Abstract
A method of time compressing visual displays was devised to assess the effects of compression on the comprehension of American sign language (ASL). Two ASL narratives were visually presented to three groups of deaf ASL users. A compression group was presented narratives compressed to 50% of the duration of the normal rates. A no-compression group was presented narratives signed at normal rates. A pause group was presented compressed narratives with blank pauses inserted so that the total time per narrative was equal to that of the no-compression versions. Following each narrative, subjects completed a written comprehension task. Comprehension in both compression and pause groups was significantly lower than in the no-compression group. Pauses did not significantly affect scores relative to compression. An additional group of deaf ASL users was presented an intelligibility task in which signs taken from the narratives were presented in isolation either with or without compression. The total number of signs correctly identified was significantly lower with compression. Decrements in comprehension were best explained as the result of cumulative decrements in sign intelligibility and not as the result of decrements in available processing time.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bellugi, U., and Klima, E. (1975). Aspects of sign language and its structure. In Kavanaugh, F. F., and Cutting, J. E. (eds.),The Role of Speech in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Bellugi, U., Klima, E., and Siple, P. (1975). Remembering in signs.Cognition 3: 93–125.
Bode, L. (1974). Communication of agent, object, and indirect objects in significant spoken language.Perceptual and Motor Skills 39:1151–1158.
Carver, R. P. (1973). Effect of increasing the rate of speech presentation upon comprehension.J. Educational Psychol. 65:118–126.
Fairbanks, G., and Koddman, F. (1956). Word intelligibility as a function of time compression.J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 29:636–641.
Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., and Garrett, M. F. (1974).The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Foulke, E. (1971). The perception of time compressed speech. In Horton, D. and Jenkins, J. (eds.),Perception in Language, Pittsburgh University Press, Pittsburgh, Penn.
Foulke, E., and Sticht, T. G. (1969). Review of Research on the intelligibility and comprehension of accelerated speech.Psycholog. Bull. 72:50–62.
Furth, E. (1973).Deafness and Learning: A Psychosocial Approach, Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif.
Garvey, W. D. (1953). The intelligibility of speeded speech.J. Experiment. Psychol. 45:102–108.
Hoemann, H. W. (1976).American Sign Language: Lexical and Grammatical Notes with Translation Exercises, National Association for the Deaf, Silver Springs, Md.
Miller, G. A., and Isard, S. (1963). Some perceptual consequences of linguistic rules.J. Verbal Learning and Verbal Behav. 2:217–228.
Miller, G. A., and Licklider, J. C. R. (1950). The intelligibility of interrupted speech.J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 22:217–228.
Orr, D. B. (1971). A perspective on the perception of compressed speech. In Horton, D., and Jenkins, J. (eds.),Perception in Language, Pittsburgh University Press, Pittsburgh, Penn.
Siple, P., Fischer, S. D. and Bellugi, U. (1977). Memory for nonsemantic attributes of American Sign Language signs and English words.J. Verbal Learning and Verbal Behav. 16:561–574.
Tweney, R. D., and Heiman, G. W. (1977). The effect of sign language grammatical structure on recall.Bull. Psychonomic Soc. 10:331–344.
Tweney, R. D., Heiman, G. W. and Hoemann, H. W. (1977). The psychological processing of sign language: The effects of visual disruption on sign intelligibility.J. Experimental Psychol.: General 106:255–268.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Heiman, G.W., Tweney, R.D. Intelligibility and comprehension of time compressed sign language narratives. J Psycholinguist Res 10, 3–15 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067358
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067358