James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack) (04/11/91)
Index Number: 14729
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
The follow are excerpts from Dr. Sam Supalla's presentation to the
teaching staff at ASDB on 10/11/90. I am currently attempting to
obtain an ASCII file of the entire transcript for uploading later on.
The title of the presentation was: "Manually Coded English, The
Learning Question."
Deaf children seem to have difficulty learning MCE signs such as
IMPROVE+MENT. Why? Could it be because sequential signs aren't
compatible with the natural neurological constraints imposed on
visual/gestural encoding and decoding of signs?
When researchers compared the acquisition of English language
structures in hearing children and the acquisition of ASL language
structures in deaf children of deaf parents, they found that
the developmental sequence of acquisition was essentially the
same. Language structures were learned in basically the same sequence
whether the children were hearing and learning a spoken language or
deaf children of deaf parents learning ASL. Hearing children and deaf
children acquire language structures in similar patterns. This is true
not only for spoken English and ASL, but also for foreign spoken and
signed languages.
Researchers found that the developmental sequence of children taught
using MCE was delayed by about 2-3 years (Gaustad, 1986). What is the
reason for this delay in developmental sequence of children using MCE?
It was also found that order of the language structures learned was
different from children learning spoken and signed languages (Gilman &
Raffin, 1975).
AN INTERRUPTION HERE. WHEN DR. SUPALLA SPEAKS OF SIGN LANGUAGE, HE IS
REFERRING TO "NATURAL" SIGN LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY RELEVANT TO THAT
USED BY THE DEAF COMMUNITY ITSELF IN WHATEVER COUNTRY THAT MIGHT BE.
That should not happen nor should there be a delay in language
acquisition. The third thing that researchers found was that children
using MCE tried to use bound morphemes as free morphemes (Maxwell,
1983). The children perceived a bound morpheme as a separated sign
from its root word. They frequently used them as free morphemes in
their spontaneous language ( Example: ING - I work). The deaf children
had difficulty learning which morphemes were bound and which were
free. This should not have happened. In spontaneous language, bound
morphemes were frequently deleted from their sentences ( Bornstein, et
al, 1980). This should not happen. Though deaf children tried to sign
correctly in MCE, they still frequently deleted the bound morphemes.
This doesn't happen with hearing children. Hearing children do not
delete ING from their sentences when they speak. If they know what it
means, they use it. Why is it that deaf children repeatedly delete
these bound morphemes?
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!14!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org