Brett Diamond
Argument 76-100 (o)
Geoffrey Sauer
May 2nd, 1997
For many years, education for the deaf in American schools followed curricula designed by hearing educators. They discouraged visual communication, such as hand and body signals, and supported oral communication and text-based literacy (Brueggemann 410). Recently, different methods of visual communication, including American Sign Language (ASL), have begun to play a large role in the education of deaf children. Despite that change, the literacy levels of deaf children remain much lower than hearing children. For example, the average reading level of deaf high school graduates in the United States remains after decades of little improvement around the 3rd or 4th grade level (Allen in Erting 97). Therefore, the essential question of the literacy debate remains: should deaf children be taught to read lips, vocalize, and read and write in English, or can sign language and other forms of visual communication allow them to communicate adequately with the dominant hearing society?
It will be my argument that the literacy skills of deaf children can be improved through both text-based literacy and visual communication. Educators need to recognize the need to teach written Standard English, while allowing deaf children to be functional, competent, and literate in ASL, their primary form of communication. English and ASL represent two different cultures and languages as well as different ways of thinking and seeing the world. By examining each of these methods in detail, I will argue that deaf children need to become bicultural and bilingual in English and ASL. In order to substantiate my argument, I will compare the educational and social impacts of the two methods as well as bring up some presently researched solutions. From that discussion, I plan to conclude with some pertinent questions that educators in these literacy studies should be asking and seeking answers to concerning deaf culture, language, and literacy.
Deaf people use various forms of visual communication. I will discuss three of these forms and explain why American Sign Language (ASL) is preferred by a majority of the deaf population. Signed Exact English (SEE) is a form of sign language directly related to English. It uses the same grammatical rules found in English, but incorporates signs from ASL (Moore & Levitan 84, 87). Pidgin Sign English (PSE) is an alternative blend of American Sign Language and English that also incorporates some gestures not found in ASL. It is commonly used when deaf people using ASL communicate with hearing (or deaf) people who are not very fluent in ASL (83). Therefore, PSE enables native ASL signers and native English speakers to comfortably communicate with each other (83). Similar to Signed Exact English, PSE bridges the gap between English and ASL by borrowing and modifying elements from both languages. Therefore, Signed Exact English and Pidgin Sign English are methods of communication, which are not considered languages because they incorporate the signs of ASL and grammatical characteristics of English (83). For example, in Signed Exact English, the sentence "I am going to the store" would be signed verbatim according to English grammar, while a deaf person using Pidgin Sign English would use gestures of simpler words such as go instead of going. However, American Sign Language emphasizes the object of the sentence by placing it in the beginning of the sentence. Thus the equivalent signed sentence for the example would be "store - that one - I - go - now" (82).
ASL is preferred by a majority of deaf people for several reasons. Signed Exact English and Pidgin Sign English are more complicated and difficult to understand than ASL, which emphasizes the important parts of the sentence and ignores the extraneous words such as the and am. SEE cannot be mastered without prior working knowledge of English grammar, which deaf children lack (Moore & Levitan 100). PSE relies upon the common understanding of hand and body gestures. For example, the gesture of holding one's stomach to indicate a stomachache might appear to another person as an indication of "having a full stomach." In addition, ASL is visually easier because it stresses the main objects in the sentence, which are generally brief and very concise. Facial expressions allow the user to express emotions more clearly, and essential to the grammar of the language. For example, the speed at which signs are shown can emphasize the thought being presented. Therefore, a deaf person can better express his or her emotions and thoughts more directly and clearly with ASL.
Despite evidence supporting the popularity of ASL in deaf society over other visual forms of communication, most universities that teach sign language in their foreign language programs prefer SEE and PSE instead of ASL. Many universities do not see ASL as a foreign language although the deaf culture strongly believes ASL to be as much of a language as French or Chinese (Moore & Levitan 95). This point is a crucial aspect to a greater problem: the lack of knowledge about deaf culture in dominant society. Many deaf people feel that since their language is not recognized and accepted, dominant society does has little respect for their need for accessible communication, which is essential to improving deaf literacy (227). Thus, how can we improve literacy among deaf children if we do not even understand their language let alone accept it as a true language?
For example, one question that many hearing people ask is how did ASL become so popular among the deaf culture and not within dominant society? To answer this question, we need to delve into the history and origins of ASL and the deaf culture. Although deaf people were using some form of sign language long before the 19th century, ASL in the classroom began in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1817. Thomas Gallaudet, a graduate of Yale, made a journey to Europe to learn whatever he could about educating the deaf. While in Paris, he met Laurent Clerc, an accomplished student of AbbÈ Sicard at the French National Institute. He persuaded Clerc to return with him to the United States in hopes of establishing a school for the deaf. The American Asylum for the Instruction of Deaf and Dumb Persons opened in Hartford on April 15, 1817. The students there were taught French Sign Language as well as fingerspelling, for ASL had not yet developed from FSL until a number of years later. Even at that point, ASL was not officially regarded as a language until 1960 (35). Gallaudet's accomplishment was honored posthumously by the establishment of Gallaudet University, the first and only liberal arts college for the deaf. However, the work of Clerc and Gallaudet became threatened when dominant society took control over the education of the deaf culture after their deaths (37). For the rest of the 19th century continuing into the 20th century, oralism, (the requirement of deaf people to learn to speak English), became the center of deaf education (37). Speech is still believed among hearing educators to be the only means of educating deaf children. However, a majority of deaf communities feel that sign language is essential to the development of deaf children (Padden 5). In fact, many deaf literacy authors believe that oralism contributes to the poor literacy rates of deaf children. Thus, in order to understand how oralism has affected the education of these children, we must look more closely into English text-based literacy, the other side of the debate.
English text-based education relies primarily on the child's hearing ability, as well as the use of print and written information from various genres (i.e. newspapers, textbooks, magazines). English text-based literacy skills are multifaceted, meaning a person might possess the literacy skills necessary for understanding a local newspaper, yet struggle with literary works such as Moby Dick or an article in Time Magazine (Paul 72). Although it becomes impossible for one to become literate in all fields of literacy, everyone, including deaf people should have access to subject-specific knowledge through general text-based literacy skills (73). However, one problem for deaf people lies in the "lack of accessibility of text-based materials and the lack of opportunities and skills to engage in meaningful discussions of this information" (73). It is not economically feasible to produce nontext-based materials that contain the same amount of information in text-based materials. In addition, it becomes expensive to hire interpreters to translate text-based materials to deaf students.
Although most deaf children learn to read and write, their learning process significantly differs with hearing children. Hearing children make meaning from what they read by interacting with the text, which is a "complex process that requires the development and coordination of bottom-up and top-down skills" (Paul 73). Bottom-up skills refer to phonics, vocabulary, and syntax. Top-down skills incorporate paragraph comprehension, narrative retellings, and understanding general knowledge (Geers & Moog 70). Deaf students, including those fluent in ASL, share similar problems with top-down skills although they begin reading English with less English knowledge than hearing students. From the day they are born, hearing children live in an environment surrounded with English. Some gain the ability to form grammatical sentences even before they learn to read (Moore & Levitan 99). However, deaf children are excluded from this process because they cannot hear. Thus many deaf people have extreme difficulty learning English and graduate with a minimal level of text-based literacy skills. Unfortunately, many hearing educators claim that the poor literacy levels of deaf students are related to their intelligence. Thus, would incorporating English at an earlier age for deaf children improve their English text-based literacy skills?
The answer to this question will lead us to a very important point. Even for deaf children who are capable of speaking in the same language that they are reading and writing, the differences between ASL, their social language, and English are far too great.
ASL is a unique visual and spatial language with its grammatical rules, and syntax (Moore & Levitan 29). Its structure and vocabulary have evolved independently and has a syntactical flexibility not found in English (52). The emphasis of a word is indicated by the word order. For example, in the sentence "he gave me some money", a deaf person would most likely first sign money (main object), and then he (subject), followed by gave (predicate). However, ASL gives the signer a visual poetic license, which allows the entire body to convey information expressively (52). "Spoken English uses strings of phonemes (sounds), words, and sentences, [while] ASL can expand the expression of each sign according to the signer's mood, feelings, or attitude" (52). In ASL, information about nouns is incorporated into directional verbs, which allow the "listener" to know who you are referring to. ASL also uses classifiers, in which the signer turns his or her hands into representations of something else (e.g. feet, person). Neither directional verbs nor classifiers are used in the English language (52). In addition, the face expresses interrogatives, negation, and other grammatical markers. Thus, it becomes evident that ASL is a visual-based language in which all English thinking must be abandoned. Although grammatically correct ASL can be converted into grammatically correct English, some of the meaning is lost during translation (56).
Although ASL and text-based literacy have more differences than similarities, present research for improving literacy suggests various bilingual methods, in which ASL and English are both incorporated into deaf education. In 1968, educator Roy Holcomb devised an alternative to the inflexible oralism approach called Total Communication (TC). The Conference of Educational Administrators Serving the Deaf (CEASD) defines Total Communication as "a philosophy incorporating the appropriate aural, manual, and oral modes of communication in order to ensure effective communication with and among hearing-impaired persons" (Moore & Levitan 91). TC allows deaf individuals to have easy access to a wide spectrum of useful forms of communication (91). In other words, it is a form of communication that combines both speech and sigh language (not necessarily ASL). At the time, TC was a breakthrough in deaf education, for it recognized that deaf children had the right to access to any form of communication comfortable and beneficial for them (91). Unfortunately, TC is inaccurately believed to mean simultaneous communication, a method of signing while speaking (92). Although TC creates a more appropriate communication environment for many deaf children and replaces earlier oral alternatives, this present distortion from its original intentions involves mostly linguistically oral and auditory methods. The original ideal behind TC philosophy implies that the individual needs of each deaf child need to be addressed in order to improve deaf literacy. For example, a child who has a fair amount of residual hearing may be happier in an oral educational program, while one who is profoundly deaf may be happier in a signing environment (92). Either way, this philosophy requires top-quality teaching and flexible educational programs.
The most current approach in deaf education, the Bilingual-Bicultural method, uses ASL to teach English. Although many educators consider this approach radical, it is closer to the original ASL-in-the-classroom mode first used by Gallaudet and Clerc in Hartford in 1817. It involves making spoken language accessible to deaf children through English text, but by relating it to their methods of visual communication (Erting 102). Through their sight, deaf people have created a visual language and visual culture, which gives them access to the world and language (Erting 98). From the detailed examination of ASL and text-based literacy, we can see why ASL should be the first and primary language of deaf children. It offers flexibility in expression that English cannot give. However, with only ASL or other form of visual communication, the deaf individual can only communicate with those in the deaf culture and familiar with sign language. They seem to not exist and are not considered literate within dominant society because they have no means to communicate adequately.
Thus, let us look at a modern definition of a literate individual and relate how the Bilingual-Bicultural method contains potential for deaf education and literacy. A literate person is one "capable of reading, writing, speaking [i.e. conversing], computing, reasoning, and manipulating visual as well as verbal [i.e. linguistic] symbols and concepts" (Erting 100). In addition, a literate person has a developed symbolic system and participates in cultural dialogue. In the case of the deaf individual, "cultural dialogue" is not limited to the deaf culture, but incorporates the ability to converse with other outside cultures. The Bilingual-Bicultural method calls for the creation of a linguistic and learning environment that is fully accessible to the deaf child instead of expecting the child to communicate and learn in ways that are physiologically impossible (99). However, the transition from one language in everyday interaction (ASL) to written language in school (English) brings up some obvious problems discussed earlier such as grammatical differences (104). Fortunately, there are several methods to ameliorate the process. The syntax and semantics of one language (ASL) can be compared and contrasted with those of another language (English). With any individual learning a second language, the secondary language is taught using the primary language. Hence, one cannot learn and adapt to a second language without mastering the first language. In addition, teachers can use ASL to teach English in such classes as social studies (including deaf culture), science, literature (including sign language), and math (104). This proves essential since "proficiency in the use of English text-based literacy skills is a prerequisite for functioning adequately in a technological, information intensive society such as the United States, and for gaining access to higher education, scientific and industrial occupations, and the learned professions" (Paul 72). Thus, it becomes necessary and beneficial to utilize ASL as a tool for teaching English text-based literacy.
Although the debate over improving deaf literacy is only a small portion of the greater debate over improving literacy for all members of society, there are so many unexplored regions of this particular debate that educators need to address since the deaf culture has been "isolated" for so many years. Until recently, deaf children were taught in schools or institutes far away from home, where they lived with other deaf children and communicated using sign language. This becomes important since educators have learned how the institution of the school is very essential in the acquisition of literacy. There has been a new trend toward "mainstreaming" deaf children into local schools with other hearing children (Padden 8). For some children, this approach has been a disaster since they are isolated from other deaf children and their special needs cannot be addressed in classrooms designated for hearing children. For other children, the approach has brought new educational opportunities. Thus, we must ask ourselves "whether an educational policy which requires mainstreaming is too harsh for the many deaf children who cannot survive in such programs" (8). Although this poses a great deal of complications, desegregating deaf and hearing schools allow deaf children to better learn about different cultures and how hearing people use reading and writing in their everyday lives. How should they read and understand books written by hearing authors and write letters to hearing people? And yet, it becomes equally important that deaf children learn about the uses of literacy among other deaf people (9).
We also need to study how many deaf children learn
to read and write successfully in order to plan literacy instruction
(4). Particularly, we must examine the various ways in which
deaf people have used reading and writing. Some ways include
conversing with hearing people, using telecommunication devices
(TDD), subtitles for television programs, and in textbooks for
teaching sign language and the cultural practices of deaf people
(15). Since deaf children are spread throughout different communities,
ethic backgrounds, and geographical regions, the task ahead is
certainly a challenging one. Most importantly, the first and
primary step to a new and beneficial literacy program for deaf
children is to understand that they are not hearing children who
do not hear, but children with special sets of knowledge (Padden
15, Erting 98, Moore & Levitan)