Handshape and Location Errors in ASL 1 Family Signs
At a suburban high school, ASL 1 has 24 students in a 9-week exploratory course. After a unit on family vocabulary, the teacher reviews recorded partner dialogues and finds three patterns: (1) 11 students sign FATHER at the chin rather than the forehead; (2) 9 students produce SORRY with a flat B handshape instead of an A handshape, making it resemble PLEASE; (3) 6 students sign MOTHER with a closed fist instead of an open hand. The teacher has one 45-minute class before a unit quiz and wants to address the errors without overwhelming students. The department expects weekly vocabulary quizzes and an end-of-unit expressive assessment. The teacher is unsure whether to treat these as careless mistakes, motor errors, or phonological category errors, and whether to drill isolated signs or contrast pairs.
1. Classify each of the three error patterns by phonological parameter and explain whether it is likely a motor/articulatory error or a contrastive category error. Justify your classification with reference to ASL minimal pairs.
Read the worked answer
Parameter analysis. FATHER at the chin is a location error. Location is contrastive in ASL: FATHER and MOTHER share handshape and movement but differ in contact point (forehead versus chin). Producing FATHER at the chin therefore risks a different lexical item, not just an accent; I would classify it as a phonological category error unless the student can perceive the contrast and simply mis-executes it. SORRY with a flat B handshape is a handshape error. SORRY and PLEASE share location and circular movement but contrast in handshape (A versus flat B), so the substitution changes meaning; this is a category error. MOTHER with a closed fist is also a handshape error, but I would check whether it is systematic. If the student uses a fist for all open-hand signs, it is likely motor/articulatory; if only for MOTHER and similar signs, it may be a phonological representation problem. The key is contrastive function, not aesthetic accuracy.
2. Design a 20-minute instructional sequence for the next class that targets these errors. Include a warm-up, a contrastive drill, and an informal check for understanding. Explain why each component is appropriate.
Read the worked answer
I would use a 20-minute sequence: (1) 5-minute warm-up with three minimal pairs signed by me or shown on video-FATHER/MOTHER, SORRY/PLEASE, and a control pair-where students judge same or different; this makes the contrastive parameter salient. (2) 10-minute contrastive drill in pairs: each student produces both members of a pair in random order while the partner watches for the critical parameter and gives a corrective model; I circulate and collect three or four common errors. (3) 5-minute exit task: students record a short signed sentence using two target signs and self-assess against a parameter checklist. I would not drill isolated signs for 20 minutes because the errors are category confusions, and isolated repetition does not force students to attend to the contrast. The exit task gives me production data before the quiz and lets me decide whether to reteach or move on.
3. The teacher must also create a 5-item expressive quiz. Propose three item types that would allow valid inference about phonological control rather than mere vocabulary recall.
Read the worked answer
Three item types: (a) minimal-pair production: show a picture or English prompt and ask the student to sign the target while the teacher notes the critical parameter; (b) error detection and repair: the teacher signs a known incorrect form and the student identifies and repairs it, which taps metalinguistic control; (c) novel combination: students sign a short message using target signs in a new context, so the score reflects productive control rather than memorized vocabulary. A matching quiz would only show recognition. I would score each item with a 0-2 parameter rubric and report which parameter failed, because a single total score does not tell the teacher what to reteach.