Discussion of Issues Related to Discourse Analysis in Signed and Spoken Language Assessments

2021 ◽  
pp. 361-370
Author(s):  
Rachel McKee ◽  
Kellie Frost
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Social Context ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Signed Languages ◽  
Language Research ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
Advance Theory

The analysis of discourse in language proficiency interviews reveals many similarities and some issues that are specific to the modality and social context of spoken and signed languages. In this chapter, we comment on points of intersection and difference in the preceding two chapters to highlight how the exchange of insights from signed and spoken language research in this area can stimulate further inquiry and advance theory across both fields. This chapter is a joint discussion of key items related to discourse analysis related to signed and spoken language assessment that were discussed in Chapters 10.1 and 10.2.

Discussion of Issues Related to Assessment Constructs in Spoken and Signed Languages

2021 ◽  
pp. 261-270
Author(s):  
Susy Macqueen ◽  
Tobias Haug
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Trajectories ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Assessment Practices ◽  
Language Abilities ◽  
Significant Challenge ◽  
Signed Languages ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Language Assessments

Thinking about what is assessed—the construct—in any language assessment raises questions about the nature of language use, the nature of developmental trajectories, and whose language patterns determine what is ‘standard’. The assessment of signed languages draws attention to assessment practices and understandings that are entrenched, for better or worse, in the assessment of spoken languages. Spoken language assessments of standardized varieties tend to value the written sentence as an ideal unit, a legacy of standardization. Signed language assessments, on the other hand, may be emerging alongside processes of standardization. Capturing semiotic complexity in the construct remains a significant challenge for both signed and spoken language assessments, despite the development of corpora which exemplify it. This chapter discusses these theoretical, ideological, and practical challenges for assessing signed and spoken language abilities. It brings together key ideas from chapters Chapters 7.1 and 7.2 and offers future directions in the development of theory and practice in signed and spoken language assessments.

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.

scholarly journals Discourse Relational Devices of Contrast in Lithuanian and English

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 92-100
Author(s):  
Jolita Šliogerienė ◽  
Giedrė Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė ◽  
Vilma Asijavičiūtė
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Social Context ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Semantic Meaning ◽  
Spoken Discourse ◽  
Discourse Relations

When conjunctions are employed to link sentences, they become discourse relational devices The purpose of this study is to analyse if the semantic meaning of Lithuanian contrastive conjunctions o (but/when/whereas/while) and bet (but) coincides with the pragmatic meaning and to draw some parallels with their English counterparts. A corpus-based approach is employed to make generalizations on the use of Lithuanian conjunctions and their English counterparts, whereas discourse analysis provides a theoretical framework to analyse the conjunctions in spoken language and distinguish their peculiarities typical of this social context. The research reveals that Lithuanian conjunction bet and its English counterpart but demonstrate similar pragmatic behavior. On pragmatic level both conjunctions bet and but serve to object indirectly, to deny interlocutor’s ideas by first agreeing to them and then contradicting. Lithuanian conjunction o does not have a direct English counterpart. Lithuanian conjunction o, mainly contrastive in its semantic meaning, has manifold pragmatic meanings, therefore, it can be translated to English not only by but and and but also by any other English utterance introducer depending on the context. The focus of the research is spoken discourse which naturally implies certain limitations as it is not so much organized and more open to the recipient’s intervention. Knowledge of semantic meaning and pragmatic functions provides easily identifiable advice on how conjunctions could be used and translated. The object of the research is comparatively new in Lithuania and adds to the research field related to discourse relations studies.

Discussion of Issues Related to Language Assessment Literacy in Second Signed and Spoken Languages

2021 ◽  
pp. 395-400
Author(s):  
Eveline Boers-Visker ◽  
Kathrin Eberharter ◽  
Annemiek Hammer ◽  
Luke Harding ◽  
Benjamin Kremmel
Keyword(s):  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
The Other ◽  
Core Area ◽  
Assessment Literacy ◽  
Collaborative Process ◽  
Signed Languages ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
New Development ◽  
Considerable Body

This chapter is a joint discussion of key items related to language assessment literacy related to signed and spoken language assessment that were discussed in Chapters 11.1 and 11.2, and the implications that these issues might have on the other field. It is clear that language assessment literacy (LAL) in the context of signed languages—(S)LAL by the authors—is still in a very nascent form. Although in the field of spoken language assessment there is a tendency to discuss LAL as being a “new” development and recent scholarship suggests that issues and constructs remain undertheorized, there is a considerable body of literature on LAL oriented toward spoken language (as surveyed in the Chapter 11.1), to the extent that LAL is now a core area of research and scholarship in the field. This is in sharp contrast with the paucity addressing LAL in the context of signed languages. This chapter is the result of a collaborative process during which the two sets of authors read each other’s chapters and responded to a set of guided questions. The result is the synthesis of this dialogic process.

Validation of Spoken Language Assessments for Adult L2 Learners

2021 ◽  
pp. 273-284
Author(s):  
Carol A. Chapelle ◽  
Hye-won Lee
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Language Courses ◽  
Language Assessments

Assessments of second language speaking are used for a range of purposes, from assigning grades in language courses to certifying qualifications for employment and assessing readiness for university study. The types of validation efforts undertaken across language assessment contexts are equally wide-ranging. This chapter introduces the validation practices used to evaluate the degree to which interpretations and uses of test scores are justified in particular contexts. The types of validation practices are tied to the types of inferences that are made when tests of spoken language are used as well as the need to present empirical evidence and theoretical rationales to support the inferences.

Epilogue

2021 ◽  
pp. 437-446
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Mann ◽  
Tobias Haug ◽  
Ute Knoch
Keyword(s):  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
The Difference

The preceding chapters on signed language assessment and spoken language assessment have demonstrated that the two fields may have different roots and contexts of application, mostly due to the difference in modality, but there are also similarities that may be lesser known. In this chapter, the authors demonstrate how both differences and similarities between the field of signed and spoken languages can create exciting opportunities to rethink old, traditional perspectives and engage in new approaches and collaborations between experts who share the same overall goal: that is, to develop language assessments that are methodologically sound and can be applied to their respective contexts.

Language Assessment Literacy in Second Signed Language Assessment Contexts

2021 ◽  
pp. 383-393
Author(s):  
Eveline Boers-Visker ◽  
Annemiek Hammer
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Language Programs ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Language Assessments

There are growing numbers of students who enroll sign language programs. Most of them are hearing students whose first language is in the aural-oral modality. Learning signed language challenges them to communicate via the visual-manual modality; a process that is known to be demanding (Kemp, 1998). Therefore, in instruction it is essential to monitor this process by means of effective and efficient assessment (Miller et al., 2008). Rather remarkably, there are only a few tests developed to assess students’ proficiency in sign language. This implies that most instructors, who are involved in sign language teaching, have to develop tests and assessments themselves. Complicating factor, however, is that most instructors are not specifically trained on this topic, i.e. their knowledge and skills to evaluate or design language tests is limited. In this chapter, we will bring issues to view that are involved with the design of sign language assessments. Sign language proficiency can be broken down into two components: the visual receptive and manual expressive component. The assessment of these components will be discussed in the context of validity, reliability, authenticity, impact and practicality. We aim to provide a comprehensive matrix of issues in test design, with special focus on the pitfalls one may encounter in using or developing sign language tests for production as well as receptive skills. The matrix is a first attempt to provide a knowledge base on sign language assessment that might be helpful for instructors to become more literate on the subject matter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document