The Beneficial Role of L1 Spoken Language Skills on Initial L2 Sign Language Learning

Abstract

Understanding how language modality (i.e., signed vs. spoken) affects second language outcomes in hearing adults is important both theoretically and pedagogically, as it can determine the specificity of second language (L2) theory and inform how best to teach a language that uses a new modality. The present study investigated which cognitive-linguistic skills predict successful L2 sign language acquisition. A group (n = 25) of adult hearing L2 learners of American Sign Language underwent a cognitive-linguistic test battery before and after one semester of sign language instruction. A number of cognitive-linguistic measures of verbal memory, phonetic categorization skills, and vocabulary knowledge were examined to determine whether they predicted proficiency in a multiple linear regression analysis. Results indicated that English vocabulary knowledge and phonetic categorization skills predicted both vocabulary growth and self-rated proficiency at the end of one semester of instruction. Memory skills did not significantly predict either proficiency measures. These results highlight how linguistic skills in the first language (L1) directly predict L2 learning outcomes regardless of differences in L1 and L2 language modalities.

Predicting sign learning in hearing adults: The role of perceptual-motor (and phonological?) processes

“…Analogous to the similarity effect in word learning, visually distinct signs were learned more rapidly than visually similar signs. Second, Williams, Darcy, and Newman (2016a) investigated the role that, among other factors, a phonological STM task, digit span, would play in the prediction of ASL vocabulary growth. A multiple linear regression analysis with ASL vocabulary growth as the outcome variable revealed that neither forward nor backward digit span were predictive.…”

“…A multiple linear regression analysis with ASL vocabulary growth as the outcome variable revealed that neither forward nor backward digit span were predictive. Williams et al (2016a) theorized that digit span was not predictive because in nonsigners, this task would not assess critical modality-specific, that is, perceptual-motor, processes. They cautioned, however, that due to the small sample size ( n = 25), their results might not generalize.…”

Individual differences in lexical learning across two language modalities: Sign learning, word learning, and their relationship in hearing non-signing adults

“…To our knowledge, no study has investigated the relationship between fluid intelligence and sign learning in hearing individuals acquiring a sign language and only one study has investigated crystallized intelligence as a predictor. J. T. Williams et al (2016a)…”

“…Importantly, however, the vast majority of individual differences research on lexical learning in adults has been conducted with spoken languages (e.g., Hundal & Horn, 1977;Kyllonen, Tirre, & Christal, 1991;Underwood, Boruch, & Malmi, 1978) and has largely overlooked lexical learning in signed languages (cf., Martinez & Singleton, 2018;Stone, 2017; T. Williams, Darcy, & Newman, 2016a). As a consequence, we know very little about the cognitive factors engaged while learning signs and whether they are similar and relied upon to the same degree as those employed during word learning.…”

postprint - Predicting Sign Learning in Hearing Adults

“…Analogous to the similarity effect in word learning, visually distinct signs were learned more rapidly than visually similar signs. Second, Williams, Darcy, and Newman (2016a) investigated the role that, among other factors, a phonological STM task, digit span, would play in the prediction of ASL vocabulary growth. A multiple linear regression analysis with ASL vocabulary growth as the outcome variable revealed that neither forward nor backward digit span were predictive.…”