Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T01:42:29.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is learnable in manually coded English sign systems?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Brenda Schick  and
Mary Pat Moeller
Brenda Schick*
Affiliation:
Boys Town National Institute
Mary Pat Moeller
Affiliation:
Boys Town National Institute
*
Brenda Schick, 202 Barkley Center, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0732. email: BSCHlCK@unlinfo.unl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been suggested that manual sign systems designed to represent English are unlearnable because they are not natural languages. In order to examine this premise, the present study examines reading achievement and expressive English skills of 13 profoundly deaf students, aged 7;1 to 14;8, who were educated using only a manually coded English (MCE) sign system. Linguistic structures selected for analysis were designed to reflect unique characteristics of English, as well as those common to English and American Sign Language, and to obtain a broad picture of English skills. Results showed that the deaf students had expressive English skills comparable to a hearing control group for some features of English that reflected syntactic and lexical skills. They showed substantial deficits in inflectional morphological skills that were not predictive of the complexity of their language. The results reveal which aspects of MCE appear to be learnable and which appear problematic for deaf students.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , July 1992 , pp. 313 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, T. E. (1986). Patterns of academic achievement among hearing-impaired students: 1974–1983. In Shildroth, A. N. & Karchmer, M. A. (Eds.), Deaf children in America (pp. 161–206). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.Google Scholar
Babb, R. (1979). A study of the academic achievement and language acquisition levels of deaf children of hearing parents in an educational environment using Signing Exact English as the primary mode of communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
Baker, C., & Cokely, D. (1980). American Sign Language: A teacher's resource text on grammar and culture. Silver Spring, MD: T. J. Publishers.Google Scholar
Bornstein, H. (1973). A description of some current sign systems designed to represent English. American Annals of the Deaf, 118, 454–463.Google ScholarPubMed
Bornstein, H., Saulnier, K., & Hamilton, L. (1980). Signed English: A first evaluation. American Annals of the Deaf, 125, 467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasel, K., & Quigley, S. (1977). Influence of certain language and communication environments in early childhood on the development of language in deaf individuals. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 20, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caccamise, F., Newell, W., & Mitchell-Caccamise, M. (1983). Use of the sign language proficiency interview for assessing the sign communicative competence of Louisiana School for the Deaf dormitory counselor applicants. Journal of Rehabilitative Audiology, 16, 283–304.Google Scholar
Commission of Education of the Deaf. (1988). Toward equality: A report to the president and the Congress of the United States.Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fischer, S. D., Metz, D. E., Brown, P. M., & Caccamise, F. (1991). The effects of bimodal communication on the intelligibility of sign and speech. In Siple, P. & Fischer, S. D. (Eds.), Theoretical issues Ensign language research: Vol. 2. Psychology (pp. 135–147). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gaustad, M. G. (1986). Longitudinal effects of manual English instruction on deaf children's morphological skills. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7, 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, J., & Goodhart, W. (1985). Nativization, linguistic theory, and deaf language acquisition. Sign Language Studies, 49, 291–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geers, A., Moog, J., & Schick, B. (1984). Acquisition of spoken and signed English by profoundly deaf children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 378–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, S. (1982). The resilience of recursion: A study on a communication system developed without a conventional language model. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 51–77). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gustason, G., Pfetzing, D., & Zawolkow, E. (1980). Signing Exact English. Los Alamitos, CA: Modern Signs Press.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. G. (1970). Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35(Serial No. 134).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, R. E., & Erting, C. J. (1989). Ethnicity and socialization in a classroom for deaf children. In Lucas, C. (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of the deaf community (pp. 41–83). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. E., Liddell, S. K., & Erting, C. J. (1989). Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving access in deaf education. Gallaudet Research Institute Working Paper 89–3. Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Jordan, I., Gustason, G., & Rosen, R. (1979). An update on communication trends in programs for the deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 125, 350–357.Google Scholar
Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, L. L. (1974). Developmental sentence analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. (1986). Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 4, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livingston, S. (1983). Levels of development in the language of deaf children: ASL grammatical processes, Signed English structures, and semantic features. Sign Language Studies, 40, 193–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luetke-Stahlman, B. (1988). SEE-2 in the classroom: How well is English grammar represented? In Gustason, G. (Ed.), Signing English: Exact or not? A collection of articles (pp. 128–131). Los Alamitos, CA: Modern Signs Press.Google Scholar
Marmor, G., & Petitto, L. (1979). Simultaneous communication in the classroom: How well Is English grammar represented? Sign Language Studies, 23, 99–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, M. (1985). Sign language instruction and teacher preparation. Sign Language Studies, 47, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, M., & Bernstein, M. E. (1985). The synergy of sign and speech in simultaneous communication. Applied Psycholinguistics, 6, 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, M., & Bernstein, M. E., & Mear, K. M. (1991). Bimodal language production. In Siple, P. & Fischer, S. D. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research: Vol. 2. Psychology (pp. 171–190). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. (1967). A boy and a frog. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
Mayer, P., & Lowenbraun, S. (1989). Total communication use among elementary teachers of hearing-impaired children. American Annais of the Deaf, 135, 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, R. P. (1990). Person deixis in ASL. In Fischer, S. & Siple, P. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research: Vol. 1. Linguistics (pp. 175–190). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J., & Chapman, R. (1983). Systematic analysis of language transcripts. Madison:University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Moog, J., & Geers, A. (1980). Grammatical Analysis of Elicited Language – Complex level. St. Louis, MO: Central Institute for the Deaf.Google Scholar
Newell, W., Caccamise, F., Boardman, K., & Holcomb, B. (1983). Adaptation of the language proficiency interview (LPI) for assessing sign communicative competence. Sign Language Studies, 41, 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padden, C. (1990). The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology. In Lucas, C. (Ed.), Sign language research: Vol. 1. Linguistics (pp. 118–132). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Quigley, S., Smith, N., & Wilbur, R. (1974). Comprehension of relativized sentences by deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 17, 325–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quigley, S., Wilbur, R., & Montanelli, D. (1976). Complement structures in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 19, 448–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schick, B. (1990). Classifier predicates in American Sign Language. International Journal of Sign Linguistics, 1, 15–40.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, H. S., & Meadow, K. (1972). Sound and sign: Childhood deafness and mental health. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1977). Language change in childhood and in history. In Macnamara, J. (Ed.), Language learning and thought (pp. 185–214). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Stewart, D. A., Akamatsu, C. T., & Bonkowski, N. (1988). Factors influencing simultaneous communication behaviors in teachers. ACEHI Journal, 14, 43–58.Google Scholar
Supalla, S. J. (1991). Manually coded English: The modality question in signed language development. In Siple, P. & Fischer, S. D. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research: Vol. 2. Psychology (pp. 85–109). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Supalla, T. (1982). Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Supalla, T. (1990). Serial verbs of motion in ASL. In Fischer, S. D. & Siple, P. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research: Vol. 1. Linguistics (pp. 127–152). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Suty, K., & Friel-Patti, S. (1982). Looking beyond Signed English to describe the language of two deaf children. Sign Language Studies, 35, 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyack, D., & Gottesleben, R. (1974). Language sampling, analysis and training. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. (1987). American Sign Language: Linguistic and applied dimensions. Boston: College-Hill Press.Google Scholar
Wodlinger-Cohen, R. (1991). The manual representation of speech by deaf children, their mothers, and their teachers. In Siple, P. & Fischer, S. D. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research: Vol. 2. Psychology (pp. 149–169). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar