASL would undoubtedly
retain a BSL intonation or "accent.”
http://www.thedeafway.net/html_files/faqsbot.htm#4
I know I still sign with a "hearing accent," but I'm always
trying to lose it. This book will give you the worst hearing
accent you can imagine.
Customer review on amazon.com of The Art of Sign Language (Pocket Guide Series) by
Christopher Brown
13
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
Accent in spoken L2
L2 ASL vs. M2 ASL
Due to phonological transfer from L1
new sound!
• One SL already
• No previous
acquired (BSL); ASL is
experience with any
his second SL
SL
• Predict typical L2
• Predict effects of
effects, but no effect of
new modality (M2) in
new modality
addition to typical L2
effects
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
14
15
English /u/
L2 French /y/
Notices difference.
Sets up new category.
L2 French /u/
Overlooks difference.
Assimilates to L1
category.
(Transfer error)
25 May 2009
L2 learner
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
Accent in sign language
Accent in sign language
Phonological transfer in M2 ASL?
Why not transfer & markedness? (Chen Pichler, to appear)
• Rosen (2004) proposes theoretical
possibilities for formational errors in M2 ASL:
–
–
–
–
transfer from L1
developmental errors influenced by markedness
faulty perception of target
lack of physical dexterity
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
• Conventionalized gesture uses handshapes
that are identical or similar to ASL handshapes
–
–
–
–
–
• Rosen concludes that errors in handshape
are due largely to lack of physical dexterity;
he dismisses transfer and markedness as
potential sources of errors
16
pointing (ASL 1-hs)
fist (ASL S-hs)
cross your fingers (ASL R-hs)
call me, hang loose (ASL Y-hs)
etc., etc.
• Deaf children acquire unmarked handshapes
first, but often struggle with marked handshapes
17
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
18
3
Accent in sign language
Accent in sign language
Chen Pichler (to appear) methodology
Errors correlated with markedness
target
• Subjects
Subj 9
Subj 4
– Four hearing non-signers (2♂, 2♀)
• Stimuli
– Subjects copy 38 ASL signs and 10 common
hearing gestures
– single handshape, unmarked location and
movement
– a mix of [±marked] and [±gesture-like] handshapes
– two trials in randomized order, presented on
computer screen
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
19
Accent in sign language
YOURS (B-dot)
target
FEEL (open-8)
25 May 2009
Subj 4
Subj 10
Subj 12
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
20
Accent in sign language
Transfer with unmarked handshape S/A (Subj 4)
Preliminary conclusions
• Transfer is observed for some naïve signers,
seems to interact with markedness:
SYMBOL (S)
SENATE (S)
SYMBOL (A)
– unmarked handshape “recognized” and
assimilated to a gesture handshape  transfer
– marked handshape does not trigger recognition 
sign processed as an unfamiliar complex of
handshape, movement and location
SENATE (A)
• Caveats
gesture ‘yes!’ (S)
25 May 2009
– very small pilot
– subjects are not true learners; requires
longitudinal follow up study
gesture ‘yes!’ (A)
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
21
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
22
Different error patterns for M2 and L2?
Rough overview of L2 vs M2 results
Gallaudet study II
Percentage correct handshapes
 5 Deaf Croatians living in Zagreb
 Ages between 18-45
 All use Hrvatski Znakovni Jezik (HZJ)
 2 with Deaf family members
L2
M2
25 May 2009
 5 hearing students from Georgetown U
 Ages between 18-25
 No previous experience with any sign
language (simulates very beginning M2)
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
23
L2
M2
A
20/20 = 100%
17/20 = 85%
S
39/70 = 56%
63/70 = 90%
Y
38/39 = 97%
35/40 = 88%
3
50/50 = 100%
33/50 = 66%
T
26/30 = 87%
24/30 = 80%
R
22/30 = 73%
17/30 = 57%
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
24
4
L2 errors with unmarked S
Different error patterns for M2 and L2?
Result of perceptual errors
• M2 signers:
SHOES
– disproportionately attend to handshape (but still err due
to dexterity and other issues)
– more perception errors in movement and orientation
than L2
WORK
• L2 signers:
– attend to target sign on a more global level (integration
of handshape, movement and orientation)
– prone to missing small details of handshape (eg. thumb
opposition); consistent with psycholinguistic findings
(Emmorey 2002)
SENATE
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
25
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
26
Unimodal vs. Bimodal acquisition
Bilingual acquisition
Clarification of terminology
What perpetuates the perception of bilingual confusion?
I am muy feliz today!
speech+speech
or
sign+sign
bilingual
• mixing in bilingual utterances
• reports of lower vocabulary counts
compared to monolinguals
speech+sign
你要不要跟我玩？
unimodal bilingual
(monomodal)
25 May 2009
What?
bimodal
bilingual
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
27
Bilingual acquisition
Response from bimodal studies (eg. Petitto et al. 2004)
25 May 2009
• lack of translation
equivalents (TE’s)
• inappropriate language
choice with interlocutor
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
Code switching vs Code blending
Petitto et al. (2001); Bogaergde & Baker (2005)
“Il a des beaux slippers”
• Vocabulary development
– consistently achieved classic vocabulary milestones on
similar timetable to monolinguals
– bimodal data eliminates problematic “neutral” items
– ~30% of vocabulary are TE’s at 50 word stage
“la vaisselle”
LAVER
Code switch (Fr/Eng)
Incongruent blend (Fr/LSQ)
• Interlocutor confusion
– children did not always use appropriate language with
interlocutor BUT
– all children adjusted language choice according to
interlocutor
28
“Ça ressemble MOUCHOIR”
“des canards”
CANARD
• Language mixing
– sensitive to sociolinguistic factors and mixing in input
– complex patterns, most not random or uncontrolled
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
Code switch (Fr/LSQ)
29
25 May 2009
Congruent blend (ASL/Eng)
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
30
5
Percentage of mixed utterances
Gallaudet koda acquisition project
Petitto et al. (2001) and Emmorey et al. (2008)
Fr/Eng Bilinguals:
• mixed utterances = 2%
of total production
• 100% of these mixed
utterances are code
switches (sequential
mixes)
Effects of bilingualism on word order & information packaging in ASL
Fr/LSQ Bilinguals:
• mixed utterances = 1944% of total production
• 6% of these mixed
utterances are code
switches; the rest are
code blends
LEX
•
•
•
•
• also observed for adult codas (Emmorey et al. 08):
The majority of mixed utterances are code blends
(98%)
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
31
PETE
TOM
BEN
data from 4 male coda children
filmed biweekly from ~1;6 to ~3;6
alternating ASL and English sessions
currently in collection and transcription phase
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
Comparison: Chen Pichler & Quinn (2008)
What type of code blends?
Code blends vs. switches during spoken English
Petitto et al. (2001) and Emmorey et al. (2008)
32
• LSQ/Fr children:
– 89% of blends are semantically congruent
– 11% of blends are semantically incongruent, of
which 17% are instances of “dual languagespecific syntax”
• ASL/Eng adults:
– 89.44% of blends are semantically congruent
– multi-sign blends are more common (63%) than
utterances with a single blended element (37%)
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
33
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
34
Comparison: Chen Pichler & Quinn (2008)
What constituents are blended?
Code blends types
Chen Pichler & Quinn (2008); comparison of ASL adults &children
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
35
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
36
6
Gallaudet coda project
Bilingual acquisition
Next steps
Summary: No evidence for confusion
• Continue comparisons with:
– other coda reports
– Deaf and hearing monolinguals
• Areas for analysis:
– word order and information packaging
– modality-specific transfer
– changes in code mixing patterns
• Eventual comparison with CI bimodal bilinguals
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
37
• Vocabulary milestones apply across both
languages
• Consistent with differentiation of two
grammars from the onset of acquisition
• Mixing not a sign of confusion; occurs in
systematic ways, and requires skill in both
languages
• Bimodal bilinguals provide unique insights
not available from unimodal bilingualism
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
38
Some useful references
Thanks!
• to Josep Quer for inviting me Barcelona, and
to staff and students of the Universitat
Pompeu Fabra, Departament de Traducció i
Ciències del Llenguatge for a warm welcome
• to the LSC interpreters
• to the Gallaudet Research Institute (GRI) and
the National Institute of Health (NIH) (grant
#NIDCD DC-00183 to Diane Lillo-Martin) for
funding of this research
Bogaerde & Baker (2005) Code mixing in mother-child interaction in deaf families.
Sign Language and Linguistics, Vol. 8, 1/2: 155-178.
Chen Pichler (to appear). Sources of handshape error in first-time signers of ASL,
in Napoli and Mathur (eds.) Deaf around the world: Papers from the conference
at Swarthmore College. OUP
Emmorey (2002) Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language
Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Emmorey et al. (2008) Bimodal bilingualism.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
11(1) 43-6.
Petitto et al. (2001) Bilingual signed and spoken language acquisition from birth:
Implications for the mechanisms underlying early bilingual language acquisition.
Journal of Child Language, 8, 453-496.
Petitto & Holowka (2002) Evaluating attributions of delay and confusion in young
bilinguals: Special insights from infants acquiring a signed and spoken
language. Sign Language Studies, 3(1), 4-33.
Petitto et al. (2004) Bilingual signed and spoken language acquisition from birth :
implications for the mechanisms underlying early bilingual language acquisition
J. Child Lang, 28:453-496.
25 May 2009
25 May 2009
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
39
Chen Pichler-Barcelona
40
7