Language Learning and Deafness

Masaryk University

Faculty of Education

Department of English Language and Literature

Language Learning and Deafness

Bachelor Thesis

Brno 2009

Annotation

This thesis focuses on the processes affecting the linguistic development of the deaf individual. The existent findings regarding first and second language acquisition of the deaf in the USA and the Czech Republic are examined, as well as the product of the methods used to facilitate the process of acquisition. The available data concerning third language learning of the deaf are collected, and a small-scale research is carried out on a representative sample of four deaf individuals. The aim of the work is to shed light on the specific factors defining the way the deaf individual learns a foreign language – English, and thus pave the way to further research in the area.

Key words

Language acquisition, language learning, literacy, deafness, hearing impairment, linguistic development, sign language

Declaration

………...

Acknowledgements

Table of contents

1. Introduction

7

2. The terminology

9

2.1. Language acquisition vs. language learning

9

2.2. Perspectives on deafness

9

3. Primary languages in the USA and the Czech Republic

12

3.1. Sign language introduced

12

3.1.1. Basic sign language characteristics

12

3.1.2. Questioning the language status

12

3.1.3. Sign language development

14

3.2. American Sign Language

15

3.2.1. Short history of American Sign Language

15

3.2.2. The product of acquisition and the environment

16

3.3. Czech sign language

18

3.3.1. The situation of Czech Sign Language

18

3.4. The process of acquisition and the environment

19

4. Deafness and second language acquisition

21

4.1. Introduction into the ambiguities in majority language acquisition

22

4.2. Second language learning and bilingualism in the deaf population24 4.3. Theoretical models in second language learning and deafness

25

4.4. Theories in second language literacy

25

4.4.1. Development of literacy in the hearing individual

27

4.4.2. Development of literacy in the deaf individual

28

5. Deafness and third language learning

31

5.1. Learner characteristics affecting the language learning process

31

5.2. Linguistic development and third language learning

32

5.3. Interlanguage and cross-linguistic influence

34

6. Research

36

6.1. Research introduction

36

6.3. Research procedure

37

37

38

39

7. Conclusion

42

Bibliography

44

Appendices

1. Introduction

The deaf have always faced a great challenge, as their mode of communication makes them stand apart from all the other individuals in a society where interpersonal communication is dominated by speech. Nevertheless, the deaf from all over the world rise to the challenge every day, not only proving that their language – sign language – is a genuine linguistic system, but also manifesting their ability to learn additional languages.

I firmly believe that the issues surrounding language learning and deafness deserve our attention. This thesis will take a closer look at the factors and variables affecting the linguistic development of the deaf individual.

As for the motivation behind this thesis, I have long harboured an ambition to make a contribution to the somewhat modest collection of works dealing with language learning and deafness. Yet the subject matter itself is not the driving force behind my endeavour. It is my hands-on experience and personal involvement in the deaf community that prompted the thought that I should set pen to paper. I have had the golden opportunity to become a true ’member’ of the deaf world. Mindful of the value attributed to personal experience, I have striven to keep to the proposed focus and yet attempted to reflect my knowledge in this work whenever I deemed it necessary.

The objectives stated in the annotation seem fairly clear. The execution of the task should therefore be equally straightforward. Indeed, the properties of second language acquisition have been studied and examined exhaustively. However, very little is known about how deaf individuals learn a foreign language, as this subject has only been touched upon in a small number of research papers.

The scope of this thesis cannot possibly cover all forms of hearing impairment, for the focus of attention is the process of language acquisition in the deaf individual, rather than the peculiarities of acquisition reflecting the degree of hearing impairment. The hard-of-hearing, for instance, are able to process auditory input to a certain degree, and thus they should be distinguished from the profoundly deaf, who are limited in this respect. Deaf individuals are incapable of perceiving any auditory input, i.e. spoken language.

Despite these fundamental differences between the two aforementioned groups a number of widespread misconceptions continue to hinder the development and use of

appropriate teaching methods and approaches. I have tried not to be ignorant of these substantial differences, and so the accent is primarily on language acquisition in profoundly deaf individuals.

This selection further limits the range of language skills which receive attention. Fully cognizant of the fact that for the deaf individual the development of literacy is more important than the development of the spoken form of language, the skills that receive most attention are the skills of reading and writing.

I would not have taken on this ambitious task had I not believed that further research into the life of the deaf community and, more specifically, the characteristics of third language acquisition will be of great benefit to all concerned with language development, not only those concerned with deaf education.

2. The terminology

This chapter is largely interpretative and its aim is to elucidate the meaning and use of the key terms as applied in this thesis. The terms central to proper understanding of the analysed phenomenon are language acquisition and the deaf.

2.1. Language acquisition vs. language learning

Although there are a number of hypotheses that distinguish between language

acquisition and language learning, the character and interdependence of the two processes remain a linguistic hot potato. According to Krashen, there are two systems for developing ability in second languages: language acquisition, defined as a subconscious process analogous to primary language acquisition, and language learning, a conscious process based on formal language instruction the product of which is the learned system (1-2).

As is generally assumed, the theory of language acquisition presupposes a certain (though non-specified) amount of exposure to the target language. It is difficult to determine the extent to which the deaf individual meets this fundamental prerequisite, principally due to the sensory impairment in question. Therefore, the author shall use the term language acquisition (in connection with deafness) to refer to both the types of language attainment, that is, language acquisition and language learning.

2.2. Perspectives on deafness

The audiological definition describes the cause and severity of the hearing loss in a deaf individual. It would appear that to characterize a deaf individual in terms of such a definition is sufficient. It is, in fact, a rather disturbing thought that deafness should only be understood within this limited concept. The popular misconceptions about the hearing-impaired (esp. in the field of education) usually stem from inadequate knowledge after all. Since the learner-culture characteristics have been observed to play an important role in the process of language acquisition (language, social interaction, perception), a cultural definition should also be taken into account.

The pioneer of sign language research, William C. Stokoe, was one of the first researchers to penetrate deeper into the cultural-linguistic dimension of deafness, that is, the deaf being a specific sub-cultural community, as opposed to a collection of individuals with a hearing impairment. Stokoe (11) argues:

The deaf as a group fall into a completely unique category in society because of their unusual relation to the communication process . . . No other group with a major physical handicap is so severely restricted in social intercourse. Other handicapped persons, even those with impaired vision, may normally learn to communicate through speech and engage in normal social relations. Congenitally deaf persons and those who have never learned speech through hearing (together representing the majority of the deaf population) never perceive or imitate sounds. Speech must be laboriously acquitted and speechreading, insofar as individual skill permits, must be substituted for hearing if socially approved intercommunication is to take place. The rare mastery of these techniques never fully substitutes for language acquisition through hearing.

Not only are the deaf a unique sub-cultural group distinct from the majority of population – the deaf are also distinct from other individuals with hearing impairment. Padden and Humphries, being deaf themselves, refer to the situation of the deaf in the USA: ’’The members of this group reside in the United States and Canada, have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society. We distinguish them from, for example, those who find themselves losing their hearing because of illness, trauma or age; although these people share the condition of not hearing, they do not have access to the knowledge, beliefs, and practices that make up the culture of Deaf people’’ (2).

Early identification of individual types of hearing impairment (e.g. deafness, hard-of-hearingness) is of great significance to deaf educators in particular. Ideally, an educational method or approach applied in teaching practice should reflect these learner differences. A deaf person, for instance, should not have to rely on oral instructions only,

although such educational endeavours are not a rare occurrence. Macurová observes that the deaf ’’are incapable – even if provided with hearing aids – of perceiving phonemes of spoken language, and (unlike deafened people) they have never been capable of perceiving them at any time in their lives. However self-evident this may be, this fact continues to be, at least in the Czech Republic, hidden beneath a layer of preposterous misconceptions (that while deafness may not be downright curable, it can at least be mended somehow), and prejudice’’ (28-29). Respecting the reasons stated above, the author takes both definitions into consideration.

3. Primary languages in the USA and the Czech Republic

The role of the primary language in the educational process and in language learning is indisputable. This chapter provides the basic theoretical background about the primary languages used by the deaf in the United States of America and the Czech Republic. For the convenience of the reader, a portion of the text is devoted to the linguistic properties, the status and the changing perception of sign language, the influence of which is evident in the sphere of education.

American Sign Language (ASL) has so far received substantially more attention in the field of sign linguistics than its Czech counterpart, as a result of which the two languages are treated here from slightly different perspectives.

3.1. Sign language introduced

3.1.1. Basic sign language characteristics

Language is a unique communication system governed by rules. The absence of rules renders communication impossible. Sign language has a clearly organized internal structure, and a set of rules according to which units of information are composed. It is a complex linguistic system based on the visual/manual mode of communication.

Apart from being rule-governed, languages communicate meanings through linguistic symbols. A symbol represents a particular entity, either abstract of concrete. In oral languages, which have both a spoken and a written system, a symbol may be a written word (a set combination of graphemes), or a set combination of sounds (phonemes). Sign language, however, being a purely visual-gestural language given the hearing impairment of those who use it, relies on visual representations (signs) for the transmission of meaning.

3.1.2. Questioning the language status

Sign language has long been treated as an imperfect and unsophisticated communication system manifesting few fully linguistic features. Prior to 1960, a year marked by the publication of the revolutionary monograph Sign Language Structure: An

Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf, sign language had been denied its linguistic status for a number of reasons. As the linguistic status of sign language is not the sole topic of this chapter, only the most frequently occurring arguments against the use of sign language in education will now be mentioned.

People and perhaps a number of linguists frequently pointed out the apparent iconicity of signs.It was as though they were led to believe that the existence of iconicity in sign language meant that sign languages were not languages in the true sense (Valli and Lucas 5). Admittedly, a large number of signs (in sign language) may be classified as iconic; meaning that ’’the form of the symbol is an icon or picture of some aspect of the thing or activity being symbolized’’ (Valli and Lucas 5). For illustration, the origin of iconic signs is popularly explained thus: ’’the sign GIRL, which is made on the chin to represent bonnet ribbons; and the sign MAN, which depicts the brim of a hat’’ (Valli and Lucas 5). However, the argument that all signs are iconic hardly holds water – there is a strong supposition that the iconic character of a sign weakens over time (e.g. when the sign is passed from generation to generation).

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that instances of iconic forms have been observed in spoken languages as well, although the overwhelming majority of forms in spoken languages are indeed arbitrary (unmotivated). Valli and Lucas (5) observe that linguistic signs based on iconicity and arbitrariness can be found in all languages, including sign languages.

The assumption that sign languages lack a system according to which the principal connection between sign is realized, and therefore have no grammar has also remained unchallenged for a long period of time. An important shift in the perception of visual-gestural languages can be traced back to the second half of the eighteenth century, when Abbe´ de l’E´ pe´e began his assiduous study of sign language, adopting individual signs (a form of metalanguage)to teach the French language to deaf-mutes (Stokoe 6-7). The work of Abbe´ de l’E´ pe´e was all the more important as ’’none before him and all too few after him to the present day have been willing to face the fact that a symbol system by means of which persons carry on all the activities of their ordinary lives is, and ought to be treated as, a language’’ (Stokoe 7). Regrettably enough, the existent evidence arguing for the linguistic

recognition of sign language has been ignored by many, including those working in the field.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth century, a number of scholars recognized that certain grammatical relationships in sign languages were realized differently from those in spoken languages. For instance, Stokoe highlights the contribution of Valade, who ’’states that the syntax of sign language has no need for the copula in such statements as ‘the corn is green’ or ‘the girl is beautiful’ because the visual juxtaposition of the signs for substantive and adjective serves the same purpose. Such analysis is far superior to the conclusions sometimes encountered that the language of signs has no grammar or syntax’’ (Stokoe 9). However, as was mentioned earlier, it wasn’t before William Stokoe produced his famous monograph in which he proves that sign language has all linguistic features, that sign language was officially recognized as a language.

3.1.3. Sign language development

Sign language, either in its rudimentary or current form, has existed for as long as humankind itself. It is feasible to assume that as any other language, sign language developed gradually, serving the needs of survival first (e.g. communication to obtain food), accommodating the hearing impaired with social communication formulae later. Stokoe notes: ’’Communication by a system of gestures is not an exclusively human activity, so that in a broad sense of the term, sign language is as old as the race itself, and its earliest history is equally obscure’’ (3). Throughout history, individuals with hearing impairment would need to develop an alternative communication system, for the ability to communicate basic needs, feelings, and notions is material to survival in society.

Although it appears that the specific signalling systems peculiar to the deaf have developed independently of the primary mode of communication – speech, the relation between the development of sign language and spoken language has been established. In

Sign Language Structure, Stokoe argues that ’’special signaling systems of the deaf … can only develop in a culture, built, operated, and held together by a language, a system of arbitrary vocal symbols’’ (6).

Surely, the primary communicative patterns of the deaf may once have been derived from the kinesic communicative behaviour, that is, the non-vocalized communicative

phenomenon, but ’’it cannot have been until long after the development of human speech as we know it that human culture had advanced to a point where individuals deprived of the normal channels of communication could be given a chance to develop substitutes’’ (Stokoe 6). The initial attempts at improving the then communication systems are discussed in a subchapter titled Short history of American Sign language..

3.2. American Sign Language

The primary linguistic features of sign language have been discussed in the introductory part of this chapter (see Stokoe 1960 for analysis). It will therefore be sufficient to note that American Sign Language is a communication system used as the primary means of communication of the deaf in the United States of America. Apart from ASL, other language varieties are used as primary languages among the deaf in the USA, and they should also be taken into account.

3.2.1. Short history of American Sign Language

l’E´ pe´e and other prominent educators of the period shared the goal of teaching the French language to the deaf, however, instead of devoting far too much attention to the practice of articulation like the predominance of his predecessors, l’E´ pe´e made use of the already existing language. ’’l’E´ pe´e was the first to attempt to learn it (sign language), use it, and make it the medium of instruction for teaching French language and culture to the deaf-mutes of his country’’ (Stokoe 5). In order to teach the French Language efficiently, l’E´ pe´e devised a method using the natural language of deaf-mutes and a system of methodical signs – signes me´thodiques (Valli and Lucas 14). These methodical signs were signs representing certain grammatical concepts (e.g. function words) for which the natural sign language in use had no sign equivalent. In other words, Adebe either adapted the existent signs or, if necessary, invented new signs (Stokoe 6).

Undeniably, the methodological approach put forward by l’E´ pe´e stands out as a crucial breakthrough in the educational tendencies typical of that time.

Sicard, who followed in the footsteps of l’E´ pe´e, ’’is the direct link between the French development of the sign language and the American Sign Language’’ (Stokoe 6). In

London, Sicard met Thomas Gallaudet, whose previous attempts to learn about the methods of teaching the deaf had failed, and Gallaudet was invited to study the method used at the Royal Institution of the Deaf in Paris (Valli and Lucas 14). Accompanied by Laurent Clerc, a deaf student and educator, Gallaudet returned to the United States and established the American School for the Deaf (1817).

Given that the deaf live in close-knit communities, it is arguable that different variants of sign language developed and existed prior to 1817 – ’’Deaf people who came from other countries probably brought their sign languages with them, and other communities living in America probably developed their own language’’ (Valli and Lucas 14). Deaf people who attended the American School for the Deaf were educated using the methods originally ascribed to l’E´ pe´e, and the supposition that the new educational method had an impact on the structure and form of American Sign Language is strong.

It is also possible to assume that the graduates of the American School for the Deaf became teachers and thus spread the then form of sign language across the entire United States of America (Vali and Lucas 14). ’’At any rate the present language of signs in general use among the American deaf stems from both the natural and methodical sign languages of l’E´ pe´e’’ (Stokoe 7).

3.2.2. The product of acquisition and the environment

It would be convenient to state that American Sign Language is the primary language for a vast majority of deaf people in the USA. In actuality, the figures pertaining to the number of ASL users vary greatly in literature, mainly due to the recognition of other language varieties distanced from ASL.

A variety called Pidgin Sign English has been identified among the American deaf (see Woodward 1973). The range of the language varieties in general use among the deaf individuals will perhaps be best demonstrated on a sociolinguistic continuum proposed by Fischer (1978).

On this continuum, a variety which is in structure the closest to ASL constitutes what Fisher calls the ‘basilect’; Pidgin Sign English represents the ‘mesoclect’ and a language variety approximate to English is the ‘acrolect’ (qtd. in Bochner and Albertini 11).

The mesolect could be in part a result of ’’language-switching situations where one language may be superimposed over the other’’ (Bochner and Albertini 12).

Studies of language variation among the deaf in the Czech Republic have not yet been conducted, however, the author believes that corresponding types of language varieties (ranging from CSL to Czech) as demonstrated by Fisher could be observed in the Czech Republic, as the conditions triggering the processes of pidginization and creolization (e.g. the language contact between majority and minority language) are probably common to all deaf communities.

Moreover, there is the vexed question of the primary language of the deaf with incomplete, or better, restricted language input (e.g. deaf children of hearing parents). Bochner and Albertini argue: ’’Deaf individuals who in adulthood acquired a meso level/variety of English may also have independently acquired a meso level/variety of ASL. A substantial portion of the deaf probably falls into this category, attaining native proficiency in neither English nor ASL’’ (25). The reduced availability of linguistic input is indirectly evidenced by the oft-quoted estimation that 90 % of the deaf children have hearing parents (Strong 116).

Bochner and Albertini suggest a psycholinguistic continuum ’’in order to capture the various levels of proficiency evident among adult deaf signers’’ (33). This continuum makes a distinction between the acro level of ASL at one end (’genuine’ ASL) and the acro level of English at the other (’genuine’ English). The meso levels represent language varieties diverging from ASL and English respectively. Bochner and Albertini claim that the ’’acro level is typically used by deaf (and hearing) children of deaf parents’’ and that ’’meso varieties are used by children at early stages of acquisition and by adults who have not learned ASL at an early age’’ (33-34).

The factors affecting the acquisition of language are numerous, and of these factors ’’two seem primary: age and intake’’ (Bochner and Albertini 24). Since the significance of primary language acquisition cannot be overemphasized, these two variables are briefly discussed in a separate subchapter (3.3.2.), even though first language acquisition is not the major area of interest in this work.

3.3. Czech Sign Language

The formal linguistic study of Czech Sign Language (CSL) is, unlike the study of American Sign Language (ASL), still in its infancy. This makes the task of providing a complete theoretical description of CSL hardly feasible. Nevertheless, it is possible to draw a number of conclusions about CSL and other sign languages at this point.

The available findings concerning the structure and system of signs indicate that all national varieties of sign language are distinct in terms of their internal structure (system). Generally speaking, each sign language has its own syntax and a system of signs. This invalidates the assumption that the deaf all around the globe share one sign language. ’’It has often been said that sign language is a universal language – easy to learn and therefore available to anyone for worldwide communication’’ (Markowicz 1). CSL is distinct from other national varieties, for instance, American Sign Language or British Sign Language.

3.3.1. The situation of Czech Sign Language

Czech Sign Language is considered to be the mother tongue of the deaf in the Czech Republic. Despite the official recognition of the linguistic status of CSL in 1998, the approach of Czech society towards the deaf and the language peculiar to their culture has changed very little. CSL is still often regarded as a form of pantomime, or at best a visual representation of the Czech Language. It comes as no surprise that in a society which considered the member of the deaf community to be inferior in terms of language and social status, the deaf individual was frequently denied the right to use sign language. Janáková cautions that ’’it is necessary to change not only the whole Czech deaf education system, but also the approach of the Czech hearing community towards the deaf community’’ (13). The palpable differences between the types of hearing impairment have been ignored for decades, and a typical instance of this is the emphasis placed on spoken performance of deaf children (possibly a result of successful productions of hard-of-hearing children), a tradition deeply-rooted in Czech deaf education system (Macurová 29).

There are several dangers stemming from such approaches. The greatest danger is the non-existence of a fully-fledged language. The cause and severity of hearing impairment should be identified properly so that the parents may learn and decide on the

appropriate communication system most suitable to the child. This ensured, the deaf child will not be deprived of their essential chance to acquire a language early in the critical stage, because the absence of exposure hinders the process of acquisition (Bochner and Albertini 36). Without the exposure to the language, the deaf child has nothing to acquire and there are setbacks to the cognitive and social development of the child (Macurová 32).

Further, the primary language serves as a meta-language on the basis of which the child can recognize the properties and structure of language itself, and to which other languages may be compared (Macurová 31).

Positive is the development in educational trends and in the sphere of research, with recent studies of Czech Sign Language and its possible use in education being discussed in the academic spheres. ’’Teaching on the basis of sign language, as it is the mother tongue for most of the deaf, seems within the international context to be much more effective, and we are likely to gradually switch to it in the Czech Republic, too, especially in primary schools’’ (Janáková 13). The endeavour of educators and deaf students from Charles University, who have accentuated the importance of CSL recognition and who contributed to the reform of deaf education in the Czech Republic, is most notable.

3.4. The process of acquisition and the environment

If a deaf child has deaf parents, the exposure to the language takes place at an early

age, and is likely to be relatively constant. This ascertains the appropriate conditions for language acquisition. Deaf children with deaf parents usually represent a minority of the deaf population, however (Macurová 31). Lane and Grosjean state that ’’only about 10% of all deaf children have deaf parents. Although a minority of the deaf population, they are nonetheless the advantaged’’ (61). This is because ’’deaf children of deaf parents are brought up in an environment paralleling that of hearing children of hearing parents, save the language difference’’ (Lane and Grosjean 62). Children growing up in such primary language environments are most likely to perceive the language of their parents (e.g. Czech Sign Language) as their first language. In addition to benefits relative to linguistic development, deaf children of deaf parents usually perform better both academically and socially than their peers with hearing parents (Marschark, Lang, and Albertini 8).

The acquisition of language may also occur under the conditions of restricted input. For instance, if a deaf child has hearing parents who have little or no knowledge of sign language. The hearing status of parents has been proven to influence the process of acquisition of sign language in deaf children, as the product of acquisition (the language) differs in morphology and syntax from the language acquired by children whose parents are deaf (Hoffmeister and Wilbur 62). It follows that a child with hearing parents is exposed to spoken language (majority language) at home, although the effects of such exposure can be questioned, and learns sign language (e.g. CSL) from peers, who either acquired the language in childhood or learned it from peers of their own. According to Powers, Gregory and Thoutenfould (170), a large number of deaf people tend to develop bilingually (majority language and sign language), as a result of which certain deaf individuals have trouble achieving proficiency in either language.

4. Deafness and second language acquisition

This chapter is a fairly comprehensive discussion of issues pertinent to second language acquisition (learning) in the deaf individual with a special focus on literacy development. Instead of analysing the product of second language acquisition (i.e. 3.2.2.), the attention will turn to the very aspects of the process of language acquisition. The avowed purpose is to provide a theoretical framework of selected models and theories in the field of language learning and literacy. The emphasis is laid on theories which have established the ground fornewly emerging educational programs and trends.

In the following subchapters, the second language learned or acquired by the deaf individual is, and will be referred to as, the majority language (Czech or English) typically in use outside the deaf community; although some researchers may argue that the majority language is the first language for a number of the deaf in the respective deaf communities.

This line of thinking seems to find support in the fact that only a small number of the deaf learn sign language from their parents, since the overwhelming majority of the deaf have hearing parents (Macurová 31). Nevertheless, Strong writes that in the USA ’’the children of hearing parents not already fluent in that language (ASL) learn it quickly as they are socialized into the deaf community. ASL then becomes their primary language, and English is reserved for academic purposes and for conversing with hearing teachers’’ (xi).

In addition to the issue of family language, the question of the first and second language is further complicated by the unique position of the deaf in the society. Washabaugh, among others, argues that a deaf community is, in fact, a diglossic community and that ’’the essential features of prototypical diglossia, i.e. a stigmatized vernacular and a prestigious second language, are evident in Deaf communities’’ (243). The members of the deaf subcommunity are mostly minority language users who frequently come into close contact with members of the linguistically dominant group of speakers of the majority language, and thus with the majority language itself (see 3.2.2.). Inevitably, the deaf are often associated with the notions of bilingualism and biculturalism.

It cannot be denied that being a sub-cultural group, the deaf are, to a certain extent, integrated into the majority community and the character of opinions the hearing people harbour about the deaf has an impact on the deaf society and the way the deaf view their

language. ’’Deaf people for the most part have always lived within the world of others. Thus it is not surprising that their theories about themselves and their language are powerfully coloured by the beliefs held by others’’ (Padden and Humpries 56).

To avoid confusion as to the role played by the majority language, it is reasonable to reiterate that its assumed status in this work is largely that of a second language. This is not to say that necessarily all deaf individuals acquire sign language as a first language, but rather to stress that the centre of attention of this thesis is primarily the congenitally deaf learner for whom sign language, or a variety which is close in structure and modality to sign language (measurable on the continua described in 3.2.2.), is the first language.

4.1. Introduction into the ambiguities in majority language acquisition

The interplay of unique factors affecting the process of language acquisition in the deaf individual often gives rise to confusion. This is particularly evident when researchers attempt to draw a parallel between the acquisition of a second language (majority language) in the deaf person to first language acquisition (majority language) in the hearing person. In this respect, contradicting conclusions have been reported. For example, Paul contends that second language acquisition (majority language) in the deaf individual is similar to first language acquisition in the hearing individual (177). In contrast, Charrow suggests that the deaf person learns a majority language in much the same way the hearing person learns a second language (qtd. in Paul 167-168).

In reference to hearing children, McLaughlin writes: ’’The evidence from studies of second-language learning in pre-school children indicates, as we have seen, that young children in a natural setting approach the task of learning a second language in much the same way they approach the task of learning their first language’’ (22).

However, as will be explained here, the language-learning situation of the vast majority of the deaf does not parallel that of preschool children learning a second language.

Lillo-Martin argues that in the case of the deaf the input in the majority language is provided ’’significantly later than … for first language acquisition’’, that ’’ the form of the input does not make use of the primary modality for the language’’, and that ’’the quality of the input is impoverished’’ (132). Thus, the conditions under which the deaf individual

learns (acquires) the majority language are quite different from those experienced by individuals learning the majority language as a first language – ’’the language-learning situation for the acquisition of English is clearly different from the situation for children learning English as a first language’’ (Lillo-Martin 132).

It has already been said that if the deaf child has deaf parents, the child will naturally learn sign language as the first language. The portion of these individuals (with deaf parents) is fairly low, however. Relative to language acquisition, the deaf child of hearing parents is often exposed to the majority language even before sign language is fully acquired. This begs the important question whether the product of majority language acquisition is to be viewed as a second language in the true sense. Lillo-Martin claims that ’’it would be imprecise to say that English is being acquired as a ’second’ language’’ (132). This could possibly be argued about Czech or any other majority language as well. Nevertheless, whereas it would perhaps be slightly inaccurate to suggest that a majority language is acquired as a ‘second’ language, claiming that a majority language is acquired as the first language would be even more imprecise (mainly due to input inaccessibility).

The following may be concluded. Firstly, the acquisition of majority language in the deaf individual is, in many respects, different from the processes of first and second language acquisition as known in the hearing population, since there are numerous unique factors to be considered.

Secondly, although the deaf child may well be in contact with the majority language in the early period, the quality of the input is often insufficient for the majority language to become the first language, and its auditory-oral modality means that the language is of lower accessibility to the child (compensated mostly through lip-reading).

Thirdly, the linguistic continua introduced in the previous chapter suggest, in spite of the question of input quality, an influence of the majority language on sign language – sign language with certain linguistic features peculiar to the majority language being the language in actual use (e.g. a mesolect variety).

And lastly, the bulk of literature on language learning and deafness associates the relationship between the national variety of sign language (CSL, ASL) and the majority language (Czech, English) with the notions of biculturalism and bilingualism. The plethora

of various interpretations and theories about second language acquisition and second language literacy will be discussed in the following subchapters.

4.2. Second language learning and bilingualism in the deaf population

It appears appropriate that the difference between the concepts of bilingualism and second language learning should now be established. The first distinguishing feature is the attained language level. Bilingualism refers to mastery of two distinct language systems. The underpinning principle of the concept is proficiency in two languages. The bilingual individual should be able to use both languages in a range of linguistic and extralinguistic contexts. The other term, second language learning, suggests that proficiency in the second language has not yet been reached.

In addition to the products (language level), the properties of the acquisition process are used to distinguish bilingualism from second language learning. McLaughlin (1984) proposes what could be termed the chronological principle hypothesis.

The basic tenet of this hypothesis is that an individual who has had exposure to and has learned two languages before two years of age has undergone the process of simultaneous acquisition. This can be referred to as bilingualism. By the same token, an individual who has had exposure to and has learned a second language after three years of age is said to have undergone successive acquisition, or second language learning (McLaughlin, qtd. in Paul 149).

4.3. Theoretical models in second language learning and deafness

The balance theory proposed by Macnamara (1966) hypothesizes that an individual has a restricted amount of language learning ability. This ability is divided between the two (or more) languages the person learns or is exposed to. It is then argued that the majority of these individuals cannot attain the level of language competence normally observed in native bilinguals. Further, the proponents of the balance theory claim there is ample evidence to suggest that bilingual persons often struggle to learn the majority language, which correlates with problems in academic performance (Paul 150).

The models put forward by Cummins have been particularly influential in the field of second language learning and have become the foundation of bilingual programs for hearing and deaf individuals alike (Paul 150). The developmental interdependence model suggests that the linguistic skills already developed in the first language may influence the potential development of skills in the second language (Cummins, qtd. in Paul 151). In other words, if first language skills are insufficiently developed, the development of second language skills is hampered. ’’Thus, low first language skills can exert a limiting effect on the development of the second language’’ (Strong 117).

Furthermore, Cummins (2000) devises two constructs of language competence – basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALP). In Language, Power, and Pedagogy, Cummins concludes that the distinction between BICS and CALP ’’highlighted the fact that educators’ conflating of these aspects of proficiency was the major factor in the creation of academic difficulties for bilingual students’’ (58). It is argued that apart from developing BICS, individuals need to develop to use language ’’as an instrument of thought and to represent cognitive operations by means of language’’ (Cummins, qtd. in Strong 117). Again, in relation to academic achievement of deaf children, insufficient development of first language CALP skills may account for lowered levels of school performance.

Relative to language development and literacy, the threshold model should also receive attention. This model suggests that an individual must attain a certain threshold level of linguistic competence in both languages in order to avoid lowered levels of cognitive and academic performance (Cummins, “Empowering Minority“ 42). By contrast, having acquired the first language, an individual needs to attain a threshold level in the second language to experience the beneficial effects of bilingualism (Cummins, “Empowering Minority“ 42).

4.4. Theories in second language literacy

Cummins suggested that cognitive/academic language proficiency skills established in the first language could be transferred to the second language: ’’To the extent that instruction in Lx is effective in promoting proficiency in Lx, transfer of this proficiency to

Ly will occur provided there is adequate exposure to Ly (either in school or environment) and adequate motivation to learn Ly’’ (Cummins, “The role of primary language“ 29). The interdependence model finds support among the proponents of bilingual education for deaf students who, as Marschark and Spenser write, ’’suggested that if students achieved high levels of proficiency in a native sign language (L1), then a positive transfer would occur, which would support the development of literacy in the majority language as L2’’ (137).

Meyer and Wells contradict the interdependence hypothesis positing that the conditions assumed by the interdependence model for the hearing individual do not correspond to those experienced by the deaf individual (93). As a result, the effectiveness of bilingual education programs for deaf children, which is based on the applicability of the interdependence model to the deaf learner, is challenged. In their analysis, Meyer and Wells not only ask crucial questions about the sole use of sign language in teaching literacy, but also illustrate the very stages of literacy development.

The first argument to be considered is the issue of the first language. The hearing person exposed to the majority language learns the spoken and subsequently the written form of the language. In its primary modality (speech), the majority language input is hardly accessible to the deaf person. Given the ’’minimal access to the auditory-oral channel of communication, the majority of profoundly deaf people do not develop intelligible speech, but learn a visual-spatial language’’ (Meyer and Wells 94). This fact alone does not necessarily pose a developmental problem, because sign language has been confirmed to be a fully-fledged linguistic system.

However, when the transfer of literacy skills from a first language to a second language is discussed, the integrity of the linguistic interdependence model as applied in the deaf context is called into question. ’’Since their first language … has no written form, profoundly deaf students cannot acquire literacy skills in their first language; consequently, they do not have literacy skills to transfer to the written form of a second, spoken, language’’ (Meyer and Wells 94). The aforementioned researchers expand on this premise to explain why the interdependence model does not apply to the congenitally deaf person and why the supposition that sign language (ASL or CSL) alone may be used in teaching literacy in a majority language to deaf children is to be questioned.

First, it is stated that if there is little resemblance between the orthographies of two languages, there is not as much transfer of reading skills from a first to a second language (Genesse, qtd. in Meyer and Wells 94). Surely, sign languages and spoken languages can hardly be compared at the level of orthography – sign language has no written system. What is more, no evidence as yet has suggested a link between oral skills established in a first language and the ensuing existence of literacy skills in a second language (Goldman, qtd. in Meyer and Wells 94).

Meyer and Wells (94) thus resort to the original premise that ’’for facilitation in L2 literacy learning to occur, the learner must have mastered the comparable literacy skills in his or her first language’’, and commence the analysis of literacy development by illustrating this process on a trajectory peculiar to the hearing individual.

4.4.1. Development of literacy in the hearing individual

Meyer and Wells ’’draw on the work of Vygotsky and Halliday to develop a conceptualization of the processes involved in becoming literate’’ (95). In essence, the basic developmental stages (phases) are proposed (see table 1.).

In the first phase, it is suggested that the hearing person masters the spoken form of the first language (for the purposes of social interaction). In Mind in Society, Vygotsky (22-28) draws on various experiments to point out that, after social speech has been mastered, children use ’’egocentric speech’’ – a form of ‘speech for self‘ – for the purposes of problem solving if the social (communicative) speech cannot perform the same function. Evidently, this ‘speech for self‘ then serves as a bridge to ’’inner speech’’ and characterizes the second phase. ’’Functionally, egocentric speech is the basis for inner speech, while in its external form it is embedded in communicative speech’’ (Vygotsky 27).

The third phase is crucial in that the transition from inner speech to written text takes place. Inner speech could be characterized as a mode of thinking and reasoning which ’’stands in an intermediate position between oral speech and writing’’ (Meyer and Wells 95).

Table 1. Developmental bridges available to hearing and deaf children

Source: C. Meyer, and G. Wells. Can the Linguistic Interdependence Theory Support A Bilingual-Bicultural Model of Literacy Education for Deaf Students? (1996), 101.

4.4.2. Development of literacy in the deaf individual

The same developmental trajectory is assumed for the deaf individual (see table 1. above). Relative to the first phase, it is argued that for deaf children ’’sign language functions equivalently to oral speech’’ (Meyer and Wells 96).

Meyer and Wells consider a number of hypotheses and studies about inner speech, intellect, and mental capacities of deaf children, concluding that ’’investigations into the cognitive processes of deaf children indicate that their thinking and reasoning abilities are essentially equivalent to those of hearing children, even though their literacy development is not’’ (Meyer and Wells 96).

Interestingly, it is noted that while the difficulty deaf children have in learning to read and write is evident, no corresponding difficulty in learning to spell has been observed (Meyer and Wells 96). This is probably because for the hearing person ’’the resultant nature of inner speech is often characterized as having the qualities of an inner ear’’, while the deaf probably ’’utilize an inner eye’’ (Meyer and Wells 97).

It is possible to assume that an inner eye is a highly effective tool for learning to spell, since whether a word is spelled correctly is determined visually. However, considering how written texts are constructed in terms of lexis and grammar, hearing

individuals rely on the acoustic (spoken) form when composing a text (Meyer and Wells 97). Kelly collects evidence from research on skilled deaf readers and observes that ’’researchers have discovered some evidence that relatively skilled deaf readers may use a phonological strategy for temporary storage of words in working memory’’ (321).

The issues surrounding the transition from ‘inner signing’ to written text are numerous. First, as sign language has no written form, the written text encountered by the deaf individual will be, of necessity, a written representation of some other language. The crucial question to be asked at this point is what functions as a bridge when a transition from ‘inner signing’, which is possibly the equivalent of inner speech, to written text is realized.

In the hearing person the transition from inner speech to written text occurs via the medium (bridge) of spoken language. In short, there is a correspondence between a spoken word and a written word – a correspondence at the level of lexis. The mastery of the spoken mode seems to be a key skill here because the user can rely on the knowledge of the grammatical structure of the language in order to construct sentences in the written mode, despite the differences between spoken and written grammar.

The sign-word relationship is more complex – ’’because of the different modalities involved, signs are not in all respects equivalent to spoken words’’ (Meyer and Wells 98). Sign languages are linguistic systems substantially different from spoken languages (e.g. Czech or English), and a sign may convey much more than a word. More importantly, the degree to which sign languages and spoken languages differ at the level of syntax is more significant. For example, the means for expressing the semantic relationships may be strikingly different. Meyer and Wells mention English, where these relationships are ’’represented through word order or through the addition of prepositions to noun phrases’’ and compare it to sign language where semantic relationships are ’’represented through the spatial location in which signs are made, through directionality and through deictic gestures’’ (99).

In sum, the issue related to the development of literacy in the deaf individual is as follows: Although its role diminishes with time, speech functions, at least in the case of the hearing person, as a bridge to written language (see table 1.) – ’’understanding of written language is first affected through spoken language, but gradually this path is curtailed and

spoken language disappears as the intermediate link’’ (Vygotsky, qtd. in Meyer and Wells 102). It is therefore apparent that for the hearing person, the code used in inner speech and in written text is based on one language, and the difference concerns only the use of different modes.

’’For the Deaf community, by contrast, inner speech and written speech are derived from two radically different codes … and, for this reason, there is no readily available ‘spoken’ mode to form the bridge between them’’ (Meyer and Wells 102). In the light of the arguments presented above, it becomes clear that the acquisition of literacy is an arduous task for the deaf individual, as the spoken mode of the language is not accessible and thus cannot serve as a bridge, and further because sign language has no written form in which to develop fist language literacy.

It is ’’the nonequivalence of the two language codes that they (deaf students) need to master’’ that Meyer ad Wells (103) regard as the root of the problem in literacy development. The non-existence of a medium to bridge the transition from ‘inner signing’ to text means that deaf learners ’’do not ’know’ the language they are attempting to write’’ (Meyer and Wells 99). In bilingual programs sign language is used as the bridge. However, many questions remain unanswered about the effectiveness of this medium because, as was noted above, the code of the medium is substantially different from the code of the written text. The child thinks in one language (inner signing) while attempting to write in another language. The obstacles the deaf student encounters in becoming literate are therefore indicative of the enormity and complexity of the challenge unmatched by the hearing student.

It seems reasonable that some manual equivalent of the spoken language in which the student is supposed to write should be used as the bridge. Indeed, the condition of two corresponding codes (inner speech/signing – target language text) would be met. In the context of bilingual programs in the USA this would probably be ’’some form of ’English-like signing’ … if deaf children are to master the code that is given representation in written English’’ (Meyer and Wells 98). Similarly, the use of Signed Czech would be considered in teaching literacy to Czech deaf. The benefits of individual methods used in education of the deaf remain ambiguous, however, considering that ’’very little research has been done on the relative effects of different systems’’ (Strong 115).

5. Deafness and third language learning

There is a relatively large body of research on the acquisition of English by the deaf individual whose first language is ASL. In other words, the major research areas traditionally examine how the deaf individual learns the language of the larger society in which he or she lives. What remains relatively unclear, however, is how the deaf person learns a foreign language (third language), that is, a language spoken in another country.

Drawing on ideas presented in the preceding chapters, this chapter is a synthesis of theories and models pertaining to first and second language acquisition and available information on third language learning. The information presented on the following pages concerns the Czech deaf learner. That said, the author believes that the basic tenets will be relevant outside the Czech context as well.

5.1. Learner characteristics affecting the language learning process

The factors affecting the language learning process associated with a learner in general may be: cognitive style, learning style, motivation, attitude to target language, affective filter etc. (Macurová 34). Other factors are specific to the deaf learner: type and onset of hearing impairment, restricted input, family language, perception of language value etc. In the previous chapters, some of these factors affecting the process of language acquisition were discussed. How these factors relate to the process of learning a third language (auditory-based) will now be elucidated.

For the deaf learner from a non-English speaking country, English is a third language. Vysuček , being a deaf Czech himself, explains that ’’in England and in the US English is the second language to Sign Language whereas in the Czech Republic Czech is the second language and English (or any other foreign language) is the third language’’ (61). Motivation to learn the language may have an impact on the learning process. The acquisition of the majority language by the deaf learner is driven by the force of integrative motivation. It should be noted that unlike for the deaf learning English in the USA, ’’there is no integrative motivation for the deaf [learning English] in the Czech Republic’’ (Macurová 36). For the deaf in the USA, the mastery of English is crucial for academic

success, social integration, and access to information. In this regard, English clearly has a different language function to the deaf Czech learner. This should be considered as one of the possible variables affecting the process of learning English. Of course, the actual effect of the motivation factor cannot be fully determined.

The learning strategies and study skills can substantially contribute to successful language learning. Janáková (28) cautions that the learning strategies and academic skills of Czech deaf students entering university are inadequately developed. Whether to interpret this as inadequate development of CALP skills throughout the educational enterprise is not clear. Whatever the case here, it remains that for successful language learning to occur, ’’teachers will need to teach, monitor, and reinforce the development of appropriate study skills’’ (Eilers-Crandall 88). Janáková asserts that with proper training in these strategies and skills necessary for success in the academic environment deaf students ’’would gradually reach a level of foreign language skills equal to their hearing counterparts’’ (28).

The degree and onset of hearing impairment are one of the key factors determining the peculiarities of the process of language acquisition and indeed language learning. For instance, according to the degree of hearing loss, some hard-of-hearing individuals can use their residual hearing to process auditory input. The advances in amplification technology have the power to put the hard-of-hearing and the hearing person on an equal footing. In relation to language learning, instruction presented orally will not be readily available to the deaf person, whereas the hard-of-hearing person will probably be able to process the auditory input, albeit with the help of hearing aids. It is regrettable that the significance of the distinction between types of hearing impairment is underestimated even in the Czech Republic, where the difference ’’appears to be ignored even by the standard teaching methods and approaches’’, many of which lay an emphasis on ’’development of the spoken form of language’’ (Macurová 29).

5.2. Linguistic development and third language learning

The skills developed in the first and the second language influence the development of skills in the third language. In the deaf individual, the literacy skills developed in the majority language could be transferred to the third language (see 4.4.). The obstacles the

deaf person encounters in learning any auditory-oral language are numerous, however. As will be demonstrated, the process of learning a third language is interlinked with second and first language acquisition.

The hearing status of parents, being directly related to the question of family language, seems to have a definite impact on primary language acquisition and thus on the general language learning abilities. Macurová (31) highlights that 90 to 95 percent of the deaf have hearing parents and that the inaccessibility of spoken language and the lack of exposure to models of signing exert a detrimental effect on the cognitive and linguistic development of these children. This ’’inevitably projects into the ability of the deaf to learn other languages’’ (Macurová 31). It is evident that the first language has a key role in learning other languages. The primary language is the medium of reflection on the extralinguistic reality (see 4.4.2.) and is essential for the perception of the language as an entity that can be analyzed (metalinguistic skills). Further, it is possible to link the lack of development in primary language cognitive/academic language proficiency with increased difficulty in language learning (see 4.2). The threshold model (see 4.3.) hypothesized that a lack of proficiency in one of the two languages influences the overall cognitive and academic achievement.

According to Cummins (’’The role of primary language’’, 29), the literacy skills developed in one language may be transferred to another language. To interpret the interdependence model in the context of third language learning, it could be argued that the mastery of written Czech would contribute to the development of literacy skills in English (literacy skills transfer); on the condition that there is sufficient exposure and motivation to learn the language (see 5.1. for motivation). Vysuček asserts that ’’when the Deaf have perfectly mastered Czech, they can start learning another language, in this case English’’ (62). In the context of second language literacy, Meyer and Wells challenged the hypothetical literacy transfer from sign language to the majority language as suggested by the interdependence model (see chapter 4 for arguments). Eilers-Crandall (66) confirms that the nature of literacy transfer from a language lacking a written system is still not understood. The poor literacy levels of deaf learners attest to the complexity of such a transfer. ’’Within the Czech context, there is another obstacle for deaf and hard-of-hearing students: inadequate knowledge of Czech language, its written form, especially of

grammatical categories, and their both poor and narrow general and conceptual vocabulary’’ (Janáková 27). The results of a great number of studies have revealed that the ability to read and write (in the majority language) of about 50 per cent of the hearing-impaired is at the forth or fifth grade level (Trybus and Karchmer, qtd. in Strong 5).

The second prerequisite for literacy transfer is the quality and quantity of language input. Students should be exposed to a form of language that is accessible and serves as a model. ’’We do not know how well humans can learn to use a language when they do not receive direct input in that language’’ (Eilers-Crandall 90). The use of auxiliary manual systems of communication, contrived systems reflecting certain properties of the oral language, may be discussed. However, given that these auxiliary systems (including English-based manual systems) are seldom complete representations of the given language, the degree to which they can be effectively used is to be carefully scrutinized (Bochner and Albertini 8-9).

Clearly, the success of teaching English to the Czech deaf partly rests on the findings relative to Czech literacy development of the students (transfer of literacy skills to English).

5.3

. Interlanguage and cross-linguistic influence

The concept of interlanguage can be understood as the ’’separate linguistic system based on observable output which results form a learner’s attempted production of a [target language] norm’’ (Selinker, qtd. in Berent, “An Assessment“ 133). Interlanguage is the interim stage of the language learning process, and it is the product of the linguistic influence of the mother tongue and the target language. And indeed, researchers have identified profound mother tongue influence in the written text of the deaf person. Lawton (57) claims that the mistakes deaf students make in the written mode of English indicate the influence of sign language structure, rather than the fact that the deaf are illiterate.

Even though the available findings indicate that the majority of the deaf experience great difficulty attaining high levels of literacy in the majority language, it is conceivable that this second language, or interlanguage, has a bearing on the process of learning a third language. According to Cenoz (21), research into third language acquisition suggests that

the influence of the second language may be stronger than theorized previously. It was proposed earlier that the acquisition of a majority language (e.g. Czech) would facilitate the process of learning a third, foreign language (e.g. English). Arguably, the learner would derive some benefit from typological similarity: ’’influence from L2 is favoured if L2 is typologically close to L3, especially if L1 is more distant’’ (Cenoz 22). This assumption is partially relevant in the context of the Czech deaf learner, considering that the second (Czech) and the third language (English) are auditory-oral languages. The other side of the coin is that Czech and English are linguistic systems sharing very few features. According to Berent, some specific properties of English sentence structure pose a great challenge to deaf students – ’’deviation from expected SVO order, interruption of major grammatical relations by other constituents, movement of constituents from their typical positions, and establishing identity between two or more constituents’’ (“English for Deaf“ 134). However, these properties are typical of spoken languages in general. To highlight grammatical differences between Czech and English, Berent (“English for Deaf“ 137) lists three contrastive features (see below). The profound language differences can be regarded as additional hurdles to language learning as Berent concludes: ’’cross-linguistic differences might influence deaf students’ development of English grammar skills, over and above the general challenges confronting deaf students learning spoken languages’’ (“English for Deaf“ 137).

Table 2. Contrastive features between English and Czech

Source: Adapted from Gerrald Berent. English for Deaf Students: Assessing and Addressing Learners’ Grammar Development (2001), 137.

6. Research

6.1. Research introduction

Chapters 2 to 5 address the central issues surrounding the acquisition of language by the deaf individual. The research presented herein shall attempt to link the theoretical perspectives on language learning and deafness with empirical data collected by the author. The task is threefold: first, examine whether research findings support the generally accepted theories related to language and deafness, second, characterize the linguistic, affective and sociocultural factors affecting language development; and, third, provide a personal insight into the human dimension underlying language learning.

6.2. Research type support

Every researcher must make a decision as to the research method. In weighing up the pros and cons of a particular research method, a number of variables must be taken into account; to name but a few: time constraints, reliability, relevance, and research goals. Out of all imaginable variables, research goals have the decisive role. With a view to striking a balance between theory and practice, the interview, the merits of which will be discussed hereafter, is the research method used in this thesis.

One of the greatest advantages of the interview is its personal dimension. In this sense, some form of an invisible connection is established between the reader and the interviewee. The research interview represents ’’a move away from seeing human subjects as simply manipulable and data as somehow external to individuals’’ (Kvale, qtd. in Cohen and Manion 267). The author believes that the interviews will lend a more personal feel to this research, a fact listed in the research objectives after all.

According to Cohen and Manion (268), the interview may be used to ’’test’’ existent hypotheses or advance new ones, and to collect data directly related to research objectives. As was demonstrated in the above chapters, the great variety of affects influencing the process of language acquisition and language learning of deaf individuals requires an in-depth exploration for a good understanding. One of the major advantages of the research interview is that ’’it enables you to see and understand what is reflected rather more

abstractly in other kinds of data (statistical summaries, for example)’’ (Gillham 10). In view of the foregoing, it is conceivable that the interview will function as an effective research tool in the attainment of the research objectives.