Sign vs oral (preparing for written language performance).

[benolam]

Mary Arliskas wrote of comparing "written language performance of
deaf children in oral only and signing only programs".  This is much
more sensible than yet another lazy demonstration of the obvious
advantage of being able to hear for acquiring speech and it's
notation.  But the really important and interesting questions only
start at this point.

There is a great initial advantage when the acquisition of one's
first language is not delayed.  Therefore those who are congenitally
deaf need sign from early infancy.

The reading of SignWriting can be fairly rapidly acquired. Starting
to become literate in A.S.L. need not be delayed beyond age three.
 Thus deaf children should be able to read fluently in their first
language before entering school.

But literacy is not just reading. As has been demonstrated for
decades, typing is better for pre-school children than writing.  This
is also true for signed languages. By colour-coding fingernails and
keycaps (as O.K. Moore did with three year olds in the 1960s)
ten-finger typing is acquired naturally and enjoyably.  Attention and
motivation are not a problem with good courseware that includes
plenty of attractive illustrations and the excitement of being able
to make interesting things happen on the screen.

Written English can follow once there is literacy in the mother
tongue.  When prior oral knowledge is required this causes delay.
 Even if oral aspects are tackled simultaneously with the basic
acquisition of English, deaf children are slowed down by unnecessary
obscurity and difficulties.  But once the child is reading with ease
and enjoyment, the genuinely tricky job of learning to speak becomes
much more manageable. There should be full use of a suitable phonemic
representation (such as Speech I.T.A. - a phonemically accurate
version of the Initial Teaching Alphabet which continues to be
reminiscent of ordinary orthography).

There is not much point to one-way speech.  But speech-reading is
certainly dependent on well-developed linguistic understanding.
 Without the facilitation of adequate linguistic knowledge, struggle
with a mode that can never be simply and directly experienced is made
even more difficult.  This, of course, is quite unnecessary.  It is
therefore both foolish and callous.

Thus, for deaf children in the U.S., the optimal sequence to acquire
languages and literacies is A.S.L. --> SignWriting --> English -->
Speech.

Research can contrast not just those preschool children who were
language delayed in infancy with those who were not. It can look at
those in the second group (whether hearing or deaf) who are given a
realistic opportunity to achieve literacy while preschoolers and
compare them to those who are effectively denied this opportunity at
least until they commence school.  If this is done by means of a
well-designed experimental study, the results can assist in drawing
more attention to the horrifying waste of years and of ultimate
potential that still occurs in the early education of most children,
but especially those who are deaf.


George Lendvai
Sydney, Australia


-----Original Message-----
From:   Mary Arliskas [SMTP:mearlis at FLASH.NET]
Sent:   Friday, 30 October 1998 8:36
To:     SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA
Subject:

It has been a while since I have been to the list.

I have a question for all you researchers out there...

I have been wrestling with a thesis topic for the better part of a
year. I
know what I am really interested in - written language performance of
deaf
children in oral only and signing only programs. Why does it seem
that all
of the research on written language with deaf children compares the
deaf
children to hearing age or ability mates? As much as I'd like to
think I am
the only person to wonder about this query, I know I must either be
missing
something or be focusing on a moot question.

Some experts have told me that the communication strategy used (i.e.,
signed or oral) will have little effect on their language production,
while
others have reported that oral kids will beat the pants off the
signing
kids in language.

So, I look forward to your responses. For now, I am sticking to my
idea.

Thank you in advance!



Mary E. Arliskas
Teacher for Deaf/EBD Students
Chicago Public Schools