How Spoken Language and Signed Language Structure Space Differently

2001 ◽  
pp. 247-262
Author(s):  
Leonard Talmy
Keyword(s):  
Spoken Language ◽  
Structure Space ◽  
Language Structure ◽  
Signed Language

The Handbook of Language Assessment Across Modalities

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Assessment Literacy ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Relevant Field ◽  
The Common ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
First Time

In Language Assessment Across Modalities: Paired-Papers on Signed and Spoken Language Assessment, volume editors Tobias Haug, Wolfgang Mann, and Ute Knoch bring together—for the first time—researchers, clinicians, and practitioners from two different fields: signed language and spoken language. The volume examines theoretical and practical issues related to 12 topics ranging from test development and language assessment of bi-/multilingual learners to construct issues of second-language assessment (including the Common European Framework of Reference [CEFR]) and language assessment literacy in second-language assessment contexts. Each topic is addressed separately for spoken and signed language by experts from the relevant field. This is followed by a joint discussion in which the chapter authors highlight key issues in each field and their possible implications for the other field. What makes this volume unique is that it is the first of its kind to bring experts from signed and spoken language assessment to the same table. The dialogues that result from this collaboration not only help to establish a shared appreciation and understanding of challenges experienced in the new field of signed language assessment but also breathes new life into and provides a new perspective on some of the issues that have occupied the field of spoken language assessment for decades. It is hoped that this will open the door to new and exciting cross-disciplinary collaborations.

Discussion of Issues Related to Assessment of Signed or Spoken Language Development in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

2021 ◽  
pp. 145-152
Author(s):  
Amy Kissel Frisbie ◽  
Aaron Shield ◽  
Deborah Mood ◽  
Nicole Salamy ◽  
Jonathan Henner
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Developmental Disorders ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Pragmatic Language ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Pragmatic Language Skills ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
Hearing Children

This chapter is a joint discussion of key items presented in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 related to the assessment of deaf and hearing children on the autism spectrum . From these chapters it becomes apparent that a number of aspects associated with signed language assessment are relevant to spoken language assessment. For example, there are several precautions to bear in mind about language assessments obtained via an interpreter. Some of these precautions apply solely to D/HH children, while others are applicable to assessments with hearing children in multilingual contexts. Equally, there are some aspects of spoken language assessment that can be applied to signed language assessment. These include the importance of assessing pragmatic language skills, assessing multiple areas of language development, differentiating between ASD and other developmental disorders, and completing the language evaluation within a developmental framework. The authors conclude with suggestions for both spoken and signed language assessment.

Discussion on Scoring Issues in Second Signed or Spoken Language Assessment

2021 ◽  
pp. 329-332
Author(s):  
Tobias Haug ◽  
Ute Knoch ◽  
Wolfgang Mann
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Nonverbal Communication ◽  
Rasch Analysis ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Rater Training ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
New Research

This chapter is a joint discussion of key items related to scoring issues related to signed and spoken language assessment that were discussed in Chapters 9.1 and 9.2. One aspect of signed language assessment that has the potential to stimulate new research in spoken second language (L2) assessment is the scoring of nonverbal speaker behaviors. This aspect is rarely represented in the scoring criteria of spoken assessments and in many cases not even available to raters during the scoring process. The authors argue, therefore, for a broadening of the construct of spoken language assessment to also include elements of nonverbal communication in the scoring descriptors. Additionally, the importance of rater training for signed language assessments, application of Rasch analysis to investigate possible reasons of disagreement between raters, and the need to conduct research on rasting scales are discussed.

The notation of signed texts

2001 ◽  
Vol 4 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 29-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Antinoro Pizzuto ◽  
Paola Pietrandrea
Keyword(s):  
General Problem ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Signed Languages ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Language Research ◽  
Primary Means ◽  
Future Work

This paper focuses on some of the major methodological and theoretical problems raised by the fact that there are currently no appropriate notation tools for analyzing and describing signed language texts. We propose to approach these problems taking into account the fact that all signed languages are at present languages without a written tradition. We describe and discuss examples of the gloss-based notation that is currently most widely used in the analysis of signed texts. We briefly consider the somewhat paradoxical problem posed by the difficulty of applying the notation developed for individual signs to signs connected in texts, and the more general problem of clearly identifying and characterizing the constituent units of signed texts. We then compare the use of glosses in signed and spoken language research, and we examine the major pitfalls we see in the use of glosses as a primary means to explore and describe the structure of signed languages. On this basis, we try to specify as explicitly as possible what can or cannot be learned about the structure of signed languages using a gloss-based notation, and to provide some indications for future work that may aim to overcome the limitations of this notation.

“Switching caps”

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-52
Author(s):  
Lauren W. Reed
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Papua New Guinea ◽  
Individual Variation ◽  
Participant Observation ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Supplementary Material ◽  
Considerable Individual Variation ◽  
Port Moresby

Abstract Abstract (Australian Sign Language) Most bilingualism and translanguaging studies focus on spoken language; less is known about how people use two or more ways of signing. Here, I take steps towards redressing this imbalance, presenting a case study of signed language in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. The study’s methodology is participant observation and analysis of conversational recordings between deaf signers. The Port Moresby deaf community uses two ways of signing: sign language and culture. sign language is around 30 years old, and its lexicon is drawn largely from Australasian Signed English. In contrast, culture – which is as old as each individual user – is characterised by signs of local origin, abundant depiction, and considerable individual variation. Despite sign language’s young age, its users have innovated a metalinguistic sign (switch-caps) to describe switching between ways of communicating. To conclude, I discuss how the Port Moresby situation challenges both the bilingualism and translanguaging approaches.

Design of Signed Language Tests for Deaf L1 Children

2021 ◽  
pp. 29-40
Author(s):  
Rosalind Herman ◽  
Katherine Rowley
Keyword(s):  
First Language ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Written Form ◽  
Age Appropriate ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Development Proceeds

Recent changes in the earlier diagnosis of deafness and improved amplification options have meant that deaf children increasingly have better opportunities to develop spoken language. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of children continue to use signed language as a first language (L1), including deaf and hearing children in deaf signing families and deaf children in hearing families where families use signed language in the home. For both groups, mastery of sign language as an L1 is important because it paves the way to communication and also because it provides the basis for development of spoken language, in either its oral or written form, as a second language (L2). It is crucial that signed language development proceeds in an age-appropriate manner, and assessments of signed language are therefore important to ensure that this is the case. However, the development of effective tests of signed language acquisition is not without challenges. This chapter presents these challenges and other issues and gives examples of how available tests seek to overcome them.

Discussion on New Technologies in Spoken and Signed Language Assessment

2021 ◽  
pp. 431-436
Author(s):  
Sarah Ebling ◽  
Phuong Nguyen ◽  
Volker Hegelheimer ◽  
Necati Cihan Camgöz ◽  
Richard Bowden
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Language Recognition ◽  
Interactional Competence ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Technological Developments

This chapter discusses the implications of second language (L2) spoken assessment technologies and signed language assessment technologies. Specifically, the authors discuss how signed language recognition technology can be applied for the assessment of interactional competence in L2 spoken language assessment. The chapter outlines assessment management systems and the improvement of signed language recognition and animation technologies as important steps to support L2 signed language assessment. The authors also propose directions for future technological developments in both spoken language and signed language assessment. This chapter is a joint discussion of key items related to the use of new technologies in signed and spoken language assessment that were discussed in Chapters 12.1 and 12.2.

“What’s the sign for nitty gritty?”

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Petitta ◽  
Mark Halley ◽  
Brenda Nicodemus
Keyword(s):  
American Sign Language ◽  
Training Session ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Original Form ◽  
American Sign ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Linguistic Term ◽  
Language Output ◽  
Unique Capability

Abstract Humans have the unique capability of using language to talk about language (Jakobson 1957). For example, one can say, “The Italian word for dog is cane.” These metalinguistic references can create a dilemma for interpreters because the critical linguistic term (i.e., cane) must be maintained in the target language to create meaning. Spoken language interpreters can render the original form since both working languages are expressed in the same modality (speech-speech). However, signed language interpreters who work between languages having distinct modalities (speech-sign), thus, must interpret forms between different phonological structures. We videorecorded ten experienced American Sign Language-English interpreters as they interpreted a mock training session containing metalinguistic references. Results showed interpreters employed numerous strategies to manage and coordinate the target language output.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document