Imitation, sign language skill and the Developmental Ease of Language Understanding (D-ELU) model

Imitation and language processing are closely connected. According to the Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model (Rönnberg et al., 2013) pre-existing mental representation of lexical items facilitates language understanding. Thus, imitation of manual gestures is likely to be enhanced by experien...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Emil eHolmer, Mikael eHeimann, Mary eRudner
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-02-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00107/full
id doaj-57c9de8750c541e3b31d5579fd3977f3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-57c9de8750c541e3b31d5579fd3977f32020-11-24T23:21:39ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782016-02-01710.3389/fpsyg.2016.00107171819Imitation, sign language skill and the Developmental Ease of Language Understanding (D-ELU) modelEmil eHolmer0Mikael eHeimann1Mary eRudner2Linnaeus Centre HEAD, Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Department of Behavioural Sciences and LearningSwedish Institute for Disability Research and Division of Psychology, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping UniversityLinnaeus Centre HEAD, Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Department of Behavioural Sciences and LearningImitation and language processing are closely connected. According to the Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model (Rönnberg et al., 2013) pre-existing mental representation of lexical items facilitates language understanding. Thus, imitation of manual gestures is likely to be enhanced by experience of sign language. We tested this by eliciting imitation of manual gestures from deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) signing and hearing non-signing children at a similar level of language and cognitive development. We predicted that the DHH signing children would be better at imitating gestures lexicalized in their own sign language (Swedish Sign Language, SSL) than unfamiliar British Sign Language (BSL) signs, and that both groups would be better at imitating lexical signs (SSL and BSL) than non-signs. We also predicted that the hearing non-signing children would perform worse than DHH signing children with all types of gestures the first time (T1) we elicited imitation, but that the performance gap between groups would be reduced when imitation was elicited a second time (T2). Finally, we predicted that imitation performance on both occasions would be associated with linguistic skills, especially in the manual modality. A split-plot repeated measures ANOVA demonstrated that DHH signers imitated manual gestures with greater precision than non-signing children when imitation was elicited the second but not the first time. Manual gestures were easier to imitate for both groups when they were lexicalized than when they were not; but there was no difference in performance between familiar and unfamiliar gestures. For both groups, language skills at the T1 predicted imitation at T2. Specifically, for DHH children, word reading skills, comprehension and phonological awareness of sign language predicted imitation at T2. For the hearing participants, language comprehension predicted imitation at T2, even after the effects of working memory capacity and motor skills were taken into account. These results demonstrate that experience of sign language enhances the ability to imitate manual gestures once representations have been established, and suggest that the inherent motor patterns of lexical manual gestures are better suited for representation than those of non-signs. This set of findings prompts a developmental version of the ELU model, D-ELU.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00107/fulldevelopmentImitationrepresentationsign languageManual gesture
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Emil eHolmer
Mikael eHeimann
Mary eRudner
spellingShingle Emil eHolmer
Mikael eHeimann
Mary eRudner
Imitation, sign language skill and the Developmental Ease of Language Understanding (D-ELU) model
Frontiers in Psychology
development
Imitation
representation
sign language
Manual gesture
author_facet Emil eHolmer
Mikael eHeimann
Mary eRudner
author_sort Emil eHolmer
title Imitation, sign language skill and the Developmental Ease of Language Understanding (D-ELU) model
title_short Imitation, sign language skill and the Developmental Ease of Language Understanding (D-ELU) model
title_full Imitation, sign language skill and the Developmental Ease of Language Understanding (D-ELU) model
title_fullStr Imitation, sign language skill and the Developmental Ease of Language Understanding (D-ELU) model
title_full_unstemmed Imitation, sign language skill and the Developmental Ease of Language Understanding (D-ELU) model
title_sort imitation, sign language skill and the developmental ease of language understanding (d-elu) model
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Psychology
issn 1664-1078
publishDate 2016-02-01
description Imitation and language processing are closely connected. According to the Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model (Rönnberg et al., 2013) pre-existing mental representation of lexical items facilitates language understanding. Thus, imitation of manual gestures is likely to be enhanced by experience of sign language. We tested this by eliciting imitation of manual gestures from deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) signing and hearing non-signing children at a similar level of language and cognitive development. We predicted that the DHH signing children would be better at imitating gestures lexicalized in their own sign language (Swedish Sign Language, SSL) than unfamiliar British Sign Language (BSL) signs, and that both groups would be better at imitating lexical signs (SSL and BSL) than non-signs. We also predicted that the hearing non-signing children would perform worse than DHH signing children with all types of gestures the first time (T1) we elicited imitation, but that the performance gap between groups would be reduced when imitation was elicited a second time (T2). Finally, we predicted that imitation performance on both occasions would be associated with linguistic skills, especially in the manual modality. A split-plot repeated measures ANOVA demonstrated that DHH signers imitated manual gestures with greater precision than non-signing children when imitation was elicited the second but not the first time. Manual gestures were easier to imitate for both groups when they were lexicalized than when they were not; but there was no difference in performance between familiar and unfamiliar gestures. For both groups, language skills at the T1 predicted imitation at T2. Specifically, for DHH children, word reading skills, comprehension and phonological awareness of sign language predicted imitation at T2. For the hearing participants, language comprehension predicted imitation at T2, even after the effects of working memory capacity and motor skills were taken into account. These results demonstrate that experience of sign language enhances the ability to imitate manual gestures once representations have been established, and suggest that the inherent motor patterns of lexical manual gestures are better suited for representation than those of non-signs. This set of findings prompts a developmental version of the ELU model, D-ELU.
topic development
Imitation
representation
sign language
Manual gesture
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00107/full
work_keys_str_mv AT emileholmer imitationsignlanguageskillandthedevelopmentaleaseoflanguageunderstandingdelumodel
AT mikaeleheimann imitationsignlanguageskillandthedevelopmentaleaseoflanguageunderstandingdelumodel
AT maryerudner imitationsignlanguageskillandthedevelopmentaleaseoflanguageunderstandingdelumodel
_version_ 1725570792381480960