Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Retroactive and proactive interference effects in dual learning of blissymbolics and manual sign

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nonspeech systems can be either aided or unaided. Each system possesses its unique learning and memory characteristics. One instructional strategy designed to give learners the advantages of both systems is dual instruction in aided and unaided communication. One problem with this approach, however, might be that of retroactive and proactive interference in learning and memory. The current experiment investigated whether dual instruction in Blissymbolics and manual (ASL) sign would lead to retroactive and proactive interference. Lists of sign/symbol referents in the two systems were taught, to nonhandicapped adults in a controlled setting. No effects of retroactive or proactive interference were found. Additionally, a proactive facilitation effect was found for immediate retention. Results are discussed in terms of the nature of the task, the learning memory attributes of the nonspeech systems, and the effects of sign/symbol translucency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alin L.H., Gustafson-Lundquist, C., Larson, E., & Wetterholm, P. (1980). The retention of a single event: IV. The retention of the loudness of a tone with and without proactive interference.Goteborg Psychological Reports, 10, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, D.F. (1983). Iconicity, arbitrariness, and duality of patterning in signed and spoken languages: Perspectives on language evolution.Sign Language Studies 38, 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battison, R. (1973).Phonology in American Sign Language: 3-D and digitation. Paper presented at the California Linguistic Association, Stanford University.

  • Begg, I., & Robertson, R. (1973). Imagery and long-term retention.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 689–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellugi, U., & Klima, E. (1976). Two faces of sign: Iconic and abstract. In S. Harmad, H. Steklis, & J. Lancaster (Eds.),The origins and evaluation of language and speech New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund, D.F., Smith, S.C., & Ornstein, P.A. (1982). Young children's release from proactive interference: The effects of category typicality.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 20, 211–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanton, R. L., & Brooks, P.H. (1978). Some psycholinguistic aspects of sign language. In M. Schlesinger & L. Namir (eds.),Sign language of the deaf: Psychological, linguistic, and sociological perspectives. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau A.F. (1983). Vocabulary selection in augmentative communication: Where do we begin? In H. Winitz (Ed.),Treating language disorders for clinicians by clinicians. Baltimore: University Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, C. (1965)Semantography. Sydney, Australia: Semantography Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosgole, L., & Grosso, J.J. (1983). The phenomenal determination of retroaction and proaction III: Contextual vs. temporal organization of two lists.Bulletin of the Psychometric Society, 2, 15–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bristow, D. & Fristoe, M. (1984). Learning of Blissymbols and manual signs.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 145–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark C. (1981). Learning words using traditional orthography and the symbols of Rebus, Bliss, and Carrier.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 191–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark C. (1984). A close look at the standard Rebus system and Blissymbolics.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (JASH), 9, 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., & Woodcock, R. (1976). Graphic systems of communication. In L. Lloyd (Ed.),Communication assessment and intervention strategies. Baltimore: University Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conlin, D., & Paivio, A. (1975). The associate learning of the deaf: The effects of word imagery and signability.Memory and Cognition, 3, 335–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowder, R.G. (1976).Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie-Jedermann, J.L., & Anglin, J.M. (1983). The concrete to abstract progression revisited: Evidence based on a release from proactive inhibition task.Merill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 209–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniloff, J.K., Lloyd, L.L., & Fristoe, M. (1983). Amer-Ind transparency.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 48, 103–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, R.S., Garabedian, A.A., & Yekovich, F.R., (1983). The effect of modality shifts on proactive interference in long-term memory.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 28–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, J.E., Daniloff, J.K., & Lloyd, L. L. (1985). The effect of categorical presentation on Amer-Ind transparency.Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishman, S., & Baldwin, G. (1984).Community preferences and attitudes toward four communication systems. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin at Madison.

  • Fristoe, M., & Lloyd, L.L. (1982).Transparency of manual signs taught most frequently for non-speaking individuals. Manuscript submitted for publication, Purdue University.

  • Griffith, P.L., & Robinson, J.H. (1980). Influence of iconicity and phonological similarity on sign learning by mentally retarded children.American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 291–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunter, B. (1980). Interpreting release from proactive interference for the individual subject.Psychological Reports, 46, (3, pt. 2), 1044–1046(A).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D., & Vanderheiden, G. (1980). Enhancing the development of communicative interaction. In R.L. Schiefelbusch (Ed.),Nonspeech language and communication: Analysis and intervention Baltimore: University Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hehner, B. (1980).Blissymbols for use. Toronto: Blissymbolics Communication Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J.J. (1963). Mediated associations: Paradigms and situations. In C.N. Cofer & B.S. Musgrave (Eds.),Verbal behavior and learning: Problems and processes New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlan, G.R., & Lloyd, L.L. (1984).Communication intervention for the moderately and severely handicapped. Baltimore: University Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiernan, C., Reid, B., & Jones, L. (1982).Signs and symbols: A review of literature and survey of the use of non-vocal communication systems. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klatzky, R. (1981).Human memory, (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Freeman Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohl, F.L. (1981). Effects of motoric requirements on the acquisition of manual sign responses by severely handicapped students.American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 396–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, E.B., & Brady, K.M. (1982). Presentation modality and taxonomic category as encoding dimensions for good and poor readers.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 103–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, M.A. (1982). Ontogenetic and phylogenetic, shifts in the cognitive representation of the conditioned response.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 163–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, L.L., & Karlan, G.R. (1984). Non-speech communication symbols and systems: Where have we been and where are we going?Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 28, 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, L.L., & Kiernan, C.C. (1984). Graphic systems: An overview. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Rehabilitation Engineering, Ottowa, Canada.

  • Luftig, R.L. (1983a). Variables influencing the learnability of individual signs and sign lexicons.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12, 361–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luftig, R.L. (1983b). Manual sign translucency and referential, concreteness in the sign learning of moderately/severely mentally retarded students.American Journal of Mental Deficiency 88, 279–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luftig, R.L. (in press.) Elaboration and interference as variables influencing the learning of manual sign.Sign Language Studies.

  • Luftig, R.L., & Bersani, H.A., Jr. (1985a).An investigation of the use of and reasons for adoption of manual sign and Blissymbolics for students with language impairment. Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Mental Retardation, Gatlinburg, Tennessee.

  • Luftig, R.L., & Bersani, H.A., Jr. (1985b). An investigation of Blissymbolics vs. print in symbol learning by nonreading preschool pupils.Journal of Communication Disorders, 18, 285–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luftig, R.L., & Bersani, H.A., Jr. (1985c). Ratings of transparency, translucency, and component complexity of Blissymbols.Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 8, 191–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luftig, R.L., & Bersani, H.A., Jr. (1985d). An initial investigation of the effects of translucency, transparency and component complexity on Blissymbol learning.Alternative and Augmentative Communication, 1, 32–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luftig, R.L., Gauthier, R.A., Freeman, S.A., & Lloyd, L.L. (1980). Modality preference and facilitation of learning using mixed, pure sign, oral, and graphic inputs.Sign Language Studies, 28, 255–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luftig, R.L., & Lloyd, L.L. (1981). Manual sign translucency and referential concreteness in the learning of sign.Sign Language Studies, 30, 49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luftig, R.L., Page, J.L., & Lloyd, L.L. (1983). Ratings of 854 ASL signs for perceived translucency.Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 6, 117–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNaughton, S., & Kates, B. (1980). The application of Blissymbolics. In R.L. Schiefelbusch (Ed.),Nonspeech language and communication. Baltimore: University Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselwhite, C.R., & Ruscello, D.M. (1984). Transparency of three communication symbol systems.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 436–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlansky, M.D., & Bonvillian, J.D. (1984). The role of iconicity in early sign acquisition.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 287–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1980).Imagery and verbal processes (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman, L. (1971). Transfer, interference, and forgetting. In J.W. Kling & L.A. Riggs (Eds.),Woodworth and Schlosberg's experimental psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman, L. (1976). Interference theory revisited. In J. Brown (Ed.),Recall and recognition. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman, L., & Underwood, B.J. (1973). Critical issues in interference theory.Memory and Cognition, 1, 19–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokoe, W.C. (1980). The study and use of sign language. In R.L. Schiefelbusch (Ed.),Nonspeech language and communication. Baltimore, Md: University Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, B. (1982). Proactive interference and the simultaneous acquisition retention phenomenon.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 142–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, B.J., & Ekstrand, B.R. (1966). An analysis of some shortcomings in the interference theory of forgetting.Psychological Review.73, 540–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, B.J., & Ekstrand, B.R. (1967). Studies of distributed practice: XXIX. Differentiation and proactive inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, B.J., & Freund, J.S. (1968). Effect of temporal separation of two-tasks on proactive inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology 78, 50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, L.C. (1974). An analysis of proactive inhibition in a cued recall task.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 131–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winters, J.J. (1982). The Brown-Peterson paradigm: A comparison of scoring methods.American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 289–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winters, J.J., & Semchuk, M.T. (1982). Proactive inhibition by mentally retarded persons: Effects of distractor vocalization.American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 231–233 (MR).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Psychology Department, Miami University Oxford, 201 McGuffey Hall, 45056, Ohio

    Richard L. Luftig & Henry A. Bersani Jr.

Authors
  1. Richard L. Luftig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henry A. Bersani Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Luftig, R.L., Bersani, H.A. Retroactive and proactive interference effects in dual learning of blissymbolics and manual sign. J Psycholinguist Res 15, 509–523 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067633

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067633

Keywords

Search

Navigation