Contents

• Introduction
• Total Communication
• Sign Bilingualism
• Auditory Oral
• Choosing Options
• References

Sign Bilingualism

The language of Deaf People

The growing disillusion with TC for the "straightforward" severely or profoundly deaf child during the 1990's led to the introduction of sign bilingualism. The sign language used in a sign bilingual approach is the sign language developed within the Deaf Community, which in Britain is British Sign language (BSL).

The Deaf Community offers a perspective on deafness which rejects the idea of deafness as a medical condition that requires correction and invites us to see deafness as a cultural feature that needs to be respected (Note 17).

This perception of deafness is supported by many idealists who espouse the social model of disability and the notion that disability is a difference not a defect.

It is argued that in order for deaf children to be assured full human rights and equal opportunities, they should be offered their "natural" language, sign language, as a first language.

The natural sign languages which have developed over the years within Deaf Communities have been analysed by linguists and judged to be "proper" languages, in contrast with the "unnatural" contrived manual English used in a TC approach. A sign language such as BSL, therefore, has the same capacity as any verbal language for the expression of ideas (Note 18).

Where speech is the medium of exchange, it is argued that the deaf individual can never be equal. The auditory-oral approach, it is claimed, dis-ables deaf children by unfairly imposing on them hearing speaking goals, goals that deaf children can never attain.

Deaf children who are offered sign language as their first language can communicate as effectively as anyone else, so bilingualists claim, and are thus free from disability.

With sign language, deaf children can develop pride in a distinct Deaf identity as a member of a cultural and linguistic minority (Note 19).

Moreover, it is argued that any educational approach which does not reflect the necessity of sign language as a first language constitutes a violation of the human rights of deaf children (Note 20).

The requirements of a sign bilingual approach

The sign bilingual approach demands that a natural sign language, such as BSL, should begin as soon as the infant's deafness has been ascertained and that English should be learned later as a second language. (Sign bilingualists do not identify the level of hearing loss which would make children suitable for a sign bilingual approach because of their distaste for audiometric/medical definitions. But in Britain a sign bilingual approach is usually reserved for children with profound hearing loss though the approach is sometimes used with children who are severely deaf).

Deaf children, so it is claimed, if given sufficient sign language experience in the early years will acquire language as readily as a hearing child acquires spoken language and hence deaf children can begin their formal education on an equal footing with hearing children.

However, the majority - around 90% in Britain - of children born with severe and profound hearing losses have hearing parents who are unlikely to know sign language.

Parents would need, therefore, considerable support and guidance in order to facilitate their Deaf child's sign language acquisition (Note 21).

Classes in BSL may be available in their local area. Deaf signing adults can play a crucial role in enabling parents to learn sign language and in offering helpful interaction in sign with the young Deaf child.

If parents have selected a sign approach they will, so it is claimed, be naturally well motivated to learn sign language themselves.

Furthermore, it is argued that when the Deaf child herself starts to communicate in sign, parents will become even more enthusiastic in developing their sign language skills (Note 22).

Sign bilingualists argue that once formal schooling has begun, Deaf children through the medium of sign language can be offered the full curriculum and have the same opportunity as the hearing child to acquire knowledge and achieve academically.

Whether in a special or mainstream school, the Deaf child needs a generous supply of trained signing teachers, including deaf teachers, signing interpreters, signing classroom assistants.

In Scandinavian countries, where there is around 20 years experience of offering a bilingual approach to Deaf children, this is taken to mean that Deaf children should be educated in special schools for the Deaf (Note 23)

By contrast, given that there is a strong tradition in the UK of educating deaf children in the mainstream, UK bilingualists do not necessarily believe that a special school is essential (Note 24). However, for Deaf children to get sufficient input of sign language with maximum use made of the scarce resources of Deaf signing adults, interpreters, and signing teachers, it is considered important that they are grouped together in a unit or resource centre within a mainstream school (Note 25). This also gives the Deaf child access to a Deaf peer group.

Achieving English as well as sign language

With the sign bilingual approach, the goal of verbal language has to be achieved by teaching the Deaf child written English as a second language. Bilingualists acknowledge that making the transition between BSL and written English is not easy to achieve given the structural differences between the two languages (Note 26).

However, there are some ideas about how to bridge the gap between sign language and the majority verbal language (Note 27).

It is suggested, for example, that signed English can play a role in translating BSL into English.

Furthermore, it is believed that children of school age are capable of analyzing the structure of their first language and are thus in a position to understand the structure of a second language. The principle of developing an understanding of the structure of one's first language in order to facilitate the learning of another is well accepted in second language teaching (Note 28).

There seem to be differences of opinion, or at least emphasis, amongst sign bilingualists concerning the development of speech in Deaf children.

For some, time spent on developing speech is considered "time wasted" because the goal of speech is judged to be "virtually impossible" (Note 29).

In Britain, however, the most commonly expressed view is that exposure to "live" or spoken English used in "real life" situations is important (Note 30). Most Deaf children will move in both the hearing‑­speaking worlds and the deaf-signing worlds.

It is considered to be a very important principle, however, that the two forms of communication should be separated: sign language should be used in contexts where sign is the primary means of communication and spoken language should be associated with speaking people (Note 31). Deaf children, like other bilingual children in the world, will become sociolinguistically competent (Note 32) and appreciate when sign is required and when it is appropriate to use oral communication.

However, we have no evidence to date from educators advocating and using a sign bilingual approach about the competence and intelligibility of the speech of sign bilingually educated Deaf children.

An Evaluation of the Sign Bilingual Approach

Sign bilingualism has a strong ideological underpinning and few would quarrel with the principle of respect for cultural and linguistic diversity. The sign languages developed by Deaf people the world over is testimony to remarkable human linguistic creativity. That Deaf individuals can express ideas and communicate with others in a manner that does not depend on hearing is something which we acknowledge and in which we rejoice.

However, to acknowledge the validity of sign language as a means of expressing ideas and a means of communication amongst Deaf people does not inexorably lead to support for a sign bilingual approach in the education of all deaf children. Sign bilingual education for Deaf children in the UK is in its relatively early days and research evidence relating to outcomes from anywhere is sparse (Note 33). There has nonetheless been some critical appraisal of the principles of the approach (Note 34) and much careful reflection on the practice (Note 35).

Are the goals of sign bilingualism achievable?

Given that the majority of deaf children are born into a home environment where communication is through speaking, there is a serious problem in offering the Deaf infant and young child sufficient sign language input to enable them to develop their understanding of and own competency in it in the crucial early years of language acquisition. However enthusiastic parents are about learning to sign, the task for hearing people in learning sign language is at least as difficult as learning Russian and therefore not lightly accomplished,

The task of providing sign language input to the young Deaf child could be given over to those outside the home who can sign fluently, but this could undermine the bonds between the Deaf child and her family. A recent longitudinal study in Bristol of Deaf children educated bilingually confirms that, for the hearing parents: "It is difficult to learn to sign. It is difficult to accept the otherness of one's child" (Note 36).

The promise of age-appropriate language in sign in the child reaching school age is an appealing feature of the sign bilingual approach. The question is, can this promise be fulfilled? Some research undertaken in Britain (Note 37) throws doubt on whether Deaf children exposed to sign language in the early years develop sign language as quickly as hearing children acquire spoken language, even when the parents are themselves Deaf and use sign. One investigation involving four Deaf mothers with their young, very early diagnosed Deaf children indicated that all of the children were, for their age, linguistically considerably behind what is average in spoken language development for children with normal hearing (Note 38). A further study of hearing mothers using sign with their young Deaf children revealed that mothers had difficulties in establishing interaction through sign (Note 39).

The achievement of literacy is an established goal of sign bilingualism. Yet despite over a decade of experience of the use of a sign bilingual approach in UK, data on literacy achievements does not exist.

Furthermore, with around 20 years of experience of a bilingual approach in Denmark and Sweden, we do not have evidence from large-scale studies of literacy attainments. Knoors (1997), reviewing a conference in Sweden on "Bilingualism in

Deaf Education" notes an absence of contributions based on achievement data: "Alas, there were virtually no data, and far too much rhetoric".

So far, then, we cannot say with confidence that a sign bilingual approach will lead to competence in English whether spoken or written.

We can accept that the Deaf child who is given sign language as a first language has mastery of the means of expressing ideas and has communication, but can we accept that the Deaf individual without literacy is truly enabled? Can we accept that making a decision to undermine the Deaf child's ability to use spoken language is not a restriction rather than an enhancement of educational opportunity? If the decision is made to immerse the Deaf child in sign so that sign language becomes the mother-tongue, can we be confident that the child herself would have chosen that option? The ability of the Deaf child educated through a sign bilingual approach to acquire speech and verbal language later on is, to say the very least, uncertain. We do know, however, that orally educated deaf young people and adults can choose to learn sign language and if well motivated have done so, some choosing as adults to communicate primarily through sign (Note 40).