Discussion and conclusion

In this chapter, we address the acquisition of ‘use of space’ as shown by two learners of NGT, who were followed during their four-year bachelor study.

We operationalized the umbrella term ‘use of space’ by coding the participants’ utterances for the employment of pointing signs, spatially modified verbs (agreement verbs, locative verbs, classifier predicates, single argument agreement verbs, and agreement auxiliaries), and spatially modified signs from the nominal domain. In addition to quantitative data, we present a qualitative description of the SL2-participants’ acquisition process.

The most remarkable result to emerge from the data is that the learners seemed to struggle the most with using appropriate classifier predicates, as well as with producing correct verb inflections in cases in which an agreement verb is uttered in a constructed action context. In contrast, both learners produced spatially modified signs from the nominal domain (that is, spatially modified nouns, adjectives, and quantifiers) quite effortlessly in their signing. They employed pointing signs and locative verbs as well as agreement verbs in the early stages of their SL2 acquisition. Considering the examples in the data, it might be that learners use their gestural inventory as a stepping stone into the acquisition of spatially modified forms. With regard to pointing signs, we found examples of stacking, a behavior also found in children. One of the participants showed difficulties in applying the correct pronouns while describing a scene from the vantage point of another character. The last finding worth noting is the observation that both participants hardly ever overgeneralized verb inflection, but we did find examples of overgeneralization in the category ‘signs marked for location.’

For the convenience of the reader, we summarize the key findings in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Key findings of study into the SL2 acquisition of the use of space.

Device Key findings

Pointing signs

Used from the start;

Onset use of pointing signs for reference at the end of year 1;

Stacking behavior during years 1 and 2;

Occasional misuse of pronouns during reported speech/constructed action.

First ‘deliberate’ modifications of non-iconic agreement verbs at the end of year 1;

Overgeneralization hardly occurs;

Use of agreement auxiliaries is scarce.

Classifier predicates

Not used during the first eight to 18 months;

First verbs to appear: -classifier for standing person and -classifier for a crowd;

One L2-participant struggles with selecting the correct classifiers and phonological parameters up to year 4 Creative metaphorical use of classifier predicates in years 3 and 4.

Signs marked for location (nominal domain)

Appear at an early stage in the data;

Seem to be acquired fast and relatively effortlessly;

Onset of compounds with the aim to localize referent in years 2 and 3;

Occasional overgeneralization.

Our study provides insights into the acquisition of use of space by adult learners of a signed language and supports some previous findings in the literature. Our data concerning classifier predicates are in line with the findings of Ferrara and Nilsson (2017), who found that learners of Norwegian Sign Language, who were asked to describe the layout of an area, struggled with the selection of the appropriate classifier signs and with producing the correct phonological parameters. In comparison to their instructors, these learners used fewer classifier signs, and they produced “a scaled down version of the areas they described, instead of depicting the areas as if they were moving through them, which is what their instructors tended to do” (p.

22). Marshall and Morgan (2015) also report that the production of classifiers is challenging for novel learners; learners displayed problems in using the conventional BSL handshapes, and the researchers noted omissions and substitutions. Although this last study is less comparable to our study (as it uses an elicitation task prompting short answers), it corroborates that production of classifier predicates poses challenges to learners. Although some sign-naïve gesturers have been reported to use classifier-like constructions while describing the spatial layout of a scene (Singleton et al., 1993; Schembri et al., 2005), the challenge for learners lies in discovering how to apply classifier predicates in a conventionalized manner. Our study demonstrates that it may take several years of instruction for SL2-learners to correctly produce classifier predicates within longer stretches of discourse.

There are a number of limitations to our study. First, the investigation concerned only two SL2-participants, and although the challenges they encounter confirm other findings and the intuition of sign language teachers, their signing may not be representative of all SL2-learners. Furthermore, in order to capture more detailed information about the rapid acquisition during the first year, it would have been beneficial to collect more samples and with shorter intervals. A third limitation is the fact that the interviews were not scripted, nor were there specific prompting questions. This led to a range of different topics and may have resulted to the avoidance of certain phenomena by the learners.

The current study is a first step towards shedding light on the interlanguages that SL2-learners construct. To gather more detailed information of the phenomena described, a larger number of participants, a

larger number of samples with shorter intervals, and additional methodologies (e.g., elicitation tasks) is needed.

Despite these limitations, our research may serve as a basis for future studies on the SL2 acquisition process, in particular regarding the question of how instructors can support learners in this process. In order to take this next step, an understanding of the SL2 acquisition process is necessary, and our study has gone some way towards enhancing our understanding of the acquisition of the different devices subsumed under the term ‘use of space.’

Acknowledgements

We are extremely grateful to the participants portrayed in this chapter for their permission to publish their material. Our work would not have been possible without the contributions of the interviewers and student assistants Karin Vinke, Dineke Doetjes, Grardy Looije, and Corine Clarinda-Vuyk. We thank Marijke Scheffener for her grammatical judgements. We are grateful to the reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments.

We want to thank Merel van Zuilen (signed story Haas wil worteltjestaart, film produced by Kentalis Multimedia Haren/Frans Gort/Hans Otermann), Engelien Kester (DoofCentraal), Tony Bloem (NGT story Wat een sof!), and Ellen Nauta (website Gebareninzicht, www.gebareninzicht.nl; used under Creative Common license cc by-nc-sa 3.0 nl) for their permission to use stills from their sign language recordings. Figure 3.1 was composed by Annette Jansen; we thank NGT-model Tobias de Ronde for his cooperation.

4. Study 2: A longitudinal study into the acquisition of