The Acquisition of American Sign Language by Deaf Children With Deaf or Hearing Parents: Implications for Curriculum Development

Dennis Galvan
(Abridged Version for Proceedings)

The circumstances surrounding the acquisition of American Sign Language (ASL) vary greatly within the deaf community. Deaf children with deaf parents (native signers) go through the same steps in learning ASL as do hearing children when learning a spoken language (Newport & Meier, 1985). However, only 5 to 10 percent of all deaf persons have deaf parents (Shein & Delk, 1974). Deaf children with hearing parents (non-native signers) may have first been exposed to ASL as early as one year of age, or as late as adulthood. Since these children cannot hear well enough to acquire English, and since the parents do not know how to sign, early linguistic input is marginal at best.

The notion of a critical period in language acquisition is not new. Only recently however, have researchers begun to investigate the possibility that a lack of early signed communication can affect that child’s ASL acquisition. Recent investigations by Mayberry, Fischer, and Hatfield (1983) and Newport (1984) into the use of American Sign Language (ASL) by deaf adult native signers and non-native signers, suggest that non-native signers are using signs as unanalyzed wholes, rather than as complex signs with simultaneously produced layers of meaning. This suggests a qualitative difference in language processing style for native and non-native signers. This difference may be present during the child’s elementary school years. If this is the case, then these two groups may need different language (English or ASL) curricula.

The acquisition of three independent, yet simultaneously produced morphological systems in ASL were examined. These included the linguistic use of space, the use of classifiers, and inflections for aspect. Unlike spoken languages, ASL incorporates additional information into a sign via simultaneously produced layers rather than sequentially produced units. Variations in the use of space (where the beginning and end points of a sign are), the use of classifiers (handshapes and linguistic use of the body), or in aspectual inflections (changes in movement) all contribute unique information to a sign.

Thirty congenitally deaf children with severe or profound prelingual hearing losses and no secondary handicapping conditions, along with two deaf native signing adults participated in this study. They were grouped as follows for the study: four groups of native signers (ages 3, 5, 7, and 9) and two groups of non-native signers (ages 5 and 9). All native signers have deaf parents and have been exposed to ASL since birth, and all non-native signers have hearing parents and no other deaf family members. The non-native signers were first introduced to some kind of sign language (usually a signed English system) between the ages of 2 and 4.

Results show striking differences between native and non-native signers on all measures relating to the internal complexity of the analyzed verbs. These measures include the use of space, classifier use, inflections for aspect, and the general internal complexity of a sign. For example, in the development of the use of space, native signers rarely incorporate space in the verbs analyzed in this study at age 3. By age 9, they consistently use verbs with complex spatial referents incorporated. In contrast, non-native signers use of space actually decreases between the ages of 5 and 9. The same kind of qualitative difference exists for the development of classifier use. There is an overall increase in the number of classifiers used by native signers as they mature, while the non-native signers actually show a decrease. This same pattern is repeated for the development of aspectual inflections (the differences in the movement of a sign that indicate whether an action was ongoing, completed, repeated, and so on). Native signers seem to have almost mastered aspectual inflections by the age of 5. Older non-native signers have fewer variations than 5 year olds, in the movements of signs that could be interpreted as aspectual inflections. When these three morphological subsystems are combined into a single measure of the internal complexity of the sign, there are striking differences between native and non-native signers. Native signers show an increase in the number of morphemes (units of meaning) within a verb between the ages of 3 and 5 and again between the ages of 7 and adulthood. Non-native signers show no increase at all on this measure.

Measures unrelated to the internal complexity of a sign do not show the same kind of qualitative differences. For example, a simple count of the number of signs used by the subjects reveals very similar patterns of development. In addition, the data on the context in which the analyzed verbs occur indicates a steady rise, for both native and non-native signers, in the complexity of the sentence in which the verb occurs. The non-native signers exhibit an approximate two year delay. This difference is better characterized as a quantitative difference, not a qualitative difference.

These findings support Newport’s (1984) claims that non-native signers treat signs as gestalts, rather than as independent, simultaneously produced systems. Native signers at six months of age are only able to perceive a portion of a sign. They then use these small units to build an understanding of language. Non-native signers, being first exposed to signs when they are cognitively more developed, are able to see the sign as a whole. They then use the sign, rather than the morpheme, as their basic linguistic unit of analysis, thus impairing later morphological development. These differences in ASL use persist throughout the non-native signer’s life.

Virtually all research findings discussed above point to the importance of early signed communication with deaf infants and preschoolers. This communication should start as soon as the infant is able to focus on the parents’ face and hands, certainly by six months of age. While the deaf infant will not be able to perceive the whole sign, he or she will start the process of analyzing the pieces of the sign that he or she can perceive.

The research findings above discussed the implications for diagnosis and curriculum development in an educational setting. Rigorous testing of the child’s language (ASL and English), comprehension, and expressive abilities would help a teacher better prepare an Individual Educational Plan. The use of ASL in the classroom will improve communication for many students but, it will not automatically improve learning. The use of ASL can help the teacher diagnose a child’s linguistic abilities and devise an appropriate educational plan.

About the Presenter

Dr. Galvan is currently an Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department at Gallaudet University. His research interests include language acquisition, cognitive development, the concept of a critical or sensitive period in language acquisition, and the implications of using ASL in the education of Deaf children.

References

Galvan, D. (1988). The acquisition of three morphological subsystems in American Sign Language by deaf children with deaf or hearing parents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.

Mayberry, R., Fischer, S., & Hatfield, C. (1983). Sentence repetition in American Sign Language. In J. Kyle & B. Woll (Eds.), Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language (pp. 206–214). London: Croom Helm.

Newport, E. (1984). Constraints on learning: Studies in the acquisition of ASL. Papers and reports on Child Language Development, 23, 1–25.

Newport, E., & Meier, R. (1985). The acquisition of American Sign Language. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 1: The Data) (pp. 881–938). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

Schein, J., & Delk, M. (1974). The deaf population of the United States. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.