Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University / For children who are deaf, one aspect of early English literacy instruction has always been problematic. Deaf children have great difficulty in learning to employ a sound-based phonetic to alphabetic mapping process such as required in reading and writing without natural linguistic access to English. This dissertation presents two studies. In Study #1 subjects are given the American Sign Language Phonemic Awareness Inventory (ASLP AI). In Study #2 the phonological aspect ofhandshape and its relationship to the Manual Alphabet is investigated. Twenty-nine deaf children, between the ages of 4-8, who used sign language, were tested on 7 major ASL Phonological tasks. 175 questions were posed. Of the total group, eight children had deaf parents (DCDP) and twenty-one children had hearing parents (DCHP). Seventeen deaf adults (1 0 DADP) and 7 (DAHP) took a portion or all of the tests. In addition the child subjects, depending on reading ability, were also given either the Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised (PIAT-R) (spelling and reading comprehension subtests) or all sections ofthe Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA-3). Results showed that all subjects were able to process the questions according to the phonological parameters of ASL. That is, subjects appear to have internalized the visual structural components of ASL and were able to work with ASL phonemes as hearing children do with spoken language. In the second study, the handshape task indicated that the subjects associated prompts (the 20 Manual Alphabet handshapes in particular) with a phonological component of ASL rather than as a letter of English. A factorial ANOVA showed that parent's audiological status did not influence the subject's phonemic awareness of ASL. In Study #2, a paired comparisons t-tests showed that overall response rates for handshape prompts resulted in significant differences: favoring ASL responses in comparison with English responses. Correlation matrices indicated that the stronger the subjects phonemic awareness of ASL and the ability to recall lexical items when given a prompt the stronger the scores on a beginning test of English literacy (TERA).

The emergence of a language is rarely directly observed in a natural environment. Similar to a phenomenon previously observed in Nicaragua, deaf Dominican children appear to have created a rudimentary form of manual communication in absence of comprehensible linguistic input. The evolution of this communication system over the course of five years (2007-2012) is documented as part of a cross-cultural and cross-generational study in which sign complexity is analyzed. The role of innate and environmental components of language creation and acquisition are discussed using data from hearing children and parents, including the parents of the deaf Dominican children cited above. Results confirm that a new communication system is indeed slowly emerging in the Dominican Republic, and that this system shows signs of evolution in the period extending from 2007 to 2012. Signs produced by the deaf Dominican children meet the minimal requirements for a communicative symbol, show signs of mutual intelligibility, and differ from the signs of the other implemented Sign Languages in the Dominican Republic. Two cohorts of manual communicators appear to be present, and younger signers seem to have more advanced linguistic competencies in comparison to older signers within the community. The signs that are part of the observed Dominican manual communication system also appear to differ in complexity from those produced by hearing adults and children, supporting the presence of innate abilities for language creation. Specifically, the deaf Dominican children are generally found to have more diversified sign repertoires and to display faster signing rates over time, in comparison to hearing adults and children. Qualitative data and quantitative trends further support a more complex understanding by deaf children of the use of signs as an independent communication system from speech. Analyses looking at the impact of input on language creation provides some support for the existence of infant-directed signing in a way similar to what is observed with infant-directed speech. The use of repetitions by hearing adults using infant-directed silent gestures could provide support for usage-based theories of language development. That being said, young hearing children with no prior exposure to Sign Language and with minimal relative linguistic experience were found to produce signs equivalent in complexity to those of hearing adults, therefore potentially providing further support for an innate understanding of complex linguistic rules. Deaf Dominican children were further found to surpass the input received by hearing adults over time. In all, this research is consistent with previous studies attesting for children’s natural ability for language creation and development.

No description available.

Published Article / This paper aims to describe the state of South African Sign Language (SASL) at the University of the Free State (UFS). It provides background to the development of SASL, the development of Deaf education, the teaching of sign language and sign language interpreting at the UFS, research and community development. SASL is one of the languages offered at the UFS. The University has been involved with ground-breaking research to implement a training course on all levels of tertiary education. Students can complete a degree in sign language and also do postgraduate studies in sign language and sign language interpreting. This article aims to indicate how teaching of SASLas an official language empowers marginalised culture.

Wong, Yuet On. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references. / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / Chapter Chapter 1: --- Sign phonology models / Chapter 1.0 --- Introduction --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1 --- Structuralism and Stokoe's pioneering work --- p.3 / Chapter 1.2 --- Insights from Generative phonology --- p.6 / Chapter 1.2.1 --- Is handshape a segment or autosegment --- p.7 / Chapter 1.2.2 --- "CV phonology, the Movement Hold Model and the Hand-Tier model" --- p.8 / Chapter 1.2.3 --- Dependency Phonology --- p.10 / Chapter 1.2.4 --- Interim Summary --- p.13 / Chapter 1.3 --- The handshape node --- p.13 / Chapter 1.3.1 --- Sandleŕةs (1989) handshape node --- p.13 / Chapter 1.3.2 --- Brentaríةs (1998) handshape node --- p.16 / Chapter 1.3.3 --- Eccariuśة（2002) handshape node --- p.19 / Chapter 1.3.3.1 --- The Joint feature [Crossed] of the PSF node --- p.21 / Chapter 1.3.3.2 --- Branching of Selected Fingers into Primary and Secondary Selected Fingers --- p.21 / Chapter 1.3.3.3 --- The Secondary selected fingers node --- p.24 / Chapter 1.3.3.4 --- The Thumb node in the Secondary selected fingers branch --- p.24 / Chapter 1.3.3.5 --- Quantity in SSF vs. Quantity in PSF --- p.25 / Chapter 1.3.3.6 --- The Point of reference node in the Secondary selected fingers branch --- p.25 / Chapter 1.4 --- The proposed Handshape Unit Model --- p.25 / Chapter 1.4.1 --- Handshape unit node --- p.28 / Chapter 1.4.2 --- HIM node --- p.30 / Chapter 1.4.3 --- The Type node --- p.31 / Chapter 1.4.4 --- The Number of movements node --- p.33 / Chapter 1.4.5 --- The handshape node --- p.33 / Chapter 1.4.6 --- The Nonselected fingers node --- p.33 / Chapter 1.4.7 --- The Selected fingers node --- p.35 / Chapter 1.4.8 --- The Primary selected fingers node --- p.36 / Chapter 1.4.9 --- The Thumb node --- p.37 / Chapter 1.4.10 --- The Fingers node --- p.39 / Chapter 1.4.11 --- The Quantity node --- p.40 / Chapter 1.4.12 --- The Point of reference node --- p.40 / Chapter 1.4.13 --- The Joint position node --- p.42 / Chapter 1.4.14 --- The Finger position node --- p.44 / Chapter 1.4.15 --- The Secondary selected fingers node --- p.45 / Chapter 1.4.15.1 --- Primary vs. Secondary selected fingers --- p.45 / Chapter 1.4.15.2 --- Comparing the SSF node with the PSF node --- p.46 / Chapter 1.4.15.3 --- The Quantity node of the Secondary selected fingers node --- p.46 / Chapter 1.4.15.4 --- The Point of reference node of the Secondary selected fingers node --- p.48 / Chapter 1.4.15.5 --- Joint position node of the Secondary selected fingers node --- p.48 / Chapter 1.4.15.6 --- Finger position node of the Secondary selected fingers node --- p.49 / Chapter 1.4.15.7 --- Conclusion --- p.49 / Chapter 1.5 --- Outline of the thesis --- p.51 / Chapter 1.6 --- Notation conventions --- p.51 / Chapter Chapter 2: --- Literature review and introduction to the current study / Chapter 2.0 --- Introduction --- p.53 / Chapter 2.1 --- Generalizations of phonology acquisition phenomena --- p.53 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- Early child speech as prephonemic --- p.53 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- Commonly acquired sound segments at the end of the babbling stage --- p.55 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- Characteristics of early words - Loss of phonological contrasts --- p.55 / Chapter 2.1.4 --- Systematic mappings --- p.56 / Chapter 2.1.5 --- Context-dependent rules / processes --- p.56 / Chapter 2.1.6 --- Strategies and metalinguistic awareness in the early period --- p.57 / Chapter 2.1.7 --- Stages of the phonological development --- p.57 / Chapter 2.2 --- Acquisition of phonology in sign language --- p.58 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- Acquisition of location --- p.59 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- Acquisition of movement --- p.61 / Chapter 2.2.3 --- Acquisition of handshape --- p.62 / Chapter 2.2.3.1 --- Acquisition of spoken and signed language phonology: Common observations --- p.62 / Chapter 2.2.3.2 --- Acquisition phenomena specific to handshape acquisition --- p.64 / Chapter 2.2.3.3 --- Substitution --- p.66 / Chapter 2.2.3.4 --- Applying a linguistic phonology model in handshape acquisition study --- p.67 / Chapter 2.2.3.5 --- Group data: a reanalysis --- p.73 / Chapter 2.3 --- Interim summary --- p.78 / Chapter 2.4 --- Implications on the current study --- p.78 / Chapter Chapter 3: --- Hypotheses and Methodology / Chapter 3.0 --- Introduction --- p.80 / Chapter 3.1 --- Markedness and acquisition hypotheses of the current study --- p.80 / Chapter 3.2 --- Background information for the current study --- p.89 / Chapter 3.2.1 --- Subject of the present study --- p.89 / Chapter 3.2.2 --- Data collection --- p.90 / Chapter 3.2.3 --- Types of signs included in the present study --- p.91 / Chapter 3.2.3.1 --- Identification of handshape for analysis: signs with more than one handshape --- p.94 / Chapter 3.2.4 --- Coding of the data --- p.96 / Chapter 3.2.5 --- Criteria for acquisition --- p.98 / Chapter 3.3 --- Chapter summary --- p.100 / Chapter Chapter 4: --- Results / Chapter 4.0 --- Introduction --- p.102 / Chapter 4.1 --- Order of Acquisition of HKSL handshapes --- p.103 / Chapter 4.1.1 --- Analysis of CC's data --- p.103 / Chapter 4.1.2 --- Data from other handshape acquisition studies --- p.110 / Chapter 4.2 --- Not-attempted handshapes --- p.115 / Chapter 4.3 --- Errors of Substitution --- p.117 / Chapter 4.3.1 --- Data which confirm H2 --- p.122 / Chapter 4.3.1.1 --- Quantity substitution --- p.122 / Chapter 4.3.1.2 --- Point of reference substitution --- p.123 / Chapter 4.3.1.3 --- Joint position substitution --- p.123 / Chapter 4.3.1.4 --- Finger position substitution --- p.124 / Chapter 4.3.2 --- Data which do not confirm or reject H2 --- p.124 / Chapter 4.3.2.1 --- [Crossed] in the Finger position node --- p.125 / Chapter 4.3.2.2 --- Secondary selected fingers substitution --- p.125 / Chapter 4.3.2.3 --- Thumb feature substitution --- p.126 / Chapter 4.3.3 --- Data which reject H2 --- p.126 / Chapter 4.3.3.1 --- Thumb selection substitution --- p.126 / Chapter 4.3.4 --- Summary of data testing against H2 --- p.127 / Chapter 4.4 --- HIM and handshape acquisition --- p.128 / Chapter 4.4.1 --- Defining HIM --- p.129 / Chapter 4.4.2 --- H3: Accuracy of Finger selection and finger configuration is lower when HIM is specified --- p.130 / Chapter 4.4.2.1 --- HIM and finger selection --- p.131 / Chapter 4.4.2.2 --- Analysis of the relationship between HIM and finger configuration --- p.132 / Chapter 4.4.2.3 --- Generalizations --- p.133 / Chapter 4.4.3 --- Detailed analysis of signs involving HIMs --- p.135 / Chapter 4.4.3.1 --- Data which confirm H3 --- p.135 / Chapter 4.4.3.2 --- Data which partially confirm H3 --- p.137 / Chapter 4.4.3.3 --- Data which reject H3 --- p.138 / Chapter 4.4.3.4 --- Interim summary --- p.140 / Chapter 4.4.4 --- HIM complexity --- p.140 / Chapter 4.5 --- Conclusion --- p.142 / Chapter Chapter 5: --- Physiology and Handshape Acquisition / Chapter 5.0 --- Introduction --- p.144 / Chapter 5.1 --- Motoric account for handshape acquisition --- p.145 / Chapter 5.2 --- Physiology Account --- p.147 / Chapter 5.2.1 --- Criterion (a): Muscle Opposition in Configuration --- p.149 / Chapter 5.2.2 --- Criterion (b): Independent extensor / sufficient support --- p.151 / Chapter 5.2.3 --- Criterion(c): Profundus / juncturae tendinum --- p.152 / Chapter 5.2.4 --- Other factors affecting the ease and difficulty of a handshape --- p.152 / Chapter 5.3 --- Accounting for CĆةs acquisition data --- p.153 / Chapter 5.3.1 --- Acquired handshapes --- p.153 / Chapter 5.3.2 --- Attempted but not yet acquired handshapes --- p.156 / Chapter 5.3.2.1 --- Anńةs (1993) scoring system: An evaluation --- p.158 / Chapter 5.3.2.3 --- Substitutions and Anńةs (1993) scoring system --- p.159 / Chapter 5.3.3 --- Unattempted handshapes --- p.164 / Chapter 5.4 --- Conclusion --- p.167 / Chapter Chapter 6: --- Conclusion / Chapter 6.1 --- Summary of the study --- p.170 / Chapter 6.2 --- Physiology and handshape acquisition --- p.170 / Chapter 6.2.1 --- p.170 / Chapter 6.2.2 --- Review of Anńةs model --- p.171 / Chapter 6.3 --- Bases of markedness in the current thesis --- p.172 / Chapter 6.4 --- Handshape acquisition affected by factors other than markedness --- p.173 / Chapter 6.5 --- Unresolved issues and limitations --- p.173 / Chapter 6.5.1 --- The dependents of the Handshape Unit Model --- p.174 / Chapter 6.5.2 --- The Thumb --- p.175 / Chapter 6.5.3 --- Underspecification --- p.175 / Chapter 6.5.4 --- Feature markedness ranking --- p.176 / Chapter 6.5.5 --- Possible idiosyncrasy --- p.176 / Appendices / References

Executive Summary During 2010-2012, a Leonardo da Vinci-funded EU project focused on enhancing the language skills of Deaf people, interpreters and Health Care Professionals. Project partners from Cyprus, Ireland, Poland, Scotland and Sweden reviewed current knowledge of policy and practice, and embedded the resulting analysis into a programme of materials to support reflection, knowledge and skills development internationally. This report presents the project's initial 'state-of-the-art' review, with particular reference to the partner countries. Sign languages are now widely recognised, for theoretical and practical purposes, as full, natural languages, and sign language interpreting has consequently been established as a respected profession. Sign language interpreters mediate between hearing and deaf people: this entails a complex transfer of meaning between languages, cultural domains and linguistic modalities, and between members of highly literate communities and those whose languages have no written form. Decades of development in understanding of the most effective part to be played by interpreters in small-group dialogue have concluded that communication is best facilitated with recognition of the interpreter as a linguistic partner, and an active participant in the joint creation of meaning. Good practice in interpreting rarely entails a passive role whereby the interpreter acts as a mere conduit for others' words.   In respect of healthcare interpreting, the situation in the partner countries (and beyond) varies widely, from minimal recognition of the need for dedicated provision for deaf patients, to relatively explicit and well-resourced entitlement to services. In none of the partner countries do services address all identified requirements, despite recognition that inadequate provision can lead to damaging and indeed life-threatening consequences. Training and associated resources for all three key groups – interpreters, healthcare staff and deaf people – are insufficient or non-existent across the board. No-one has a stable, clear set of expectations about how communication can most effectively proceed in these situations. In this context, it is predictable that regulation of quality can be highly problematic. Comparison with North America and Australia highlights a range of adoptable best practices, requiring investment over time in order to generate and implement more effective approaches. It must be recognised that the mere provision of sign language interpreters is only the beginning of true access to healthcare for deaf people. In order to maximise positive outcomes, members of all three key groups must become familiar with a common set of assumptions and practices to reinforce the need to operate as a collaborating triad in the co-constructing of effective interaction. Consistent, high-quality outcomes need to be assured through empowered regulatory mechanisms, for which models exist internationally. / MEDISIGNS

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2000. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 102-115). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

Not available / text

Not available / text

A case study of American Sign Language (ASL) acquisition revealed an emerging phonological system influenced by biological, cognitive, and linguistic factors. A hearing child (SJ), acquiring ASL from her Deaf parents, was videotaped over seven sessions between the ages of 1:0 and 2:1. Of the 1,699 manual behaviors observed, 804 were lexical items, or signs. All signs were phonetically coded. Detailed analyses were undertaken to discover acquisition patterns for the three major parameters of ASL signs (handshape, hand location and movement). / Overall, SJ's signs were well-formed and adhered to ASL phonological constraints. Location primes were produced accurately, due to SJ's knowledge of the structure of her body. Errors occurred with body parts that were not perceptually salient. Movement parameters were not mastered by SJ during the period of study; no systematic set of substitutions was observed. Handshapes were produced with low accuracy. SJ relied on a small set of maximally contrastive handshapes (i.e., (5,1,A)). These handshapes represent the convergence of ease of production, distribution in the target language phonology, and perceptual salience. SJ used three processes to fit target handshapes to her emerging phonological system: spreading of selected fingers, changing of selected fingers from a marked to an unmarked set, and changing to an open position. These processes reflect anatomical and perceptual preferences as well as linguistic influences. / SJ's sign production showed a small improvement in accuracy and a marked reduction in variability between the ages of 1:0 AND 2:1. Visual feedback did not affect the sign accuracy. A passive hand was more likely to be added to one-handed signs produced outside the visual field, possibly increasing tactile feedback. Path movement and horizontal-place primes were more accurate when tactile feedback was present. There was no evidence that SJ used lexical selection or imitation as strategies for phonological acquisition. / Finally, many of the same factors that influence phonological acquisition in speech guided SJ's acquisition of handshape primes. Her acquisition of location primes, by contrast, did not resemble processes observed in phonological acquisition in speech.