DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 133 91,8 95 EC 080'303 AUTHOR Hoffmeister, Robert J.; And Others TITLE The Parameters of Sign Language Defined: Translation ndDe'finition Rules. Research ReportNo. 83. INSTITUrtW-- Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis. Research, Development, and Demonstration Center in Education. of Handicapped Children.
SPON'S AGENCY Bureau oaf EduCation for the Handicapped (DHEW/OE) , Washingt ,.D .C. REPORT NO 332189 PUB DATE Jan 75 GRANT OEG -09- 332189 -4533 (032) NOTE .---" 46p.; Tor a related document see ED 107 001
EPPS PRICE ME-$0.7.6 HC-$1.95 Plus Postage DESCRIPTORS Aurally Handicapped; *Deaf; Exceptional Child gap Research; Language Development; Language Patterns; *Language Research;?*Linguistics; *Sign Language //--ABSTRACT Presented are rules of sign language structure which have provided a framework for linguistic analysis, ina project tudying the acquisition of ign language by 10 deaf children of deaf parents. Two levels of rule are outlined: definition rules, which deal with definitions ofto s used in the analysis and their rel4tion to terms used in ofer language development studies; and translation rules, which esta principles for transcribing sign language using English glosses and for counting morpheme unite in sign language. Pules are given for the following categries:.basic componentstof sign language (such as signs, fingerspelling, and pointing), compound and complex .signs, notation of diglossia, nonstandard constituents, utterance boundaries, and computational definitions. (LS)
***********************************************************************
* , Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished * materials not available from other sources. EPIC makesevery effort * * to obtain the best copy available". Nevertheless, items of marginal * * reproducibility are often encountered and this affects thequality * *_of *he microfiche and hai.dcopy reproductions ERIC makesavailablg * * .via he rfac Document Reproduction Service (EDPS). EDRS is not ' * * responsible for the quality of the original d=nment/. Reproductions* * supplied by EDPS are the best that can be made froth \the original. ****************************************************4***********t**** ' RESEARCH REPORT # 83
Project No. 332189 ti Grant No. 0E-09-332189-4533 (032)
4 U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION i WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS EEEN'.REPRO- OUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN- ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRE- SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF Ithe Para eters of Sign LanguageDefined: EOUCATION POSITION OR POLICY
Translation and Definition Rules
Robert J. Hcyffineister, Donald F. Moores and Ruth L. Ellenberger University of Minnesota
R search', Development and Demonstration
Center in Education of Handicapped. hildren ;.! Minneapolis, Minnesota
1.41. January 1975
The research reported herein was performedpursuant to a grant. from the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, EduCation, R and Welfare to the"Center.ofResearch and Developmentin Education of Handicapped Children, Department of Special ,Education, University of Minnesota. Contractors undertaking such projects under government sponsorshipare encouraged to express freely their p'rofessional judginentjp the conduct of the project. Points of view or oAnionsstated do not, therefore, necessarilyrepresent official position of the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped.,
Department of Health, Education and Welfare U. S. Office of Education Bureau of Education for the Handicapped
2,6 .111...0 4- Errata 4
Table of Contents:
Rd "14" line 11: For "15" Read "15" line 13: For "16"
line 16: For "18" Read "17"
, line 21: For "24" Rea&123"
---=-
Page 3, Line 21: For 'author's" Read "authors"
Page 4 , ti Siir "phonetic" Read "phonological" line 13: k
Page 8 / line 2: For "deal" Read "deals"
line 6: For "establish" Read "establishes"
Page 15, line 9,TR9B: For "TR1. and TR2 apply"
Read "TR2 applies"
Page 15, line 12, TR9B: f , For "TR 2 and TR3 do"
Read "1R 2 does" 1
Page k7 line 1, TR 11B: I For "TR 8" Read "TR 9" e
Ilk Page 25 line V1, DR P: For "TR 23" Read "TR 24"
...
> Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Review of the Literature 3
Procedure 6
Definition and Translation Rules 7
Basic Components of .Sign Language 8
Signs and Sign Units ti 8
Fingerspelling (Dactplogy) 10
Numbers 12
Pointing 13
Interjection-"Oh" 14
Simultaneous Signs , 15
Multiple Gloss Signs 15
Negation and Affirmation 16
MUltiple Word Gloses. 17
Compound and Complex Signs 4 17
'Compound Signs 18
"Bound Sign Units and Complex Signs 18
Embedded Sign Units . -20
Notation of Diglossia V 23
Informal Interrogatives
Non-Standard Constituents 24
UtteranCe Boundaries -'25
4, Page r putatioaal Definitions 27
Mean Length of Utterance 27
Range Coins . N' A 27
1 Upper Bound 27
Suminqxy 28 References 29
to.
1 ., The Parameters of Sign Language Defined:
Translation and Definitfop Rules
Robert J. Hoffmeister,Donald F. Moores,and Ruth L. Ellenberger
'University of Minnesota
Researchers analyzing the sign systems of deaf individuals
generally have translated signs into a spoken languagefor anglys§
(Tervoort & Verbeck, 1967; Bellugi, 1972;Schlesinger & Meadow,
1972). Winslow states (1973, p. 30) thatmany rese chers "have managed-to present their data in writtenform, but for the most 4 'part neglected to make their transcription rules explicit."The present paper provides guidelines for transcribing signlanguage using English glosses.
Certain terms and measures used in the descriptionof spoken languages may be useful in describing sign languageand its acquisi tion. The present paper, whichemerges from a study of'sign laIguage acquisition by deaf children of deaf parents,also sets forth definitions and conventions which make itpossibletoiapply these terms to sign language.
American Sign Language, the sign language used bythe American deaf, is not a single, clearly defined language.'Rather, the term encompasses a wide range of dialectal and idiolectal variants, difrering in such factorsas formality and'degree of influence from 110,
English but united by a common "phonology" (cherology)and a large shared lexicon, and presumably by syntacticfactors as well. In this paper, the term "sign language" includesthe full range of
4 2
dialectal variants. If a given statement is not applicableto
.sign language-as it is used by themajority of deaf Americans, this
.is so indicated.
Early studies of language acqui,sitionanalyzed child language
in terms of the adult model (S Tobin, 1971)%-Berko's(1958) study
provided a liable alternative to thisapproach:, She found that
children abstracted rules from adultmodels but applied them
through systems of their own, generatingsurface structures that adults
did not produce.
The first words produced by childrenwere fo nd to be nouns,
verbs, and adjectiVes that make reference,compris ngta general or
"open" class of words. Theories emerged whichpost j_ated that chil-
dren's earliest two-word utterances result from a rudimentarysyntax
which involves the combination ofmembers of a small et of restricted
or "pivot" words with words from the larger,more varied "open" set
(Braine, 1963; McNeill, 1966). Bloom (1970), among othprs, has
demonstrated in recent years theinadequacy of the pivo6r-open approach.
She showed that child language involves more than simply theco-occur- ,. .rence of words on a syntactical, level.- Thechild's production of
identical strings of words-withdifferent meanings in different
contexts indict tes that children havean insight into some of the
semantic subtleties of word combinations. Analysis of childkenls
'language has now incorporatedinvestigation of both semantics'anl.
syntax into a more complete descriptionof language acquisition,
dealing with the semantic relationshipsbetween words -in a child's 3
utterances as well as the overt syntactic Structure of the utterances
(BlooM, 1971; Schlesinger,' I. M., 1971a;lBrown, 1973).
It has been theorized that there is an innate, universalcapacity
for language development (Lenneberg, 1967; McNeill, 1970)which governs
'the processes by which language is acquired. Thus, all children learning language progress through fairly predictable stages'whichseem to be similar for all children and for all languages (Brown, 1973,p. 59).
The child, through interaction with adult language models,abstracts the general principles needed for production and comprehensionof the language of the community. The child's interaction involves the imita- tion and reduction of adult utterances and the productionof new utterances according to the rules he has abstracted. The adult iften presents expanded versions of the child's utterances. The child refines his unconscious linguistic rules, increasing theirComplexity,-
ti until, by age four, he knows most of the "essentialpatterns o1 verbal interaction" (Vetter & Howard,.1971) ofhis society. Attainment of adult language is said to,be complete by puberty (Lenneberg, 196t)
It appears any normal child can learn any language if raised in the atpropriate.linguistic environment.
Review of the Literature
In late 1970, when this study began, therewere, to -the author's knowledge, no linguistic investigations of the signlanguage of deaf children of deaf parents in progress. 'Investiga4Tonsof sign language previolis to this time have been concerned withcomparing the educational achievement of children who used signswith that of those who did not.
t' 41 These investigations were usually limited toolder deaf children, and the analysis of language was basedon samples written by the children (Quigley & Vrisina, 1961; Stuckless & Birch, 1966).
Blanton, Odom and Mcintyre's later study (1971)was experimental in nature and produced results not interms of linguistic analysis, but in terms of language processing.' They determYrinthatthe deaf showed better reading retention with material writtenin sign language word order than with material in conventionalEnglish word order, although they did not describe "sign order."
Stokoe (1960) first directed attention tothe linguistic structure of American Sign Language (ASL). In Stokoe's analysis, sign language was reduced.to elements (calledcheremes) paralleling the basic phonetic units (phonemes) ofvocal languages. Just as any spoken Word can be described in terms of its constituentphonemes, any sign can be described in terms of its component cheremes. There are three categories of cheremes: tabula (abbreviated tab)', or hand positfon'in space; designator (dez), or handconfiguration; and signation (sig), or hand movement (Stokoe,Casterline, & CronNrNg.,
1965). A sign (TDs)can be described.by stating its tab (T), dez (D), and sig (s) ehereMes. A change dn one or more of these three cheremic dimehsions changes the sign. This system of analysis allows the . .
Language of signs to be transcribed through 'theuse of a symbol for each possible tab, dez, or sig.
Much new information about sign languagehas resulted from recent 0 studies.Stok5:4 hasproduced a number of articles describing the
I 5
sign order and structure used by deaf adults (Stokoe, 1969-70:1970).
McCall (1965), noting that the sample of signlanguage she analyzed
contained many repeated structures, concluded that signlanguage does/
indeed have its own syntEix and rules whichgovern its production.
This is in agreement with Stokoe's assertionthat sign language is f a language in its own right (Stokoe, 1971).
In a comparison of sign and speech4 Bellugi (1972)noted that
although an individual needlthe same amount of time to convey a
given message in either spee6h or sign, the signed versioncontained
fewer words (signs). She concluded that, although sign language
lacks many of the syntactical markers of English,it conveys the
necessary information by other means (Bellugi, 1972; Bellugi & '
Fischer, 1972). In another study (Bellugi & Siple, 1971) signs
were presented serially with no contextualcues. It was found that
in this short-term memory task, deaf individualsremembered signs
according.tO the dimensionsdescribed by Stokoe (tab, dez, sig).
This memory coding seemed'to be comparableto that d by hearing
people recalling words in similarcontext-free, short- erm memory
tasks.' When hearing subjects were ask to listen to a taped list
of words and then to recite the listas t ey recalled it, most
common errors involved additiOns, deletions, 'Or substitutionsa
the phonemic level means for beans, coat forcoke, etc.).
Similarly, when deaf subjectswere asked to watch a.' filmed series
of unrelated signs and then to repeat thelist, errors were 0 Now 6
generally cheremib. For instance,one subject recarT)d "tea"when
"vote" had been signed; these signshave the same tab kand dez but
have different rigs. This suggests that, for rote short-termrecall
tasks, both speech and signare coded accordi4ig to comparable
e , structural constituents, phonemes andcheer es.
In addition to their study of adults'use Of sign language,
which has included the explorationof sign verbs and of tense and
aspect in sign (Frishberg, 1972; Fischer& Gough, 1971), Bellugi and
her associates began an investigationof the sign language of deaf
children of deaf parents. Preliminary.reports have been completed
on the development of questions and negation (Lacy,1972 a,b).
Finally, Schlesinger (1971b)concluded that Israeli sign
langUage has no agreed-uponstructure among different signers.
However, Bonvillian and Charrow (1972)question the results of this
study. Since'many Israeli signers haverecently come frOm other
countries, "Israeli sign language"is probably not yet a unified
language system.
Procedure
The procedures followed in thisstudy were modifications of
those of Brown andFraser (1963). Equipment consisted of a Sony 3400 p rtable videotape recorder to film the visuallanguage. The setting was always inthe child's home. It was restricted toone
area of the house being visited, dueto lighting conditions and the weight o the machinery. The authors concur with Brownand iFraser's (1963) statement that le confined space did notrestriq
1 4.
7
collectionaof sample utterances.
Either the mother or one of the investigatorsacted aaa
playmate for the child. Data was gathered through observation of
the linguistic interactions of adult andchild.
In order to be included in the study,a child had to have an
average loss of at least 70 db ISO in thebetter ear. These chil-
dren would be unlikely to rely primarilyon audition for communication.
The parents had to be deaf or hard ofhearing. Communication between
parent and child had to fe throUgh signlanguage, or sign language
plus speech.Using these criteria, ten deafchildren of deaf parents
were identified. For more complete informationon procedures and in-
formation obtained, the reader is referred to Hoffmeisber,, Moores, and Best (1974).
Definition aid Translation Rules
Analysis of sign language data presentsa unique problem.
Sign lahgUage has no written form and ---- cannot be transcribed using -
conventional phonological approaches. Since Stokoe's sign tran-
scription syptem is cumbersome,each sign was translated into its
closest English equivalent. The same English glos;was used for
all occurrences of any given sign. The English-gloss is merelya
symbol for the sign; the sign is generallyneither syntactically
nor semantically equivalent to its Englishgloss. -
,Exact translation was seldom possible. Therefore, the
rules described in thisvpaperwere developed to faailitate inter-
pretation and ana1Stsi of the data. 04 8 ,
Two levels f rules are involved in this analysis of sign . t anguage. The first level, the definition rules (DR), deal with
) :Ow definitions of terms used, in the analys s and their relationto'
terms used in other language develapment studies. Within the
frameworl established by the DR, the second level, thetranslation
rules (TR), establish principles for 1) transcribing sign language
using English glosses and 2) counting morpheme units in sign.lan-
. This makes possible the calculation of mean length'of A utterances (MLU), range counts and upper bound (Brown, 1973).
. These rules constitute a preliminary effort to describe-sigmlan-
. guage. They should not be regarded as '-t.Dee'Telinitiyeor
exhaustive.
"1/44, Basic 'Components of,Sign Language
)1 Siens.and Sign Units
1 4: In Spoken language, a. or eme is considered ,to be the "minimal
. .12114ofyntax in a language, a unit from,-Which wordsare formed"
'(Faik, 1073, p. 26). Mckphemes are, ihe smallest linguistic units
which carry meaning. .
The:smallest descT*1 s of sign language are the cheremes, f described above: Howeyel-, like phonemes,they are nonmeaningful
DR A: F The minimallneaningful unit of sign language isthe.
unit,' defined as, the smallest meaningful co-Occurfence -Do
(TD s) of del (D), and,sig,(s) cheremes. '(A few
bound si units consist of a single Chertmeeach [see r a
I 9
Compound anComplex Signs].) A change'in any constituent
chereme indicat s a change iithe meaning and identity of
the who unit. (Refer to Stokoe, et al:, 1965, fora
more de ailed explanation.)
DR B: A sign unit is equivalent to a morpheme.
In the following examples, X, Y, and Z will represent
sign units. 31, DR e: A sign, is a symbol composed of one or more sign units.
In the following examples, A, B, and C will represent
signs.
TR 1: In calculating MLU, range count, and upper bound,
each sign unit will be counted as one sign unit
(morpheme). (Exceptions.are described in the
appropriate translation rules.)
TR 2: In calculating MU, range count, and upper bound OD,;,
for children, only one performance ofa
sign will be included if the sign is repeated
without' interruption or change of addressee.
A +'A = 1 sign
Sign units are then counted according to TR 1.
NOTE: In adult sign language, repetition ofa sign is often meaningful
Fischer & Gough, 1971). TR 2 was developed because children acquiring
,sign language often repeat signs without apparent significance. It is frequently impdssible to deter ne whether or not the repetition is meaningful/4 10
TR 3: If two performances4of a sign are separated bya
change of addressee, different sign, interruption,
or utterance boundary,(see DR Q), each performance
will be included.in calculating M1M,range count,
and upper bound.
([ ) represents a 9hange of addressee,inter-
ruption, or utterance boundary.)
A + [ J + A = two signs
k + B + A = three,signs
Signs unite are then: counted according to TR 1. 'If
the sign'is performed more than once either before
or after the change of addressee, different sign,
interruption, or utterance boundary, TR 2 applies.
A +A+ [I +A+A= two signs A +A+B+A+A=three signs
Fingerspelling (Dactylology)
The manual alphabet (fingerspelling) isa set of "digital symbols which stand in a ode` to one relationship with theletters of the English alphabet" (Stokoe, 1960, p. 33). This alphabet is generally used as a supplement to morphemic signs. Common two--and three-letter words, proper names, English words for which no sign exists,or words for which'two signers have no common signmay be fingerspelled. In addition, many signs have as their dez one of the manual alphabet handshapes.
For example, name signs for familiar peopleoften involve touching the
it) tt.
11 alphabetic hand shape for that person's initial tosome part Of the face or upper dy. Such a sign is not recognized throughoutthe deaf community but has meaning within a fily or a group of acquaint- ances.
DR D: Fingerspelling is the one to one correspondence ofa digital
e'symbol'to a letter of the English alphabetor the ampersand.
TR 4: ,Fingerspelling
A. Fingerspelling will 14e transcribed with hyphen\s
between the letters, e.g., s-w-i-n-g. Each co -
plete fingerspelled morpheme of English will be
counted as one sign unit. A fingerspelled mor-'
pheme will .be regarded as complete, even ifin-
correctly or incompletely spelled, if the in-
tended morpheme can be determined without ambiguity.
Isolated fingerspelled letters without apparent
meaning will not be counted in calculating MW,
range count, and supper bound.
s- w -i -n -g one sign unit
c-a-t-s = two sign units
B. The fingerspelled a, used as an article, will be
counted as one sign unit.
+ dog = two sign units
TR 5: Proper Names
Proper names are often signed by touching the hand
configuration for the first letter of the name tosome
1,, er.
`12
part of the upper body. Fingerspylled letters
indicating proper names will be transcribed in
capitals. A proper name Will be count'ed as one
sign unit.
J (Johnd = one sign unit
J S (John. Smith) = two sign units
NOTE: Words in parenthcses are interpretations
of the gloss.
Numbers
Numbers are similar to fingerspelling in that there isa one to one correspondence between the sign on the hand and the number intended.
Children sometimes learn number'sequences byrote memorization, without understanding the number concepts. When a number-sequence is produced by a young child, it is often impossibleto determine whether the child knows the underlying conceptsor not. et'
TR 6: NuMberS
A. T9e signs for numbers from zero to ten and for,
twenty will each be counted as one sign unit.
Numbers above ten, except-twenty, willfollow
the conventions for compound signs. '"(See
DR G, TR 13)
3 = one sign unit
B. The performance of a sequence ofnumbers =
e.g:, etc. will be transcribed with
hyphens between the numbers and will becounted
t 13
as one sign unit unless there is evidence(see
below, TR 6C) that the child is using the numbers
meaningfully. (This is an exception to TR 6A.)
k = one sign unit
1 For an adult, each number of Ole sequence will
P be considered one sign. ,7 C. If the child i5Fountingyspectfic objects or
gives other indications that the counting is
not rote, each number will be considered one
sign.
Pointing (Indexic Reference)
The following rules. are intended to differentiate 4mong the
various uses of pointing. The pointing action appears-to be used
with differential meaning (Hoffmeister & Moorei, 1973).These meanings
riclude a proximal-distal distinction (specific reference and location);
singularity; plurality and conjunction (by multiple pointing); and
'personal and demonstrative pronouns. Multiple pointing directed_
toward a grOup of objects may indicate plurality.Pointing consecu-
tively:at different objects may denote conjunction.
TR 7: Pointing
A. Any pointing action, single or repeated, toward
a single object is counted as one sign unit.
Any multiple pointing action toward a group of
objects is counted as two sigh units. (Note:
This is an exception to TR 2.) Each individual
15 14
pointing action consecutively presented, when
directed at different objects not in a *group,
,...... is counted as One ,sign unit.
pt. (book) = One sign unit
pt. pt. (book) = one sign unit
pt, pt. pt. (group of objects) = two sign units
pt. (cat) + pt. (dog) = two sign units
NOTE: TR 3 applies when pointing is interrupted., .0
B. Pointing actions when addressed topersons within
the immediate.- environment are considered to be
personal pronouns. These pointing actions follow
TR 7A.
pt. (me) = one sign unit,
pt. pt. (me) = one sign unit.
"Interjection "oh"
The interjection glossed as "oh" is semanticallyquite different
from its closest English equivalent. The s'gn usually means "Oh, I
understand" or "Oh, is that so"; it seldom functionsas a semantically
neutral filler.
TR 8: Interjection'
'he ,interjection sign glossed as "AV. will becounted
as orre sign unit.
Simultaneous Signs,
In the language of signs, the sendercan indicate two morphemes
at the same time.,One 'sign may be' given on the left hand:Williea 4
15 different sign is given on the right hand. (See also TR 11.)
TR 9: Simultaneous use of signs
A. When one sign occurs on one hand and a different
sign occurs on the other, they are considered.
to be two separate simultaneous signs. These will
.11 be transcribed as follows:
A = two signs
C cat =two signs pt.
B. ,TR 1 and TR 2 apply to repetitions of simultaneous
Sign combinations.
cat cat = two signs pt. pt.
TR 2 and TR 3 to not apply to a simultaneous sign 0 combination which precedes or'followsa, performance
of one of the component signs.
cat cat = three signs pt.
Multiple-Gloss Signs
TR 10: Multiple-gloss signs
When Sign having several possible distinctly different
English glosses is used, all the possible glosses
I 1 shall-,be listed in braces and considered one sign. ( (bed = one sign (sleep
Negation and Affirmation
Negation in sign language can be indicated in severalways: By a
2 -1 , 16
simple' shaking of the'head to indicate "no,"by fingerspelling, or 0 by signs glossed as"no,"' "don't," "can't," "not,"etc.
The negative head shake (noN) )may be the only negative sign in
an utterare, or it may occur along with othernegative signI. 'It
may precede or follow the utterance it negates,or it may occur
simultanieously with all or part of thatutterance.
44- There are several affirmative signs havingdifferent glosses in
English ("yes," "OK," "true," etcl) whichmay affirm the utterance much
, N N as negative signs negate it. The "yes" nod (Yes), like no, can
appear in various positions in the utterance,with Or without other
affirmative signs, and may be performedsimultaneously with other
sign units. Therefore, the same conventions willapply to the
counting of negative and affirmative signs.
Affirmatives in sign have a number ofother, functions. For example,'the sign glossed "true," which Oftenfunctions as an affir mative, acts as the equivalent of "there is"in an existential sense. N N TR 11: No and Yes
N A. Yes and nowill each be counted asone sign
unit. This isan exception to DR A in that yesN N - and no are head movements, not manual signs,
and so are not composed of tab, dez,andysign'
cheremes.
yes = one sign unit
no = one sign unit
N N B. Yes and no are both frequently performed simul,
taneously with other signs. Wheq this occurs, 17 (.1 TR 8 applies.
N No A - two signs,
N Yes - two signs B
C. Some signs having negative meaningsare glossed
with English contractions (can't,don't,.won't).
The signs themselves are not contractions,but
single sign units.
can't = one sign unit
won't = one sign unit
Multiple-Word Glosses
TR 12: When the gloss for one sign consists ofmore than
one English word, that'gloss will be enclosed by
quotation marks and will be consideredonesign..
"turn around" = one sign
Compound and'Complex Signs
In spoken languages, a free morphemeis one which can occur alone. A bouhd morpheme occurs only in combinationwith other morphemes. Sign language u has both free and bound sign units.
DR A sign unit (e.g., dog, run) whichpan occur in isolatiIn is a
free sign unit.
DR F: A sign unit which-occurs only in combinationwith. other sign units is
a bound sign unit. A bound sign unit may be composed ofa single
chereme. 4e,
Compound Signs
DR G: A sign composed of twoor more free sign units is a compound'sign.
1 I
2t; t" 18
Many compound signs consist of the simple co-occurrence, in linear order,
of sign units which'are meaningful in isolation.* For example, the sign
glossed as "today" is a compound composed of the sign unit for "now"and
the sign unit for "day." "Teacher" consists of the sign units "teach"
and "person." Other compounds have undergone change through cheremic
assimilation. Thus, in formal usage "brother" is a compound of the sign ,'
units "boy" and "same." 'Although the two sign units donot have the same
dez, in informal usage assimilation has occurred; and the first, element
of the compound has taken on the dez of the second element.
TR 13: F011owihg Brown (1973,p. 54, rule #5), any compound
sign will be counted as one sign unit in calculating
MLU, range count, and upper bound for children..
it brother = one sign unit
remember = one sign unit
teacl er =, one sign unit
in calculating MLU for adults, each component sign unit
of a compound will be counted.
Bound Sign Units and Complex Signs
Common bound sign urIits include the comparative and superlative ._
markers, which are,disely equivalent to English-er and -est. These
sign units have/tab, dez, and sig butare performed onl in combination with
,other sign units. A bound sign unit may, however,co Gist of a single *sat
chereme. FOr example, past or futufe"timemay be indicated by adding a sig
(motion to and the siTler for past; motionaway from the signer for future) 11 to the sig for a unit of time (week, year, etc.): "next week,""last year." 19
Although a free sign unit closely equivalent English "not"
exists, certain sign verbs can be negated by the addition ofa sig
unit which is semantically equivalent to "not' but formationall
unrelated. This sign unit (sig only') cons s of a pronating 'otation
of the hand, sometimes accompanied by moion away from the signer, which
is added to or substituted for the siof the stem sign. The following
verbs may be negated in this way: "know," "like," "want,", and, according
to Woodward (1974), "have."
Some of the bound morphemes of English (-ed, -ing, -s,.-ment, etc.)
'may be represented in sign language throughfingerspelling or sign
units, many of them recent coinages. Most of these representations of
English forms are not in frequent use by the Majority of deafsigners,
although they may be used by deaf individuals whoare fluent in English.
These formsrare commonly used in classes for the deafand therefore
Appear in the sign language of some of the children in this study. A
s?gn consisting of a stem sign plus a fingerspelledor signed represen- . tation of an English affix will be rega'dedas a complex sign (see
DR K).
DR H: The sigs "motion toward signe42' and "motionaway from signer"
(Stokoe et al., 1965) may be addedto sign units indicating
units of time (week, year, etc.) to sigriify past orfuture aki
time. When so used, these sigs will be considered,bound sign rL units.
DR I: Certain verb sign units may be negated by theaddition of the
sig "pronating rotation" (Stokoe et al., 1965). When so used, 20
this sig will be considered a bound sign unit.
NOTE: The addition of a sig, as described in and DR I, may entail
changes in the sig of the base sign unit.'
DR J: Any fingerspelled or signed representation of an English bound .
morpheme will be considered a bound sign unit.
DR K: sign composed of free and bound sign units isa complex
sign0
TR 14:r-Following Brown (1973,p. 54, rule #8) each sign unit,
free and bound, in a complex sign will be countedfor
calculating MLU, range count, -andupper bound for
children.
stronger = two sign units
dog -s = two sign units
"don't know" = two sign units A
"next week" = two sign units
Embedded Sign Units
The sign units representing the numbersfrom 0 to 9 are atypical
free sign units in that only their dezcheremes are significant. Their
. tab is neutral (0: "The space in front-ofsigne0C4odywhere hand s .
movement is easy and natural" Stokoe, 1960;p. 71.) andthey' haveno
sig (motion). In addition, there are two bound signunits, the
reflexive and possessive pronoun inflections,which consist of dez
only (A- dez and B - dez, respectively; see Stokoe et al., 1965).
In certain cases, a compound or complex signmay be formed by,
substituting the'dez of a sign unit suchas those described above for 21
the dez of another sign unit. Thus, the compound "two 'weeks" is
formed by substituting the dez of the sign unit "two"fox-the dez of
"week." The complex sign "my" results from the substitutionof the
dez indicating possessive meaning for thedez of the pronoun "me"
(see TR 6B). In effect, one sign unit is,embeddedwithin another.
DR L: The dez B and A (see Stokoe et al., 1965),when used to add
possessive and reflexiVe meaning, respectively,to pronouns,
will each be considereda bound sign unit.
DR M: For certain sign units, the dez iseither their only chereme
or their only significant chereme. If one of these sign unitidA
is substitutil for the dez of anothersign unit, it is4i'aLled
an embedded sign unit. An embedded'sign unit may be either 0 free (e.g., number signs)or bounds (e.g.*, possessive and
reflexive markers).
DR N: A sign containing an embedded freesign unit will be considered E a compound sign. Such a compound Mill beDcalleda cordpound
(compound with embedding).
E TR 15: -A compoundwill be counted in accordance with TR13.
An example of a compound is "two weeks."
DR 0: A sign containing an embedded boundsign unit will be considered
E a complex sign. Such a complex sign will be calleda complex complex with embedding).
TR 16: complexEwill be counted in accordance withTR 14: E Examples of complex'sinclude "my" and "myself."
2, 14 ) 22
NOTE: A complex sign may have a.compound base. Thes, thecodex
sign "twq weeks ago" involves theqition ofthe bound E morpheme "past".(see DR G) to the compound"two weeks."
Certain verb sign units can, by modification ofthe sig, be
inflected for subje and objeCt (e.g., show can become I show you)
(Stokoe, et.al., 1965,p. 281) or'can incorporate location (look
can become look over there) (Fischer & Gough, 1971). This process,
,which cancreate a full sentence from a single sign unitstem, isi
not strictly a maqhological process but does involveboth morph°- . logy and sNatax. In this context, as Moores (1974) has pointedout,
a young nal child, operating with a single sign unit (e.g., show)
can communicate sophisticated syntactic and semantic relationships
(I shoal, I show them,you show me, etc.).
, However,r, in analyzing's. child's lan'geage, it is often extremely N,es, ov difficult to with confidenae whether such inflectionsand
locatives actually are present ina given utterance. If we were to %t. . . follow..a,tendency toward "rich interpretation"there would be a
danger q_reading too much intohe children's utterances. 'If we
were to:iknore these constructions then importantelements of the
child,!'S communication system wouldbe deemphasized. a
,----- After serious egnsideration, andsome very active disagreement,,)
theauthors decided to maintain their somewhat tenuouAcommitment 4*. tO'the Law of Pargimony, pendingmore intensive study yf the question
o'f,modification of verb sign units,which will be presented at
2c) 23
tzz date. Therefore an occurrence of such a verb will be transcribed.
in accordance with TR 12 and will be counted as a single sign unit.
,Notat/6n of Diglossia
1..ho In many cases, two or more signs exist which are semantically equivalent or nearly so. Often one sign.occurs in more formal sign dialects,and,another in less formal ones.
TR 17: :If distinct formal and informal signs exist for a
single meaning, the Ziglish gloss will be followed
by a.raised "F" or "I" to indicate which form is
used. If both /forms are used in succession,jch
will be 'Considered one sign. F red'+ red = two signs
Informal Interrogatii.res
TR 18: The same TDs occurs in the informal sign units
glossed "what'" and "where'." When the TD}, is
' accompanied y side-to-side head or eye movements,
I " s it will be glossed "where. When the TD is not
accompanied by the movements, it mill be glossed
"what ."What' and where'will each be counted as
one sign unit.'
that'= one sign unit
wherJ= one sign unit
NOTE: This is an exception to DR A in that criteria other than tab,
? dez, and sig are used,to dsfine.the sign unit.
Nonstandard Constituents
s A TDcannot be given for pantomime, as the movements involved in
2F; 21
pantomime cannot be analyzed into cheremic components.Pantomime
Therefore is not included in the definitions of sign unit and sign dr (DR A, B, C).
TR 19: 'pantomime and Gestures
A. Pantomime, which cannot be broken down into
identifiable constituent sign Units, will not,
be counted in the computation of MLU,range
count, or upper bound.
B. The boundary or distinction,between a sign and
a gesture has not been clearly defined in any of
the literature to date..If a gesture is seman-
. ,x tically unambiguous and can be transcribed/asa
single TDs ih Stokoe's nototion, it will be
counted as one sign unit.
sh (quiet) = one sign unit
TR 20: Anynonstandard sign (other thana proper name)
created by a sub4ect to indicate a referent will
be considered one sign and transcribed, underlined
and placed'in.quotation marks. A description of
the'sign will be given in the margin of the transcript.
= one sign
NOTE: Such signs were prevalent in the children'ssamples. These may
be `Similar to the sounds ornonstandard "words" very 10" young
hearing children sometimes use to indicatefamiliar,objects.
3 I, 25
Utterance Boundaries
The segmentation of sequences of signs-into utterances isa difficult process. Clear-cut utterance boundaries exist when long pausesofattention devices (see TR 24) are used. However, often the only indication of an utterance boundary isa very brief pause in which the signer's hands relax somewhat,and often drop 'below chest level,.
DR P: Utterances
An utterance is a set of consecutive signs terminating with
a pause :that is long enough to indicate completion or terminating
with an attention device (TR 23).
.TR 21: Utterance boundaries are indicated with a dash as
follows:
-X+Y+X-A+B+C- = two utterances.;
TR 22: Repetition of sign sequences
A. *When an utterance consists ofone sign sequence e whicii is repeated, only-the firstoccurrence of
the sequende will be used in calculating MLU,
range count, and upper bound.
NOTE: This rule only applies when the repetitionor repetitions ara
identical to the original sequence. This rule does not apply
when the phrase contains signs other than the repeatedsequence. +B+A+B- = two signs/one utterance
- me + want + me + want - = two signs/one utterance
- A + B +'A +B+Cs:- = five signs/one utterance
- me + want + me + want + cookie- =five signs/one utterance
:3 26
B. If an utterance is repeated after interruption by
a pause, attention device, or other utterance, or
the addressee changes', the repeated utterance will
be included in the calculation of MLU, range count,'
and upper bound.
-A+B+C- [ ] -A+B+C- = six signs
NOTE; An utterance repeated f011owing_a pause or interruption may or
may not function as a new "sentence." Since the intention of
the signer (in this case a child) cannot be definitely determined,
. an identical utterance repetition after a pause or interruption
will be counted as a new utterance.The repeated utterance may
act to bring the receiver back to where the signer had been prior 1. to the- pause or iVerruption.
TR'23: Incomplete utterances
Utterances containing one'or morentelligible signs
will not be counted,in calculating MLU, range count,
or upper bound:
TR 24':' Attention Devices:. ,
Any attention-calling device will be transcribed but
not counted as a sign unit. These devices--i-.e.; tapping,
someone's shoulder, banging on the floor, or waving
arms--will be transcribed in square brackets.
[taps] = 0 sign.units
iit 27
Computational Definitions
Mean Length of Utterance (MLU)
The,MLU is the average number of.sign units per utterance.
"Start with the second page of the transcription unless that
page involves a recitation of(some kind. In the latter case,
start with the first recitation -free, stretch" (Brown, 1973,
p. 54). The first 100 utterances which satisfy the preceding
_translation rules are counted. Sign unitsare counted in accord- . afEe with these rules.
I DR R: Range Count
The range count follows the above rule forMLU "but is always
calculated for the t&tal transFription, rather than for 190
utterances" (Brown, 1973, p. 54).
DR' S: Upper Bound
The longest utterance per transcription is considered to be
the upper bdund (Brown, 1973, p. 54).
4, 28*.
Summary
Because the study of acquisition of sign language has been 4 undertaken only in recent years and because analysis ofa visual- motor communication system presents to some extant differentproblems than analysis of an auditory-vocal one, aets of rules by which-the authors are analyzing their data are presented. Two levels of rules, involving various spects of sign language structure, particularly morphology, are outlined:
a) Definition Rules.These rules deal with definitions of
terms used in the analysis and their relation to terms used
in other language development studies.
b) Translation Rules. These rules establish principles for
transcribing sign language using English glosges and for
counting morpheme units in sign language.
The rulesihave provided a framework for linguistic analysisin a project studying the acquisition of sign language by deaf children of deaf parents. It is within this framework that the results of the project should be interpreted. The authors believe that such an approach has facilitated comparison.of sign language and spokenlanguage acquisition. If this also proves tp be of value to others involved in the linguiatic"study of sign language, it will bean added :benefit,
3 29
References-
Bellugi, U. Studies in sign language. In T. O'Rourke (ed.),
Psycholinguistics and total communication: The state of the
art. Washington, D.C.:American Annals of the Deaf, 1972.
Bellugi, U., & Fischer, S. Comparison of the rate of sign language
and-spoken language. The Salk Institute of Biological Studies,
Unpublished manuscript, 1972.
Bellugi, U., & Siple; P. Remembering with and Without-words.
The Salk Institute of Biological Studies. Unpublished manuscript,
December, 1971.
Berko, J. 'The child's, learning of English morphology, Word,1958,
14, 150-177.
;; Blanton,R. Odom, P., & McIntyre, C. Symbolic and linguistic processes
in the deaf. Final Report, Social Rehabilitative Services Research
Grant #RD - 2552 - S, Vanderbil:t,University, July, 1971.
Bloom, L. Language development: Form and function in emerging r grammars. Cambridge, Mdss.: The M.I.T. Press, 1970.
Bloom, L. Why not pivot grammar. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,
1971, 36, 40-50,
Bonvillian, J., & Charrow, V. Psycholinguistic implications if deafness:
A. review. Institute for Mathematical Studies, Technical Report #188,
Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University, July, 1972.
Braine, M. The ontogeny of English phrase structure: The first phase.
Language, 1963, -39, 1-13. 30
Brown, R. A first language.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniVersity
Press, 1973.
Brown, R. & Fraser, C. The acquisition of syntax in verbal behavior
and learning. In C. Cofer & B. Mubgrave (Eds.),Problems and
processes. New York: McGraw Hill Co., 1963.
Falk, J. Linguistics and langua&e.Lexington, Mass.: Xerox
College Publishing, 1973.
Fischer, S. & Gough, B. Verbs in American sign language.The Salk
Institute of Biological Studies. Unpublished manuscript,1971.
Frishberg, N. Development of tense and aspect in Americansign.
The Salk Institute of Biological Studies,Unpublished manuscript,
1972. hoffmeister, R., Moores, D., &Best, B. The acquisition of sign
language in deaf children of deaf parents, ProgressReport.
Research Report #65, Research, Development andDemonstration Center,
in Education of Handicapped Children, Universityof Minnesota,
June; 1974.
Hoffmeister, R.'& Moores, D. The acquisition of specific reference in
a deaf child of deaf parents. Research Report #53, Research,
Development and Demonstration Center in Zducationof Handicapped
Children, University of 'Minnesota, 1973.
Lacy:R. Development of Pola's question.The Salk Institute of V. Biological Studies, 1972a. (working paper)
Lacy, R..Development cf Sonia's negation. The Salk Institute of
Biological Studies, 1972b. (working paper)
3 6 31 Lenneberg, E. The biological foundation of language. New York:
John Wiley, 1967.
C N McCall, E. A generative grammar of sign. Unpublished master's thesis,
University of Iowa, 1965.
McNeill, D. .Develbpmental psycholinguistics. In F. Smith & G. A.
Miller'(Eds.), The genesis oflanguage: A psycholinguistic approach.
Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1966.
McNeill, D. The acquisition of language. New York.: Harper and Row, 1970.
Moores, D.1Non-vocal systems of verbal behavior. In R. Schiefelbusch
and L. Lloyd (Eds.), Language perspectives: Acquisition, retardation,
and intervention. Baltimore:" University Park Press, 1974.
Quigley, S., & Frisina, R. Institutionalization and psycho- educational.
,development in deaf children.' Washington, D.C.: . Council for
Exceptional Children, 1961.
Schlesinger, H., & Meadow, K."Sound and sign: Childhood deafness and
mental health. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.
Schlesinger, I. M. Production of utterances and language acquisition.
In D. Slobin (Ed.)., The onto5.enesis ofgrammar. New York:, Academic
Press, 1971, 63-102. (a)
Schlesinger,,I. M. The grammar of sign language and the problemof
universals. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the Israel
Institute of applied Social Research, Manuscript1971. (b)
Slobin, D. Psycholinguistics. Berkeley: University of California, 1971.
Stokoe, W. Jr. Sign language structure: An outline of the structure of a
. - visual language. Occasional Paper #8, Studies 1:6 Linguistics, 1960. 32
Stokoe, W. Jr. Sign as language. Unpubli/shed manuscript, Gallaudet
'College, Linguistics Research Laboratory,'December,1971. , a Stokoe, W. Jr. Sign language diglossiaL Studies in Linguistics,
1970, 21, 27-41.
Stokoe, W. Jr. The study of sign language. Arlington, Va., 1970
(ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo.ED 037 719)
Stokoe, W. Jr.,Caster-line, D., Croneberg, C.. A dictionary of
American sign language. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet College
Press, 1965.
Stuckless, R., & Birch, J. The influence of early manuial communication
on the linguistic development of deaf children. American Annals
of the Deaf, 1966, 111, 452-460 (Part I),and 499-504 (Part 2).
Tervoort, B,, & Verbeck, A. Analysis of communication structure
- pattern in deaf children. Final Report, Department of Vocational
Rehabilitation, RD-467-64-65, Washington,D.C.: Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, 1967.
Vetter, H., & Howard, R. Theories of language acquisition. Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research', 1971, 1, 31-64.
Winslow, L. Learning to see a language. Unpublishedundergraduate
honors thesis, Harvard University, 1973.
Woodward, J. Implicational variations in American signlanguage:
Negative incorporation. Sign Language Studies, 1974, 5, 20-30.
0
38 TECHNICAL REPORTS University of Minnesota(Place Research, of publication Development shown and in parentheses-where applicable) Center in Education of Handicapped Children 9 Demonstration B.K. Egeland,Hesse, R. 1;4ozniak & A. Thibodeau.', Vfsual tarded children: J. Turnure & N. Buium. A review and analysis. The 'comprehension and production of interrogatives Occasional Paper 1132. January 1975. in the language of normal and re- R. Hoffmeister, D. Moores & R. Ellenberger. Researchment Report 1183. Report #3. January ,1975. January 1975. The parameters of signinformation language deftned: processing training program experimental version. Translation and definition rules. Develop- D.J. Moores,Turnure, M. N. Goodwin Buium & K. Weiss. concdptual complexities. Thurlow. Research Report #82. The production deficiency model of verbal elaboration: January 1975. Some contrary findings and D. Moores, S. Fisher & M. Harlow. #80.Rdport 1181. DeceMber 1974. December 1974. Post-secondaryEvaluation of programsprograms forfor hearingthe deaf: impaired children: VI. Summary and Guidelines. Report of 1973-74. Research RepOrt Research M.R. Harlow, Wozniak. S. Fisher & D. Moores. December#79. 1974. December 1974. Psychology and education of the learning disabled child in die Post-secondary programs for the deaf: V. Soviet Union. Follow-UpData Analysis. Research Report,1 /78. Research Report M.M. Thurlow, Thurlow, P. P. Krus, Krus, R. R. Howe, Howe, A. A,. Taylor Taylor & J.& J.Turnure. Turnure.Report #77. December 1974. MoneyMeasureuent Unit: of Weight Unit: A formative evaluation. A formative evaluation. Research*.Report 076.A6 Research M. Harlow, D. Moores & S. Fisher. #75.December 1974. December 1974. Post-secondary programs for the deaf: 4 IV! Empirical Data Analysis. 'Research Report Initial field test and feasibility study of the'hypothesis/test word recognition procedures ss C.P. Mueller & S. Samuels. Krus, M. Thurlow, J.Measurement inTurnure the special & andA. Taylor.Timeeducation Program. ,Summative classroom. Reseal-6h Report #73 Research Report #74. evaluation of the Time Octoberwith the 1974. Clock Units of the December 1974. Money, 'P. Krus, >1. Measurement and I Aurlow, TieJ. Turnure-& Program. A. Taylor. Research Report #72Summative . evaluation of the MeasurementOctober 1974. of Weight Unit of the Money, Krus, M. Thurlow, Measurement and TimeJ. Turnure Program. & A. Taylor. Reseac.ch Report #71Summative evaluation of the Money Unit of the Money, evaluation of the'October Measurement 1974. of Length Unit Measurement, and of the Money, P. Krus, M. Thurlow, J. Turnure,Turnure &A. A. Taylor Taylor. & R. Howe.Project.Time Program. Occasional Paper #31. Research Report #70. October 1974. October 1974. The formative evaluation design of the Vocabulary Development J. Rynders, J., Horrobin, L. Wangsness- & J: Swanson.Down's Syndrome (mongoloid) children. Research Report #69. The severe nature of verbal learning deficits in August 1974. preschool C7TIA S.R. Riegel.Fisher, D. Moores & M. Harlow. 1168. August 1974.Reliabiliity of children's sorting strategies using alternate forms of the SORTS Post-secondary programs for the deaf: III.. Internal view. test: Research Report 1167. hesearch.Report W. Bart. SepteMber, 197 A. set-theo rtetic model'fOr the behaVioral classification of environments. Occasional Paper #28. Occasional Paper #29.July 1974. July 1974. R:E.D. EgelandHoffmeister,'B.Krus, W. & 'BartA. Thiboded'u. & P. AirAiar. Best & D. Moores. .Selective a'ttention of impulsive and reflective children.Ordering, theory and methods. The acquisition of sign language in deaf children of deaf parents: Research Report 1166., July 1974. Progress P. Krus. Report.to seven. Use of family,history data to predict intellectualResearch Report and #65.Research Rerport 1/64., June 1974. June 1974. educational functioning longitudinally from ages four, 6 J.P..Krus. Rondal. June 1974. -Analyzing The role of speech in the regulation of behavior. or individual differences in evaluating compensatory education programs. Research Report #63. June 1974. Occasional Paper #27. N.S. Buium, Fisher, J. M.Rynd Harlow rs & &J. D, Turnure. Moores. Down's Syndr ine childreb: Implication fora language enhancementPost-secondary program.A semantic-relational-concepts programs for the deaf:. based theory of Inguage acquisition as applied to II. External view. Research Report #62. Research Report #61. May..1974. ,D. Moores, M. Harlow & S. Fishel=746PoSt-secondary programsMarch#60.' for 1974. theFebruary deaf: 1974. m- I. Introduction and overview.'ResearchiReport -D. Krus. S. Samuels, J. Spiroff & H. Singer. #25. Synopsis Marchof basic 1974. theory-and techniques of order analysis. Effect of pictures and contextual conditions on learning to read. Occasional Paper #26. V April 1974. Occasional Paper N.A. BuiumTaylor, & J.M. Turnure.Thurlow & J. Turnure. Researchchildren. Report' #58. Research Report #59. The universality of self-generatedJanuary verbal 1974. mediators as a means of enhancing memory processes. ElaborationMarch as an1974. instructional technique in the vocabulary development of EMR J.D. Moores,Turnure K.& W.Weiss Charlesworth, &1.1. Goodwin. D. Moores, J. Rynders,'AssociationReport M. Ho #57.Symposium Papers. December-1973. EvaluationOccasional of programs Paper #24. for hearingrobin, impaired S-:-ASamuels,ecember children: 1973. & R. Wozniak. Report of 1972-73. American Psychological Research N. Buium. - Report #56. Interrogative types of parental-s*eth to languages learning children:December 1973. 4**4 , g _ rn . a linguistic universal? Research . ,D. Krus.D. Krus., OrderAn-outline analysis: of the basic concepts of order. analysis. A fortran progreiNovember for 1973. generalizable multidimensional analysis of binary data matrices. p multidimensionalOccasional Paper #23. February 1974. Occasional Paper #22. -1, . J.W, Bart.Turnure & M. Thuvlow.- The p4F udo=problem of IQ. 4. Verbal elaboration and the enhancement . Occgional Paper #21. Octo4r 1973. of language abilities - .. in the mentallyretarded: P. Dahl, .... of interrogative sentence-forms.Samuels &..T. Archwamety. I . Occasio991 PapeN420. October 1973. . t " f R. Riegel,, F. Danner & 'recognition 011111s. L. Donnelly. Research Report #55. 'September A mastery based experimental 1973. program//- for teaching poor readers high speech word for recall by.EMR and non . - retarded children: 'Developmental/I. trenjis in the The SORTS test. generation and utilization ofResearch Report #5. August 1973. associative relations R. Hoffmeister & D. Moores. parents. Research Report 1)53. , The ac u August 1973.sition of s ecific reference in the lin uistic s stem of a deaf c hild,of de _ C.W. BartClark E.-M. & J. Smith. Gre4. Paper #18. Jun An interpretiveMELDS1973: (Minnesota framework Carly Language Development Sequence)of cognitive structures. Occasional Paper 1119. glossary of rebuses and signs. . J.the 1973. ..- 4Occasional 1.1 S.J. Samuels Turnufe. & P. Dahl-. Research Report g#52. 'May Interrelations of orienting'response, Automaticity, reading and mental 1973. resp9hse'latency and stimulus-4Uo4Cesin retardation. occasional Paper #17. childrens learning.May 973.- S. Samuels & P. Dahl. May 1973 Relationships among IQ,'fearning ability, and readiwIrachievemeht. - ,-)t o g 40Occasidnal Paper 1116, N.'Buium & J. Rynders. learning children. . The early Researchmaternal Reportlinguistic 1151. May 1973. environment of normal and Down's Syndrome (Mongoloid) langtte4e T. Archwamety & S. Samuels. Maynition 1973. and reading comprehension skIlls.through A mastery based experimental program for teaching use of hypothesis/test procedures. mentally retarded children Research Report 4150. word recm-, -= - W. Bart. The process of cognitive structure, complexification. . ResearchiReport 1149. April 1973. . B. Best. .Classificatory development Paper #15. April 1973. in deaf children: Research on"language and cognitfve development. it Occasional it R. Riegel, A. Taylor & capabilities of young EMR children F. Danner. The fects of training in.the use of grouping strategy 9' on the learning anememory J. Turnure & M. Thurlow. Report #47; March 19'73. The latency of forward Research1 Report 0148. and backward association , April 1973. responses in an elaboration task. Research D.R. Moores. Riegel & A. Taylor, OccasiOnal Paper #14. Early childhood special Strategies in the classroom: March 1973. education for the hearing A summer remedial impaired. program forOCcasional young handicappedPaper 0613. children. February 1973. J.R. Ryriders.Riegel & A. Taylor. mentally retarded and Two basic considerations A comparison of conceptual non - retarded children. Researchstrategies Report for grouping#46. and February 1973. remembering employed by educable R. Bruininks, J. Rynders classes.retarded children. Research Report 0645. Occpsional Paper 0112. Gross. January 1973.Socialin utilizing acceptance,of mothers mildly January 1973. as tutors of their very young retarded retarded pupils in resourcessroolCand or potentially regular oLa. J. Turnure & M. Thuilow. Research Report 1/4. The effectsJanuary of interrogative 1973. (Proceedings of the-International elaborations. on the learning of normal and EMR children. J. Turnure & S. Samuels. Mental Deficiency, in press). Attention and reading achievement in first grade boys and girls. Association for the Scientific Study of1643. R. Riegel, A. Taylog, S. NovembergroupingNovember 1972 1972.strategies for the (Journal of Educational -Marren, & F. Danner. organization and recall of Psychology, 1974, 66, 29-32).Training educationally categorizable materials.' handicapped children to Research Report 1142. Research Report use associative A. Taylor,R. Riegel, M. ThurlowF. Danner 4 for learning. Development Report 062.& J. Turnure.A; Taylor. Steps in sequences November 1972. Training educationally handicapped children to.use strategies J. Turnure & M. Thurlow. ReportResearch 1i1. 'Report 1'41. March 1973. The effects'ofSeptember structural 1972. The teacher's introduction variations in elaboration to: The Math Vocabulary Program. on learning by normal and EMR children. Development D.A. Moores,Taylor &N.,C. McIntyre,Bender. & K. Weiss. 1140." September 1972: Variations of strategy training and (American Educational Research Evaluation of programs for.hearing Journal, in'the press.) recognition memory of EMR children. Research Report R. Rubin. JulyResearch 1972. Report 1139. Follow-up of applicants for September 1972. admission to graduate . programs in special education. impaired children: Report of 1971-72.Occasional Paper Oil.' A.D. Taylor Moores. & S. Whitely.' July 1972. Communication -- Some unanswered questions and some unquestioned answers. Occasional Paper 4110. R. Riegel. Research Report 1137.1138. Measuring educationally handicapped Overt verbalizationMay Juneand 1972. the1972. (American Journal of Mental children's organizational continued production of effective Deficiency, in press.) strategies by sampling overt groupings. elaborations by EMR children. E. Gallistel, r. Boyle; L. readers' achievement under Curran, & M.:Hawthorne. sight-word and systematic phonic The relation OT visual and auditory instruction. Research Report 1136. aptitudes to first grade, low May 1972. t . ,E. GallistelJ. Turnure & P. Fischer.& M. Thurlow. techniques. Research Report 1135 May 1972. Verbal elaboration in Decodingchildren: skills acquired by low Variations likpreceduresreaders taught and indesign. regular classrooms Researchusing clinicalReport 1134. D. Krus & W: Bart. MarchMarch 1972. 1972. An ordering-theoretic method of multidimensional scaling of items. Research Report 1133. , J. Turnure & S. Larsen. position, oddity problem by OuterdirectednessEffects.of various in instructionmentally nursery school children. retarded childrenand reinforcement as'a function conditionsResearch Report #32. March 1972. On the learning of aof three sex of experimenter and - J. Rynders & M. Horrobin. Memphis,Researchsex of December, subject.Report 1130. 1971:: Research Report 1131. January:1972.A mobile unit for delivering (Presented at CouncilMarch for 1972. educational services to Down's Syndrome Exceptional Children, Special National (Mongoloid) infants. Conference, J. TurnureF. Dahner & M. Thurlow:& A. Taylor. Verbal elaboration phenomena inDecember nursery 1971.school (Journal' of Experimental ChildPictures Psychology, and relational in press.) imagery training in children's learning. children. Research Report 1128. Research Report 1129. December D. Mooxes & C. McIntyre. _Report 1127.1971. (Study II: December 1971. Proceedings of 81st EvaluationAnnual Convention of programs of the for American hearing Psydhologicalimpaired children: Association, Progress report ,1970-71. 1973, 83-84 Research S.S._Samuels.- Samuels. Attention and visual memory in reading,acquisitions.-1971. (In M. Kling,Sucdass The and Litbrature failure inn of learningResearch toin read:Reading with Emphasis on Modes, Rutgers University, A critique of the research. Research Report 1126. Occasional Paper #9. November 1971. November 1971.) A.J. Taylor,Turnure M.& M.Josberger thurlow. & S. Whitely. children. Research Report 4125. Verbal elaboration and the promotion of transfer of training in educable mentally retarded November 1971.Elaboration traiaddg and verbalization as factors facilitating retarded (Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1973, 15, 137-148.) children's recall. Research Report 1124.( October ):131. 4 W.- = . (Journal of Educational Psychology, in press.) ,. Research Report #23. W. Bart.& D. Krus. 'September 1971. An ordering-theoretic method to'delirmine hierarchies among items. -. . ' , . Research Report 1/22. A. Taylor ft; Josberger & J. Knowlton. .Myntal 1972,September 77, 691971. -76.) (Mental Elaboration aid LearningOuterdirectednesd in EMR children. in educable mentally retarded boys and girls. elaboration and learning in retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, Research Repoit 1121. R.J. Bi-uininks,Turnure & S. T. Larsen. Glaman & C. Clark. ResearchSeptember Report 1971. 1120. (American Journal ofMental Deficiency, in press.)June 1971. Prevalency of learning disabilities:(Presente4 at Coucil for Exceptional Children Convention, Miami Beach, Findings, issues, and recommendations. M. Thurlow & J. Turnure.: Mental elaboration and thephenomenaApril, extension 1971.) in theof mediationalmentally retarded. research: Research Report 1119. June 1971. (Journal of Experimental Child List length of verbal G. Siegel. Psychology, 1972, 14, 184-195). Three approaches to speech retardation. ,Occasional Paper a 118. May 1971. D. Moores. D. Moore of1971. Communication Digbrders, AnRecent investigation(Exceptional research Children, of the psycholinguittic 1970,' on manual c Council for 36,-645-652. nication. functioningOccasional of deaf Paper adolescents. 117. AprIl 1971. Research Report 1118.(Keynote Address, Division May .J. Turnure, S. Larsen'& A. Thurlow. Journalbrain injury; of Mental De iciency, II. i ( vidence of transfer of training. 1973, 78, 70-76.) Two studies on verbal ceptional Children Annual elaborationResearch in special Report populations. 1117.* April 1971. Convention, Miami Beach, April 1971.) (Study I:I. The effects of American D.R. Moores. Bruininks & J. Rynders. Occasional Paper 116.% Neo-oralism and the education March 1971.Alternatives to special class (Focus-on Exceptionalof the deaf in the Soviet Union'.' placemeh.t for educable mentally Children, 1971, 3, 1-12.) Occasional Paper 115. retarded children. February 1971. D. Feldman, B. Marrinan .(Exceptionalference,for creativity: New Children,- York, February 1972, Rdsearch Report 1116. & S. Hartfeldt: Unusualness, 1971.) 39, 377-384.). February 1971. appropriateness (American Educational Research and condensation as criteria Association Annual Con- D.P. Feldman. Broen,& G. Siegel. Speech, in press.) Variations iri normal speechdifluencies. Research Report 1115. January 1971. (Language & Rynders. Occasional1971. Paper 113; (AmericanMapIndustrial Educationalunderstanding arts Research for elementary January 1971. as a possible crystallizer of Jdkirnal, 1971,mentally 3, 484-502.)retarded children: cognitive structures. ,An attempt to redefine and clarify Occasional Paper 114. January goals. k f R.D. Bruininks Moores. & C. Clark. Defectology, 1971, published in Education of the deaf-in the Auditory and learning, in first-, Russian.) United States. Occasidnal Paper #2.third-, and fifth-grade children. November 1970. (Moscow Institute of R. Bruininks & C. Clark. -ResearchNovember Report 1970. 1113. Auditory and,November visual learning1970. (American Journal of in first grade educable mentally Mental Deficiency, 1972, 76, No. 5, retarded normal children. 561-567.) k R. ZruininVS. .abilieles. ; Teaching word recognitionlp)Research Reportdisadvantaged 1112. boys with variations in auditory and visual perceptual November'1970. (Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1970, 3, 30-39.) R. Rubin,Bruinipki & W. Lucker. 295-305.among disadvantaged ) children. Change and stability in correlations between intelligence and reading test scores ReSearch Report 1111. October 1970. (Journal of Reading Behavior, 1970, 2, R. Rubin & B. Below. Researchskills'. Report 119. Sex differences in effects of Researchkindergarten 'Report attendance 1110. on development of school readiness and language Prevalence of school learning & behaviorOctober disorders 1970: in a longitudinal study population. October 1970. (ExceptionalChildren, 1971, 38, 293-299.) (Elementary School Journal, 72, No. 5, February; 1972.) J.D. Turnure, Feldman M.& J.Thurlow Bretton, & S: Larsen. young (Americanchildren. Oducational Research Annual Conference, New York, -February 1971.) Research Report 117. On the relativity of giftedness: Syntactic elaboration in the learning & reversal of paired-associatesJanuary 1971. by An empirical, study. Research Report 118. August 1970. . r J.R: Turnure Martin && M.L. Walsh.Berndt: 'Exceptional Children, 1970, 37, 303-304:) The effects ofof time-out.onvaried levels stuttering of verbal in mediationa 12- year on-old the boy. learning and reversal of paired Research Report 116. July 1970 J. Turnure, J. Rynders, & N. Jones. 306-312.)Journalassociates of byMentalDeficiency, educable mentally 1971, retarded 76i:60-.67. children. Effectiveness 'of manual guidance, modeling & trial and error learning for Study II: Research Report 115. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1971, 76, June 1970. (Study I: American Palmerinducing Quarterly, instrumental 1973, behavior 19, 49-65.) in institutionalized retardates. . Research Report 114. June 1970. J. Turndre. Moores. Research Report 113. Evaluation Reactionsof preschool to physicalprograms: and social distractors by moderately retarded institutionalized child-ten. June 1970. (Journal of Special Education, 1970, 4, 283-294.) D. -Feldman & W. Markwalder. presented(Keynote at Address,,DiagnosticAmerican Instructors Pedagogy, of the-Deaf International Annual Convention:St. Congress on Deafness.Augustine, Florida, April 1970. Systematic scoring of ranked distractors for the assessment of Piagetian reasoning An interaction analysis model. Occasional Paper 111.Stockholm, August 1970; also April 1970: D. Feldman. rasonfngi.levels. The fixed-sequenceResearch h Report #2. ReseArch Report 111. othesisv,,March 1970. March 1970. Individual differences in the development(Educational of school and Psychologicalrelated spatial Measurement, 1971, 31, 347-362.)