2021 - Krebs Et Al

HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
Int J Behav Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 October 21.
Author Manuscript
Published in final edited form as:

Int J Behav Dev. 2021 September ; 45(5): 397–408. doi:10.1177/0165025420958193.
Age of sign language acquisition has lifelong effect on syntactic

preferences in sign language users
Julia Krebs1,2, Dietmar Roehm1,2, Ronnie B. Wilbur3, Evie A. Malaia4
1Research group Neurobiology of Language, Department of Linguistics, University of Salzburg,
Erzabt-Klotz-Straße 1, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
2Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience (CCNS), University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
Author Manuscript
3Linguistics Program, and Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Lyles-Porter Hall, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
4Department of Communicative Disorders, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35404, USA
Abstract
Acquisition of natural language has been shown to fundamentally impact both one’s ability to use
the first language, and the ability to learn subsequent languages later in life. Sign languages offer
a unique perspective on this issue, because Deaf signers receive access to signed input at varying
ages. The majority acquires sign language in (early) childhood, but some learn sign language later
- a situation that is drastically different from that of spoken language acquisition. To investigate
the effect of age of sign language acquisition and its potential interplay with age in signers, we
Author Manuscript
examined grammatical acceptability ratings and reaction time measures in a group of Deaf signers
(age range: 28–58 years) with early (0–3 years) or later (4–7 years) acquisition of sign language
in childhood. Behavioral responses to grammatical word order variations (subject-object-verb vs.
object-subject-verb) were examined in sentences that included: 1) simple sentences, 2) topicalized
sentences, and 3) sentences involving manual classifier constructions, uniquely characteristic of
sign languages. Overall, older participants responded more slowly. Age of acquisition had subtle
effects on acceptability ratings, whereby the direction of the effect depended on the specific
linguistic structure.
Keywords
age of acquisition; age; sign language; Austrian Sign Language
Author Manuscript
Correspondence should be addressed to Evie A. Malaia, eamalaia@ua.edu.

11Based on recent research showing that effects of age on language acquisition are observed as early as 40 years of age (Fernandez
et al., 2019) we thus chose to use linguistically motivated cutoff of 40 years of age for the present data set. Statistically-motivated
analysis using median split (above vs. below 36 years old) yielded similar results, since only one participant, aged 37, moved to the
‘older’ group.
Krebs et al. Page 2
Introduction
Author Manuscript
Two factors that are known to affect language ability are age and the time point when
someone has acquired a language (i.e. from birth, in childhood or as an adult) (Calabria et
al., 2015; Capilouto et al., 2016; Malaia & Wilbur, 2010). Exposure to a natural language in
early infancy, which triggers language acquisition, is a crucial factor determining not only
the eventual linguistic proficiency, but also the cognitive and socio-emotional development
(Cheng & Mayberry, 2018). The majority of Deaf children do not have access to sign
language from birth.1 This is due to the facts that a) most Deaf children have hearing
parents and b) the educational system for Deaf children does not provide access to sign
language by early intervention from birth. Hence, many Deaf children acquire sign language
in Kindergarten or in Deaf school primarily from Deaf peers.2 Some Deaf children get
access to sign language even later in life, i.e. in adolescence or as young adults (Mayberry,
2007; Mayberry & Kluender, 2018). Only ~5% of Deaf children are born to Deaf parents
Author Manuscript
and acquire sign language from birth (Mitchell & Karchmer (2004) for American Sign
Language, ASL). Because the majority of Deaf children do not have full access to sign
language in early life and for many of them the acquisition of spoken language through
hearing aids or cochlear implants is problematic, many Deaf children suffer from language
deprivation, which may have tremendous negative effects on child development (Humphries
et al., 2014; Hall et al., 2019).
The present study focused on the relationship between the effects of age of
language acquisition (AoA) and age on three distinct levels of linguistic processing
(pragmatic, semantic and syntactic) in Deaf signers of Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS
or “Österreichische Gebärdensprache”). In the following sections, we briefly summarize
separate bodies of literature that investigated effects of AoA and age on different levels of
Author Manuscript
linguistic processing, and outline linguistic features of sign languages that were critical for
the research design.
Relationship between Aging and Linguistic Processing

Studies examining the effect of aging on language proficiency suggest that healthy aging
(i.e. aging without any neurological disorders) impacts spoken language abilities in different
ways: while some aspects of linguistic processing remain stable across the lifespan, others
either decline or improve over time. Specifically, semantic processing and lexical retrieval
are relatively unaffected by age (Beese et al., 2018).
On the other hand, both the processing of more complex syntactic constructions, and the
retrieval of phonological and orthographic information about a word decline with age
Author Manuscript
(Wingfield et al., 2003; Thornton & Light, 2006). Language production has been shown to
be more vulnerable to negative effects of aging, as compared to language comprehension
1Per convention, Deaf with an upper-case D refers to deaf or hard-of-hearing humans who define themselves as members of the sign
language community. In contrast, deaf refers to the audiological status of an individual.
2In Austrian Deaf Schools, Austrian Sign Language, i.e. Österreichische Gebärdensprache (abbreviated ÖGS) is not the language of
teaching and is not taught as a separate subject. The language of teaching is mostly spoken German - a foreign language for Deaf
children and not completely accessible for the majority of them. There are very few Deaf teachers and many of the hearing teachers
have no (or insufficient) ÖGS competence (Dotter et al., 2019).
Krebs et al. Page 3
(e.g. James & MacKay, 2007). For example, older speakers produce more off-topic
utterances (Arbuckle et al., 2000) and experience more tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) states3
Author Manuscript
(Abrams, 2008; Evrard, 2002). While older speakers’ language comprehension abilities
remain intact at the single-word level (e.g. Burke & MacKay, 1997), comprehension and
retention of sentences with more complex grammatical structures, or ambiguous sentences,
become more difficult with age (e.g. Johnson, 2003; Burke & Shafto, 2008).
At the same time, older speakers have an increased vocabulary (e.g. Verhaeghen, 2003; Park
et al., 2002). Older adults are also better storytellers (James et al., 1998; Kemper et al.,
1989), and can be more accurate in lexical decision tasks (e.g. James & MacKay, 2007).
Recent research shows that effects of age on language acquisition are observed as early as 40
years of age (Fernandez et al., 2019). The present study focused on sign language processing
of Deaf participants between 28 and 58 years of age.
Author Manuscript
Studies examining the effect of aging on language processing have almost exclusively
focused on spoken language (in auditory or written form), as opposed to sign language. As
a result, less is known about the sign language ability trajectory over the lifespan, or about
age effects on proficiency in linguistic subdomains of sign language – lexical, syntactic,
or pragmatic. There exists some research in atypical sign language processing in aging
populations, such as in older signers suffering from dementia (Atkinson et al., 2015), or
Parkinson’s disease (Brentari et al., 1995). The trajectory of sign language processing during
the lifespan in neurologically healthy signers has not been studied. Knowledge about the
effects of aging on sign language processing can provide a more comprehensive answer to
the question of how aging influences language processing, e.g. by comparing the effects of
age across modalities in which language is expressed. Only the investigation of both spoken
and sign languages can provide differentiation between the effect of aging due to the decline
Author Manuscript
of perceptual abilities (i.e. auditory and visual perception abilities) and the effect of aging on
linguistic processing.
Relationship between Age of Acquisition and Linguistic Processing

In spoken language research, age of acquisition (AoA) is mainly considered in the context
of L2 learning, as the exposure to L1 in the hearing community is universally early. The
effects of AoA on L1 spoken language acquisition could only be assessed in exceptional
cases of isolated children who did not receive any language input in early childhood (e.g.
Fromkin et al., 1974). Studies examining the effects of AoA on language processing show
that the acquisition of a natural language early in life is a crucial factor that impacts L1
proficiency, and the ability to learn additional languages later in life. An L1 acquired in
infancy facilitates L2 learning regardless of the language modality (spoken or sign) of the
Author Manuscript
early L1 or the later acquired L2 (cf. Mayberry et al., 2002).
Sign languages offer a unique perspective on the effects of AoA, because the majority of
signers acquire their primary language (i.e. sign language) later in life. The vast majority of
Deaf children are born to hearing parents and have no access to sign language from birth.
Later learners of L1 can provide unique data for studying the effects of AoA on different
3Tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) state is a temporary inability to produce a word, although the speaker knows its meaning.
Krebs et al. Page 4
components of language ability (e.g. potential differential effects of AoA timing on syntax,
Author Manuscript
pragmatics, semantics).
At the abstract (modality-independent) level of linguistic analysis, sign languages (including

ÖGS) are similar to spoken language in that they are organized hierarchically: lexical
items, constructed from phonetic (distinctive, sub-lexical) features, are combined into
sentences using inflectional4 and derivational5 morphemes (Wilbur, 2015, 2018), while
sentence structure is governed by syntactic rules (Padden, 1983, 1988; Schalber, 2015).
Sign languages are produced by manual and non-manual means. Each sign consists of a
handshape (and its orientation), a place of articulation and (most of the time) a specific
movement pattern. Non-manual markings include linguistically significant expressions of
the face (eyebrow raises/furrows, blinks, mouth expressions), head (nods, tilts), and posture
(shoulder stance changes). Non-manual markings are relevant on all levels of sign language
grammar, although the inventories and linguistic relevance of non-manual markings differ
Author Manuscript
across sign languages (Wilbur, 2000).
Prior research has suggested that late AoA detrimentally affects signers’ proficiency in
both morphology and syntax (Malaia et al., 2020; Emmorey et al., 1995; Boudreault &
Mayberry, 2006). Production studies examining ultimate attainment at the morphosyntactic
level indicated that Deaf non-native signers are less accurate in shadowing ASL narratives6
or recalling ASL sentences (Mayberry & Fischer, 1989). With regard to comprehension,
late learners of sign language L1 perform worse than Deaf native signers: they are
less sensitive to verb agreement violations (Emmorey et al., 1995), and less accurate in
grammaticality judgment for ASL sentences (Boudreault & Mayberry, 2006). More recent
research investigating school-aged native and non-native Deaf signers confirms that later
exposure to sign language negatively impacts grammatical judgement of the signers (e.g.
Author Manuscript
Novogrodsky et al. 2017). While AoA has an impact on late learners’ linguistic knowledge,
their cognitive function is unimpaired (as assessed by performance on non-verbal cognitive
tasks; cf. Mayberry & Fischer, 1989; Mayberry & Eichen, 1991).
Phonological7 and lexical processing in sign language are also strongly influenced by AoA;
the two have been often studied in concert, as phonological features strongly affect lexical
processing in primarily monosyllabic sign languages. Different error patterns have been
reported for native and non-native signers in narrative shadowing and recall: while native
signers’ errors are more often related to the semantics of the stimulus (i.e. they use a
different semantically related sign instead of the target sign), non-native signers make errors
which are related only to the phonological form of the sign (i.e. replacing the target sign by a
phonologically related sign that shares two of three formational parameters with the stimulus
Author Manuscript
sign: handshape, location, or movement) resulting in a non-meaningful response sentence

(Mayberry & Fischer, 1989). These phonological-lexical errors in language production in
4Pertaining to change in the form of a word/sign to express a grammatical function.

5Pertaining to change in the form of a word/sign to form a new word.
6Shadowing refers to the process of simultaneously watching and reproducing signed input.
7Related to minimal contrastive components of either auditory or visual signal in a particular language. For the visual signal in sign
language, a change in place of articulation (position of the hand in relation to the body), handshape, or motion dynamics can constitute
a phonological change and/or error (depending on how far the production of the sign departs from the vocabulary form of the sign).
Krebs et al. Page 5
late learners are negatively correlated with both signers’ comprehension accuracy, and
Author Manuscript
with AoA (Mayberry & Fischer, 1989; Mayberry & Eichen, 1991). Eye-tracking has
indicated that native Deaf signers are sensitive to the phonological structure of signs
during lexical recognition, while non-native Deaf signers are not. This finding suggests
different organization of late signers’ mental lexicon, as compared to early learners’ (e.g.
Lieberman et al., 2015). Native and non-native Deaf signers also differ in comprehension
of phonological features (Hildebrandt & Corina, 2002; Orfanidou et al., 2010), and in
performance on lexical decision tasks (Carreiras et al., 2008; Dye & Shih, 2006).
Remarkably, the length of language experience in signers who acquired sign language later
in life does not correlate with proficiency (Newport, 1990; Mayberry & Eichen, 1991). For
example, an investigation of signers’ performance on tasks requiring knowledge of complex
ASL verb morphology8 (e.g. verb agreement; see below for a more detailed description
of verb agreement in sign languages) indicated that linguistic performance declined as a
Author Manuscript
linear function of AoA, even though all participants had at least 30 years of experience with
ASL (Newport, 1990). Thus, the delay in acquisition of sign language irretrievably affects
language processing at the levels of phonology, semantics, and syntax.
The nature of the experimental task is an important factor in performance assessments

for AoA studies. The existing literature indicates that similar linguistic structures may
be differently affected by AoA depending on the nature of task requirements in the
experiment. For example, while Newport (1990) reported no effect of AoA on basic word
order processing in late signers, another study (Boudreault & Mayberry, 2006) indicated
a significant effect. While Newport’s (1990) study used a sentence-to-picture matching
task asking about the implicit comprehension of the meaning (semantics), Boudreault and
Mayberry (2006) asked signers to judge signed sentences with respect to grammaticality
Author Manuscript
(i.e. relying on signers’ metacognition and explicit knowledge of syntax), which might have
yielded the differences in processing.
Relationship between age and AoA in sign language: study design

Previous research reported effects of AoA on sign language processing, as well as effects
of aging on spoken language abilities. It is an open question, however, whether and how
the factors of AoA and Age affect different levels of linguistic processing in signers.
Besides effects of word order, we studied three distinct levels of linguistic structures in ÖGS
(semantic, syntactic, pragmatic). Relevant linguistic features of word order, topicalization,
and classifiers in sign languages are summarized below.
Verb agreement and word order in sign languages (syntactic level).—In sign
Author Manuscript
languages, discourse referents can be referenced in the three-dimensional signing space

in front of the signer by manual index signs (pointing signs). Verb agreement can be
expressed by spatial modification of the beginning and ending location of the movement
of the verb sign. Typically, the verb that has a directional motion component (often called
“agreeing verb”) moves from the location associated with the subject argument towards the
8In sign language linguistics, morphology of a verb describes the structure of the verb sign, and alterable components of it that can be
used to express meaning or grammatical function (such as directionality or reduplication in a sign).
Krebs et al. Page 6
location associated with the object argument (e.g. Fischer, 1975; Padden, 1983; see Figure
Author Manuscript
1). Some verbs indicate verb agreement by hand orientation (sometimes in addition to path
movement), whereby the palm and/or the fingertips face towards the location associated
with the object argument (so-called “facing”) (Brentari, 1989). The basic and preferred word
order of ÖGS is subject-object-verb (SOV) (Wilbur, 2002; Krebs et al., 2018; Krebs et al.,
2019a, b). However, object-subject-verb (OSV) orders are possible (and grammatical) in
sentences with agreeing verbs or classifier signs (Krebs, 2017; Krebs et al., 2018). In these
sentences, the referent at which an agreeing verb begins is considered the subject (regardless
of whether it is the first or the second noun in the sentence), and the referent at which an
agreeing verb terminates is the object.
Topic marking in sign languages (pragmatic level).—Topic, as a marker of

information structure (pragmatics), has the same function in sign languages as in spoken
languages: the topicalized argument is in focus, i.e. emphasized (Wilbur, 2012). Topic
Author Manuscript
marking changes the interpretation of the sentence at the level of information structure/
pragmatics. In ÖGS, as well as in other sign languages, topic marking is expressed by
non-manual markings, and the topic is in sentence-initial position (often followed by a
pause) (Hausch, 2008; Ni, 2014; Aarons, 1996). Topicalized stimuli in the present study use
the same sentences as simple condition; however the first argument in topicalized sentences
has non-manual topic marking (see Figure 2).
Classifiers in sign languages (semantic level).—Classifiers in sign languages are

specific handshapes that are bound to verbs to express handling, motion, and/or location
of referents (Frishberg, 1975); classifiers express specific meanings, and are part of the
lexicon in sign languages (Brentari & Padden, 2001)9. The classifier handshapes used in the
present study denote physical properties of the two entities/human beings (see Figure 3). It
Author Manuscript
is important to note that classifiers are linguistically complex constructions, and not mere
gestures, as indicated by protracted and error-prone course of L1 and L2 acquisition of sign
language classifiers (Marshall & Morgan, 2015; Newport, 1990) (see Appendices A and B
for a more detailed description of the stimuli).
We investigated the effects of AoA and Age on the processing of the three distinct levels
of linguistic structures in ÖGS (semantic, syntactic, pragmatic) described above using a
linguistic acceptability task. Using this task allows us to compare our data with previous
research on AoA effects on sign language sentence processing that used similar tasks (e.g.
Emmorey et al., 1995; Boudreault & Mayberry, 2006; Henner et al., 2016; Novogrodsky et
al., 2017).
Author Manuscript
All stimuli sentences in our study included two argument noun phrases (subject and object)
and a sentence-final verb (which is the normal position in ÖGS). The stimuli varied in
word order (subject-object-verb orders (SO) vs. object-subject-verb orders (OS)), both of
9Classifiers in sign languages do have similarities to classifiers in spoken languages in terms of their linguistic function. For spoken
languages, classifiers are words, or affixes, which classify nouns based on the type of the referent (cf. “three pieces of candy”). In
sign languages, the classifier handshape is combined with a hand motion (in the function of a verb showing how the classified object
moves, or how it is related to other objects), resulting in a classifier construction that can also serve as a grammatical verb, but refers
to, and categorizes, noun referents (Wilbur et al., 1985).
Krebs et al. Page 7
which are acceptable as grammatical by native signers (Krebs, 2017). Additionally, 1/3 of
the stimuli sentences contained topic constructions10 (pragmatic marker), and another 1/3
Author Manuscript
contained verbal classifier constructions (the stimuli used in the study are fully described in
the Appendix (Table 1) as well as by Figures 1–3).
The hypotheses tested in the present study were framed based on results of previous
studies examining the effects of AoA on various linguistic structures. For example, previous
research on ASL indicated that the processing of basic word order is unaffected or
minimally affected by AoA (Newport, 1990; Boudreault & Mayberry, 2006). Newport
(1990) reported that AoA does not affect comprehension and production of basic sign order
in ASL. In addition, Boudreault and Mayberry (2006) observed that although late AoA does
have a detrimental effect on comprehension of both simple and complex structures in signed
sentences, comprehension of basic sign order is relatively intact in contrast to more complex
constructions (as indicated by the accuracy of participants’ responses; response latency was
Author Manuscript
not affected by AoA).
The effects of AoA on the processing and comprehension of pragmatic features (such as
topic marking) have not been previously examined in sign languages. However, late learners
of sign languages have been reported to not produce non-manual topic markings; this might
indicate that late learners experience difficulties at this level of linguistic structure (Cheng
& Mayberry, 2018). Finally, comprehension of specific semantic classes of words, such
as classifier constructions, has been reportedly affected by AoA (Boudreault & Mayberry,
2006). However, signers showed relatively high sensitivity with respect to the grammatical
structure of classifier constructions. The same study indicated an interaction between AoA
and grammaticality of the stimulus: late signers made more errors in the task when it
came to ungrammatical sentences. However, ungrammatical sentences with classifiers were
Author Manuscript
less affected by AoA, in contrast to other morpho-syntactically complex constructions. Yet,

despite relatively intact comprehension of classifiers, late learners have been reported to
produce fewer classifiers in comparison to native signers (Newport, 1990). This finding
suggests a difficulty late learners might have in integrating semantics of classifiers with the
syntactic structure of the sentence in production.
To assess signers’ comprehension of various linguistic structures, we designed a linguistic

acceptability task, which yielded acceptability rating and response time data. Participants
were shown videos of three sentence types: simple sentences, sentences with a non-manual
topic marking, and sentences in which a classifier verb was used. Sentences in each
of the conditions were manipulated such that they varied in word order - SOV vs.
OSV. Participants’ ages and ages of sign language acquisition (AoA) varied considerably,
Author Manuscript
providing a testing ground for assessing relative effects of age and AoA on syntactic,
semantic, and pragmatic processing in ÖGS. Based on the inferences from previous
research, this design aimed to test the following hypotheses:
1. Age is expected to affect reaction times, leading to overall slower reaction times
in older participants. At the same time, older participants have more experience
10The term “construction” in sign language literature refers to sentence and phrase structures; it does not refer to construction
grammar.
Krebs et al. Page 8
with language, and are thus likely to rate a variety of linguistic structures as more
Author Manuscript
acceptable.
2. Earlier age of sign language acquisition (AoA) is expected to facilitate syntactic

processing. Early learners (in comparison with later learners) are thus expected
to give higher acceptability ratings to sentences with more complex syntactic
structures, such as sentences with OSV word order.
3. Later age of sign language acquisition is hypothesized to be associated with a

greater reliance on semantic/iconic processing (classifiers) than on syntactic or
pragmatic processing.
Methods
Materials and Procedure
Author Manuscript
Participants were presented with video clips of full grammatical sentences in ÖGS
containing 1) simple word order sentences, 2) topic constructions, and 3) classifier
constructions; each sentence conformed either to SOV or to OSV word order.40 stimuli
sentences were presented for each of the six conditions. All sentences were grammatical
and acceptable to native signers (for examples of the experimental conditions see Table 1,
Appendix B). Participants were asked to watch the videos of signed sentences and give an
acceptability judgement for each sentence on a 7-point Likert scale (1 stood for ‘that is
not ÖGS at all’; 7 for ‘that is good ÖGS’). After each video (i.e. after each sentence) a
green question mark appeared lasting for 3000 ms. The participants were instructed to give
their ratings when the question mark appeared by a button-press on the keyboards. Missing
responses or responses made after the question mark disappeared (3000 ms after the video)
were not included in the analysis. The sentences were presented in pseudo-randomized
Author Manuscript
order. (see Appendices A, B and C for further details on materials and procedure).
Participants
15 participants (F N=8, M N=7, age M=40.13, SD=11.03; age range 28 to 58 years) took
part in the study. All were born Deaf, or lost their hearing early in life. Participants came
from different areas of Austria and acquired ÖGS at varying ages. Due to privacy concerns,
age of sign language acquisition was coded within approximate ranges: 0–3 years of age
(N=5) and 4–7 years of age (N=10); an age/AoA distribution plot is presented in Figure 4.
All of the participants used ÖGS as their primary language in daily life, and were members
of the Deaf community in Austria. Participants’ proficiency was independently evaluated as
part of the consent procedure by an ÖGS interpreter; only data from proficient participants
who understood and carried out the acceptability rating task correctly was used in the
Author Manuscript
analysis. Each participant received 30€ as reimbursement.
Data analysis
The design of the experiment included the between-subjects variable AoA (with the two
groups: 0–3 years of age and 4–7 years of age), and the within subjects variables (word)
Order (SO, OS) and (linguistic) Structure (simple sentence, topic orders, classifiers) (see
Table 1 in Appendix B). Age (centered) was included as a continuous covariate. The
Krebs et al. Page 9
statistical analyses for the two dependent variables acceptability rating and reaction time
Author Manuscript
were conducted using mixed-effects models (see Appendix D, model specification).
Mean acceptability ratings and mean response times were calculated based on AoA (ÖGS
acquisition between 0–3 years of age, N=5; between 4–7 years of age, N=10). We also
calculated mean acceptability ratings and response times for participants before and after
age 40 (younger than 40 years of age, N=9; older than 40 years of age11, N=6).
Results
Acceptability ratings
Mean acceptability ratings for the reversed-video filler condition confirmed behavioral
compliance of the participants with the task (Mean ratings for the filler items: 0–3
AoA group: M=1.96, SD=1.36; 4–7 AoA group: M=1.43, SD=1.16).12 Overall, the mean
Author Manuscript
acceptability ratings ranged from 4.19 to 6.96 (M=5.75, SD=1.55).
The mixed-effects model for acceptability ratings revealed significant main effects of
linguistic structure (Table 1, significant results; also see Appendix E for all results).
Classifier sentences were rated lower than average (i.e. lower than the grand mean over all
conditions). Topic sentences were rated higher than average. In the analysis of acceptability
ratings, Age and AoA effects were specific to linguistic structures as revealed by two- and
three-way interactions discussed further.
Two-way interactions that reached significance included interactions of Age of acquisition

and sentence type, indicating that classifier sentences were rated higher within the 0–3 AoA
group compared to the 4–7 AoA group (sentences with classifiers: 0–3 AoA group: M=5.66,
Author Manuscript
SD=1.40; 4–7 AoA group: M=5.28, SD=1.92), and topic sentences were rated lower within
the 0–3 AoA group compared to the 4–7 AoA group (topic sentences: 0–3 AoA group:
M=5.74, SD=1.37; 4–7 AoA group: M=6.08, SD=1.30).
The three-way interaction between Age and Word Order with AoA indicated that older
participants from the 0–3 AoA group gave lower acceptability ratings to OS orders (Figure
6). Figure 6 further illustrates the trend that acceptability ratings for both OS and SO word
orders increased as signers were aging.
Reaction times
Overall, the mean reaction times ranged from 408 ms to 1785 ms (M=945, SD=586).
Author Manuscript
The linear mixed model analysis revealed a significant main effect of Age (Estimate: 0.02;
CI: 0.0009 – 0.047; p < 0.05). Mean reaction times for younger (than 40) vs. older (than
40) signers are presented in Figure 7. Older signers showed overall higher reaction times
compared to younger signers (older signers, reaction time M=1117, SD=549; younger
signers, M=830, SD=581). No additional significant effects were revealed.13
12For group comparison, descriptive mean values are reported.

13Since no further predictor or interaction was significant, the model output is not included in the Appendix.
Krebs et al. Page 10
Discussion
Author Manuscript
Our study assessed the effects of participants’ age and age of sign language acquisition
(AoA) on acceptability ratings and response times to linguistic phenomena at the levels
of semantics (sentences with classifiers), syntax (word order variation), and pragmatics
(topicalization).
Age effects.
With respect to reaction time data, data analysis indicated that aging affects language
processing in Deaf signers in a similar way as reported for hearing older speakers of spoken
languages. The linear mixed model revealed a significant main effect of Age. Thus, older
age resulted in longer overall reaction times. The higher reaction times observed for older
speakers in speech and sign language suggests that this aging effect is independent of
language modality, but rather associated with the effect of aging on processing speed.
Author Manuscript
Overall, the findings with respect to age influences on sign language processing are in
agreement with current literature on age effects in speech processing. One caveat to be
considered, however, is the specific age cutoff used in different studies: a number of the
studies on healthy aging in spoken language users report data from a group of older speakers
spanning three or four decades, which makes it difficult to determine when language decline
begins (Abrams et al., 2010). Thus, the question of when language processing/abilities/use
starts to change during healthy aging remains open with respect to either spoken or signed
languages.
Analysis of acceptability ratings revealed a significant interaction between Age, Word Order,
and AoA indicating that older participants from the 0–3 AoA group gave lower ratings
Author Manuscript
to OS orders. Whether lower ratings of OS word order by older early signers result from
better knowledge of probabilistic conventions of language use due to increasing length
of experience with a variety of linguistic structures, or stem from greater leniency in
acceptability, or are due to individual variation, cannot be determined on the basis of
available data.
Effects of age of acquisition (AoA).

Mixed effects modeling of acceptability ratings revealed differences between the two
AoA groups. The group that acquired sign language between the ages of 4 to 7 years
rated classifiers lower and topic sentences higher than the 0–3 AoA group. However, the
difference in ratings between the two AoA groups is relatively small, and thus should not
be overstated. The effects of AoA revealed by the present analysis are relatively subtle
Author Manuscript
suggesting that the experimental factors examined in this study are only affected to a minor
extent by AoA - at least when contrasting 0–3 and 4–7 AoA groups. Perhaps AoA effects are
more visible when investigating the language ability of signers who acquire ÖGS at a later
age?
We additionally collected data from Deaf ÖGS learners who acquired ÖGS past puberty (i.e.
after 13 years of age, N=5, mean age: 40.4; range 30–56 years). All of these late learners had
contact with other languages before learning ÖGS (either a spoken language, or another sign
language). Because these late learners acquired ÖGS at various ages and therefore cannot
Author Manuscript
be grouped into a common AoA group, they were not included in the data analysis in the
present study.
A descriptive analysis of the data of the late learners revealed higher ratings for SO orders
compared to OS orders for all linguistic structures, although for classifiers, OS order seemed
to be more acceptable for this group (i.e. the difference in acceptability of SO vs. OS word
order seemed to be attenuated for the classifiers).
Lower ratings for OS word order were also revealed by the mixed model analysis in the 0–3
AoA group (at least for older signers). However, when comparing overall mean ratings, the
0–3 and the 4–7 AoA groups did not show a notable preference for word order acceptability,
and thus did not find either word order more acceptable than the other. Interestingly, the
late learners rated all sentences with SO word order, and all sentences with classifiers (SO
Author Manuscript
and OS orders) higher than the 0–3 and the 4–7 AoA group (see Appendix F). This latter
result might seem contradictory when compared to the results of the mixed model analysis
revealing that classifier sentences were rated lower by the 4–7 AoA group in comparison to
the 0–3 AoA group (i.e one might rather expect that the late learners would pattern more
like the 4–7 AoA group than like the 0–3 AoA group). Although the difference between
the 0–3 and 4–7 AoA group is systematic (i.e. statistically significant) and might reflect
differences in processing, this difference in ratings is relatively subtle. However, comparison
of mean acceptability ratings across linguistic structures indicates that the late learners differ
substantially from both the 0–3 and 4–7 AoA groups in giving higher ratings to sentences
with classifiers (Appendix F).
Classifiers in sign languages tend to be highly iconic, i.e. showing a close relationship
between meaning and form.14 Although earlier studies suggest that iconicity has relatively
Author Manuscript
little effect on L1 sign language acquisition by children (Meier et al., 2008; Newport &
Meier, 1985; Orlansky & Bonvillian, 1984), more recent studies report that the first signs
children acquire are iconic (Thompson et al., 2012; Caselli & Pyers, 2017). Iconicity has
also been reported to have a facilitating effect on L2 sign language acquisition, i.e. helping
sign language learners to learn, memorize and translate signs (Baus et al., 2013) as well
as support comprehension of signs (Ortega et al., 2019). Thus, resilience of processing
for sentences with classifiers in late learners might be due to overt iconicity of classifier
constructions, which can engage a non-language-specific semantic system in late signers
(Ferjan Ramirez et al., 2014; Malaia & Wilbur, 2019).
Multiple lines of research indicate that the effect of iconicity on language acquisition is
not restricted to the visual-(non)manual modality. Previous research suggests that iconicity
Author Manuscript
impacts the processing and development of both sign and spoken languages (Perniss et al.,
2010). Iconicity has been shown to support L1 acquisition of spoken languages (Imai &
Kita, 2014; Kantartzis et al., 2011; Laing, 2014), as well as L2 spoken language learning
14Note that iconicity parameter is a gradient, rather than a categorical one; i.e. some signs are more transparent than others, but
without a distinctive dichotomy (Klima & Bellugi, 1979; Ortega et al., 2016). Ortega et al. (2016) report that the type of iconicity
has an effect on sign learning. Classifier handshapes used in the present study (whole entity classifiers representing person(s) sitting/
standing/walking/jumping etc.) show a close relationship between form and meaning.
(Deconinck et al., 2017). The present data lends further support to the hypothesis that iconic
Author Manuscript
words/signs are easier to learn because these are more grounded in perceptual and motoric
experience (Imai & Kita, 2014; Perniss & Vigliocco, 2014; Ortega et al., 2016).
In general, late (post-puberty) learners of ÖGS appeared to respond relatively fast to the
stimuli. They respond almost as fast as the 0–3 AoA group and faster than the 4–7 AoA
group. The faster response times observed for late learners might have been a result of faster
shallow (semantic, but not syntactic) processing of the stimuli by late signers (cf. Morford
and Carlson, 2011). This does not mean that the processing was somehow incorrect; only
that the processing strategy might differ based on the age of ÖGS acquisition. Note however,
the smaller number of late signers and the smaller number of participants in the 0–3 AoA
group might have skewed the findings of response time differences between the different
groups (i.e. there were more participants in the 4–7 AoA group compared to the 0–3 AoA
group and compared to the group of late ÖGS learners).
Author Manuscript
The present findings, overall, support and extend the understanding of age of acquisition as
a critical parameter for achieving proficiency in syntactic processing. The findings regarding
the late (post-puberty) ÖGS learners suggest that the later age of acquisition might result in
increased reliance on the surface, shallow levels of linguistic hierarchy (perceptual/sensory
and semantic/iconic processing), which were observed for processing of sentences with
classifiers in the present study. Our findings are in agreement with existing literature on the
influence of AoA on processing at the interface of phonology and lexicon – e.g. the finding
that Deaf late L1 learners are more sensitive to the visual properties of signs, as compared to
native Deaf signers and hearing L2 signers (Best et al., 2010; Morford et al., 2008).
As sign language input is quantitatively different from non-linguistic biological motion

Author Manuscript
that humans can be exposed to (Borneman et al., 2018; Malaia et al., 2016; Blumenthal
Drame & Malaia, 2018), the reliance on semantics for communication in later learners
might suggest that there are limits to neuroplasticity as the brain matures. The results of
the study highlight the importance of comprehensive analysis of language proficiency at
the interfaces between multiple linguistic domains to better understand the processes that
underlie language acquisition.
Study limitations: effects of individual variability

Individual differences observed in the present study included some younger signers with
relatively long reaction times, as well as older signers with relatively short reaction
times. It is, however, difficult to judge whether any of these individuals are atypical
for the population. Future research might consider adopting longitudinal approach while
Author Manuscript
increasing the numbers of participants to allow for time-varying mixed effects modeling.
Other moderating and mediating variables of language proficiency that might help improve
external validity of findings in future studies include working memory, non-verbal IQ, and
estimation of environmental influences, such as quantity and quality of linguistic input.
Furthermore, the use of a non-linguistic processing speed task would be recommended for
future research, to decorrelate individual (non-linguistic) processing speed from the effects
of aging and AoA on language processing.
A number of previous studies indicated that individual differences do affect the language
Author Manuscript
acquisition trajectory, language use, and processing speed and strategy, at least for spoken
language (cf. Kidd et al., 2018). Currently, little is known about individual differences
among users of sign language, but it would be reasonable to assume that signers are similar
to speakers in terms of individual differences in language processing. In future work with
signing communities, use of language proficiency assessment tools (yet unavailable for
ÖGS), non-linguistic measures of reaction times, as well as measures of temporal resolution
in visual perception would allow for in-depth investigation of individual, linguistic, and
cognitive variables on sign language task performance.
Conclusion
The present study focuses on the influences of age and age of sign language acquisition on
the processing of a range of linguistic structures in Austrian Sign Language, and highlights
Author Manuscript
the fact that both the language acquisition timeline and aging have measurable effects on
linguistic processing. Reaction time for older signers was, in general, slower. While aging,
in general, results in slower processing speed, it does not selectively affect specific linguistic
levels.
Age of acquisition, on the other hand, selectively affected specific linguistic structures: The
4–7 AoA group rated classifiers lower and topic sentences higher than the 0–3 AoA group.
However, these differences were relatively subtle. The data from later (post-puberty) learners
shows that the processing of classifier constructions was resilient to detrimental effects of
late acquisition. At the same time, syntactic processing was affected in late sign language
learners, increasing their preference for basic SO word order. This suggests that syntactic
processing that allows flexibility in syntactic re-analysis appears to be established early in
Author Manuscript
the course of language acquisition.
Funding and Acknowledgements

Preparation of this manuscript was partially funded by NSF grants #1734938, #1932547 and NIH 1R01DC014498.
We thank all Deaf informants taking part in the present study, with special thanks to Waltraud Unterasinger for
creating the stimulus material.
Appendix A:: List of nouns/verbs/classifiers used in the study
Nouns:
MAN
WOMAN
Author Manuscript
BOY
GIRL
Verbs:
HIT
CONTROL
Author Manuscript
LOOK-FOR
OPPRESS
SUPPORT
THREATEN
KILL
ATTACK
PRAISE
CRITICIZE
EXAMINE
Author Manuscript
CONGRATULATE
TEACH
CARE-FOR
INFORM
RESPECT
TRUST
GREET
LOOK-OVER/EYEBALL
Author Manuscript
ADORE
KISS
WAKE-UP
HUG
CONSOLE
WATCH
THANK
CONVEY-INFORMATION-TO
Author Manuscript
INFLUENCE
HELP
PROTECT
ANNOY
SCARE
HATE
ANSWER
Author Manuscript
INFECT
CATCH
LOOK-AT
ASK
SCOLD
VISIT
Classifier verbs:
CL-WALK-TOWARDS
Author Manuscript
CL-JUMP-TOWARDS (small successive jumps)
CL-JUMP-TOWARDS (one big jump)
CL-WALK-AWAY
CL-JUMP-AWAY (small successive jumps)
CL-JUMP-AWAY (one big jump)
In the classifier constructions both arguments were referenced by the same whole-entity
classifier within one sentence, i.e. either with the classifier for a standing or a sitting person.
To create a set of 40 sentences for each condition and thereby use only two classifier
handshapes (for sitting or standing person) we varied the spatial distance between the
arguments (little vs. more distance between the referents) as well as their orientation with
Author Manuscript
respect to each other (sitting/standing opposite to each other vs. next to each other). After
the arguments were referenced in space by whole-entity classifiers, the classifier predicate
indicated the movement of one referent, who either walked, jumped with small successive
jumps or jumped with one big jump towards or away from the other referent. After the
movement of the active referent ended, the active referent either stood beside/opposite the
other (passive) referent or sat beside/opposite/in front of or behind the other referent.
Appendix B:: Materials

Table 1 summarizes linguistic features of word order, topicalization, and classifiers in the
stimuli.
Author Manuscript
Table 1.
Examples of the six different experimental conditions. Simple orders, sentences involving
topic marking, and classifier constructions were presented in SOV and OSV orders.
Linguistic
SOV word order OSV word order
Structure
GIRL IX3a GIRL IX3b GIRL IX3a GIRL IX3b
Simple sentence
3aVISIT3b 3bVISIT3a
Author Manuscript
Linguistic
SOV word order OSV word order
Structure
The girl (left) The girl (right)
visits the girl (right). visits the girl (left).
________t ________t
GIRL IX3a, GIRL IX3a,
GIRL IX3b GIRL IX3b
Sentence with
topic marking 3aVISIT3b 3bVISIT3a
The girl The girl
(left), visits the girl (left), the girl (right)
(right). visits.
GIRL CL-LOCATED3a GIRL
GIRL CL-LOCATED3a GIRL CL-LOCATED3b
CL-LOCATED3b 3bCL-JUMP3a
3aCL-JUMP3b Two
Sentence with a
Two girls stand opposite each other and the girl on
classifier
girls stand opposite each other and the girl on the right
the left jumps towards the girl
Author Manuscript
jumps towards the girl on the right. on the

left.
Signs are glossed with capital letters; IX = index/pointing sign; subscripts indicate reference points in signing space.
Non-manual markings and the scope of non-manual markings are indicated by a line above the glosses; t at the end of
the line stands for topic marking; the comma after the topic indicates the prosodic break, i.e. the pause after the topic.
CL-LOCATED stands for the classifier representing the referents and their spatial position (and the spatial relationship
between the referents). CL-JUMP stands for the classifier verb representing the movement of the active referent (in this
example a jumping movement).
All stimulus materials were signed by a Deaf woman who acquired ÖGS early in life, uses
ÖGS in her daily life, and is a member of the Deaf community in Austria. The sentence
contexts involved non-compound, relatively frequent signs (e.g. MAN, WOMAN). To avoid
any semantic biases, we used the same arguments within one sentence (e.g. The man asks
the man). The nouns and their distribution were the same across all stimuli types. The
referencing of the arguments within the sentences were kept constant within conditions in
Author Manuscript
that the sentence-initial argument was always referenced at the left side of the signer. The
same agreeing verbs were used in the simple sentence condition and topic condition; thus,
for simple and topic conditions there were 40 sentences (items) in 4 conditions. Classifier
constructions use classifier predicates (instead of agreeing verbs). This results in a total of
80 items. The duration of stimuli with classifiers was slightly longer than the sentences
with topic marking or simple sentences. See Appendix A for a list of the nouns, verbs and
classifiers used in the present experiment, and see below for a stimuli length summary by
condition.1
In all sentences, sentence-final verb signs disambiguated argument roles by means of

directionality: it identified the agent of the action, which is the subject of the sentence, and
the patient, which is the object, by means of movement from subject to object position. In
Author Manuscript
SOV sentences, the argument that was referenced first in space (the subject) moved towards
the argument referenced second (the object). In OSV sentences, the argument referenced
second (the subject) moved towards the argument referenced first (the object). Thus, in SOV
sentences, the first argument was the subject, while in OSV sentences, the second argument
was the subject. All 6 conditions are summarized in Table 1, with glossing and English
translations provided; below, we elaborate on each of the three types of linguistic structures
under manipulation.
Syntactic condition.
Author Manuscript
After both arguments were referenced in space by an index sign, the agreeing verb
unambiguously marked the argument structure by path movement and/or handshape
orientation (facing). In the SOV word order condition, the verb showed a movement from
the argument which was introduced first in the sentence towards the argument which
was referenced second (and/or shows facing towards the second argument); in the OSV
condition, the verb moves from the second argument to the argument referenced first (and/or
shows facing towards the first argument; Figure 1 in the paper). 40 sentences were presented
in each simple word order condition (40 with SOV word order; 40 with OSV word order).
Pragmatic condition.
In the Pragmatic/Topic condition, the same argument NPs and agreeing verbs were used as
Author Manuscript
in the simple order condition. The sentence-initial argument in this condition was marked as
topic by a combination of non-manuals such as raised eyebrows, wide eyes, chin directed
towards the chest and enhanced mouthing. Topic marking nonmanuals co-occurred with the
sentence initial topic argument and the index sign referencing the topic argument (Figure
2 in the paper). The index sign referencing the topic (sentence-initial) argument was also
followed by a pause, during which the index sign was held in space. 40 sentences were
presented in each pragmatic condition (40 with SOV word order and topic marking; 40 with
OSV word order and topic marking).
Semantic/Classifier condition.
After the arguments were referenced in space, a classifier predicate indicated the spatial
relation between them (e.g. a girl moving towards another girl). The sentence-initial
Author Manuscript
argument was always referenced on the left side of the signer by a whole entity classifier2.
In the SOV word order condition, the classifier referencing the first argument moved in
relation to the argument referenced second; in OSV condition, the classifier referencing the
second argument moved in relation to the argument referenced first (Figure 3 in the paper).
40 sentences were presented in each classifier condition (40 with SOV word order and
classifier; 40 with OSV word order and classifier). In order to construct locally ambiguous
classifier constructions, both arguments had to be referenced by the same whole-entity
classifier within one sentence (e.g. with the classifier for a standing person). The use of
identical classifier handshapes in one sentence ensured that both arguments were equally
likely to represent the active referent within the sentence, creating true ambiguity with no
irrelevant biases.
Author Manuscript
Analysis of video length

The mean length of the videos (in seconds) as well as the standard deviation and range of
video length per condition are presented in the table below.
Author Manuscript
Condition Mean SD Range

Subject-Object, simple sentence 5.7 0.56 5–7
Object-Subject, simple sentence 5.7 0.69 5–7
Subject-Object, topicalized sentence 5.63 0.63 5–7
Object-Subject, topicalized sentence 5.7 0.69 5–8
Subject-Object, sentences with a classifier 8.9 0.81 7–10
Object-Subject, sentences with a classifier 8.88 0.82 7–10
Appendix C:: Procedure

The videos of signed sentences were presented to participants on a computer screen (35.3
Author Manuscript
× 20 cm) in 20-sentence blocks (14 blocks total). Sentence presentation order was pseudo
randomized among the 6 conditions (simple SOV, simple OSV, topic-marked SOV, topic
marked OSV, SOV with classifier, OSV with classifier) using 2 lists, in which no condition
occurred more than twice in a row, for a total of 240 critical sentences, interspersed with
40 fillers. Each of the two lists included all stimuli; thus each participant saw all stimuli.
The fillers were time-reversed videos (videos of sign language sentences played backwards)
included to ensure participants’ attentional engagement and task compliance (i.e. showing
whether the participants understood the task) and to distract from strategic processing.
An acceptability judgement task, consisting of a 7-point Likert scale typical for experimental
linguistic research was used; a 7-point scale was used to give participants a maximal range
within which to judge stimuli quality (1 stood for ‘that is not ÖGS at all’; 7 for ‘that is
Author Manuscript
good ÖGS’). After each video (i.e. after each sentence) a green question mark appeared
lasting for 3000 ms. The participants were instructed to give their ratings when the question
mark appears. Participants provided their ratings by a button press on a keyboard. Missing
responses or responses made after the question mark disappeared (3000 ms after the video)
were not included in the analysis. Percentages of data included per age/AoA (without
including the ratings for the filler material in the calculation) constituted: younger signers,
99.44%; older signers, 98.89%; 0–3 AoA group: 99.92%; 4–7 AoA group, 98.88%.
Instructions were given in an ÖGS video signed by one of the study authors. Prior to
starting the experiment, a training block was presented to familiarize participants with task
requirements, and allow them time to ask questions if anything was unclear. The experiment
lasted approximately an hour. The duration of breaks after each block was determined by the
participants.
Author Manuscript
Appendix D:: Model specification

For Likert-scale acceptability ratings, ordinal mixed-effects logistic regression was
performed using the ordinal package (Christensen, 2019) in R (R Core Team, 2014). The
ordinal mixed-effects logistic regression included the continuous variable Age (centered),
the factor AoA (0–3 years of age, 4–7 years of age), the factor (word) Order (SO, OS) and
the factor (linguistic) Structure (simple sentence, topic orders, classifiers) as fixed effects,
Author Manuscript
with by-participant, by-item, and by-item order (order of item occurrence in the stimuli
list) as random effects, coded in R as clmm(Rating ~ AGE*AoA*STRUCTURE*ORDER
+ (1|Subject) + (1|Item)+ (1|ItemNumber). Two stimuli lists were used, with pseudo
randomized order of stimuli by conditions; half of the participants were presented with
stimuli in the order of list 1; the other half – in the order of list 2. Sum coding was
used for main effects testing. To analyze reaction times, a linear mixed-effects model
(LME) analysis was performed using the lme4 package (Bates et al., 2015) in R; the
LME model for reaction times included the same factors as the ordinal mixed-effects
logistic regression for acceptability ratings, coded in R as lmer(log(Reaction time+1) ~
AGE*AoA*STRUCTURE*ORDER + (1|Subject) + (1|Item)+ (1|ItemNumber). Response
time outliers were not removed from the data; reaction time data was log-transformed. A
t-value of 2 and above was interpreted as indicating a significant effect (Baayen et al., 2008);
Author Manuscript
p-values were assessed using lmerTest package; p-values were obtained by using maximum
likelihood estimators.
Appendix E:: Results

Table 2.
Acceptability ratings: summary of results
Predictors Estimates Standard error z-value p

Age 0.07 0.04 1.71 0.09
Structure [Classifier sentences] -0.37 0.15 -2.51 < 0.05
Structure [Topic sentences] 0.22 0.09 2.42 < 0.05

Word order [OS] 0.04 0.05 0.98 0.33
Author Manuscript
AoA [0–3 group] −0.11 0.44 −0.24 0.81
Age : Structure [Classifier sentences] 0.006 0.006 0.99 0.32
Age : Structure [Topic sentences] −0.0002 0.006 −0.03 0.98
Age : Word order [OS] −0.008 0.004 −1.86 0.06
Structure [Classifier sentences] : Word order [OS] −0.03 0.07 −0.42 0.67
Structure [Topic sentences] : Word order [OS] 0.005 0.06 0.08 0.94
Age : AoA [0–3 group] 0.01 0.04 0.26 0.80
Structure [Classifier sentences] : AoA [0–3 group] 0.40 0.06 6.31 < 0.001
Structure [Topic sentences] : AoA [0–3 group] -0.20 0.06 -3.20 < 0.01
Word order [OS] : AoA [0–3 group] 0.04 0.04 0.81 0.42
Age : Structure [Classifier sentences] : Word order [OS] 0.005 0.006 0.82 0.41
Author Manuscript
Age : Structure [Topic sentences] : Word order [OS] −0.002 0.006 −0.40 0.69
Age : Structure [Classifier sentences] : AoA [0–3 group] −0.005 0.006 −0.72 0.47
Age : Structure [Topic sentences] : AoA [0–3 group] 0.0006 0.006 0.10 0.92
Age : Word order [OS] : AoA [0–3 group] -0.009 0.004 -2.08 < 0.05
Structure [Classifier sentences] : Word order [OS] : AoA [0–3 −0.007 0.06 −0.12 0.91
group]
Author Manuscript

Structure [Topic sentences] : Word order [OS] : AoA [0–3 0.01 0.06 0.22 0.82
group]
Age : Structure [Classifier sentences] : Word order [OS] : AoA 0.004 0.006 0.63 0.53
[0–3 group]
Age : Structure [Topic sentences] : Word order [OS] : AoA [0–3 −0.001 0.006 −0.21 0.84
group]
Appendix F:: Acceptability ratings for each stimulus type from three AoA
groups (including late learners)
Table 3.
Mean ratings and standard deviations per condition and per AoA group
Author Manuscript
Condition 0–3 AoA group 4–7 AoA group Late learners

Subject-Object, simple sentence 5.57 (1.44) 6.00 (1.40) 6.81 (0.50)
Object-Subject, simple sentence 5.80 (1.41) 5.99 (1.48) 5.77 (1.68)
Subject-Object, topicalized sentence 5.65 (1.32) 6.09 (1.28) 6.83 (0.49)
Object-Subject, topicalized sentence 5.83 (1.42) 6.08 (1.32) 5.80 (1.81)
Subject-Object, sentences with a classifier 5.63 (1.36) 5.29 (1.92) 6.81 (0.47)
Object-Subject, sentences with a classifier 5.70 (1.44) 5.26 (1.92) 6.44 (1.02)
Standard deviation is presented in parentheses.
References
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with
Author Manuscript
crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–
412.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-Effects models
using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
Christensen R. H. B. (2019). “ordinal—Regression Models for Ordinal Data.” R package

version 2019.12–10. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal.
R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R

Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R
project.org/
Author Manuscript
Wilbur, R. B., Bernstein, M. E., & Kantor, R. (1985). The semantic domain of classifiers in
American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 46, 1–38. doi:10.1353/sls.1985.0009
1The background color and light conditions in the video material were kept constant across
conditions.
2A whole entity classifier is a sign language handshape classifier that is representative of an

Author Manuscript
object as a whole reflecting particular grammatically-relevant semantic or physical features

of noun referent classes (e.g. persons, animals, vehicles; Wilbur et al., 1985).
References
Aarons D (1996). Topics and topicalization in American Sign Language. Stellenbosch Papers in
Linguistics, 30, 65–106.
Abrams L (2008). Tip-of-the-tongue states yield language insights. American Scientist, 96, 234–239.
Abrams L, & Meagan T Farrell MT (2010). Language Processing in Normal Aging. In:
Guendouzi J, Loncke F, & Williams MJ (Eds.), The Handbook of Psycholinguistic and
Cognitive Processes. Perspectives in Communication Disorders Routledge Handbooks Online
(https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203848005.ch3), 49–73.
Arbuckle TY, Nohara-LeClair M, & Pushkar D (2000). Effect of off-target verbosity on
communication efficiency in a referential communication task. Psychology and Aging, 15, 65–77.
Author Manuscript
[PubMed: 10755290]
Atkinson J, Denmark T, Marshall J, Mummery C, & Woll B (2015). Detecting cognitive impairment
and dementia in deaf people: the British Sign Language cognitive screening test. Archives of
Clinical Neuropsychology, 30, 694–711. [PubMed: 26245349]
Baus C, Carreiras M, & Emmorey K (2013). When does iconicity in sign language matter? Language
and Cognitive Processes, 28, 261–271. [PubMed: 23543899]
Beese C, Werkle-Bergner M, Lindenberger U, Friederici AD, & Meyer L (2018). Adult age differences
in the benefit of syntactic and semantic constraints for sentence processing. Psychology and Aging.
10.1037/pag0000300
Best CT, Mathur G, Miranda KA, & Lillo-Martin D (2010). Effects of sign language experience on
categorical perception of dynamic ASL pseudosigns. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72,
747–762.
Blumenthal-Dramé A, & Malaia E (2018). Shared neural and cognitive mechanisms in action
and language: The multiscale information transfer framework. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Cognitive Science, e1484. [PubMed: 30417551]
Author Manuscript
Borneman JD, Malaia E, & Wilbur RB (2018). Motion characterization using optical flow and fractal
complexity. Journal of Electronic Imaging, 27, 051229.
Boudreault P, & Mayberry RI (2006). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age
of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 21, 608–635.
Brentari D (1989). Backwards verbs in ASL: Agreement re-opened. In: MacLeod L (Ed.), Parasession
on agreement in grammatical theory (CLS 24, Vol. 2). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 16–
27.
Brentari D, Poizner H, & Kegl J (1995). Aphasic and Parkinsonian signing: differences in phonological
disruption. Brain and Language, 48, 69–105. [PubMed: 7712149]
Brentari D, & Padden C (2001). Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: A lexicon
with multiple origins. In Brentari D (ed.) Foreign vocabulary in sign languages: A cross-linguistic
investigation of word formation, 87–119. New York: Academic Press
Burke DM, & MacKay DG (1997). Memory, language and ageing. Philosophical Transactions of the
Author Manuscript
Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 352, 1845–1856. [PubMed: 9460069]

Burke DM, & Shafto MA (2008). Language and aging. In: Craik FIM & Salthouse TA (Eds.), The
handbook of aging and cognition. New York: Psychology Press, 373–443.
Calabria M, Branzi FM, Marne P, Hernández M, & Costa A (2015). Age-related effects over bilingual
language control and executive control. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 65–78.
Capilouto GJ, Wright HH, & Maddy KM (2016). Microlinguistic processes that contribute to the
ability to relay main events: influence of age. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 23, 445–
463.
Carreiras M, Gutiérrez-Sigut E, Baquero S, & Corina D (2008). Lexical processing in Spanish sign
language (LSE). Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 100–122.
Author Manuscript
Caselli NK, & Pyers JE (2017). The road to language learning is not entirely iconic: Iconicity,
neighborhood density, and frequency facilitate acquisition of sign language. Psychological science,
28(7), 979–987. [PubMed: 28557672]
Cheng Q, & Mayberry RI (2018). Acquiring a first language in adolescence: the case of basic word
order in American Sign Language. Journal of child language, 1–27.
Deconinck J, Boers F, & Eyckmans J (2017). “Does the form of this word fit its meaning?” The effect
of learner-generated mapping elaborations on L2 word recall. Language Teaching Research, 21,
31–53.
Dotter F, Krausneker V, Jarmer H, & Huber L (2019). Austrian Sign Language: Recognition achieved
but discrimination continues. In: De Meulder M, Murray JJ, & McKee R (Eds.), The Legal
Recognition of Sign Languages: Advocacy and Outcomes Around the World. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters, 209–223.
Dye MW, & Shih S (2006). Phonological priming in British sign language. Laboratory phonology, 8,
241–263.
Author Manuscript
Emmorey K, Bellugi U, Friederici AD, & Horn P (1995). Effects of age of acquisition on grammatical
sensitivity: Evidence from on-line and off-line tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 1–23.
Evrard M (2002). Ageing and lexical access to common and proper names in picture naming. Brain
and Language, 81, 174–179. [PubMed: 12081390]
Ferjan Ramirez N, Leonard MK, Davenport TS, Torres C, Halgren E, & Mayberry RI (2014). Neural
language processing in adolescent first-language learners: Longitudinal case studies in American
Sign Language. Cerebral Cortex, 26, 1015–1026. [PubMed: 25410427]
Fernandez L, Engelhard P, Patarroyo A, & Allen S (2019). The role of speech rate on anticipatory
eye movements in L2 speakers of English and older and younger L1 English speakers. Poster
presented at the PIPP conference, Iceland.
Fischer S (1975). Influences on word order change in American Sign Language. In: Li CN (ed). Word
Order and Word Order Change. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Frishberg N (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language.
Language, 51, 696–719.
Author Manuscript
Fromkin V, Krashen S, Curtiss S, Rigler D, & Rigler M (1974). The development of language in
Genie: a case of language acquisition beyond the ‘critical period’. Brain and Language, 1, 81–107.
Hall ML, Hall WC, & Caselli NK (2019). Deaf children need language, not (just) speech. First
Language, 0142723719834102.
Hausch C (2008). Topickonstruktionen und Satzstrukturen in der ÖGS. Veröffentlichungen des
Zentrums für Gebärdensprache und Hörbehindertenkommunikation der Universität Klagenfurt
(Vol. 13), 85–94.
Henner J, Caldwell-Harris CL, Novogrodsky R, & Hoffmeister R (2016). American Sign Language
syntax and analogical reasoning skills are influenced by early acquisition and age of entry to
signing schools for the deaf. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1982. [PubMed: 28082932]
Hildebrandt U, & Corina D (2002). Phonological similarity in American Sign Language. Language
and Cognitive Processes, 17, 593–612.
Humphries T, Kushalnagar P, Mathur G, Napoli DJ, Padden C, & Rathmann C (2014). Ensuring
language acquisition for deaf children: What linguists can do. Language, 90(2), e31–e52.
Imai M, & Kita S (2014). The sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis for language acquisition
Author Manuscript
and language evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B.
Biological Sciences, 369, 20130298. [PubMed: 25092666]
James LE, Burke DM, Austin A, & Hulme E (1998). Production and perception of “verbosity” in
younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 13, 355–367. [PubMed: 9793112]
James L, & MacKay DG (2007). New age-linked asymmetries: Aging and the processing of familiar
versus novel language on the input versus output side. Psychology and Aging, 22, 94–103.
[PubMed: 17385987]
Johnson RE (2003). Aging and the remembering of text. Developmental Review, 23, 261–346.
Kantartzis K, Imai M, & Kita S (2011). Japanese sound-symbolism facilitates word learning in
English-speaking children. Cognitive Science, 35, 575–586.
Author Manuscript
Kemper S, Kynette D, Rash S, Sprott R, & O’Brien K (1989). Life-span changes to adults’ language:
Effects of memory and genre. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 49–66.
Kidd E, Donnelly S, & Christiansen MH (2018). Individual differences in language acquisition and
processing. Trends in cognitive sciences, 22, 154–169. [PubMed: 29277256]
Klima ES, & Bellugi U (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Krebs J (2017). The syntax and the processing of argument relations in Austrian Sign Language
(ÖGS). (Doctoral dissertation) University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Krebs J, Malaia E, Wilbur RB, & Roehm D (2018). Subject preference emerges as cross-modal
strategy for linguistic processing. Brain Research, 1691, 105–117. [PubMed: 29627484]
Krebs J, Wilbur RB, Alday PM, & Roehm D (2019a). The impact of transitional movements and
non-manual markings on the disambiguation of locally ambiguous argument structures in Austrian
Sign Language (ÖGS). Language and Speech, 62(4), 652–680. doi: 10.1177/0023830918801399
[PubMed: 30354860]
Krebs J, Malaia E, Wilbur RB & Roehm D (2019b). Interaction between topic marking and subject
Author Manuscript
preference strategy in sign language processing. Language, Cognition & Neuroscience,1–19.

Laing CE (2014). A phonological analysis of onomatopoeia in early word production. First Language,
34, 387–405.
Lieberman AM, Borovsky A, Hatrak M, & Mayberry RI (2015). Real-time processing of ASL
signs: Delayed first language acquisition affects organization of the mental lexicon. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1130.
Malaia E, & Wilbur RB (2010). Early acquisition of sign language: What neuroimaging data tell us.
Sign Language and Linguistics, 13, 183–199. [PubMed: 21847357]
Malaia E, Borneman JD, & Wilbur RB (2016). Assessment of information content in visual signal:
analysis of optical flow fractal complexity. Visual Cognition, 24, 246–251.
Malaia E, & Wilbur RB (2019). Visual and linguistic components of short-term memory: Generalized
Neural Model (GNM) for spoken and sign languages. Cortex, 112, 69–79. DOI: 10.1016/
j.cortex.2018.05.020. [PubMed: 30001920]
Malaia E, Krebs J, Wilbur RB, Roehm D (2020). Age of acquisition effects differ across
Author Manuscript
linguistic domains in sign language: EEG evidence. Brain and Language, 200. DOI: 10.1016/
j.bandl.2019.104708
Marshall CR, & Morgan G (2015). From gesture to sign language: Conventionalization of classifier
constructions by adult hearing learners of British Sign Language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7,
61–80. [PubMed: 25329326]
Mayberry RI (2007). When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second
language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 537–549.
Mayberry RI, & Fischer SD (1989). Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: The
bottleneck of non-native sign language processing. Memory & Cognition, 17, 740–754. [PubMed:
2811671]
Mayberry RI, & Eichen EB (1991). The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood:
Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30,
486.
Mayberry RI, Lock E, & Kazmi H (2002). Linguistic ability and early language exposure. Nature, 417,
38. [PubMed: 11986658]
Author Manuscript
Mayberry RI, & Kluender R (2018). Rethinking the critical period for language: New insights into an
old question from American Sign Language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 886–905.
Meier R, Mauk CE, Cheek A, & Moreland CJ (2008). The form of children’s early signs: Iconic or
motoric determinants? Language Learning and Development, 4, 63–98.
Mitchell RE, & Karchmer M (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf
and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4, 138–163.
Morford JP, Grieve-Smith AB, MacFarlane J, Staley J, & Waters G (2008). Effects of language
experience on the perception of American Sign Language. Cognition, 109, 41–53. [PubMed:
Author Manuscript
18834975]
Morford JP, & Carlson ML (2011). Sign perception and recognition in non-native signers of ASL.
Language learning and development, 7(2), 149–168. [PubMed: 21686080]
Newport EL (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28.
Newport EL, & Meier RP (1985). The acquisition of American Sign Language. In: Slobin D (Ed.), The
cross-linguistic study of language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 881–938.
Ni D (2014). Topikkonstruktionen in der Österreichischen Gebärdensprache (master’s thesis).
University of Hamburg.
Novogrodsky R, Henner J, Caldwell-Harris C, & Hoffmeister R (2017). The development of sensitivity
to grammatical violations in American Sign Language: native versus nonnative signers. Language
Learning, 67, 791–818.
Orfanidou E, Adam R, Morgan G, & McQueen JM (2010). Recognition of signed and spoken
language: Different sensory inputs, the same segmentation procedure. Journal of Memory and
Language, 62, 272–283.
Author Manuscript
Orlansky MD, & Bonvillian JD (1984). The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. Journal
of Speech & Hearing Disorders, 49, 287–292.
Ortega G, Sümer B, & Özyürek A (2016). Type of iconicity matters in the vocabulary development of
signing children. Developmental Psychology, 53, 89. [PubMed: 27808524]
Ortega G, Özyürek A, & Peeters D (2019). Iconic gestures serve as manual cognates in hearing
second language learners of a sign language: An ERP study. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
Padden C (1983). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. PhD thesis,
University of California, San Diego [published 1988, New York: Garland Press].
Park DC, Lautenschlager G, Hedden T, Davidson NS, Smith AD, & Smith PK (2002). Models
of visuospatial and verbal memory across the adult life span. Psychology and Aging, 17, 299.
[PubMed: 12061414]
Perniss P, Thompson RL, & Vigliocco G (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence
from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 227. [PubMed: 21833282]
Author Manuscript
Perniss P, & Vigliocco G (2014). The bridge of iconicity: From a world of experience to the experience
of language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological
Sciences, 369, 20130300. [PubMed: 25092668]
Schalber K (2015). Austrian Sign Language. In: Bakken Jepsen J, De Clerck G, Lutalo-Kiingi S, & B
McGregor W (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook, Berlin: De Gruyter,
105–128.
Thompson RL, Vinson DP, Woll B, & Vigliocco G (2012). The road to language learning is
iconic: Evidence from British Sign Language. Psychological Science, 23, 1443–1448. [PubMed:
23150275]
Thornton R, & Light LL (2006). Language comprehension and production in normal aging. In: Birren
JE & Warner Schaie K (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging. Burlington, MA: Elsevier,
261–287.
Verhaeghen P (2003). Aging and vocabulary score: A meta-analysis. Psychology & Aging, 18, 332–
339. [PubMed: 12825780]
Wilbur RB (2000). Phonological and prosodic layering of non-manuals in American Sign Language. In
Author Manuscript
Emmorey K and Lane H (eds.), The signs of language revisited: Festschrift for Ursula Bellugi and
Edward Klima, 213–241. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wilbur RB (2002). Phrase structure in ASL and ÖGS. In Schulmeister R & Reinitzer H (eds.),
Progress in Sign Language Research: In Honor of Siegmund Prillwitz, 235–248. Hamburg:
Signum.
Wilbur RB (2012). Information structure. In Pfau Roland, Steinbach Markus & Woll Bencie (eds.),
Sign language. An international handbook (HSK - Handbooks of linguistics and communication
science), 462–489. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wilbur RB (2015). Word formation in sign languages. In Müller Peter O., Ohnheiser Ingeborg, Olsen
Susan, Rainer Franz (ed.), Word Formation. An international handbook (HSK - Handbooks of
Author Manuscript
linguistics and communication science), (pp. 2225–2251; chapter 126). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
DOI (Chapter): 10.1515/9783110375732-037
Wilbur RB (2018). Production of signed utterances. In Eva M Fernández & Helen M. I. Cairns (eds.),
Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 111–135. Wiley/Blackwell.
Wilbur RB, Bernstein ME, & Kantor R (1985). The semantic domain of classifiers in American Sign
Language. Sign Language Studies, 46, 1–38. doi:10.1353/sls.1985.0009
Wingfield A, Peelle JE, & Grossman M (2003). Speech rate and syntactic complexity as multiplicative
factors in speech comprehension by young and older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and
Cognition, 10, 310–322.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 1.
A static word-by-word representation of an ÖGS sentence in SOV vs. OSV (simple word
order) condition. In both constructions (SOV and OSV) the argument NPs (in this case
Author Manuscript
GIRL) were signed in the same order and were referenced at the same points in space;
i.e. the first argument was always referenced at the left side of the signer (IX = index/
pointing sign). The path movement of the sentence-final critical verb sign (agreeing verb
HELP) unambiguously marks the argument structure by movement from subject to object
location. The signs indicating argument structure are marked by arrows. The sentence shown
means: “The girl helps another girl (either the one referenced on the left side helps the
one referenced on the right side or vice versa).” The figure demonstrates differences in the
conditions: the sentences are signed in full for each specific stimulus.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 2.
A representation of non-manual topic marking in ÖGS. In the stimulus material used in the
present study topic marking accompanies the sentence-initial argument and the index sign
referencing this argument. Topic marking is expressed by raised eyebrows, wide eyes, chin
directed towards the chest and an enhanced mouthing.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 3.
A static word-by-word representation of ÖGS sentence in SOV vs. OSV conditions with
classifier predicates. GIRL CL-LOCATED3a GIRL CL-LOCATED3b 3aCL-JUMP3b, “Two
Author Manuscript
girls stand opposite each other and the girl on the left jumps towards the girl on the
right”, and GIRL CL-LOCATED3a GIRL CL-LOCATED3b 3bCL-JUMP3a, “Two girls
stand opposite each other and the girl on the right jumps towards the girl on the left.” The
sentence-final classifier predicate indicates the spatial relation between the arguments by
movement from subject to object location. Both arguments were referenced in space by a
classifier handshape (in this case the two referents are placed in space in a way indicating
that they are standing opposite each other with more distance between them). Then, either
the hand representing the first referent (signer’s left hand in SOV orders) or the second
referent (signer’s right hand in OSV orders) started to move; i.e. indicating the active
referent. The sentence shown means: “Two girls stand opposite each other and one of them
(either the one on the left or the one on the right side) jumps towards the other.” The signs
indicating argument structure are marked by arrows. The figure demonstrates differences in
Author Manuscript
the conditions: the sentences are signed in full for each specific stimulus.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 4.
The two groups of AoA (A: AoA between 0–3; B: AoA between 4–7) plotted against Age
ranging from 28–58 years of age. Three participants were 54 years old and two participants
were 33 years old (marked by the number in parentheses above the data point). Slight
collinearity between AoA and Age (R2=.05) is observed.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 5.
Acceptability ratings by the two AoA groups (0–3 AoA group (N=5) vs. 4–7 AoA group
(N=10)) across experimental conditions, with higher ratings for simple and topic sentences
but lower ratings for classifiers for the 4–7 AoA group compared to the 0–3 AoA group.
Whiskers indicate SD. Note that the limit on the rating was 7; 8 on the graph is for the
purposes of illustrating standard deviations.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 6.
Older participants from the 0–3 AoA group gave lower acceptability ratings to OS orders.
Author Manuscript
Centered age (AGEC) is presented on the x-axis (note that the x-axis is scaled so that
centered ages appear equidistant, even though they are not); estimated marginal means are
presented on the y-axis.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 7.
Reaction times by younger (N=9) vs. older (N=6) signers across experimental conditions,
with slower reaction times in older signers across conditions. Whiskers indicate SD.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Table 1.
Acceptability ratings: summary of significant results

Author Manuscript

Structure [Classifier sentences] −0.37 0.15 −2.51 < 0.05
Structure [Topic sentences] 0.22 0.09 2.42 < 0.05
Structure [Classifier sentences] : AoA [0–3 group] 0.40 0.06 6.31 < 0.001
Structure [Topic sentences] : AoA [0–3 group] −0.20 0.06 −3.20 < 0.01
Age : Word order [OS] −0.008 0.004 −1.86 0.06
Age : Word order [OS] : AoA [0–3 group] −0.009 0.004 −2.08 < 0.05
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

2021 - Krebs Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 - Krebs Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HHS Public Access

Published in final edited form as:

Age of sign language acquisition has lifelong effect on syntactic

Correspondence should be addressed to Evie A. Malaia, eamalaia@ua.edu.

Relationship between Aging and Linguistic Processing

Relationship between Age of Acquisition and Linguistic Processing

early L1 or the later acquired L2 (cf. Mayberry et al., 2002).

At the abstract (modality-independent) level of linguistic analysis, sign languages (including

across sign languages (Wilbur, 2000).

sign: handshape, location, or movement) resulting in a non-meaningful response sentence

4Pertaining to change in the form of a word/sign to express a grammatical function.

The nature of the experimental task is an important factor in performance assessments

Relationship between age and AoA in sign language: study design

languages, discourse referents can be referenced in the three-dimensional signing space

Topic marking in sign languages (pragmatic level).—Topic, as a marker of

Classifiers in sign languages (semantic level).—Classifiers in sign languages are

not affected by AoA).

less affected by AoA, in contrast to other morpho-syntactically complex constructions. Yet,

To assess signers’ comprehension of various linguistic structures, we designed a linguistic

2. Earlier age of sign language acquisition (AoA) is expected to facilitate syntactic

3. Later age of sign language acquisition is hypothesized to be associated with a

analysis. Each participant received 30€ as reimbursement.

were conducted using mixed-effects models (see Appendix D, model specification).

acceptability ratings ranged from 4.19 to 6.96 (M=5.75, SD=1.55).

Two-way interactions that reached significance included interactions of Age of acquisition

12For group comparison, descriptive mean values are reported.

Effects of age of acquisition (AoA).

As sign language input is quantitatively different from non-linguistic biological motion

Study limitations: effects of individual variability

the course of language acquisition.

Funding and Acknowledgements

Appendix A:: List of nouns/verbs/classifiers used in the study

CL-JUMP-TOWARDS (small successive jumps)

CL-JUMP-TOWARDS (one big jump)

CL-JUMP-AWAY (one big jump)

Appendix B:: Materials

jumps towards the girl on the right. on the

In all sentences, sentence-final verb signs disambiguated argument roles by means of

Analysis of video length

Condition Mean SD Range

Object-Subject, simple sentence 5.7 0.69 5–7

Subject-Object, topicalized sentence 5.63 0.63 5–7

Object-Subject, topicalized sentence 5.7 0.69 5–8

Subject-Object, sentences with a classifier 8.9 0.81 7–10

Object-Subject, sentences with a classifier 8.88 0.82 7–10

Appendix C:: Procedure

Appendix D:: Model specification

Appendix E:: Results

Acceptability ratings: summary of results

Predictors Estimates Standard error z-value p

Structure [Classifier sentences] -0.37 0.15 -2.51 < 0.05

Structure [Topic sentences] 0.22 0.09 2.42 < 0.05

AoA [0–3 group] −0.11 0.44 −0.24 0.81

Age : Structure [Classifier sentences] 0.006 0.006 0.99 0.32

Age : Structure [Topic sentences] −0.0002 0.006 −0.03 0.98

Age : Word order [OS] −0.008 0.004 −1.86 0.06

Predictors Estimates Standard error z-value p

Condition 0–3 AoA group 4–7 AoA group Late learners

Object-Subject, simple sentence 5.80 (1.41) 5.99 (1.48) 5.77 (1.68)

Subject-Object, topicalized sentence 5.65 (1.32) 6.09 (1.28) 6.83 (0.49)

Object-Subject, topicalized sentence 5.83 (1.42) 6.08 (1.32) 5.80 (1.81)

Standard deviation is presented in parentheses.