Sign language acquisition is a relatively new field and is still developing its own good practice. This paper gives an overview of the most common procedures in research design, choice of subjects, transcription and documentation. The paper concludes with a brief overview of the chronology of development of sign languages.
This article reviews and discusses existing sign language assessment instruments and those that are still under development. There are three groupings of sign language assessments: (1) instruments to assess and monitor the process of sign language acquisition in deaf children, (2) assessments for educational purposes, and (3) instruments for linguistic research. These will be discussed individually with regard to a range of issues, such as target age group, linguistic content of the assessment instrument, background of the instrument and development, usability and availability, and strengths and weaknesses. The article concludes with an evaluation of the reviewed instruments.
This paper discusses the use of the HamNoSys notation (Hamburg Notation System for Sign Languages) for the transcription of children’s signing. The notation system will be briefly described and some former descriptions of the acquisition of sign language phonology presented. The project in which HamNoSys was used is then described briefly, followed by a description of the problems encountered while using the notation. Some proposals as to how to further develop the notation will be made. In conclusion the instrument can be said to be useful and, especially if revised, will be invaluable in further research.
This paper describes some general difficulties in analysing child sign language data with an emphasis on the process of transcription. The particular issue of capturing how signers encode simultaneity in narrative is discussed.
This paper reports on attention-getting strategies during adult–child interaction in a BSL-language nursery. The data come from a small study conducted at the School of Education at Leeds University, in which deaf children in a Deaf nursery run by Deaf adults were filmed. Deaf adults and deaf children both used waving and tapping to gain attention. Deaf adults used waving strategies more than the children did, while the children used more tapping strategies than the adults did. Additional ways of seeking attention and a range of different types of tapping and waving were identified, providing insights into the different uses of waving and the tapping in different situations. Findings also revealed possible developmental stages in attention-seeking.
In this paper we discuss the mixed language input of four deaf mothers and the mixed output of their three deaf and three hearing children. Taking a strict definition of code-mixing (as defined by Muysken 2000) we find that the deaf mothers mainly use a form of code-mixing, or mixed code-blending, called congruent lexicalization, which results in a mixed form between NGT (Sign Language of the Netherlands) and Dutch in a structure which is compatible with both NGT and Dutch. The deaf children (up to 3 years), who are only just beginning to become bilingual, hardly produce any code-mixed utterances. The hearing children, however, are clearly bilingual in NGT and Dutch, and use code-blending of the mixed type in more or less the same form as their mothers do.
Sign language acquisition is a relatively new field and is still developing its own good practice. This paper gives an overview of the most common procedures in research design, choice of subjects, transcription and documentation. The paper concludes with a brief overview of the chronology of development of sign languages.
This article reviews and discusses existing sign language assessment instruments and those that are still under development. There are three groupings of sign language assessments: (1) instruments to assess and monitor the process of sign language acquisition in deaf children, (2) assessments for educational purposes, and (3) instruments for linguistic research. These will be discussed individually with regard to a range of issues, such as target age group, linguistic content of the assessment instrument, background of the instrument and development, usability and availability, and strengths and weaknesses. The article concludes with an evaluation of the reviewed instruments.
This paper discusses the use of the HamNoSys notation (Hamburg Notation System for Sign Languages) for the transcription of children’s signing. The notation system will be briefly described and some former descriptions of the acquisition of sign language phonology presented. The project in which HamNoSys was used is then described briefly, followed by a description of the problems encountered while using the notation. Some proposals as to how to further develop the notation will be made. In conclusion the instrument can be said to be useful and, especially if revised, will be invaluable in further research.
This paper describes some general difficulties in analysing child sign language data with an emphasis on the process of transcription. The particular issue of capturing how signers encode simultaneity in narrative is discussed.
This paper reports on attention-getting strategies during adult–child interaction in a BSL-language nursery. The data come from a small study conducted at the School of Education at Leeds University, in which deaf children in a Deaf nursery run by Deaf adults were filmed. Deaf adults and deaf children both used waving and tapping to gain attention. Deaf adults used waving strategies more than the children did, while the children used more tapping strategies than the adults did. Additional ways of seeking attention and a range of different types of tapping and waving were identified, providing insights into the different uses of waving and the tapping in different situations. Findings also revealed possible developmental stages in attention-seeking.
In this paper we discuss the mixed language input of four deaf mothers and the mixed output of their three deaf and three hearing children. Taking a strict definition of code-mixing (as defined by Muysken 2000) we find that the deaf mothers mainly use a form of code-mixing, or mixed code-blending, called congruent lexicalization, which results in a mixed form between NGT (Sign Language of the Netherlands) and Dutch in a structure which is compatible with both NGT and Dutch. The deaf children (up to 3 years), who are only just beginning to become bilingual, hardly produce any code-mixed utterances. The hearing children, however, are clearly bilingual in NGT and Dutch, and use code-blending of the mixed type in more or less the same form as their mothers do.