DOCSLIB.ORG

A Survey of Those in the US Deaf Community About

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Survey of Those in the US Deaf Community About University of North Dakota UND Scholarly Commons Theses and Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects 1-1-2013 A Survey Of Those In The .SU . Deaf Community About Reading And Writing ASL Jennifer R. Keogh Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/theses Recommended Citation Keogh, Jennifer R., "A Survey Of Those In The .SU . Deaf Community About Reading And Writing ASL" (2013). Theses and Dissertations. 1556. https://commons.und.edu/theses/1556 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A SURVEY OF THOSE IN THE U.S. DEAF COMMUNITY ABOUT READING AND WRITING ASL by Jennifer Keogh Bachelors of Arts, University of Pittsburgh, 2008 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of North Dakota in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Grand Forks, North Dakota December 2013 © 2013 Jennifer Keogh ii This thesis, submitted by Jennifer Keogh in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts from the University of North Dakota, has been read by the Faculty Advisory Committee under whom the work has been done and is hereby approved. __________________________________________ Kathryn L. Hansen, Chair __________________________________________ Diana Weber __________________________________________ J. Albert Bickford This thesis meets the standards for appearance, conforms to the style and format requirements of the Graduate School of the University of North Dakota, and is hereby approved. _______________________________________________ Wayne Swisher Dean of the Graduate School _______________________________________________ Date iii PERMISSION Title A Survey of Those in the U.S. Deaf Community about Reading and Writing ASL Department Linguistics Degree Master of Arts In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a graduate degree from the University of North Dakota, I agree that the library of this University shall make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for extensive copying for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor who supervised my thesis work or, in her absence, by the chairperson of the department or the dean of the Graduate School. It is understood that any copying or publication or other use of this thesis or part thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of North Dakota in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Signature Jennifer Keogh Date July 29, 2013 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ ix LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... xi ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 1.1 Summary of the Chapters ..............................................................................2 1.2 Definitions .....................................................................................................3 1.2.1 Deaf ...................................................................................................3 1.2.2 ASL ...................................................................................................3 1.2.3 The U.S. Deaf Community ................................................................4 1.2.4 Oral ....................................................................................................5 1.2.5 Primary Language .............................................................................6 1.2.6 Literacy ..............................................................................................6 1.2.7 Survey Jargon ....................................................................................7 1.2.8 Prelingual and Preliterate ..................................................................7 1.2.9 “Emic” and “Etic” .............................................................................8 2 RATIONALE .........................................................................................................9 2.1 Poor Performance in Education ...................................................................10 2.2 Bilingual Education with L1 Literacy .........................................................13 v 2.3 Reading and Writing ASL ...........................................................................16 2.4 A Survey of the U.S. Deaf Community .......................................................17 3 METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................19 3.1 Online Survey ..............................................................................................19 3.2 Videos of ASL .............................................................................................20 3.3 Filming ........................................................................................................21 3.4 Editing .........................................................................................................21 3.5 Web Survey Creator ....................................................................................22 3.6 Pilot Group ..................................................................................................22 3.7 Advertising ..................................................................................................23 3.8 Survey Layout .............................................................................................24 3.9 Questions .....................................................................................................25 3.9.1 Question Flow .................................................................................25 3.9.2 Background Questions ....................................................................27 3.9.3 General Opinion Questions about Literacy in ASL ........................29 3.9.4 Questions on Influence ....................................................................31 3.9.5 Specific Writing Systems ................................................................32 3.10 How the Results were Statistically Analyzed ..............................................35 3.10.1 How Single-Selection Questions were Analyzed: Goodness of Fit Test ........................................................................35 3.10.2 How Single-Selection Questions were Compared: Test of Independence .......................................................................37 3.11 Conclusion ...................................................................................................41 4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................43 4.1 Filtering for the Target Population ..............................................................43 vi 4.2 Demographics ..............................................................................................44 4.3 Hearing Status of the Participants’ Guardians ............................................44 4.4 An Account of Questions 5-39 ....................................................................45 4.4.1 Language Use ..................................................................................46 4.4.2 Educational Background .................................................................46 4.4.3 Community Involvement .................................................................50 4.4.4 Self-evaluation of Literacy Ability ..................................................52 4.4.5 Initial Opinions about Literacy in ASL ...........................................53 4.4.6 Others Use of Literacy in ASL ........................................................57 4.4.7 Value of Primary Language Literacy ..............................................58 4.4.8 Use of Literacy in ASL ...................................................................58 4.4.9 Influence of Writing System Design ...............................................60 4.4.10 The Influence of the Inventor’s Deafness .......................................61 4.4.11 Influence of Material .......................................................................61 4.4.12 Weight of Social Influences ............................................................62 4.4.13 Influence of Deaf to Deaf Communications ....................................63 4.4.14 Open-ended Response to Personal Desire .......................................63 4.5 Summary .....................................................................................................66 5 RESULTS CONTINUED .....................................................................................67 5.1 Evaluation of The Writing Systems ............................................................67
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Animated Avatar to Interpret Signwriting Transcription
    An Animated Avatar to Interpret SignWriting Transcription Yosra Bouzid Mohamed Jemni Research Laboratory of Technologies of Information and Research Laboratory of Technologies of Information and Communication & Electrical Engineering (LaTICE) Communication & Electrical Engineering (LaTICE) ESSTT, University of Tunis ESSTT, University of Tunis [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—People with hearing disability often face multiple To address this issue, different methods and technologies barriers when attempting to interact with hearing society. geared towards deaf communication have been suggested over The lower proficiency in reading, writing and understanding the the last decades. For instance, the use of sign language spoken language may be one of the most important reasons. interpreters is one of the most common ways to ensure a Certainly, if there were a commonly accepted notation system for successful communication between deaf and hearing persons in sign languages, signed information could be provided in written direct interaction. But according to a WFD survey in 2009, 13 form, but such a system does not exist yet. SignWriting seems at countries out of 93 do not have any sign language interpreters, present the best solution to the problem of SL representation as it and in many of those countries where there are interpreters, was intended as a practical writing system for everyday there are serious problems in finding qualified candidates. communication, but requires mastery of a set of conventions The digital technologies, particularly video and avatar-based different from those of the other transcriptions systems to become a proficient reader or writer. To provide additional systems, contribute, in turn, in bridging the communication support for deaf signers to learn and use such notation, we gap.
    [Show full text]
  • A Human-Editable Sign Language Representation for Software Editing—And a Writing System?
    A human-editable Sign Language representation for software editing—and a writing system? Michael Filhol [email protected] LIMSI, CNRS, Université Paris Saclay Orsay, France Abstract To equip SL with software properly, we need an input system to rep- resent and manipulate signed contents in the same way that every day software allows to process written text. Refuting the claim that video is good enough a medium to serve the purpose, we propose to build a repres- entation that is: editable, queryable, synthesisable and user-friendly—we define those terms upfront. The issue being functionally and conceptually linked to that of writing, we study existing writing systems, namely those in use for vocal languages, those designed and proposed for SLs, and more spontaneous ways in which SL users put their language in writing. Ob- serving each paradigm in turn, we move on to propose a new approach to satisfy our goals of integration in software. We finally open the prospect of our proposition being used outside of this restricted scope, as a writing system in itself, and compare its properties to the other writing systems presented. 1 Motivation and goals The main motivation here is to equip Sign Language (SL) with software and foster implementation as available tools for SL are paradoxically limited in such digital times. For example, translation assisting software would help respond arXiv:1811.01786v1 [cs.CL] 5 Nov 2018 to the high demand for accessible content and information. But equivalent text-to-text software relies on source and target written forms to work, whereas similar SL support seems impossible without major revision of the typical user interface.
    [Show full text]
  • Greek Alphabet ( ) Ελληνικ¿ Γρ¿Μματα
    Greek alphabet and pronunciation 9/27/05 12:01 AM Writing systems: abjads | alphabets | syllabic alphabets | syllabaries | complex scripts undeciphered scripts | alternative scripts | your con-scripts | A-Z index Greek alphabet (ελληνικ¿ γρ¿μματα) Origin The Greek alphabet has been in continuous use for the past 2,750 years or so since about 750 BC. It was developed from the Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet and the order and names of the letters are derived from Phoenician. The original Canaanite meanings of the letter names was lost when the alphabet was adapted for Greek. For example, alpha comes for the Canaanite aleph (ox) and beta from beth (house). At first, there were a number of different versions of the alphabet used in various different Greek cities. These local alphabets, known as epichoric, can be divided into three groups: green, blue and red. The blue group developed into the modern Greek alphabet, while the red group developed into the Etruscan alphabet, other alphabets of ancient Italy and eventually the Latin alphabet. By the early 4th century BC, the epichoric alphabets were replaced by the eastern Ionic alphabet. The capital letters of the modern Greek alphabet are almost identical to those of the Ionic alphabet. The minuscule or lower case letters first appeared sometime after 800 AD and developed from the Byzantine minuscule script, which developed from cursive writing. Notable features Originally written horizontal lines either from right to left or alternating from right to left and left to right (boustophedon). Around 500 BC the direction of writing changed to horizontal lines running from left to right.
    [Show full text]
  • Expanding Information Access Through Data-Driven Design
    ©Copyright 2018 Danielle Bragg Expanding Information Access through Data-Driven Design Danielle Bragg A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2018 Reading Committee: Richard Ladner, Chair Alan Borning Katharina Reinecke Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Computer Science & Engineering University of Washington Abstract Expanding Information Access through Data-Driven Design Danielle Bragg Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Richard Ladner Computer Science & Engineering Computer scientists have made progress on many problems in information access: curating large datasets, developing machine learning and computer vision, building extensive networks, and designing powerful interfaces and graphics. However, we sometimes fail to fully leverage these modern techniques, especially when building systems inclusive of people with disabilities (who total a billion worldwide [168], and nearly one in five in the U.S. [26]). For example, visual graphics and small text may exclude people with visual impairments, and text-based resources like search engines and text editors may not fully support people using unwritten sign languages. In this dissertation, I argue that if we are willing to break with traditional modes of information access, we can leverage modern computing and design techniques from computer graphics, crowdsourcing, topic modeling, and participatory design to greatly improve and enrich access. This dissertation demonstrates this potential
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Issue
    _____________________________________________________________ Volume 8 October 1993 Number 2 _____________________________________________________________ Editor Editorial Assistants John Miles Foley Dave Henderson Elizabeth P. McNulty Catherine S. Quick Slavica Publishers, Inc. For a complete catalog of books from Slavica, with prices and ordering information, write to: Slavica Publishers, Inc. P.O. Box 14388 Columbus, Ohio 43214 ISSN: 0883-5365 Each contribution copyright (c) 1993 by its author. All rights reserved. The editor and the publisher assume no responsibility for statements of fact or opinion by the authors. Oral Tradition seeks to provide a comparative and interdisciplinary focus for studies in oral literature and related fields by publishing research and scholarship on the creation, transmission, and interpretation of all forms of oral traditional expression. As well as essays treating certifiably oral traditions, OT presents investigations of the relationships between oral and written traditions, as well as brief accounts of important fieldwork, a Symposium section (in which scholars may reply at some length to prior essays), review articles, occasional transcriptions and translations of oral texts, a digest of work in progress, and a regular column for notices of conferences and other matters of interest. In addition, occasional issues will include an ongoing annotated bibliography of relevant research and the annual Albert Lord and Milman Parry Lectures on Oral Tradition. OT welcomes contributions on all oral literatures, on all literatures directly influenced by oral traditions, and on non-literary oral traditions. Submissions must follow the list-of reference format (style sheet available on request) and must be accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope for return or for mailing of proofs; all quotations of primary materials must be made in the original language(s) with following English translations.
    [Show full text]
  • Hwaslpreview.Pdf
    How to Write American Sign Language by Adrean Clark For all generations of signers. May the past be preserved and the future built. How to Write American Sign Language Copyright © 2012 by Adrean Clark. Published by ASLwrite in Burnsville, Minnesota. Si5s concept by Robert Arnold. Photographs by Julia Dameron and Erik Call. Models (in order of appearance): Julia Dameron, Montrell White, and Amber Zion. ISBN-13: 978-0-9858768-0-7 Library of Congress Control Number: 2012912030 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book. t Table of Contents Acknowledgments . 4 Introduction . 5 Chapter One: The Digibet . 6 Chapter Two: Diacritics . 19 Chapter Three: Movement Marks . 29 Chapter Four: Locatives . 43 Chapter Five: Extramanual Marks . 53 Chapter Six: Indicators . 63 Chapter Seven: Composition . 73 Resources . 87 Answer Key . 94 a Acknowledgments This book would not be possible without the vision of Robert Arnold (si5s.org). His hours spent tutoring me and our time working together on developing this amazing language are much appreciated. He also had valuable input on the contents of this book. I could not have become fluent without the help of Julia Dameron (juliadameron.com), who was instrumental in creating the early American Sign Language Writing Dictionary. Our days writing pushed the boundaries of the written language.
    [Show full text]
  • Signwriting Symbols to Students
    JTC1/SC2/WG2 N4342 L2/12-321 2012-10-14 Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set International Organization for Standardization Organisation Internationale de Normalisation Международная организация по стандартизации Doc Type: Working Group Document Title: Proposal for encoding Sutton SignWriting in the UCS Source: Michael Everson, Martin Hosken, Stephen Slevinski, and Valerie Sutton Status: Individual Contribution Action: For consideration by JTC1/SC2/WG2 and UTC Date: 2012-10-14 Replaces: N4015 1. Introduction. SignWriting is a script developed in 1974 by Valerie Sutton, the inventor of Sutton Movement Writing, who two years earlier had developed DanceWriting. SignWriting is a featural script, its glyphs being visually iconic as well as in their spatial arrangement in text, which represents a sort of snapshot of any given sign. SignWriting is currently being used to write the following Sign Languages: American Sign Language (in USA, English-speaking Canada) Japanese Sign Language Arabian Sign Languages Malawi Sign Language Australian Sign Language Malaysian Sign Language Bolivian Sign Language Maltese Sign Language Brazilian Sign Language Mexican Sign Language British Sign Language Nepalese Sign Language Catalan Sign Language New Zealand Sign Language Colombian Sign Language Nicaraguan Sign Language Czech Sign Language Norwegian Sign Language Danish Sign Language Peruvian Sign Language Dutch Sign Language Philippines Sign Language Ethiopian Sign Language Polish Sign Language Finnish Sign Language Portugese Sign Language Flemish Sign Language Québec Sign Language French-Belgian Sign Language South African Sign Language French Sign Language Spanish Sign Language German Sign Language Swedish Sign Language Greek Sign Language Swiss Sign Language Irish Sign Language Taiwanese Sign Language Italian Sign Language Tunisian Sign Language A variety of literature exists in SignWriting.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cross-Linguistic Guide to Signwriting ® a Phonetic Approach
    A Cross-Linguistic ® Guide to SignWriting A phonetic approach Stephen Parkhurst Dianne Parkhurst A Cross-Linguistic Guide to SignWriting ®: A phonetic approach ©2008 Stephen Parkhurst Revision 2010 For use at SIL-UND courses during the summer of 2010. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recorded or otherwise, without permission from the authors. Stephen and Dianne Parkhurst E-mail: [email protected] A note from the authors SignWriting®, also known as Sutton Movement Writing for Sign Language, was invented by Valerie Sutton in 1974. Over the years the system has changed significantly and has gradually grown in acceptance and popularity in more than 30 countries. While there are other writing systems and notation systems for writing signed languages, we have not found any system that is as useful for writing accurately any sign or movement (including all non-manual movements and expressions) with relative ease and speed. It is also the only writing system that we have tried that is possible to read faster than one can physically produce the signs (outpacing even photos and line drawings in ease and speed of reading). We have taken much of the material for this manual from a course we developed for teaching SignWriting (SW) to Deaf adults in Spain. That course in Spain focused on teaching the symbols of SW that are used in Spanish Sign Language (or LSE, for Lengua de Signos Española) with a heavy focus on reading.
    [Show full text]
  • 22Hwaslebookfree.Pdf
    How to Write American Sign Language by Adrean Clark For all generations of signers. May the past be preserved and the future built. How to Write American Sign Language Copyright © 2012 by Adrean Clark. Published by ASLwrite in Burnsville, Minnesota. www.aslwrite.com Si5s concept by Robert Arnold. Photographs by Julia Dameron and Erik Call. Models (in order of appearance): Julia Dameron, Montrell White, and Amber Zion. ISBN-13: 978-0-9858768-1-4 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book. t Table of Contents Acknowledgments . 4 Introduction . 5 Chapter One: The Digibet . 6 Chapter Two: Diacritics . 19 Chapter Three: Movement Marks . 29 Chapter Four: Locatives . 43 Chapter Five: Extramanual Marks . 53 Chapter Six: Indicators . 63 Chapter Seven: Composition . 73 Resources . 87 Answer Key . 94 Author’s Note: This is a special ebook for free community and educational use. Please check the ASLwrite website for updated content -- and if you come up with something new that benefits written ASL, please do let me know at [email protected]! a Acknowledgments This book would not be possible without the vision of Robert Arnold (si5s.org). His hours spent tutoring me and our time working together on developing this amazing language are much appreciated. He also had valuable input on the contents of this book.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Notation Systems for Machine Translation of Sign Languages
    Analysis of Notation Systems for Machine Translation of Sign Languages Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Bachelor of Science (Honours) of Rhodes University Jessica Jeanne Hutchinson Grahamstown, South Africa November 2012 Abstract Machine translation of sign languages is complicated by the fact that there are few stan- dards for sign languages, both in terms of the actual languages used by signers within regions and dialogue groups, and also in terms of the notations with which sign languages are represented in written form. A standard textual representation of sign languages would aid in optimising the translation process. This area of research still needs to determine the best, most efficient and scalable tech- niques for translation of sign languages. Being a young field of research, there is still great scope for introducing new techniques, or greatly improving on previous techniques, which makes comparing and evaluating the techniques difficult to do. The methods used are factors which contribute to the process of translation and need to be considered in an evaluation of optimising translation systems. This project analyses sign language notation systems; what systems exists, what data is currently available, and which of them might be best suited for machine translation purposes. The question being asked is how using a textual representation of signs could aid machine translation, and which notation would best suit the task. A small corpus of SignWriting data was built and this notation was shown to be the most accessible. The data was cleaned and run through a statistical machine translation system. The results had limitations, but overall are comparable to other translation systems, showing that translation using a notation is possible, but can be greatly improved upon.
    [Show full text]
  • Unicode Character Properties
    Unicode character properties Document #: P1628R0 Date: 2019-06-17 Project: Programming Language C++ Audience: SG-16, LEWG Reply-to: Corentin Jabot <[email protected]> 1 Abstract We propose an API to query the properties of Unicode characters as specified by the Unicode Standard and several Unicode Technical Reports. 2 Motivation This API can be used as a foundation for various Unicode algorithms and Unicode facilities such as Unicode-aware regular expressions. Being able to query the properties of Unicode characters is important for any application hoping to correctly handle any textual content, including compilers and parsers, text editors, graphical applications, databases, messaging applications, etc. static_assert(uni::cp_script('C') == uni::script::latin); static_assert(uni::cp_block(U'[ ') == uni::block::misc_pictographs); static_assert(!uni::cp_is<uni::property::xid_start>('1')); static_assert(uni::cp_is<uni::property::xid_continue>('1')); static_assert(uni::cp_age(U'[ ') == uni::version::v10_0); static_assert(uni::cp_is<uni::property::alphabetic>(U'ß')); static_assert(uni::cp_category(U'∩') == uni::category::sm); static_assert(uni::cp_is<uni::category::lowercase_letter>('a')); static_assert(uni::cp_is<uni::category::letter>('a')); 3 Design Consideration 3.1 constexpr An important design decision of this proposal is that it is fully constexpr. Notably, the presented design allows an implementation to only link the Unicode tables that are actually used by a program. This can reduce considerably the size requirements of an Unicode-aware executable as most applications often depend on a small subset of the Unicode properties. While the complete 1 Unicode database has a substantial memory footprint, developers should not pay for the table they don’t use. It also ensures that developers can enforce a specific version of the Unicode Database at compile time and get a consistent and predictable run-time behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Scripts Project: Statement of Significance and Impact
    Universal Scripts Project: Statement of Significance and Impact The Universal Scripts Project expands the capabilities of the Internet by providing digital access to text materials from a variety of modern and historical cultures whose writing systems are not currently included in the international standard for electronic representation of scripts, known as Unicode. People who write in these scripts find it difficult to use email, compose and send documents electronically, and post documents on the World Wide Web, without relying on nonstandard fonts or other cumbersome workarounds, and are therefore left out of the “technological revolution.” About 66 scripts are currently included in the Unicode standard, but over 80 are not. Some 40 of these missing scripts belong to modern linguistic minorities in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, China, and other countries in Southeast Asia; about 40 are scripts of historical importance. The project’s goal for 2007–2008 is to provide the standards bodies overseeing character sets with proposals for 15 scripts to be included in the Unicode standard. The scripts selected for inclusion include 9 modern minority scripts and 6 historical scripts. The need is urgent, because the entire process, from first proposal to acceptance, typically takes from 2 to 5 years, and support among corporations and national bodies for adding more scripts to Unicode is uncertain. If the proposals are not submitted soon, these user communities will not be able to use their scripts in the near future. The scripts selected for this grant have established scholarly and user-community connections, which will help guarantee that the proposals meet the users' needs.
    [Show full text]