ASL for infants

[Christian Rathmann]

> What do others on SLLING-L think of this claim? Is there much
> evidence for it? Or does it rest on the assumption that sign
> languages are easier for children to understand and acquire than
> speech? Is it in fact inspired by earlier research which seemed to
> suggest a sign advantage in language acquisition (i.e. that the
> first signs appear earlier than the first words), research which has
> since been questioned by others in the field?

Newport and Meier (1990)'s research claims a sign advantage in sign
language acquisition: Deaf children acquire first word utterances earlier
than hearing children acquiring spoken language. However, they (in both
groups) acquire two-word utterances at the _same_ age.

This claim has been supported by most recent findings on the continuity
and discontinuity between babbling and early signs by Cheek, Cormier, Repp
and Meier (to appear in 'Language'): the sign advantage can be explained by
the earlier development of the motor control system for the manual articulators
compared with the development of the motor control system for the vocal
articulators. This does not mean that the development of language is
different in the two modalities, only that the _expression_ of the
language may start slightly earlier in the signed modality.


Christian