Figure - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
This paper concerns the acquisition of the sign lexicon in L2 learners of Swedish Sign Language. Sampled data (conversation and narrative retelling) from a longitudinal learner corpus with 16 adult L2 signers was analyzed and compared with data from nine L1 signers. The use of three broad types of signs was analyzed: lexical signs, partly-lexical s...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... hours of sign language instruction were approximately 50, 125, 240 and 350 hours for T1, T2, T3 and T4, respectively. Comparisons to an L1 cohort (nine fluent signers) were made; see Table 2. All the L1 signers acquired STS from early childhood, had attended Swedish deaf schools, and are members of the Swedish deaf community. ...Similar publications
Teachers making errors in explanation that require subsequent self-correction is presumably common in education. However, it may be difficult to capture in research. In this study, teacher self-correction in the context of early childhood science education within a fictive frame was captured on video when documenting science activities over a prolo...
Citations
This study explored how non-signers exploit their gestural repertoire during a process of handshape conventionalisation. We examined how communicative context, interaction, and time affect the transition from iconically motivated representations to linguistically organised, generalised forms. One hundred non-signers undertook a silent gesture-elicitation task, describing pictures in one of four conditions: (A) in isolation; (B) with a passive recipient tasked with identifying the objects gestured; (C) with an interlocutor, sharing addressor/addressee roles; (D) with a confederate, sharing addressor/addressee roles, where the confederate restricted her handshapes to four. Analyses focused on whether participants used their hands productively (proportion of ‘hand-as-object’ responses), and whether they generalised handshapes to similarly shaped but different objects (handshape range). High communicative pressure and interaction (C, D) generated the highest proportion of hand-as-object representations. The condition lacking these, (A), generated the smallest handshape range. Results did not change over time. At this incipient stage, individuals exploit their gestural repertoire productively, intent on depicting object characteristics accurately. Communicative pressure and interaction spur this exploratory process. However, they do not yet generalise their handshapes, a development requiring a loosening of the iconic mapping between symbol and referent. This aspect of conventionalisation needs time and might be more likely to emerge in isolation.
This collected volume showcases cutting-edge research in the rapidly developing area of sign language corpus linguistics in various sign language contexts across the globe. Each chapter provides a detailed account of particular national corpora and methodological considerations in their construction. Part 1 focuses on corpus-based linguistic findings, covering aspects of morphology, syntax, multilingualism, and regional and diachronic variation. Part 2 explores innovative solutions to challenges in building and annotating sign language corpora, touching on the construction of comparable sign language corpora, collaboration challenges at the national level, phonological arrangement of digital lexicons, and (semi-)automatic annotation. This unique volume documenting the growth in breadth and depth within the discipline of sign language corpus linguistics is a key resource for researchers, teachers, and postgraduate students in the field of sign language linguistics, and will also provide valuable insights for other researchers interested in corpus linguistics, Construction Grammar, and gesture studies.
