CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Hearing Impairment and CommunicationNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and Disorders

Comparing semantic fluency in American sign language and English

Open access
Sehyr, Zed Sevcikova, Giezen, Marcel R, Emmorey, Karen·2018·The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
DOI 10.1093/deafed/eny013PMC PMC6146786
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of language modality and age of acquisition on semantic fluency in American Sign Language (ASL) and English. Experiment 1 compared semantic fluency performance (e.g., name as many animals as possible in 1 min) for deaf native and early ASL signers and hearing monolingual English speakers. The results showed similar fluency scores in both modalities when fingerspelled responses were included for ASL. Experiment 2 compared ASL and English fluency scores in hearing native and late ASL-English bilinguals. Semantic fluency scores were higher in English (the dominant language) than ASL (the non-dominant language), regardless of age of ASL acquisition. Fingerspelling was relatively common in all groups of signers and was used primarily for low-frequency items. We conclude that semantic fluency is sensitive to language dominance and that performance can be compared across the spoken and signed modality, but fingerspelled responses should be included in ASL fluency scores.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/deafed/eny013

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bimodal bilinguals show no interference between spoken language and a sign language with respect to semantic fluency.

    “Bimodal bilinguals show no interference between spoken language and a sign language with respect to semantic fluency [39]”

    From Support for parents of deaf children: Common questions and informed, evidence-based answers (2019) · cites this paper as [39]

    In “Semantic fluency in hearing ASL-English bilinguals” (page unavailable), the paper reports similar English fluency scores for ASL-English bilinguals and English monolinguals. It says bimodal bilinguals may experience *less* cross-language interference than spoken-language bilinguals, but cautions that the comparison lacks important moderator measures. It does not establish that they experience no interference. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [18]18. Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  2. [19]19. Lezak, M., Howieson, D., Bigler, E., & Tranel, D. (2012). Neuropsy- chological assessment. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.
  3. [34]34. Morere D. A., & Allen T. E. (Eds.), Assessing literacy in deaf individuals. Neurocognitive measuremement and predictions. New York, NY: Springer.
  4. [38]38. Sedey, A. (1995). Fast mapping of novel fingerspelled words by pro- foundly deaf students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sehyr, Z. S., Giezen, M. R., & Emmorey, K.
Affiliations
  • San Diego State University (US)
  • Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language (ES)
Corresponding author
Sehyr, Zed Sevcikova
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2018-05-04
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
399-407
ISSN
  • 1081-4159 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-7325
DOI
10.1093/deafed/eny013
PMC
PMC6146786
OpenAlex
W2799775950
Cited by
16
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Chapman University Digital Commons (Chapman University) (submittedVersion)
  • Communities in ADDI (Universidad del Pais Vasco) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Communities in ADDI (University of the Basque Country) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (HD047736)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
semantic fluency, American Sign Language, English language, language modality, age of acquisition, language dominance, fingerspelling, deaf signers, bilingualism
MeSH terms
Adult, Aptitude, Female, Humans, Language, Male, Semantics, Sign Language, Multilingualism, Persons with Hearing Disabilities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review