New Technologies in Second Language Signed Assessment

In this chapter, two signed language technologies are introduced: signed language recognition and signed language synthesis/animation. The modality-specific challenges of these technologies are discussed, originating in the multichannel nature of signs and the lack of a standardized writing system. The state of research of each technology is outlined, demonstrating that the existing body of research is considerably smaller than that of the field of automatic spoken language processing. The chapter describes the combination of the two signed language technologies in real-world applications. Most importantly, it explores the potential application of each technology to second language (L2) signed language assessment. Finally, an example of an existing use case is given: the application of signed language recognition to a vocabulary test for adult L2 learners of Swiss German Sign Language.

Challenges and solutions in test adaption

Sign language assessment tools are important for professionals working with DHH children to measure sign language development and competence. Adaptation of an existing test can be a solution when initiating assessment in a sign language community; the adaptation process must adhere to key principles and procedures. We introduce the principles of test adaptation and outline the challenges we faced in adapting the British Sign Language Production Test (Herman, Grove, Holmes, Morgan, Sutherland & Woll 2004) to German Sign Language and American Sign Language. Challenges included decisions regarding the normative sample, the use of terminology, and variations in the scoring protocols to fit with each language. The steps taken throughout the test adaptation process are described, together with a comparison of parallels and differences. We conclude that test adaptation is an effective method of developing practical tools for sign language assessment and contributes to a better understanding of sign language development.

Single-parameter and parameter combination errors in L2 productions of Swiss German Sign Language

This article presents a study of errors committed by hearing adult L2 learners of Swiss German Sign Language (Deutschschweizerische Gebärdensprache, DSGS). As part of a statistical analysis of single-parameter errors, movement was found to be the parameter most susceptible to errors, followed by location, orientation, and handshape. An analysis of production errors with respect to combinations of manual parameters was also conducted, something that previously has not been undertaken. The parameter combination most frequently involved in errors was movement with location. Possible aspects contributing to the higher error rate for movement are suggested, among which are the inherent complexity of the movement parameter. Finally, the article discusses factors influencing the judging of errors.

Psycholinguistic norms for more than 300 lexical signs in German Sign Language (DGS)

Sign language offers a unique perspective on the human faculty of language by illustrating that linguistic abilities are not bound to speech and writing. In studies of spoken and written language processing, lexical variables such as, for example, age of acquisition have been found to play an important role, but such information is not as yet available for German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache, DGS). Here, we present a set of norms for frequency, age of acquisition, and iconicity for more than 300 lexical DGS signs, derived from subjective ratings by 32 deaf signers. We also provide additional norms for iconicity and transparency for the same set of signs derived from ratings by 30 hearing non-signers. In addition to empirical norming data, the dataset includes machine-readable information about a sign’s correspondence in German and English, as well as annotations of lexico-semantic and phonological properties: one-handed vs. two-handed, place of articulation, most likely lexical class, animacy, verb type, (potential) homonymy, and potential dialectal variation. Finally, we include information about sign onset and offset for all stimulus clips from automated motion-tracking data. All norms, stimulus clips, data, as well as code used for analysis are made available through the Open Science Framework in the hope that they may prove to be useful to other researchers: 10.17605/OSF.IO/MZ8J4

Spatial verbs are demonstration verbs

The literature has been divided over the question of whether spatial verbs should be subsumed into a single verb class with agreement verbs. The main point of contention has been that, even if the nature of the elements that these verb types agree with differs, the morphosyntactic mechanism, i.e. a path movement, appears to be the same. Contributing to this debate, this corpus-based study scrutinizes the morphosyntactic properties of a set of spatial verbs in German Sign Language (DGS). It is shown that spatial verbs display striking variability in where they begin and end their movement in space. They may align with locations or person loci, but often they simply mark arbitrary locations, which may convey meaningful yet less specific information about the (direction of) movement of a referent relative to the signer. Furthermore, null subjects are found to occur remarkably often in constructions with spatial verbs, despite the absence of systematic subject marking on the verb itself. These results stand in contrast with those reported for regular agreement verbs in DGS (OOMEN, 2020), and thus provide support for a distinction between the two types. It is proposed that spatial verbs in DGS involve a demonstration component (cf. DAVIDSON, 2015) which ensures the recoverability of referents involved in the event denoted by the verb, thus loosening the restrictions on both agreement marking and subject drop that apply to regular agreement verbs. As such, spatial verbs are argued to be somewhere in between conventionalized lexical verbs and classifier predicates.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------VERBOS ESPACIAIS SÃO VERBOS DE DEMONSTRAÇÃOA literatura não é consensual quanto à inclusão dos verbos espaciais na mesma classe que os verbos com concordância. O principal ponto de discordância tem sido que mesmo se os elementos que concordam com esses verbos são de naturezas diferentes, o mecanismo morfossintático, a saber, a movimento com trajetória, parece ser o mesmo utilizado por ambas as classes. Buscando contribuir para este debate, este estudo baseado em corpus escrutiniza as propriedades morfossintáticas de um grupo de verbos espaciais na língua de sinais alemã (DGS). Mostramos que os verbos espaciais exibem uma alta variação entre o local em que eles começam e terminam o seu movimento em trajetória. Eles podem alinhar o movimento com uma locação específica ou com os loci referenciais, no entanto, eles frequentemente preferem locações arbitrárias, que podem atribuir informações específicas, embora menos convencionais sobre (a direção do) movimento de um referente em relação ao sinalizante. Além disso, sujeitos nulos ocorrem com relativa frequência em construções com verbos espaciais, apesar da ausência sistemática da marcação de sujeito nesses verbos. Os resultados vão de encontro com os achados sobre os verbos de concordância regular em DGS (OOMEN, 2020), e isto traz evidência para existência de uma distinção entre os dois tipos de verbos. Propõem-se, então, que os verbos espaciais em DGS envolvem um componente demonstrativo (Cf. DAVIDSON, 2015) que garantiria a recuperação dos referentes envolvidos no evento denotado pelo verbo, e isso permitiria que esses verbos enfraquecessem aquelas restrições geralmente aplicáveis aos verbos de concordância regular, que são a marcação de concordância no verbo e a possibilidade de apagamento dos sujeitos. Deste modo, os verbos espaciais devem estar, então, em algum lugar entre os verbos lexicais mais convencionalizados e os sinais produtivos.---Original em inglês.

Phonological priming in German Sign Language

A number of studies provide evidence for a phonological priming effect in the recognition of single signs based on phonological parameters and that the specific phonological parameters modulated in the priming effect can influence the robustness of this effect. This eye tracking study on German Sign Language examined phonological priming effects at the sentence level, while varying the phonological relationship between prime-target sign pairs. We recorded participants’ eye movements while presenting videos of sentences containing either related or unrelated prime-target sign pairs, and pictures of the target and an unrelated distractor. We observed a phonological priming effect for sign pairs sharing handshape and movement while differing in location parameter. Taken together, the data suggest a difference in the contribution of sign parameters to sign recognition and that sub-lexical features influence sign language processing.

Processing pronominal pointing signs in German Sign Language: Neurophysiological evidence for the first mention effect

While the first mention bias has been well investigated in spoken languages, little is known about the presence of a similar bias in sign languages. In sign languages, pronominal pointing signs are directed towards referential locations in the ipsilateral and contralateral area of the signing space usually associated with referents in previous contexts. The present event-related potential study investigates the presence of a first mention effect during pronoun resolution in German Sign Language. We present participants with sentence sets containing two referents in the first sentence and a pronominal sign at the beginning of the second sentence directed to the ipsilateral or contralateral area of the signing space. Results show an N400 component for contralateral compared to ipsilateral pronominal signs suggesting increased processing costs associated with the second referent assigned to the contralateral area. Thus, the current study provides evidence for a first mention effect highlighting its modality independent nature.

Psycholinguistic norms for more than 300 lexical signs in German Sign Language (DGS)

Sign language offers a unique perspective on the human faculty of language by illustrating that linguistic abilities are not bound to speech and writing. In studies of spoken and written language processing, lexical variables such as, for example, age of acquisition have been found to play an important role, but such information is not as yet available for German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache, DGS). Here, we present a set of norms for frequency, age of acquisition, and iconicity for more than 300 lexical DGS signs, derived from subjective ratings by 32 deaf signers. We also provide additional norms for iconicity and transparency for the same set of signs derived from ratings by 30 hearing non-signers. In addition to empirical norming data, the dataset includes machine-readable information about a sign’s correspondence in German and English, as well as annotations of lexico-semantic and phonological properties: one-handed vs. two-handed, place of articulation, most likely lexical class, animacy, verb type, (potential) homonymy, and potential dialectal variation. Finally, we include information about sign onset and offset for all stimulus clips from automated motion-tracking data. All norms, stimulus clips, data, as well as code used for analysis are made available through the Open Science Framework in the hope that they may prove to be useful to other researchers: https://osf.io/mz8j4/