American Sign Language as a Primary Language for Deaf Children and its Effect on Language Learning and Acquisition Allison Coltisor

Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the use of American Sign Language (ASL) as a primary language (L1) for typically developing Deaf children from birth and to examine the linguistic milestones of typically developing Deaf children born to non-ASL fluent hearing parents, and ASL fluent hearing parents and Deaf parents and to compare these children (each in their respective category) to the linguistic milestones for typically developing hearing children of hearing and Deaf parents. Perceptions of the validity in ASL as a primary language base vary vastly, and for the purposes of this study ASL will be viewed as it is defined in Psychology of Language as a complete system of language with a “rich morphological system that signals various grammatical distinctions” that possess both reciprocity, linguistic productivity, prosody, syntax, and semantics (Carroll, 2004). Method: The goal of the investigator was to determine the benefits of utilizing ASL as L1 for typically developing Deaf children. Procedure (Materials Reviewed): Various research studies pertaining to the language acquisition and development, and educational benefits of teaching ASL to typically developing Deaf children of Deaf, hearing ASL-fluent, and hearing non-ASL fluent parents were examined and evaluated. Results: Each study examined reveals that the greatest factor in the role in linguistic development of typically developing Deaf children of Deaf parents and ASL fluent hearing parents is identical to typically developing hearing children of hearing adults: the language

environment. When Deaf children of Deaf parents and ASL fluent hearing parents were exposed to linguistically rich environments, their scores on evaluations (with the exception of false beliefs) were commensurate to, or better than, typically developing hearing children within the same age range (Bailes et al., 2009; Bochner et al., 2011; Schick et al., 2007; Singleton et al. 2004; Snoddon, 2008; Weaver et al. 2010). Based upon many researchers evidence, the conclusion can be made that utilizing ASL as a primary language base for typically developing Deaf children is the most advantageous approach to language learning and development that will allow for Deaf children to have the best access to language and academic learning (Bailes et al., 2009; Bochner et al., 2011; Schick et al., 2007; Singleton et al. 2004; Snoddon, 2008; Weaver et al. 2010). Discussion Introduction - ASL vs. Oral English as L1 In research that spans from 1974 through to our current era, there has been one consistent theme in research regarding typically developing Deaf children (who do not utilize hearing aids or cochlear implants) and that is that: as long as ASL is introduced and utilized from birth, the Deaf child will develop in a manner that is nearly identical to typically developing hearing children (Bailes et al., 2009; Reagan, 2011; Schick et al., 2007; Snoddon, 2008; Weaver et al., 2010). One of the earlier research studies that substantiate this claim regarding typically developing Deaf children of Deaf parents states that: “Deaf children of Deaf parents who communicate from birth via sign language experience the same natural circumstances that hearing children do.” (Hoffmeister et al., 1974).

Deaf Children Utilizing ASL vs. Oral English as L1: The most critical aspect to learning and developing a language base is exposure. For newborn children the vast majority of their linguistic exposure comes from their parents or caregivers, and for Deaf children in particular “maternal communication in particular, is a significant indicator of language development, early reading skills, and social-emotional development.” (Weaver et al., 2010). In a Canadian research study from The Canadian Modern Language Review Snoddon remarked that “Deaf children who are exposed to ASL or LSQ from birth acquire these languages on a maturational time line that is identical to that of hearing children who acquire English or French.” (Snoddon, 2008) One of the more frequent arguments is that having ASL as the primary language base among students causes them to fall behind in English vocabulary and reading comprehension (Singleton et al., 2004). However, this claim is unfounded in most cases as the researchers making the claim fail to establish participant inclusion criterion, as well as important psychometric data regarding the proficiency and exposure to ASL of the Deaf students within the study (Singleton et al., 2004). In a study by Weaver and Starner the researchers found that “the language skills of Deaf children with hearing parents lag far behind those of hearing children with hearing parents and Deaf children with Deaf parents.” (Weaver et al., 2010). While typically developing hearing children of hearing parents and typically developing Deaf children of Deaf parents have exposure to language from birth, Deaf children of non-ASL fluent hearing parents are often without language exposure for periods of time exceeding their typically developing counterparts. Canadian researchers have examined what many researchers have failed to examine in America: the linguistic properties of ASL. As Snoddon states in American Sign Language and Early Intervention “Natural signed languages, such as ASL and the Langue des signes quebecoise (LSQ), demonstrate the same linguistic properties as spoken languages, including phonetic,

phonemic, syllabic, morphological, syntactic, discourse, and pragmatic levels of organization.” (Snoddon, 2008). Snoddon’s research methods were comprehensive, inclusive, and covered all three varieties of language learners conditions, including the one most commonly left out: Deaf children of hearing adults that are ASL-fluent. Snoddon found that “Studies of highly ASL-fluent Deaf children of ASL-fluent hearing parents suggest that a well-developed language foundation in ASL enables Deaf students to reach higher levels of English literacy regardless of parental hearing status.” (Snoddon, 2008) Thus contradicting the significantly outdated research of Singleton et al. whose study continually referenced data from 1948-1987 (Singleton et. al, 2004). Non-ASL Fluent Hearing Parents of Deaf Children: “Because hearing parents are unprepared to teach ASL to their Deaf infants, many Deaf children are not systematically exposed to sign language in the early years.” (Singleton et al., 2004). When hearing parents of Deaf children do not have access to ASL and are unable to utilize ASL from the Deaf infant’s birth, the Deaf child will fall further behind the infant who began hearing language in utero. Therefore, when these children become school aged, they start school without exposure to any complete form of language and they start far behind their hearing peers (Bailes et al., 2009). In instances such as this, researchers have found that Deaf children of non-ASL fluent parents have staggering delays in language development and acquisition that follow the ‘critical period hypothesis.’ (Snoddon, 2008). In order to test the validity of the claim that Deaf children will face significant language development delays without exposure to a language base researchers deprived Deaf infants of ASL and left them to their own devices in fully oral households and found that they began developing their own form of sign language (referred to as “homesign”) “that is similar in many respects to normal children’s language.” (Carroll, 2004). The Deaf children of hearing adults attempted to develop their own form of communication in an environment devoid of language. In

addition, Deaf children of non-ASL fluent hearing parents most often face the most significant linguistic delays when compared to their counter peers (Deaf children of Deaf adults and Deaf children of ASL-fluent hearing parents) (Snoddon, 2008; Weaver et al. 2010). Without linguistic stimulation, Deaf children are unable to build a complete language system because they “are not given the opportunity to develop a strong conceptual and linguistic foundation in their early years, their individual life chances are adversely affected, and the contributions they would have been capable of making to their societies are squandered.” (Bailes et al., 2009). The reoccurring theme throughout research studies conducted involving hearing parents of Deaf children found that “decisions about speech and sign language are usually framed as options in ‘appropriate communication strategies’ and learning to ‘communicate effectively’ rather than as choices about what they must do to ensure their child’s right to unimpeded and timely language acquisition and cognitive development.” (Bailes et al., 2009). Many hearing parents of Deaf children are not provided with substantial enough information and education regarding language development and are therefore not always able to understand that a lack of linguistic stimulation will result in a detrimental language development delay. Vygotsky even concluded that “signed languages were necessary requisites for all aspects of the Deaf child’s development” and that “for Deaf children, spoken language was an inadequate tool for acquiring cultural experience and participating in social life.” (Bailes et al., 2009). Thus, the Deaf children of non-ASL fluent hearing parents suffer the most in terms of linguistic deprivation. Deaf Children of Deaf & ASL Fluent Adults: By examining more recent studies it is clear that researchers have found that Deaf children of Deaf parents have superior performance academically in reading, writing, and social development in comparison to Deaf children of hearing parents. The same is true for Deaf children of ASL-fluent parents who are exposed to

ASL from birth. A study conducted by Bonvillian, Orlansky, and Novack (1983) “studied the sign language of 11 children (10 hearing, 1 Deaf) with Deaf parents over a period of 16 months and found that these children, on the average produced their first recognizable sign at 8.5 months, approximately 2-3 months before first words are recognizable.” (Carroll, 2004). Moeller and Schick (2006) “showed that deaf children reliably pass false belief tasks at younger ages… and Deaf children of Deaf adults, who develop language typically, perform significantly better on Theory of Mind tasks than their Deaf children of hearing parent’s peers.” (Schick et al., 2007). After examining multitudes of research studies, the only linguistic development area that Deaf children of Deaf adults are found to be behind on developmentally are those of “false beliefs”, or rather it is “specific to the representation of cognitive states that do or do not correspond to perceived reality.” (Schick et al., 2007). However, the same studies noted that “in many aspects of Theory of Mind, Deaf children reveal a rich understanding of other people’s mental states.” (Schick et al., 2007).

Works Cited B. Schick, P. D. (2007). Language and Theory of Mind: A Study of Deaf Children. Child Development, 78, 376-396. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01004.x C.N. Bailes, C. E.-P. (2009). Language and Literacy Acquisition through Parental Mediation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 9(4), 417-456. Carroll, D. (2004). Psychology of Language. Thomson Wadsworth. Hoffmeister, R. (1974). The Acquisition of Sign Language in Deaf Children of Deaf Parents: Progress Report No.65. (107001, Ed.) J. Bochner, H. C. (2011, December). When is a Difference Really Different? Learners' Discrimination of Linguistic Contrasts in American Sign Language. Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Language Studies, 61:4, 1302-1327. J.L. Singleton, D. M. (2004). Vocabulary Use by Low, Moderate, and High ASL-Proficient Writers Compared to Hearing ESL and Monolingual Speakers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(1). K.A. Weaver, &. T. (2010, October 24-26). We Need to Communicate! Helping Hearing Parents of Deaf Children Learn American Sign Language. Paper presented at the Annual ASSETS Conference, 8. Reagan, T. (2011). Ideological Barriers to American Sign Language: Unpacking Linguistic Resistance. Sign Language Studies, 11(4), 606-636. Snoddon, K. (2008, June/Juin). American Sign Language and Early Intervention. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 64(4), 581-604. Thoryk, R. (2010). A Call for Improvement: The Need fo Research-Based Materials in American Sign Language Education. Sign Language Studies, 11(1), 100-120.