Acquisition of natural language has been shown to fundamentally impact both one’s ability to use the first language and the ability to learn subsequent languages later in life. Sign languages offer a unique perspective on this issue because Deaf signers receive access to signed input at varying ages. The majority acquires sign language in (early) childhood, but some learn sign language later—a situation that is drastically different from that of spoken language acquisition. To investigate the effect of age of sign language acquisition and its potential interplay with age in signers, we examined grammatical acceptability ratings and reaction time measures in a group of Deaf signers (age range = 28–58 years) with early (0–3 years) or later (4–7 years) acquisition of sign language in childhood. Behavioral responses to grammatical word order variations (subject–object–verb [SOV] vs. object–subject–verb [OSV]) were examined in sentences that included (1) simple sentences, (2) topicalized sentences, and (3) sentences involving manual classifier constructions, uniquely characteristic of sign languages. Overall, older participants responded more slowly. Age of acquisition had subtle effects on acceptability ratings, whereby the direction of the effect depended on the specific linguistic structure.
AaronsD. (1996). Topics and topicalization in American sign language. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 30, 65–106.
2.
AbramsL. (2008). Tip-of-the-tongue states yield language insights. American Scientist, 96, 234–239.
3.
AbramsL.FarrellM. T. (2010). Language processing in normal aging. In GuendouziJ.LonckeF.WilliamsM. J. (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistic and cognitive processes. perspectives in communication disorders (pp. 49–73). Routledge Handbooks Online (https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203848005.ch3)
4.
ArbuckleT. Y.Nohara-LeClairM.PushkarD. (2000). Effect of off-target verbosity on communication efficiency in a referential communication task. Psychology and Aging, 15, 65–77.
5.
AtkinsonJ.DenmarkT.MarshallJ.MummeryC.WollB. (2015). Detecting cognitive impairment and dementia in deaf people: The British sign language cognitive screening test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 30, 694–711.
6.
BausC.CarreirasM.EmmoreyK. (2013). When does iconicity in sign language matter?Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 261–271.
7.
BeeseC.Werkle-BergnerM.LindenbergerU.FriedericiA. D.MeyerL. (2018). Adult age differences in the benefit of syntactic and semantic constraints for sentence processing. Psychology and Aging. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000300.
8.
BestC. T.MathurG.MirandaK. A.Lillo-MartinD. (2010). Effects of sign language experience on categorical perception of dynamic ASL pseudosigns. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 747–762.
9.
Blumenthal-DraméA.MalaiaE. (2018). Shared neural and cognitive mechanisms in action and language: The multiscale information transfer framework. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 10(2), e1484.
10.
BornemanJ. D.MalaiaE.WilburR. B. (2018). Motion characterization using optical flow and fractal complexity. Journal of Electronic Imaging, 27, 051229.
11.
BoudreaultP.MayberryR. I. (2006). Grammatical processing in American sign language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 608–635.
12.
BrentariD. (1989). Backwards verbs in ASL: Agreement re-opened. In MacLeodL. (Ed.), Parasession on agreement in grammatical theory (CLS 24, Vol. 2). (pp. 16–27). Chicago Linguistic Society.
13.
BrentariD.PaddenC. (2001). Native and foreign vocabulary in American sign language: A lexicon with multiple origins. In BrentariD. (Ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages: A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation (pp. 87–119). Academic Press.
14.
BrentariD.PoiznerH.KeglJ. (1995). Aphasic and parkinsonian signing: Differences in phonological disruption. Brain and Language, 48, 69–105.
15.
BurkeD. M.MacKayD. G. (1997). Memory, language and ageing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 352, 1845–1856.
16.
BurkeD. M.ShaftoM. A. (2008). Language and aging. In CraikF. I. M.SalthouseT. A. (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (pp. 373–443). Psychology Press.
17.
CalabriaM.BranziF. M.MarneP.HernándezM.CostaA. (2015). Age-related effects over bilingual language control and executive control. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 65–78.
18.
CapiloutoG. J.WrightH. H.MaddyK. M. (2016). Microlinguistic processes that contribute to the ability to relay main events: Influence of age. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 23, 445–463.
19.
CarreirasM.Gutiérrez-SigutE.BaqueroS.CorinaD. (2008). Lexical processing in Spanish sign language (LSE). Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 100–122.
20.
CaselliN. K.PyersJ. E. (2017). The road to language learning is not entirely iconic: Iconicity, neighborhood density, and frequency facilitate acquisition of sign language. Psychological science, 28(7), 979–987.
21.
ChengQ.MayberryR. I. (2019). Acquiring a first language in adolescence: The case of basic word order in American Sign Language. Journal of Child Language, 46, 1–27.
22.
DeconinckJ.BoersF.EyckmansJ. (2017). “Does the form of this word fit its meaning?” The effect of learner-generated mapping elaborations on L2 word recall. Language Teaching Research, 21, 31–53.
23.
DotterF.KrausnekerV.JarmerH.HuberL. (2019). Austrian Sign Language: Recognition achieved but discrimination continues. In De MeulderM.MurrayJ. J.McKeeR. (Eds.), The legal recognition of sign languages: Advocacy and outcomes around the world (pp. 209–223). Multilingual Matters.
24.
DyeM. W.ShihS. (2006). Phonological priming in British sign language. Laboratory Phonology, 8, 241–263.
25.
EmmoreyK.BellugiU.FriedericiA. D.HornP. (1995). Effects of age of acquisition on grammatical sensitivity: Evidence from on-line and off-line tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 1–23.
26.
EvrardM. (2002). Ageing and lexical access to common and proper names in picture naming. Brain and Language, 81, 174–179.
27.
Ferjan RamirezN.LeonardM. K.DavenportT. S.TorresC.HalgrenE.MayberryR. I. (2014). Neural language processing in adolescent first-language learners: Longitudinal case studies in American Sign Language. Cerebral Cortex, 26, 1015–1026.
28.
FernandezL.EngelhardP.PatarroyoA.AllenS. (2019, June 19–20). The role of speech rate on anticipatory eye movements in L2 speakers of English and older and younger L1 English speakers[Poster presentation]. PIPP conference, Iceland.
29.
FischerS. (1975). Influences on word order change in American Sign Language. In LiC. N. (Ed.), Word order and word order change. University of Texas Press.
30.
FrishbergN. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51, 696–719.
31.
FromkinV.KrashenS.CurtissS.RiglerD.RiglerM. (1974). The development of language in Genie: A case of language acquisition beyond the ‘critical period’. Brain and Language, 1, 81–107.
HauschC. (2008). Topickonstruktionen und satzstrukturen in der ÖGS [Topic constructions and sentence structures in ÖGS]. Veröffentlichungen des zentrums für gebärdensprache und hörbehindertenkommunikation der universität klagenfurt (Vol. 13; pp. 85–94). Zentrum für Gebärdensprache und Hörbehindertenkommunikation d. Univ.
34.
HennerJ.Caldwell-HarrisC. L.NovogrodskyR.HoffmeisterR. (2016). American Sign Language syntax and analogical reasoning skills are influenced by early acquisition and age of entry to signing schools for the deaf. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1982.
35.
HildebrandtU.CorinaD. (2002). Phonological similarity in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 593–612.
36.
HumphriesT.KushalnagarP.MathurG.NapoliD. J.PaddenC.RathmannC. (2014). Ensuring language acquisition for deaf children: What linguists can do. Language, 90(2), e31–e52.
37.
ImaiM.KitaS. (2014). The sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis for language acquisition and language evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B. Biological Sciences, 369, 20130298.
38.
JamesL. E.BurkeD. M.AustinA.HulmeE. (1998). Production and perception of “verbosity” in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 13, 355–367.
39.
JamesL.MacKayD. G. (2007). New age-linked asymmetries: Aging and the processing of familiar versus novel language on the input versus output side. Psychology and Aging, 22, 94–103.
40.
JohnsonR. E. (2003). Aging and the remembering of text. Developmental Review, 23, 261–346.
41.
KantartzisK.ImaiM.KitaS. (2011). Japanese sound-symbolism facilitates word learning in English-speaking children. Cognitive Science, 35, 575–586.
42.
KemperS.KynetteD.RashS.SprottR.O’BrienK. (1989). Life-span changes to adults’ language: Effects of memory and genre. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 49–66.
43.
KiddE.DonnellyS.ChristiansenM. H. (2018). Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in cognitive sciences, 22, 154–169.
44.
KlimaE. S.BellugiU. (1979). The signs of language. Harvard University Press.
45.
KrebsJ. (2017). The syntax and the processing of argument relations in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS) (Doctoral dissertation). University of Salzburg.
46.
KrebsJ.MalaiaE.WilburR. B.RoehmD. (2018). Subject preference emerges as cross-modal strategy for linguistic processing. Brain Research, 1691, 105–117.
47.
KrebsJ.MalaiaE.WilburR. B.RoehmD. (2020). Interaction between topic marking and subject preference strategy in sign language processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(4), 466–484.
48.
KrebsJ.WilburR. B.AldayP. M.RoehmD. (2019). The impact of transitional movements and non-manual markings on the disambiguation of locally ambiguous argument structures in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Language and Speech, 62(4), 652–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830918801399
49.
LaingC. E. (2014). A phonological analysis of onomatopoeia in early word production. First Language, 34, 387–405.
50.
LiebermanA. M.BorovskyA.HatrakM.MayberryR. I. (2015). Real-time processing of ASL signs: Delayed first language acquisition affects organization of the mental lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1130–1139.
51.
MalaiaE.BornemanJ. D.WilburR. B. (2016). Assessment of information content in visual signal: analysis of optical flow fractal complexity. Visual Cognition, 24, 246–251.
52.
MalaiaE.KrebsJ.WilburR.B.RoehmD. (2020). Age of acquisition effects differ across linguistic domains in sign language: EEG evidence. Brain and Language, 200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2019.104708
53.
MalaiaE.WilburR. B. (2010). Early acquisition of sign language: What neuroimaging data tell us. Sign Language and Linguistics, 13, 183–199.
54.
MalaiaE.WilburR. B. (2019). Visual and linguistic components of short-term memory: Generalized neural model (GNM) for spoken and sign languages. Cortex, 112, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.05.020
55.
MarshallC. R.MorganG. (2015). From gesture to sign language: Conventionalization of classifier constructions by adult hearing learners of British Sign Language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7, 61–80.
56.
MayberryR. I. (2007). When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 537–549.
57.
MayberryR. I.EichenE. B. (1991). The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 486–512.
58.
MayberryR. I.FischerS. D. (1989). Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: The bottleneck of non-native sign language processing. Memory & Cognition, 17, 740–754.
59.
MayberryR. I.KluenderR. (2018). Rethinking the critical period for language: New insights into an old question from American Sign Language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 886–905.
60.
MayberryR. I.LockE.KazmiH. (2002). Linguistic ability and early language exposure. Nature, 417, 38.
61.
MeierR.MaukC. E.CheekA.MorelandC. J. (2008). The form of children’s early signs: Iconic or motoric determinants?Language Learning and Development, 4, 63–98.
62.
MitchellR. E.KarchmerM. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4, 138–163.
63.
MorfordJ. P.CarlsonM. L. (2011). Sign perception and recognition in non-native signers of ASL. Language Learning and Development, 7(2), 149–168.
64.
MorfordJ. P.Grieve-SmithA. B.MacFarlaneJ.StaleyJ.WatersG. (2008). Effects of language experience on the perception of American Sign Language. Cognition, 109, 41–53.
65.
NewportE. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28.
66.
NewportE. L.MeierR. P. (1985). The Acquisition of American Sign Language. In SlobinD. (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 881–938). Erlbaum.
67.
NiD. (2014). Topikkonstruktionen in der Österreichischen Gebärdensprache [Topic constructions in Austrian Sign Language] (Master’s thesis). University of Hamburg.
68.
NovogrodskyR.HennerJ.Caldwell-HarrisC.HoffmeisterR. (2017). The development of sensitivity to grammatical violations in American Sign Language: Native versus nonnative signers. Language Learning, 67, 791–818.
69.
OrfanidouE.AdamR.MorganG.McQueenJ. M. (2010). Recognition of signed and spoken language: Different sensory inputs, the same segmentation procedure. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 272–283.
70.
OrlanskyM. D.BonvillianJ. D. (1984). The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders, 49, 287–292.
71.
OrtegaG.ÖzyürekA.PeetersD. (2019). Iconic gestures serve as manual cognates in hearing second language learners of a sign language: An ERP study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(3), 403–415.
72.
OrtegaG.SuümerB.ÖzyuürekA. (2016). Type of iconicity matters in the vocabulary development of signing children. Developmental Psychology, 53, 89.
73.
PaddenC. (1983). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language[PhD thesis]. University of California, San Diego[published 1988, New York: Garland Press].
74.
ParkD. C.LautenschlagerG.HeddenT.DavidsonN. S.SmithA. D.SmithP. K. (2002). Models of visuospatial and verbal memory across the adult life span. Psychology and Aging, 17, 299.
75.
PernissP.ThompsonR. L.ViglioccoG. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 227.
76.
PernissP.ViglioccoG. (2014). The bridge of iconicity: From a world of experience to the experience of language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 369, 20130300.
77.
SchalberK. (2015). Austrian Sign Language. In Bakken JepsenJ.De ClerckG.Lutalo-KiingiS.McGregorW. B (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 105–128). De Gruyter.
78.
ThompsonR. L.VinsonD. P.WollB.ViglioccoG. (2012). The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British sign language. Psychological Science, 23, 1443–1448.
79.
ThorntonR.LightL. L. (2006). Language comprehension and production in normal aging. In BirrenJ. E.Warner SchaieK. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 261–287). Elsevier.
80.
VerhaeghenP. (2003). Aging and vocabulary score: A meta-analysis. Psychology & Aging, 18, 332–339.
81.
WilburR. B. (2000). Phonological and prosodic layering of non-manuals in American Sign Language. In EmmoreyK.LaneH. , (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: Festschrift for Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 213–241). Lawrence Erlbaum.
82.
WilburR. B. (2002). Phrase structure in ASL and ÖGS. In SchulmeisterR.ReinitzerH. (Eds.), Progress in sign language research: In honor of Siegmund Prillwitz (pp. 235–248). Signum.
83.
WilburR. B. (2012). Information structure. In PfauR.SteinbachM.WollB. (Eds.), Sign language. An international handbook (HSK—Handbooks of linguistics and communication science) (pp. 462–489). Mouton de Gruyter.
84.
WilburR. B. (2015). Word formation in sign languages. In MüllerP. O.OhnheiserI.OlsenS.RainerF. (Eds.), Word formation. An international handbook (HSK—Handbooks of linguistics and communication science) (pp. 2225–2251; chapter 126). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110375732-037
85.
WilburR. B. (2018). Production of signed utterances. In FernándezE. M.CairnsH. M. I. (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 111–135). Wiley/Blackwell.
86.
WilburR.B.BernsteinM.E.KantorR. (1985). The semantic domain of classifiers in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 46, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1985.0009
87.
WingfieldA.PeelleJ. E.GrossmanM. (2003). Speech rate and syntactic complexity as multiplicative factors in speech comprehension by young and older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 10, 310–322.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
