{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018898931799506986, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003286770747740345, 'mean_word_length': 5.766666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Discussion of Issues Related to Assessment Constructs in Spoken and Signed Languages

Thinking about what is assessed—the construct—in any language assessment raises questions about the nature of language use, the nature of developmental trajectories, and whose language patterns determine what is ‘standard’. The assessment of signed languages draws attention to assessment practices and understandings that are entrenched, for better or worse, in the assessment of spoken languages. Spoken language assessments of standardized varieties tend to value the written sentence as an ideal unit, a legacy of standardization. Signed language assessments, on the other hand, may be emerging alongside processes of standardization. Capturing semiotic complexity in the construct remains a significant challenge for both signed and spoken language assessments, despite the development of corpora which exemplify it. This chapter discusses these theoretical, ideological, and practical challenges for assessing signed and spoken language abilities. It brings together key ideas from chapters Chapters 7.1 and 7.2 and offers future directions in the development of theory and practice in signed and spoken language assessments.