Search Results

This chapter examines morphological processes in sign languages, with an eye toward understanding morphology that changes internal properties of a sign. Cross-linguistic comparisons of German, Japanese and American Sign Languages reveal two such types of morphological processes. One changes the sign according to fixed forms listed in the lexicon; the other looks to interaction with gestural space to determine its realization. While both are subject to language-specific constraints against marked forms, only the latter is also subject to phonological constraints against moving or twisting a manual articulator. These constraints arise because interaction with gestural space has the potential to result in forms that exceed the limits of the articulators. This latter type of nonconcatenative morphology makes sign languages unique.

This chapter reports on a study that investigates the phenomenon of “sign accent,” or systematic phonological errors made by nonsigners attempting to mimic isolated ASL signs. The study has implications for sign language teaching, where people are learning an unfamiliar language in a modality new to them. The study finds two factors relevant to how well nonsigners produce the target handshape. One is markedness; anatomical features of the hand affect dexterity in making a sign, although with qualifications. This general finding is no surprise — studies of acquisition repeatedly show the relevance of phonetic markedness. The other factor, however, is surprising: transfer of phonological features from gestures hearing people make (with or without accompanying speech) affects the ability to mimic signs.

This chapter continues discussion of linguistic characteristics unique to sign languages by looking at structures and conceptual work needed in integrating visual imagery into the proper use of indicating verbs and handling-classifier predicates. Both types of verbs have unspecified components within their phonological structure to be elaborated compatibly with their semantic structure. The form-meaning correspondences in the indicating verb prompt the signer to direct the sign movement towards an appropriate discourse referent—thus filling in location features. On the other hand, these correspondences in the handling-classifier predicate prompt for the depiction of the encoded event. Therefore the phonological features of the handling-classifier predicate filled in by context are not limited to location; they pervade the verb’s phonological structure.

This chapter focuses on the acquisition of nonmanual behaviors in American Sign Language (ASL) by deaf children of deaf parents who are acquiring ASL as their native language. The first section begins with a brief overview of nonmanual morphology in adult ASL, followed by a statement of issues to be addressed. The second section chronicles the development of grammatical facial behaviors in deaf children of deaf parents acquiring ASL, from the appearance of first signs (at about 1 year of age) through the acquisition of facial expression for discourse purposes (about age 7).

This chapter focuses on interpreting in K-12 educational contexts. It describes linguistic demands and strategies that are applicable across a wide range of interpreting settings, and are relevant to both signed and spoken language interpreters. Given the variety of signed and spoken language-contact situations around the world, American Sign Language (ASL) and English are used as generic cover terms to illuminate some of the universal linguistic outcomes.

This chapter looks at issues surrounding the linguistic study of American Sign Language (ASL) and the possible implications for both the education of deaf students and the education of ASL-English interpreters. It begins with an overview of ASL linguistic research to date, then turns to recent findings that run counter to two common misconceptions about the nature of ASL and how such misconceptions can have detrimental effects on the ability of deaf people (and interpreters) to acquire and use the language. Finally, the chapter presents some suggestions for addressing the stated problems.

This chapter highlights some areas that are particularly important to address at the present time—both in language instruction and research on the adult acquisition of American Sign Language (ASL). It focuses on polycomponential signs (PSs), referential shift (RS), and constructed action (CA). It argues that the time has come for the creation of research-based suggestions for curricula development—suggestions that would ultimately improve the reliability and success of language instruction methodologies. The methodologies for teaching interpreting students the use of PSs, RS, and CA, which have proven to be a difficult part of ASL, could benefit tremendously from such research.

Many studies of second language learning regarding sign languages are phonetic, where the modality difference between spoken and sign languages is most apparent. However, studies of phonological, syntactic, and semantic phenomena allow a broader view of language differences. For signers whose first language is spoken, the modality difference can affect acquisition of morphology based not on concatenation but on processes (such as changing dynamics or size of a sign). It can also affect non-linear syntax, since this kind of syntax cannot occur in speech given a single speech track. On the other hand, for signers whose first language is sign, differences in the interface between modality and sign in the two languages will be important.

This chapter argues for a rhetorical approach and a digital future for American Sign Language (ASL) literature. In 1910, George Veditz, then president of the National Association of the Deaf, capitalized on the technology of film to produce the “Sign Masters Series” featuring ten nationally known “master signers” in an effort to “preserve and advance” the tradition of ASL, which he claimed we must “possess and jealously guard.” Almost one hundred years later, supported by a grant from the Battelle Endowment for Technology and Human Affairs (BETHA) at Ohio State University, new digital media technologies were used to re-enact the “Sign Master Series”—to digitally remaster the potential that exists in the creation, production, publication, and reception of sign language “literature.”

This chapter reviews recent studies of fingerspelling in American Sign Language (ASL), including those that discuss how young signers begin to construct fingerspelled words. These descriptions of early fingerspelling show that acquiring fingerspelling in ASL involves two sets of skills: first, the child learns to recognize fingerspelled words as whole units, and then, when reading and writing English become more prominent in the child’s life, the child begins to understand fingerspelled words as made up of hand shapes which correspond to the letters of the alphabet. In the latter sense, the child learns fingerspelling a second time — this time in terms of its internal composition and its link to English words in their written form. The chapter concludes by addressing some implications of this pattern of acquisition of fingerspelling for the early education of young deaf children.

This chapter talks about the consequences of parents' discovery of their child's hearing loss. A survey by Meadow-Orlans, Mertens, and Sass-Lehrer (2003) reveals that both hearing and deaf parents have similar worries; deaf parents in particular are concerned that their child might experience the same hardships they did growing up. The chapter begins by explaining the importance of gathering information about hearing loss. It then provides various means for early identification of hearing loss such as hearing tests for infants and for older kids. Also included are different communication modes for children to use as a form of language, including American Sign Language and other manually coded English systems, as well as the incorporation of music in everyday life.

This chapter illustrates the betweenity power and potential of American Sign Language (ASL) in the academy, wedged as it is between traditional letter-bound views of language and literature and a wave of twenty-first-century students who now actively engage in—and seek out—visual ways of learning. The chapter's use of the powerful little “I think I can” blue engine story helps place modern “deafness” in the institutional framework of larger academic language learning. Here, ASL becomes the little language that could: the little language that could turn out to be anything but little for those students who get the chance to learn it; the little language that could challenge and yet also affirm our ideas and beliefs about languages and culture; and the little language that could rumble and steam right through the established stations of language and literature programs in the academy, potentially overtaking some of the bigger trains.

This chapter traces the Zobrests’ decision-making regarding their deaf son Jim’s education from a pediatrician’s diagnosis in Erie, Pennsylvania, through Jim’s early training at the Gertrude A. Barber Center, to the family’s removal to Tucson, so that Jim could attend the Arizona School for the Deaf and the Blind, a public school. The analysis centers on the claims of competing pedagogies in deaf education: American Sign Language and socialization within Deaf culture, identity, and community and mainstreaming through Total Communication, speechreading, and Signed Exact English. The preference for mainstreaming is analyzed in the context of both a parental disposition toward complete social integration of deaf children and in the context of strong parental activism in behalf of enhancing opportunities for deaf children.

This chapter traces the beginnings of a system of education geared toward the Deaf community, examining how such a system had survived well into the twentieth century. Manual education promoted classroom instruction in the sign language—the American Sign Language (ASL), in particular—although “sign language” in general could refer to many such languages during the nineteenth century. Typically, though not in every case, the phrases “the sign language” and “the natural language of signs” referred to what in the late twentieth century would come to be called ASL. The sign language was generally recognized as the natural language of deaf people, both as the language that they most commonly used among themselves and as the language that originated from the deaf community itself.

This chapter describes the structures of English and of American Sign Language in proximity to one another so the reader may see similarities and differences when attempting to prepare an instructional sequence. Whereas the previous sections described how to teach language, this section addresses what to teach. Therefore it is a resource chapter the teacher will return to often in designing objectives and instruction. Nouns, noun phrases and advanced nominals, verbs, verb phrases and advanced verb forms, adjectives, adjectival phrases and advanced adjectival forms, adverbs, adverbial phrases and advanced adverbial forms, and negation are examined in depth. The individualized education plan for every deaf and hard-of-hearing learner should list prominently those specific instructional objectives identified as missing through assessment.

The author discovered American Sign Language (ASL) and the world of the deaf whilst in the United States. He helped set up a research program in the psycholinguistics of ASL and describes a few studies he did. He also edited, with Harlan Lane, a special issue of Langages on sign language, for French colleagues. The author then worked on the bilingualism and biculturalism of the deaf, and authored a text on the right of the deaf child to become bilingual. It has been translated into 30 different languages and is known the world over.

This chapter draws from the Guidelines for Accessible Assessment Project (GAAP), a federally funded research project to create and evaluate guidelines for developing American Sign Language versions of standardized test items. The chapter begins with a brief discussion of national education policy that provides the context for GAAP and the need for evidence-based guidelines, followed by an overview of the project. The third section describes lessons learned regarding fostering effective communication and collaboration among a deaf and hearing team. The fourth section describes important considerations for researchers related to sampling, recruitment, study design, data collection, analysis, and reporting. The chapter concludes with a summary of key learnings and critical questions that researchers should consider before embarking on research in deaf education.

This chapter offers a rhetorical analysis of four significant commonplaces for deaf people's identities and the field of “Deaf Studies” at the turn of the new century. It interrogates anxious efforts to separate and distinguish “deaf” and “disabled” and to uncouple the fraternal twins “deaf” and “Deaf.” Next, the chapter discusses the new deaf cyborg, equipped with the latest technology. The chapter then examines the radically changing nature of American Sign Language (ASL) as it undergoes both shift and standardization, goes ever more global, and also comes significantly into the hands of (mostly hearing) students in America who are eager to learn it as a “foreign” language. Finally, the chapter traces Derrida to consider the relationship between writing (and) deafness, ending with a new epistemological and ontological between space, positing a place called the “think-eye” space.

This chapter discusses movement kinematics in musical performance. Hand movements, like all movements, are subject to biomechanical and neural constraints. The design of musical instruments and the structure of musical compositions, as human inventions, undoubtedly conform to these constraints. This chapter discusses the influence of these constraints by extrapolating from observations on hand movements in musical performance. It also examines the extent of co-articulation in highly practiced behaviours such as typing, piano playing and finger spelling in American Sign Language.