For Deaf¹ children whose primary language is American Sign Language (ASL) in the United States and parts of Canada, the chief target language of schooling was, is, and will be English literacy development. National, state, district, and local learning standards are English-centric and reinforce English as the language of pedagogy (i.e., curriculum, instruction, and assessment). We believe Deaf children should develop English and ASL literacy in school while respecting their home languages. The latter related to ASL literacy development is largely ignored mainly because of ignorance, misunderstanding, and language bias.

While English is the primary language of pedagogy in most classrooms, this chapter discusses the role of ASL as the language of pedagogy, interpretation, and translation to support student learning. Unquestionably, from an American educational system standpoint, Deaf children are expected to develop proficiency in English before they enter the workplace. They should be expected to develop proficiency in ASL as well. This chapter supports the view in the literature that ASL can be used to build content knowledge for academic learning and as a bridge to learning English, and vice versa, noting that there are studies that show a correlation between ASL and English proficiency. These practices are supported by work demonstrating how the processing of English print is facilitated by knowledge funds of ASL, and in ASL (Andrew et al., 2014; Henner et al., 2016; Novogrodsky et al., 2014; Scott & Hoffmeister, 2017).

We recognize that the best approach to educate Deaf students is through direct two-way multilingual instruction from qualified and competent Deaf and hearing teachers who are trained to teach Deaf students instead of through a mediated educational setting using a third-party interpreter. Yet we recognize that a large number of Deaf students are currently attending mainstreamed programs with educational interpreters, and we cannot ignore this reality. As educational professionals in the field of Deaf education, it is our responsibility to provide the knowledge, training, and tools that ensure Deaf students are provided with an optimal access to content within academic classrooms.

A Concise Historical Examination of American Sign Language as a Language and a Language of Instruction

Kurz et al. (2020) provide a short history of the ideologies and attitudes toward ASL in classroom settings, during which generations of Deaf and hearing sign language speakers² have perceived their signing either as not a language or as a language appropriate only for nonacademic or vocational settings. Humphries (2008) discusses the differences between culture talking and talking culture when it comes to Deaf literature and arts and how Deaf culture becomes public when we talk about it. As language and culture are intertwined, we face a similar thread for sign language—language talking and talking language. As for language talking, sign languages have been around for millennia. This was mentioned in passing in multiple writings worldwide across the millennia. Some sign languages thrive, others evolve, and yet others expire. Each sign language brings a unique way of looking at and understanding the world. In North America, sign languages have been around for more than three centuries (Carty et al., 2009; Davis, 2010; Lang, 2007). ASL has been used as the language of instruction in the United States for more than two centuries and was often referred to as “the language of signs,” “natural signs,” “the natural language,” and “the sign language” by Deaf scholars and their hearing allies (see Barnard, 1835; Clerc, 1818; Gallaudet, 1848; Smith, 1927; Veditz, 1913; to name a few). While teaching at New York School for the Deaf during the 1830’s, Frederick A. P. Barnard, who was later known as a Deaf scientist, educator, president and chancellor of the University of Mississippi, and president of Columbia College (now known as Columbia University), examined and used some linguistic principles to describe how concepts were formed and adopted into ASL when Deaf students met and talked about different concepts at school. For teaching and learning, Barnard saw the advantages and affordability of sign language to build background knowledge of the world and to bridge the written English language. In 1830, New York School for the Deaf (NYSD) was the first school to adopt “Natural Signs” as a language of instruction, abandoning the decade-old policy of “Methodical Signs,” which was brought by Laurent Clerc to the United States and was similar to signing words in written English order (Barnard, 1835). The American School for the Deaf (ASD) eventually followed the adoption of “Natural Signs.” The language policy change planted a seed of high class for Deaf students who completed the primary curriculum, sought higher education, and faced societal obstacles in being admitted to college. The High Class movement began at ASD and quickly spread to NYSD a month later and other schools for the deaf in the early 1850s, leading up to the establishment, in 1864, of the National Deaf-Mute College (now known as Gallaudet University) in Washington, DC (Kurz & Kurz, 2014).³

Although ASL was used in schools since the early 19th century, it was labeled “American sign language” (emphasis in lowercase) in 1960, when William Stokoe, a hearing professor and chairman of the English department at Gallaudet, published Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. In 1963, the college newspaper, Buff and Blue, capitalized all the first letters of the wording “American Sign Language” in one of its articles (Gannon, 1981). Five years later, Stokoe coauthored the Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles with two Deaf research assistants, Dorothy C. Casterline and Carl G. Croneberg. Both books proposed that ASL is rule-governed, structured, and contains linguistic principles and features shared by the world’s languages. As soon as we started to talk language, we attempted to package ASL, using some linguistic principles borrowed from spoken languages, and brought ASL out into the mainstream, leading up to offering ASL courses for hearing people. It is now widely accepted that ASL is a language. Ever since ASL was recognized as a language, numerous studies have been undertaken in the field of sign language research that continue to provide evidence that ASL has varieties and dialects, including, for example, Black ASL (see McCaskill et al., 2011) and Protactile ASL (see Edwards, 2014).

American Sign Language in the Academic Context

In schools, students need language in order to complete content-specific learning tasks (Cazden, 2001; Cummins, 2000). Gee (2008) defined an academic language as a specific social practice of certain academic domains that must be learned and not acquired. Cazden (2001) explains that academic language derives from “expectations and norms for language use in an academic setting” (p. 172). Cummins (2000) describes academic language as “the extent to which an individual has access to and command of … the academic registers of schooling” (p. 67).

Educators and researchers in the field of Deaf education have applied the concept of academic language to ASL, known as “Academic ASL” (Kurz et al., 2018). This term was coined by Anne Marie Baer, a Deaf sign language researcher, who defines it as an academic register for the delivery of information through ASL (Baer, 2002). Baer (2002) explains that teachers employ the consultative register to scaffold student learning by intentionally delivering new information through ASL. Gárate (2007) defines Academic ASL as using the linguistic features of ASL for language functions that are part of the classroom routine. Harris (2010, 2016) further expands Gárate’s definition in terms of academic registers and of linguistic features of ASL for the purpose of pedagogical language functions. Harris’s definition, in effect, merges both Baer’s and Gárate’s definitions. The authors of this chapter use the wording “ASL in the academic context,” rather than “Academic ASL,” to show the continuum of ASL in various settings. ASL in the academic context includes academic discourse that occurs not only in educational environments, but also in other environments, such as home, playgrounds, meetings, and public spaces, where ASL speakers use specialized academic concepts for the purpose of learning, creation, and/or application. For example, a mother who is a doctor working at a hospital comes home and recounts her day’s work with patients who coronavirus (COVID-19) to her Deaf child at the dinner table. From the mother’s role as a doctor, the Deaf child learns about the virus and the symptoms of those who tested positive. In short, we should not limit the concept of academic discourse to the school setting context alone. Moving into a classroom and moving outside of a classroom should not change the kind of ASL used.

The literature has shown that the wording “sign” is widely used to describe a concept using its sign linguistic parameters. We define “ASL word” as a specific concept representation in signing. An ASL word is a single distinct meaningful element and concept that could go with other words in sign language to form phrases or sentences. ASL words refers to concepts, not to English words or any other language words. All languages, including ASL, are built with words in the context of concepts.

In a multilingual (two or more languages) classroom for Deaf students, content language functions serve as instructional expectations and activities for students to learn, re-create and demonstrate knowledge and skills through either or both languages in ASL and English (Kurz et al., 2018). Educational professionals and students use a range of language registers (frozen, formal, consultative, casual, and intimate) in the classroom. For example, Nathie Marbury’s ASL story “Earliest Memories,” Clayton Valli’s ASL poem “Dandelion,” or any other original ASL works are used as part of the frozen register in that they never change. During lesson activities, students often demonstrate their knowledge and skills of academic content areas, such as mathematics, science, social studies, language arts, literature, visual arts, engineering, and technology, through their languages of both ASL and English, in the form of formal, consultative, and/or informal register (Kurz et al., 2018). In the formal register, students give a presentation in ASL in front of an audience, using the expected forms of language. It is more likely that their information delivery is assessed using some kind of rubric of content knowledge and language proficiency, including specialized vocabulary, and correct grammatical and syntactic construct uses. In the classroom, students explain a specific concept in ASL to their peers, which is an indication of the consultative register, by using a combination of prior information, proper word choice, and enunciation at most one level above their peers’ language proficiency level while still explaining clearly. This register allows the teacher to evaluate student learning formatively and helps increase their students’ general and specialized and language repertoire. Students informally incorporate a learned concept in their daily conversations outside the classroom, using language forms with playful ASL words, ASL slang, and sign modification. This casual register indicates that word fluency has been achieved and does not require any formal assessment from the teacher. Invented or modified ASL words between two persons that might not readily be understood by the others are characterized as the intimate register. A student might modify the learned ASL word in terms of its linguistic features that are understood only by the student and her close friend. In all registers, sign language speakers use specialized vocabulary, phrases, and sentences through ASL, in the same way that English speakers do through English.

In supporting students, teachers plan and design lessons, including content language functions (how the student learns and demonstrates learning) and demands (tasks through which the student demonstrates learning), for the purpose of using curriculum content and materials, teaching the content to a class of students of diverse backgrounds, and assessing their knowledge and skills through the language(s): ASL and/or English. ASL considerations in the planning and designing include (a) ASL words, phrases, and statements at the grade level, (b) ASL language learning objectives made up of functions and demands, (c) elicitation strategies for background and/or prior information through ASL, (d) instructional activities to reinforce viewing and signing comprehension, and to bridge ASL to English through concept association, and (e) ASL assessment tools and techniques of student learning. As with any other language in an academic setting, ASL words, phrases and sentences become progressively dense, complex, layered, and specific from preschools to high schools and to postsecondary institutions, including academic, technical, and vocational settings. Those progressive ASL terms (progressive word choice for general and/or specific meaning) are dependent on the context and formed with ASL phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactic, semantic, and discourse features. For example, the ASL word that is semantically equivalent to the English word “gravity” changes as it becomes progressively dense and specific when taught in 4th grade, 8th grade, high school physics, astronomy, quantum physics, and so on, as shown in Figures 1a–h. The fourth graders learn about the concept of gravity in terms of being pulled into the center of the Earth based on their physical experiences and through some experiments, such as jumping up and down and dropping objects. The eighth graders learn about the concept of gravity in terms of the solar system, such as the gravitational pull or tug among the planets, their moons, asteroids, comets, and the sun. In high school physics, students learn about the relationship between gravity and weight, and the gravitational fields, such as how a cannonball, when fired, chases after its curvature, gravitational field. The concept of gravity progresses to include multiple space-time fabrics, gravitational fields, fabrics, gravitational waves, and the like. The concept becomes more specific in terms of its context used for academic discourse.

a. ASL standard word for gravity (underground pull to the center—Earth).

b. ASL standard word for gravity (outer to insider pull—Earth).

c. ASL standard word for gravity (on surface pull—Earth).

d. ASL word for “gravitational pull between two entities.”

e. ASL word for gravity as “chasing after the curvature of gravitational field of a mass–A planet.”

f. ASL word for gravity as in “gravitational field.”

g. ASL word for gravity as in “gravity is strong in the region of spacetime—A black hole.”

h. ASL word for gravity as in “curvature of gravitational field in region of spacetime.”

Figure 1. ASL words that depict the concept of gravity from 4th grade to college.

It is clear that developing instructional lessons is not within the scope of work for educational interpreters; they have to determine how the uttered information from the teacher or the student through one language (i.e., English) should be translated into another (i.e., ASL), and vice versa (ASL to English). In doing so, the educational interpreter would follow the teacher’s lesson plan of instructional activities in the classroom, its chosen language function(s) for student language learning, and its academic discourse among the individuals in the classroom. Although educational interpreters vary in both English and ASL knowledge and skills and academic content knowledge and skills, they bring their background knowledge and skills, including language learning, language resources, linguistic creativity, and cultural funds of knowledge.

Because the focus of this chapter is on delivering academic content through ASL, it is important to analyze general assumptions or knowledge about ASL in the academic context and to discuss how educational interpreters can enhance ASL delivery in the classroom.

Fact and Fiction: American Sign Language in Academic Contexts

To construct equivalent meaning in ASL from the English language in the classroom effectively, one needs to reflect on one’s language background and examine one’s attitudes and biases because they might have developed some misconceptions about the use of ASL in the academic context. Everyone has a language bias that developed during their upbringing, but it can be acknowledged, modified, and/or reduced. To cover and discuss all misconceptions related to ASL in the academic context, might need a whole book. Hence, this chapter discusses only some of the salient facts that are essential for educational professionals, including educational interpreters, to understand some of the common misconceptions that need to be disproved.

FACT 1: ASL, like any other language, has a range of styles that appear in various settings and contexts.

This fact counters a common misconception that ASL in colloquial settings and ASL in academic settings are two separate entities. The literature often shows colloquial language and academic language as two separate entities. For example, Cummins (2000) uses basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) as referents to two forms of the same language. BICS is often referred to as a social language, and CALP is referred to as an academic language. However, in terms of academic discourse, language learning occurs in a layered continuum of language, not as separate entities, ranging in all learning situations, including incidental learning. Background knowledge, which comprises the knowledge and language, including word choice, is what students bring to school and what the teacher uses as a scaffolding strategy to introduce new concepts. The continuum of ASL in the academic context reinforces the notion that students bring and use their language resources, linguistic creativity, and cultural funds of knowledge and that the teacher uses those student resources, creativity, and funds to build knowledge and skills in the areas of academic content and language development. For example, when the teacher teaches a lesson on length using a standard ASL word for measurements, a student jumps in, retells in ASL, and shows some pictures of their recent fishing trip, where they got fish of different lengths, using their background knowledge related to fishing. The teacher might use this opportunity to relate to the concept of lengths in class by blending or layering both styles. The teacher in Figure 2a shows the ASL word for a small fish (short length) using the “bo” mouth morpheme, which means “small,” the single index finger of each hand, which also indicates the concept of “small,” and the hands are located close to each other, indicating the idea that the distance from tail to head is short. Figure 2b shows the ASL word for “medium length” for a medium-sized fish with the pursed mouth morpheme and the “B” handshape in each hand. Figure 2c shows the ASL word for “long length” for a large fish with the “cha” mouth morpheme and the B handshape in each other. As shown in Figure 2, the teacher’s mouth morphemes, the handshapes, and the location of these ASL words indicate lengths of different sizes. The teachers promote language development for Deaf children by incorporating their students’ background knowledge or experience such as their recent fishing trip and ASL word choice and their lesson objectives, thus introducing and reinforcing the measurement concept using advanced ASL linguistic features.

By recognizing the benefits of the ASL spectrum of styles in various settings and contexts to bridge Deaf students’ background knowledge and language resources for learning subjects through ASL, educational interpreters can provide clear ASL interpretation of the concept based on the English vocabulary. As mentioned earlier, language transmission into and outside of a classroom should not change how ASL is used.

Figure 2. Different lengths in ASL.

FACT 2: ASL in the academic context follows ASL structures, which include grammatical features, language choices, interaction strategies, and discourse functions.

This fact argues against the notion that ASL in the academic context means always using English-word order or English-based systems.

One of the biggest misunderstandings or misperceptions is that ASL in the academic context means always using English word order in sentences as well as referring to English words. Some people assume that the use of English-based signs such as Signing Exact English (SEE) is needed in the academic setting or transliteration using English word order (Kurz et al., 2020). Deaf professionals might use English-based signed words in English word order for different reasons, one of them being that they know that some interpreters are not fluent in ASL and lack good receptive skills. They want to make sure their interpreters use correct English words and in correct English word order for the hearing audience. The other reason is that they learned English-based language modalities (oral, written, and signed) during their formative years in school and at home and, in some cases, with their Deaf parents. A well-known ASL storyteller once recalled that he had assumed that his mother who grew up oral and used English-based signed words was more intelligent than his father who spoke ASL. As he grew older, he realized that his perception was flawed and that his father was as intelligent as his mother, regardless of their signed language choice. Another example is cited by one of the authors and relates to her childhood years, when she was repeatedly told by her hearing teachers how those Deaf leaders who used Signed Exact English were more intelligent and academically advanced than those who used ASL. The public and personal assumption that using English-based signed words and in English word order implies intelligence and further advancement is skewed and linguistic-culturally biased.

It might be easier for second language (L2) ASL educational professionals to understand and interpret for Deaf people who sign in English word order with initialized signed words for different reasons, such as less cognitive demand for interpretation and limited ASL linguistic repertoire. In doing so, some of them impose their language preferences and beliefs on Deaf students. Most Deaf students would eventually learn ASL after entering adulthood because they meet and interact with Deaf people who speak ASL in Deaf communities. As a result, some of them struggle to reconcile their language beliefs about ASL and recognize their L2 ASL development limitations (Kurz et al., 2020).

Much has changed since then. ASL and its role as the language of pedagogy and interpretation are better understood and slowly becoming acceptable in the educational environment, and more Deaf professionals recognize that they do not necessarily follow English words, English word order and English sign-based words while presenting. Although the flawed perception might still hold true for some people, more people have recognized that the ability to optimize the use of ASL linguistic structure and word order to deliver abstract and concrete ideas can demonstrate the ASL speaker’s intelligence. It is critical for educational professionals, including interpreters, to analyze their language attitudes about ASL and English, especially considering the fact that they did not acquire ASL during their formative years and from heritage ASL speakers (see Hill’s 2012 work on language attitudes) and that ASL and English are governed by distinct linguistic rules and norms. The more exposure that they have to ASL speakers who follow ASL structures, the greater the ability of educational professionals to use all of the languages in their linguistic repertoire to develop ASL literacy.

FACT 3: ASL in the academic context can represent every culture, ethnicity, race, and gender in the United States and parts of Canada.

This fact is contrary to the assumption that ASL in the academic context is for the majority culture within Deaf communities.

In the vast majority of existing ASL texts,⁴ the speakers are Deaf white people. A vast majority of ASL curriculum materials developed and used for educational professional preparation programs (teacher preparation program and interpreter preparation program) were by hearing and Deaf white people. Acknowledging ASL speakers of diverse gender, racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, their language resources, linguistic creativity, and cultural funds of knowledge and skills become valuable assets to the wealth of diversity of ASL. For example, when the film Black Panther came out in 2018, some Deaf white people created and shared ASL words (using the ASL words: BLACK + TIGER) for the film superhero in their Twitter tweets. The Black Deaf community disagreed and eventually coined the Black ASL word and its variants for the superhero, which found wide acceptance in the mainstream. In the past several years, we have seen a rapid growth of ASL texts by black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). They should always be included in academic, technical, and vocational curricula. In general, ASL in the academic context should be inclusive of all ASL families, including language varieties such as geographically based ASL, Black ASL, Protactile ASL, gender-based ASL, identity-based ASL, age- or generation-based ASL, and so on. The use of ASL in the classroom is carefully planned and designed for the target population (e.g., early childhood, P–12 grade levels, postsecondary levels, demographic specific, and geographically based). Pre-service and in-service educational professionals are the ones who have to be trained in culturally responsive pedagogy, especially for working with Deaf students of ASL minorities. For example, if a white educational professional is hired to work with Black Deaf students who speak Black ASL, the former is strongly encouraged to recognize, learn their languages and respect their cultures (see works of McCaskill et al., 2011) yet without trying too hard to mimic their sign language styles (personal communication with Joseph Hill, May 15, 2020). This would also apply to working with Native American Deaf individuals because they have their own indigenous sign languages (Davis & McKay-Cody, 2010). The Plains Indians Sign Language, for example, has been used by Deaf and hearing Indigenous Peoples from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico for at least the past 200 years (McKay-Cody, 1997). We have seen a growing number of Deaf people in the United States using Mexican Sign Language (LSM), especially in the border cities (Quinto-Pozos, 2002). Historically, ASL has incorporated some words from different indigenous sign languages. Similarly, a hearing educational professional working with Deaf students who speak ASL needs to learn and respect ASL and its varities and dialects.

Educational professionals, including educational interpreters, can become allies to the diverse Deaf communities in the United States, including Deaf people of Latin American cultural or ethnic identities, Deaf immigrants, and Deaf refugees (see Chapter 10, this volume), by learning their language varieties. Their cultures and languages are part of society and, in turn, part of school as well. What Deaf students bring with them to school needs to be infused into the language of pedagogy in order to ensure a successful academic experience for them; we cannot exclude their ASL and its varieties and Deaf culture and cultural identities from the classroom. Similarly, we have to get out of our comfort zone to promote sign multilingualism for some Deaf people who use multiple sign languages. Educational professionals, including teachers and interpreters, are responsible for culturally responsive pedagogy and interpretation when working with Deaf students of diverse backgrounds. They can transform their curriculum, instruction, and assessment by reflecting on the rich, diverse fabric of society and including those Deaf individuals of diverse backgrounds in decision-making during curriculum development, instructional evaluation, and assessment development. This should not only be limited to early childhood education to postsecondary education, but also include educational professional preparation programs. As of this writing, Deaf-led TRUE+WAY American Sign Language (https://truewayasl.com/) includes a variety of Deaf speakers of different backgrounds. ASL belongs not only to the majority culture of Deaf communities but also to other Deaf communities, and its diversity, including its varieties, should be universally embraced and appreciated. Everyone in Deaf communities can contribute to the evolution and diversification of ASL. All ASL words, old or new, obsolete or robust, local or regional, ethnic-dialect or gender-neutral, home-grown or foreign-borrowed, are valid in the language.

FACT 4: ASL does not require fingerspelling to represent specialized academic concepts.

The following statement is a misconception: If there is no fingerspelled word during the delivery of an academic concept in ASL, there is no academic word! The authors presented a workshop for preservice and in-service teachers and educational interpreters and showed an ASL video text explaining the eye’s parts and their functions. In the video text, there was only one fingerspelled word, “L-E-N-S,” during the presentation. When the authors asked the audience if there were any scientific words in the text, the common response was either none or one word, lens. One of the possible culprits for this misconception is the way people choose words for their languages: signs for ASL and words for English, including fingerspelled English words. To reduce this misunderstanding, the authors use words for all languages: ASL words and English words. An ASL word has a form, which is made in the signing space with the hand(s) with handshape, location, and/or movement and sometimes in combination with a non-manual component and a clearly described meaning, which is conventional and/or prescribed. Deaf speakers have come to an agreement on the meaning of the word (Barnard, 1835; Kurz et al., 2020; Schermer, 2016) in the same way that speakers of other languages come to agreement on the meanings of their words (See Chapter 10, this volume). In fact, there were thirty-one ASL scientific words in the video text. For example, Figure 3 shows the ASL words for the concepts of four different rectus muscles (i.e., the English words are “superior rectus muscle,” “inferior rectus muscle,” “lateral rectus muscle,” and “medial rectus muscle”). They are differentiated solely on the basis of one of the five ASL phonological features: palm orientation, thus rendering four different ASL words.

Figure 3. ASL words for different eye muscles.

Explaining an academic concept (e.g., parts of the eye and their functions) in ASL comprises ASL words, phrases, and sentences. A change of any one of the parameters (for example, changing location in the signing space) of ASL words is intended to evoke a different meaning.

Going back to Fact #4: ASL has signed academic concepts that are not fingerspelled. Mathematics, science, social studies, visual arts, and other academic subjects do not belong to English. They all have concepts that are expressed in each language. ASL words refer to concepts, not to English words. Educational interpreters may find interpreting academic concepts in ASL and English (either way from one language to another language) challenging for a variety of reasons:

•the lack of personal exposure and access to Deaf native teachers in P-12 school settings

•the lack of personal exposure and access to Deaf native speakers who are content experts

•insufficient academic content knowledge

•insufficient linguistic repertoires of the language(s) (ASL and/or English)

•signing and viewing as a second modality of the second language, which is different from any modalities of their first language (i.e., reading, writing, listening, and oral-speaking)

•the lack of linguistic knowledge of ASL

•the lack of professional training in educational interpreting

As with educational interpreters, Deaf students who take classes with an interpreter also find learning academic concepts challenging, especially when they have to learn them in at least two languages (ASL and English) without any strategic teaching plan to learn the concepts bilingually. A vast majority of them do not receive any formal training on language translation; ASL structure; and focused, bilingual instruction on specialized academic concepts (e.g., word study and fluency for ASL words). Understanding that each language has words or a string of words for the same academic concept (e.g., how the eye parts work) might help with interpretation for educational professionals and translation for Deaf students. The literature shows Deaf teachers use fingerspelling more in their teaching when compared to their hearing peers (Andrews & Rusher, 2010). They use it deliberately and strategically (i.e., codeswitching techniques, such as sandwiching and chaining) to bridge ASL words to English words through concept association. Educational interpreters can employ the same strategies while interpretation. Apart from that, they are encouraged to use ASL words to convey the concepts that the teacher is constructing in English. For educational professionals, excessive fingerspelling of English words without any strategic use implies insufficient ASL linguistic repertoires (e.g., ASL words and ASL fluency) and/or specialized conceptual understanding.

FACT 5: ASL employs a wide range of nonmanual markers, including mouth morphemes, facial expressions, movement intensity, and the signing space to explain academic concepts.

Many incorrectly assume that in order to explain academic content in ASL, we see less or reduced use of nonmanual markers, including mouth morphemes, and reduced signing space, especially in formal or academic settings.

Both Deaf and hearing people have long assumed that ASL in the academic settings is modified because of the application of consultative or formal registers. It might be true that some Deaf presenters prefer to use English-order signing, use ASL words to emphasize English words, or fingerspell English words. The way they choose to sign is usually done because they are working with interpreters who might not be familiar with the topic and proficient in ASL receptive skills (Kurz & Hill, 2018). The other possible reason for this modification is that the presenters might not be fluent in the use of ASL nonmanual markers or depicting verbs such as use of space or classifiers with active verbs. Nonmanual markers are one of the five basic phonological parameters in a sign language, handshape, location, movement, and palm orientation being the other parameters. Such nonmanual markers, including body shifts, movement intensity, and mouth morphemes, provide information that describes different components of the grammar, including the verb, the noun, the adverb, and the adjective, and sentence compositions.

Optimizing ASL in the academic context requires an extensive use of nonmanual markers to deliver crucial academic information. To interpret English information into ASL information as a target language, the chief goal is to provide the information accurately and achieve the same functions that the source language (English) achieves. In interpretation, the goal is to provide parallel information in the target language (ASL). The same is true when interpreting the other way (ASL to English). This does not require that the exact words occur or that the functions be achieved using the same strategies. See Figure 2 for the use of mouth morphemes to describe the length of a fish. When a mouth morpheme is used, it adds more information about the ASL word with an adverb, an adjective, or a descriptive meaning (Bridges & Metzger, 1996; Johnston et al., 2016). Another possible example, ASL users tend to rely on the strategy of constructed dialogue to emphasize a point, whereas English users will emphasize a similar point using explanation or description rather than constructed dialogue. For example, to interpret the English sentence “This food tastes awfully good” into the ASL sentence, one would speak it in ASL as shown in Figure 4. The word awful derives from Old English for “full of awe.” The word meaning has changed from positive to negative over the time for the term awful. However, for some English phrases with the term, the meaning remains positive (“This food tastes awfully good”).

Figure 4. ASL for English “This food tastes awfully good.”

Mouth morphemes are usually used to describe characteristics, actions, degrees, and magnitudes (Bridges & Metzger, 1996). English uses adverbs and adjectives to describe those features. For example, an ASL speaker would use mouth morphemes in addition to inflections by using hand movement with a variety of degrees related to intensity, to describe different degrees in terms of intelligence (i.e., conceptual equivalents to English words: smart, intelligent, brilliant, genius, etc.).

For academic subjects, the language becomes dense and complex as students advance through grades. ASL in the academic context becomes dense and complex by employing new ASL words and phrases with a wide range of nonmanual markers, including mouth morphemes, facial expressions, movement intensity, and the signing space to explain academic concepts. To support Deaf students’ ASL language development, it is crucial for educational professionals to learn and understand the importance of ASL linguistics and discourse interactions and their roles in language learning and academic content learning. Educational professionals as L2 ASL speakers require more time and effort to develop ASL fluency in nonmanual markers. Without that fluency, Deaf students’ ASL linguistic repertoire for advanced academic concepts and discourses is seriously affected.

FACT 6: ASL uses linguistic features and discourse structures such as classifiers, depicting verbs, constructed actions, constructed dialogues, and so on to explain academic content.

This counters the incorrect claims that “using ASL to explain the academic content involves gesture rather than sign language.”

Referring to the work of Bauman and Murray (2010) about the benefits of ASL over English to explain mathematical and scientific concepts, Crowe et al. (2017) and Borgna et al. (2018) suggested that such explanations (see Figure 5 for example) “involve gesture rather than sign language” (p. 398; p. 2, respectively). Figure 5 shows the ASL word for mitosis, a process in which a cell divides itself into two daughter cells. Henner (2020) states that this misconception in those articles was without merit and that the authors of the article made false “claims about signed languages that contradict the linguistic literature without evidence” (poster). Henner (2020) argues that the claims that scientific concepts delivered in ASL are made up of gestures disregard the rich linguistic features of ASL to explain the concept clearly.

Figure 5. ASL for mitosis.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that ASL in academic classrooms minimizes the use of depiction. Thumann (2013) explains how previous sign language researchers have described ASL linguistic features that apply to depiction by using linguistic terms such as role shifting, spatial mapping, referential shift in discourse, shift in perspective, constructed action, and constructed dialogue. On the basis of the works of Liddell (1998, 2003), depiction is described as the representation of aspects of an entity, event, or abstract concept by signers’ use of their articulators, their body, and the signing space around them. Furthermore, Thumann (2013) explains,

An instance of depiction occurs when a signer represents an entity or event that is not actually present. Although addressees are not able to see the entities or events discussed, signers use role shifting, classifiers and classifier predicates, and space to make certain aspects visible. (p. 317)

Further, such concepts through ASL have elements of sign language as evidenced in the linguistic literature. Occhino and Wilcox (2017) discuss the categorization problem for gesture or sign, especially the relationship between signed languages and gestures. In a neutral systems study, Newman et al. (2015) found that “lifelong use of visual-manual language alters the neural resposnse to non-linguistic manual gesture” (p. 11687). In other words, for native signers, gestures are processed more like language. Gesture for a hearing person is a language for a Deaf person (Occhino & Wilcox, 2017).

With the aim of better serving Deaf students whose primary language is ASL, educational professionals (e.g., school administrators, teachers and assistants, and educational researchers, educational interpreters) are encouraged to learn ASL linguistics in depth to get a stronger grasp of how ASL and English are governed by distinct linguistic rules and norms. Each and every language has its advantages and disadvantages, and Deaf children should be encouraged to build their language strategies and repertoires so that they can use them to explain a concept clearly. Those who are not trained or knowledgeable in ASL linguistics or who have language bias about ASL are bound to repeat history by making false claims about ASL, such as the use of gestures rather than linguistic features of ASL. The authors emphasize that depiction was, is, and will continue to be valuable part of ASL in academic settings. Depiction allows dense and complex information to be portrayed in ASL effectively. Essentially, ASL word choice in the context of concept is advanced and layered while using depiction. Skilled ASL speakers use depiction to provide accurate and accessible specialized concepts. People have mislabeled some ASL stories/poems (e.g., Ian Sanborn’s Caterpillar) as wordless works because they do not use “standardized” ASL words. Like any poets, some of ASL poets use, combine and modify depicting words to make the concept clear and accessible to end users. This demonstrates a high level of language proficiency—the ability to expressing complex concepts using ASL linguistic features, including nonmanual markers and depiction, clearly.

FACT 7: ASL can be used in any form of educational assessment of knowledge and learning of academic concepts.

This argues against the common assessment protocol policy that ASL words give obvious clues, and we need to avoid those words in any form of educational assessments to assess and measure Deaf students’ content and/or language knowledge.

Most states require evidence-based learning outcomes through their statewide assessments. One of the biggest debates is related to how sign language interpreters should interpret these English-based assessments into ASL (Higgins et al. 2016, 2017). Languages are developed and used to communicate ideas clearly, and in doing so, all languages have clues in their words. English, for example, has clues in its words with prefixes, suffixes, compound words, and many more. Students learn that anything that starts with “tri-” has three parts of its root word. The triangle has three angles, the tricycle has three wheels, the tripod has three feet, and so on. For example, the English word dogcatcher indicates that a person is responsible for catching a dog.

In anatomy, the English words superior and inferior describe the location of a bodily part, superior (from Latin) being above something and inferior (from Latin) below something. Note that both English words share the same suffix of comparatives (-ior). We use the same suffix in junior and senior. To express the concept in ASL (comparatives of location) for superior and inferior, the ASL words depend on the location and palm orientation (see Figure 3 for example with the eye parts—a. the superior rectus muscle with the downward palm orientation and b. the inferior rectus muscle with the upward palm orientation). The superior rectus muscle is located above the eye referent/classifier, and the palm orientation of the superior rectus muscle is downward. The inferior rectus muscle is located below the eye referent/classifier, and the palm orientation is upward. ASL uses space-location for visual references. Figure 6 shows another example of the space-location for visual references.

Figure 6. ASL words for North Pole and South Pole.

If we have to avoid ASL words that give obvious clues, assessments that are provided in ASL are invalid. Some might suggest the use of English fingerspelling instead of ASL words. If we offer a mathematics assessment in ASL where all English mathematical words are only fingerspelled, then the language of assessment is English, not ASL. A nonlexicalized fingerspelled word reflects an English word that expresses the meaning they want to share. In other words, the fingerspelling reflects a concept in English, not a concept in ASL. The purpose of mathematics assessments is to test the taker’s knowledge of mathematics, not English. Assessment vendors who develop mathematics assessments in Spanish for those American students who speak Spanish do not have to make sure that all mathematical words are shown in English, not Spanish, to avoid any obvious clues in Spanish words. Educational professionals should not subtract some features of ASL for any assessments that are offered in ASL to avoid obvious clues (Higgins et al., 2016, 2017). Doing so often indicates the power and control of language, the superiority of English and the inferiority of ASL, and the oppression of ASL. Educational interpreters might not be aware of the adverse, collective language attitudes and biases in this country and the educational space where English is the language of the vast majority and ASL the language of the vast minority. Constant reflection on personal and societal language attitudes and biases is crucial to a better understanding of who controls the curriculum, instruction, and assessment and how they can work with Deaf communities to guarantee equitable language accessibility in educational assessments for Deaf children.

FACT 8: ASL can be standardized for academic vocabularies, just as in any other language, but it does not always have to be.

This contradicts the frequent call that we need to standardize ASL for all academic vocabularies. Educational professionals have argued that standardizing ASL for all academic vocabularies is needed for Deaf students. Although it might be more convenient to have standardized ASL words for consistency and convenience, it needs to be recognized that, as with any other language, ASL is a living organism that constantly changes. ASL words fade, change, emerge, or solidify. In the past two centuries, ASL has grown into a widely diverse language from different regions in the United States and parts of Canada. The older the language is, the more diverse it becomes. English is a classic example of this because it produces numerous words with the same or similar meaning, as, for example, poop—crap—shit—number two—stool—feces—dung—dropping—scat—manure—waste—excrement. Although ASL might not have a word in citation form (e.g., published in ASL dictionaries) that matches the concept of each aforementioned English word, it surely has its own words that depict the same or similar meaning even during interpretation (see Chapters 8 and 15). ASL words incorporate the visual, tactile, auditorial, gustatory, and olfactory aspects of something as ASL is high-context culture (see Fact #6). As one of the oldest languages in the world still in use, English also has words with multiple meanings. The English word set has more than 50 different meanings. It would depend on the context in which the word is used to give a specific meaning. Although it might be easier to have one ASL word for one English word, we usually have different ASL words for different meanings of one English word (e.g., run). Similarly, one ASL word has multiple meanings, resulting in different English words (e.g., the concept of mathematical function and the concept of language translation have the same ASL word).

As with all other languages, it should not be a surprise that English and ASL do not always have a one-to-one correspondence for their lexical repertoire. In the past 50 years, we have seen numerous attempts at creating ASL words that correspond to English words, assuming incorrectly that all ASL and English words are meaningful equivalents. Kurz and Pagliaro (2020) find that this method has limitations and could lead to conceptually and/or linguistically incorrect signed words. For example, Figure 7 shows that the ASL words (proper fraction and improper fraction) include the ASL words proper (in standard form), fraction (in standard form with the handshape F), not + proper (both in standard form).

The problem with these ASL words in the standard form is that it is an indication of behavior norm. The improper fraction (according to the ASL words in standard form) would look like it did something improper. When the author of this chapter, who has a college degree in mathematics, was teaching mathematics, he struggled with the standardized ASL words (proper fraction and improper fraction) because they did not convey the correct meaning. He eventually came up with new ASL words using the handshape bent-L to depict and represent a number (see Kurz et al, 2018 for different ASL math words that use the handshape bent-L). The ASL word (proper fraction) is a sequence of fraction (with bent-L instead of F) with a smaller bent-L in the numerator for a smaller number and a larger bent-L in the denominator for a larger number. The same for the ASL word (improper fraction) with the opposite size in the numerator and the denominator (see Figure 8).

a. Old standard form of ASL word for fraction

b. Old standard form of ASL words for proper fraction

c. Old standard form of ASL words for improper fraction

Figure 7. Old standard forms of ASL words for fraction, proper fraction and improper fraction.

We have convenient ASL words that the majority of ASL speakers agree on and ASL words that are entrenched, i.e., have been around for a long time (search with the handshape C from the Old French Sign Language word chercher). Creating, modifying, re-creating ASL words occur naturally. Barnard (1835) described the process in which Deaf students develop and agree on ASL words after they bring their own home signs to a school. Similarly, Lillo-Martin (1988) described how Deaf children of Deaf parents and Deaf adults create new ASL words for new objects, persons, or machines (youths, experts, etc.). Kurz et al. (2020) discuss Deaf content experts’ changes of ideologies and attitudes toward ASL as they develop and create academic vocabulary in ASL.

In society, language standardization has its purposes. Language standardization is needed to provide some agreed or shared meaning. That is why there are language dictionaries. Standardization should come naturally and deliberately. Young children, youths, and young adults tend to push the language boundaries by creating new words, challenging the standardization, and accelerating the language use by reduction, derivation, and compounding. For example, the English word selfie was coined to represent “a digital photo taken by the photographer of himself or herself” or “a self-portrait digital photo taken by a smartphone or a digital camera.” The word selfie became an official English word on the basis of its astronomical frequent use in the digital and analog corpus.

Similarly, we see the same for the English word audism, which had taken more than 40 years to become official and recorded in the Merriam-Webster American English dictionary. Humphries (1975) coined the English word audism in his doctoral dissertation. The concept has evolved and was broadened by several scholars before it was recognized in an official American English dictionary. It is true for any English words, including specialized academic words. We see the same process for our ASL words as well. Numerous attempts to standardize specialized vocabulary in ASL for academic subjects have been undertaken by hearing researchers, instructors, and interpreters without any input from Deaf adults, especially Deaf content experts.⁵ It is often their misleading belief that sign languages have inadequate lexicons for specialized concepts to correspond with that of spoken languages (Adam, 2015; Eichmann, 2009; Kurz et al., 2020; Schermer, 2003). Similarly, they lack the understanding that ASL words do not refer to English words in order to represent a concept.

a. New form of ASL word for fraction

b. New form of ASL words for proper fraction

c. New form of ASL words for improper fraction.

Figure 8. New ASL words for fraction, proper fraction, and improper fraction.

We cannot expect new ASL words to become standardized overnight. It would take Deaf communities, Deaf people in content-specific communities, and Deaf people in educational communities to see ASL words emerge, utilize, modify, fade, and reemerge. In the past few years, we have seen a growing trend of Deaf content experts giving lectures in ASL texts online. Some of their new ASL words might take many years to become widely entrenched. Educational professionals should expect language diversity, including language variety, rather than standard versus nonstandard ASL teaching or interpreting in order to expand Deaf children’s vocabulary and language (see Fact 3). All languages with their unique linguistic features share the same space (i.e., specialized vocabulary).

Conclusion

Through our discussion about eight facts and some misconceptions that we have debunked, we hope to convince educational professionals to infuse ASL strategies effectively because they construct meaning and support student learning. However, this requires that they have adequate and appropriate ASL linguistic repertoires for academic contexts. The two languages (ASL and English) that Deaf students use should be viewed as forming a whole, and it is expected that Deaf students would mix the two languages. It is a reflection of their language resources, not a language problem. They are using both languages for learning, not that they are confused or limited, for they are using their resources to transfer their knowledge from one language to another.

ASL in the academic context occurs not only in the school settings, but also outside the classroom and in the public and private space. Knowledge in ASL language development in conjunction with knowledge in academic content allows educational professionals, including educational interpreters, to provide Deaf children access to language-rich and content-rich worlds of knowledge. There are misconceptions about ASL and its roles in the academic context that need to be acknowledged and disregarded before the interpreters are able to take advantage of what ASL has to offer for academic language and content information delivery. Learning ASL and its varieties and dialects, including their linguistic differences, allows them to provide culturally responsive pedagogy and interpretation to Deaf children of diverse backgrounds. After all, the limit of ASL knowledge and skills in an educational professional can lead to the limit of ASL literacy and academic content development in Deaf children. That would be a disservice to Deaf children who rely on ASL to learn about the world. Educational interpreters can expand their ASL knowledge and skills through reflection, professional development, and collaboration.

Educational interpreters are encouraged to share and discuss their work with each other, especially taking a closer look at their ASL production based on their personal perspectives and a student’s perspective. Educational interpreters seek more training on producing ASL where Deaf students would get a proper perspective of the information. It is always beneficial to explore how and why the other interpreters interpreted the way they did. It is crucial for educational interpreters to continuously improve ASL fluency and interpreting skills. Native ASL speakers, including some children of Deaf adults (Codas), are good models to converse, watch, and study their language uses. Deaf farmers, Deaf janitors, Deaf mechanics, Deaf entrepreneurs, and many more are likely to have their own sets of specialized ASL words that could make a valuable contribution to the diversity of ASL. ASL is a blanket of diverse threads made up of Deaf communities and their diverse mini communities.

Notes

1.“Deaf” is used throughout this chapter to encompass the broad range of individuals with cultural and linguistic characteristics. Our choice of “Deaf” is intended to include, rather than exclude, those Deaf individuals who do not refer to themselves with this designation.

2.“Speaker” is used throughout this chapter to describe a person who speaks a language. ASL speakers are those who speak in ASL, regardless of their Deaf status. John Lee Clark, a renowned DeafBlind poet, writer and publisher, reclaimed the use of “speak” in relation to ASL, justifying that “use” or “sign” suggests a lesser and/or marginalized status in terms of language and communication.

3.John Carlin, a deaf poet and artist and one of the original students at Philadelphia School for the Deaf, was a strong advocate for higher education for the Deaf and published a proposal for the National College for deaf scholars in 1854, suggesting it be located in New York City, the birthplace of the “Natural Signs” language policy for instruction.

4.“ASL text” is used throughout this chapter to encompass the broad range of documentation of ASL in an analog or digital format, including print, image, and video.

5.In the past several years, hearing researchers have received federal grants in hundred thousand dollars to standardize ASL high school or college academic vocabulary. A group of Deaf academics has condemned this practice for different reasons, including the lack of a deaf researcher on the team, hearing persons of authority, their lack of understanding of ASL linguistics, and their influence on the standardization method of ASL, including final decision-making.

References

Adam, R. (2015). Standardization of sign languages. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 432–445.

Andrew, K. N., Hoshooley, J., & Joanisse, M. F. (2014). Sign language ability in young deaf signers predicts comprehension of written sentences in English, PLoS One, 9(2), e89994. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089994

Andrews, J. F., & Rusher, M. (2010). Codeswitching techniques: Evidence-based instructional practices for the ASL/English bilingual classroom. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(4), 407–424.

Baer, A. (2002). Academic ASL [video]. Signs of Development (Producer). http://signs-of-development.org/education/161-academic-asl-streaming-workshop.html

Barnard, F. A. P. (1835). Existing state of the art of instructing the deaf and dumb. Literary and Theological Review, 2(7), 367–398.

Bauman, H. D. L., & Murray, J. J. (2010). Deaf studies in the 21st century: “Deaf-gain” and the future of human diversity. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 210–225). Oxford University Press.

Borgna, G., Walton, D., Convertino, C., Marschark, M., & Trussell, J. (2018). Numerical and real-world estimation abilities of deaf and hearing college students. Deafness & Education International, 20(2), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/14643154.2018.1437238

Bridges, B., & Metzger, M. (1996). Deaf tend your: Non-manual signs in ASL. Calliope.

Carty, B., Macready, S., & Sayers, E. E. (2009). “A grave and gracious woman”: Deaf people and signed language in colonial New England. Sign Language Studies, 9(3), 287–323. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.0.0018

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Heinemann Educational.

Clerc, L. (1818). An address written by Mr. Clerc, and read by his request at a public examination of the pupils in the Connecticut Asylum before the governor and both houses of the legislature 28th May 1818. American School for the Deaf.

Crowe, K., Marschark, M., Dammeyer, J., & Lehane, C. (2017). Achievement, language, and technology use among college-bound deaf learners. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 22(4), 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enx029

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.

Davis, J. E. (2010). Hand talk: Sign language among American Indian nations. Cambridge University Press.

Davis, J. E., & McKay-Cody, M. (2010). Signed languages of American Indian communities: Considerations for interpreting work and research. In R. L. McKee & J. E. Davis (Eds.), Interpreting in multilingual, multicultural contexts (pp. 119–157). Gallaudet University Press.

Edwards, T. (2014). From compensation to integration: Effects of the pro-tactile movement on the sublexical structure of tactile American Sign Language. Journal of Pragmatics, 69, 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.005

Eichmann, H. (2009). Planning sign languages: Promoting hearing hegemony? Conceptualizing sign language standardization. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(3), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200903116287

Gallaudet, T. H. (1848). On the natural language of signs; and its value and uses in the instruction of the deaf and dumb. American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, 1(2), 79–93.

Gannon, J. (1981). Deaf heritage: A narrative history of deaf America. National Association of the Deaf.

Gárate, M. (2007). A case study of an in-service professional development mode on bilingual deaf education: Changes in teacher’s stated beliefs and classroom practices [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gallaudet University.

Gee, J. P. (2008). What is academic language? In A. S. Rosebery & B. Warren (Eds.), Teaching science to English language learners: Building on students’ strengths (pp. 57–70). National Science Teachers Association.

Harris, R. (2010). A case study of extended discourse in an ASL/English bilingual preschool program [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gallaudet University.

Harris, R. (2016). Sign language as academic language. In G. Gertz & P. Boudreault (Eds.), Deaf studies encyclopedia (pp. 829–832). Sage.

Henner, J. (2020, February). Professors and researchers of deaf education must avoid making claims about signed languages that contradicts linguistics literature without evidence. [Poster presentation]. 46th Annual Association of College Educators—Deaf & Hard of Hearing Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Henner, J., Caldwell-Harris, C. L., Novogrodsky, R., & Hoffmeister, R. (2016). American Sign Language syntax and analogical reasoning skills are influenced by early acquisition and age of entry to signing schools for the deaf. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1982. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01982

Higgins, J. A., Famularo, L., Cawthon, S. W., Kurz, C. A., Reis, J. E., & Moers, L. M. (2016). Development of American Sign Language guidelines for K–12 academic assessments. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21(4), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw051

Higgins, J., Kurz, C., Reis, J., & Moers, L. (2017). Lessons learned from research and development of ASL guidelines for K–12 educational assessments. In S. Cawthon & C. L. Garberoglio (Eds.), Research in deaf education: Contexts, challenges, and considerations. Oxford University Press.

Hill, J. C. (2012). Language attitudes in the American deaf community. Gallaudet University Press.

Humphries, T. (1975). Audism: The making of a word [Unpublished essay].

Humphries, T. (2008). Talking culture and culture talking. In H.-D. L., Baumam (Ed.), Open your eyes: Deaf studies talking (pp. 35–41). University of Minnesota Press.

Johnston, T., Van Roekel, J., & Schembri, A. (2016). On the conventionalization of mouth actions in Australian Sign Language. Language and Speech, 59(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830915569334

Kurz, C., & Kurz, K. B. (2014). Genesis of a college for the deaf: The National Deaf-Mute College. Deaf Studies Digital Journal, 4. https://www.deafstudiesdigitaljournal.org/older-issues

Kurz, C., Kurz, K., & Harris, R. (2018). Effectively interpreting content areas utilizing academic ASL strategies. In T. Holcomb & D. Smith (Eds.), Deaf eyes on interpreting (pp. 253–268). Gallaudet University Press.

Kurz, C., & Pagliaro, C. (2020). Sign language pedagogy in the mathematics classroom. In R. Rosen (Ed.), Handbook on sign language pedagogy (pp. 85–99). Routledge.

Kurz, C., Reis, J., & Spiecker, B. (2020). Ideologies and attitudes toward American Sign Language: Academic language and academic vocabulary coinage process. In A. Kusters, M. Green, E. Moriarty, & K. Snoddon (Eds.), Sign language ideologies in practice (pp. 287–308). De Gruyter.

Kurz, K., & Hill, J. C. (2018). The heart of interpreting from Deaf perspectives. In T. Holcomb & D. Smith (Eds.), Deaf eyes on interpreting (pp. 58–76). Gallaudet University Press.

Lang, H. G. (2007). Genesis of a community: The American deaf experience in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In J. Van Cleve (Ed.), The deaf history reader (pp. 1–23). Gallaudet University Press.

Liddell, S. (1998). Grounded blends, gestures, and conceptual Shifts. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(3), 283–314. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.3.283

Liddell, S. (2003). Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press.

Lillo-Martin, D. (1988). Children’s new sign creations: Language learning and deafness. In M. Strong (Ed.), Language learning and deafness (pp. 162–183). Cambridge University Press.

McCaskill, C., Lucas, C., Bayley, R., & Hill, J. (2011). The hidden treasure of Black ASL: Its history and structure. Gallaudet University Press.

McKay-Cody, M. R. (1997). Plains Indian sign language: A comparative study of alternate and primary signers [Master’s thesis, University of Arizona]. UA Campus Repository. https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/278590

Newman, A. J., Supalla, T., Fernandez, N., Newport E. L., & Bavelier, D. (2015). Neural systems supporting linguistic structure, linguistic experience, and symbolic communication in sign language and gesture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(37), 11684–11589. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510527112.

Novogrodsky, R., Fish, S., & Hoffmeister, R. (2014). The acquisition of synonyms in American Sign Language (ASL) toward a further understanding of the components of ASL Vocabulary Knowledge. Sign Language Studies, 14(2), 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2014.0003

Occhino, C., & Wilcox, S. (2017). Gesture or sign? A categorization problem. The Behavioral and Brain Science, 40. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x15003015

Quinto-Pozos, D. G. (2002). Contact between Mexican sign language and American Sign Language in two Texas border areas [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin]. Texas Scholar Works. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/856

Schermer, T. (2003). From variant to standard: An overview of the standardization process of the lexicon of sign language of the Netherlands over two decades. Sign Language Studies, 3(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2003.0017

Schermer, T. (2016). Lexicon. In A. Baker, B. van den Bogaerde, R. Pfau, & T. Schermer (Eds.), The linguistics of sign languages: An introduction (pp. 173–195). John Benjamins.

Scott, J. A., & Hoffmeister, R. J. (2017). American Sign Language and academic English: Factors influencing the reading of bilingual secondary school deaf and hard of hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 22(1) 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw065

Smith, J. (1927). On being a teacher. Kappa Gamma newsletter. Gallaudet College.

Thumann, M. (2013). Identifying recurring depiction in ASL presentations. Sign Language Studies, 13(3), 316–349. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2013.0010

Veditz, G. W. (1913). Preservation of the sign language [video]. National Association of the Deaf.