Do deaf signers of different signed languages do reference the same way? Here we compare how signers of five signed languages coordinate fully conventionalised forms (such as lexical manual signs, fingerspelling and/or spoken language mouthings) with more richly improvised semiotics (such as indicating verbs, pointing signs, depicting signs, visible surrogates and/or invisible surrogates) to identify and talk about referents of varying agency. The five languages are Auslan, Norwegian Sign Language, Finnish Sign Language, Swedish Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. Using 10 retellings of Frog, Where Are You? (Mayer, 1969) from each language, we analyse tokens of referring expressions with respect to: (a) activation status (new vs. maintained vs. re-introduced); (b) semiotic strategy (e.g. pointing sign, fingerspelling, enactment, etc); and (c) animacy (human vs. animals vs. inanimate objects), and assess how they are similar or different with regard to these parameters.

Statistical analysis reveals expected similarities across the five languages. For example, signers of each language typically used conventionalised forms to identify new referents, and less conventional strategies to maintain and reintroduce referents. Signers also preferred to enact animate referents, and manually depict or index inanimate referents. These patterns mirror observations from a larger corpus-based investigation of Auslan using the same method (Hodge, Ferrara & Anible, 2019). However, there are also some differences across languages. While Auslan and ISL signers frequently use fingerspelling to identify referents across all activation contexts, signers of Scandinavian signed languages chose to use other semiotic strategies. We also observed that patterns for specific semiotic strategies are more widespread in some languages than others. For example, Auslan signers prefer using depicting signs in maintained contexts; FinSL signers prefer using depicting signs in reintroduced contexts; while ISL, NTS, and STS signers tend to use depicting signs more equally across activation status. We suggest that doing reference in a signed language involves both cross-linguistic and ecology-specific strategies. The latter may be attributed to the different social and historical trajectories of each language, including possible language contact effects.

This chapter provides historical perspective on the teaching and learning of Swedish Sign Language (SSL) as a second language (L2).We describe the development of teaching of SSL,and then discuss groups learning SSL as L2: interpreters, hearing parents of deaf children, hearing-impaired (HI) persons, and children with cochlear implants (CI). We provide early results from a pilot study regarding SSL use in the HI and CI group from a L2 perspective. The chapter shows how the context for SSL learning is changing: the number of deaf people acquiring SSL as L1 is decreasing, while the number of people learning SSL as L2 is increasing. We consider implications for the future of SSL and SSL teaching in a changing society.

During 2010-2012, a Leonardo da Vinci-funded EU project focused on enhancing the language skills of Deaf people, interpreters and Health Care Professionals. Project partners from Cyprus, Ireland, Poland, Scotland and Sweden reviewed current knowledge of policy and practice, and embedded the resulting analysis into a programme of materials to support reflection, knowledge and skills development internationally. This report presents the project's initial 'state-of-the-art' review, with particular reference to the partner countries.

A fundamental difference between signed and spoken languages is that in signed languages the signer uses the three dimensional space in front of him/her (signing space) and his/her own body for reference and cohesion. According to recent studies of signed languages (e.g. Liddell, 2003; Liddell, Vogt-Svendsen & Bergman, 2007; Nilsson, 2010; Dudis, 2011; Ferrara, 2011; Thumann, 2011) such linguistic tools make use of the conceptual blending process (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002).

Optimal use of signing space is dependent on the signer’s knowledge of what s/he is going to talk about. In a simultaneous interpreting situation, both the content and the structure of the discourse become known to the interpreter only gradually. Thus, it is difficult for an interpreter working simultaneously into a signed language to know how to best structure the discourse, as there is no way s/he can know exactly what the speaker will say next. To date, there are only a few studies regarding use of signing space in simultaneously interpreted signed language (see, however, e.g. Frasu, 2007; Nicodemus, 2009; Armstrong, 2011; Goswell, 2011).

In the present study, Swedish Sign Language (SSL) interpreters have been filmed when interpreting from spoken Swedish into SSL. Both interpreters whose first language is SSL (L1 interpreters) and those who are second language learners of SSL (L2 interpreters) have been recorded. Their signed language production is studied using a model based in Conceptual Blending Theory, and mainly analyzing use of Real Space Blending (Liddell, 2003), focusing on how they use signing space and their body to mark the discourse structure. Does the interpreting situation make interpreters use fewer of the linguistic tools available, or use them differently than in spontaneously produced SSL (as described in e.g. Bergman, 2007; Nilsson, 2010; Sikström, 2011)?

The unexpected findings of a preliminary analysis indicate striking differences both in how and how much the recorded L1 and L2 interpreters use their body, especially regarding the use of movements of the upper body. In this presentation, I will show how the L1 interpreters structure the discourse content using buoys and tokens (Liddell, 2003) in a highly visual interplay with body movements. Buoys and tokens are combined with e.g. sideway movements and rotations of the upper body, thereby marking the structure of the discourse. The L1 interpreters move their upper body in a manner that gives a relaxed and natural impression, frequently e.g. raising their shoulders as part of sign production. Despite finding out the discourse content only gradually, and while already rendering their interpretation of what has been said so far, they manage to produce signed discourse that is strikingly similar to spontaneously produced SSL discourse. In comparison, as we will see, the L2 interpreters generally move their upper body less, and they use fewer buoys and tokens. Their use of directions in signing space to indicate e.g. contrast and/or comparisons is more stereotypical, and their body movements do not reflect the structure of the discourse to the same extent.

As signed language interpreters we usually work between one spoken language and one signed. These two types of language differ in many aspects, possibly the most noticeable being the fact that in signed languages signs can be meaningfully directed in space. According to earlier research you have to identify referents before you can use ”placement”, ”role shift”, ”verb agreement”, etc. Recent research on several signed languages, however, has shown that a signer does not have to identify a person or a thing before talking about what he/she/it does. Instead, the addressee uses several types of knowledge that are common to him/her and the signer to identify the referents. In this paper we will look at an actual example of signed discourse, and discuss how we identify referents when no lexical sign has been produced to help us. Do we always have the same knowledge as the signer (or the speaker) and the addressee? If not, how can we do our job? We will discuss the types of knowledge signed language interpreters need to be equipped with in order to produce accurate interpretations as well as how to get access to this knowledge.

Under de senaste tio åren har forskningen om svenskt teckenspråk, och i förlängningen även undervisningen i ämnet ’Teckenspråk’ kommit att få en delvis förändrad teoretisk förankring och inriktning. I flera avseenden har den tidigare basen i generativ lingvistik gradvis övergivits, och olika delar av kognitiv lingvistik har istället kommit att tillämpas.

Det framgår klart av såväl kursvärderingar som diskussioner med studenterna att vissa begrepp inom kognitiv lingvistik, och att tillämpa dem, upplevs som särskilt problematiska. Då mycket ny, intressant forskning (såväl i Sverige som utomlands) sker inom denna teoretiska inriktning är det samtidigt angeläget att våra studenter tillägnar sig kunskap om den. Det är därför viktigt att vi hittar sätt att göra kursernas innehåll mer lättillgängligt.

Med utgångspunkt i detta behandlas följande frågeställningar:

• Vilka tröskelbegrepp och/eller vilken ”besvärlig kunskap” möter våra studenter i kurserna ’Kognitiv teckenspråksteori I’ och ’Kognitivi teckenspråksteori II’?
• Vilka undervisningsformer och vilken typ av feedback kan på bästa sätt hjälpa studenterna förbi dessa hinder?
• Hur kan kurserna på bästa sätt hjälpa studenter till en utveckling mot self-regulated learning?

I detta PM analyseras och problematiseras undervisningspraktiska frågeställningar inom ämnet utifrån aktuell universitetspedagogisk forskning och handbokslitteratur. Desutom identifieras pedagogiska utvecklingsområden och jag ger förslag på lösningar som kan förbättra studenters lärande i ämnet.