Development of a Sign Repetition Task for Novice L2 Signers

ABSTRACT ENGLISH:

There is a lack of tests available for assessing sign language proficiency among L2 learners. We have therefore developed a sign repetition test, SignRepL2, with a specific focus on the phonological features of signs. This paper describes the two phases of developing this test. In the first phase, content was developed in the form of 50 items with sentence lengths between one and three signs. Then, when a period of teaching revealed a ceiling effect in the first version, a second version was developed with 40 items varying between one and four signs. Test scores revealed increasing proficiency in Swedish Sign Language during education, and that mouth actions have a lower degree of accuracy than manual parameters.

Abstract Swedish:

Det r#åder stor brist p#å bed#x00F6;mningsmaterial n#är det g#äller f#ärdigheter i svenskt teckenspr#åk f#x00F6;r andraspr#åksinl#ärare. Mot denna bakgrund har vi utvecklat ett teckenspr#åkstest, SignRepL2, som har ett s#ärskilt fokus p#å teckens fonologiska egenskaper. Den h#är artikeln beskriver hur testet har utvecklats i tv#å faser. I den f#x00F6;rsta fasen tog vi fram 50 objekt, best#ående av meningar av varierande l#ängd; 30 enstaka tecken och 10 meningar med tv#å respektive tre tecken. Testet implementerades och anv#ändes f#x00F6;r att testa teckenspr#åksutvecklingen hos studenter som studerade svenskt teckenspr#åk som andraspr#åk. D#å konstaterades att testet inte r#äckte till eftersom en takniv#å uppn#åddes efter en tids undervisning. D#ärf#x00F6;r vidareutvecklades testet i en andra fas. I denna fas reducerades antalet enstaka tecken till 10 och 10 meningar inneh#ållande fyra tecken vardera lades till s#å att testet ist#ället kom att best#å av 40 objekt med mer varierande meningsl#ängd. Resultaten fr#ån testet visade hur studenternas kunskaper i svenskt teckenspr#åk utvecklades under utbildningen. Dessutom konstaterades att icke-manuella munr#x00F6;relser #är sv#årare att producera korrekt j#ämf#x00F6;rt med tecknens manuella parametrar.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Nikolaus Riemer Kankkonen for his assistance with the scoring sheet and Joel Bäckström for recording and editing the items. We also thank Anders Hultén for his assistance in the data collection. Furthermore, we want to thank all the teachers involved in the UTL2 project for their input and feedback and the students who were willing to participate in the project and perform the test. Finally, we thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier manuscript drafts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was not required for the development of the test. All participants were informed about UTL2 and volunteered to participate. Test results are anonymised and codes are used to protect the identities of participants.

Supplementary data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2023.2256320

Notes

¹ For example, with a different, downward hand movement (i.e. a minimal phonological contrast), the sign WANT (see Table 1 below) would change to NICE, ‘nice’.

Table 1. Examples of items from SignRepL2 test.

² Markedness of handshapes was based on the ASL hierarchy proposed by Boyes-Braem (1990). There is no hierarchy exclusively for STS, but we judge that most handshapes conformed to the STS context. However, it is important to note that the Boyes-Braem model was developed for L1 acquisition by children, not adults. Still, it has also been used in previous studies of M2L2 acquisition, including Chen Pichler (2011).