Acto de amar, acto de verdad

The first research question posed in this study dealt with the difficulty of perception and production of the phonological parameters of ASL for hearing adult learners. Based on the results of these studies, a possible order of

acquisition emerges for hearing adults, starting with location as the first, then palm orientation, movement, handshape, and NMS as the last acquired. I will discuss each of these from the first acquired to last.

5.1.1 Location

Neither group of learners made consistent errors in the area of location for any one sign, either in perception or production. The largest instance of errors made was related to no contact (e.g., omitting contact of the 1 handshape to the chin in the sign TELL in production) by ASL 2 learners. Those errors most often occurred in sentence production rather than in isolation, supporting dexterity errors related to the CPM (Rosen, 2004). By ASL 4, the dexterity issue related to completion of contact had been resolved.

5.1.2 Palm Orientation

Both ASL 2 and 4 students faced minimal difficulties in the perception of palm orientation. ASL 2 students only made errors with the sign AGREE, accepting palms forward as the end orientation instead of palms down. Palm orientation errors did show up in production, either turning a back facing palm to the side or forward (TELL) or not turning the palms forward at the end of FINISH (Figure 11). In isolation, ASL 2 learners made a palm orientation error in FINISH half the time, but only one learner did not make the error in production. This suggests that learners have largely acquired the parameter perceptually, but dexterity issues play a role in articulating the correct production (Rosen, 2004). This error may also be related to movement, as some learners included a

sweeping movement with the wrist, rather than a forearm twist (Mirus et al., 2001).

Figure 11. Correct production of FINISH (left) and incorrect palms down (right). 5.1.3 Movement

Learners had very little trouble differentiating between a correct movement and incorrect movements using the wrong hand, the wrong joint, incomplete movement, brushing instead of slides, or slides instead of taps. ASL 2 learners had perceptual difficulties in the areas of backward movement,

acquisition among ASL 2 students. The contrast between stopping points and the absence of a stop was particularly challenging to the less advanced learners: only one learner did not make this error. While students could not perceive the difference, they did not produce signs such as SEE without a stop, as observed by Rosen’s (2004) ASL 1 students, indicating that the production problem has been resolved, even though the perceptual problem remains.

By ASL 4, learners had begun acquiring all of these movement types which were challenging for first year students, including sensitively to the presence or absence of a stop. Some areas of movement were still problematic for both groups, observed in the production of the sign PARENTS with

backward movement, reversing the correct bottom-up chin to forehead movement. Repeated movement also appeared to be an issue; however, the target items did not allow for a clear picture to be drawn.

5.1.4 Handshape

Rosen (2004) explained handshape errors as errors of dexterity: learners knew the correct form, but because of the cognitive load of sign production for hearing adults, they inadvertently produced the incorrect handshape. Based on the results of Experiment 2 (multiple choice sign discrimination), this may not fully explain certain types of handshape errors. In Experiment 2, learners often accepted the A-HS in place of the S-HS in signs like YEAR (Figure 12). This indicates that a high number of errors may not be only due to dexterity, but also due to issues of perception and a lack of acquisition of the handshape parameter. ASL 2 learners made this error both in perception and production, therefore, their errors could result from both a lack of acquisition in perception and

perception but infrequently in production. ASL 4 learners have begun to acquire the form and improved in dexterity; however, they still have difficulties in

discriminating between the two handshapes.

Figure 12. From Left to Right – ASL sign for YEAR, A-handshape, S- handshape

Chen Pichler (2011) further postulates that these S handshape errors are a result of negative transfer from American gestures, which include a “fist”

category (Wagner & Armstrong, 2003). These are two of the least marked

handshapes in terms of acquisition, but because of the similarities between the A and S handshapes to the general “fist” category, they are simply assimilated into the more broad category (Best, 1995; Chen Pichler, 2011). Additionally,

handshape is not as visually salient as movement or location and some handshapes can be difficult to differentiate (e.g., SEVEN and EIGHT) (Meier, 2005). Handshape also does not carry with it linguistic meaning in English, resulting interference from the spoken language when learning the manual language (Chen Pichler, 2011).

Some perceptual errors were made, for example Open-8 or X in place of the 1 handshape, which were infrequently made in production. In these cases, learners are still in the process of acquiring the correct form, but they are generally blocked from making the error because of dexterity, as Open-8 and X handshapes come later than the 1 handshape in individual handshape

acquisition (Ann, 2006; Boyes-Braem, 1990). It is, however, still possible for adult learners to make these errors because their bodies are mature (Mirus et al., 2001; Rosen, 2004). For example, almost half the participants accepted the incorrect X handshape in the production of PAY, but only one made this error in production (Figure 13).

Figure 13. Correct production of PAY (left) and production with incorrect X handshape for PAY (right)

Learners infrequently made errors in the perception of signs with two handshapes (e.g., OUT and THROW), but were more likely to produce incorrect forms, including forms they rejected in perception. This was observed with the sign THROW, which is highly iconic. Dexterity as well as the iconicity and act of throwing a ball may interfere with the production of this sign, particularly since it saw the greatest variety of handshape configurations: C-to-C (or Claw-to- Claw), C-to-5, C-to-1, E-to-5, S-to-L, and O-to-5 handshape combinations.

5.1.5 Non Manual Signals

NMS is the only area where ASL 4 students showed no improvement over ASL 2 students in perception. They also consistently made the same errors more than ASL 2 students. ASL 4 students over-generalized the use of NMS on signs, often accepting a NMS on a sign that didn’t need one. Overgeneralizations among more advanced learners were also observed by McIntire and Reilly

(1988). This is evidence of a U-shaped learning curve for NMS among hearing adult learners (Albright & Hayes, 2001; Marcus et al., 1992; Stemberger,

Bernhardt, & Johnson, 1999). The U-shaped learning curve explains the

phenomenon when new learners memorize certain forms but do not know the rules or constraints for the forms. As learners attempt to map the forms to

various constraints, their performance decreases due to overgeneralizations until the constraint mapping is developed and memorization of irregulars has

improved, resulting in an improvement in performance again (Albright & Hayes, 2001). ASL 4 students understand the importance of NMS, but are uncertain as to their application and tend to accept them whenever one is present.

In production, ASL 2 and 4 students performed equally, using either the wrong NMS or using none where one was required. In no instance did a learner use a NMS when there should be none, even though they accepted these cases in the perception task.

NMS is another area in which interference of the spoken L1 may play a role in acquisition. While facial expressions accompany spoken languages during the course of communication, these expressions do not convey linguistic data as they do in ASL. As with gestures, learners therefore struggle to segment the broad category of ‘facial expressions’ into specific pieces of linguistic data (Best, 1995). Additionally, facial expressions are processed differently in the brains of deaf individuals compared to hearing individuals. McCullough, Emmorey, and Sereno (2005) examine facial expression processing in both hearing and deaf adults. They show that deaf adults process facial expressions using both facial recognition (emotional) and speech processing areas of the brain, but when coupled with linguistic information, the speech processing area takes over. Hearing adults do not process facial expressions in this way and

instead process facial expressions mainly in the facial recognition area (Emmorey & McCullough, 2009; McCullough et al., 2005). Hearing adult learners must overcome this difference in how the hearing brain processes facial information and learn to recognize it as linguistic information.