The efficiency of information transmission of sign and spoken language

Rhe study compares sign and oral language in terms of information transmission efficiency. The sample consisted of 36 hearing people with no knowledge of sign language and 36 deaf people reasonably fluent in sign language. (The deaf participants' level of hearing loss ranged from severe to profound.) Oral and sign language comprehension was assessed by means of texts at three different difficulty levels. After being exposed to the texts, the study participants had to tell what they had understood about them, answer a set of related questions, and offer a title for each text. When the hearing group's comprehension of oral versions of the texts was compared to the deaf group's comprehension of signed versions, the deaf group showed better comprehension of the explicit content of the texts but added more invented content and made more errors.     

"A good future for deaf children": a five-year sign language intervention project

Deaf preschoolers and hearing family members learned sign language in a 5-year intervention project. Once weekly, each child met with a teacher who was deaf. Parents, siblings, and other relatives met about once monthly to study sign language, and all families in the project signed together about twice yearly. The present study addressed four questions asked of parents about the project: (a) How did the children learn to sign? (b) Did both the parents and the children benefit from the project? (c) What was the position of sign language in the family? (d) Did the project have some impact on the family's social network? The families indicated satisfaction with the project; they learned to sign and their social networks expanded. Parents favored bilingual education: Sign language was the main language but learning Finnish was also important. Learning sign language was not easy, especially for the fathers. The families that were most actively involved in the lessons learned the most.     

Modality of language shapes working memory: evidence from digit span and spatial span in ASL signers

Deaf children who are native users of American Sign Language (ASL) and hearing children who are native English speakers performed three working memory tasks. Results indicate that language modality shapes the architecture of working memory. Digit span with forward and backward report, performed by each group in their native language, suggests that the language rehearsal mechanisms for spoken language and for sign language differ in their processing constraints. Unlike hearing children, deaf children who are native signers of ASL were as good at backward recall of digits as at forward recall, suggesting that serial order information for ASL is stored in a form that does not have a preferred directionality. Data from a group of deaf children who were not native signers of ASL rule out explanations in terms of a floor effect or a nonlinguistic visual strategy. Further, deaf children who were native signers outperformed hearing children on a nonlinguistic spatial memory task, suggesting that language expertise in a particular modality exerts an influence on nonlinguistic working memory within that modality. Thus, language modality has consequences for the structure of working memory, both within and outside the linguistic domain.     

Deaf students’ metacognitive awareness during language comprehension

This study explored deaf and hearing university students’ metacognitive awareness with regard to comprehension difficulties during reading and classroom instruction. Utilising the Reading Awareness Inventory (Milholic, V. 1994. An inventory to pique students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Reading 38: 84–6), parallel inventories were created to tap metacognitive awareness during comprehension of sign language (deaf students) and spoken language (hearing students). Overall, both deaf and hearing students appeared to have greater metacognitive awareness of ongoing comprehension and repair strategies during reading than during instruction in the classroom, but deaf students scored lower than hearing students in both modalities. Deaf students were no more likely than hearing students to report adopting inappropriate strategies, but both groups indicated they were more likely to do so in classroom contexts than during reading.     

Written language abilities in deaf Italians

Written texts produced by 10 Italian deaf native signers in four different writing tasks were analyzed. Data analysis focused on linguistic and orthographic nonstandard forms. The written production of deaf subjects with deaf parents (DD) was compared to the written production in two control groups: a group of 10 hearing subjects with deaf parents (HD) and a group of 10 subjects who have had no contact with deaf people or sign language (HH). The results duplicate findings from previous studies. Deaf subjects display a pattern of selective difficulty with Italian grammatical morphology, especially with free-standing function words. The four different writing tasks used in the present study yield results indicating that text type does influence our assessment of deaf writing abilities. A comparison of the texts written by deaf native signers with those of two hearing groups confirms the view that difficulties in the acquisition of written Italian are best explained by deafness itself, not by the influence of a previously acquired Sign Language, and that the specific difficulties with grammatical morphology displayed by our deaf subjects cannot be attributed solely to their limited experience with written Italian.     

Syntactic and semantic processing in Hebrew readers with prelingual deafness

The experimenter investigated the effect of semantic clues on the reading comprehension of deaf and hearing Israeli children. Two groups of students with prelingual deafness, and a hearing control group, were asked to read syntactically simple and syntactically relative sentences of varying semantic plausibility. Sixteen of the participants who were deaf (mean grade 6.9) had been trained orally, using spoken language as their principal means of communication at home and at school. Another 16 students with deafness (mean grade 6.9), all of them children of deaf parents, had acquired sign language as their primary language. The mean grade of the hearing control group was 6.5. The results suggest that, in contrast to the case with hearing individuals, reading comprehension in individuals with prelingually acquired deafness, regardless of communication background, is predominantly determined by the semantic processing of content words, with only minor attention given to the processing of the syntactic structure of the text.     

The role of educational experiences in the development of deaf identity

In this study, the analytical educational experiences of 25 deaf adults are explored in relation to their identity. The qualitative analysis indicated that the most critical educational experiences for the participants' identity concerned their interactions with hearing or deaf peers and their language of communication with their peers at school. The participants with a hearing identity attended general schools, where they interacted with hearing peers in Greek, whereas the participants with a Deaf identity attended schools for the deaf, where they interacted with deaf peers in Greek Sign Language. The participants with a bicultural identity attended general schools, where they interacted with hearing peers in Greek, but they also had the chance to meet Deaf role models outside school, which played a critical role in the development of their identity.     

Enhanced facial discrimination: effects of experience with American sign language

On-line comprehension of American Sign Language (ASL) requires rapid discrimination of linguistic facial expressions. We hypothesized that ASL signers' experience discriminating linguistic facial expressions might lead to enhanced performance for discriminating among different faces. Five experiments are reported that investigate signers' and non-signers' ability to discriminate human faces photographed under different conditions of orientation and lighting (the Benton Test of Facial Recognition). The results showed that deaf signers performed significantly better than hearing non-signers. Hearing native signers (born to deaf parents) also performed better than hearing nonsigners, suggesting that the enhanced performance of deaf signers is linked to experience with ASL rather than to auditory deprivation. Deaf signers who acquired ASL in early adulthood did not differ from native signers, which suggests that there is no 'critical period' during which signers must be exposed to ASL in order to exhibit enhanced face discrimination abilities. When the faces were inverted, signing and nonsigning groups did not differ in performance. This pattern of results suggests that experience with sign language affects mechanisms specific to face processing and does not produce a general enhancement of visual discrimination. Finally, a similar pattern of results was found with signing and nonsigning children, 6-9 years old. Overall, the results suggest that the brain mechanisms responsible for face processing are somewhat plastic and can be affected by experience. We discuss implications of these results for the relation between language and cognition.     

Predictor variables of written picture naming in the deaf

Studies conducted in recent years on oral andwritten language production show that the ageat which words are learned is the main variablethat influences lexical access in both hearingpeople and people who have suffered brainlesions. No studies have been done with deafpeople and, since they use sign language inaddition to oral language, differencesregarding hearing people might be found intheir lexical organization. The aim of thisstudy was to test which variables determine thelexical production of deaf people. For thispurpose, 40 deaf people between the ages of 13and 58 years were asked to write individuallythe names of 100 pictures. The regressionanalyses performed on a total of 4000 responsesshow that the main predictor variable ofperformance was also age of acquisition. It isconcluded that the organization of the lexicalsystem in deaf people is similar to that of hearing people, although the phonologicalrepresentations of deaf people may be moreinaccurate.     

Approaches to studying and communication preferences among deaf students in distance education

This investigation examined approaches to studyingamong deaf students taking courses by distance learning whopreferred to communicate using either sign language or spokenlanguage. In comparison with hearing students, the deaf studentsobtained higher scores on comprehension learning, surfaceapproach, improvidence and fear of failure. Whilst they obtainedhigher scores on reproducing orientation, their qualitativeresponses indicated that this was not because they had beendriven to use rote memorisation. In addition, the deaf studentsseemed just as capable as the hearing students of adopting ameaning orientation. In the specific context of distanceeducation, there were no differences in approaches to studyingrelated to the students' preferred mode of communication.However, communicating by sign language rather than speech haddifferent practical consequences for the students' effectiveworkload.     

An investigation of the need for sign language assessment in deaf education

The attitudes of educators of the deaf and other professionals in deaf education concerning assessment of the use of American Sign Language (ASL) and other sign systems was investigated. A questionnaire was distributed to teachers in a residential school for the deaf in California. In addition to questions regarding the availability of sign language assessment at their schools, participants responded to items concerning their motivation to use a test for sign language measurement. Of the 100 distributed surveys, 85 were completed and returned. Results showed overwhelming agreement among respondents concerning the importance of sign language assessment, along with the need for tools that appropriately measure signing skills.     

The psychotherapist and the sign language interpreter

Specialized psychotherapy for deaf people in the Dutch and Western European mental health systems is still a rather young specialism. A key policy principle in Dutch mental health care for the deaf is that they should receive treatment in the language most accessible to them, which is usually Dutch Sign Language (Nederlandse Gebarentaal or NGT). Although psychotherapists for the deaf are trained to use sign language, situations will always arise in which a sign language interpreter is needed. Most psychotherapists have the opinion that working with a sign language interpreter in therapy sessions can be a valuable alternative option but also see it as a second-best solution because of its impact on the therapeutic process. This paper describes our years of collaborationship as a therapist and a sign language interpreter. If this collaborationship is optimal, it can generate a certain "therapeutic power" in the therapy sessions. Achieving this depends largely on the interplay between the therapist and the interpreter, which in our case is the result of literature research and our experiences during the last 17 years. We analyze this special collaborative relationship, which has several dimensions and recurrent themes like, the role conception of the interpreter, situational interpreting, organizing the interpretation setting, or managing therapeutic phenomena during therapy sessions.     

Effectiveness of multimedia reading materials when used with children who are deaf

The purpose of the study was to assess the relative effectiveness of print, sign, and pictures in the transfer of reading-related information to children who are deaf. By means of personal computers, deaf children were presented CD-ROM-generated stories in four different formats: print only, print plus pictures, print plus sign language, and print plus pictures plus sign. A repeated-measure design was used to analyze participants' reading comprehension performance. Significant differences were found among the four presentation options. One observed phenomenon was that participants would switch from American Sign Language to Signed English when analyzing text. The study findings suggest that presenting stories on CD-ROM with multiple modes of reading cues, such as print, pictures, and sign language, may be an enjoyable and interesting supplement to standard reading practices.     

The signed reading fluency of students who are deaf/hard of hearing

Reading fluency in deaf children whose primary mode of communication is visual, whether English-like or American Sign Language, is difficult to measure since most measures of fluency require a child to read aloud. This article opens the discussion of a new construct, namely, signed reading fluency (i.e., rendering of printed text in a visually fluent manner) in children with hearing loss whose primary means of expressive language includes some form of sign. Further, it describes the development of an assessment rubric to measure signed reading fluency. A comparison of fluency scores and scores on tests of vocabulary and text comprehension of 29 middle school students who attended a school for the deaf indicated that signed reading fluency, as defined and measured by this instrument, correlates highly both with word and passage comprehension.     

Language planning for the 21st century: revisiting bilingual language policy for deaf children

For over 25 years in some countries and more recently in others, bilingual education involving sign language and the written/spoken vernacular has been considered an essential educational intervention for deaf children. With the recent growth in universal newborn hearing screening and technological advances such as digital hearing aids and cochlear implants, however, more deaf children than ever before have the potential for acquiring spoken language. As a result, the question arises as to the role of sign language and bilingual education for deaf children, particularly those who are very young. On the basis of recent research and fully recognizing the historical sensitivity of this issue, we suggest that language planning and language policy should be revisited in an effort to ensure that they are appropriate for the increasingly diverse population of deaf children.     

How the medical professionals impact ASL and English families’ language planning policy

This article explores the journey of eight hearing families of bimodal-bilingual deaf children as they navigate the decision-making process reflecting their beliefs and values about American Sign Language (ASL) and English through their family language policy framework. The resources offered to families with deaf children often reflect a medical view, rather than a cultural perspective of being deaf. Because medical professionals, educators, and specialists who work with deaf and hard-of-hearing children have a strong influence on family members’ opinions, beliefs, and attitudes about being deaf, it is even more crucial to correct misconceptions about ASL and empower families to develop a family language policy that is inclusive of their deaf and hard-of-hearing children. This article informs researchers, teachers, and other professionals about the potential benefits and challenges of supporting the families’ ASL and English language planning policy.     

Differences in the use of American Sign Language morphology by deaf children: implications for parents and teachers

Newport (1988) has noted differences in how American Sign Language (ASL) is used by the following three groups of deaf adults: those with deaf parents (native signers); those, with hearing parents, who learned ASL upon entering school at age 5 years (early signers); and those who learned to sign after puberty (late signers). The present study extends this research to children by investigating the use of morphological inflections in ASL by native and early signers. Thirty deaf children between ages 3 and 9 years were asked to sign a story in ASL. The videotaped stories were analyzed for morphological and contextual complexity. Qualitative differences were found between native and early signers on measures relating to the aspectual complexity of signs but not on measures relating to the complexity of the utterance. Implications of these differences are discussed in terms of communication at home and ASL use in the classroom.     

Does deafness lead to enhancement of visual spatial cognition in children? Negative evidence from deaf nonsigners

This study investigated whether deafness contributes to enhancement of visual spatial cognition independent of knowledge of a sign language. Congenitally deaf school children in India who were born to hearing parents and were not exposed to any sign language, and matched hearing controls, were given a test of digit span and five tests that measured visual spatial skills. The deaf group showed shorter digit span than the hearing group, consistent with previous studies. Deaf and hearing children did not differ in their performance on the visual spatial skills test, suggesting that deafness per se may not be a sufficient factor for enhancement of visual spatial cognition. Early exposure to a sign language and fluent sign skills may be the critical factors that lead to differential development of visual spatial skills in deaf people.     

Your case will now be heard: sign language interpreters as problematic accommodations in legal interactions

This paper uses data from open-ended, videotaped interviews with 12 deaf people to examine their experiences negotiating access during interactions with legal authorities. In every case, these deaf persons preferred an accommodation that involved the use of an American Sign Language interpreter, and in every case, these accommodations were problematic. Three major themes emerged from the informants' narratives: difficulty obtaining the desired accommodation, dealing with a problematic accommodation, and enduring a partial accommodation. These findings suggest that accommodations involving sign language interpreters are not neutral and transparent and that they often have tangible effects on the experiences of and outcomes for deaf persons in the context of dealing with legal matters. Deaf people have very little control over the accommodation they receive and yet are held fully responsible for ensuring its efficacy. These results are discussed in relation to policies and procedures for ensuring that deaf persons have full access in their interactions with American legal institutions.