To date, American Sign Language (ASL) dictionaries have
generally provided word search from English to ASL. Deaf children could
not look up vocabulary meanings according to their own primary language,
ASL. They could not look up meanings of an ASL word they saw and they
could not look up English counterparts to an ASL word they knew.
Therefore, Deaf children have had to rely on adults for definitions if
they recognized the ASL word but not the English vocabulary. As well,
parents of Deaf children have had no way to search a sign they saw for
which they did not know the meaning.
Furthermore, all print dictionaries are frozen with pictures
and ASL is a spatial language that cannot be fully represented in book
format. These picture dictionaries provide limited meta-linguistic
awareness of ASL features. Children’s ASL dictionary access has depended
on the philosophy and finances of natural gatekeepers (teachers,
parents, medical professionals, principals). Until now, there has been
no ASL-based dictionary designed specifically to look up words in
animated ASL to capture children’s fascination and make it
fun.
We, as codirectors of the Deaf Culture Centre, through the
Canadian Cultural Society of the Deaf (CCSD), determined to create the
first children’s animated ASL dictionary. The dictionary was to be
freely accessible on the Web.
FORGING ALLIANCES TO ACTUALIZE THE VISION
We had attended a workshop by Dr. Sam Supalla from the
University of Arizona in 2002 on ASL graphemes that had a huge impact on
our thinking related to ASL word search and how it could be done. Dr.
Supalla and his team had explained an ASL-phabet,
[1] or grapheme system, that
delineated the features that make up ASL words. We envisioned an
animated ASL dictionary for children that provided the ability to search
ASL words based on features, handshape, location, and movement (see
Figure 1). Children could scroll through the features of ASL (much like
the pictures on a slot machine) to select the features of the ASL word
they needed. It would alleviate the cumbersome nature of leafing through
pages of a text to find the feature needed and would be
three-dimensional―a critical feature for an ASL dictionary (see Figure
2).
In 2007, we attended the World Federation of the Deaf
Conference in Madrid, Spain, where we were impressed with the precision
and style of Deaf award-winning animator Braam Jordaan from South
Africa.
We had previously collaborated with the new-media production
company, Marblemedia Inc., on the award-winning deafplanet.com
educational TV series and Web site. We were confident with their skills
in educational Web development. We therefore forged a tri-country
alliance, with linguistics consultation from the United States,
animation from South Africa, and dictionary content and Web site
structure from Canada.
Figure 1. ASL word search by handshape, location, and movement.
Vision by Anita Small and Joanne Cripps, CCSD (2002)
Draft sketch by marblemedia Inc. and CCSD (2008)
Figure 2: ASL-phabet1 handshape (yellow), location (green) and movement (blue) grapheme selection on the final dictionary prototype (2009)
FUNDING AND PERMISSIONS
With $147,700 in funding in 2008 from the Inukshuk Wireless
Learning Plan Fund, we embarked on developing a prototype that included
100 words, multiple definitions, use in sentences, and English
translation. This prototype for young children in junior kindergarten
(JK) to grade 2 would serve as the template for dictionary testing and
expansion.
We received permission from Dr. Sam Supalla to use the
ASL-phabet grapheme system, his consultation, and The Resource
Book (2009). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co. gave
permission to use and adapt word definitions from The American
Heritage First Dictionary (2003). We, CCSD, held the copyright
for the Canadian Dictionary of ASL (2002), which we
used for reference to adult definitions of signs in a printed
text.
Figure 3. First draft of animated character, “scary rabbit,” by Braam Jordaan.
Figure 4. Refined “sweet rabbit” by Braam Jordaan. Inserted
into animated dictionary structure by Marblemedia Inc. & CCSD.
Figure 5. Final rabbit signing “breathe” by Braam Jordaan.
Figure 6. Final animated dictionary structure by CCSD and Marblemedia Inc.
Graphic design by Marc Keelan-Bishop.
VOCABULARY MODEL DEVELOPMENT
We envisioned an animated character for the signing “model” and
a human character to define and use the word in sentences. We needed to
think of a natural animated character/human pair. The animated
character required large clear hands for signing. We selected an
animated rabbit and a magician for the human character. We thought this
was a pair that young children in JK to grade 2 would relate to.
The animated character went through several renderings. It
eventually became a sweet rabbit suitable for young children (see
Figures 3 and 4). The animator emphasized the rabbit’s signs with stars
to trace the movements (not seen in figures).
VOCABULARY SELECTION
We used random selection (every third word) from The
Resource Book to obtain 300 words to define. Master ASL
instructor Mario Pizzacalla signed all 300 words on film. We sent video
clips of 100 words to South Africa to be transformed by Braam into
animations (see Figure 5). All words selected were cross-referenced fromThe American Heritage First Dictionary (2003)to
ensure appropriateness for this young age group.
Teachers from the Ontario Provincial Schools for Deaf students
wrote out the graphemes to be used in the dictionary for the vocabulary
selected. Dr. Sam Supalla reviewed all grapheme representations of the
words.
PRODUCTION OF DEFINITIONS
There is no one-to-one correspondence between ASL and English
semantics. For example, the English word run has
multiple definitions and multiple ASL signs. As well, one ASL sign may
have two or more definitions and two or more English words as in miss/guess.
Therefore, adaptation and additions of dictionary definitions
from The American Heritage First Dictionary (2003)
and Canadian Dictionary of ASL (2002) were critical.
ASL/English interpreting students developed the initial adaptations of
the English word definitions. We (a hearing sociolinguist and deaf
community leader, respectively) reviewed the ASL definitions along with a
Deaf adult child of Deaf parents and Deaf ASL linguist.
It should also be noted that there are homographs in ASL,such
as act and address, which have the
same grapheme representation (Supalla, e-mail correspondence, 2009)
just as there are homographs in English, such as wind
in “blow wind”and “wind the clock.”
Multiple definitions, lack of one-to-one correspondence of
vocabulary in ASL and English, and homographs all had to be taken into
account in the dictionary’s structural design.
RESEARCH AND EVALUATION
To evaluate efficacy of the animated dictionary prototype, we
pretested the prototype Web site for usability and outcomes at three
bilingual schools for Deaf students. We tested the site with 52 students
and 14 teachers in nine classes from JK to grade 4. We used
ethnographic methodology including observation, field notes, and teacher
report throughout one week in November 2009.
RESULTS
Usability
We discovered that students liked the signing title and loved
the rabbit and magician. Many users asked for a full-screen version. The
grapheme word list is not currently in order. All English words begin
with a capital letter. This is confusing to students. Some feedback
showed confusion on the “1,2,3” boxes. Some students clicked on the
numbers rather than the boxes beside them. This was improved on by
highlighting the box. Students did not seem to know how to “get out” of
an action or reset the tool for a new word. This was improved on by
creating an “x” box to exit from an action. It was suggested that we
should place the “play” buttons for the rabbit and the magician close to
the characters.
In all cases, the tool was used much more effectively after the
teacher had tried it first and could problem-solve with the students.
Students need instruction on graphemes for easy use. Students liked the
introduction, but many wanted to see an additional introduction to what
the graphemes are as well, and why they are important. There is also a
need for a teacher-training module with the ASL grapheme explanation.
Some younger students found there were too many buttons and were
distracted by them. This was improved on in the help section by removing
the multiple arrow buttons and replacing them with highlighted
sections.
The site was thought to be useful up to approximately grade 8.
Some users wished they could have a keyboard to type graphemes to select
the ASL words. Initial comments included “hard” and after 15 minutes
included comments such as “cool” (JK), “he’s cool!” (grade 1), “I love
it!” (JK to grade 4, teachers, teacher aide) “love it!” (teacher), and
“This is fantastic!” (teacher).
Learner Outcomes
Many students demonstrated the use of ASL word imitations such
as accept, strange, same, wrong, again, never, agree, and scratch when they were using the
dictionary. Students repeated definitions to their
teachers and to the researcher. They displayed meta-linguistic skills
and independent research skills, learning the search strategies within
15 minutes. Students were able to maintain their focus on the animated
dictionary from 15 to 50 minutes.
FUTURE PLANS
We intend to expand the animated dictionary of ASL to 1,500
words, which is the norm for most children’s dictionaries designed for
this age group. The expanded animated dictionary of ASL will include
cross-references. In other words, one ASL sign will have multiple
definitions and different English words when applicable. Similarly, one
English word will have multiple definitions and multiple ASL signs when
applicable. ASL and English will remain absolutely separate in the
dictionary Web site structure. The option of having a voice-over to hear
the English interpretation of the ASL for hearing users will be added
to the Web site. A parent and teacher guide explaining graphemes will be
added to the Web site and ASL-phabet training for teachers will be
provided with support from grant funding in the future. Further testing
of the expanded Web site for effectiveness as a resource in both first
and second language acquisition of both ASL and English will be
explored.
REFERENCES
Canadian Cultural Society of the Deaf Inc. (2002). Canadian Dictionary of ASL (C. Bailey and K. Dolby,
Eds.). Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta Press.
Editors of the American Heritage Dictionaries. (2003). The American Heritage First Dictionary. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
Supalla, S.J. (2009). The resource book.
Unpublished manuscript. Tucson: University of Arizona.
Supalla, S., Wix, T., & McKee, C. (2001). Print as a
primary source of English for deaf learners. In J. Nicol & T.
Langendoen (Eds.), One mind, two languages: Studies in
bilingual language processing (pp. 177-190). Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
Anita Small, MSc, EdD, Deaf Culture Centre and
University of Toronto Scarborough, Department of Humanities –
Linguistics, and Joanne Cripps, CYW, Deaf Culture Centre and Ryerson
University, BA candidate, Department of Politics and Public
Administration
[1] Permission granted by Dr. Sam Supalla for
citation of ASL-phabet.
