Skip to main content
Login | Suomeksi | På svenska | In English

Browsing by Author "Tikanoja, Essi"

Sort by: Order: Results:

  • Tikanoja, Essi (2015)
    Targets: The amount of people learning sign language is constantly growing but learning the language has been little researched, except from the point-of-view of deaf children's language acquisition, both in Finland and internationally. The aim of this research was to bring more information into the field by looking into the experiences of learning Finnish sign language as a foreign language and analyse especially how different forms of learning (formal and informal learning) affect the learning experiences. Research was made with narrative inquiry and its goal was to reveal detailed and practical information. Methods: The study involved six persons who all had learned sign language in different ways and with different motives. Three of the individuals studied had participated in a formal edu-cation (sign language interpreter, sign language interpreter student, sign language instructor), one had studied sign language non-formally (mother of hard-of-hearing children) and two had learned sign language informally (spouse of a deaf person and a friend of a deaf person). The data was gathered through narrative interviews and was analysed with a narrative grasp and as well as by theming the material and comparing to previous research. Results and conclusions: According to the research results, the central phenomena in learning sign language as a foreign language are adapting to the modality of the new language and the importance of authentic opportunities where to use the language. The key difference between formal and informal learning appeared to be the atmosphere of learning which was more positive in the narration of those who had learned the language informally, in describing both the learning journey and their own level of learning. In the research material, there was also a difference in the metalinguistic point-of-view between the language learners; those who had studied formally described their learning and abilities from the linguistic perspective and with critical analysis whereas the rest emphasised the use of the language in communication in their descriptions.