Article In:
Sign Language & Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Exploring positional and dimensional aspects of topographic space for advanced-level British Sign Language learners

 | University of Central Lancashire
This study is based on how British Sign Language (BSL) learners develop positional and dimensional aspects of topographic space. The teaching of BSL has been occurring at an increasing rate and many people are learning to use BSL to the advanced levels, which are referred to generally in the UK as BSL Levels 4 and 6 and are loosely equivalent to pre-C1 (advanced) and C1 (proficient) on the Common European Framework for Reference (Languages) scale, respectively. Spatial grammar is a crucial aspect of BSL (Brennan 1992), and this article provides insight into issues related to learning how to use topographic space, a feature of spatial grammar whereby real-world referent locations are replicated in the signing production. This study of 12 advanced learners of BSL explores the numbers and types of errors that are made when applying topographic features into their signing, with a particular focus on positioning and dimensionality aspects. Two scenarios are used do this: classroom layouts (task 1) and a courtroom layout (task 2). The study concludes with reflections on how BSL teachers can support L2 learners in improving their development of topographic skills.
Keywords: BSL learners, dimensionality, positionality, topographic space, role-shift, mentally-rotated space
Article outline
  • 1.Background
  • 2.Research method
    • 2.1Research activities
      • 2.1.1Stage 1 — The initial teaching session
      • 2.1.2Stage 2 — The classroom task (task 1)
      • 2.1.3Stage 3 — The courtroom task (task 2)
        • 2.1.3.1Positioning
        • 2.1.3.2Dimensionality
      • 2.1.4Stage 4 — Self-evaluations of the courtroom task
    • 2.2Sampling and consent
    • 2.3Data coding and analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Classroom task results and observations
    • 3.2Courtroom task results and observations
      • 3.2.1Positioning
      • 3.2.2Dimensionality
      • 3.2.3Observations of the self-evaluations
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Mentally rotated space
    • 4.2Roleshifting
    • 4.3Methods for teaching topographic space
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (50)
References
Alderson, J., Clapham, C. & Steel, D. 1997. Metalinguistic Knowledge, language aptitude, and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 11, 93–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allbutt, J. D. & Ling, J. 2016. Adult College Learners of British Sign Language: Educational Provision and Learner Self-Report Variables Associated with Exam Success. Sign Language Studies, 16(3), 330–360, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boers-Visker, E. (2020). Learning to use space: A study onto the SL2 acquisition process of adult learners of Sign Language of the Netherlands. Doctoral dissertation. LOT 569. Amsterdam: LOT Publications.
Brennan, M. 1992. ‘The Visual World of British Sign Language’ in Brien, D. (ed.) Dictionary of British Sign Language/English. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Brookfield, S. 1995. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Cormier, K., Fenlon, J. & Schembri, A. 2016. Indicating verbs in British Sign Language favour motivated use of space. Paper presented at the 12th Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research , 4–7 January 2016, Melbourne, Australia.
Cormier, K., Smith, S. & Zwets, M. 2013. ‘Framing constructed action in British Sign Language narratives’. Journal of Pragmatics, 551, pp. 119 — 139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Day, E. & Shapson, S. 1991. Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An Experimental study. Language Learning, 411, pp. 21–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DÖrnyei, Z. 2001. Teaching and Researching Motivation. Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Dye, M. W. & Thompson, R. L. 2020. Perception and production of language in the visual modality. In Understanding deafness, language and cognitive development: Essays in honour of Bencie Woll, 251, p.133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. 2002. The Place of Grammar Instruction in the Second/Foreign Language Curriculum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (eds.) New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Corina, D. & Bellugi, U. 1995. Different Processing of Topographic and Referential Functions of Space. In Emmorey, K. & Reilley, J. S. (eds.) Language, Gesture and Space. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fenlon, J., Cormier, K. & Brentari, D. 2018. The phonology of sign languages. In Bosch, A. (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ferrara, L. & Nilsson, A-L. (2017). Describing spatial layouts as an L2M2 signed language learner. Sign Language & Linguistics 20(1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frederiksen, A. T. & Mayberry, R. I. 2018. Reference tracking in early stages of different modality L2 acquisition: Limited overexplicitness in novice ASL signers’ referring expressions. Second Language Research, 1–31. First Published January 29, 2018 at: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, E. B. 2015. Assessing the American Sign Language Version of the Computerized Revised Token Test. Unpublished Bachelor of Philosophy Thesis: University of Pittsburgh.
Harley, B. 1989. ‘Functional Grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment’. Applied Linguistics, 101, pp. 331–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janzen, T. 2004. ‘Space rotation, perspective shift, and verb morphology in ASL’. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), pp. 149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 11). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2008. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Llobera, M. 1996. Exploring the topography of mind: GIS, social space and archaeology. Antiquity, 701, 612–622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. 1994. The Role of functional-analytical language teaching on aspects of French immersion learners’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 151, 263–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsaja, I. G. 2008. Desa Kolok: A Deaf Village and Its Sign Language in Bali, Indonesia. Netherlands: Ishara Press.Google Scholar
Mather, S. M. 1996. Initiation in Visually Constructed Dialogue: Reading Books with Three — to Eight-Year-Old Students Who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing. In Lucas, C. (ed.) Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities: Volume II, Multicultural Aspects of Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. M. 2015. Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. California: SageGoogle Scholar
Mukalel, J. C. 2005. Approaches to English Language Teaching. India: Discovery Publishing House.Google Scholar
Murunoi, H. 2001. Focus on from through interaction enhancement. Language Learning, 501, 617–73.Google Scholar
Nunn, N. J. 2018. UNITED OR DIVIDED? A sociocultural study of conflict among British Sign Language users in the workplace (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Lancashire).
Napier J. & Leeson L. 2016. Sign Language in Action. Research and Practice in Applied Linguistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. & Orterga, L. 2001. Effectiveness of L2/Ln instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 501, pp. 417–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OpenStax College. 2013. Anatomy & Physiology Connexions. [URL]
Ozyurek, A. & Woll, B. 2019. Language in the visual modality: Co speech gesture and sign language. In Human language: From genes and brain to behavior. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, C. A. 2015. ‘Methods of Research on Sign Language Grammars’. In Orfanidou, E., Woll, B. & Morgan, G. (eds.) Research Methods in Sign Language Studies: A Practical Guide. Chichester: WILEY Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perniss, P. 2012. ‘Use of sign space’. In: Pfau, R., Steinbach, M. and Woll, B. (eds.) Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Available at: [URL]. DOI logo
Pica, T., Young, R. & Doughty, C. 1987. The Impact of the Interaction on Comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 211, pp. 735–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, D. 2011. ‘Teaching American Sign Language to Hearing Adult Learners’. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, pp. 137–158, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosen, R. S. 2010. ‘America Sign Language Curricula: A Review’. Sign Language Studies, 10(3), 348–381, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. ‘Teaching L2/Ln sign language grammar’. The Routledge Handbook of Sign Language Pedagogy. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savas, P. 2012. Use of Digital Video Recording in the Preparation Stage of Pre-service Foreign Language Teachers’ Micro-Teachings. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 3(3), pp. 107–116.Google Scholar
Sauvignon, S. J. 1997. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Ready, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Sheldon, S., Fenerci, C. & Gurguryan, L. 2019. A neurocognitive perspective on the forms and functions of autobiographical memory retrieval. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 13(4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
So, W. C., Coppola, M., Licciardello, V. & Goldin-Meadow, S. 2005. The seeds of spatial grammar in the manual modality. Cognitive science, 29 (6), pp.1029–1043. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, W. C. 1960. Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication System of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics, 8 — occasional paper.Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. C., Casterline, D. C. & Croneberg, C. G. 1965. A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Silverspring, Maryland: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, R. & Woll, B. 1999. The Linguistics of British Sign Language, an Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traxler, R. E. & Nakatsukasa, K. 2018. The effectiveness of voice-on or voice-off instruction on ASL vocabulary acquisition. Language Teaching Research. 241, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Tyrone, M. E. 2015. ‘Instrumented Measures of Sign Production and Perception: Motion Capture, Movement Analysis, Eye-Tracking, and Reaction Times’. In Orfanidou, E., Woll, B. & Morgan, G. (eds.) Research Methods in Sign Language Studies: A Practical Guide. Chichester: WILEY Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, P. P. 2000. Metaphors in American Sign Language. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. & Wilcox, P. P. 1998. Learning to See: Teaching American Sign Language as a Second Language. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. 2004. Psychology for Language Teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar