Denna studie undersöker hur adversativa och deskriptiva betydelserelation markeras i satser och hur manuella och icke manuella signaler används för att markera dess betydelserelationer i det svenska teckenspråket. Olika områden i denna studie belyses för att de har betydelse för markering av adversativa och deskriptiva betydelserelationer och kan påverka för hur vi markerar tecken och icke-manuella signaler i teckenspråkssatser: teckenrummet, icke manuella signaler och ordföljd som kan variera. Det visar att det är både tecken och icke-manuella signaler som markerar de två betydelserelationerna beroende på kontexten i teckenspråkstexter. När man använder markörer för betydelserelationer så används tecknen i sina grundformer. Det kan också finnas några teckenvarianter på ett tecken. Tydliga markörer med icke-manuella signaler för betydelserelationer är blickriktning, upphöjda eller nerdragna ögonbryn och ögon som är uppspärrade eller kisande. Placering av tecken i teckenrummet kan betraktas som en markör. / This study examines how adversative and descriptive semantic relations is marked in sentences and how signs and non-manual signals are used to mark these important relations in Swedish Sign Language. Different areas of this study are highlighted because they are significant and may influence how we select sign and non-manual signals in sentences of sign language: sign space, non-manual signals and word sequence that can vary. It is shown that both sign and non-manual signals that mark the two semantic relationships depend on the context of the sign language text. When one uses markers for semantic relations, the signs are being used in its basics forms. There can also be phonological variants of one sign. Clear markers with the non-manual signals for meaning relationships are eye gaze, raised or furrowed eyebrows, and eyes that are widened or squinting. Placement of signs in the space can be regarded as a marker.

The purpose of this study was to examine which of the two vocabulary-learning methods non-contextualized vocabulary learning and vocabulary learning combined with semantic relations promote the learning and retention of new vocabulary items. The following research questions were asked: Which of the two above-mentioned methods best promotes the students’ vocabulary learning and word comprehension? What differences can be noted in the students’ test results regarding learning and retention of new vocabulary items between these two methods? Which method promotes the students' long-term retention of vocabulary items and word comprehension? In total, 36 students from two classes, divided into four groups, participated in the study. Each group was taught using one of the two methods. After the first round of lessons, the teaching methods were swapped such that all the students tried both methods and so that the survey could be considered reliable. The empirical material was obtained from field experiments and tests in direct connection with the lessons and retention tests four days later. The results were analyzed using Schema theory and a theory of memory processing called Executive Control Processes. These theories were used to investigate the students’ retention of vocabulary items and how students use schematic knowledge to associate words to one another. The results showed that the second method, the combined method, seemed to be the most promising not only for retention, but also for the number of learned vocabulary items and for word comprehension.