Reference control in the narratives of adult sign language learners

Abstract

Aims and Objectives: Learning to control reference in narratives is a major step in becoming a speaker of a second language, including a signed language. Previous research describes the pragmatic and cognitive mechanisms that are used for reference control and it is clear that differences are apparent between first and second language speakers. However, some debate exists about the reasons for second language learners' tendency for over-redundancy in reference forms especially in the use of pronouns. In this study we tested these proposed reasons for L2 differences. Methodology: Narratives by 11 native signers and 13 adult advanced-learners of Catalan sign language were analysed for person reference. Data: Analysis focused on forms for introduction, reintroduction and maintenance of characters. Findings:The results indicate both groups used reference forms according to information saliency principles in similar ways. Differences between the groups were in the use of pronominal signs, where the learners adopted an over-redundancy strategy in line with one hypothesis in the previous studies on second language acquisition in spoken languages. Significance: The results are discussed in terms of the vulnerable syntax-pragmatics interface in developing bilinguals

The challenges of viewpoint-taking when learning a sign language: Data from the ‘frog story’ in British Sign Language

“…L2 learners of spoken languages tend to adopt a strategy of overproducing overt forms when marking reference in order to reduce ambiguity (Gullberg, 2006;Hendriks, 2003). Bel et al (2015) found that L2 learners of sign also used this over-redundancy strategy. They overused overt pronouns and underused null pronouns for maintaining reference, in comparison to native signers, although these group differences did not reach statistical significance.…”

“…At a gross level, it has been argued that despite the modality difference between signed and spoken language, there is the opportunity of transfer from learners' spoken L1 to their new signed L2, both of abstract linguistic entities (e.g., pragmatic constraints on reference, Bel et al, 2015) and of gesture (Chen Pichler and Koulidobrova, 2016). Alongside transfer is the possible existence of language learning universals, i.e., factors that will influence L2 learning whatever the L1 or the new language being learned (Chen Pichler and Koulidobrova, 2016).…”

Reference tracking in early stages of different modality L2 acquisition: Limited over-explicitness in novice ASL signers’ referring expressions

“…The relative overall similarity between the native signers and the L2 learners might be an indication that the different-modality L2 learners have more cognitive resources available than same-modality L2 learners (Emmorey et al, 2012) and are able to allocate them to target-like referent tracking. The findings from Morgan (2002), Reynolds (2016), and particularly from Bel et al (2015) of some over-explicitness, however, cast doubt on this explanation and makes it more likely that our findings reflect the proficiency level of our participants. Previous L2 research has found that over-explicitness does not occur until the intermediate stage of acquisition (Ahrenholz, 2005; Hickmann, 2003).…”

“…In the first study to investigate cross-modal adult L2 reference tracking to date, Bel et al (2015) looked at reference control in proficient L2 signers of Catalan Sign Language, whose first languages were Catalan and Spanish. They found some evidence of referential over-specificity in the L2 signers’ overall use of pronouns: compared to the native signers, the L2 signers used a greater proportion of pronominal reference and a lower proportion of null reference.…”

The Interface Hypothesis as a Framework for Studying L1 Attrition

“…English) on the language that has such a choice, as some of these studies have concluded. However, anaphoric forms have also been found to cause optionality in bilingual speakers of two typologically similar languages, not only in speakers of two null-subject languages (Bini, 1993;de Prada Pérez, 2009, 2015Lozano, 2006;Margaza & Bel, 2006;Mendes & Iribarren, 2007;Sorace et al, 2009), but also in speakers of two Germanic languages (Ellert, 2013;Juvonen, 1996), bimodal bilinguals (Bel, Ortells, & Morgan, 2014), and unimodal bilinguals (Chen Pichler & Koulidobrova, 2016).…”