DOCSLIB.ORG

The Typological Classification of Sign Language Morphology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Typological Classification of Sign Language Morphology The typological classification of sign language morphology Joke Schuit Master’s Thesis, 2007 Research MA Linguistics Universiteit van Amsterdam AMSTERDAM Table of contents Languages and glossing conventions used................................................................................. 2 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4 2. Signed languages: an introduction to the research and phonology ................................... 7 2.1 Sign language research: introduction .......................................................................... 7 2.1.1 The oral language compatibility view versus the sign language differential view8 2.2 Sign language phonology.......................................................................................... 10 3. Typology and processes .................................................................................................. 15 3.1. Morphological typology............................................................................................ 16 3.1.1. Traditional classification..................................................................................... 17 3.1.2. Morphological processes that are difficult to classify typologically................... 19 3.2. Morphological processes........................................................................................... 22 3.2.1. Derivation in spoken languages .......................................................................... 22 3.2.2. Noun incorporation in spoken languages ............................................................ 23 3.2.3. Inflectional processes in spoken languages......................................................... 24 3.2.3.1. Pluralisation of nouns............................................................................... 24 3.2.3.2. Verb agreement in spoken languages....................................................... 25 3.2.3.3. Aspectual operations on verbs in spoken languages ................................ 27 3.3. Summary ................................................................................................................... 29 4. Morphological processes in signed languages ................................................................ 30 4.1 Sequential processes.................................................................................................. 31 4.1.1 Affixation ............................................................................................................ 31 4.2 Reduplication ............................................................................................................ 32 4.2.1 Aspect.................................................................................................................. 32 4.2.2 Number................................................................................................................ 34 4.2.3 Derivation............................................................................................................ 35 4.3 Simultaneous processes............................................................................................. 35 4.3.1 Manual simultaneous processes .......................................................................... 36 4.3.1.1 Incorporation ................................................................................................ 36 4.3.1.2 Classifiers..................................................................................................... 38 4.3.1.3 Verb agreement ............................................................................................ 40 4.3.1.4 Aspect........................................................................................................... 42 4.3.2 Simultaneous processes involving non-manual features..................................... 43 4.4 Summary ................................................................................................................... 45 5. Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 46 5.1 Incorporating features in signed languages............................................................... 46 5.2 Isolating features in signed languages....................................................................... 50 5.3 Agglutinative features in signed languages............................................................... 51 5.3.1 Polysyllabic polymorphemic signs...................................................................... 52 5.3.2 Monosyllabic polymorphemic signs ................................................................... 52 5.4 Fusional features in signed languages....................................................................... 59 5.5 Summary: the morphological classification of signed languages ............................. 60 References ................................................................................................................................ 63 1 Languages and glossing conventions used Abbreviations of signed languages ASL American Sign Language BSL British Sign Language DGS German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache) NGT Sign Language of the Netherlands (Nederlandse Gebarentaal) LSF French Sign Language (Langue des Signes Françaises) LSQ Sign Language of Québec (Langue des Signes Québécoise) ISL Israeli Sign Language Classification and area of languages in this thesis; from Dryer (2005). Apurinã [Maipure/Arawakan1: Brazil] Dutch [Indo-European> Germanic: Netherlands] English [Indo-European> Germanic: United Kingdom, United States] (Gulf) Arabic [Afro-Asiatic> Semitic: Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates] Imbabura Quechua [Quechuan: Equador, province of Imbabura] Inuktitut [Eskimo-Aleut: Canada] Lahu [Sino-Tibetan> Tibeto-Burman>Burmese-Lolo: China, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Viet Nam] Luvale [Niger-Congo>Benue-Congo>Bantoid: Angola] Malay [Austronesian>Western Malayo Polynesian> Sundic: Malaysia] Mandarin Chinese [Sino-Tibetan>Chinese: China] Oneida [Iroquoian>Northern: United States] Papiamentu [Creole: Netherlands Antilles and Aruba] Rapanui [Austronesian>Eastern Malayo-Polynesian>Oceanic: Easter Island] Rembarrnga [Australian>Gunwinyguan: Australia] Shilluk [Nilo-Saharan>Eastern Sudanic>Nilotic : Sudan] Tausug [Austronesian>Western Malayo Polynesian>Meso-Philippine: Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia] Tuvaluan [Austronesian>Eastern Malayo-Polynesian>Oceanic: Tuvalu] West Greenlandic [Eskimo-Aleut: Greenland] Yakan [Austronesian>Western Malayo-Polynesian>Sama-Bajaw: Phillipines] Glossing conventions In some examples, the glossing is slightly adapted so all follow the same system. No changes are made regarding content words. The following abbreviations have been used: AGENT agentative ASP aspect particle AUGM augmentative CML compound linker CNT contrastive – absolutive marker CRS crescent DAT dative DIM diminuative DUR durative 1 See for a detailed explanation of the use of Maipure or Arawakan section 1.2 of Da Silva Facundes (2000). 2 HAB habitual INC inceptive INDEF indefinite mode INDIC indicative mood INF infinitive JOIN stem-joiner M masculine NEG negative NMLZ nominalizer O object PAR particle PASS passive marker PASS passive PF perfect aspect marker PFTV perfective aspect marker PL plural PLZ pluralizer POSR possessor POSV possessive PP past punctual PRODUCT product (affix indicating result or product of an action) PROGR progressive marker PST past PUF not indicated in Matisoff (2003) PUNC punctual aspect PV not indicated in Matisoff (2003) SER serial aspect VBLZ verbalizer Sign language glossing conventions Small capitals are used to refer to glosses of signs: SIGN. Sequential compound signs are linked by ^: MONEY^LITTLE ‘cheap’ When a sign cannot be translated in one English word, hyphens are used: WALK-DOWN-THE- STAIRS. A classifier morpheme is indicated by CL, followed by a picture of the appropriate handshape, or a letter taken from the manual alphabet from NGT: GIVE- CLF. Locations in space are indicated by subscript numbers. These letters refer to a location in space; 1 refers to first person, 2 refers to second person/addressee, and 3 refers to any other referent in the discourse. If there are multiple other referents, letters are added to indicate the different third persons: 3GIVE2, 3aGIVE3b. 3 1. Introduction When one is describing a language, one of the typological aspects one may want to take into consideration is the determination of morphological language type. To what extent does the language under consideration allow affixation? Can several morphemes occur in a word? Answering these questions determines the synthetic ‘value’ of the language: where on the continuum of synthesis should it be placed, more to the isolating end, or more to the agglutinative end? If the language is placed more to the agglutinative end, one can determine the amount of fusion in the language. Again the language can be placed on a continuum: more fusing or more agglutinative. It will also be interesting to see whether the language allows for incorporation, and if so, to what extent. Some aspects of the morphology will be classified more easily, others will be more problematic. The researcher will probably find that the language types are not defined the same in the literature. For example, some authors might define polysynthesis as allowing for more morphemes in a word (e.g. Payne, 1997 and Whaley 1999), while others
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sign Language Typology Series
    SIGN LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SERIES The Sign Language Typology Series is dedicated to the comparative study of sign languages around the world. Individual or collective works that systematically explore typological variation across sign languages are the focus of this series, with particular emphasis on undocumented, underdescribed and endangered sign languages. The scope of the series primarily includes cross-linguistic studies of grammatical domains across a larger or smaller sample of sign languages, but also encompasses the study of individual sign languages from a typological perspective and comparison between signed and spoken languages in terms of language modality, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to sign language typology. Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages Edited by Ulrike Zeshan Sign Language Typology Series No. 1 / Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages / Ulrike Zeshan (ed.) / Nijmegen: Ishara Press 2006. ISBN-10: 90-8656-001-6 ISBN-13: 978-90-8656-001-1 © Ishara Press Stichting DEF Wundtlaan 1 6525XD Nijmegen The Netherlands Fax: +31-24-3521213 email: [email protected] http://ishara.def-intl.org Cover design: Sibaji Panda Printed in the Netherlands First published 2006 Catalogue copy of this book available at Depot van Nederlandse Publicaties, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag (www.kb.nl/depot) To the deaf pioneers in developing countries who have inspired all my work Contents Preface........................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Sign Language Endangerment and Linguistic Diversity Ben Braithwaite
    RESEARCH REPORT Sign language endangerment and linguistic diversity Ben Braithwaite University of the West Indies at St. Augustine It has become increasingly clear that current threats to global linguistic diversity are not re - stricted to the loss of spoken languages. Signed languages are vulnerable to familiar patterns of language shift and the global spread of a few influential languages. But the ecologies of signed languages are also affected by genetics, social attitudes toward deafness, educational and public health policies, and a widespread modality chauvinism that views spoken languages as inherently superior or more desirable. This research report reviews what is known about sign language vi - tality and endangerment globally, and considers the responses from communities, governments, and linguists. It is striking how little attention has been paid to sign language vitality, endangerment, and re - vitalization, even as research on signed languages has occupied an increasingly prominent posi - tion in linguistic theory. It is time for linguists from a broader range of backgrounds to consider the causes, consequences, and appropriate responses to current threats to sign language diversity. In doing so, we must articulate more clearly the value of this diversity to the field of linguistics and the responsibilities the field has toward preserving it.* Keywords : language endangerment, language vitality, language documentation, signed languages 1. Introduction. Concerns about sign language endangerment are not new. Almost immediately after the invention of film, the US National Association of the Deaf began producing films to capture American Sign Language (ASL), motivated by a fear within the deaf community that their language was endangered (Schuchman 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Reconsidering the “Isolating Protolanguage Hypothesis” in the Evolution of Morphology Author(S): Jaïmé Dubé Proceedings
    Reconsidering the “isolating protolanguage hypothesis” in the evolution of morphology Author(s): Jaïmé Dubé Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (2013), pp. 76-90 Editors: Chundra Cathcart, I-Hsuan Chen, Greg Finley, Shinae Kang, Clare S. Sandy, and Elise Stickles Please contact BLS regarding any further use of this work. BLS retains copyright for both print and screen forms of the publication. BLS may be contacted via http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/bls/. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society is published online via eLanguage, the Linguistic Society of America's digital publishing platform. Reconsidering the Isolating Protolanguage Hypothesis in the Evolution of Morphology1 JAÏMÉ DUBÉ Université de Montréal 1 Introduction Much recent work on the evolution of language assumes explicitly or implicitly that the original language was without morphology. Under this assumption, morphology is merely a consequence of language use: affixal morphology is the result of the agglutination of free words, and morphophonemic (MP) alternations arise through the morphologization of once regular phonological processes. This hypothesis is based on at least two questionable assumptions: first, that the methods and results of historical linguistics can provide a window on the evolution of language, and second, based on the claim that some languages have no morphology (the so-called isolating languages), that morphology is not a necessary part of language. The aim of this paper is to suggest that there is in fact no basis for what I will call the Isolating Proto-Language Hypothesis (henceforth IPH), either on historical or typological grounds, and that the evolution of morphology remains an interesting question.
    [Show full text]
  • Transparency in Language a Typological Study
    Transparency in language A typological study Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6111 Trans 10 3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl Cover illustration © 2011: Sanne Leufkens – image from the performance ‘Celebration’ ISBN: 978-94-6093-162-8 NUR 616 Copyright © 2015: Sterre Leufkens. All rights reserved. Transparency in language A typological study ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. D.C. van den Boom ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapel op vrijdag 23 januari 2015, te 10.00 uur door Sterre Cécile Leufkens geboren te Delft Promotiecommissie Promotor: Prof. dr. P.C. Hengeveld Copromotor: Dr. N.S.H. Smith Overige leden: Prof. dr. E.O. Aboh Dr. J. Audring Prof. dr. Ö. Dahl Prof. dr. M.E. Keizer Prof. dr. F.P. Weerman Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen i Acknowledgments When I speak about my PhD project, it appears to cover a time-span of four years, in which I performed a number of actions that resulted in this book. In fact, the limits of the project are not so clear. It started when I first heard about linguistics, and it will end when we all stop thinking about transparency, which hopefully will not be the case any time soon. Moreover, even though I might have spent most time and effort to ‘complete’ this project, it is definitely not just my work. Many people have contributed directly or indirectly, by thinking about transparency, or thinking about me.
    [Show full text]
  • Asshai Reference Grammar and Lexicon—David J
    Asshai Reference Grammar and Lexicon—David J. Peterson 1 Asshai Reference Grammar and Lexicon by David J. Peterson Asshai Reference Grammar and Lexicon—David J. Peterson 2 Introduction The Asshai'i are a mysterious people from the far east—often murmured about, but rarely seen or discussed directly in A Song of Ice and Fire. Taking the various snippets of names and character descriptions from the books, I've created a language for the Asshai'i that both includes all the existing names and terms from the book, and suits the general Asshai aesthetic hinted out throughout A Song of Ice and Fire. Regards, David J. Peterson Asshai Reference Grammar and Lexicon—David J. Peterson 3 1. Asshai Language Description Phonology: • The phonetic inventory of Asshai is listed below: Consonants Labial Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal Plain Labial. Stops p/b t/d k/g kʷ/gʷ ʔ Fricatives θ/ð s/z ɬ/ɮ ʃ/ʒ x/ɣ xʷ/ɣʷ h Nasals m n ŋ ŋʷ Approximants r l j w Vowels Front Central Back High i, iː/ĩ, ĩː u, uː/ũ, ũː Close Mid e, eː/ẽ, ẽː ə, əː o, oː/õ, õː Open Mid ɛ, ɛː/ɛ,̃ ɛː̃ ɔ, ɔː/ɔ,̃ ɔː̃ Low a, aː/ã, ãː • There are four diphthongs: ay, aay, aw, aaw. • The symbols listed in the tables above are phonetic symbols. These will be used to transcribe Asshai words, but not to write them. To write them, I've devised a romanization system that should make the pronunciation fairly transparent.
    [Show full text]
  • Sources of Variation in Mongolian Sign Language
    33 Sources of Variation in Mongolian Sign Language Leah C. Geer University of Texas at Austin 1. Introduction1 During a nine month period in which data on Mongolian Sign Language (MSL) were collected in a Field Methods course, there were numerous instances of disagreement between language consultants on the correct sign for a given concept. The present paper seeks to describe these disagreements in terms of the potential sources of language variation among language consultants. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In section 1 we provide a sampling of previous work on language contact and language variation and describe the link between them. We then discuss the linguistic outcomes of contact situations between signed and spoken languages versus signed and signed languages as they relate to the present investigation. In section 2 we describe how data were collected and annotated and in section 3 we present our findings. Section 4 includes a discussion of these findings with respect to previous work on language contact, language variation, and language attitudes. In section 5 we close with brief mention of how to expand upon this work in the future. 1.1 Background: Language contact and language variation Several studies of lexical variation in signed languages have been undertaken: Lucas, Bayley & Valli (1991) for American Sign Language (ASL); Schembri, Johnston & Goswell (2006), Schembri & Johnston (2006, 2007) for Australian Sign Language (Auslan); and McKee & McKee (2011) for New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL), just to 1 Many thanks are in order here. First to our consultants (and in particular NB who has maintained contact with me and always been eager to answer questions), who shared their language with our group.
    [Show full text]
  • Automatic Classification of Handshapes in Russian Sign
    Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages, pages 165–170 Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2020), Marseille, 11–16 May 2020 c European Language Resources Association (ELRA), licensed under CC-BY-NC Automatic Classification of Handshapes in Russian Sign Language Medet Mukushev∗, Alfarabi Imashev∗, Vadim Kimmelmany, Anara Sandygulova∗ ∗Department of Robotics and Mechatronics, School of Engineering and Digital Sciences, Nazarbayev University Kabanbay Batyr Avenue, 53, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan yDepartment of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies, University of Bergen Postboks 7805, 5020, Bergen, Norway [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Handshapes are one of the basic parameters of signs, and any phonological or phonetic analysis of a sign language must account for handshapes. Many sign languages have been carefully analysed by sign language linguists to create handshape inventories. This has theoretical implications, but also applied use, as an inventory is necessary for generating corpora for sign languages that can be searched, filtered, sorted by different sign components (such as handshapes, orientation, location, movement, etc.). However, creating an inventory is a very time-consuming process, thus only a handful of sign languages have them. Therefore, in this work we firstly test an unsupervised approach with the aim to automatically generate a handshape inventory. The process includes hand detection, cropping, and clustering techniques, which we apply to a commonly used resource: the Spreadthesign online dictionary (www.spreadthesign.com), in particular to Russian Sign Language (RSL). We then manually verify the data to be able to apply supervised learning to classify new data.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Date / Datum Preuzimanja: 2020-09-28
    Fiat Lingua Title: Trigedasleng: A Study of the Verb System of a Possible Future Creole English Author: Tvrtko Samardžija MS Date: 09-24-2020 FL Date: 02-01-2021 FL Number: FL-000071-00 Citation: Samardžija, Tvrtko. 2020. "Trigedasleng: A Study of the Verb System of a Possible Future Creole English." FL-000071-00, Fiat Lingua, <http://fiatlingua.org>. Web. 01 February 2021. Copyright: © 2020 Tvrtko Samardžija. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Fiat Lingua is produced and maintained by the Language Creation Society (LCS). For more information about the LCS, visit http://www.conlang.org/ Trigedasleng: A Study of the Verb System of a Possible Future Creole English Samardžija, Tvrtko Master's thesis / Diplomski rad 2020 Degree Grantor / Ustanova koja je dodijelila akademski / stručni stupanj: University of Zagreb, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences / Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Filozofski fakultet Permanent link / Trajna poveznica: https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:131:618880 Rights / Prava: In copyright Download date / Datum preuzimanja: 2020-09-28 Repository / Repozitorij: ODRAZ - open repository of the University of Zagreb Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences University of Zagreb Faculty for Humanities and Social Sciences Department of English, Linguistics Section Academic year 2019/2020. Trigedasleng: A Study of the Verb System of a Possible Future Creole English Master's Thesis Author: Tvrtko Samardzija Thesis Advisor: Mateusz-Milan Stanojević, PhD Thesis Defended: 24th September, 2020. Sveučilište u Zagrebu Filozofski fakultet Odsjek Anglistike, katedra za lingvistiku Akademska godina 2019./2020.
    [Show full text]
  • To Ba Or Not to Ba Differential Object Marking in Chinese
    î To ba or not to ba Differential Object Marking in Chinese Geertje van Bergen I To ba or not to ba Differential Object Marking in Chinese Geertje van Bergen PIONIER Project Case Cross-linguistically Department of Linguistics Radboud University Nijmegen P.O. Box 9103 6500 HD Nijmegen the Netherlands www.ru.nl/pionier [email protected] III To ba or not to ba Differential Object Marking in Chinese Master’s Thesis General Linguistics Faculty of Arts Radboud University Nijmegen November 2006 Geertje van Bergen 0136433 First supervisor: Dr. Helen de Hoop Second supervisor: Prof. Dr. Pieter Muysken V Acknowledgements I would like to thank Lotte Hogeweg and the members of the PIONIER-project Case Cross-linguistically for the nice cooperation during the past year; many thanks go to Monique Lamers for the pleasant teamwork. I am especially grateful to Yangning for the close cooperation in Beijing and Nijmegen, which has laid the foundation of ¡ £¢ this thesis. Many thanks also go to Sander Lestrade for clarifying conversations over countless cups of coffee. I would like to thank Pieter Muysken for his willingness to be my second supervisor and for his useful comments on an earlier version. Also, I gratefully acknowledge the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research (NWO) for financial support, grant 220-70-003, principal investigator Helen de Hoop (PIONIER-project ‘Case cross-linguistically’). Especially, I would like to thank Helen de Hoop for her great support and supervision, for keeping me from losing courage and keeping me on schedule, for her indispensable comments and for all the opportunities she offered me to develop my research skills.
    [Show full text]
  • Typology of Signed Languages: Differentiation Through Kinship Terminology Erin Wilkinson
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of New Mexico University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Linguistics ETDs Electronic Theses and Dissertations 7-1-2009 Typology of Signed Languages: Differentiation through Kinship Terminology Erin Wilkinson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ling_etds Recommended Citation Wilkinson, Erin. "Typology of Signed Languages: Differentiation through Kinship Terminology." (2009). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ling_etds/40 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Linguistics ETDs by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TYPOLOGY OF SIGNED LANGUAGES: DIFFERENTIATION THROUGH KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY BY ERIN LAINE WILKINSON B.A., Language Studies, Wellesley College, 1999 M.A., Linguistics, Gallaudet University, 2001 DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Linguistics The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico August, 2009 ©2009, Erin Laine Wilkinson ALL RIGHTS RESERVED iii DEDICATION To my mother iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks to Barbara Pennacchi for kick starting me on my dissertation by giving me a room at her house, cooking me dinner, and making Italian coffee in Rome during November 2007. Your endless support, patience, and thoughtful discussions are gratefully taken into my heart, and I truly appreciate what you have done for me. I heartily acknowledge Dr. William Croft, my advisor, for continuing to encourage me through the long number of months writing and rewriting these chapters.
    [Show full text]
  • Sign Languages in Contact
    INTRO_Sign_Pozos_Gaul_193027 7/30/07 11:19 AM Page 1 Editor’s Introduction: Outlining Considerations for the Study of Signed Language Contact David Quinto-Pozos To my knowledge, this volume represents the first book-length collec- tion of various accounts of contact between sign languages, and this brings with it excitement as well as the realization of challenges that lie ahead.1 As many researchers who are interested in language contact might suggest, it is exciting because these chapters contribute to our un- derstanding of the structural and social aspects of contact and how such contact affects language in the visual-gestural modality. They provide us with information about Deaf communities throughout the world, as well as language data that speak to the ways in which contact is manifested in those communities. This global perspective allows us to examine con- tact situations in search of commonalties and recurring patterns. It also enables us to see how some outcomes of contact between sign languages might or might not fit the general patterns of contact that have been demonstrated for spoken languages. Perhaps as a way to balance the ex- citement about this topic, the sobering truth is that we know so little about contact between sign languages. As a result, we are faced with the task of documenting examples of such contact and the challenge of ex- amining the effects of visual meaning creation on linguistic structures that occur in these contact situations. By focusing on this area of inquiry, we stand to gain much knowledge about how language works. The study of language contact among signed languages forces us to carefully consider how the visual-gestural modality of human com- munication influences language birth, development, change, and de- cay or loss from disuse.
    [Show full text]
  • © 2011 Peter Kirk Crume
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository © 2011 Peter Kirk Crume TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE USE OF ASL PHONOLOGICAL INSTRUCTION TO DEVELOP ASL AND ENGLISH LITERACY IN AN ASL/ENGLISH BILINGUAL PRESCHOOL BY PETER KIRK CRUME DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Psychology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2011 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Jenny Singleton, Chair Professor Michelle Perry, Contingent Chair Professor Sarah McCarthey Assistant Professor Adrienne Lo Abstract This dissertation study seeks to understand how teachers who work in an ASL/English bilingual educational program for preschool children conceptualize and utilize phonological instruction of American Sign Language (ASL). While instruction that promotes phonological awareness of spoken English is thought to provide educational benefits to young children in terms of language proficiency and reading development, there is limited understanding of how deaf children may similarly benefit from the phonological instruction of ASL. Part of the resistance in promoting ASL may be related to how signs native to ASL do not directly map onto written English in the same way that spoken English does. However, ASL does incorporate the use of the manual alphabet, which is a manual representation of the English alphabet, and many signs in ASL do have partial or full overlap to words in the orthography of English. ASL also has the added benefit of being considered the natural language for deaf people, which allows teachers with the means to promote ASL phonological instruction in ways that allow students to access and utilize a language in ways that can maximize their ability to process information.
    [Show full text]