An Analysis of Hearing Learner Errors in South African Sign Language as a Second Language and Modality

Abstract

This article aims to identify common errors made by hearing students learning South African Sign Language (SASL) and enhance the understanding of language acquisition in this context. The researchers formulated three hypotheses, attributing errors to vocabulary gaps, misunderstandings due to improper signing, and the dual impact of spoken and signed languages on learning SASL. The study's theoretical framework integrates information processing theory, the monitor model, and transfer theory in language acquisition, emphasizing the role of the first language. Using a quantitative research paradigm, the study involved ten fourth-year students in an SASL learner class, using video recordings for data collection. The researchers followed strict ethical guide-lines. Data analysis revealed forty-seven deviations among seventy-one signs, categorized into five groups, focusing on error patterns rather than individual signs. The investigation sheds light on SASL as a second language with a visual modality (L2M2), emphasizing the impact of mistakes and using signs in conveying meaning. In particular, the study highlights issues such as incorrect phonological parameters, sign replacements, wrong signs/versions, pointing, and improvised signs. Educationally the study is valuable for L2M2 educators, offering insight into students' challenges and emphasizing specific problem areas. The findings contribute significantly to understanding the complexity of SASL acquisition, helping educators refine teaching strategies to improve learning outcomes.

Headnote

Abstract

This article aims to identify common errors made by hearing students learning South African Sign Language (SASL) and enhance the understanding of language acquisition in this context. The research-ers formulated three hypotheses, attributing errors to vocabulary gaps, misunderstandings due to improper signing, and the dual impact of spoken and signed languages on learning SASL. The study's theoretical framework integrates information processing theory, the monitor model, and transfer theory in language acquisition, empha-sizing the role of the first language.

Using a quantitative research paradigm, the study involved ten fourth-year students in an SASL learner class, using video recordings for data collection. The researchers foliowed strict ethical guide-lines. Data analysis revealed forty-seven deviations among seventy-one signs, categorized into five groups, focusing on error patterns rather than individual signs. The investigation sheds light on SASL as a second language with a visual modality (L2M2), emphasizing the impact of mistakes and using signs in conveying meaning. In particular, the study highlights issues such as incorrect phonological parameters, sign replacements, wrong signs/versions, pointing, and improvised signs.

Educationally the study is valuable for L2M2 educators, offering insight into students' challenges and emphasizing specific problem areas. The findings contribute significantly to understanding the complexity of SASL acquisition, helping educators refme teaching strategies to improve learning outcomes.

Marga Stander is a senior lecturer at the Sol Plaatje University in Kimberly, teaching Afrikaans, English and South African Sign Language. She is also a research associate at the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Hazel Sivell is a South African Sign Language interpreter at the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein with experience in teaching second language second modality sign language first-year students at the Sol Plaatje University, Kimberley Northern Cape.

The formal recognition of South African Sign Language (SASL) as an instructional subject within schools for the Deaf in 2018, as stipulated by Umalusi (2018), has opened a spectrum of opportunities, including pedagogy, scholarship, and inquiry. This landmark development has caused an increase in the enrolment of hearing learners, particularly those enrolled in educational programs at the university level, who show a pronounced interest in acquir-ing proficiency in SASL as a secondary linguistic domain (Bell 2021; Lillo-Martin and Henner 2020). The interest in studying SASL will increase even more now that it has become the twelfth official language in South Africa (The Presidency 2023).

Within the scope of this discourse, these hearing learners engag-ing with sign language (SL) for the first time are called second language second modality (L2M2) learners, a term developed by Schönström and Holmström (2022). The acquisition efforts of L2M2 learners entail a complex cognitive challenge, characterized by the assimilation of a visual-gestural framework fundamental to a signed language. A no-table complication arises in the form of the necessity to navigate a seamless transition between distinct modalities, namely the "auditory-vocal modality of spoken languages and the visual-gestural modality of signed languages," as delineated by Meier (2002, 1). During the process of acquiring SASL and internalizing its "phonological rules for lexical items the L2 learners frequently make production errors" (Rosen 2004, 31).

To explain this common situation in the context of L2M2 learning, in this study, the term errors refers to sign deviations, and therefore the researchers used the two terms interchangeably. This term in-cludes various types of errors, such as malformed signs, mismatched gestures and signs, and deviations, as outlined by Langer et al. (2016). Such deviations materialize when the signer employs an incorrect sign or mismatches the prescribed phonological parameters (Sandler and Lillo-Martin 2006) of a designated sign. Although there is a growing preference for using the term phonology of signed languages to align with terminology used in spoken language linguistics, Sandler and Lillo-Martin (2006) used the term phonological parameters to refer to the phonological components of SL.

Taking this into account, the problem statement for this study reads as follows: L2M2 students make several errors in the acquisition process that are further complicated by multimodal influences. This leads to the following research questions, namely: What is the cause of errors during SL acquisition? What are the most common types of signing deviations in L2M2 learners, and how do they impact clarity of communication? To what extent does the interplay of multimodal-ity influence the process of acquiring and retaining vocabulary and grammatical constructs within the framework of L2M2 acquisition? In response to these questions, the researchers adopted the following three hypotheses for this study: Hypothesis 1: A lack of vocabulary or linguistic comprehension in the target modality (the signed language) causes errors that manifest themselves as malformed signs and mis-alignments between gestures and signs during the acquisition of L2M2 (SASL). Hypothesis 2: Deviations from the expected signing patterns observed in L2M2 acquisition can lead to miscommunication, hindering the intended accuracy of the conveyed meaning. Hypothesis 3: The interplay of multimodality in L2M2 acquisition (combining spoken and signed languages) influences the way learners acquire and retain vocabulary and grammatical structures in both modalities, with the potential for both positive and negative interactions.

The study aimed to identify and analyze typical errors in L2 SASL acquisition, furthering our understanding of language learning within this unique modality. The types of errors that the researchers identified are wrong phonological parameters, sign replacements and metonymy, incorrect sign/version, pointing, and made-up signs (including gestures, symbolic signs, beats, and emblematic signs). Further discussions are provided in the literature review and in the Data Analysis section.

To provide a clear structure for this investigation, the researchers organized it as follows: first, an explanation of important concepts; then a description of the method in which the data were collected and analyzed; next, conclusions and fmdings from the data; and fmally, a discussion on the insights gained and offering practical recommenda-tions to SASL educators.

Background

To provide background information to the discussion, the researchers explain and discuss the following concepts: SL, multimodality, and types of errors in L2M2 acquisition.

Sign Language

Researchers regard the paradigm of SLs as "full-fledged linguistic sys-tems" (McNeill 1992, 38), a characterization advanced by capturing integral attributes such as lexicon, syntax, the arbitrariness inherent within signs, standardization of forms, and a cohesive user commu-nity (Kusters and Sahasrabudhe 2018). SLs embrace five phonologi-cal parameters that collectively constitute the foundational elements of signs within the spatial realm of the signer. These phonological parameters encompass handshape, location, palm orientation, move-ment, and nonmanual features, as outlined by various sources, such as Real South African Sign Language (n.d.), Prinsloo (2003), Pichler and Koulidobrova (2016), Ortega-Delgado (2013) and Valli et al. (2011).

Handshape is related to the configuration of the hand, achieved through the extension and flexion of the fmgers and the thumb (Prinsloo 2003; Stokoe 1960; Ortega-Delgado 2013; Miozzo and Peres-sotti 2022), in other words, "the shape of the hand used in a sign" (Johnston and Schembri 2007, 79).

Palm orientation indicates the direction in which the palm faces (Prinsloo 2003; Ortega-Delgado 2013; Battison 1978; Sandler and Lillo-Martin 2006; Van der Kooij 2002; Johnston and Schembri 2007).

Location signifies the point of articulation within the signing space around and on the body (Prinsloo 2003; Ortega-Delgado 2013; Bren-nan 1992) and "the position of the hand on the body or in the space around the signer" (Johnston and Schembri 2007, 80).

Movement involves the nature and trajectory of arm or hand mo-tion (Ortega-Delgado 2013; Prinsloo 2003), where "the hand moves away from the signer" or "the body, toward it, upwards, downwards, to and from, in an are, a circle, or spiral" (Johnston and Schembri 2007, 80). It may even result in changing the direction and shape of the palm or fingers.

Nonmanual features involve supplementary facets or gestures that do not include manual articulation, notably incorporating facial ex-pressions (Prinsloo 2003; Ortega-Delgado 2013; Crasborn et al. 2008; Lewin and Schembri 2011), such as eye gaze, mouth gestures, mouth-ing of spoken words, and movements of the head and body (Johnston and Schembri 2007, 81).

Multimodality

This article explores the concept of multimodality in SL commu-nication, focusing on learners who acquire SL as a second language (L2M2 learners). It is essential to distinguish the unimodal nature of SLs from the multimodal capabilities of human learners for clar-ity. SLs, such as SASL, are inherently unimodal, relying solely on visual-gestural elements, with grammar confmed to the visual/manual modality.

However, L2M2 learners engage in multimodal communication by incorporating auditory-vocal (spoken) and visual-gestural (sign) elements to facilitate their learning process (Schönström and Holmström 2022). Although gestures are a familiar modality, they do not adhere to the grammatical rules that govern SL. Consequently L2M2 learners must acquire new grammatical elements in an unfamiliar modality.

Incorporating a multimodal approach into the mastering of the unimodal elements of SL, which encompass manual (handshape, movement, location), nonmanual (facial expressions), spatial, and temporal aspects, fosters a richer learning experience and enhances language understanding.

Additionally research demonstrates that skilled bimodal bilinguals effectively utilize a wider range of iconic signs and diverse handshapes when narrating to nonsigning listeners, highlighting the advantages of multimodality (Goldin-Meadow and Brentari 2017; Casey and Emmorey 2008; Cormier et al. 2012).

However, it is important to avoid overly narrow interpretations of multimodality. The initial focus on the spoken-to-sign transition might overlook other forms of multimodality. Importantly, Deaf indi-viduals who use spoken or written language can still engage in mul-timodal communication, and native bimodal bilinguals have a unique language development process that "exist[s] in different articulatory modalities: a sign language and a spoken language" (Lillo-Martin, De Quadros and Pichler 2016, 720). We should recognize multimodal learning as the integrated use of various communication channels, including gestures, facial expressions, and writing, to effectively con-vey meaning.

Types of Errors in L2M2 Acquisition

Cognates, shared linguistic entities between the source and target languages, facilitate the acquisition of a spoken L2 (Shakir and Khan 2021). In contrast, L2M2 learners embarking on their first encounter with SL draw from an assortment of iconic and emblematic signs, symbols, and meanings associated with speech, thereby expanding beyond the confmes of their native linguistic competence, as noted by Ortega, Özyürek and Peeters (2020). This tendency can cause them "to produce their own iconic gestures," as mentioned by Pichler and Koulidobrova (2016, 6), a dynamic instrument to facilitate the acquisition of language, spoken or signed. However, as seen in this study producing their own iconic gestures can also significantly hinder students' ability to accurately convey meaning in SASL.

When learning a language in a different modality (M2), people often make a variety of errors. These mistakes reflect the challenge of shifting between different ways of communicating. This study specifi-cally examines the types of errors that occur, including errors in us-ing the correct phonological parameters, substituting signs, using the wrong sign or version, using pointing signs, creating new signs, and other errors that are specific to the challenges of L2M2 acquisition.

Wrong Phonological Parameters

L2M2 acquisition goes beyond simply memorizing vocabulary and grammar. It requires mastering a completely new way of communication using hands, arms, facial expressions, and other phonological parameters (Hilger et al. 2015). Research suggests that accurately perceiving and utilizing each of these phonological parameters is crucial for understanding and producing signs effectively. According to Ortega-Delgado (2013, 4), "[I]n the signed modality success to discriminate accurately each sign component will greatly depend on each parameter and on the phonological complexity of the sign as a whole."

Studies examining errors made by adult learners, as Rosen (2004) pointed out, highlight the challenges associated with perception, par-ticularly for phonological parameters like movement (Ortega-Delgado 2013). This aligns with research fmdings identifying movement as the most challenging parameter to perceive (Ortega and Morgan 2010; Bochner et al. 2011; Ortega-Delgado 2013; Schlehofer and Tyler 2016). Additionally, research suggests difficulties with hand config-uration and unintended mirroring, leading to potential omissions, misinterpretations, and simplifications of signs (Ortega et al. 2020; Willoughby et al. 2015). These challenges contribute to the simplifi-cation of signs and errors commonly observed during the initial stages of L2M2 acquisition.

Misinterpretation or incorrect production of specific SL phonological parameters can lead to phonological inaccuracies that impact the intended meaning of the signs within the SL system. For example, an incorrect handshape can lead to a phonological error, potentially resulting in a different meaning. If the signer makes it in the wrong location, for example, the head instead of the forehead, it results in a phonological mispronunciation of the intended sign. If the movement in SASL is wrong (e.g., the hands move from the top down instead of up), it inaccurately conveys the phonological representation of the sign. If the palm orientation is wrong, for example, if the palms are facing down instead of toward each other, the phonological rendition is erroneous.

SL communication heavily relies on both hand movements and facial expressions. While novice learners may focus primarily on hand gestures, neglecting facial expressions can lead to serious misunder-standings. Omitting a necessary frown when signing angry or main-taining a neutral face while signing happy can distort the intended meaning, potentially turning a clear sign into a confusing gesture or even a different sign entirely, which the research by Mclntire and Reilly (1988) highlighted. This highlights the importance of master-ing both aspects of SL for accurate and effective communication.

Sign Replacements and Metonymy

This section explores the crucial role of sign replacement and metonymy in the process of L2M2 acquisition.

Metonymy acts as a metaphorical tooi where learners utilize a specific sign to represent a different, but related sign (Department of Basic Education, n.d.). Metonymy is "a type of iconic, gestural metonymy in which a salient characteristic of a well-known person is extended to stand for a more general quality" as described by Wil-cox et al. (2003, 145). This refers to employing a characteristic of a well-known individual to symbolize a broader concept. For example, using the moustache of a specific person like Charlie Chaplin could represent concepts like "fast movement" or "comic." Metonymie signs also utilize a single component to represent the entirety of a concept. An example includes the sign for karate, which involves circular motions resembling a stylized blocking technique (Taub 2001).

L2M2 learners often use sign replacement due to several factors. Memory lapses or a lack of familiarity with the specific sign can lead them to substitute a related sign for the intended one (Ortega, Schiefner, and Özyürek 2019). These substitutions, while not always perfectly accurate, demonstrate the learners' attempts to communicate using their existing knowledge and creativity. This phenomenon highlights the unique challenges and strategies employed by people who acquire L2M2, highlighting their efforts to navigate the intricacies of this complex language system.

In SLs, a single sign or gesture has the power to represent a whole concept, allowing for expressive and efficiënt communication. This is evident in signs like the steering wheel motion for car, the fmger circles around the eyes for classes, and the head sign representing the whole person. Metonymy goes beyond just hand gestures-facial expressions convey emotions (raised eyebrows for surprise), objects signify actions (cup for drinking), and locations can hint at broader concepts (kimberley and the diamond industry). Even colors have symbolic power, and red often represents anger. This versatility shows the depth of metonymy in SLs. Importantly, understanding how concepts like metonymy and sign replacement work in activities like greetings are crucial for L2M2 learners as they master the com-plexities of SL. It highlights how both native and nonnative signers use these tools to express diverse meanings and abstract ideas.

Incorrect Sign/Version

The errors manifested by L2M2 learners in the context of SL ac-quisition often offer avenues for clarification, although, at times, the underlying causes of these errors remain unclear. This gives rise to a category of errors called lexically malformed signs without a meaning-ful relation to any established sign or gesture. In particular, the errors experienced by hearing adults often result from misperceptions, where L2M2 learners struggle to understand linguistically significant features. Consequently this deficit ends with learners "substituting handshapes from their gestural inventory that are similar but not identical to for-mal handshapes in their signed L2, resulting in inaccurate handshape production" (Pichler and Koulidobrova 2016, 6).

For L2M2 learners, trying to learn a manual communication sys-tem that is fundamentally different from the usual spoken language gestures that accompany speech can be particularly difficult. Becom-ing proficient in SL requires a significant amount of time as learners work to understand sign phonological parameters and distinguish be-tween signs and gestures (Ortega-Delgado 2013). Consequently, the complexities inherent in this process often result in the production of incorrect signs or variations of the intended sign. For instance, a notable example is the substitution of the sign for like, as in the expression i like you, with the sign for similar (Handspeak n.d.).

Pointing

L2M2 learners often struggle to differentiate between official SL signs and everyday gestures, especially pointing gestures, due to their visual similarities (Kendon 2004; Kita 2003). This highlights the importance of understanding the unique characteristics of pointing signs in SLs. Pointing signs are fundamental elements, encompassing personal pronouns (like i or you) and location indicators (like here orTHis) (Cormier, Schembri, and Woll 2013). These signs, classified as deictic gestures by Liddell (2003), use handshape, orientation, and movement to refer to people, objects, or locations.

Although personal and demonstrative pronouns in SL resemble common pointing gestures, experts clarify that they differ (Cormier et al. 2013). While both can refer to physically present objects, pointing signs can also function as pronouns, allowing them to refer to absent objects. This distinction is crucial for L2M2 learners.

The incorrect use of pointing signs can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. Examples include confusing i for mine, he for you, or using there while pointing to the current location. These errors highlight the importance of understanding the specific nuances of pointing signs in SL, which go beyond simple pointing gestures.

Therefore, mastering L2M2 requires navigating the complexities of how SLs utilize pointing gestures and how they differ from everyday pointing behavior. Understanding the multifaceted role of pointing signs, especially in the context of pronouns, is crucial for effective communication in SLs.

Made-Up Signs

Made-up signs may result from the use of (i) gestures (without lin-guistic meaning), (ii) symbolic signs (mime, iconic, metaphoric, and pantomimic signs), (iii) beats, and (iv) emblematic signs.

Gestures. SL research, influenced by spoken language methods, can un-derestimate the role of gestures. L2M2 learners, already familiar with hand gestures, use this knowledge to aid their SL learning due to the similarities between gestures and SL signs. As this study shows, L2M2 learners start with familiar hand gestures. Through structured educa-tion and SL exposure, they adapt these gestures to SL standards. Grasping this learning process enriches the research. As Ortega-Delgado (2013) noted, learners must differentiate between regular gestures and specific SL signs, appreciating the visual complexity of SL.

Signers might use gestures instead of signs for various reasons, in-cluding bridging gaps in vocabulary (e.g., gesturing in by enclosing something with their hands); emphasizing points through larger, more energetic movements; adding clarity and nuance to communication; describing locations or mimicking actions; representing things ereatively for storytelling; filling pauses similar to verbal fillers; expressing cultural concepts without specific signs; and adding personality or depicting nonstandard actions. These gestures improve communica-tion, highlighting the dynamic interplay between gestures and signs in SL usage.

However, L2M2 learners often use hand gestures that do not carry any linguistic meaning, which means that they do not count as actual signs. At the same time, learners can use these meaningless gestures while also using proper SL, creating a mix of correct and incorrect signals, as described by Goldin-Meadow and Brentari (2017). This can cause confusion and make communication less effective.

Symbolic Signs. L2M2 learners often employ symbolic signs, such as iconic signs, metaphoric signs, pantomimic, and mimetic signs, in a modality distinct from their first language (LI). L2M2 learners often resort to symbolic signs when faced with unfamiliar terms, using them for their representative nature over direct significance. The partici-pants most commonly used pantomimic and mimetic symbolic signs. Therefore, this discussion will not describe all types of symbolic signs, but only the one relevant to this study

Pantomimic and mimetic signs, classified as iconic signs, convey objects and actions through hand and body movements. McNeill (1992, 37) defined pantomime as "the hands depict objects and actions, but speech is not obligatory" differentiating it from gesticulation and language-like gestures that often accompany speech. Examples of these signs include the representation of eating, where the action is to bring food to the mouth, and sleep, where the signer symbolizes the act by closing their eyes and tilting their head.

Learners sometimes overuse mimetic or pantomimic signs when conventional signs would be clearer. Although these signs often re-flect real-world actions, they are still conventional in language and culture. It is vital that learners understand their use within the Deaf community.

These signs, crucial in SL, articulate various concepts without rely-ing on speech. When integrated, they can proficiently portray even abstract ideas. A notable illustration is the gesture for playing tennis, executed without a tangible racket, but still capturing the sport's essence. This consolidation of meanings aligns with Willoughby et al.'s (2015, 332) observation that "near enough is good enough." This perspective echoes Larsen-Freeman's (2006) understanding of acquisi-tion as adaptive and context-specific, underlining the dynamic nature of language learning.

Beats. Beat gestures are a form of nonverbal communication that in-volves using hand movements, gestures, or facial expressions to em-phasize, punctuate, or complement spoken words. These gestures align with the rhythm and flow of speech, enhancing communication and conveying additional meaning. Beat is the "rhythmic beating of a fmger, hand, or arm in an up-and-down or a back-and-forth fashion" (Kong et al. 2015, 101). In English and Italian, specific hand gestures called beats (McNeill 1992) have an abrupt stop and are related to pitch accents in speech production (Renwick, Shattuck-Hufnagel, and Yasinnik 2004; Krahmer and Swerts 2007).

SLs communicate prosodie cues not only through facial expressions, but also through hand and body movements (Nespor and Sandler 1999; Wilbur 1999; Sandler 2011; Dachkovsky Healy and Sandler 2013). Co-speech gestures come in two types: those that show parts of spoken words, like mimicking actions or shapes, and those that match speech rhythm and tone, such as tapping or moving hands (Kendon 1994; McNeill 1992).

Students might use beat gestures instead of signs when they are unsure of the correct sign. Beyond conveying meaning on their own, gestures can also complement spoken communication in various ways, namely reinforcing sentiment by using air quotes that imply sarcasm, fmger snaps that signify sudden insight, hand claps that express praise, fmger wags that convey warning, shrugs that show un-certainty, pointing that clarifies location, and face palms that depict humor or disbelief

This shows how beat gestures can enhance communication by adding emotional nuances, clarifying meaning, and making conversa-tions more engaging and expressive.

Emblematic Signs. Emblematic signs are a specific category of gestures that convey clear and widely understood meanings, often resembling symbols or signs. These gestures are Standard and recognizable, and signers typically use them without speaking (Ekman and Friesen 1969; Kusters and Sahasrabudhe 2018). They are culturally significant, and signers use them to communicate specific messages within a particu-lar community or culture (Clark and Lee 2018). In the early phase of learning, students often borrow these culturally specific symbols, especially from social media. Examples of emblematic signs include thumbs up, peace sign, OK gesture, fmger gun, and crossed fmgers. It is crucial to remind students that minor errors in their sign production can significantly impact the conveyed meaning. As high-lighted by Willoughby et al. (2015, 338), this emphasizes the impor-tance of consistent and accurate sign production to maintain effective communication.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for this study was based on a combina-tion of different theories, such as the Krashen L2, monitor model theory (Krashen 1977; Brunfaut and Banerjee 2017); the information processing theory (Miller 1956; Srivastava and Srivastava 2019); and the transfer theory in language learning (Lado 1957; Aljumah 2020).

The Krashen monitor model theory (1977) claims that compe-tence in L2 occurs through an unconscious process on the one hand and on the other "a conscious process resulting from the action of metalinguistic knowledge, a knowledge that is responsible for phe-nomena of self-control (monitor)" (Brunfaut and Banerjee 2017). Like spoken languages, SL learning can happen unconsciously through exposure and subconsciously absorbing signs (information processing theory).

The application of the information processing theory in language learning can expand the conscious process mentioned by Krashen. This theory explains how learners process and store linguistic information. Miller (1956), who developed this theory, explains that the human mind receives a stimulus, processes, stores, and locates it and then responds to it (Srivastava and Srivastava 2019). The process of receiving, storing, and utilizing SL information is similar to that of spoken languages. Learners encounter new signs, store them in memory, and then retrieve them for communication. Errors arise during this process, potentiaHy due to applying familiar spoken lan-guage gestures (e.g., using a thumbs-up gesture for "good" instead of the specific sign) or struggling with unfamiliar aspects of SL, like facial expressions or complex hand movements.

The transfer theory in language learning supports the unconscious process (Lado 1957), which indicates how previous linguistic knowl-edge can both aid and interfere with the learning of a new language. The contrastive analysis theory supports this idea, which "demanded that second language (L2) structures be effortlessly learned if the sarne occurs in first language (LI) through positive transfer, i.e., similarities among two languages do not need learning and that the variances are what [is] obligatory to be learned" (Aljumah 2020). However, while the differences between LI and L2 can cause some errors, they are not the only reason for all errors. Existing knowledge, in this case, of spoken language and its gestures, can aid and hinder SL learning. Similarities can facilitate learning, while differences require conscious effort and error correction.

The debate over the integration of gestures into spoken language takes on additional complexity when considering L2M2 learners. The researchers support the unified view that gestures and spoken language form a cohesive unit, where gestures enhance and clarify spoken words, making them inseparable for effective communication. However, L2M2 learners can unconsciously transfer familiar gestures from their spoken language repertoire to SL, such as using a pointing gesture. This unconscious transfer necessitates conscious monitoring to ensure that these gestures align with the proper forms and mean-ings in SL, such as the location-indicating signs here and the re. Thus, while gestures are essential and integrated within spoken language, their transfer to SL requires careful adaptation and awareness to maintain accurate communication.

Combining these three theories formed the conceptual framework for this study (see figure 1). This understanding can help explain com-mon errors made by L2M2 learners (e.g., using incorrect handshapes, misinterpreting facial expressions) and inform effective teaching prac-tices that cater to both conscious and unconscious learning processes, while considering the potential influence of prior language knowledge. (e.g., using specific exercises to differentiate between similar gestures in spoken and SLs).

The conceptual framework suggests that learning occurs through a combination of unconsciously absorbing information through ex-posure, consciously monitoring and correcting production, (e.g., practicing signs in front of a mirror or with a teacher), transferring knowledge from existing languages, both ai ding (e.g., using famil-iar gestures) and causing challenges (e.g., misusing gestures based on spoken language understanding) and processing and storing new information through a similar process as spoken languages, (e.g., en-countering signs, storing them in memory, and retrieving them for communication).

To explain the conceptual framework in figure 1, the "new stimulus L2 information input" occurs when L2M2 learners see new signs, and their brain first understands them, saves them, and then uses them when needed (information processing theory). They produce new signs through "conscious production," recalling the correct L2 input (monitor model). Second, learners will piek up signs through "un-conscious production" (probably those that are like speech gestures, without even trying or realizing, or consciously, (where they actively think and check if they are doing things right based on what they know or what they know from their LI [spoken language] [the monitor model]). If there are similarities, "incoming known stimulus from LI," they piek it up quickly because it is familiar. However, if the stimuli differs, more effort is required in the learning process. Here, they check and double-check to get it right (transfer theory).

Although L2M2 acquisition is a much more complex process, fig-ure 1 represents the basic concepts discussed in this article. This helps us to see the different steps and tools our brain uses when learning a new language, especially SL. It also shows how our LI helps (or sometimes makes it tricky) in learning another one.

Methodology

The researchers of this study developed a methodological framework to explore the research questions mentioned in the Introduction, and adopted a quantitative research paradigm as the foundational approach for data collection and subsequent analysis.

Participants

The chosen cohort comprises ten fourth-year university students actively enrolled in a four-year bachelor of education degree program. All education students have to take one conversational language from their second year as part of their studies. Participants in this study chose SASL as their conversational language. This specifie group represents a larger student population. There were seven female and three male students in this group, and their average age was around twenty-two years.

Materials

Data collection methodology revolved around structured empirical observation and careful evaluation, as facilitated by video record-ings capturing student assessments. The assessments, designed for this study, involved three distinct tasks in which the students had to sign individual words sourced from a designated list, words within ten predetermined sentences, and words embedded within a paragraph (details available in the appendix). In summary, each participant en-gaged in a total of seventy-one unique words during these assessment exercises.

Procedures

Researcher 1, who is also the lecturer for the participants, collected the data. Despite being hearing, Researcher 1 is a qualified SL teacher and is also qualified to assess the production of L2 learners. To ensure the quality and accuracy of the assessment, two additional evaluators participated in the moderation process: Researcher 2 from the same university as Researcher 1, and an evaluator from another South Af-rican university. They are also hearing and hold master's degrees and certification as SL interpreters. It is important to note that in South Africa lecturers are required to have at least a master's degree in their subject area to teach at the university level. This ensured that all evaluators were highly qualified and capable of providing a rigorous and credible assessment.

All classes were held face to face, and Researcher 1 collected data during the class assessment activities. The assessment that the participants did was a scheduled assessment as part of the program for this course.

The stimuli (list of signs, sentences, and paragraphs) were typical of a class assessment that students normally do as a formative assessment. Researcher 1 used various types of assessments (e.g., the researcher signed, students wrote down what was signed, students had dialogues, etc). The work of the students was examined, and the marks were allocated and recorded as part of their final assessment mark. Students repeated this throughout the year. For this study, Researcher 1 used this particular type of assessment because the students recorded it, making it easier for the researchers to view it multiple times. This provided the researchers with the necessary data to investigate the types of errors the L2M2 students made. The selection of words and sentences was based on the vocabulary, grammar, and skills that Researcher 1 taught them during the year. Because this was part of their final assessments, Researcher 1 expected them to know these and apply them to their own signs.

Subsequently the researchers carefully reviewed the recorded ma-terial again for research purposes and explained the evaluation to the students, for example, SASL skills, vocabulary, grammar, and follow-ing certain rules. Researcher 1 gave clear instructions on how the evaluations should look, how long they should be, and what they should cover.

Although all classes were held in person, participants used their own devices, such as smartphones or laptops, to record themselves and then sent those videos to Researcher 1 for review. The reason for doing this was twofold: The researchers and evaluators could view the video recordings multiple times for clarity and quality assurance, and the students recorded themselves in a relaxed atmosphere at a location of their choice. The classroom setting and Researcher I's recordings could have intimidated them, but she informed them that she would protect their privacy and anonymity.

Before starting, the participants gave their written consent to par-ticipate in the research. By signing the consent form, they confirmed that they understood all the information provided. Students had the opportunity to opt out of the study and were not coerced by Researcher 1 to participate or to allow their videos to be analyzed.

Data Analysis. The analysis protocol began with a review of the recorded videos. The researchers examined the data collected and iden-tified deviations from the established signs, called errors (see table la-e). These errors manifested within forty-seven of the seventy-one words that Researcher 1 asked the participants to sign. The researchers documented the errors and categorized them into five distinct types, namely deviations related to incorrect phonological parameters, substitution of signs (metonymy-related errors), employment of incorrect signs or versions (manifesting as lexically malformed signs), use of pointing as a communicative device, and the addition of made-up signs, or symbolic signs, such as gestures, mime, beats, and emblematic signs.

Notably instances where students fmger-spelled words (e.g., names of individuals or streets) were excluded from the scope of the analysis. Furthermore, the researchers recorded repeated signs and deviations only once. The studys focal emphasis lay not in the detail of inaccurate signs, but rather in the systematic typologies of errors committed. A comprehensive analysis framework, as shown in table la-e, com-prehensively captures the interpretive landscape of signs and errors.

The method described addressed research questions about com-mon deviations that occurred in SASL L2M2 learning and how the use of a different modality such as visuals or gestures, affected how well they learned and remembered the language. This research re-vealed a variety of unique challenges and strategies used by L2M2 learners.

Findings and Discussion

The error categorization, along with the frequency distribution, was as follows: Incorrect phonological parameters causing incorrect pho-nology constituted fifteen out of forty-seven (31.9 percent) of total errors; instances of sign replacement denoting metonymy were rep-resented at ten out of forty-seven (21.3 percent); wrong sign or version, represented by lexically malformed signs, comprised seven out of forty-seven (14.9 percent) of cumulative errors; the use of pointing constituted an equal seven out of forty-seven (14.9 percent); and, notably made-up signs, consisting of symbolic manifestations such as gestures, mime, beats, and emblematic signs, accounted for eight out of forty-seven (17.02 percent) of the aggregate errors.

Since this study focused on the landscape of errors rather than the most prevalent, it is worth mentioning that there were a few signs in which the students did not make any errors, namely try, brother, sister, province, license, live, walk, and school. Students omitted the sign for very or replaced it with a facial expression (eye stretching), and the sign for have replaced the sign for receive. The reason behind the signs without errors is not clear, but referring to hypothesis 1, we can assume that these signs had no overlap or interference with the gestural experience.

Wrong Phonological Parameters

From the data shown in table la, it became evident that a predominant proportion of deviations was ascribed to the misapplication of the phonological parameters by students. These phonological parameters included elements such as handshape, palm orientation, location, movement, and facial expressions. Deviations in this category resulted in incorrect phonological manifestations, as evidenced in table la.

Phonological errors are characteristic of signs produced by L2M2 learners, manifesting when they are uncertain about the proper execu-tion of a sign, often leading to incorrect pronunciation or the intro-duction of an accent, as explained above. As articulated by Schlehofer and Tyler (2016), the combination of various phonological parameters conveys distinctive phonological attributes to each sign. However, even when one or two phonological parameters were wrong, the intended meaning was still clear. For example, in the act of signing name (table la, sign 7), the students used a C-handshape instead of the designated G-handshape (see figure 2a), like the mispronunciation of /i/ instead of /e/ in spoken language.

Another example that illustrates this is where students signed teacher (table la, sign 10, and table lb, sign 9) wherein a misap-propriation of handshape transpired, as students erroneously employed two flat O-handshapes + pers on instead of a one-hand D-handshape. This example shows another form of transference that stemmed from an overgeneralization of the common rule that occupations are com-pound signs between the verb/noun + person. Thus, transference in this example was not from an LI to an L2, but from a general SL rule. In SASL, the sign to describe an occupation is usually the verb/noun + person (e.g., actor will be act + person, but teacher is an exception). Therefore, to sign teach + person is wrong, and the correct sign is using a D-handshape, pointing forwards, and moving the finger up and down twice. See figure 2b.

Sign Replacements

As explained above, sign replacements resulted in metonymie signs, where a specific element of a concept symbolizes the entire concept. An example is where students signed read to represent study (or learn) (table lb, sign 8). Also, see figure 3.

Incorrect Sign/Version

The researchers organized the deviations into cases where students chose incorrect signs or gestures, specifically focusing on incorrectly structured signs, as shown in table lc. Since two different signs may share similar characteristics, students often confused them. This con-fusion led to the use of signs that not only look different, but also have different meanings. For example, the mix-up between apple, laugh, and sad demonstrated this issue (see figure 4). Importantly the incorrect use of a sign went beyond just picking the wrong one; students also used inappropriate sign versions in the wrong situations. For instance, using the sign number (table lc, sign 6) incorrectly to refer to things like street number or during counting is an example of this kind of mistake. Similarly, the improper use of sign versions was noticeable in the case of the sign beautiful. Students used the wrong sign forms in contexts such as beautiful face and beautiful color (table lc, sign 7).

Pointing Signs

Pointing signs, such as he, she, you, i, me, my, mine, that (table ld, signs 1-7), among others, played a crucial rok in establishing the reference to an object, individual, orlocation. However, the research-ers observed that students frequently encountered difficulties with pointing signs, specifically in terms of correctly orienting the direc-tion of the sign. A clear example of this is when the direction of the sign was wrong; for example, when signing you, it is important to point forward, but when signing that, the correct way is to point to the side. Unfortunately, a common mistake among students was to accidentally confuse these directions. This confusion was noticeable in cases like signing he/she, where students often used a forward-pointing gesture instead of the correct sideways orientation.

Likewise, when it comes to signs such as i, me, my, and mine that involve pointing, there was a noticeable difficulty getting the hand-shape right. Students often unintentionally used the wrong handshape, which resulted in an inaccurate representation of the sign.

Instead of a D-handshape for i, they used an S-handshape (see figure 5). Also, in figure 5, the sign for that (usually pointing with the index fmger), looked more like ball, where they used both hands instead of one.

Made-Up Signs

The L2M2 learners used symbolic signs as replacements for real signs, but these symbolic signs did not carry significant meaning. These symbolic forms included various forms of expression, such as ges-tures, mimicking actions, rhythmic beats, and signs that represented something, as clearly explained in table Ie.

Gestures became a common tooi for students when they could not remember which sign to use. This happened with signs such as because (table Ie, sign 1), where students used gestures and move-ments, like the sweep of a firger, which was not a real sign. In the case of jealous (table Ie, sign 2), they used the wrong handshape and location, making up a sign, which did not relate to the real sign. A good example of this is when trying to sign Information. The usual way to sign this is to open and close the hand twice near the head. Instead, students just moved a closed hand toward and away from the head, creating a gesture that did not clearly communicate the intended message (see figure 6).

In certain cases (table Ie, signs 3-6), students we re unsure how to produce the correct sign. Although there was a range of symbolic signs in these instances, the students in this study mostly used mime to produce a sign.

Although it looked like the students were just using wrong pho-nological parameters, these signs differed in that they related more to a symbolic or iconic sign, which referred to symbolic gestures used in spoken language. Compared to address (table la, sign 1), where students also used the wrong phonological parameters, ev-eryone might not necessarily understand the result. The example in figure 7a shows where the sign for drive differed from the real sign for drive.

Another example of a symbolic sign instead of the real sign was big, where the students raised their hands higher than the correct sign and outside the signing space (see figure 7b).

On the other hand, students used beat gestures, as part of made-up signs, during the representation of numerical values in signing. For example, in the context of expressing numbers, a pattern emerged in which students would clap their hands a specific number of times to signify a numerical value. For instance, for number 30, they would clap their hands three times; similarly, for number 24, the pattern involved two claps foliowed by the sign for four rather than em-ploying the correct linguistic representation, such as 3 foliowed by 0 or 2 foliowed by 4. A misinterpretation of the SASL sign for the number 10 resulted in the phenomenon that clapping hands together once denoted the value of 10. Consequently, the students incorrectly assumed that clapping hands twice meant twenty and clapping three times implied thirty.

Emblematic signs were part of made-up signs (see above) where students added or created signs, especially when students encoun-tered uncertainties in sign execution, leading to instances of hesitation. These emblematic gestures took the form of actions that resembled waving or erasing motions and head shakes. Coupled with saying "No," they expressed feelings like "No, this is incorrect" or "... uhhmm . . . uh . . . ," indicating a sense of doubt or reservation.

In summary combining the three theories discussed above in theo-retical and conceptual frameworks explained how L2M2 acquisition occurred (illustrated in figure 1). This framework can also explain

why students made certain mistakes by using wrong handshapes or misinterpreting facial expressions. Teachers can use it to design better teaching methods.

Applying the conceptual framework here, it was clear that learning occurred in several ways. Learners unconsciously absorbed informa-tion just through exposure to SL, similar to how we learn spoken languages (monitor model). They also consciously practiced their signing by correcting themselves (information processing theory). Finally learners used knowledge of their existing languages (transfer theory), which can be helpful when gestures are similar across languages. However, relying on this knowledge can also lead to mistakes if they misuse gestures based on their spoken language understanding. Effective teaching should consider all these aspects of learning, includ-ing how a learner's LI might influence their acquisition of SL. For example, teachers could design exercises that help learners distinguish between similar gestures in spoken and SLs.

Conclusions

This study investigated how L2M2 learners acquired SL, focusing on SASL learning by university students. The researchers identified common errors students made, such as using incorrect signs, replac-ing signs with gestures, or even inventing new ones. These errors highlighted the importance of visual cues and gestures in learning SL. Furthermore, the visual nature of SL created a more engaging learning environment that can aid in memorization.

To better understand this process, the study proposed a theoreti-cal framework that considered how learners absorbed information, monitored their signing, and transferred knowledge from their spoken language (see figure 1). This framework highlighted how relying on a spoken language background can lead to errors if learners misuse gestures based on those assumptions.

The hypotheses formulated to answer the three questions posed in the Introduction can be accepted, namely a lack of vocabulary or understanding of SL can cause errors like incorrect signs or mis-matched gestures with signs; deviations from proper signing can lead to misunderstandings; and combining spoken and signed languages (multimodality) can both help and hinder learning vocabulary and grammar in both languages. By analyzing these errors, the study aimed to improve our understanding of how we learn SL and inform the development of better teaching methods.

This research is particularly important for teachers who work with L2M2 students. Understanding the common mistakes students made in learning SL, particularly phonological parameter errors, allows teachers to tailor their instruction to address these specific challenges. By identifying these errors, teachers can design targeted lessons, drills and exercises; use visual aids; and create interactive activities that rein-force accurate signing. This focused approach not only helps students overcome common errors, but also improves their overall proficiency and confidence in using SL.

The next steps in research to address common mistakes in SL learning, particularly phonological parameter errors, could be a com-prehensive study to document and analyze the specific types and frequenties of phonological parameter errors made by L2M2 learners. This data will provide a clearer understanding of the most prevalent challenges that students face.

The study had some limitations, such as the small sample size and the single-class context, which may limit generalizability. Fur-thermore, the quantitative focus could have missed nuanced and qualitative insights, while the hypotheses may not have covered all influencing factors. Addressing these limitations in future research could enhance the strength and applicability of the fmdings.

Authors' Note

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to: Marga Stander [email protected] (alternative: [email protected]) Cellphone: [phone] orlandline: [phone]

References

References

Aljumah, F. H. 2020. Second Fanguage Acquisition: A Framework and Historical Background on lts Research. English Language Teaching 13 (8): 200-7.

Battison, R. 1978. Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language. Finstok Press.

Bell, D. 2021. South Africa Has Advanced the Use of Sign Fanguage. But Fhere Are Still Gaps. https://theconversation.com/south-africa-has -advanced-the-use-of-sign-language-but-there-are-still-gaps-168424.

Bochner, J., K. Christie, P. Hauser, and M. Searls. 2011. When Is a Differ-ence Really Different? Learners' Discrimination of Linguistic Contrasts in American Sign Language. Language Learning 61 (4): 1302-27.

Brennan, M. 1992. The Visual World of BSL: An Introduction Dictionary of British Sign

Language/English. Faber & Faber.

Brunfaut, X, andj. Banerjee. 2017'. Acquisition and Teaching. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, eds. M. Byram and A. Hu, 4-6. Routledge.

Casey, S., and K. Emmorey. 2008. Co-speech Gesture in Bimodal Bilinguals. Language and Cognitive Processes 24:290-312.

Clark, D., and C. M. Lee. 2018. Culture in L2/Ln Sign Language Pedagogy. Creative Education 9:1897-909.

Cormier, K., A. Schembri, and B. Woll. 2013. Pronouns and Pointing in Sign Languages. Lingua 137:230-47.

Cormier, K., D. Quinto-Pozos, Z. Sevcikova, and A. Schembri. 2012. Lexi-calisation and De-lexicalisation Processes in Sign Languages: Comparing Depicting Constructions and Viewpoint Gestures. Language & Commu-nication 32 (2012): 329-48.

Crasborn, O., E. Van Der Kooy, , D Waters, B. Woll, andj. Mesch. 2008. Frequency Distribution and Spreading Behavior of Different Types of Mouth Actions in Three Sign Languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 1 (1): 45-67.

Dachkovsky, S., C. Healy, and W Sandler. 2013. Visual Intonation in Two Sign Languages. Phonology 30 (2): 211-52.

Department of Basic Education. n.d. South African Sign Language Grade 12: Lesson Plans. https://www.education.gov.za/Programmes/Inclusive Education/SouthAfricanSignLanguage.aspx

Ekman, P, and W Friesen. 1969. The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage, and Coding. Semiotica 1 (1): 49-98.

Goldin-Meadow, S., and D. Brentari. 2017. Gesture, Sign, and Language: The Coming of Age of Sign Language and Gesture Studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 40 (e46): 1-60.

Johnston, T, and A. Schembri. 2007. Australian Sign Language:An Introduction to Sign Language Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

HandSpeak. n.d. "Common Usage Errors in ASL Level 1." https://www .handspeak.com/learn/10/.

Hilger, A., T. Loucks, D. Quinto-Pozos, and M. Dye. 2015. Second Language Acquisition Across Modalities: Production Variability in Adult L2 Learners of American Sign Language. Second Language Research 31 (3): 375-88.

Kendon, A. 1994. Do Gestures Communicate? A Review. Research on Language and Social Interaction 27 (3): 175-200.

Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge University Press.

Kita, S. 2003. Pointing:Where Language, Culture and Cognition meet. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kong, A. P., S. Law, C. Y. Kwan, C. Lai, and V. Lam. 2015. A Coding System with Independent Annotations of Gesture Forms and Functions during Verbal Communication: Development of a Database of Speech and GEsture (DoSaGE). Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 39 (1): 93-111.

Krahmer, E., and M. Swerts. 2007. The Effects of Visual Beats on Prosodie Prominence: Acoustic Analyses, Auditory Perception and Visual Percep-tion. Journal of Memory and Language 57 (3): 396-414.

Krashen, S. 1977. The Monitor Model for Adult Second Language Performance. In Viewpoints on English as a Second Language, ed. M. Burt, H. Dulay, and M. Finocchiaro, 95-126. Regents.

Kusters, A., and S. Sahasrabudhe. 2018. Language Ideologies on the Differ-ence Between Gesture and Sign. Language & Communication 60:44-63.

Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. University of Michigan Press.

Langer, G, T. Hanke, R. Konrad, and S. König. 2016. Nontokens: When Tokens Should not Count as Evidence of Sign Use. Paper presented in 2016 Proceedings of the LREC2016 Ith Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpus Mining, Portoroz, Slovenia, May 18, 2016: 137-42. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).

Larsen-Freeman, D. 2006. The Emergence of Complexity, Fluency and Accuracy in the Oral and Written Production of Five Chinese Learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27 (4): 590-619.

Lewin, D., and A. Schembri. 2011. Mouth Gestures in British Sign Language: A Case Study of Tongue Protrusion in BSL Narratives. Sign Language & Linguistics 14 (1): 94-114.

Liddell, S. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press.

Lillo-Martm, D., R. M. De Quadros, and D.C. Pichler. 2016. The Development of Bimodal Bilingualism: Implications for Linguistic Theory Linguïst Approaches Biling. 6 (6): 719-55.

Lillo-Martin, D., and J. Henner. 2020. Acquisition of Sign Languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 7:395-419.

Mclntire, M., and J. S. Reilly. 1988. Nonmanual Behaviors in LI and L2 Learners of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 61:351-75.

McNeill, D 1992. Hand and Mind:What Gestures RevealAboutThought. University of Chicago Press.

Meier, R. 2002. Why Different, Why the Same? Explaining Effects and noneffects of Modality upon Linguistic Structure in Sign and Speech.

In Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages, ed. R. P. Meier, K. Cormier, and D. Quinto-Pozos. Cambridge University Press.

Miller, G. 1956. "The Information Processing Theory." https://psychologenie .coni/information-processing-theory

Miozzo, M., and F. Peressotti. 2022. How the Hand Has Shaped Sign Languages. Scientific Reports 12:11980. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022 -15699-1.

Nespor, M., and W. Sandler. 1999. Prosody in Israëli Sign Language. Lan-guage and Speech 42 (2-3): 143-76.

Ortega-Delgado, G. 2013. Acquisition of a Signed Phonological System by Hearing Adults: The Role of Sign Structure and Iconicity. PhD diss., University College London.

Ortega, G, and G Morgan. 2010. Comparing Child and Adult Develop-ment of a Visual Phonological System. Language, Interadion and Acquisition 1 (1): 67-81.

Ortega, G, and G Morgan. 2015. Phonological Development in Hearing Learners of a Sign Language: The Influence of Phonological Parameters, Sign Complexity, and Iconicity. Language Learning 65:660-88.

Ortega, G, A. Özyürek, and D. Peeters. 2020. 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 46 (3): 403-15.

Ortega, G, A. Schiefner, and A. Özyürek. 2019. Hearing Nonsigners Use Their Gestures to Predict Iconic Form-Meaning Mappings at First Exposure to Signs. Cognition 191:103996. https://doi.org/10.1016/] .cognition.2019.06.008.

Pichler, D. O, and H. Koulidobrova. 2016. Acquisition of Sign Language as a Second Language (L2). In Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Language, Vol. 2, ed. M. Marschark and P E. Spencer. Oxford University Press.

Presidency, Republic of South Africa (The). July 18, 2023. "President Cyril Ramaphosa Enacts Sign Language as 12th Official Language." https:// www.thepresidency.gov.za/press-statements/president-cyril-ramaphosa -enact-sign-language-12th-official-language.

Prinsloo, B. A. 2003. An Introductory South African Sign Language (SASL) Grammar for the Beginner Sign Language Student. Master's diss., University of the Free State.

Real South African Sign Language. n.d. "Five Parameters of SASL."https://www .realsasl.com/ learn-south-african-sign-language/117-five-parameters -of-south-african-sign-language.

Renwick, M., S. Shattuck-Hufnagel, and Y. Yasinnik. 2004. The Timing of Speech-Accompanying Gestures with Respect to Prosody. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 5 (5): 97-102.

Rosen, R. 2004. Beginning L2 Production Errors in ASL Lexical Phonol-ogy: A Cognitive Phonology Model. Sign Language & Linguistics 7 (1): 31-61.

Sandler, W 2011. Prosody and Syntax in Sign Languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 108 (3): 298-328.

Sandler, W, and D. Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Univer-sals. Cambridge University Press.

Schlehofer, D., and I. Tyler. 2016. Errors in Second Language Learners' Production of Phonological Contrasts in American Sign Language. International Journal of Language and Linguistics 3 (2): 30-8.

Schönström, K., and I. Holmström. 2022. L2M1 and L2M2 Acquisition of Sign Lexicon: The Impact of Multimodality on the Sign Second Language Acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology 13:896254. https://doi.org /10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896254.

Shakir, M., and M. Khan. 2021. Cross-linguistic Influence with Reference to the Role of Cognates in L2 Words Comprehension and Vocabulary Acquisition. Webology 18 (5): 618-29.

Srivastava, J., and V. Srivastava. 2019. Information Processing Theory in Language Learning Among Students. Journal ofEmerging Technologies and Innovative Research 6 (6): 187-91.

Stokoe, W. C. 1960. Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. In Studies in Linguistics: Occasional Papers, no. 8. Dept. of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.

Taub, S. 2001. Language front the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press.

Umalusi. 2018, March 2. Umalusi Publishes Report on South African Sign Language as an Examinable Subject, https://www.umalusi.org.za/docs/pr /2018/pr0302.pdf

Valli, C, C. Lucas, K. J. Mulrooney, andM. Villanueva. 2011. Linguistics of American Sign Language: An Introduction. Gallaudet University Press.

Van der Kooij, E. 2002. Phonological Categories in Sign Language of the Nether-lands:The Role of Phonetic Implementation and Iconicity. LOT.

Wilbur, R. 1999. Stress in ASL: Empirical Evidence and Linguistic Issues. Language and Speech 42 (2-3): 229-50.

Wilcox, S., P P Wilcox, and M. J. Jarque. 2003. Mappings in Conceptual Space: Metonymy, Metaphor, and Iconicity in Two Signed Languages. Jezikoslovlje 4 (1): 139-56.

Willoughby, L., J. Vaughan, S. Linder, K. A. Ellis, andj. L. Fisher. 2015. Errors and Feedback in the Beginner Auslan Classroom. Sign Language Studies 15 (3): 322-47.

Appendix

The appendix shows the three tasks carried out by the participants. The words that the students needed to sign are in small caps. Words not in small caps were fingerspelled and not considered for the analysis. Errors were coded manually by the principal researcher by comparing the error's incorrect parameters or phonology to the correct parameters or phonology of the intended or requested Signs. Through this the researcher identified different categories, described as error types, guid-ing which category each error should be assigned to. Reoccurrences of the similar errors were then assigned to the appropriate error type.

1. Signs

a. street

b. city

C. PERSONAL INFORMATION

d. GENDER

e. nervous

f. LAUGH

g. BUY

h. CYCLING i. ENJOY j. TRY

2. Sentences

a. Jack's address is 34 King street, kimberley.

b. Bob's brother lives in the Free State province.

C. MY PERSONAL INFORMATION is OI1 MY CV.

d. Ann's date of birth is september 24, 1988.

e. MY SISTER is THIRTY YEARS OLD.

f. Sally is a very shy girl.

g. John HAS THREE DEPENDENTS.

h. MY SISTER is JEALOUS of MY QUALIFICATIONS.

i. my id number is 9012030008081.

j. Ronald walks to school every day, but Sipho drives,

BECAUSE HE HAS a DRIVER'S LICENSE.

3. Paragraph

a. my sister's name is Beverley she has a big house, she has a learner's license. she lives in Church street, in

KIMBERLEY. SHE STUDIED at UNIVERSITY and SHE is a TEACHER. SHE TEACHES AFRIKAANS. SHE RECEIVED her DEGREE LAST YEAR. I am GLAD. SHE is VERY HAPPY and BEAUTIFUL.