DOCSLIB.ORG

Running Head: SYSTEMATIC ERROR in the DETECTION

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Running Head: SYSTEMATIC ERROR in the DETECTION Running head: SYSTEMATIC ERROR IN THE DETECTION Systematic Error in the Detection of Serious Mental Illness in the Signing Deaf Suzannah Jackson1, Louise Munro2, & Nerina Caltabiano3 1Psychology, James Cook University, 2QUT Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, & 3 Department of Psychology, College of Healthcare Sciences, James Cook University Contact details: 1 [email protected]: ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7989-2077 2 [email protected]; ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8737-4360 3 [email protected]: ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3625-8236 _________________________________________________________________________ Abstract A limitation of existing sign language translations of clinical assessments of serious mental illness (SMI) is the presence of systematic error against the language preferences of signing Deaf people. The error occurs in the presentation of responses that invariably occur in written language format, rather than in a signed language, a contravention of international translation guidelines. The present study aims to modernise the field of Deafness and Mental Health using a web-based interface to improve the valid and reliable detection of SMI in signing Deaf people. In this study, the psychometric properties of an Australian Sign Language (Auslan) translation of both versions of the Kessler Psychological Scales of Distress (K10 and K6), were examined. The scales were translated according to World Health Organisation World Mental Health Survey protocols featuring graphics interchange format (GIF) technology as the response modality, then administered to 30 signing Deaf participants. Results of internal consistency showed that the K10-Auslan and K6-Auslan have acceptable reliability as measures of SMI in SYSTEMATIC ERROR 2 Australian Deaf people. The present study resolves the issue of systematic error in the detection of SMI in the signing Deaf, by introducing a translated clinical scale with the technological capacity to support sign language as the response modality. Keywords: Deafness and Mental Health, Sign Language Test Translation, Australian Sign Language, Kessler Psychological Scale of Distress, Graphics Interchange Format, Sign Language Technology SYSTEMATIC ERROR 3 Systematic Error in the Detection of Serious Mental Illness in the Signing Deaf In Australia, there are currently no linguistically and culturally appropriate assessment tools that can measure serious mental illness (SMI) in signing Deaf people. As a result, inequality in access to appropriate mental health assessment, treatment and evidence-based intervention, places Deaf people at higher risk of developing mental disorders. Epidemiological research conducted internationally shows an increased prevalence of psychiatric illnesses in Deaf adult populations compared to hearing people (Brigman et al., 2000; de Graaf & Bijl, 2002; Fellinger et al., 2005; Ridgeway, 1997). However, the body of research comprises studies that contain a design flaw, where the presentation of responses is displayed in written language format i.e. English, rather than a signed language, which is a contravention of international translation guidelines (Harkness et al., 2008). Moreover, the research includes comparisons of Deaf results against hearing norms, which is problematic given the disparate communication modalities, sensory and sociocultural experiences that exist between the two groups. Deafness is heterogeneous with individuals differentiated by factors such as degree of loss, type of loss, age of onset, communicate mode and cultural identification. The prevalence of deafness worldwide is estimated to be at approximately 15-26%, with the highest rates found in low-income countries (Fellinger, Holzinger, & Pollard, 2012). Deaf communities generally comprise individuals who are pre-lingual deaf, experience severe to profound loss and communicate via a signed language. Signing Deaf people represent roughly seven per 10000 people worldwide and are the focus of the current report. The Australian Deaf Community Members of the Australian Deaf community generally identify as Culturally Deaf and regard Australian Sign Language (Auslan) as their preferred mode of communication. Auslan is SYSTEMATIC ERROR 4 the primary language of some 6500 Deaf community members and is officially recognised by the federal government as a community language (Johnston, 2004). Deaf people have varying degrees of fluency in both Auslan and English, but primarily use Auslan as their native or preferred language (Deaf Australia, 2013). According to peak advocacy body Deaf Australia, the community is an organised network of citizens with many represented on executive boards of finance, health, advocacy, arts, sporting and social organisations at national and international levels. Yet in healthcare settings, the contemporary understanding of deafness continues to reflect an historic notion of a disability that requires amelioration. Sociomedical definitions posit deafness as a state of “abnormality”, contrasted against the duplicitously “normal” ability to hear and speak (Ferndale, Munro, & Watson, 2016). The definition was popularised in the 1800’s by proponents of the oralist approach, resulting in an international ban on the use of sign language in the education of Deaf children. The impact of sign language prohibition was so substantial that it reportedly triggered the sociolinguistic and cultural genocide of functioning Deaf communities at the time (Lane, 1993a; Ladd, 2003). The modern term ‘audism’ captures the ongoing process of structural subordination of Deaf communities, sign language and culture (Bauman, 2004). The implications at the individual level is a working assumption that a Deaf person’s happiness is dependent on acquiring fluency in the language of the dominant hearing culture. To this day, organisations that promote audism derive significant economic benefit and community support for oralist programs that discourage (and often ban) sign language. As a consequence, such programs divert resources away from the social, structural and environmental requirements of signing communities (Branson & Miller, 2002; Obasi, 2008). Hence Deaf people in need of SYSTEMATIC ERROR 5 medical support are systematically disadvantaged with respect to gaining full access to resources according to language preference. Deafness and Mental Health in Australia The Deafness and Mental Health Statewide Consultation Service in Queensland is the only psychiatric facility that caters to the cultural and linguistic diversity of Deaf people (The State of Queensland, 2016). The service was established in response to a 1998 report conducted by Dianne Briffa into Australian mental health service providers that found treating psychiatrists, therapists and psychologists were not providing access to the Deaf community effectively. Yet health professionals still believe that a lack of appropriate therapeutic tools in sign language, interpreters and availability of expertise prevents them from adequately assessing SMI in Deaf people (Ferndale, Watson, & Munro, 2016). Ensuring that services accommodate language preference increases access to healthcare information (Napier & Kidd, 2013), whereas failure to do so may impact a Deaf consumer’s understanding of a range of concepts including mental health, drug and alcohol dependence and sexual health (Terry, Le, & Nguyen, 2016). Recent evidence shows mental health systems that privilege hearingness influence Deaf people to internalise disempowerment (Ferndale, Watson, & Munro, 2016) and exacerbate the course and severity of SMI (Fellinger, Holzinger, & Pollard, 2012). The Epidemiology of Deafness and Mental Health Epidemiological studies conducted internationally report an increased prevalence of psychiatric illnesses in Deaf adult populations. Studies in Great Britain, New Zealand, Holland and Austria involving administration of signed language versions of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) found significantly higher scores in Deaf participants indicating the presence of psychiatric illness than hearing comparison groups (Brigman et al., 2000; de Graaf & SYSTEMATIC ERROR 6 Bijl, 2002; Fellinger et al., 2005; Ridgeway, 1997). More recently, a comprehensive review of the international literature on the mental health of Deaf people stated that there was ample evidence for higher rates of mental health problems in people who are Deaf than in hearing individuals (Fellinger, Holzinger, & Pollard, 2012). In Australia, Deaf adult epidemiological data is limited to one existing study that examined the psychometric properties of an Auslan version of the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS-Auslan; Munro & Rodwell, 2009). In the study, Deaf participants scored higher on the ORS-Auslan compared to hearing comparisons, yet rather than conclude that deafness is linked to increased prevalence of psychiatric illness, the authors instead implicated cultural factors to explain the disparity. For instance, they found that the clinical threshold for what was characterised an illness was lower in the Deaf group indicating that Deaf people may hold unique values and beliefs about mental illness. These diverse cultural norms might affect validity and reliability of routine psychometric instruments, like the hearing-normed ORS-Auslan, making them clinically over-sensitive to Deaf people. This finding prompted the authors to instead focus on within-group comparisons and to date, the ORS-Auslan is the only measure able to effectively distinguish between clinical and non-clinical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sign Language Typology Series
    SIGN LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SERIES The Sign Language Typology Series is dedicated to the comparative study of sign languages around the world. Individual or collective works that systematically explore typological variation across sign languages are the focus of this series, with particular emphasis on undocumented, underdescribed and endangered sign languages. The scope of the series primarily includes cross-linguistic studies of grammatical domains across a larger or smaller sample of sign languages, but also encompasses the study of individual sign languages from a typological perspective and comparison between signed and spoken languages in terms of language modality, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to sign language typology. Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages Edited by Ulrike Zeshan Sign Language Typology Series No. 1 / Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages / Ulrike Zeshan (ed.) / Nijmegen: Ishara Press 2006. ISBN-10: 90-8656-001-6 ISBN-13: 978-90-8656-001-1 © Ishara Press Stichting DEF Wundtlaan 1 6525XD Nijmegen The Netherlands Fax: +31-24-3521213 email: [email protected] http://ishara.def-intl.org Cover design: Sibaji Panda Printed in the Netherlands First published 2006 Catalogue copy of this book available at Depot van Nederlandse Publicaties, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag (www.kb.nl/depot) To the deaf pioneers in developing countries who have inspired all my work Contents Preface........................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Sign Language Endangerment and Linguistic Diversity Ben Braithwaite
    RESEARCH REPORT Sign language endangerment and linguistic diversity Ben Braithwaite University of the West Indies at St. Augustine It has become increasingly clear that current threats to global linguistic diversity are not re - stricted to the loss of spoken languages. Signed languages are vulnerable to familiar patterns of language shift and the global spread of a few influential languages. But the ecologies of signed languages are also affected by genetics, social attitudes toward deafness, educational and public health policies, and a widespread modality chauvinism that views spoken languages as inherently superior or more desirable. This research report reviews what is known about sign language vi - tality and endangerment globally, and considers the responses from communities, governments, and linguists. It is striking how little attention has been paid to sign language vitality, endangerment, and re - vitalization, even as research on signed languages has occupied an increasingly prominent posi - tion in linguistic theory. It is time for linguists from a broader range of backgrounds to consider the causes, consequences, and appropriate responses to current threats to sign language diversity. In doing so, we must articulate more clearly the value of this diversity to the field of linguistics and the responsibilities the field has toward preserving it.* Keywords : language endangerment, language vitality, language documentation, signed languages 1. Introduction. Concerns about sign language endangerment are not new. Almost immediately after the invention of film, the US National Association of the Deaf began producing films to capture American Sign Language (ASL), motivated by a fear within the deaf community that their language was endangered (Schuchman 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Information Using a Sign Language Avatar Individual Travel Assistance for Passengers with Special Needs in Public Transport
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Institute of Transport Research:Publications STRATEGIES Travel Assistance Photo: Helmer Photo: Passenger information using a sign language avatar Individual travel assistance for passengers with special needs in public transport Public transport, passenger information, travel assistance, information and communication technology, reduced mobility, accessibility, inclusion Public transport operators are legally obliged to ensure equal access to transportation services. This includes equal access to information and communication related to those services. Deaf passengers mostly prefer to communicate in sign language. For this reason, the specific needs of deaf and hard-of- hearing passengers still are not adequately addressed – despite the tremendous efforts public transport operators have put in providing accessible communication services to their passengers. This article describes a novel approach to passenger information in sign language based on the automatic translation of natural (written) language text into sign language. This includes the use of a sign language avatar to display the information to deaf and hard-of-hearing passengers. Authors: Lars Schnieder, Georg Tschare ublic transport operators provide nature and causes of disruptions [2]. The tion on the Rights of Persons with Disabili- real-time passenger information passenger information system may be used ties oblige all ratifying countries to ensure via electronic information systems both physically within a transportation hub that persons with disabilities have the in order to keep passengers up to as well as remotely via mobile devices used opportunity to live independently and par- Pdate about the current status of the public by the passengers.
    [Show full text]
  • Sign Language Acronyms
    Sign language acronyms Throughout the Manual, the following abbreviations for sign languages are used (some of which are acronyms based on the name of the sign language used in the respective countries): ABSL Al Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language AdaSL Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana) ASL American Sign Language Auslan Australian Sign Language BSL British Sign Language CSL Chinese Sign Language DGS German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache) DSGS Swiss-German Sign Language (Deutsch-Schweizerische Gebärdensprache) DTS Danish Sign Language (Dansk Tegnsprog) FinSL Finnish Sign Language GSL Greek Sign Language HKSL Hong Kong Sign Language HZJ Croatian Sign Language (Hrvatski Znakovni Jezik) IPSL Indopakistani Sign Language Inuit SL Inuit Sign Language (Canada) Irish SL Irish Sign Language Israeli SL Israeli Sign Language ÍTM Icelandic Sign Language (Íslenskt táknmál) KK Sign Language of Desa Kolok, Bali (Kata Kolok) KSL Korean Sign Language LIS Italian Sign Language (Lingua dei Segni Italiana) LIU Jordanian Sign Language (Lughat il-Ishaara il-Urdunia) LSA Argentine Sign Language (Lengua de Señas Argentina) Libras Brazilian Sign Language (Língua de Sinais Brasileira) LSC Catalan Sign Language (Llengua de Signes Catalana) LSCol Colombian Sign Language (Lengua de Señas Colombiana) LSE Spanish Sign Language (Lengua de Signos Española) LSF French Sign Language (Langue des Signes Française) LSQ Quebec Sign Language (Langue des Signes Québécoise) NGT Sign Language of the Netherlands (Nederlandse Gebarentaal) NicSL Nicaraguan Sign Language NS Japanese Sign Language (Nihon Syuwa) NSL Norwegian Sign Language NZSL New Zealand Sign Language DOI 10.1515/9781501511806-003, © 2017 Josep Quer, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati, Carlo Geraci, Meltem Kelepir, Roland Pfau, and Markus Steinbach, published by De Gruyter.
    [Show full text]
  • Sign Language Legislation in the European Union 4
    Sign Language Legislation in the European Union Mark Wheatley & Annika Pabsch European Union of the Deaf Brussels, Belgium 3 Sign Language Legislation in the European Union All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted by any person or entity, including internet search engines or retailers, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, scanning or by any information storage and retrieval system without the prior written permission of the authors. ISBN 978-90-816-3390-1 © European Union of the Deaf, September 2012. Printed at Brussels, Belgium. Design: Churchill’s I/S- www.churchills.dk This publication was sponsored by Significan’t Significan’t is a (Deaf and Sign Language led ) social business that was established in 2003 and its Managing Director, Jeff McWhinney, was the CEO of the British Deaf Association when it secured a verbal recognition of BSL as one of UK official languages by a Minister of the UK Government. SignVideo is committed to delivering the best service and support to its customers. Today SignVideo provides immediate access to high quality video relay service and video interpreters for health, public and voluntary services, transforming access and career prospects for Deaf people in employment and empowering Deaf entrepreneurs in their own businesses. www.signvideo.co.uk 4 Contents Welcome message by EUD President Berglind Stefánsdóttir ..................... 6 Foreword by Dr Ádám Kósa, MEP ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TEFL for Deaf Pupils in Norwegian Bilingual Schools: Can Deaf Primary School Pupils Acquire a Foreign Sign Language?
    PATRICIA PRITCHARD British to-handed alphabet TEFL for deaf pupils in Norwegian bilingual schools: Can deaf primary school pupils acquire a foreign sign language? Norwegian one-handed alphabet Masters Thesis in Special Education Dept. of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences & Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Trondheim, Norway December 2004 Summary TEFL for deaf pupils in Norwegian bilingual schools: Can deaf primary school pupils acquire and understand a foreign sign language? Both hearing and deaf people in Norway need skills in English to cope with the demands of modern society. The question is how can deaf pupils best acquire English? A National Curriculum was implemented in 1997 (L97) based on sign bilingualism and a socio-cultural approach to language learning. British Sign Language (BSL) was introduced into the English syllabus for Primary School deaf pupils as a first step in foreign language learning, before the introduction of English. The curriculum for deaf pupils (EfDP) was implemented without research underpinning and further education of in-service teachers, although some teaching aids were produced. This study looks at the BSL receptive skills of Norwegian Deaf pupils in class 4. and tries to pinpoint variables that played a part in their acquisition of BSL. The study makes use of theories created for hearing children acquiring a second spoken language. This is seen as defensible because they deal with the acquisition of languages of the same modality. A quantitative method was chosen to answer the research question of whether deaf Norwegian pupils in class 4 understood BSL and three language tests were used to measure their BSL receptive skills.
    [Show full text]
  • Marcin Mizak Sign Language – a Real and Natural Language
    LUBELSKIE MATERIAŁY NEOFILOLOGICZNE NR 35, 2011 Marcin Mizak Sign Language – A Real and Natural Language 1. Introduction It seems reasonable to begin a discussion on the “realness” and “naturalness” of sign language by comparing it to other human languages of whose “real” and “natural” status there can be no doubt whatsoever. They will be our reference point in the process of establishing the status of sign language. The assumption being made in this paper is that all real and natural languages share certain characteristics with one another, that they all behave in a certain way and that certain things happen to all of them. If it transpires that the same characteristics and behaviours are also shared by sign language and that whatever happens to real and natural languages also happens to sign language then the inevitable conclusion follows: sign language is indeed a real and natural language 1. 2. The number of languages in the world One of the first things to be noticed about real and natural languages is their great number. Ethnologue: Languages of the World , one of the most reliable and comprehensive encyclopedic reference publications, catalogues in its 16 th edition of 2009 6,909 known living languages in 1 The designation “sign language,” as used in this article, refers to the languages used within communities of the deaf. American Sign Language, for example, is a sign language in this sense. Artificially devised systems, such as Signed English, or Manual English, are not sign languages in this sense. Sign Language – A Real and Natural Language 51 the world today 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Jutta Ransmayr Monolingual Country? Multilingual Society
    Jutta Ransmayr Monolingual country? Multilingual society. Aspects of language use in public administration in Austria. o official languages o languages spoken in Austria o numbers of speakers Federal Constitutional Law Art. 8 (1) German is the official language of the Republic without prejudice to the rights provided by Federal law for linguistic minorities. (2) The Republic of Austria (the Federation, Länder and municipalities) is committed to its linguistic and cultural diversity which has evolved in the course of time and finds its expression in the autochthonous ethnic groups. The language and culture, continued existence and protection of these ethnic groups shall be respected, safeguarded and promoted. (3) The Austrian Sign Language (Österreichische Gebärdensprache,ÖGS) is a language in its own right, recognized in law. For details, see the relevant legal provisions. Official language(s) of the Republic of Austria 1. German 2. Languages of the Austrian autochthonous ethnic groups 3. Austrian sign language Resident population – everyday language – nationality (2001) Everyday language Resident population Austrian citizens total: 8.032.926 total: 7.322.000 German 7.115.780 6.991.388 88,58% 95,48% Languages of the Austrian autochthonous 119.667 82.522 ethnic groups 1,49% 1,13% Austrian sign language approx. 10.000 Languages of the former Yugoslav states 348.629 41.944 4,34% 0,57% Turkish, Kurdish 185.578 61.167 2,31% 0,84% World languages 79.514 43.469 0,99% 0,59% Languages of resident population 2001 in % German languages of autochthonous
    [Show full text]
  • Using Eidr Language Codes
    USING EIDR LANGUAGE CODES Technical Note Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Recommended Data Entry Practice .............................................................................................................. 2 Original Language..................................................................................................................................... 2 Version Language ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Title, Alternate Title, Description ............................................................................................................. 3 Constructing an EIDR Language Code ......................................................................................................... 3 Language Tags .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Extended Language Tags .......................................................................................................................... 4 Script Tags ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Region Tags .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Deaf Learning": Using a Visual Method to Teach Written Language to the Deaf
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Archivio istituzionale della ricerca - Università degli Studi di Venezia Ca' Foscari "DEAF LEARNING": USING A VISUAL METHOD TO TEACH WRITTEN LANGUAGE TO THE DEAF Marlene Hilzensauer1, Klaudia Krammer2, Laura Volpato3, Melanie Chan4 1Centre for Sign Language and Deaf Communication, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt (Austria) 2Centre for Sign Language and Deaf Communication, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt (Austria) 3Department of Linguistics and Comparative Cultural Studies, Ca’ Foscari University, Venice (Italy) 4Centre for Sign Language and Deaf Communication, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt (Austria) Abstract The majority of deaf people prefer to use the visual channel for communication, choosing a national sign language instead of a spoken language. In many countries, Deaf education is still not bilingual, therefore deaf people frequently have problems with learning and using the written language of their country. The Erasmus+ project "Deaf Learning" addresses the need for a visually-oriented written language course for the levels from A1 to B2. The main target group is that of young deaf adults aged 16 to 25 years. A secondary target group are older deaf people who are interested in improving their written language competence. Keywords: Deaf education, Written language teaching, Sign language, Interactive course. 1. Introduction Most deaf people use one of the national sign languages as their first or preferred language. Unfortunately, in most European schools, the language of instruction is still the spoken/written language of that country. This poses huge problems for deaf students. As they do not have access to the acoustic channel, they can suffer serious consequences in their national language acquisition process (Caselli, Maragna, & Volterra, 1994; Volterra, Capirci, & Cappelli, 2001; Chesi, 2006; Bertone & Volpato, 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Language Policy: the Legal Recognition of Sign Languages and the Aspirations of Deaf Communities Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, 2016, 134 P
    JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 301 Maartje De Meulder The Power of Language Policy The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages and the Aspirations of Deaf Communities JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 301 Maartje De Meulder The Power of Language Policy The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages and the Aspirations of Deaf Communities Esitetään Jyväskylän yliopiston humanistisen tiedekunnan suostumuksella julkisesti tarkastettavaksi Historica-rakennuksen salissa H320 joulukuun 16. päivänä 2016 kello 12. Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by permission of the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Jyväskylä, in building Historica, auditorium H320, on December 16, 2016 at 12 o’clock noon. UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2016 The Power of Language Policy The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages and the Aspirations of Deaf Communities JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 301 Maartje De Meulder The Power of Language Policy The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages and the Aspirations of Deaf Communities UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2016 Editors Ritva Takkinen Department of Languages, University of Jyväskylä Pekka Olsbo, Annikki Järvinen Publishing Unit, University Library of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities Editorial Board Editor in Chief Heikki Hanka, Department of Art and Culture Studies, University of Jyväskylä Petri Karonen, Department of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä Paula Kalaja, Department of Languages, University of Jyväskylä Petri Toiviainen, Department of Music, University of Jyväskylä Tarja Nikula, Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä Epp Lauk, Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä URN:ISBN: 978-951-39-6876-2 ISBN 978-951-39-6876-2 (PDF) ISSN 1459-4331 ISBN 978-951-39-6875-5 (nid.) ISSN 1459-4323 Copyright © 2016, by University of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä University Printing House, Jyväskylä 2016 ABSTRACT De Meulder, Maartje The power of language policy: The legal recognition of sign languages and the aspirations of deaf communities Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, 2016, 134 p.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructed Action in American Sign Language: a Look at Second Language Learners in a Second Modality
    Rochester Institute of Technology RIT Scholar Works Articles Faculty & Staff Scholarship 11-12-2019 Constructed Action in American Sign Language: A Look at Second Language Learners in a Second Modality Kim B. Kurz Rochester Institute of Technology Kellie Mullaney Corrine Occhino Rochester Institute of Technology Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.rit.edu/article Recommended Citation Kurz, K.B.; Mullaney, K.; Occhino, C. Constructed Action in American Sign Language: A Look at Second Language Learners in a Second Modality. Languages 2019, 4, 90. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty & Staff Scholarship at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. languages Article Constructed Action in American Sign Language: A Look at Second Language Learners in a Second Modality Kim B. Kurz 1,*, Kellie Mullaney 1 and Corrine Occhino 2 1 Department of American Sign Language & Interpretation Education, Rochester Institute of Technology, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester, NY 14623, USA; [email protected] 2 Center on Cognition and Language, Rochester Institute of Technology, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester, NY 14623, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 20 April 2019; Accepted: 31 October 2019; Published: 12 November 2019 Abstract: Constructed action is a cover term used in signed language linguistics to describe multi-functional constructions which encode perspective-taking and viewpoint. Within constructed action, viewpoint constructions serve to create discourse coherence by allowing signers to share perspectives and psychological states.
    [Show full text]