Discussion of Issues Related to Score Use and Interpretation of First Spoken and Signed Language Assessments

2021 ◽  
pp. 75-84
Author(s):  
Patrick Boudreault ◽  
Bernard Camilleri ◽  
Charlotte Enns
Keyword(s):  
Normative Data ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Standardized Assessments ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Target Populations ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Heterogenous Group ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
The Difference

A standardized assessment of spoken languages will collect data from native, monolingual speakers, thus establishing the range of receptive and/or expressive abilities of children across different ages. Similarly, normative data for standardized assessments of signed language are established by collecting data from native signing deaf children. Where the difference arises is the way in which the normative data relate to the target populations and the individuals within those populations who are being assessed. While standardized assessments of spoken language are normed on and predominantly intended for use with native speakers of that language, standardized assessments of signed language are intrinsically designed for use with a heterogenous group of children, of whom only a minority have the opportunity of learning signed language as their native language. In this chapter, key items related to score use and interpretation in first language (L1) assessment that were presented in Chapters 2.1 and 2.2 will be jointly discussed by the authors.

Developing Sign Language Measurements for Research With Deaf Populations

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Henner ◽  
Robert Hoffmeister ◽  
Jeanne Reis
Keyword(s):  
American Sign Language ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
American Sign ◽  
Language Deprivation ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
Hearing Children

Limited choices exist for assessing the signed language development of deaf and hard of hearing children. Over the past 30 years, the American Sign Language Assessment Instrument (ASLAI) has been one of the top choices for norm-referenced assessment of deaf and hard of hearing children who use American Sign Language. Signed language assessments can also be used to evaluate the effects of a phenomenon known as language deprivation, which tends to affect deaf children. They can also measure the effects of impoverished and idiosyncratic nonstandard signs and grammar used by educators of the deaf and professionals who serve the Deaf community. This chapter discusses what was learned while developing the ASLAI and provides guidelines for educators and researchers of the deaf who seek to develop their own signed language assessments.

Design of Signed Language Tests for Deaf L1 Children

2021 ◽  
pp. 29-40
Author(s):  
Rosalind Herman ◽  
Katherine Rowley
Keyword(s):  
First Language ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Written Form ◽  
Age Appropriate ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Development Proceeds

Recent changes in the earlier diagnosis of deafness and improved amplification options have meant that deaf children increasingly have better opportunities to develop spoken language. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of children continue to use signed language as a first language (L1), including deaf and hearing children in deaf signing families and deaf children in hearing families where families use signed language in the home. For both groups, mastery of sign language as an L1 is important because it paves the way to communication and also because it provides the basis for development of spoken language, in either its oral or written form, as a second language (L2). It is crucial that signed language development proceeds in an age-appropriate manner, and assessments of signed language are therefore important to ensure that this is the case. However, the development of effective tests of signed language acquisition is not without challenges. This chapter presents these challenges and other issues and gives examples of how available tests seek to overcome them.

Score Use and Interpretation of First Spoken Language Assessments

2021 ◽  
pp. 51-62
Author(s):  
Bernard Camilleri
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Reliable Information ◽  
Standardized Assessments ◽  
Language Abilities ◽  
Language Assessments

Several elements are involved in collecting valid and reliable information about a child’s spoken language abilities. The use and interpretation of commercially available “standardized” spoken language assessments is but one of these elements and can only take place when assessments have been developed for use with the child’s language, something that is far from being a given in many countries and languages. This chapter discusses the use of norm-referenced and other types of standardized assessments (which may involve standardized administration but not normative data) for the assessment of different aspects or areas of children’s language. In addition, the ways in which scores and other data obtained from these assessments are interpreted and used for clinical decision-making will be reviewed, highlighting both the advantages and limitations of these assessments. Finally, the author considers the extent to which the use of standardized assessments within research and clinical contexts overlaps and/or diverges.

Epilogue

2021 ◽  
pp. 437-446
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Mann ◽  
Tobias Haug ◽  
Ute Knoch
Keyword(s):  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
The Difference

The preceding chapters on signed language assessment and spoken language assessment have demonstrated that the two fields may have different roots and contexts of application, mostly due to the difference in modality, but there are also similarities that may be lesser known. In this chapter, the authors demonstrate how both differences and similarities between the field of signed and spoken languages can create exciting opportunities to rethink old, traditional perspectives and engage in new approaches and collaborations between experts who share the same overall goal: that is, to develop language assessments that are methodologically sound and can be applied to their respective contexts.

Language Development in Deaf Children

2019 ◽  
pp. 338-368
Author(s):  
Aaron J. Newman
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
Assistive Technologies ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Deaf Parents

Hearing loss affects over 1 billion people around the world and is the fifth leading cause of disability. In the United States, approximately 10,000 babies are born each year with significant hearing loss. Although assistive technologies such as cochlear implants (CIs) are available to restore hearing, deaf children who receive CIs on average show significantly poorer language skills and academic outcomes than their normally hearing peers. At the same time, a relatively small percentage of deaf children are born to deaf parents and learn sign language as their first language, and grow up to be excellent, fluent communicators who are bilingual in signed and spoken language. Historically, there has been significant tension between advocates of sign language and “oralists” who discouraged sign language use. This chapter provides a critical review of language development in deaf children, including those with CIs and those exposed to different kinds, and amounts, of signed language. The linguistic and educational outcomes of deaf children are considered in light of current understanding of neurodevelopment, sensitive periods, and neuroplasticity, while highlighting areas of controversy and important directions for future research. The chapter concludes with evidence-based recommendations in favor of sign language exposure for all deaf children.

Language Assessment Literacy in Second Signed Language Assessment Contexts

2021 ◽  
pp. 383-393
Author(s):  
Eveline Boers-Visker ◽  
Annemiek Hammer
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Language Programs ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Language Assessments

There are growing numbers of students who enroll sign language programs. Most of them are hearing students whose first language is in the aural-oral modality. Learning signed language challenges them to communicate via the visual-manual modality; a process that is known to be demanding (Kemp, 1998). Therefore, in instruction it is essential to monitor this process by means of effective and efficient assessment (Miller et al., 2008). Rather remarkably, there are only a few tests developed to assess students’ proficiency in sign language. This implies that most instructors, who are involved in sign language teaching, have to develop tests and assessments themselves. Complicating factor, however, is that most instructors are not specifically trained on this topic, i.e. their knowledge and skills to evaluate or design language tests is limited. In this chapter, we will bring issues to view that are involved with the design of sign language assessments. Sign language proficiency can be broken down into two components: the visual receptive and manual expressive component. The assessment of these components will be discussed in the context of validity, reliability, authenticity, impact and practicality. We aim to provide a comprehensive matrix of issues in test design, with special focus on the pitfalls one may encounter in using or developing sign language tests for production as well as receptive skills. The matrix is a first attempt to provide a knowledge base on sign language assessment that might be helpful for instructors to become more literate on the subject matter.

The relationship between vowel production and perception: native speakers' perception of nativeness in LOT and THOUGHT vowels in Received Pronunciation

English Today ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-47
Author(s):  
Jussi Wikstrom
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Vowel Quality ◽  
Vowel Production ◽  
Generational Changes ◽  
First Languages ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Received Pronunciation ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Individual Speaker

The fact that differences in vowel articulation are important in distinguishing accents of English is well established (Wells, 1982; Cruttenden, 2008; Ng, Chen & Sadaka, 2008; Park, 2009a, 2009b). It is also the case that speakers' production of a particular vowel varies for an individual speaker and between speakers of the ‘same’ accent (Rose, 2002; Cruttenden, 2008). In terms of perception, it is evident that L1 speakers, i.e. speakers for whom the language is the first language or one of the first languages acquired, are often able to recognise vowel articulations which deviate from the norm in their accent, even when the difference in vowel production is not significant enough to be mapped onto another L1 phoneme category, i.e. where the use of the alternative vowel quality could potentially change the meaning of the word (Park, 2009a). It should be acknowledged that any such norms are likely to vary in accordance with generational changes to a particular variety. But studies seeking to establish the degree of interrelatedness of vowel production and speakers' perceived ideal realisation have had mixed results. For example, Hoopingarner (2004) found that L1 speakers' production and preferred realisation were relatively similar, while Ainsworth & Paliwal (1984) and Frieda, Walley, Flege & Sloane (2000) failed to demonstrate such a correlation.

scholarly journals Social beliefs for the realization of the speech acts of apology and complaint as defined in Ciluba, French, and English

Pragmatics ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 543-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kashama Mulamba
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Cultural Beliefs ◽  
First Language ◽  
Social Beliefs ◽  
Language Groups ◽  
Speech Communities ◽  
French And English ◽  
The Difference

Most cross-linguistic studies of speech acts have dealt mainly with two languages, a native language and a second or foreign language (Carrell and Konneker 1981; Castello 1981; Blum-Kulka 1982; Daikuhura 1986; Eisenstein 1986; Wieland 1989; Chen Rong 1993, 2001; Sifianou 2001; Lee 2004, 2005). Neither have they dealt with an African language as the first language. The present study investigates a multilingual situation where the native speakers of Ciluba, French, and English are compared to the trilingual speakers of the three languages in terms of the realization of the speech acts of apologizing and complaining. It considers the social beliefs of the subjects of the four language groups for the realization of the two speech acts. The study is part of a larger study that was designed to discover the norms of the three languages under investigation and to see how people speaking a second and a foreign language, with different levels of fluency in each, can participate in the activity of the speech communities of the two languages without violating their socio-cultural norms, and what impact, if any, their knowledge of these languages has on each of the languages they speak. Data for the larger study was collected by means of a written questionnaire, role plays, and direct observation. The data and results presented and discussed in this paper come from the written questionnaire administered to the monolingual English and French speakers and trilingual speakers native in Ciluba; and from the same version of the questionnaire administered orally to the monolingual Ciluba speakers. It was found that for the realization of the speech acts of apologizing and complaining, Luba socio-cultural beliefs were different from those of English and French, which are similar. In contrast to French and English, in Ciluba social distance and relative power between the participants play an important role in deciding whether the speech acts can be performed or not. The results also revealed that, despite the difference which exists between Ciluba and the other two languages, i.e., French and English, some subjects from the group of Ciluba monolingual subjects showed some similarities with the groups of French and English monolingual subjects in their responses to some items in the questionnaire. This deviation of some of the native speakers of Ciluba from their social beliefs was hypothesized to be a result of their contact with an urban environment and its mixed culture.

Salvaging the Mother Tongue in Exile

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 187-204
Author(s):  
Tomás Espino Barrera
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Mother Tongue ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Attrition ◽  
The Past ◽  
Progressive Loss ◽  
First Language Attrition ◽  
Lost In Translation ◽  
Deliberate Effort ◽  
Deep Sense

The dramatic increase in the number of exiles and refugees in the past 100 years has generated a substantial amount of literature written in a second language as well as a heightened sensibility towards the progressive loss of fluency in the mother tongue. Confronted by what modern linguistics has termed ‘first-language attrition’, the writings of numerous exilic translingual authors exhibit a deep sense of trauma which is often expressed through metaphors of illness and death. At the same time, most of these writers make a deliberate effort to preserve what is left from the mother tongue by attempting to increase their exposure to poems, dictionaries or native speakers of the ‘dying’ language. The present paper examines a range of attitudes towards translingualism and first language attrition through the testimonies of several exilic authors and thinkers from different countries (Vladimir Nabokov's Speak, Memory, Hannah Arendt's interviews, Jorge Semprún's Quel beau dimanche! and Autobiografía de Federico Sánchez, and Eva Hoffman's Lost in Translation, among others). Special attention will be paid to the historical frameworks that encourage most of their salvaging operations by infusing the mother tongue with categories of affect and kinship.

A Study on Students' Problems in ESL Writing Classes in the Arts College/ Kuwait University

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Mona Salem Rashed
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Word Choice ◽  
Esl Students ◽  
Esl Writing ◽  
Kuwait University ◽  
Writing Classes ◽  
The Arts ◽  
The Difference ◽  
At Home

This paper discusses the influence of the first language (Arabic) on the second language (English) in the writing pieces of ESL students in Arts College/ Kuwait University. Going over some writing papers taken from the students' work in class, the reader would notice a 'different English'. The overall layout of the paper, the ideas presentation, the personal expression, the syntax and word choice, the punctuation and other elements make this new language on students' papers. From papers written in class and at home, I conducted an analysis to see the difference between the two languages techniques, and to find solutions for that. I also interviewed students and they assured that Arabic has a massive influence on them. They disclosed that they read the topic in English, and think/analyze in Arabic. Some participants mentioned that their limited competence of vocabulary in English hindered them from expressing well on paper. Another group mentioned that the idea of 'being explanatory' prevailed their thinking while writing. They said that they wanted to explain their ideas well and repeatedly so that the reader/teacher would understand their points. They also had troubles in organizing the sentences according to the English paragraph style.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document