Signed Languages: A Triangular Semiotic Dimension

Since the beginning of signed language research, the linguistic units have been divided into conventional, standard and fixed signs, all of which were considered as the core of the language, and iconic and productive signs, put at the edge of language. In the present paper, we will review different models proposed by signed language researchers over the years to describe the signed lexicon, showing how to overcome the hierarchical division between standard and productive lexicon. Drawing from the semiotic insights of Peirce we proposed to look at signs as a triadic construction built on symbolic, iconic, and indexical features. In our model, the different iconic, symbolic, and indexical features of signs are seen as the three sides of the same triangle, detectable in the single linguistic sign (Capirci, 2018; Puupponen, 2019). The key aspect is that the dominance of the feature will determine the different use of the linguistic unit, as we will show with examples from different discourse types (narratives, conference talks, poems, a theater monolog).

The Handbook of Language Assessment Across Modalities

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 Score Use and Interpretation of First Spoken and Signed Language Assessments

A standardized assessment of spoken languages will collect data from native, monolingual speakers, thus establishing the range of receptive and/or expressive abilities of children across different ages. Similarly, normative data for standardized assessments of signed language are established by collecting data from native signing deaf children. Where the difference arises is the way in which the normative data relate to the target populations and the individuals within those populations who are being assessed. While standardized assessments of spoken language are normed on and predominantly intended for use with native speakers of that language, standardized assessments of signed language are intrinsically designed for use with a heterogenous group of children, of whom only a minority have the opportunity of learning signed language as their native language. In this chapter, key items related to score use and interpretation in first language (L1) assessment that were presented in Chapters 2.1 and 2.2 will be jointly discussed by the authors.

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

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

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.

Scoring Second Signed Language Assessment

There exists a scarcity in signed language assessment research, especially on scoring issues and interrater reliability. This chapter describes two related assessment instruments, the SLPI and the NFA, which offer scoring criteria. Raters are provided with scales for evaluating the different components of the language production of the candidate. Through its use, the rating system has been proved successful; there is, however, hardly any data on interrater reliability. In this chapter, the authors describe reliability issues with attention to raters’ training and score resolution techniques and discuss how to identify and increase rater reliability. The dearth of knowledge on signed language assessment, and in particular its validity and reliability, indicates an urgent need for more research in this area.

Dynamic Assessment of Learners of a Signed Language

In this chapter, the authors discuss the use of dynamic language assessment with signing deaf children. This is a fairly new area, and, in spite of the growing interest on behalf of researchers and practitioners, there is very limited research. Given the lack of available studies, the authors use anecdotal information that draws on observations made by two of the authors from their own work with signing deaf children, one in a hospital and the other in a school setting. Some of the questions that will guide the discussions are: What makes dynamic assessment useful for signing deaf children? And, how do we determine that dynamic assessment is appropriate for a particular child, and how do we evaluate whether it works? The authors finish with a look at possible future directions and present recommendations on how to make dynamic assessment (more) meaningful for use with signing deaf children.

Design of Signed Language Tests for Deaf L1 Children

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.

Score Use and Interpretation of First Signed Language Assessments

This chapter provides a critical examination of the different uses of test scores; their interpretation by test administrators, educators, professionals, and researchers; and the implications these scores may have for test-takers. Before discussing the issues of test scores, an overview of the complexities involved in defining the L1 of deaf signers will be shared. Understanding the potential pitfalls of signed language assessment with a diverse background of L1 users is emphasized. Four sections address critical issues on scoring and interpreting assessments: purpose, consistency, norming and scoring, and interpreting the results beyond the score. Conducting valid and reliable language assessment is critical to establishing a baseline for intervention, education or research, monitoring an individual’s language competency and growth, justifying the need for additional language support, and providing accurate reporting to parents and administrators.

Construct in Assessments of Signed Language

Descriptions of test constructs in second signed language assessment, such as vocabulary knowledge, are rare and far from receiving the attention by the field of signed language test research that they deserves. Detailing the construct in second signed language assessment poses a challenge for obvious reasons: only very few published studies on signed language tests for adult learners are available, and none of them focuses on construct-related issues. Equally, there is a shortage of operationally used test instruments accessible for review. In this chapter, published studies on second signed language assessment will be reviewed, focusing specifically on construct representation; tests that are used for hiring and promotion are discussed and an example of how to define the construct for a signed language test is discussed.