Interactive learning of natural sign language with radar

Contents: Preface. Part I: Reminiscences. L. Fant, Two Memorable Meals With Ursula and Ed. R.M. Battison, American Sign Language Linguistics 1970-1980: Memoir of a Renaissance. B. Bragg, A Fish Story for Ursula and Other Remembrances. Part II: Historical and Comparative Analyses of Sign Languages. J. Woodward, Sign Languages and Sign Language Families in Thailand and Vietnam. D. McKee, G. Kennedy, Lexical Comparisons of Signs From American, Australian, British, and New Zealand Sign Languages. H. Lane, R.C. Pillard, M. French, Origins of the American Deaf-World: Assimilating and Differentiating Societies and Their Relation to Genetic Patterning. Part III: Language in the Visual-Spatial Modality. E.L. Newport, T. Supalla, Sign Language Research at the Millennium. P. Siple, Attentional Resources and Working Memory: A New Framework for the Study of the Impact of Deafness on Cognition. M. Wilson, K. Emmorey, When Does Modality Matter? Evidence From ASL on the Nature of Working Memory. P.B. Braem, T. Bram, A Pilot Study of the Expressive Gestures Used by Classical Orchestra Conductors. N. Frishberg, An Interpreter Creates the Space. Part IV: Linguistic Analysis of Sign Languages. S.D. Fischer, More Than Just Handwaving: The Mutual Contributions of Sign Language and Linguistics. R.B. Wilbur, Phonological and Prosodic Layering of Nonmanuals in American Sign Language. R.C. Loew, C.T. Akamatsu, M. Lanaville, A Two-Handed Manual Alphabet in the United States. E. Pizzuto, V. Volterra, Iconicity and Transparency in Sign Languages: A Cross-Linguistic Cross-Cultural View. M. Kuntze, Codeswitching in ASL and Written English Language Contact. S.K. Liddell, Indicating Verbs and Pronouns: Pointing Away From Agreement. Part V: Language Acquisition. J.G. Bettger, Viewing Deaf Children in a New Way: Implications of Bellugi and Klima's Research for Education. R.P. Meier, Shared Motoric Factors in the Acquisition of Sign and Speech. A. Abrahamsen, Explorations of Enhanced Gestural Input to Children in the Bimodal Period. D. Lillo-Martin, Early and Late in Language Acquisition: Aspects of the Syntax and Acquisition of Wh-Questions in American Sign Language. J. Reilly, Bringing Affective Expression Into the Service of Language: Acquiring Perspective Marking in Narratives. C.A. Padden, V.L. Hanson, Search for the Missing Link: The Development of Skilled Reading in Deaf Children. L.A. Petitto, On the Biological Foundations of Human Language. Part VI: The Neural Organization of Sign Language. A.R. Damasio, H. Damasio, Language and the Brain. D.P. Corina, Some Observations Regarding Paraphasia in American Sign Language. H. Poizner, D. Brentari, M.E. Tyrone, J. Kegl, The Structure of Language as Motor Behavior: Clues From Signers With Parkinson's Disease. V.A. Fromkin, On the Uniqueness of Language.

The Shape of Air: American Sign Language as Narrative Prosthesis in 21st Century North American Media

Deaf children often have major difficulty learning the language of their parents, who in the majority of cases are hearing. The principal reason for these problems is limitation of linguistic input reaching the children: The hearing loss itself acts as a drastic filter on the linguistic data, and information obtained from aided residual hearing, as well as from visual sources such as lipreading and signed representations of spoken language, is typically fragmentary. In addition to the limitations of input, the very difficulty of the task of learning an auditory language with severely restricted information is likely to lead to loss of motivation. Another complicating factor is language attitudes and the fact that the deaf community uses a visual-spatial language, American Sign Language (ASL), which deaf people acquire without effort and which provides a focus for cultural solidarity. Attitudes toward ASL are complicated by its identity as a minority language in a majority culture, whose standard language influences it to some extent. Attitudes toward English are complicated by the fact that the learning of English is imposed by an educational establishment run by hearing people and that ASL is not used as a language of instruction. The main educational hurdle faced by deaf students is acquisition of the language of the community into which they are bornacquisition not only of speech production but of the linguistic system itself. For many students the language of the community becomes neither their first language, in the sense that they may never achieve native-like grammatical competence in the language, nor, in traditional terms, a second language, in the sense that they may not be exposed in early life to any other language they can readily acquire. Most deaf children are born into hearing families who do not know or use a natural sign language. Some will be exposed to a natural sign language, such as American Sign Language (ASL),

American Sign Language (ASL) images can be used as a communication tool by determining numbers and letters using the shape of the fingers. Particularly, ASL can have an key role in communication for hearing-impaired persons and conveying information to other persons, because sign language is their only channel of expression. Representative ASL recognition methods primarily adopt images, sensors, and pose-based recognition techniques, and employ various gestures together with hand-shapes. This study briefly reviews these attempts at ASL recognition and provides an improved ASL classification model that attempts to develop a deep learning method with meta-layers. In the proposed model, the collected ASL images were clustered based on similarities in shape, and clustered group classification was first performed, followed by reclassification within the group. The experiments were conducted with various groups using different learning layers to improve the accuracy of individual image recognition. After selecting the optimized group, we proposed a meta-layered learning model with the highest recognition rate using a deep learning method of image processing. The proposed model exhibited an improved performance compared with the general classification model.

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFeature1 Apr 2003Serving Clients Who Use Sign Language Susanne Scott, and James H. Lee Susanne Scott Google Scholar More articles by this author and James H. Lee Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.08062003.6 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Many speech-language and hearing professionals now encounter clients who use sign languages as their primary mode of communication. Can these professionals serve these clients, or do they need to get interpreters or make referrals? ASHA is committed to meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse populations. All too often “linguistically diverse” is assumed to refer to users of spoken languages other than English. However, individuals who use a signed language, whether American Sign Language (ASL) or some other sign system, are also linguistically diverse. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine how many people in the United States use some form of sign language to communicate. It might be easier to try to determine the number of signing individuals that are seen in hearing and speech centers and in educational placements throughout the United States. In keeping with ASHA’s vision, it is important to ensure that there are an adequate number of speech-language and hearing professionals to serve this population. Although it may be necessary to use interpreters in some situations or locales or to make referrals to larger urban areas, programs, clinics, and schools throughout the country should be striving to better and more directly serve clients who use sign. The Population Clients who use a sign language/system are a very diverse population. Not only do these individuals differ in age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, and socio-economic status, but also in the sign language/system that they use. Often the sign language/system used is determined by the individual’s identity or, in the case of a child, the educational placement. An individual who identifies as a member of the deaf community/culture in the United States will most likely use American Sign Language. Individuals who depend on their residual hearing and identify as hard of hearing or hearing impaired, will most likely use an invented sign system (i.e., SEE II, Signed English) or more English-based sign. Children who are deaf or hard of hearing may use ASL, a sign system, or English-based sign as determined by the school’s educational/communication philosophy (see sidebar for definitions). Cultural and Linguistic Competence Cultural and linguistic competence can enhance clinical practice by: increasing the bond/relationship between the clinician and the client and the client’s significant others demonstrating respect and sensitivity enhancing service provision facilitating achievement of goals and carryover/generalization of skills And, importantly, it’s the right thing to do! The National Center for Cultural Competence ( www.georgetown.edu/ research/gucdc/ nccc/faqs.html) has identified six overarching reasons why cultural competence is important to health care providers. In brief, they are: 1. To respond to current and projected demographic changes in the United States 2. To eliminate long-standing disparities in the health status of people of diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds 3. To improve the quality of services and health outcomes 4. To meet legislative, regulatory, and accreditation mandates 5. To gain a competitive edge in the market place 6. To decrease the likelihood of liability/malpractice claims Strategies Clinicians who are able to sign should apply the following strategies in order to meet the communication needs of their clients: Respect the communication mode of your clients. The clinician should try to match the client’s mode of communication. Be willing to admit when you do not understand. Try not to “bluff” or use a passive behavior. Speech-language-hearing professionals should model appropriate communication strategies such as confirmation and repair strategies when the clinician is not able to understand the client’s signs. Use facial expressions and body movements with signs. Facial expressions and body movements are fundamental features of ASL. In spoken English, speakers often signal a question by using a rising vocal intonation. In ASL, users do so by raising the eyebrows and widening the eyes. ASL users may ask a question by tilting their bodies forward while signaling with their eyes and eyebrows. Try to be conceptually correct in the use of signs. Choose signs that appropriately convey the information you are trying to communicate. Remember each sign in a signed language/system is composed of a specific, unique combination of a hand shape, movement, palm orientation, and location. Changing any one of these aspects of the sign changes the meaning of the sign. Always fingerspell technical terms (e.g., audiogram, frequency) first before assigning a “made up” sign (e.g., “A” hand shape circling in front of the ear + sign for graph = audiogram; “F” hand shape moving like a “wave” from left to right = frequency). Always use visual aids to supplement your signs. Use pictures of the ear and the “audiogram of familiar sounds” to help explain unfamiliar concepts (e.g., type of hearing loss; sounds the client may never have heard). Working With an Interpreter If necessary, it may be best to obtain the services of a certified interpreter for the deaf. Certified interpreters follow a strict Code of Ethics developed by the Registry of Interpreters of the Deaf (RID). Interpreters can hold different types of RID certification. For example, a CI (Certificate of Interpretation) certificate indicates the interpreter can sign from English to ASL and ASL to English. A CT (Certificate of Transliteration) certificate means the interpreter has been evaluated and is proficient in interpreting from spoken English to a more English-based sign and vice versa. Some RID interpreters hold both certificates. In addition, the National Association of the Deaf also certifies interpreters using a system with varying skill levels. Finally, some states also have certification programs and tests for interpreters. It is essential to find out what is required in your area and obtain the services of qualified interpreters. When working with an interpreter, speech-language or hearing professionals should remember that they are consumers of interpreting services. Be sure to establish what you and your signing client need from the interpreter. For example, some signing individuals have intelligible speech and the interpreter would not need to voice what the signer expresses. Other times the speech may not be intelligible enough and the interpreter may need to voice the intent of the signing client. Finally, it is important to remember that the interpreter is a conduit of information between the clinician and the client. The signing client is addressed directly. The client should not be addressed through the interpreter (i.e., “Tell her…”). Instead the professional should speak directly to the client and allow the interpreter to convey the information. To facilitate this, it is often helpful to position the interpreter next to the hearing or speech-language professional and across from the signing client. This allows for a good visual environment. The signing client can see the interpreter and the professional. During interactions as much eye contact as possible should be maintained with the client. The signing client will need to divide the visual attention between the professional and the interpreter but the professional should remain focused on the client. Definitions American Sign Language (ASL) ASL is a complete, complex language that incorporates the use of hand shapes, position, palm orientation and movement, facial expressions, body movements and postures, and gestures and other visual cues to form its words. It is completely separate from English. ASL has its own rules for grammar, morphology, and sentence order. It is the first language of many North Americans who are deaf and is the fourth most commonly used language in the United States (www.aslinfo.com). Deaf Community/Culture A multi-cultural group of individuals who identify themselves as Deaf, as an ethnic identity, and not a physical condition. The Deaf community is composed of people who use American Sign Language as their primary means of communication. The Deaf Community considers itself a linguistic minority group, a separate entity because of its unique culture, language, and social norms. It is separate from other disability consumer groups by the virtue of communication process, not physical disabilities (www.signmedia.com/info/adc.htm). Finger Spelling (Dactylology) and Invented Sign Systems Finger spelling uses hand shapes to represent the letters of the English alphabet. Invented Sign Systems (Signing Exact English [SEE] and Signed English [SE]) use manual codes (use of the hands) to represent the structure of English. English-Based Signing English-based signing entails signing a combination of both English and ASL features executed in English word order. The language proficiency of the signer will determine the use of the features from either language. It is different from the invented sign systems because it does not follow a clear-cut set of principles. In the past, this type of signing has been labeled pidgin signed English (PSE) and more recently referred to as sign English or conceptually accurate sign English (CASE). It was not intended to model English or be used in an educational context or to teach English. Its purpose is for social communication. Print Publications Resources Paul P. V. (2001). Language and Deafness (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Thomson Learning. Google Scholar Vold F. C., Kinsella-Meier M., & Hughes Hilley M. C. (1990). Signing with your client: A practical manual for audiologists and speech/language pathologists. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. Google Scholar Web www.nad.org/infocenter/infotogo/dcc/difference.html http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/InfoToGo/549.html www.oregon.gov/DHS/odhhs/ References Author Notes Susanne Scott, is a supervising aural rehabilitationist in the department of audiology and speech-language pathology at Gallaudet University. In addition to clinical supervision, she teaches the Clinical Applications of Sign Communication classes to students in the clinical doctorate of audiology program. Contact her by e-mail at [email protected]. James H. Lee, is a clinical supervisor in the department of audiology and speech-language pathology at Gallaudet University. In addition to clinical supervision, he teaches Clinical Applications of Sign Communication to speech-language pathology graduate students. Contact him by e-mail at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 8Issue 6April 2003 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Apr 1, 2003 Metrics Current downloads: 4,634 Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2003 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

The project "Transforming Expression into Language: American Sign Language Recognition using Image Processing" intends to employ image processing techniques to identify gestures in American Sign Language (ASL). The goal of this project is to develop an efficient system for translating ASL signs using visual cues generated from hand motions and gestures. The program intends to use image processing technology to bridge the communication gap between ASL users and nonusers. The use of image processing for ASL identification may improve communication in a range of situations while also increasing accessibility for the deaf community. The paper provides a realistic approach to real-time ASL motion interpretation using image processing techniques, thereby advancing the field of sign language recognition technology. KEYWORDS ASL Recognition, Image Processing Techniques, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Feature Extraction in Image Processing, Transforming Expressions into Text

Few American Sign Language (ASL) assessments are readily available for educators to administer and score to document deaf students’ skill levels and direct ASL instruction. Even fewer studies include deaf students with intellectual disabilities or document deaf students’ ASL skills across time. The present study reports deaf school-aged students’ receptive and expressive ASL skills using two readily-available assessments, the American Sign Language Receptive Skills Test (ASL-RST) and an ASL handshape sign generation task. Students attended a residential school for the deaf with a bilingual (i.e. ASL and written English) philosophy in the United States and were assessed across a four-year period. Results for a longitudinal subset of 29 students across three consecutive years are also included. In general, receptive skills strongly and significantly correlated with age, while more variation was found in expressive ASL phonological skills. Longitudinally, most students increased their receptive and expressive skills. Scores did not correspond with years at the school site, which was used as a proxy for years of ASL exposure. Results provide an age-band basis by which educators and researchers can compare deaf children’s sign language skills with their same-aged deaf peers on two readily available ASL assessments. Researchers can replicate this process for children and youth who use other sign languages as well. Implications for sign language instruction and future research are addressed.

Collecting and evaluating the CUNY ASL corpus for research on American Sign Language animation

Over half a million people in the United States use American Sign Language (ASL) as their primary mode of communication. Automatic ASL recognition would enable Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) users to interact with others who are not familiar with ASL as well as voice-controlled digital assistants (e.g., Alexa, Siri, etc.). While ASL recognition has been extensively studied, there is a little attention given to recognition of ASL non-manual body markers. The non-manual markers are typically expressed through head, torso and shoulder movements, and add essential meaning and context to the signed sentences. In this work, we present ExASL, a sentence-level ASL recognition system using millimeter-wave radars. ExASL can recognize manual markers (hand gestures) and non-manual markers (head and torso movements). It utilizes multi-distance clustering to recognize body parts and cluster mmWave point clouds. We then present a multi-view deep learning algorithm that can learn from clustered body part representation for an expressive sentence-level recognition. Our evaluation shows that ExASL can recognize ASL sentences with a word error rate of 0.79%, sentence error rate of 1.25%, and non-manual markers with an accuracy of 83.5%.

Sign language plays a crucial role as a communication tool for both the deaf and hard-of- hearing communities, enabling them to engage and interact effectively within their own community as well as with others.However, communication barriers arise when individuals unfamiliar with sign language engage with those who rely on it, underscoring the need for inclusive solutions. Real-time sign language interpretation systems, leveraging machine learning and computer vision technologies, present a promising approach to bridging this gap. These systems convert sign language gestures into spoken or written language by utilizing gesture recognition algorithms, neural networks, and natural language processing. By analyzing hand movements, facial expressions, and body language, the systems provide accurate, context-aware translations of various sign languages, such as American Sign Language (ASL), with minimal delay. This enables seamless, natural interactions, making such technologies essential for fostering inclusive communication in diverse settings. Key Words: Sign language recognition, real- time interpretation, machine learning, com- puter vision, gesture recognition, neural networks, natural language processing, communication barriers, inclusivity, American Sign Language (ASL).

Introduction In this paper, I examine the practices of representing Deaf ‘voices’’ to hearing audiences in two recent US television crime dramas. More literally I look at how American Sign Language is framed and made visible on the screen through various production decisions. Drawing examples from an episode of CSI: New York that aired in December 2006 and an episode of Law and Order: Criminal Intent that aired in April 2007, I examine how the practices of filming Deaf people and the use of American Sign Language intersect with the production of a Deaf ‘voice’ on the screen. The problem of representing a Deaf ‘voice’ on the screen is akin to the problem of representing other minority languages. Film and television producers in the United States have to make choices about whether the majority audience of English speakers will have access to the minority language or not. In the face of this dilemma media producers have taken several approaches: subtitling foreign speech, translating foreign speech through other characters, or leaving the language inaccessible except to those who use it. The additional difficulty with representing national sign languages is that both the language and the recording medium are visual. Sometimes, filmmakers make the choice of leaving some portions of the signed dialogue inaccessible to a non-signing hearing audience. On the one hand this choice could indicate a devaluing of the signed communication, as its specific content is considered irrelevant to the plot. On the other hand it could indicate that Deaf people have a right to be visible on television using their own language without accommodating hearing people. A number of choices made in the filming and editing can subtly undermine positive representations of Deaf ‘voices’ particularly to a Deaf audience. These choices often construct an image of sign languages as objectified, exoticised, disjointed, incomplete, or a code for spoken language. Simple choices such as using simultaneous speaking and signing by Deaf characters, cropping the scene, translating or not translating the dialogue have powerful implications for the ways that Deaf ‘voices’ are becoming more visible in the 21st century. Typical filming and editing conventions effectively silence the Deaf ‘voice.’ Over 20 years ago, in the comprehensive book, Hollywood Speaks: Deafness and the Film Entertainment Industry (1988), Schuchman’s complaint that the filming and editing techniques of the day often did not attend to preserving the visibility and comprehensibility of sign language eon the screen, still applies today. As editing techniques have evolved over the years, fr om reliance on wide and medium shots to frequent intercutting of close-ups, the tendency to cut sign language off the screen, and out of the comprehensible view of the audience, may have even increased. Recent Portrayals of Deaf People on Television During one television season in the United States between August 2006 and April 2007, 30 episodes of six different serial television programs portrayed signing Deaf characters. Three of these programs had on-going Deaf characters that appeared in a number of episodes throughout the season, while three other programs portrayed Deaf people in a one-off episode with a Deaf theme. Initial air date for the season Program and Season # of Episodes 1 14 Aug. 2006 Weeds, Season 2 5 2 20 Sep. 2006 Jericho, Season 1 13 3 28 Jan. 2007 The L Word, Season 4 9 Table 1. Dramas with Ongoing Deaf Characters during the 2006-2007 USA Television Season Initial air date Program, Season, Episode Episode Title 1 13 Dec. 2006 CSI: New York, Season 3, Episode 12 “Silent Night” 2 3 Apr. 2007 Law and Order: Criminal Intent, Season 6, Episode 18 "Silencer" 3 12 Apr. 2007 Scrubs, Season 6, Episode 16 “My Words of Wisdom” Table 2. One-off Episodes with Signing Deaf Characters during the 2006-2007 USA Television Seasons Ironically, although the shows with ongoing characters sometimes allow the Deafness of the character to be incidental to the character, it is only the one-off crime dramas that show Deaf people relating with one another as members of a vibrant community and culture based in sign language. Often, in the ongoing series, the characters remain isolated from the Deaf community and their interactions with other Deaf people are sparse or non-existent. For example, out of the 27 episodes with an ongoing Deaf character only two episodes of The L-Word have more than one Deaf character portrayed. In both Weeds and The L-Word the Deaf character is the love interest of one of the hearing characters, while in Jericho, the Deaf character is the sister of one of the main hearing characters. In these episodes though some of realities about Deaf people’s lives are touched on as they relate to the hearing characters, the reality of signing Deaf people’s social lives in the Deaf community is left absent and they are depicted primarily interacting with hearing people. The two episodes, from CSI: New York, and Law and Order: Criminal Intent, focus on the controversial theme of cochlear implants in the Deaf community. Though it is true that generally the signing Deaf community in the U.S.A. sees cochlear implants as a threat to their community, there is no record of this controversy ever motivating violent criminal acts or murder as portrayed in these episodes. In the episode of CSI: New York entitled “Silent Night” a conflict between a young Deaf man and Deaf woman who were formerly romantically involved is portrayed. The murdered young woman who comes from a Deaf family does not want her Deaf baby to have a cochlear implant while the killer ex-boyfriend who has a cochlear implant believes that it is the best option for his child. The woman’s Deaf parents are involved in the investigation. The episode of Law and Order: Criminal Intent, entitled “Silencer,” is also ultimately about a conflict between a Deaf man and a Deaf woman over cochlear implants. In the end, it is revealed that the Deaf woman is exploring the possibility of a cochlear implant. Her boyfriend projecting the past hurt of his hearing sister leaving him behind to go off and live her own life, doesn’t want his girlfriend to leave him once she gains more hearing. So he shoots the cochlear implant surgeon in the hand to prevent him from being able to perform the surgery. Then he accidentally kills him by crushing his voice box to prevent him from screaming. Analyzing Two Crime Dramas In both television dramas, the filmmakers use both sound and video editing techniques to mark the experiential difference between hearing and Deaf characters. In comparing the two dramas two techniques are evident : muting/distorting sounds and extreme close-ups on lips talking or hands signing. Though these techniques may heighten awareness of deaf experience to a non-signing audience they also point to a disabling stereotyping of the experience of being Deaf as lacking — framing their experience as hearing loss rather than Deaf gain (Bauman & Murray; Shakespeare 199). By objectifying sign language through extreme close ups American Sign Language is portrayed as something strange and unusual that separates Deaf signers from hearing speakers. The auditory silences can either jolt the hearing non-signer into awareness of the sensory aspect of sound that is missing or it can jolt them into awareness of the visual world that they often don’t really see. In the opening few scenes of the episodes both CSI: New York and Law and Order: Criminal Intent use sound editing alternately muting or distorting sounds as they cut between a ‘deaf’ auditory perspective and a ‘hearing’ perspective on the action as it unfolds. Even though the sound editing does play a part in the portrayal of Deaf people’s experience as lacking sound, the more important aspects of film production to attend to are the visual aspects where Deaf people are seen authentically signing in their own language. Scene Analysis Methodology In taking a closer look at a scene from each episode we can see exactly how the filming and editing techniques work to create an image of sign language. I have chosen comparable scenes where a Deaf individual is interviewed or interrogated by the police using a sign language interpreter. In each scene it can be assumed that all the communication is happening in both English and ASL through an interpreter, so at all times some signing should be occurring. In transcribing the scenes, I noted each point when the editor spliced different camera shots adjacent to each other. Because of the different visual aesthetics in each program where one relied heavily on continuous panning shots, I also noted where the camera shifted focus from one character to another marking the duration of screen time for each character. This allowed for a better comparison between the two programs. In my transcripts, I included both glosses of the ASL signs visible on the screen as well as the flow of the spoken English on the audio track. This enabled me to count how many separate shifts in character screen time segments contained signing and how much of these contained completely visible signing in medium shots. CSI:NY Witness Interview Scene In the first signing scene, Gina (played by Marlee Matlin) is brought in for an interview with Detective Taylor and a uniformed officer interpreter. The scene opens with a medium shot on Detective Taylor as he asks her, “What do you think woke you up?” The shot cuts to an extreme close up of her face and hands and pans to only the hands

Theories of pronominal strength (e.g., Cardinaletti & Starke 1999) lead one to expect that sign language, just like spoken language, can have morphologically distinct strong pronominals. We suggest that American Sign Language (ASL) and French Sign Language (LSF) might have such pronominals, characterized here by the fact that they may associate with only even in the absence of prosodically marked focus.

In the present study we aimed to investigate phonological substitution errors made by hearing second language (M2L2) learners of American Sign Language (ASL) during a sentence translation task. Learners saw sentences in ASL that were signed by either a native signer or a M2L2 learner. Learners were to simply translate the sentence from ASL to English. Learners’ responses were analysed for lexical translation errors that were caused by phonological parameter substitutions. Unlike previous related studies, tracking phonological substitution errors during sentence translation allows for the characterization of uncontrolled and naturalistic perception errors. Results indicated that learners made mostly movement errors followed by handshape and location errors. Learners made more movement errors for sentences signed by the M2L2 learner relative to those by the native signer. Additionally, high proficiency learners made more handshape errors than low proficiency learners. Taken together, this pattern of results suggests that late M2L2 learners are poor at perceiving the movement parameter and M2L2 production variability of the movement parameter negatively contributes to perception.

Sign Language Recognition is a vast domain with a variety of solutions available on the market which achieve the same results, translating hand gestures to text and/or audio. There is a plethora of sign languages used globally, but the mostreputed and commonly used sign language is the American Sign Language (ASL). ASL uses hand gestures and finger spelling to convey the English alphabets and words. The two methods of implementing sign language translation are: Image Processing and Gesture Recognition. The gesture recognition gloves available in the current market utilize expensive flex sensors to map the bend of the users’ fingers. This makes the overall cost of the gloves expensive. Through ‘‘ASL Sign Language Recognition Gloves we aim to implement gesture recognition with MEMS accelerometers that are comparatively cheaper and make the glove more affordable.

Sign language comprehension requires visual attention to the linguistic signal and visual attention to referents in the surrounding world, whereas these processes are divided between the auditory and visual modalities for spoken language comprehension. Additionally, the age-onset of first language acquisition and the quality and quantity of linguistic input for deaf individuals is highly heterogeneous, which is rarely the case for hearing learners of spoken languages. Little is known about how these modality and developmental factors affect real-time lexical processing. In this study, we ask how these factors impact real-time recognition of American Sign Language (ASL) signs using a novel adaptation of the visual world paradigm in deaf adults who learned sign from birth (Experiment 1), and in deaf adults who were late-learners of ASL (Experiment 2). Results revealed that although both groups of signers demonstrated rapid, incremental processing of ASL signs, only native signers demonstrated early and robust activation of sublexical features of signs during real-time recognition. Our findings suggest that the organization of the mental lexicon into units of both form and meaning is a product of infant language learning and not the sensory and motor modality through which the linguistic signal is sent and received.