Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T02:27:13.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning to look: The acquisition of eye gaze agreement during the production of ASL verbs*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2009

ROBIN L. THOMPSON ,
KAREN EMMOREY  and
ROBERT KLUENDER
ROBIN L. THOMPSON*
Affiliation:
University College London
KAREN EMMOREY
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
ROBERT KLUENDER
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
*
Address for correspondence: Robin Thompson, Deafness, Cognition and Language Research Centre (DCAL), Department of Cognitive Perceptual and Brain Sciences, University College London, 49 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PD, UKrobin.thompson@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In American Sign Language (ASL), native signers use eye gaze to mark agreement (Thompson, Emmorey and Kluender, 2006). Such agreement is unique (it is articulated with the eyes) and complex (it occurs with only two out of three verb types, and marks verbal arguments according to a noun phrase accessibility hierarchy). In a language production experiment using head-mounted eye-tracking, we investigated the extent to which eye gaze agreement can be mastered by late second-language (L2) learners. The data showed that proficient late learners (with an average of 18.8 years signing experience) mastered a cross-linguistically prevalent pattern (NP-accessibility) within the eye gaze agreement system but ignored an idiosyncratic feature (marking agreement on only a subset of verbs). Proficient signers produced a grammar for eye gaze agreement that diverged from that of native signers but was nonetheless consistent with language universals. A second experiment examined the eye gaze patterns of novice signers with less than two years of ASL exposure and of English-speaking non-signers. The results provided further evidence that the pattern of acquisition found for proficient L2 learners is directly related to language learning, and does not stem from more general cognitive processes for eye gaze outside the realm of language.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 393 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation awarded to Karen Emmorey and San Diego State Research Foundation (Linguistics program: NSF BCS 0517994) and by the Economic and Social Research Council of Great Britain (Grant RES-620–28-6001), awarded to the Deafness, Cognition and Language Research Centre (DCAL). We would like to thank Michael Klieman, Grant Goodall, Victor Ferreira, John Moore, Masha Polinsky and four anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We are grateful to Helsa Borinstein, Rachael Colvin, Jeane Kim, Tayler Mayer, Stephen McCullough and David Vinson for valuable help with data analysis and conducting the experiment. Finally, we are especially grateful to all of the participants who made this research possible.

References

Bahan, B. (1996). Non-manual realization of agreement in American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (12), 564–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). The syntax of causative constructions: Cross-linguistic similarities and differences. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), The syntax of causative constructions (Syntax and Semantics 6), pp. 261–312. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1988). Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In Barlow, M. & Ferguson, C. (eds.), Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, pp. 159–179. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
DeBot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt's “speaking” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13 (1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R., Bell, L. & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Emery, N. J. (2000). The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24, 581–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emery, N. J., Lorincz, E. N., Perrett, D. I., Oram, M. W. & Baker, C. I. (1997). Gaze following and joint attention in Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 111, 286–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Thompson, R. L. & Colvin, R. (2008). Eye gaze during comprehension of American Sign Language by native and beginning signers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14, 237–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H. & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 4, 78–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, L. (1975). Space, time and person reference in ASL. Language, 51, 940–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (eds.), Language transfer in language learning, pp. 69–82. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1980). An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult second language learners. In Scarcella, R. C. & Krashen, S. D. (eds.), Research in second language acquisition, pp. 132–141. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd edn.). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1966). Language universals. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M. & Holmqvist, K. (1999). Keeping an eye on gestures: Visual perception of gestures in face-to-face communication. Pragmatics & Cognition, 7 (1), 35–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, R. L. (1995). The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy in SLA: Determining the basis for its developmental effects. In Eckman, F., Highland, D., Lee, P. W., Mileham, J. & Weber, R. (eds.), Second language acquisition theory and practice, pp. 101–114. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.A. (1999). Processing complexity and filler–gap dependencies across grammars. Language, 75, 244–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayhoe, M. M. & Ballard, D. H. (2005). Eye movements in natural behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9 (4), 188–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, J. M. (2003). Human gaze control in real-world scene perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 498–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hudson, Kam C. L., Elissa, L.Newport, E. (2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development, 1 (2), 151–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janis, W. D. (1995). A crosslinguistic perspective on ASL verb agreement. In Emmorey, K. & Reilly, J. (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, pp.195–223. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. & Odlin, T. (2000). Morphological type, spatial reference, and language transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22 (4,), 535–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. C., Hanson, V. L. & Smith, S. T. (1992). Deaf readers’ comprehension of relative clause structures. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayberry, R. I. (in press). Second language learning of sign languages. In Woll, B. (ed.), Sign language: Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd edn.). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I., Lock, E. & Kazmi, H. (2002). Linguistic ability and early language exposure. Nature, 417, 38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meir, I. (1998a). Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meir, I. (1998b). Syntactic–semantic interaction in Israeli Sign Language verbs: The case of backwards verbs. Sign Language & Linguistics, 1 (1), 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, G. & Woll, B. (eds.) (2002). Directions in sign language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, B. & Lee, R. (2000). The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, E. L. & Meier, R. P. (1985). The acquisition of American Sign Language. In Slobin, D. I.. (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (vol. 1): The data, pp. 881–951. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, W. (1999). Toward a new nativism. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 621–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padden, C. A. (1988). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal modes, and relative clause formation in a formal and an informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulisse, N. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathmann, C. & Mathur, G. (2002). Is verb agreement different cross-modally? In Meier, R. P., Cormier, K. & Quinto-Pozos, D.. (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, pp. 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, R. (2004). Beginning L2 production errors in ASL lexical phonology: A cognitive phonology model. Sign Language & Linguistics, 7 (1), 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schick, B., Marschark, M. & Spencer, P. E. (eds.) (2005). Advances in the sign language development of deaf children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard-Kegl, J. (1985). Locative relations in American Sign Language word formation, syntax, and discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in non-native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9 (1), 22–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J. (1993). Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech. Communication Monographs, 60 (4), 275–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taub, S. (2001). Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. L. (2006). Eye gaze in American Sign Language: Linguistic functions for verbs and pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. L., Emmorey, K. & Kluender, R. (2006). The relationship between eye gaze and agreement in American Sign Language: An eye-tracking study. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 24, 571–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., Call, J. & Hare, B. (1998). Five primate species follow the visual gaze of conspecifics. Animal Behavior, 55, 1063–1069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuite, K. (1993). The production of gesture. Semiotica, 93 (1/2), 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wonnacott, E. & Newport, E. L. (2005). Novelty and regularization: The effect of novel instances on rule formation. In Brugos, A., Clark-Cotton, M. R. & Ha, S.. (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 29), pp. 663–673. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar