theoretical framework for research

[Donald/Theresa Grushkin]

Mary (and others) -

I would agree that some form of Nativism is at work.  Sam Supalla did an
article in Theoretical Issues in Sign language Research, Vol. 2 (1991) on
children exposed to MCE without ASL input who demonstrated ASL-like signing.
He argued the same thing, that the students were reconstructing their input
to conform more naturally to the visual-spatial medium (a la nativism/LAD)

--Don Grushkin
>
>Thank you again for the great ideas last time I posted about comparing
>signing deaf and oral deaf student's writing for my thesis.
>
>My next question concerns one of the most elusive constructs I have found
>in research: The theoretical (conceptual) framework. I know that this is
>what stance I bring to the research, my thoughts/feelings/etc., so I am
>curious if I am "on the right track".
>
>I believe that deaf children have a "mental grammar" such like that
>postulated by Chomsky. I believe that their language is innate and the
>grammar universal. Maybe that is why the mistakes made in writing will
>occur independent of the communication system used?
>
> I first became curious about this when I interpreted for a young girl who
>was orally trained then was switched to a strict total communication
>system. This young girl (she was 8 years old and highly intelligent) used
>ASL constructs without being exposed to ASL per se. This lead me to believe
>that ASL propensity is present in the profoundly deaf child due to an
>innate Language Acquisition Device (another Chomsky reference).
>
>Am I on to something? What theoretical frameworks have most researchers out
>there used? Would it suffice to say that my theoretical framework is
Nativism?
>
>Thank you in advance for your responses.
>Mary E. Arliskas
>Teacher for Deaf/EBD Students
>Chicago Public Schools