Family ASL: An Early Start to Equitable Education for Deaf Children

2021 ◽  
pp. 027112142110313
Author(s):  
Diane C. Lillo-Martin ◽  
Elaine Gale ◽  
Deborah Chen Pichler
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Early Exposure ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Early Adoption ◽  
Language Deprivation ◽  
Equitable Education

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children experience systematic barriers to equitable education due to intentional or unintentional ableist views that can lead to a general lack of awareness about the value of natural sign languages and insufficient resources supporting sign language development. Furthermore, an imbalance of information in favor of spoken languages often stems from a phonocentric perspective that views signing as an inferior form of communication that also hinders the development of spoken language. On the contrary, research demonstrates that early adoption of a natural sign language confers critical protection from the risks of language deprivation without endangering spoken language development. In this position paper, we draw attention to deep societal biases about language in the information presented to parents of DHH children, against early exposure to a natural sign language. We outline actions that parents and professionals can adopt to maximize DHH children’s chances for on-time language development.

scholarly journals Deaf children need language, not (just) speech

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Hall ◽  
Wyatte C. Hall ◽  
Naomi K. Caselli
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Language Deprivation ◽  
Language Exposure ◽  
Harmful Effects

Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) children need to master at least one language (spoken or signed) to reach their full potential. Providing access to a natural sign language supports this goal. Despite evidence that natural sign languages are beneficial to DHH children, many researchers and practitioners advise families to focus exclusively on spoken language. We critique the Pediatrics article ‘Early Sign Language Exposure and Cochlear Implants’ (Geers et al., 2017) as an example of research that makes unsupported claims against the inclusion of natural sign languages. We refute claims that (1) there are harmful effects of sign language and (2) that listening and spoken language are necessary for optimal development of deaf children. While practical challenges remain (and are discussed) for providing a sign language-rich environment, research evidence suggests that such challenges are worth tackling in light of natural sign languages providing a host of benefits for DHH children – especially in the prevention and reduction of language deprivation.

scholarly journals Adoption of the sign language with deaf and hard of hearing preschool children

Bastina ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 513-535
Author(s):  
Tamara Kovačević ◽  
Ljubica Isaković
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Children ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Preschool Age ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
The Family ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
Hearing Children

This study analyses the process of adopting of the sign language with deaf and hard of hearing preschool children in the context of the result of linguistic and psycholinguistic research. The importance of the sign language is emphasized and its historical development is analyzed. It is pointed to the significance of the critical period for the adoption and the learning of the sign and spoken language with deaf and hard of hearing preschool children. The sign language is natural and primary linguistic expression of deaf children. Deaf and hard of hearing children are exposed to the sign and spoken language, they have better understanding and linguistic production than the children who are only exposed to the spoken language. Bilingualism involves the knowledge and the regular use of the sign language, which is used by the deaf community, and of the spoken language, which is used by the hearing majority. Children at the preschool age should be enabled to continue to adopt the language they started to adopt within the family (the sign language or the spoken language). Children will adopt the best both linguistic modalities through the interaction with other fluent speakers (the adults and children).

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.

Language Development and Deaf Children

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Marschark ◽  
Harry G. Lang ◽  
John A. Albertini
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Academic Success ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
University Center ◽  
Language Modality ◽  
Hearing Children

To understand the complex relations between language and learning, we have to look at both how children learn language and what it is that they learn that allows them to communicate with others. To accomplish this, we need to distinguish between apparent differences in language that are related to the modality of communication and actual differences in language fluencies observed among deaf children. It also will help to examine some relevant differences between deaf children and hearing children. We have already pointed out that the distinction between spoken language and sign language, while a theoretically important one for researchers, is an oversimplification for most practical purposes. It is rare that deaf children are exposed only to spoken language or sign language, even if that is the intention of their parents or teachers. According to 1999 data, approximately 55 percent of deaf children in the United States are formally educated in programs that report either using sign language exclusively (just over 5 percent) or signed and spoken language together (just over 49 percent) (Gallaudet University, Center for Applied Demographic Statistics). Because almost half of all deaf children in the United States are missed in such surveys, however, these numbers only should be taken as approximate. Comparisons of the language abilities of deaf children who primarily use sign language with those who primarily use spoken language represent one of the most popular and potentially informative areas in research relating to language development and academic success. Unfortunately, this area is also one of the most complex. Educational programs emphasizing spoken or sign language often have different educational philosophies and curricula as well as different communication philosophies. Programs may only admit children with particular histories of early intervention, and parents will be drawn to different programs for a variety of reasons. Differences observed between children from any two programs thus might be the result of a number of variables rather than, or in addition to, language modality per se. Even when deaf children are educated in spoken language environments, they often develop systems of gestural communication with their parents (Greenberg et al., 1984).

Language development in a bimodal bilingual child with cochlear implant: A longitudinal study

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 798-809 ◽  
Author(s):  
PASQUALE RINALDI ◽  
MARIA CRISTINA CASELLI
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Early Age ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Vocabulary Growth ◽  
The Relationship

To address the negative effects of deafness on spoken language acquisition, many clinicians suggest using cochlear implant (CI) and oral education and advise against sign language, even when combined with spoken language (i.e., bilingualism), believing that it may slow down spoken language development. In a deaf child with CI who was exposed at an early age to Italian Sign Language and spoken Italian, we evaluated language development and the relationship between the two languages. The number of words/signs produced by the child consistently increased with age, and the vocabulary growth rate in spoken Italian was equivalent to that of hearing peers. Before CI, the child relied almost exclusively on sign language; after CI, he gradually shifted to spoken Italian yet still used sign language when unable to retrieve words in spoken Italian. We conclude that bimodal bilingualism may scaffold the development of spoken language also in deaf children with CI.

De Nederlandse Gebarentaal En Taalonderwijs

1991 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
pp. 75-82
Author(s):  
Beppie van den Bogaerde
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Language Teachers ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf People ◽  
Teaching Materials ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Language Courses ◽  
Native Signers

Sign Language of the Netherlands (SLN) is considered to be the native language of many prelingually deaf people in the Netherlands. Although research has provided evidence that sign languages are fully fletched natural languages, many misconceptions still abound about sign languages and deaf people. The low status of sign languages all over the world and the attitude of hearing people towards deaf people and their languages, and the resulting attitude of the deaf towards their own languages, restricted the development of these languages until recently. Due to the poor results of deaf education and the dissatisfaction amongst educators of the deaf, parents of deaf children and deaf people themselves, a change of attitude towards the function of sign language in the interaction with deaf people can be observed; many hearing people dealing with deaf people one way or the other wish to learn the sign language of the deaf community of their country. Many hearing parents of deaf children, teachers of the deaf, student-interpreters and linguists are interested in sign language and want to follow a course to improve their signing ability. In order to develop sign language courses, sign language teachers and teaching materials are needed. And precisely these are missing. This is caused by several factors. First, deaf people in general do not receive the same education as hearing people, due to their inability to learn the spoken language of their environment to such an extent, that they have access to the full eduational program. This prohibits them a.o. to become teachers in elementary and secondary schools, or to become sign language teachers. Althought they are fluent "signers", they lack the competence in the spoken language of their country to obtain a teacher's degree in their sign language. A second problem is caused by the fact, that sign languages are visual languages: no adequate system has yet been found to write down a sign language. So until now hardly any teaching materials were available. Sign language courses should be developed with the help of native signers who should be educated to become language-teachers; with their help and with the help of video-material and computer-software, it will be possible in future to teach sign languages as any other language. But in order to reach this goal, it is imperative that deaf children get a better education so that they can contribute to the emancipation of their language.

The Medium and the Message

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy Sandler
Keyword(s):  
Facial Expression ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Prosodic Word ◽  
Special Stress ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Phonological Phrase ◽  
The Relationship

In natural communication, the medium through which language is transmitted plays an important and systematic role. Sentences are broken up rhythmically into chunks; certain elements receive special stress; and, in spoken language, intonational tunes are superimposed onto these chunks in particular ways — all resulting in an intricate system of prosody. Investigations of prosody in Israeli Sign Language demonstrate that sign languages have comparable prosodic systems to those of spoken languages, although the phonetic medium is completely different. Evidence for the prosodic word and for the phonological phrase in ISL is examined here within the context of the relationship between the medium and the message. New evidence is offered to support the claim that facial expression in sign languages corresponds to intonation in spoken languages, and the term “superarticulation” is coined to describe this system in sign languages. Interesting formaldiffer ences between the intonationaltunes of spoken language and the “superarticulatory arrays” of sign language are shown to offer a new perspective on the relation between the phonetic basis of language, its phonological organization, and its communicative content.

scholarly journals Visible Meaning: Sign language and the foundations of semantics

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 123-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Schlenker
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Crucial Role ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Logical Form ◽  
Indirect Evidence ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
One Dimension ◽  
Dynamic Binding ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Context Shift

AbstractWhile it is now accepted that sign languages should inform and constrain theories of ‘Universal Grammar’, their role in ‘Universal Semantics’ has been under-studied. We argue that they have a crucial role to play in the foundations of semantics, for two reasons. First, in some casessign languages provide overt evidence on crucial aspects of the Logical Form of sentences, ones that are only inferred indirectly in spoken language. For instance, sign language ‘loci’ are positions in signing space that can arguably realize logical variables, and the fact that they are overt makes it possible to revisit foundational debates about the syntactic reality of variables, about mechanisms of temporal and modal anaphora, and about the existence of dynamic binding. Another example pertains to mechanisms of ‘context shift’, which were postulated on the basis of indirect evidence in spoken language, but which are arguably overt in sign language. Second, along one dimensionsign languages are strictly more expressive than spoken languagesbecause iconic phenomena can be found at their logical core. This applies to loci themselves, which maysimultaneouslyfunction as logical variables and as schematic pictures of what they denote (context shift comes with some iconic requirements as well). As a result, the semantic system of spoken languages can in some respects be seen as a simplified version of the richer semantics found in sign languages. Two conclusions could be drawn from this observation. One is that the full extent of Universal Semantics can only be studied in sign languages. An alternative possibility is that spoken languages have comparable expressive mechanisms, but only when co-speech gestures are taken into account (as recently argued by Goldin-Meadow and Brentari). Either way, sign languages have a crucial role to play in investigations of the foundations of semantics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document