Phonological similarity judgments in ASL: Evidence for maturational constraints on phonetic perception in sign

We created a novel paradigm to investigate phonological processing in sign and asked how age of acquisition (AoA) may affect it. Participants indicated which of two signs was more phonologically similar to a target, and estimated the strength of the resemblance with a mouse click along a continuous scale. We manipulated AoA by testing deaf native and non-native signers, and hearing L2 signers and sign-naive participants. Consistent with previous research, judgments by the native and L2 signers reflected similarity based on shared phonological features between signs. By contrast, judgments by the non-native signers and sign-naive participants were influenced by other (potentially visual or somatosensory) properties of signs that native and L2 signers ignored. These results suggest that early exposure to language helps a learner discern which aspects of a linguistic signal are most likely to matter for language learning, even if that language belongs to a different modality.

[1]  G. Yeni-Komshian,et al.  Age Constraints on Second-Language Acquisition , 1999 .

[2]  D. Corina,et al.  Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages: Psycholinguistic investigations of phonological structure in ASL , 2002 .

[3]  Rachel I. Mayberry.  Early Language Acquisition and Adult Language Ability , 2010 .

[4]  K. Emmorey,et al.  Visual feedback and self-monitoring of sign language. , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

[5]  E. Klima.  The signs of language , 1979 .

[6]  J. Werker.  Becoming A Native Listener , 1989 .

[7]  W. Stokoe,et al.  Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. 1960. , 1961, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[8]  Manuel Carreiras,et al.  Lexical processing in Spanish Sign Language (LSE) , 2008 .

[9]  M. Vihman.  Biological Foundations of Language. Eric B. Lenneberg , 1969 .

[10]  Diane Brentari,et al.  A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology , 1999 .

[11]  Karen Emmorey,et al.  “Tip of the Fingers” Experiences by Deaf Signers , 2005, Psychological science.

[12]  Margaret Wilson,et al.  A visuospatial “phonological loop” in working memory: Evidence from American Sign Language , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[13]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Success and failure in teaching the [r]-[l] contrast to Japanese adults: Tests of a Hebbian model of plasticity and stabilization in spoken language perception , 2002, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[14]  D. Brentari,et al.  Categorical perception in American Sign Language , 2003 .

[15]  Rachel I. Mayberry,et al.  The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition , 1991 .

[16]  J. Flege.  Age of learning and second language speech. , 1999 .

[17]  Victor Smetacek,et al.  Making sense , 2004, Nature.

[18]  A. L. Humphrey,et al.  Hebbian learning and the development of direction selectivity: the role of geniculate response timings , 1997 .

[19]  Peter M. Duppenthaler.  Maturational Constraints on Language Learning , 1990 .

[20]  Mark S. Seidenberg.  Connectionist Models in Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience : Critical Periods and the Paradox of Success , 2005 .

[21]  R. Battison,et al.  Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language , 1978 .

[22]  K. Emmorey,et al.  Lexical Recognition in Sign Language: Effects of Phonetic Structure and Morphology , 1990, Perceptual and motor skills.

[23]  Jill P. Morford,et al.  Sign Perception and Recognition in Non-Native Signers of ASL , 2011, Language learning and development : the official journal of the Society for Language Development.

[24]  R. Mayberry,et al.  First-language acquisition after childhood differs from second-language acquisition: the case of American Sign Language. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[25]  Karen Emmorey,et al.  The use of visual feedback during signing: evidence from signers with impaired vision. , 2009, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[26]  D. Corina,et al.  Phonological similarity in American Sign Language , 2002 .

[27]  Roberta Michnick Golinkoff,et al.  The perception of handshapes in American Sign Language , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[28]  R. Mayberry.  When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning , 2007, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[29]  Margaret Wilson,et al.  A “word length effect”for sign language: Further evidence for the role of language in structuring working memory , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[30]  L. Goldstein,et al.  Phonological priming in British Sign Language , 2006 .

[31]  Catherine T. Best,et al.  Effects of sign language experience on categorical perception of dynamic ASL pseudosigns , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[32]  R. Mayberry,et al.  Development: Linguistic ability and early language exposure , 2002, Nature.

[33]  Scott K. Liddell,et al.  American Sign Language: The Phonological Base , 2013 .

[34]  David P Vinson,et al.  The link between form and meaning in British sign language: effects of iconicity for phonological decisions. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[35]  Nancy J. Frishberg.  ARBITRARINESS AND ICONICITY: HISTORICAL CHANGE IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE , 1975 .