Linguistic skills are often seen as valuable capital necessary for migrants to successfully integrate into society. As part of Sweden's integration policy, deaf migrants are provided with opportunities to learn Swedish and Swedish Sign Language. Using an ethnographic approach comprising of classroom observations and semi-structured interviews in four folk high schools in Sweden, this study examines how deaf migrants’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds influence their language learning experiences. The study also explores different misunderstandings that have arisen as a result of not having the relevant linguistic resources necessary for efficient communication. The findings show the complexity of language learning and how this process is influenced by several social factors such as communication with family growing up, educational experiences or lack thereof, and cultural differences.

This article is based on data from an empirical research project on the multilingual situation of deaf migrants in Sweden. Deaf migrants attending folk high schools are a heterogeneous group with various language and educational backgrounds. Some of them have grown up with limited or no access to a spoken or signed language while others have grown up learning multiple languages. In those schools, the migrants learn Swedish Sign Language (STS) and Swedish as well as about Swedish society. The study uses an ethnographic approach, and data has been created through participant observations and interviews with teachers and migrants in three folk high schools in different municipalities in Sweden. The analysis reveals that language ideologies are present in these schools, such as what constitutes a language and what status different languages and other repertoires have. In addition, STS appears to be the only acceptable language for communication within the schools. Another finding is that the Eurocentric perspective on ‘language’ among researchers and teachers often collides with the migrants who have different experiences of language use. Furthermore, the study reveals that some migrants, after some time in school, begin to view their previous repertoires used for communication as inferior to STS. It also emerges that the teachers lack the knowledge necessary to understand what it means to learn a language formally for the first time as an adult. In order to develop teachers’ knowledge to ensure social justice, research on adult deaf migrants’ language acquisition within school contexts is essential.

In the last decade, Sweden has received many deaf migrants with very diverse linguistic and educational backgrounds. When arriving in Sweden, they are expected to learn Swedish Sign Language (STS) and Swedish. For this study, we have used data from project Mulder, a four-year research project that aims to generate knowledge about deaf migrants' multilingual situation in Sweden. In this article, we describe how adult education for deaf migrants is organised in Sweden and examine how translanguaging practices are formed there. We found that translanguaging is a natural and common part of the multilingual classrooms, but also that the opportunities to translanguage depend highly on the individual's repertoires and whether particular individuals have one or more languages in common or have a lingua franca. We also found that translanguaging is not always helpful in learning contexts if the teachers are not conscious and insightful when they mix languages.

Communication is an important but complicated issue for parents to deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children. Professionals have debated whether a DHH-child should have opportunity to learn spoken language, sign language, or a mixture of both. Two perspectives dominate: the medical (viewing deafness as a disability) vs. the cultural-lingual (viewing DHH-people as a cultural and linguistic minority). Parents have to handle these conflicting perspectives while they would need support and information about parenting a DHH-child. This article investigates preferred communication in the families, whether parents get information about STS, attend STS-courses, if parents get adequate support and information. 118 parents responded on a survey focusing on these issues, and the results show that spoken Swedish was preferred, but that STS or sign-supported Swedish often was used in parallel. Most parents without previous knowledge of DHH-people were satisfied with the information and support received, while parents with previous knowledge had negative experiences.

Det finns en oro för att döva och hörselskadade barn inte ska få lära sig svenskt teckenspråk (STS) för att föräldrar väljer bort att lära sig språket och för att hörselhabiliteringen inte ger adekvat och varierad information. Men är det verkligen på det sättet? Vilka upplevelser och erfarenheter har föräldrar som vi kan lära oss av då det gäller såväl information som användning och attityd till STS som språk? Detta har ett forskningsprojekt vid Stockholms universitet undersökt närmare. (läs vidare genom länken)

Föräldrar som får ett dövt eller hörselskadat barn ställs ofta inför en helt ny situation, där deinte bara blivit föräldrar utan också ska lära sig ett nytt sätt att kommunicera utifrån barnetshörselnedsättning. De ska också lära sig om olika tekniska hjälpmedel och ta reda på vilket slagsstöd de kan få på olika sätt. Vad är det för slags stöd och information de då får av olika instanser,såsom professionella från hörselhabilitering, intresseorganisationer, och andra vuxna iomgivningen? Får de också möjlighet att lära sig svenskt teckenspråk (STS) och väljer de att göradet? Används STS sedan inom familjen, eller är det talad svenska, eller kommunikationsformersom TSS eller TAKK som dominerar?

För att undersöka dessa frågor genomfördes hösten 2019 en enkätundersökning vid Institutionenför lingvistik, Stockholms universitet. 138 föräldrar som hade barn med hörselnedsättningsvarade på enkäten. Av dem hade 118 föräldrar barn som var födda under 2000-talet, vilketenkätstudien avgränsades till. Majoriteten av de som svarade på enkäten hade barn under 10 åroch över hälften av dem (52%) hade fått barnets hörselnedsättning konstaterad under dess treförsta levnadsmånader. Det framkom i studien vidare att 53% av föräldrarna hade fåttinformation om STS när barnets hörselnedsättning konstaterades och att denna informationhuvudsakligen kom från hörselhabiliteringen. 55% av de föräldrar som inte redan kunde STSvalde sedan att delta i utbildning för att lära sig språket, för att, som några föräldrar förklarade,ge sina barn de bästa möjligheterna att kommunicera utifrån situation och förutsättningar. Trotsdet visar studien att det vanligaste kommunikationssättet inom familjen är att man använder sigav talad svenska.

En annan sak som studien visar är att 75% av de föräldrar som svarade på enkäten blivit medlemi någon intresseorganisation, framför allt i DHB (Riksförbundet för döva, hörselskadade barnoch barn med språkstörning samt deras familjer) och Barnplantorna. Dock var det ingen av deredan teckenspråkiga föräldrarna som blivit medlemmar i Barnplantorna.

Av enkätsvaren framgår att de föräldrar som inte kunde teckenspråk från början överlag varnöjda med den information och det stöd de erbjudits av hörselhabiliteringen, men inte de redanteckenspråkiga föräldrarna. De senare upplevde istället att de får bristande information ochdåligt bemötande. När det gäller information och stöd från intresseorganisationer upplevde bådagrupperna däremot att de i huvudsak får bra stöd och information därifrån.

Sammanfattning på svenskt teckenspråk: https://video.su.se/media/0_h9epf1cwNyckelordSvenskt

In Sweden, deaf pupils were traditionally placed in segregated deaf schools. However, during the last decade, the number of children attending mainstream schools after receiving cochlear implants (CIs) has increased dramatically, resulting in lower attendance at deaf schools. Despite the significance of this trend, there exists little knowledge regarding the everyday lives of these pupils in mainstream settings. This paper examines how pupils with CIs interact with school staff and other pupils in classroom settings and how different technologies (e.g. hearing aids and microphones) are used there. Furthermore, it aims to identify opportunities and limitations regarding the pupils’ participation in communication and teaching. The paper builds upon data from an ethnographic study in which fieldwork was conducted in two mainstream Swedish classrooms, both of which including one pupil with CIs. Interaction in these classrooms was documented through participant observations, video recordings and field notes, and the analysis shows that audiologically-oriented and communicative-link technologies play major roles in everyday interaction by both facilitating and limiting the participation of pupils with CIs in different ways, and that it mostly is the school staff that determine how and when these shall be used. The results also indicate that the pupils are largely responsible for their own participation. Overall, the current paper provides a glimpse of one way to educate children with CIs in Sweden, namely, in mainstream schools, and the focus is on what really happens in the technologically framed interaction in these classrooms.

Forskningsrapporten handlar om undervisning i svenskt teckenspråk som andraspråk med särskilt fokus på utbildningen på kandidatprogrammet i teckenspråk och tolkning på Stockholms universitet. Allt sedan teckenspråksforskningen påbörjades i USA under 1960-talet har fokus företrädesvis legat på tecknade språk som förstaspråk och det finns inte någon omfattande forskning internationellt sett kring tecknade språk som andraspråk, även om den forskningsinriktningen har tagit fart under 2000-talet och ökar stadigt. Fler och fler forskare inom olika discipliner har börjat intressera sig för olika aspekter av andraspråksinlärningen, men när det gäller själva undervisningen råder det stor brist på forskning som fokuserar den. Projektet UTL2 (Undervisning i svenskt teckenspråk som andraspråk) har därför bildats med intentionen att bidra till ökade kunskaper kring undervisningsfältet. Syftet med projektet är på ett övergripande plan att öka kunskaperna kring hur man kan undervisa i teckenspråk som andraspråk på ett sätt som leder till god progression och djup kunskap hos studenterna. Som metodologisk utgångspunkt har aktionsforskning valts, eftersom denna handlar om att studera den egna praktiken och att sammankoppla teori med praktik, i ett nära samarbete mellan lärare och forskare.

UTL2-projektet består av flera delstudier och i den här rapporten redogörs främst för delstudie 1, som syftar till att undersöka om undervisning på antingen talad svenska eller på svenskt teckenspråk i början av utbildningen gör att de hörande studenterna lär sig svenskt teckenspråk snabbare och bättre. För att undersöka studenternas färdigheter i svenskt teckenspråk utvecklades två olika tester som genomfördes flera gånger under studenternas första år: a) ett meningsimitationstest, SignRepL2 och b) ett fonologitest. Efter att första testet genomförts på de studenter som inte hade några (eller endast hade mycket grundläggande) färdigheter i svenskt teckenspråk delades informanterna in i två olika grupper och undervisningen påbörjades. Grupp A fick undervisning av döva lärare på svenskt teckenspråk medan grupp B undervisades av hörande lärare på talad svenska. Denna särskilt riktade undervisning pågick under tre veckor och därefter fick grupperna undervisning av båda kategorierna lärare. Resultaten från testerna visar dock inte att någon av grupperna får fördelar avseende färdigheter i svenskt teckenspråk, men en undersökning av studenternas uppnådda delkursbetyg indikerar att studenter som undervisas på ett språk de redan behärskar (talad svenska) och som de därmed erhåller mer förklaringar på inledningsvis uppnår högre betyg i teoretiska kurser. I delstudien undersöks också hur lärarna genomför undervisningen och hur studenterna upplever att det är att undervisas av de olika kategorierna lärare. Bland annat visar dessa data att grupp A i högre grad tränar upp sin förmåga att aktivt delta i teckenspråkig kommunikation, medan grupp B istället får mer metaspråkliga kunskaper genom att i högre grad analysera teckenspråkstexter och prata om språket.

I projektets andra delstudie fokuseras det fenomen att studenter som vill utbilda sig till teckenspråkstolkar själva blir tolkanvändare från sin första dag på utbildningen. Delstudien bygger på intervjuer med tre olika grupper informanter: studenter, lärare och tolkar. Resultaten visar att tolkanvändningen är utbredd på kandidatprogrammet, men inte systematiskt planerad och genomtänkt. Det framkommer att studenterna behöver få mer information om hur man använder tolk och om vilken roll tolken har för att undvika missförstånd och förstå att tolkarna inte är del av lärarstaben. Studien indikerar också att lärarna i hög grad är omedvetna om vad som sker i tolksituationen på ett annat plan än endast i själva förmedlandet av ämnesinnehållet. Det finns ett behov av att lärarna ska bli mer medvetna om klassrumsinteraktionen i helhet och vilka svårigheter tolkarna har att hantera.

Different technologies are commonly used in mainstream classrooms to teach pupils who wear surgically implanted cochlear hearing aids. We focus on these technologies, their application, how pupils react to them, and how they affect mainstream classrooms in Sweden. Our findings indicate that language ideologies play out in specific ways in such technified environments. The hegemonic position wielded by adults with regard to the use of technology usage has specific implications for pupils with cochlear implants.

This paper has two aims. First, it presents the development of a sign repetition test for novice/L2 signers. The test was originally developed and used within the project Teaching Swedish Sign Language (SSL) as a second language to interpreter students (UTL2) at Stockholm University, Sweden (Holmström 2018). Second, it provides a description of the signers’ phonological acquisition from a longitudinal perspective through a qualitative examination of the test outcomes.

Studies on phonological acquisition of L2 signers confirm that phonology is a challenge to acquire among L2 signers (Bochner et al. 2011; Rosen 2004;). With this as a point of departure, in the project UTL2 we developed a sign repetition test, SignRepL2, targeted at L2 signers, with a focus on sign structure, i.e., phonological features of signs. Several recent studies have shown that repetition tests are an efficient and reliable tool for measuring language proficiency for both L1 users and L2 learners (Gaillard & Tremblay 2016; Klem et al. 2015). And sign languages seem to provide no exception, as in recent years there has been a growing number of sign language repetition tests, e.g. American Sign Language, ASL-SRT (Hauser et al. 2008), and Swedish Sign Language, SSL-SRT (Schönström 2014).

The procedure in the SignRepL2 test is that the test-taker is instructed to repeat the sign or the short sentences provided in the stimuli as exactly as possible during video recording. In version one, 50 test items were used: 30 single-sign sentences, 10 two-sign sentences and 10 three-sign sentences. However, while the test worked well for the novice signers, a ceiling effect could be observed after one semester. As a consequence, version two of the SignRepL2 was developed by reducing the single-sign sentences from 30 to 10 and by adding 10 new four-sign sentences, now totaling 40 test items.

The scoring of results follows a five-point rating scale as inspired by Ortega (Ortega cited in Gaillard & Trembly 2016). Here, scores from 0 to 4 are used, depending on the degree of correctness of the test responses. If the whole sign or sentence is correctly produced, 4 points are given. If the manual signing is correct but with missing or wrong mouth action, 3 points are given. If at least half of the sign or sentence is correct, 2 points are given, and a correct rate less than half results in 1 point. If the whole sentence is missing or totally wrong, 0 points are given.

To date, the SignRepL2 has been tested on 37 SSL L2 students using a longitudinal approach. The students are tested five times under a period of two years during their SSL interpreting education. The first time was before their first ever SSL instruction, the second session took place after approximately 100 hours of instruction, the third after 200 hours, the fourth after 400 hours, and the fifth after 600 hours. The first three times, the primary version of SignRepL2 was used, and in the last two instances, the second version was used. The whole test procedure takes 10-12 minutes to administer and 30 minutes to score.

In this paper, we will present the test development including the item selection process, scoring and the test results, as well as provide a qualitative examination of the phonological features. In the first test session, it appears that the students primarily try to imitate the actor’s manual signs without understanding the meaning of them, and thereby also exclude the mouth movements. In the later test sessions, there is a gradual change from solely an imitation of form to an imitation of the signs connected to their meaning, revealed, e.g., through the increased use of mouth movements and through the errors made when they replace signs that the actor uses with synonyms that they themselves have mastered. The tests also provide opportunities for a deep analysis of phonological features in the students’ imitation of the signs, and different phonological errors can be revealed at the group level. For example, the primary results indicate that it is the type of movement that the students most often fail to produce correctly. The results from the five test sessions will be compared to each other and detected differences between them will be discussed.

References

Bochner, J. H., Christie, K., Hauser, P. C., & Searls, J. M. (2011). When is a difference really different? Learners’ discrimination of linguistic contrasts in American Sign Language. Language Learning, 61(4), 1302–1327. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00671.x

Gaillard, S., & Tremblay, A. (2016). Linguistic Proficiency Assessment in Second Language Acquisition Research: The Elicited Imitation Task. Language Learning, 1-29. http://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12157

Hauser, P. C., Paludnevičiene, R., Supalla, T., & Bavelier, D. (2008). American Sign LanguageSentence Reproduction Test: Development and implications. In R. M. de Quadros (ed.), Sign Language: Spinning and unraveling the past, present and future (pp. 160-172). Petropolis, Brazil: Editora Arara Azul.

Holmström, I. (2018). Teaching Swedish Sign Language as second language to interpreter students. Proceedings from the Nordic Seminar, Umeå, Sweden, 23-25 February 2018.

Klem, M., Melby-Lervåg, M., G, M., Hagtvet, B., Lyster, S. A. H., Gustafsson, J. E., & Hulme, C. (2015). Sentence repetition is a measure of children’s language skills rather than working memory limitations. Developmental Science, 18(1), 146–154. http://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12202

Rosen, R. S. (2004). Beginning L2 production errors in ASL lexical phonology: A cognitive phonology model. Sign Language & Linguistics, 7(1), 31–61. http://doi.org/10.1075/sll.7.1.04beg

Schönström, K. (2014). Swedish Sign Language Sentence Reproduction Test (SSL-SRT). Unpublished test, Stockholm: Stockholm University, Department of Linguistics.

Although once placed solely in deaf schools, a growing number of deaf students in Sweden are now enrolling in mainstream schools. In order to maintain a functional educational environment for these students, municipalities are required to provide a variety of supporting resources, e.g. technological equipment and specialized personnel. However, the functions of these resources and how these relate to deaf students’ learning is currently unknown. Thus, the present study examines public school resources, including the function of a profession called a hörselpedagog (HP, a kind of pedagogue that is responsible for hard-of-hearing students). In particular, the HPs’ perspectives on the functioning and learning of deaf students in public schools were examined. Data were collected via (i) two questionnaires: one quantitative (n = 290) and one qualitative (n = 26), and (ii) in-depth interviews (n = 9). These show that the resources provided to deaf children and their efficacy are highly varied across the country, which holds implications for the language situations and learning of deaf students.

In this chapter, focus lie in translation as a language teaching practice in sign bilingual settings in deaf education. Due to limited or no access to sounds, many deaf pupils learn and use spoken languages primarily in their written form. Thus, in this translation practice, deaf pupils are translating between a written language and a sign language. The chapter focuses on translation practices in language teaching contexts and consider both experiences of using sign language translation as an approach in deaf education, sign language studies and translation studies, as well as (second) language teaching. Some concrete pedagogical examples of the application of translation as a pedagogical approach in sign language-based education at different levels, e.g. syllabus, classroom practice and assessment are provided. The chapter begins with an historical account of research on sign languages, sign language translation, and gives a brief account on the history of deaf education. A summary of key research approaches related to sign bilingual teaching with particular focus on translation as a method are also provided. Furthermore, some practical approaches and methods are presented with concrete examples from a sign bilingual classroom. The chapter ends with a conclusion and discussion about future directions.

This article highlight and discuss the complex situation when deaf adults who are emergent readers learn Swedish Sign Language (STS) and Swedish in parallel. As Swedish appears primarily in its written form, they also have to develop reading and writing skills. Study data comes from ethnographically created video recordings of classroom interaction and interviews with teachers and participants. The analysis reveals that while the migrants successively learn basic STS for interacting with other deaf people, learning Swedish takes a different path. The migrants struggle with learning basic reading and writing skills, vocabulary, and grammar. Furthermore, the instruction is highly repetitive, but unstructured and sprawled, using STS to explain and connect signs with written equivalents. The teachers testify in interviews that it seems very difficult for the emergent readers to learn Swedish on a level good enough to cope in Swedish society, which, in turn, puts them in a vulnerable position.

For students, the classroom setting is vital for learning and development, as are the interactions with other students and teachers. For deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students, particularly the visual environment is of importance. For example, psychological studies have shown that DHH people’s visual attention differs from hearing people’s, particularly regarding things that happen in the periphery (Dye m.fl. 2008, 2009; Loke och Song 1991), and point out that teachers of DHH students have reported that they are impulsive and easily disturbed by things that appear or are ongoing in the classroom or are visible outside. 

The act of being instructed through a sign language requires visual attention skills because the students have to switch between the teacher and the whiteboard, including PowerPoint slides, pictures, tools, etc., simultaneously. The act is even more complicated in an interpreted classroom setting. Therefore, teachers need to be aware of visual and linguistic prerequisites in order to create an accessible and visually oriented learning environment for DHH students (cf. Holmström & Schönström 2018). However, it seems that many hearing teachers have a lack of knowledge of such visual strategies.

In educational settings where the instruction is conducted by deaf teachers, the knowledge of visual strategies, however, appears to be well established, as we will show in this presentation. Building upon data from three different classroom contexts, we have examined the visual strategies used by deaf teachers. The classroom contexts are i) a higher education setting where deaf teachers are instructing DHH students, ii) a higher education setting where deaf teachers are instructing hearing students Swedish Sign Language (STS) as a second language and iii) adult education for deaf migrants where deaf teachers are instructing deaf adults. The analysis shows that deaf teachers use a range of visual strategies in their teaching (i.e., gestures, pointing, chaining, turn-taking, etc.), and draw from their own deaf-visual experience in order to support the students in understanding the teaching content. The deaf teachers appear to be very skilled in both STS and Swedish (and also English), and they translanguage between these languages in a flexible and visible way in the classrooms. These findings can be very informative for other (hearing) teachers, and an essential contribution to teacher training programs. 

When migrants (including refugees and asylum seekers) arrive in Sweden, they must provide reasonsfor their migration to the Swedish Migration Agency in order to obtain a permit. This is done byinterviews, which usually requires either using a common language or through interpreters. However,this is not always possible for deaf migrants. There are deaf people who have grown up with limitedor no access to a language because they cannot hear and learn the spoken language of their familiesand they have not had the opportunity to learn a sign language. Some may also have not received aformal education. The combination of limited or no access to a language and little to no educationalbackground complicates the Agency’s interview process with deaf migrants. This puts deaf migrantsat risk of experiencing social injustice. As an intervention, deaf migrants are offered language educationprograms at adult non-formal education schools (folk high schools). In those schools, themigrants are given the opportunity to learn Swedish Sign Language and Swedish as well as aboutSwedish society.

Scientific knowledge regarding (emergent) language learning in deaf adult migrants is almost nonexistent.The Mulder project, which began in 2020, aims to generate knowledge on this topic. Theproject focuses on classroom interaction and teaching in two folk high schools, using an ethnographicapproach. Based on observations as well as interviews with the teachers and migrants, interestingpatterns relating to teaching deaf migrants and the migrants’ language learning have emerged. Ourpresentation will demonstrate and discuss some key findings that can support teachers and improvetheir teaching towards more accessible and equal teaching approaches, not just for this particulargroup. Through development of language instruction, deaf migrants will have greater opportunitiesto argue for their needs and obtain fair treatment.

A growing body of research focusses on migration issues for deaf migrants, particularly those in forced migration and resettlements. Despite this, knowledge is limited regarding their situation, opportunities and obstacles in the new host country. In recent years, the Nordic countries have seen a growing number of deaf migrants arriving, many of them for reasons of being in need of protection. And in the encounter between the migrants and the Nordic societies and systems, many things may come into conflict, particularly regarding language policy and education. In this chapter, the challenges deaf migrants may meet when navigating their way in Nordic countries are highlighted: for example, when they must learn both a sign and written language in parallel, and when they have to use national interpreters before they can master the new country’s sign language. The challenges are greater for the migrants with limited educational background who are emerging readers. The chapter concludes that greater awareness and understanding of the deaf migrants’ situation are needed, as well as further research in this field.

This article reviews the background of the bilingual approach in deaf education, it describes more specifically how it has been implemented in Sweden, and it refers to the incorporation of this approach in deaf education in Chile. Further on, it analyzes the way in which Sign Language can be used to teach written language in bilingual education contexts, using examples from primary education classes for children at a school for the deaf. Finally the article emphasizes the implications of the bilingual model for the process of teaching and learning written language in deaf education, and it discusses some considerations for moving forward in this area in the Chilean education context.

This paper describes work on an ongoing learner corpus in Swedish Sign Language (SSL) as a second language (L2). The purpose of this learner corpus is to provide a solid database for second language research in SSL, as there is a lack of research regarding how adults learn a signed language as a second language, and the availability of such a corpus for research would ultimately lead to new insights in the field. Work on this SSL learner corpus started in 2013 (Schönström & Mesch, 2014), and it now contains longitudinal data collected from 2013 to 2016. The corpus consists of data from two groups of learners. Data collection for the first group was completed in 2014 and contains 9:06 hours of data from a total of 18 learners. Data collection from the second group is ongoing.

The longitudinal data collection consisted of interviews as well as picture and video retellings recorded on four occasions over a period of 1.5 years. The learners consisted of students from a sign language interpreter program at university level. The first collection began one month after course onset, and the second one 1.5 years after onset. The aim was to obtain a wider range of data illustrating the learners’ different developmental stages. The recorded material has been annotated and transcribed in the multimodal annotation tool ELAN using current SSL annotation conventions, especially for annotation of glosses as well as a special annotation schema for L2 analysis according to our particular research objectives.

For those who are learning SSL, we hypothesize that simultaneous and spatial structures in a gestural-visual modality are challenging to learn (cf. Ortega & Morgan, 2015). Earlier we began analyzing the mouth actions of L2 learners (Mesch, Schönström, Riemer-Kankkonen & Wallin, 2016). Data was annotated according to annotation tiers for mouthing categories, such as mouth movements borrowed from Swedish (mouthing without sound), and mouth gestures, as well as L2 tiers. The next step is to analyze a set of complex sign categories (i.e. signs modified according to meaning and space). We are interested in how learners acquire depicting signs as well as other complex sign categories, i.e. modified signs and indicating signs. This overlaps partly with the use of space for meaning and reference, which is a challenge to annotate. In our presentation, we will show our annotation scheme and discuss the challenges of annotating these structures in an L2 context. 

This paper aims to present part of the project “From Speech to Sign – learning Swedish Sign Language as a second language” which include a learner corpus that is based on data produced by hearing adult L2 signers. The paper describes the design of corpus building and the collection of data for the Corpus in Swedish Sign Language as a Second Language (SSLC-L2). Another component of ongoing work is the creation of a specialized annotation scheme for SSLC-L2, one that differs somewhat from the annotation work in Swedish Sign Language Corpus (SSLC), where the data is based on performance by L1 signers. Also, we will account for and discuss the methodology used to annotate L2 structures.

This study presents a corpus-based investigation of self-repairs in hearing adult L2 (M2L2, second modality and second language) learners of Swedish Sign Language (Svenskt teckenspråk, STS). This study analyses M2L2 learners’ STS conversations with a deaf signer and examines the learners’ self-repair practices and whether there are differences among learners of different proficiency levels. This provides a description of characteristics of self-repair made by M2L2 learners as well as the frequency and distribution of self-repair categories. The results show that the frequency of self-repair decreases with increased proficiency, at least after the initial stage. Furthermore, the self-initiated repair categories of the beginners are often phonological repairs, while intermediate learners tend to carry out self-repairs at the lexical and syntactic level. The results also reveal a specific type of STS repair linked to fingerspelling repairs. We discuss the effects of second modality learning as well as the relationship between monitoring and language proficiency.

This article deals with L2 acquisition of a sign language, examining in particular the use and acquisition of non-manual mouth actions performed by L2 learners of Swedish Sign Language. Based on longitudinal data from an L2 learner corpus, we describe the distribution, frequency, and spreading patterns of mouth actions in sixteen L2 learners at two time points. The data are compared with nine signers of an L1 control group.

The results reveal some differences in the use of mouth actions between the groups. The results are specifically related to the category of mouthing borrowed from spoken Swedish. L2 signers show an increased use of mouthing compared to L1 signers. Conversely, L1 signers exhibit an increased use of reduced mouthing compared with L2 signers. We also observe an increase of adverbial mouth gestures within the L2 group. The results are discussed in relation to previous findings, and within the framework of cross-linguistic influence.

This presentation focuses on non-manual mouth actions performed by deaf signers and adult second language (L2) learners of Swedish Sign Language (SSL). The discussion of the linguistic status of mouth actions in the literature motivates our work and study. Based data from SSLC (Swedish Sign Language Corpus) (Mesch & Wallin 2015) and SSLC-L2 (L2 learner corpus in SSL) (Mesch & Schönström 2018), we compare the use of mouth actions in L1 as well as L2learners. The presentation will also describe the annotation work of non-manual mouth actions. The annotation and analysis depart from Crasborn et al.’s (2008) categories of mouth actions that have been applied to several sign languages. Distribution, frequency and spreading patterns of use of mouth actions are observed and described. The results reveal some similarities as well as differences in use of mouth actions between the groups. Furthermore, the analysis reveals qualitative differences related to the interaction and synchronization of mouth actions and hand movements among L2 learners of SSL. Challenges of annotating mouth actions will also be discussed. 

This paper deals with the non-manual mouth actions of Swedish Sign Language, Svenskt teckenspråk (STS). Based on data from the Swedish Sign Language Corpus and the Swedish Sign Language as L2 Corpus, we compare the use of mouthings in deaf L1 as well as hearing L2 signers. The use, distribution and frequency of mouthings are explored and described quantitatively and qualitatively. The results reveal some similarities as well as differences in the use of mouthings between the groups. Furthermore, the analysis reveals qualitative differences related to the properties of mouthings i.e. full and reduced mouthings among L1 as well as L2 learners of STS. Challenges of the analysis of mouthings will be discussed.

In our paper, we describe the acquisition of classifier constructions of L2 learners of SSL. Previous studies show that learning a sign language, contributes a high degree of iconically motivated lexicon and enable L2 learners to gesturally imitate the tasks or events from stimulus in an elicited narrative task. However, despite of this “gestural advantage”, L2 learners have been reported to differ in the phonological structure of iconically motivated lexical signs (e.g. Ortega & Morgan, 2015). In addition, regarding the L2 acquisition of the classifier constructions, it has been shown that the location seems to be acquired before the handshape parameter (e.g. Marshall & Morgan, 2015). However, research on this area is limited, especially on authentic data, i.e. corpus-based studies on L2 acquisition. In our study, the use of classifier constructions by L2 learners at different developmental stages using SSL was investigated. The corpus consists of a set of longitudinal data of adult L2-learners’ signed production. In total, the corpus consists of 20:38 hours of data from 38 learners, along with a control cohort consisting of 9 L1 signers ( 01:22 hours). For this study, a sampled annotated data, consists of 05:55 hours of a video retelling of a movie clip “The plank” from 23 learners, at two phases i.e. six months after course onset (N=14), and 1.5 years after onset (N=9), was analyzed. Comparisons to an L1 cohort (9 fluent signers) was made. Specifically, three broad types of classifier constructions were analyzed: ENTITY (entity handshapes), HANDLE (handle handshapes), and DESCRIPTOR (size and shape descriptive handshapes) (c.f. Schembri, 2003). A total of 779 tokens were identified and analyzed. The results show that the L2 learners tend to differ in the use in comparison with the L1 signers. First, L1 signers use classifier constructions to a greater extent (Table 1). Second, there were some qualitative differences with the regard of use. For example, in respect of HANDLE, simultaneous use of two separate handshape units were more common in L1 signers. Concerning ENTITY, the handshapes were more identically used across the groups, apart fromthe handshape unit representing ‘human being’. The third type: DESCRIPTOR, was more identically used within the L1 group, whereas the use of handshapes and movements varied in the L2 group. The study assumes that this finding can be explained by the way L2 learners imitate task events in comparison to L1 signers. Implications for the acquisition of classifier constructions in terms of conventionalism and L2 acquisition will be discussed.

In this study, we observed several patterns related to interaction and the synchronization of mouth actions and hands among L2 learners of Swedish Sign Language (SSL) compared to native signers. Previous research on signed languages has examined the synchronization of mouthings and mouth gestures (e.g. the edited volume by Boyes Braem & Sutton-Spence 2001; Crasborn et al. 2008; Johnston et al. in press). Another line of sign language research has investigated phonological errors made by L2 learners of sign languages (adult learners of signing as a second language) across a limited number of languages, primarily in the use of manual parts (e.g. Rosen 2004) as well as in the use of non-manual parts (e.g. McIntire & Reilly 1988), not including mouth actions. The current study draws from both of these research areas in an effort to answer two questions: (i) Do L2 learners use mouthings borrowed from spoken language to a greater extent than L1 (native) signers? And (ii) how do borrowed mouthings and mouth gestures interact with manual signs? In other words, what are the distribution and the scope of mouthings with respect to prosodic constituents of SSL? We based this study on an analysis of an L2 Swedish Sign Language corpus (Mesch & Schönström 2014), which consists of 9:06 hours of data from 17 different L2 signers, and a control group of 3 deaf native L1 signers who provided 0:34 hours of video. For the analysis, we sampled data consisting of various materials (interviews, picture and video retellings) from six L2 learners and compared it to parallel data from the control group. With respect to question (i), our analysis revealed a greater use of mouthings borrowed from spoken Swedish among the L2 group, and for (ii), we found a lack of prosodic features in spreading/interaction between mouthings and signs in SSL as an L2. Compared to the L1 control group, L2 learners either overused or avoided mouthing. Among L2 speakers, our analysis also revealed that Swedish function words (e.g. som ‘as’) often appeared as mouthings without corresponding manual signs, thus being articulated simultaneously with a “mismatched” sign (as in Example 1). Furthermore, the interaction of signs and mouthing was often dependent on Swedish mouthing: whereas L1 signers produced the pattern in Example 2, in which mouthing belonging to the first unit spread to the second unit, the L2 learners’ mouthings often followed a strict 1-to-1 pattern, in which mouthings accompanied single manual signs and rarely spread across sign boundaries. As shown in this study, linguistic factors impacting SSL as an L2 include bilingualism and different modalities, i.e. how mouthing and signs interact. This has implications for L2 teaching, in how L2 learners should be taught to use “unvoiced” articulations of spoken words with manual signs. For future research, it would be useful to compare these results with those of deaf people who are late learners of SSL, since they rarely have a spoken language as an L1 (and thus lack that type of interference).

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.

The aim of the CLARIN Research Infrastructure and SWE-CLARIN is to facilitate for scholars in the humanities and social sciences to access primary data in the form of natural language, and to provide tools for exploring, annotating and analysing these data. This paper gives an overview of the resources and tools developed at the Department of Linguistics at Stockholm University planned to be made available within the SWE-CLARIN project. The paper also outlines our collaborations with neighbouring areas in the humanities and social sciences where these resources and tools will be put to use.

When considering deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) population, research recognizes that fatigue due to communication challenges and multi-focal attention allocation is a significant concern. Given the putative heightened demands of distance learning on deaf and hard of hearing students, we investigate how an online environment might differently affect deaf and hard of hearing participants, compared to hearing participants, Portuguese Sign Language (PSL) users and non-users. Our findings show that the deaf and hard of hearing group present higher values in the post-task fatigue rates with significant differences from the hearing group (non-PSL users). Furthermore, our results revealed an association between post-task fatigue rates and lower performance scores for the deaf and hard of hearing group, and the gap is significantly bigger when compared with the hearing group (non-PSL users). We also found evidence for high levels of post-task fatigue and lower performance scores in the hearing group PSL users. These novel data contribute to the discussion concerning of the pros and cons of digital migration and help redesign more accessible and equitable methodologies and approaches, especially in the DHH educational field, ultimately supporting policymakers in redefining optimal learning strategies.

Vision is considered a privileged sensory channel for deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students to learn, and, naturally, they recognize themselves as visual learners. This assumption also seems widespread among schoolteachers, which led us to analyse the intersection between teachers’ beliefs on deaf and hard of hearing students’ academic achievement, visual skills, attentional difficulties, and the perceived importance of image display in class. An online survey was designed to analyse the beliefs of the schoolteachers about the deaf and hard of hearing students learning in educational settings from Portugal and Sweden. Participated 133 teachers, 70 Portuguese and 63 Swedish, from the preschool to the end of mandatory education (ages 3–18) with several years of experience. The content analysis and the computed SPSS statistical significance tests reveal that surveyed teachers believe that deaf and hard of hearing students have better visual skills when compared with their hearing peers yet show divergent beliefs about visual attentional processes. Within the teachers’ perceptions on learning barriers to DHH students, the distractibility and cognitive effort factors were highlighted, among communicational difficulties in class. Conclusions about the prevalence of learning misconceptions in teachers from both countries analysed, corroborate previous studies on neuromyths in education, and bring novelty to Deaf Education field. The work of translation of scientific knowledge, teacher training updating, and partnership between researchers and educators are also urgently needed in special education.

This talk presents results from a study (Schönström, 2010) that concerns the bilingual development of Swedish school-aged deaf children in Swedish Sign Language (SSL) and written Swedish. More precisely, the development of Swedish as an L2 in school-aged deaf children is investigated as well as the interdependence between Swedish (L2) and SSL (L1) proficiencies.

The study is cross-sectional and contains data from up to 38 informants. All informants are from a school for the deaf and hearing-impaired (grades 5 and 10). Data is based on 1) retellings in written Swedish, and 2) videotaped free stories in SSL.

For the analysis of the written Swedish data, Processability Theory (PT) (Pienemann, 1998) was applied as theory and method. As PT has never before been applied to deaf L2 learners, this presents us with the important issue of whether it is possible to apply this theory to deaf L2 learners. For the analysis of the interdependence between Swedish and SSL, narrative skills of SSL texts were compared with the PT skills of Swedish texts.

The results from the Swedish part of the study show that there is an implicational order in the informants’ development of Swedish following the predicted grammatical learning order as described by PT. It therefore suggests that PT is applicable also to deaf L2 learners of Swedish. Regarding the analysis of interdependence between the two languages, among other things, it shows that analyzing SSL skills is not always unproblematic. Despite this, the results show that there is a correlation between the proficiency in SSL and Swedish in the deaf learners, supporting earlier findings in the area (Strong & Prinz, 2000, Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2008). 

In recent years there has been a growing interest in sign second language acquisition (SSLA). However, research in this area is sparse. As signed and spoken languages are expressed in different modalities, there is a great potential for broadening our understanding of the mechanisms and the acquisition processes of learning a (second) language through SSLA research. In addition, the application of existing SLA knowledge to sign languages can bring new insights into the generalizability of SLA theories and descriptions, to see whether they hold true for sign languages. In this paper I give a brief overview of sign language and SSLA research, together with insights from the research on iconicity and gestures and its role for SSLA, including examples from my own studies on L2 signers. The paper concludes with a discussion of both the potential and challenges of combining sign language and SLA research, providing some notes towards directions for future research.

Svenskt teckenspråk är sedan 1981 erkänt som språk i Sverige och omfattas även sedan 2009 av den svenska språklagen. Man uppskattar att det finns ca 10 000 teckenspråkiga döva och gravt hörselskadade i Sverige. Till det tillkommer cirka 80 000-100 000 hörande teckenspråkiga.

Riksdagens erkännande av döva som tvåspråkiga 1981 har bidragit till att döva haft tillgång till tvåspråkig undervisning – med teckenspråk som L1 och svenska som L2 – i skolan under 3 decennier. I internationell kontext betraktas den svenska situationen som unik.

Tack vare teckenspråkets ställning i Sverige lär sig många hörande teckenspråk som andraspråk framförallt det döva barnets familj men också andra hörande som lär språket av yrkesmässiga skäl, t.ex. för att bli teckenspråkstolkar eller lärare. Forskningen om inlärning av teckenspråk som andraspråk hos hörande är dock i stort sett obefintlig, trots relativt lång undervisningstradition av teckenspråk till hörande.

Samtidigt växer det upp en ny generation av döva och hörselskadade som får ett cochlea implantat – ett avancerat hörselhjälpmedel som opereras in i hörselsnäckan – vid tidig ålder. Graden av funktionell hörsel och talutvecklingen hos dessa varierar dock. Som en konsekvens av detta antas gruppen med teckenspråk som L1 ha minskat. Istället antas att antalet som tillägnar sig teckenspråk som L2 växa.

I min presentation kommer jag att redogöra för området och beskriva forskningsbehoven kring teckenspråk som L2 för både den hörande och döva/hörselskadade gruppen. Frågan är intressant utifrån ett språkinlärningsperspektiv, inte minst för att det handlar om två språk med skilda modaliteter.

In contrast to, for instance, studies of reading, there are very few studies that have investigated the written production of bimodal-bilingual deaf children. However, we need more empirical studies in how these children learn and develop different written languages, e.g. in order to provide a basis for sign bilingual education of the deaf.

My study concerning bilingual deaf children’s development in a written language – Swedish – will be presented. In the study, the written production of Swedish in deaf children was carried out, using a general L2 theory – Processability Theory (PT) (Pienemann, 1998). PT is an L2 grammatical developmental theory predicting an L2 learner’s grammar development. PT has been cross-linguistically confirmed for a number of languages including English as L2 and Swedish as L2. PT has, however, previously never been applied to deaf L2 learners of any written language. It gives an opportunity to use a theoretical framework that is cross-linguistically and empirically proven.

Data from 38 bilingual deaf children were analyzed according to PT. Data consisted of elicited written production collected from a sign bilingual school for the deaf. The deaf learners’ interlanguage outcomes were analyzed on morphological and syntactical level, including use of inflections, word order etc. The individual results were summarized in stages following PT’s five developmental stages.

The results suggest that the children follow a development routine similar to hearing L2 learners of Swedish. The PT stages, in which certain grammar structures are defined for every stage, were acquired in a matter similar to hearing L2 learners of Swedish. I will present the results and explain the findings. By the end, I will discuss how the method and results provide cross-linguistic comparisons and discuss the implications from this study for e.g. sign bilingual education of the deaf. 

This article examines the Swedish L2 development of deaf children by testing the validity of Processability Theory on deaf learners of Swedish as an L2. The study is cross-sectional and includes written data from 38 pupils (grades 5 and 10) from a school for deaf and hearing-impaired pupils in Sweden. The primary language used by the pupils is Swedish Sign Language with Swedish being considered their L2. The Swedish data have been analyzed through the lens of Processability Theory (PT). The results show that the grammatical development of deaf learners is similar to hearing learners of Swedish as an L2. The results therefore suggest that PT is applicable even for deaf learners of L2 Swedish.

Sign language research is important for our understanding of languages in general and for the impact it has on policy and on the lives of deaf people. There is a need for a sign language proficiency measure, to use as a grouping or continuous variable, both in psycholinguistics and in other sign language research. This article describes the development of a Swedish Sign Language Sentence Repetition Test (STS-SRT) and the evidence that supports the validity of the test’s interpretation and use. The STS-SRT was administered to 44 deaf adults and children, and was shown to have excellent internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.915) and inter-rater reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC] = 0.900, p < .001). A linear mixed model analysis revealed that adults scored 20.2% higher than children, and delayed sign language acquisition were associated with lower scores. As the sign span of sentences increased, participants relied on their implicit linguistic knowledge to scaffold their sentence repetitions beyond rote memory. The results provide reliability and validity evidence to support the use of STS-SRT in research as a measure of STS proficiency.

This chapter focuses on the validity of tests of second language (L2) signed language learners. Test validity depends on how test developers take the language as well as the modality into consideration and how the test captures natural variation in local signed languages, which impacts the use of tests and interpretation of results. In this chapter, the argument-based approach to validation is used to evaluate claims that test developers make about the uses of tests. A sample of signed language tests for L2 learners is reviewed and discussed. Caution in the extrapolation and making decisions based on test results are discussed. The chapter ends with suggestions about how to evaluate the validity of future L2 signed language tests.

Ett av grundskoleutbildningensfrämsta mål är att alla elever ska utveckla sin läs-och skrivförmåga i svenska i enlighet med läroplanen. För teckenspråkigaelever som är döva eller hörselskadadekan detta innebära en utmaning, särskilt för de som företrädesvis tillägnar sig svenska i skriven form. Det finns en avsevärd mängd forskning kring elevers läs-och skrivutveckling som lärare kan hämta kunskaper från, men den utgår främst från att elevernahar en fullgod hörsel. Det kan därför vara svårt att hitta tillvägagångssätt och metoder som främjar just döva och hörselskadade elevers möten med texter inom alla ämnen. Syftet med den här artikeln är därför att lyfta fram hur man i undervisningen kan arbeta tvåspråkigt med bådesvensktteckenspråk och svenska för att främja elevernas språkutveckling.Artikeln tar avstamp i genrebaserad språkundervisningoch visar exempel på hur läraren kan arbeta med olika slags texter inom olika ämnen för att stötta elevernas språk-och kunskapsutveckling i både teckenspråkoch svenska, detvill säga deras litteracitetsutveckling. Med litteracitetmenas läs-och skrivlärande, vilket isynnerhetär kopplat till skolspråket (se del 1). Även om detta i första hand avsersvenska så kan också teckenspråkräknas in i litteracitetsutvecklingentrots att detta språksaknar ettskriftspråk. Eleverna behöver gesmöjlighet att utveckla både sin svenskaoch sitt teckenspråk, särskilt med tankepå att gruppen elever som har teckenspråk som förstaspråk har minskat och många elever idag istället har språketsom sitt andraspråk. Sådan utveckling kan ske genom att man arbetar med olika typer av texter inom olika ämnen.Genom att samtala omolika ämnestexter på både teckenspråk och svenska kan eleverna utveckla både sina ämneskunskaper och sin litteracitet. Tack varedet gemensamma samtalet på teckenspråk i nära anslutning till elevernas läsande och skrivande kan deta viktiga steg i sin utveckling mot att bli tvåspråkiga individer.

In previous literature, elicited imitation tasks (EITs) have been discussed with regard to the effect that memory skills have on performing tasks. More recent studies have shown, however, that EITs are a reliable tool for measuring language proficiency for L1 users and L2 learners (Klem et al., 2015; Gaillard & Tremblay, 2016). There have also been recommendations for minimizing the negative impacts of poor memory skills, for example, by shortening sentence structures.

In contrast to spoken languages, which are merely linear in structure, sign languages operate in the gestural-visual mode, which relies on a visual pattern that allows for a degree of simultaneity in production. For instance, when signing a single lexical sign, the shape, movement and location of the hand combine to express phonological properties at the same time. Additionally, there are more complex signs with internal morphological structures that involve multiple handshapes, movements and locations. Such features need to be taken into account when valid and reliable EITs are developed for signed languages, and in recent years, there have been a growing number of sign language tests developed within the framework of EITs, e.g. American Sign Language, ASL-SRT (Hauser et al., 2008), and Swedish Sign Language, SSL-SRT (Schönström, 2014).

In this talk, we will discuss sentence structure as well as the scoring method of the tests we have developed on two EITs for Swedish Sign Language: SSL-SRT, which is targeted for L1 signers, and SignRepL2, targeted for L2 signers. We found that for the L2 group, complex (single) signs can be used as test items, and there are qualitative differences related to the linguistic properties of signs. We will also describe different scoring paradigms for the respective tests. Our results will be presented and discussed in relation to the EIT theoretical framework.

This chapter provides insight into the progress and current status of a national sign bilingual program, with a special focus on the linguistic situation. The chapter begins with a historical overview and a description of sign bilingual education in Sweden and how it has changed during the last four decades, due in great part to advancements in hearing technology; i.e., cochlear implantation. Based on semi-structured interviews with teachers of deaf and hard-of-hearing students, the chapter then provides an empirical account of the current linguistic situation of sign bilingual education in Sweden. Approaching this situation from a bilingual perspective sheds some light on the schooling of the new generation of deaf and hard-of-hearing students and shows that the linguistic situation for deaf students has changed. The chapter ends with a discussion of how sign bilingual education in Sweden has shifted from a position of being acclaimed to one of being challenged, driven by various factors that are basically derived from monolingual norms. 

I specialskolans kursplan i svenska för döva och hörselskadade står det att eleverna, förutom att utveckla kunskaper om det svenska språket och dess språkbruk, ska ges möjligheter att...

utveckla kunskaper för att kunna göra jämförelser mellan svenskan och teckenspråket och urskilja likheter och olikheter mellan språken. På så sätt ska undervisningen bidra till att stärka elevernas medvetenhet om, och tilltro till, den egna språkliga och kommunikativa förmågan.(Lspec 11)

Även kursplanen i teckenspråk för döva och hörselskadade innehåller en liknande formulering. Genom jämförelser mellan språken ska elevernas tvåspråkighet stärkas. Denna fördjupningsartikel syftar till att belysa det här kontrastiva arbetssättet och ger exempel på hur det kan användas i klassrummet när eleverna möter skolans textvärld.

This chapter provides an overview of the existing knowledge, methods, and practices in the use of sign language to teach writing to deaf learners who use sign language as their first language (L1). It proffers a theoretical background that lays the foundation for using L1 sign language as the language of instruction for teaching writing to the learners. Approaches and strategies in the teaching of writing through the use of sign language are exemplified, and practical issues are discussed. The chapter concludes with considerations for ongoing and future trends in the teaching of writing to deaf learners using their L1 sign languages.