Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This study explores the L2M2 acquisition of Norwegian Sign Language by hearing adults, with a focus on the production and use of depicting signs. A group of students and their instructors were asked to respond to prompt questions about directions and locations in Norwegian Sign Language, and their responses were then compared. An examination of the students’ depicting signs shows that they struggled more with the phonological parameters orientation and movement, rather than with handshape. In addition, they used fewer depicting signs than their instructors, and instead relied more on lexical signs. Finally, students were found to struggle with the coordination of depicting signs within the signing space and in relation to their own bodies. It is hoped that the findings from this study can be used to inform future research as well as curricula development and pedagogy.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alberdi, Lourdes Calle , Lorraine Leeson & Marinella Salami
    2013Learning outcomes for graduates of a three-year interpreting training programme. Bedfordshire, Great Britain: European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters & EU Lifelong Learning Programme. efsli.org/publications/shop/ [accessed23 February 2017].
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baus, Cristina , Manuel Carreiras & Karen Emmorey
    2013 When does iconicity in sign language matter?Language and Cognitive Processes28(3). 261–271. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2011.620374
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.620374 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beuzeville, Louise de
    2006Visual and linguistic representation in the acquisition of depicting verbs: a study of native signing deaf children of Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Newcastle, Australia: University of NewcastlePhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad
    2011Corpus linguistics and grammar teaching. Available fromlongmanhomeusa.com/content/pl_biber_conrad_monograph5_lo.pdf [accessed23 February 2017].
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bochner, Joseph H. , Karen Christie , Peter C. Hauser & J. Matt Searls
    2011 When is a difference really different? Learners’ discrimination of linguistic contrasts in American Sign Language. Language Learning61(4). 1302–1327. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00671.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00671.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Boers-Visker, Eveline & Beppie van den Bogaerde
    2015 Use of space in five L2 learners of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Sign Language Acquisition , Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bogaerde, Beppie van den & Anne Baker
    2005 Code mixing in mother-child interaction in deaf families. Sign Language & Linguistics8(1/2). 151–174. doi: 10.1075/sll.8.1.08bog
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.8.1.08bog [Google Scholar]
  8. Boyes Braem, Penny
    1990 Acquisition of the handshape in American Sign Language: A preliminary analysis. In Virginia Volterra & Carol Erting (eds.), From gesture to language in hearing and deaf children, 107–127. Berlin: Springer Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑74859‑2_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-74859-2_10 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen Pichler, Deborah
    2011 Sources of handshape error in first-time signers of ASL. In Donna Jo Napoli & Gaurav Mathur (eds.), Deaf around the world, 96–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cormier, Kearsy , David Quinto-Pozos , Zed Sevcikova & Adam Schembri
    2012 Lexicalisation and de-lexicalisation processes in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language and Communication32(4). 329–348. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  11. Crasborn, Onno & Han Sloetjes
    2008 Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora. In Onno Crasborn , Eleni Efthimiou , Thomas Hanke , Ernst D. Thoutenhoofd & Inge Zwitserlood (eds.), The third workshop on the representation and processing of sign languages: Construction and exploitation of sign language corpora [a workshop given at the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 26 May – 1 June 2008, Marrakech, Morocco], 39–43. Paris: European Language Resources Association. Retrieved fromwww.lrec-conf.org/lrec2008 [accessed23 February 2017].
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cresdee, Donovan & Trevor Johnston
    2014 Using corpus-based research to inform the teaching of Auslan (Australian Sign Language) as a second language. In David McKee , Russell S. Rosen & Rachel McKee (eds.), Teaching and learning signed languages: International perspectives and practices, 85–110. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137312495_5
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137312495_5 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cuxac, Christian
    1999 The expression of spatial relations and the spatialization of semantic representations in French Sign Language. In Catherine Fuchs & Stéphan Robert (eds.), Language diversity and cognitive representations, 123–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.3.11cux
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.3.11cux [Google Scholar]
  14. Emmorey, Karen , Barbara Tversky & Holly Taylor
    2000 Using space to describe space: Perspective in speech, sign, and gesture. Spatial Cognition and Computation2(3). 157–180. doi: 10.1023/A:1013118114571
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013118114571 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ferrara, Lindsay
    . In preparation. Multimodal coherence: Eye gaze and body orientation in the depiction of locations and spatial relations by L2M2 signers of Norwegian Sign Language.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Forus, Anne
    2012 Genetiske årsaker til medfødt døvhet (Nyheter-Doktoravhandlinger). [Genetic reasons for congenital deafness (News-PhD dissertations)]. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening21. 132. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.12.1145
    https://doi.org/10.4045/tidsskr.12.1145 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fuller, Donald R. & Ronnie B. Wilbur
    1987 The effect of visual metaphor cueing on recall of phonologically similar signs. Sign Language Studies54(Spring). 59–80. doi: 10.1353/sls.1987.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1987.0004 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hilger, Allison I. , Torrey M. J. Loucks , David Quinto-Pozos & Matthew W. G. Dye
    2015 Second language acquisition across modalities: Production variability in adult L2 learners of American Sign Language. Second Language Research31(3). 375–388. doi: 10.1177/0267658315570648
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315570648 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hoemann, Harry W. & Linda S. Blama
    1992 Memory span for signs & digits forward & backward in beginning level ASL students. Sign Language Studies76(Fall). 277–284. doi: 10.1353/sls.1992.0022
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1992.0022 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoemann, Harry W. & Catherine M. Keske
    1994 Proactive interference & language change in hearing adult students of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies86(Spring). 45–62. doi: 10.1353/sls.1995.0016
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1995.0016 [Google Scholar]
  21. Janzen, Terry
    2012 Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In Roland Pfau , Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign Languages: An international handbook, 816–481. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110261325.816
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.816 [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnston, Trevor
    2016Auslan corpus annotation guidelines. Manuscript. Macquarie University. Sydney. Retrieved fromnew.auslan.org.au/about/annotations/ [accessed23 February 2017].
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnston, Trevor & Lindsay Ferrara
    2012 Lexicalization in signed languages: When an idiom is not an idiom. Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings, 1. 229–248. www.uk-cla.org.uk/proceedings/volume_1/21-17
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri
    1999 On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics2(2). 115–185. doi: 10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh [Google Scholar]
  25. 2007Australian Sign Language: An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511607479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607479 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2010 Variation, lexicalization and grammaticalization in signed languages. Langage et Société131(March). 19–35. doi: 10.3917/ls.131.0019
    https://doi.org/10.3917/ls.131.0019 [Google Scholar]
  27. Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi
    1979The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Leeson, Lorraine , Lourdes Calle Alberdi & Sarah Brown
    2013Assessment guidelines for sign language interpreting training programmes. Madrid, Spain: European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters & EU Lifelong Learning Programme. efsli.org/publications/shop/ [accessed23 February 2017].
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Liddell, Scott K.
    2003Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lupton, Linda K. & Macalyne Fristoe
    1992 Sign vocabulary recognition in students of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies76(Fall). 215–232. doi: 10.1353/sls.1992.0024
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1992.0024 [Google Scholar]
  31. Marshall, Chloë R. & Gary Morgan
    2014 From gesture to sign language: Conventionalization of classifier constructions by adult hearing learners of British Sign Language. Topics in Cognitive Science. 1–20. doi: 10.1111/tops.12118
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12118 [Google Scholar]
  32. McIntire, Marina L. & Judy S. Reilly
    1988 Nonmanual behaviors in L1 & L2 learners of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies61(Winter). 351–375. doi: 10.1353/sls.1988.0034
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1988.0034 [Google Scholar]
  33. McKee, David , Russell S. Rosen & Rachel McKee
    (eds.) 2014Teaching and learning signed languages. International perspectives and practices. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137312495
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137312495 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mills, Carol Bergfeld
    1984 Factors influencing manual sign learning in hearing adults. Sign Language Studies44(Fall). 261–278. doi: 10.1353/sls.1984.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1984.0004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mills, Carol Bergfeld & Linda J. Weldon
    1983 Effects of semantic and cheremic context on acquisition of manual signs. Memory & Cognition11(1). 93–100. doi: 10.3758/BF03197666.
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197666 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mirus, Gene , Christian Rathmann & Richard Meier
    2001 Proximilization and distalization of sign movement in adult learners. In Valerie Dively , Melanie Metzger , Sarah Taub & Anne Marie Baer (eds.), Signed languages: Discoveries from international research, 103–119. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Morgan, Gary & Bencie Woll
    (eds.) 2002Directions in sign language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tilar.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.2 [Google Scholar]
  38. Nilsson, Anna-Lena & Lindsay Ferrara
    2015 Depicting from experience: Learning to give directions in space. Paper presented at the 5th Conference of the Scandinavian Association for Language and Cognition (SALC V) , NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2016 Meaningful use of space: Easy or hard for hearing L2 learners?Poster presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research 12 , La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ortega, Gerardo & Gary Morgan
    2015 Phonological development in hearing learners of a sign language: The influence of phonological parameters, sign complexity, and iconicity. Language Learning65(3). 660–688. doi: 10.1111/lang.12123
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12123 [Google Scholar]
  41. Perniss, Pamela , Inge Zwitserlood & Aslı Özyürek
    2015 Does space structure spatial language?: A comparison of spatial expression across sign languages. Language91(3), 611–641. doi: 10.1353/lan.2015.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0041 [Google Scholar]
  42. Petitto, Laura Anne & Paula F. Marentette
    1991 Babbling in the manual mode: Evidence for the ontogeny of language. Science251. 1483–1496. doi: stable/2875832
    https://doi.org/stable/2875832 [Google Scholar]
  43. Rosen, Russell S.
    2004 Beginning L2 production errors in ASL lexical phonology. Sign Language & Linguistics7(1). 31–61. doi: 10.1075/sll.7.1.04beg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.7.1.04beg [Google Scholar]
  44. Schembri, Adam , Caroline Jones & Denis Burnham
    2005 Comparing action gestures and classifier verbs of motion: Evidence from Australian Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language, and nonsigners’ gestures without speech. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education10(3). 272–290. doi: 10.1093/deafed/eni029
    https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eni029 [Google Scholar]
  45. Supalla, Ted
    2003 Revisiting visual analogy in ASL classifier predicates. In Emmorey, Karen (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 249–257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Willoughby, Louisa , Stephanie Linder , Kirsten Ellis & Julie Fisher
    2015 Errors and feedback in the beginner Auslan classroom. Sign Language Studies15(3). 322–347. doi: 10.1353/sls.2015.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2015.0009 [Google Scholar]
  47. Zwitserlood, Inge , Pamela Perniss & Aslı Özyürek
    2012 An empirical investigation of the expression of multiple entities in Turkish Sign Language (TİD): Considering the effects of modality. Lingua122. 1636–1667. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.010 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error