↓ Skip to main content

Learning an Embodied Visual Language: Four Imitation Strategies Available to Sign Learners

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Learning an Embodied Visual Language: Four Imitation Strategies Available to Sign Learners
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00811
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron Shield, Richard P. Meier

Abstract

The parts of the body that are used to produce and perceive signed languages (the hands, face, and visual system) differ from those used to produce and perceive spoken languages (the vocal tract and auditory system). In this paper we address two factors that have important consequences for sign language acquisition. First, there are three types of lexical signs: one-handed, two-handed symmetrical, and two-handed asymmetrical. Natural variation in hand dominance in the population leads to varied input to children learning sign. Children must learn that signs are not specified for the right or left hand but for dominant and non-dominant. Second, we posit that children have at least four imitation strategies available for imitating signs: anatomical (Activate the same muscles as the sign model), which could lead learners to inappropriately use their non-dominant hand; mirroring (Produce a mirror image of the modeled sign), which could lead learners to produce lateral movement reversal errors or to use the non-dominant hand; visual matching (Reproduce what you see from your perspective), which could lead learners to produce inward-outward movement and palm orientation reversals; and reversing (Reproduce what the sign model would see from his/her perspective). This last strategy is the only one that always yields correct phonological forms in signed languages. To test our hypotheses, we turn to evidence from typical and atypical hearing and deaf children as well as from typical adults; the data come from studies of both sign acquisition and gesture imitation. Specifically, we posit that all children initially use a visual matching strategy but typical children switch to a mirroring strategy sometime in the second year of life; typical adults tend to use a mirroring strategy in learning signs and imitating gestures. By contrast, children and adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) appear to use the visual matching strategy well into childhood or even adulthood. Finally, we present evidence that sign language exposure changes how adults imitate gestures, switching from a mirroring strategy to the correct reversal strategy. These four strategies for imitation do not exist in speech and as such constitute a unique problem for research in language acquisition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Lecturer 4 6%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 7 11%
Psychology 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Other 15 24%
Unknown 19 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,534,254
of 25,626,416 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,172
of 34,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,189
of 345,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#91
of 646 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,626,416 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,705 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,014 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 646 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.