Sign learning of hearing children in inclusive day care centers-does iconicity matter?

An increasing number of experimental studies suggest that signs and gestures can scaffold vocabulary learning for children with and without special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND). However, little research has been done on the extent to which iconicity plays a role in sign learning, particularly in inclusive day care centers. This current study investigated the role of iconicity in the sign learning of 145 hearing children (2;1 to 6;3 years) from inclusive day care centers with educators who started using sign-supported speech after a training module. Children's sign use was assessed via a questionnaire completed by their educators. We found that older children were more likely to learn signs with a higher degree of iconicity, whereas the learning of signs by younger children was less affected by iconicity. Children with SEND did not benefit more from iconicity than children without SEND. These results suggest that whether iconicity plays a role in sign learning depends on the age of the children.

Sign learning and its use in a co-enrollment kindergarten setting.

Experimental studies report positive effects of signing for language acquisition and communication in children with and without language development delays. However, little data are available on natural kindergarten settings. Therefore, our study used questionnaire data to investigate the sign learning in hearing children (aged 3;7-5;9 years) with and without language development delays in an inclusive kindergarten group with a co-enrolled deaf child (aged 3;8 years) and a deaf signing educator. We observed that the hearing children in this co-enrollment group learned more signs than the hearing children from groups with only hearing educators who learned signs in a training program. Hearing children's sign learning showed a tendency toward correlating positively with their level of spoken language development. However, the individual background for children with language development delays impacted this relationship. Additionally, we examined the modality use of all children in interactions with hearing and deaf educators and peers using questionnaire and video data. Despite acquiring signs, hearing children predominantly used spoken language with hearing educators and predominantly nonverbal communication strategies with the deaf educator and the deaf child. Children with language development delays used code-blending with hearing educators in a few cases. The deaf child used mainly sign language for interactions with the deaf educator and mainly nonverbal communication with hearing educators and peers. Overall, our results suggest that the presence of a deaf educator increases sign learning in hearing children. However, in interactions during free play, they barely used signs making it particularly challenging for the deaf child to participate. This reveals that, in addition to a deaf role model, more sign language competent peers and targeted approaches increasing the use of the visual modality are required.

Ongoing Sign Processing Facilitates Written Word Recognition in Deaf Native Signing Children.

Signed and written languages are intimately related in proficient signing readers. Here, we tested whether deaf native signing beginning readers are able to make rapid use of ongoing sign language to facilitate recognition of written words. Deaf native signing children (mean 10 years, 7 months) received prime target pairs with sign word onsets as primes and written words as targets. In a control group of hearing children (matched in their reading abilities to the deaf children, mean 8 years, 8 months), spoken word onsets were instead used as primes. Targets (written German words) either were completions of the German signs or of the spoken word onsets. Task of the participants was to decide whether the target word was a possible German word. Sign onsets facilitated processing of written targets in deaf children similarly to spoken word onsets facilitating processing of written targets in hearing children. In both groups, priming elicited similar effects in the simultaneously recorded event related potentials (ERPs), starting as early as 200 ms after the onset of the written target. These results suggest that beginning readers can use ongoing lexical processing in their native language - be it signed or spoken - to facilitate written word recognition. We conclude that intimate interactions between sign and written language might in turn facilitate reading acquisition in deaf beginning readers.

Neural correlates of semantic and syntactic processing in German Sign Language.

The study of deaf and hearing native users of signed languages can offer unique insights into how biological constraints and environmental input interact to shape the neural bases of language processing. Here, we use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to address two questions: (1) Do semantic and syntactic processing in a signed language rely on anatomically and functionally distinct neural substrates as it has been shown for spoken languages? and (2) Does hearing status affect the neural correlates of these two types of linguistic processing? Deaf and hearing native signers performed a sentence judgement task on German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache: DGS) sentences which were correct or contained either syntactic or semantic violations. We hypothesized that processing of semantic and syntactic violations in DGS relies on distinct neural substrates as it has been shown for spoken languages. Moreover, we hypothesized that effects of hearing status are observed within auditory regions, as deaf native signers have been shown to activate auditory areas to a greater extent than hearing native signers when processing a signed language. Semantic processing activated low-level visual areas and the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), suggesting both modality-dependent and independent processing mechanisms. Syntactic processing elicited increased activation in the right supramarginal gyrus (SMG). Moreover, psychophysiological interaction (PPI) analyses revealed a cluster in left middle occipital regions showing increased functional coupling with the right SMG during syntactic relative to semantic processing, possibly indicating spatial processing mechanisms that are specific to signed syntax. Effects of hearing status were observed in the right superior temporal cortex (STC): deaf but not hearing native signers showed greater activation for semantic violations than for syntactic violations in this region. Taken together, the present findings suggest that the neural correlates of language processing are partly determined by biological constraints, but that they may additionally be influenced by the unique processing demands of the language modality and different sensory experiences.

ERP correlates of German Sign Language processing in deaf native signers.

BACKGROUND: The present study investigated the neural correlates of sign language processing of Deaf people who had learned German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache, DGS) from their Deaf parents as their first language. Correct and incorrect signed sentences were presented sign by sign on a computer screen. At the end of each sentence the participants had to judge whether or not the sentence was an appropriate DGS sentence. Two types of violations were introduced: (1) semantically incorrect sentences containing a selectional restriction violation (implausible object); (2) morphosyntactically incorrect sentences containing a verb that was incorrectly inflected (i.e., incorrect direction of movement). Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded from 74 scalp electrodes. RESULTS: Semantic violations (implausible signs) elicited an N400 effect followed by a positivity. Sentences with a morphosyntactic violation (verb agreement violation) elicited a negativity followed by a broad centro-parietal positivity. CONCLUSIONS: ERP correlates of semantic and morphosyntactic aspects of DGS clearly differed from each other and showed a number of similarities with those observed in other signed and oral languages. These data suggest a similar functional organization of signed and oral languages despite the visual-spacial modality of sign language.

The influence of language deprivation in early childhood on L2 processing: An ERP comparison of deaf native signers and deaf signers with a delayed language acquisition.

BACKGROUND: To examine which language function depends on early experience, the present study compared deaf native signers, deaf non-native signers and hearing German native speakers while processing German sentences. The participants watched simple written sentences while event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded. At the end of each sentence they were asked to judge whether the sentence was correct or not. Two types of violations were introduced in the middle of the sentence: a semantically implausible noun or a violation of subject-verb number agreement. RESULTS: The results showed a similar ERP pattern after semantic violations (an N400 followed by a positivity) in all three groups. After syntactic violations, native German speakers and native signers of German sign language (DGS) with German as second language (L2) showed a left anterior negativity (LAN) followed by a P600, whereas no LAN but a negativity over the right hemisphere instead was found in deaf participants with a delayed onset of first language (L1) acquisition. The P600 of this group had a smaller amplitude and a different scalp distribution as compared to German native speakers. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that language deprivation in early childhood alters the cerebral organization of syntactic language processing mechanisms for L2. Semantic language processing instead was unaffected.

ERP correlates of intramodal and crossmodal L2 acquisition.

BACKGROUND: The present study compared the neural correlates of an intramodally and a crossmodally acquired second language (L2). Deaf people who had learned their L1, German Sign Language (DGS), and their L2, German, through the visual modality were compared with hearing L2 learners of German and German native speakers. Correct and incorrect German sentences were presented word by word on a computer screen while the electroencephalogram was recorded. At the end of each sentence, the participants judged whether or not the sentence was correct. Two types of violations were realized: Either a semantically implausible noun or a violation of subject-verb number agreement was embedded at a sentence medial position. RESULTS: Semantic errors elicited an N400, followed by a late positivity in all groups. In native speakers of German, verb-agreement violations were followed by a left lateralized negativity, which has been associated with an automatic parsing process. We observed a syntax related negativity in both high performing hearing and deaf L2 learners as well. Finally, this negativity was followed by a posteriorly distributed positivity in all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although deaf learners have learned German as an L2 mainly via the visual modality they seem to engage comparable processing mechanisms as hearing L2 learners. Thus, the data underscore the modality transcendence of language.