Abstract
The present study investigates the effects of late sign language acquisition on the linguistic strategies used in the first introductions of inanimate objects through comparisons between narrations produced by deaf signers exposed to sign language after early childhood (i.e., late signers) and those of deaf signers acquiring sign language from birth (i.e., native signers). According to the results, late sign language acquisition has no hindering effect on the acquisition of the linguistic strategies used in the first introductions of inanimate objects. In addition, both native and late-signing children do not display adult-like patterns. This study suggests that the acquisition of referent introduction seems to be resilient to the effects of late sign language exposure. It also highlights the necessity of more research on different domains to gain insights into the narrative skills of late signers.
Acknowledgments
I am greatly indebted to Prof. Aslı Özyürek, who provided me with an internship opportunity at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. I thank Sevinç Yücealtay Akın and Hükümran Sümer for their help during annotation. I am also very thankful to Dr. Beyza Sümer and Dr. Dilay Z. Karadöller who shared their data for a part of the participants with me. Last but not least, I thank Prof. Ömer Cevdet Bilgin, the coordinator of Atatürk University Research Methodology Training and Application Office, for his assistance in my statistical data analysis.
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity versus economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024109008573.10.1023/A:1024109008573Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, Diane & Judy Reilly. 2002. The MacArthur communicative development inventory: Normative data for American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7(2). 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/7.2.83.Search in Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Becker, Claudia. 2009. Narrative competences of deaf children in German Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics 12(2). 113–160. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.12.2.02bec.Search in Google Scholar
Bellugi, Ursula. 1988. The acquisition of a spatial language. In Frank Kessel (ed.), The development of language and language researchers: Essays in honor of Roger Brown, 153–185. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. 2001. Setting the narrative scene: How children begin to tell a story. In Keith E. Nelson, Ayhan Aksu-Koc & Carolyn E. Johnson (eds.), Children’s language, vol. 10, 1–27. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Boudreault, Patrick & Rachel I. Mayberry. 2006. Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 21(5). 608–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960500139363.Search in Google Scholar
Caballero, Marta, Melina Aparici, Monica Sanz-Torrent, Ros Herman, Anna Jones & Gary Morgan. 2020. “El nen s’ha menjat una aranya”: The development of narratives in Catalan speaking children. Journal of Child Language 47(5). 1030–1051. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000920000057.Search in Google Scholar
Caselli, Naomi K., Amy M. Lieberman & Jennie E. Pyers. 2020. The ASL-CDI 2.0: An updated, normed adaptation of the MacArthur bates communicative development inventory for American Sign Language. Behavior Research Methods 52. 2071–2084. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01376-6.Search in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and points of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy, Sandra Smith & Zed Sevcikova-Sehyr. 2015. Rethinking constructed action. Sign Language & Linguistics 18(2). 167–204. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18.2.01cor.Search in Google Scholar
Dahl, Osten & Kari Fraurud. 1996. Animacy in grammar and discourse. In Thorstein Fretheim & Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.), Reference and referent accessibility, 47–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.38.04dahSearch in Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1971. Agency. In Robert W. Binkley, Richard N. Bronaugh & Ausonio Marras (eds.), Agent, action, and reason, 43–61. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan. 1990. Point of view: A linguistic analysis of literary style. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Ann R. 1985. Learning to describe past experiences in conversation. Discourse Processes 8(2). 177–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538509544613.Search in Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.4324/9781410603982Search in Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger. 1977. Linguistics and the novel. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Friedmann, Naama & Dana Rusou. 2015. Critical period for first language: The crucial role of language input during the first year of life. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 35. 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2015.06.003.Search in Google Scholar
Fukumura, Kumiko & Roger P. G. Van Gompel. 2011. The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(10). 1472–1504. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.506444.Search in Google Scholar
Givon, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. In Talmy Givon (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction, 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.3.01givSearch in Google Scholar
Givon, Talmy. 1984. Universals of discourse structure and second language acquisition. In William E. Rutherford (ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition, 109–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.5.10givSearch in Google Scholar
Gleason, Jean B. & Richard Ely. 2002. Gender differences in language development. In Ann McGillicuddy-De Lisi & Richard De Lisi (eds.), Biology, society, and behavior: The development of sex differences in cognition, 127–154. Westport, CT: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Gullberg, Marianne & Peter Indefrey. 2003. Language background questionnaire. The dynamics of multilingual processing. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Gür, Cansu. 2018. The effects of late language acquisition on the development of narrative skills: Insights from Turkish Sign Language (Türk İşaret Dili – TİD). Erzurum: Atatürk University PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Gür, Cansu & Beyza Sümer. 2022. Learning to introduce referents in narration is resilient to the effects of late sign language exposure. Sign Language and Linguistics 25(2). 205–234. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.21004.gur.Search in Google Scholar
Hall, Matthew L. & Daphne Bavelier. 2010. Working memory, deafness, and sign language. In Marc Marschark & Patricia E. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, vol. 2, 458–471. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195390032.013.0030Search in Google Scholar
Henner, Jon, Catherine L. Caldwell-Harris, Rama Novogrodsky & Robert Hoffmeister. 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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01982.Search in Google Scholar
Herman, Rosalind, Nicola Grove, Sallie Holmes, Gary Morgan, Hilary Sutherland & Bencie Woll. 2004. Assessing BSL development: Production test (narrative skills). London: City University Publication.Search in Google Scholar
Hickmann, Maya. 1982. The development of narrative skills: Pragmatic and metapragmatic aspects of discourse cohesion. Chicago: The University of Chicago PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Hodge, Gabrielle, Lindsay N. Ferrara & Benjamin D. Anible. 2019. The semiotic diversity of doing reference in a deaf signed language. Journal of Pragmatics 143. 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.025.Search in Google Scholar
Hudson, Judith A. & Lauren R. Shapiro. 1991. From knowing to telling: The development of children’s scripts, stories and personal narratives. In Allyssa McCabe & Carole Peterson (eds.), Developing narrative structure, 89–136. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Jones, Anna C., Elena Toscano, Nicola Botting, Joanna R. Atkinson, Tanya Denmark, Ross Herman & Gary Morgan. 2016. Narrative skills in deaf children who use spoken English: Dissociations between macro and microstructural devices. Research in Developmental Disabilities 59. 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.09.010.Search in Google Scholar
Karadöller, Dilay Z., Beyza Sümer & Aslı Özyürek. 2021. Effects and non-effects of late language exposure on spatial language development: Evidence from deaf adults and children. Language Learning and Development 17(1). 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2020.1823846.Search in Google Scholar
Karadöller, Dilay Z., Beyza Sümer, Ercenur Ünal & Aslı Özyürek. 2022. Late sign language exposure does not modulate the relation between spatial language and spatial memory in deaf children and adults. Memory & Cognition 51. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-022-01281-7.Search in Google Scholar
Keleş, Onur, Furkan Atmaca & Kadir Gökgöz. 2023. Reference tracking strategies of deaf adult signers in Turkish Sign Language. Journal of Pragmatics 213. 12–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.05.009.Search in Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu & Etsuko Kaburaki. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8(4). 627–672.Search in Google Scholar
Küntay, Aylin. 1999. How do Turkish preschoolers anchor referents in conversational extended discourse? Psychology of Language and Communication 3(1). 83–92.Search in Google Scholar
Küntay, Aylin. 2002. Development of the expression of indefiniteness: Presenting new referents in Turkish picture-series stories. Discourse Processes 33(1). 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3301_04.Search in Google Scholar
Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley.10.1080/21548331.1967.11707799Search in Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1999. Modality effects and modularity in language acquisition: The acquisition of American Sign Language. In William C. Ritchie & Tej K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of child language acquisition, 531–567. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004653023_019Search in Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Jonathan Henner. 2021. Acquisition of sign languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 7. 395–419.10.1146/annurev-linguistics-043020-092357Search in Google Scholar
Mayberry, Rachel I. 1998. The critical period for language acquisition and the deaf child’s language comprehension: A psycholinguistic approach. Bulletin of Audiophonology 14. 349–360.Search in Google Scholar
Mayberry, Rachel I. 2007. When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics 28(3). 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716407070294.Search in Google Scholar
Mayberry, Rachel I. & Susan D. Fischer. 1989. Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: The bottleneck of nonnative sign language processing. Memory and Cognition 17. 740–754. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202635.Search in Google Scholar
Mayberry, Rachel I. & Elizabeth Lock. 2003. Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesist. Brain and Language 87(3). 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0093-934x(03)00137-8.Search in Google Scholar
McCabe, Allyssa & Carole Peterson. 1990. What makes a narrative memorable? Applied Psycholinguistics 11(1). 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716400008298.Search in Google Scholar
McKee, Rachel, Adam Schembri, David McKee & Trevor Johnston. 2011. Variable “subject” presence in Australian Sign Language and New Zealand Sign Language. Language Variation and Change 23(3). 375–398. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394511000123.Search in Google Scholar
Meier, Richard P. 1991. Language acquisition by deaf children. American Scientist 79(1). 60–70.Search in Google Scholar
Mitchell, Ross E. & Michaela Karchmer. 2004. Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies 4(2). 138–163. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2004.0005.Search in Google Scholar
Morgan, Gary. 1998. The development of discourse cohesion in British Sign Language. Bristol: University of Bristol PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Morgan, Gary. 2002. The encoding of simultaneity in children’s BSL narratives. Journal of Sign Language and Linguistics 5(2). 131–165. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.5.2.04mor.Search in Google Scholar
Morgan, Gary. 2006. The development of narrative skills in British Sign Language. In Brenda Schick, Marc Marschark & Patricia E. Spencer (eds.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children, 314–343. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195180947.003.0013Search in Google Scholar
Morgan, Gary & Bencie Woll. 2003. The development of reference switching encoded through body classifiers in British Sign Language. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 297–310. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Newport, Elissa L. 1990. Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science 14. 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2.Search in Google Scholar
Newport, Elissa & Richard P. Meier. 1985. The acquisition of American Sign Language. In Dan I. Slobin (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, 881–938. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.4324/9781315802541-12Search in Google Scholar
Newport, Elissa & Ted Supalla. 2000. Sign language research at the millennium. In Karen Emmorey & Harlan L. Lane (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 94–103. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
O’Neil, Daniela K. & Francesca Happe. 2000. Noticing and commenting on what’s new: Differences and similarities among 22-month-old typically developing children, children with Down Syndrome, and children with autism. Developmental Science 3. 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00139.Search in Google Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1986. Verbs and role shifting in American Sign Language. In Carol Padden (ed.), Proceedings of the fourth national symposium on sign language research and teaching, 44–57. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.Search in Google Scholar
Peterson, Carole. 1990. The who, when, and where of early narratives. Journal of Child Language 17(2). 433–456. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000900013854.Search in Google Scholar
Rinaldi, Pasquale, Maria C. Caselli, Alessio Di Renzo, Tiziana Gulli & Virginia Volterra. 2014. Sign vocabulary in deaf toddlers exposed to sign language since birth. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19(3). 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enu007.Search in Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam. 2003. Rethinking classifiers in signed languages. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 3–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Sümer, Beyza. 2015. Scene-setting and referent introduction in Turkish and Turkish Sign Language (Türk İşaret Dili, TİD): What does modality tell us? İstanbul: Boğaziçi University MA thesis.10.1075/tilar.20.09sumSearch in Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted R. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. San Diego: University of California PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Swabey, Laurie A. 2011. Referring expressions in ASL discourse. In Cynthia B. Roy (ed.), Discourse in signed languages, 96–120. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.10.2307/j.ctv2rh28s4.10Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2003. The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign language, 169–195. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Umiker-Sebeok, Jean. 1979. Preschool children’s intra-conversational narratives. Journal of Child Language 6(1). 9–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000900007649.Search in Google Scholar
Volterra, Virginia, Maria Roccaforte, Alessio Di Renzo & Sabina Fontana. 2022. Italian Sign Language from a cognitive and socio-semiotic perspective: Implications for a general language theory. Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/gs.9Search in Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, Gillian. 1990. Children’s narrative acquisition: A study of some aspects of reference and anaphora. First Language 10(29). 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/014272379001002902.Search in Google Scholar
Wittenburg, Peter, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann & Han Sloetjes. 2006. ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. Proceedings of LREC 2006. Fifth international conference on language resources and evaluation. http://www.lrecconf. org/proceedings/lrec2006.Search in Google Scholar
Woolfe, Tyron, Rosalind Herman, Penny Roy & Bencie Woll. 2010. Early vocabulary development in deaf native signers: A British Sign Language adaptation of the communicative development inventories. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 51(3). 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02151.x.Search in Google Scholar
Wulf, Alyssa, Paul Dudis, Robert Bayley & Ceil Lucas. 2002. Variable subject presence in ASL narratives. Sign Language Studies 3(1). 54–76. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2002.0027.Search in Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2003. Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Geberentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: Utrecht University PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge, Pamela Perniss & Aslı Özyürek. 2012. An empirical investigation of expression of multiple entities in Turkish Sign Language (TİD): Considering the effects of modality. Lingua 122(14). 1636–1667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.010.Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
