In the present study we aimed to investigate phonological substitution errors made by hearing second language (M2L2) learners of American Sign Language (ASL) during a sentence translation task. Learners saw sentences in ASL that were signed by either a native signer or a M2L2 learner. Learners were to simply translate the sentence from ASL to English. Learners’ responses were analysed for lexical translation errors that were caused by phonological parameter substitutions. Unlike previous related studies, tracking phonological substitution errors during sentence translation allows for the characterization of uncontrolled and naturalistic perception errors. Results indicated that learners made mostly movement errors followed by handshape and location errors. Learners made more movement errors for sentences signed by the M2L2 learner relative to those by the native signer. Additionally, high proficiency learners made more handshape errors than low proficiency learners. Taken together, this pattern of results suggests that late M2L2 learners are poor at perceiving the movement parameter and M2L2 production variability of the movement parameter negatively contributes to perception.
ArdilaA (2003) Language representation and working memory with bilinguals. Journal of Communication Disorders36: 233–40.
2.
BachmanLFPalmerAS (1989) The construct validation of self-ratings of communicative language ability. Language Testing6: 14–29.
3.
BaddeleyA (1992) Working memory. Science255: 556–59.
4.
BaddeleyADChincottaDStaffordLTurkD (2003) Is the word length effect in STM entirely attributable to output delay? Evidence from serial recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology55A: 353–69.
5.
BentTBradlowAR (2003) The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America114: 1600–10.
6.
BestCTTylerMD (2007) Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In: BohnOMunroMJ (eds) Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–34.
7.
BochnerJHChristieKHauserPCSearlsJM (2011) When is a difference really different? Learners’ discrimination of linguistic contrasts in American Sign Language. Language Learning61: 1302–27.
8.
BrentariD (1998) A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
9.
CarreirasMGutiérrez-SigutEBaqueroSCorinaD (2008) Lexical processing in Spanish sign language (LSE). Journal of Memory and Language58: 100–22.
10.
CaselliNKCohen-GoldbergAM (2014) Lexical access in sign language: A computational model. Frontiers in Psychology5: 1–11.
11.
CopelandDERadvanskyGA (2001) Phonological similarity in working memory. Memory and Cognition29: 774–76.
12.
CorinaDP (2000) Some observations regarding paraphasia in American Sign Language. In: EmmoreyKLaneH (eds) The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 493–507.
13.
CullA (2014) Production of movement in users of American Sign Language and its influence on being identified as ‘nonnative’. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC, USA.
14.
EngelkampJRummerR (1999) Syntactic structure and word length in sentence. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie46: 1–15.
15.
FallonABGrovesKTehanG (1999) Phonological similarity and trace degradation in the serial recall task: When CAT helps RAT, but not MAN. International Journal of Psychology34: 301–07.
16.
FlegeJE (1995) Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In: StrangeW (ed.) Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research. York: Baltimore, pp. 233–77.
17.
FlegeJESchirruCMacKayIR (2003) Interaction between the native and second language phonetic subsystems. Speech Communication40: 467–91.
18.
GathercoleSEFrankishCRPickeringSJPeakerS (1999) Phonotactic influences on short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition25: 84–95.
19.
GrosvaldMLachaudCCorinaD (2012) Handshape monitoring: Evaluation of linguistic and perceptual factors in the processing of American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes27: 117–41.
20.
HansonVLBellugiU (1982) On the role of sign order and morphological structure in memory for American Sign Language sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior21: 621–33.
21.
HilgerAILoucksTMQuinto-PozosDDyeMW (2015) Second language acquisition across modalities: Production variability in adult L2 learners of American Sign Language. Second Language Research31: 375–88.
22.
KuhlPKIversonP (1995) Linguistic experience and the perceptual magnet effect. In: StrangeW (ed.) Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research. Baltimore, MD: York Press, pp. 121–54.
23.
LiddellSKJohnsonRE (1989) American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies64: 195–277.
24.
LobleyKJBaddeleyADGathercoleSE (2005) Phonological similarity effects in verbal complex span. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A58: 1462–78.
25.
LucePAPisoniDB (1998) Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing19: 1–36.
26.
MacIntyrePDNoelsKAClémentR (1997) Biases in self-ratings of second language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning47: 265–87.
27.
MacKainKSBestCTStrangeW (1981) Categorical perception of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics2: 369–90.
28.
MarentettePFMayberryRI (2000) Principles for an emerging phonological system: A case study of early ASL acquisition. In: ChamberlainCMorfordJPMayberryRI (eds) Language Acquisition By Eye. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 71–90.
29.
MayberryRI (2007) When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics28: 537–49.
30.
MayberryRIEichenEB (1991) The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language30: 486–512.
31.
MayberryRIFischerSD (1989) Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: The bottleneck of non-native sign language processing. Memory and Cognition17: 740–54.
32.
McDermidC (2014) Evidence of a ‘Hearing’ dialect of ASL while interpreting. Journal of Interpretation23: 1–26.
33.
MeierRP (2000) Shared motoric factors in the acquisition of sign and speech. In: EmmoreyKLaneH (eds) The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 333–56.
34.
MirusGRRathmannCMeierRP (2001) Proximalization and distalization of sign movement in adult learners. In: DivelyVMetzgerMTaubSBaerAM (eds) Signed languages: Discoveries from international research. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 103–19.
35.
MorereD (2008) The fingerspelling test. Washington, DC: Science of Learning Institute Visual Language and Visual Learning.
36.
MorfordJPCarlsonML (2011) Sign perception and recognition in non-native signers of ASL. Language Learning and Development7: 149–68.
37.
MorfordJPGrieve-SmithABMacFarlaneJStaleyJWatersG (2008) Effects of language experience on the perception of American Sign Language. Cognition109: 41–53.
38.
Ortega-DelgadoG (2013) Acquisition of a signed phonological system by hearing adults: The role of sign structure and iconicity. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University College London, UK.
39.
PeirceJW (2007) Psychopy: Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods162: 8–13.
40.
PichlerCD (2011) Sources of handshape error in first-time signers of ASL. In: MathurGNapoliDJ (eds) Deaf around the world: The impact of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 96–121.
41.
PotterMCLombardiL (1990) Regeneration in the short-term recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language29: 633–54.
42.
RosenR (2004) Beginning L2 production errors in ASL lexical phonology. Sign Language and Linguistics7: 31–61.
43.
SandlerW (1989) Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language: Volume 32. Dordrecht: Walter de Gruyter.
44.
SandlerWLillo-MartinD (2006) Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
ShookAMarianV (2012) Bimodal bilinguals co-activate both languages during spoken comprehension. Cognition124: 314–24.
46.
SiedleckiTJrBonvillianJD (1993) Location, handshape and movement: Young children’s acquisition of the formational aspects of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies78: 31–52.
47.
StrangeW (1995) Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research. Baltimore, MD: York Press.
48.
TartterVCFischerSD (1982) Perceiving minimal distinctions in ASL under normal and point-light display conditions. Perception and Psychophysics32: 327–34.
49.
TehanGHendryLKocinskiD (2001) Word length and phonological similarity effects in simple, complex, and delayed serial recall tasks: Implications for working memory. Memory9: 333–48.
van HellJGOrmelEvan der LoopJHermansD (2009) Cross-language interaction in unimodal and bimodal bilinguals. Paper presented at the 16th conference of the European society for cognitive psychology. Krakow, Poland, September, 2–5.
52.
VitevitchMS (2002) The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition28: 735–47.
53.
VitevitchMSLucePA (1998) When words compete: Levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science9: 325–29.
54.
WilliamsJTNewmanSD (2015) Interlanguage dynamics and lexical networks in nonnative L2 signers of ASL: Cross-modal rhyme priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.
55.
WilsonMEmmoreyK (1997) A visuospatial ‘phonological loop’ in working memory: Evidence from American Sign Language. Memory and Cognition25: 313–20.
56.
XieXFowlerCA (2013) Listening with a foreign-accent: The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit in Mandarin Speakers of English. Journal of Phonetics41: 369–78.
