Tools for language: patterned iconicity in sign language nouns and verbs.

When naming certain hand-held, man-made tools, American Sign Language (ASL) signers exhibit either of two iconic strategies: a handling strategy, where the hands show holding or grasping an imagined object in action, or an instrument strategy, where the hands represent the shape or a dimension of the object in a typical action. The same strategies are also observed in the gestures of hearing nonsigners identifying pictures of the same set of tools. In this paper, we compare spontaneously created gestures from hearing nonsigning participants to commonly used lexical signs in ASL. Signers and gesturers were asked to respond to pictures of tools and to video vignettes of actions involving the same tools. Nonsigning gesturers overwhelmingly prefer the handling strategy for both the Picture and Video conditions. Nevertheless, they use more instrument forms when identifying tools in pictures, and more handling forms when identifying actions with tools. We found that ASL signers generally favor the instrument strategy when naming tools, but when describing tools being used by an actor, they are significantly more likely to use more handling forms. The finding that both gesturers and signers are more likely to alternate strategies when the stimuli are pictures or video suggests a common cognitive basis for differentiating objects from actions. Furthermore, the presence of a systematic handling/instrument iconic pattern in a sign language demonstrates that a conventionalized sign language exploits the distinction for grammatical purpose, to distinguish nouns and verbs related to tool use.

Health promotion via deaf-friendly ministries.

Deaf community members face many barriers to accessing health information. This paper discusses the feasibility of creating a nationwide network of Deaf-friendly ministries to help disseminate cancer information in American Sign Language (ASL) to the Deaf community. Deaf-friendly ministries (N = 403), identified through Internet searches and one-on-one referrals, were sent up to three mailed invitations to join the network. Over half of the ministries responded, with 191 (47.4 %) of the ministries joining the network, completing a baseline survey and receiving ASL cancer education videos to share with members of their congregation and community. Fifteen (3.7 %) responded that they were not interested or no longer had a Deaf-friendly ministry; the rest did not respond or their invitations were returned as undeliverable. As the program progressed, an additional 238 Deaf-friendly ministries were identified. To date, 61 (25.6 %) agreed to participate after the single invitation that was mailed. This network of Deaf-friendly ministries offers a promising dissemination partner.