sign in sign up
<<
Home , Gloss (annotation), Sign name

Why American Gloss Must Matter Samuel J. Supalla, Jody H. Cripps, Andrew P. J. Byrne

American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 161, Number 5, Winter 2017, pp. 540-551 (Article)

Published by Gallaudet University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2017.0004

For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/648964

Access provided by University of Connecticut @ Storrs (9 Jun 2017 21:09 GMT) 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 540

Supalla, S. J., Cripps, J. H., & Byrne, A. P. J. (2017). Why gloss must matter. American Annals of the Deaf, 161 (5), 540 –551.

WHY AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE GLOSS MUST MATTER

ESPONDING TO AN ARTICLE by Grushkin on how deaf children best learn to read, published, along with the present article, in an American Annals of the Deaf special issue, the authors review American Sign Lan - guage gloss. Topics include how ASL gloss enables deaf children to learn to read in their own language and simultaneously experience a transi - tion to written English, and what gloss looks like and how it underlines deaf children’s learning and mastery of English literacy through ASL. Re - buttal of Grushkin’s argument includes data describing a deaf child’s en - gagement in reading aloud (entirely in ASL) with a gloss text, which occurred without the breakdown implied by Grushkin. The authors characterize Grushkin’s argument that deaf children need to learn to read through a conventional ASL writing system as limiting, asserting that ASL gloss contributes more by providing a path for learning and R mastering English literacy. SAMUEL J. S UPALLA , J ODY H. CRIPPS , AND ANDREW P. J. KEYWORDS: ASL gloss, signed years. Supports and strategies for help - BYRNE language reading, best reading ing deaf children learn and master instruction practices, oral reading in Eng lish literacy (via English-based inter - ASL, ASL-to-written-English transition vention systems and via ASL; SUPALLA IS AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR , Garate, 2012; Trezek, Wang, & Paul, DEPARTMENT OF DISABILITY AND Writing in the present issue of the 2010) are one option. However, a more PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL STUDIES , U NIVERSITY American Annals of the Deaf , Grushkin clearly defined option is needed, espe - OF ARIZONA , T UCSON . C RIPPS IS AN ASSOCIATE appropriately observes that attention cially given that, as Andrews, Leigh, and PROFESSOR , D EPARTMENT OF AUDIOLOGY , to writing down American Sign Lan - Weiner (2004) point out, the cohesion SPEECH -L ANGUAGE PATHOLOGY , AND DEAF guage (ASL) for the purpose of instruct - of reading theory is far from real in the STUDIES , T OWSON UNIVERSITY , T OWSON , MD. ing deaf children is much needed and field of deaf education. What educators BYRNE IS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR , timely. The reading difficulties that deaf and researchers may have overlooked is DEPARTMENT OF WORLD LANGUAGES , children experience in learning to read that while English is an issue in reading FRAMINGHAM STATE UNIVERSITY , English are well known and under - for deaf children (regardless of what FRAMINGHAM , MA. standable due to the impact of hearing supports and strategies are provided), loss, especially for those children who the print itself can be the source of the have been profoundly deaf since birth problem for these children. It is our be - or lost their hearing before the age of 2 lief that a wrong language is being rep -

540

VOLUME 161, N O. 5, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 541

resented in print; the focus should not while simultaneously transitioning to 1982; Mikos, Smith, & Lentz, 2001; be on English print but on, for exam - English literacy. ASL gloss can be seen Smith, Lentz, & Mikos, 2008; Zinza, ple, written ASL. as the “elusive” intermediary system 2006). The value and benefits of ASL To this end, exploration of the area for children who are competent in gloss merit attention in the form of re - of signed language reading must oc - ASL and in need of undergoing the search and scholarship. Grushkin sees cur. In this scenario, deaf children process of learning to read English. glossing as problematic, not some - would have recovered their capacity (See Goldin-Meadow & Mayberry, thing to pursue. He is not alone in his for reading when it came to ASL as 2001, for discussion on the need for an disapproval of ASL gloss; multiple schol - compared to English. According to the intermediary system that maps ASL ars share his opinion (e.g., Baker, van ASL proficiency measurement re - onto English literacy in order to pro - den Bogaerde, & Woll, 2008; Hoiting & search (e.g., Enns & Herman, 2011; duce better reading outcomes.) Al - Slobin, 2002; Hoza, 2011; Humphries & Maller, Singleton, Supalla, & Wix, 1999; though Grushkin acknowledges the MacDougall, 2000; Lane, Hoffmeister, see Singleton & Supalla, 2011, for a re - intentions of ASL gloss with his brief & Bahan, 1996; Neidle, Kegl, MacLaugh - view of the topic), deaf children are discussion based on Supalla, Wix, and lin, Bahan, & Lee, 2000; Slobin, 2008). known for being native signers. This is McKee (2001), he suggests pursuing One must remember that up to the understandable given that ASL is a the course of creating a conventional latter part of the 20th century, ASL was signed language, whereas English is writing system for ASL, not something written off as a human language (for its not. Thus, deaf children who experi - intermediary with English literacy in supposed lack of linguistic principles). ence signed language reading are ex - mind. Going back to the linguistic ac - Meier (2002) explains that two of the pected to be free of the complications cessibility framework, English is not most notable linguists of the 20th cen - associated with their disability. With simply another language for consider - tury (Leonard Bloomfield and Edward the needed sensitivity of theory and ation with deaf children. The status Sapir) took an unfavorable position on practice for language modalities (i.e., of English as a spoken language is a signed languages. It was Dr. William C. signed vs. spoken languages), the con - serious matter that Grushkin does Stokoe, an English professor at Gal - cept of linguistic accessibility is highly not seem to understand or address. laudet University, the venerable institu - relevant, for it offers a possible remedy Although he makes reference to a the - tion of higher education for deaf for the reading difficulties that plague oretical paper published in 1998 (Sin - students, who had to teach himself lin - deaf children as a group (see Supalla & gleton, Supalla, Litchfield, & Schley) guistics and engage in research to Cripps, 2008, for further discussion of to introduce the notion of modality- prove that the understanding about the linguistic accessibility concept). constrained bilingualism concerning human languages at the time was Grushkin’s focus on providing reasons ASL and English with deaf children, wrong (Maher, 1996). Thus, any misun - and discussions in regard to what careful consideration of the relation - derstanding about ASL gloss deserves a form an ASL writing system should ship between ASL and English as two correction, which we endeavor to pro - take serves as an excellent starting languages is lacking. vide in the present article through our point for the field of deaf education. Adding to the urgent need for clar - discussion of the implementation of Any consideration of the signed lan - ifications associated with ASL gloss, ASL gloss in a charter school, as well as guage–based approach to teaching Grushkin criticizes the ASL glossing preliminary data showcasing how a reading would carry much potential phenomenon as used in ASL instruc - deaf child performed when reading a for the curriculum, instruction, and as - tion of thousands of hearing students gloss text. As a response to Grushkin, sessment alignment. who study the signed language as part the present article will, we hope, gen - However, the title of our response of meeting their foreign/second-lan - erate a shift in attitude about alterna - article, “Why American Sign Language guage requirement in American high tives to how ASL is represented in Gloss Must Matter,” suggests that schools, colleges, and universities. As print. something is missing in Grushkin’s reported by Supalla and Cripps (2011), writing about the value of written ASL glossing is a norm among ASL text - Some Clarifications on in the education of deaf children. To books and student workbooks that ASL Gloss elaborate, ASL gloss is composed of a have been published over the years To begin, Grushkin comments that the particular approach to teaching read - (e.g., Baker-Shenk & Cokely, 1980; authors of the well-known, popular ASL ing to deaf children that includes Humphries & Padden, 2004; Lentz, curriculum Signing Naturally (Lentz et learning to read in their own language Mikos, & Smith, 1988, 2014; Madsen, al., 1988, 2014; Mikos et al., 2001; Smith

541

VOLUME 161, N O. 5, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 542

WHY ASL G LOSS MUST MATTER

et al., 2008) avoided using ASL gloss. With the gloss sentence, Grushkin cor - the ASL pronouns. This includes the This observation represents one criti - rectly capitalizes various English words opportunity for the readers to under - cal part of his argument against the sys - (in their root forms), but there are a stand that ASL does not pursue case tem. However, when one opens the few problems to discuss here. First, it marking with its pronouns (or having instructor’s edition of the curriculum, is important to understand that a a subject or object pronoun, as is it becomes clear that gloss text is in use signer would point to himself for both found in English). The ASL pronouns from the beginning to the end. The I and me . Given that ASL does not dis - are also gender-free (i.e., there is no he curriculum authors had words and tinguish between I and me in the vs. she ). sentences glossed to guide the instruc - pronominal form, Grushkin makes the We will now shift to providing an tors in modeling the language in front decision that only one of the English understanding of how ASL gloss of students in the classroom. ASL gloss pronouns can be used and be subject works, based on the Arizona charter is clearly of value for these authors. to glossing (i.e., me over I). One school’s system. Below, the reader will They did avoid ASL gloss in the student option would be to avoid English pro - see Grushkin’s gloss rendition, sub - workbook, however, but not because nouns altogether and create some - ject to editing. ME is replaced with something is wrong with the system. thing to represent ASL via the gloss IX =1. Please note that the ASL pro - The authors were committed to the text more faithfully. However, Grush- noun gloss is used in the sentence idea of having students interact in ASL kin’s creation of a one-to-one word once, not twice as found in the English among themselves, with the instructor correspondence principle is too strict: sentence (as the pronoun being used as the primary source for learning the It results in a gloss rendition that is twice would appear redundant accord - language. Additionally, teaching gram - both ungrammatical and incomplete. ing to ASL): mar is not a priority of the Signing Grushkin uses these very terms to de - Nat urally curriculum. It is thus under - scribe ASL gloss, but this choice of Before editing: standable why ASL gloss reading is not words can be attributed to his limited part of the students’ experience with understanding of glossing. ME GO STORE , FINISH , COME HOME SHOWER . the curriculum. Grushkin is correct in According to the ASL gloss system pointing out that illustrations (or pho - put together in an Arizona charter After editing: tos) of ASL signs and sentences are school setting with deaf children in at - used in the student workbook for tendance (as reported by Supalla et al., IX =1 WILL GO >IX =3 STORE , FINISH , COME study, and that this is not the same as 2001), the situation with ASL pronouns HOME TAKE -SHOWER . (p. 514) written ASL in terms of quality. Yet his can be handled successfully. In this sys - similarly negative outlook on ASL gloss tem, a signer not only points to himself The additional changes include the in - is troubling and requires a closer look. for the first-person marking (for both sertion of WILL . The English sentence To understand the source of Grush - I and me , as discussed earlier); he also has future tense in use, but its deletion kin’s seemingly confused position on points to a person in front of himself in Grushkin’s gloss rendition is drastic ASL gloss, it may be helpful to con - for the second-person marking (or and not justified. That is, if the English sider the gloss example he uses in his you ), and points to a either on sentence refers to something that will article. The format of the interlinear the left or right side in the signing take place in the future and a signer translation (between the two lan - space for the third-person marking (or has a way of expressing the same in guages ASL and English) can create ei - he , she , him , and her ). The ASL pro - ASL, WILL ’s insertion is appropriate. As ther a poorly conceived or ideal gloss nouns are written this way: IX =______. discussed for the ASL pronouns, WILL is sentence. To elaborate on this, below IX is an abbreviation for the indexing as used only once in the ASL sentence, we provide the English sentence and a term frequently used in the ASL lin - not twice as found with the English Grushkin’s own rendition in the gloss guistics literature. The blank is to be sentence. format: filled with 1, 2, or 3. Both I and me There are three remaining correc - would be glossed as IX =1 , you as IX =2 , tions to Grushkin’s gloss rendition. I will go to the store, and afterward, I and he , she , him , and her as IX =3. One One is marking GO with the verb agree - will come home and take a shower. can see that there will be no confusion ment rule of ASL. The citation form of for readers when the ASL pronouns GO has its moving from the ME GO STORE , FINISH , COME HOME SHOWER . are written separately from English. signer outward, which is neutral. With (p. 514) Person marking underlines the use of the store being a destination or an ob -

542

VOLUME 161, N O. 5, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 543

ject, a signer is expected to inflect the spondence principle between ASL and not sufficient. Hearing the language verb so that it moves leftward or right - English would have trouble coping (i.e., English and the development of ward to the store’s location in the sign - with the complex relationship be - spoken-language knowledge) contin - ing space. The verb is thus written as tween the languages. Because of the ues to be the critical point of departure GO >IX =3. Recall that the third-person Arizona charter school’s embrace of for learning to read (in English). The pronoun in ASL is glossed as IX =3, and ASL gloss, the outcome is understand - bilingual education expert Jim Cum - it involves pointing to the location of a ably different as educators and re - mins (2000) made it clear that hearing third person at the left or right side of searchers (at the University of Arizona) children who learn to read in Spanish the signer. For the common grammat - were committed to making the system as a first language would need to ical use of signing space, GO should in - work. In the end, ASL gloss comes with repeat the process with English as a clude IX =3 through affixation. With an elaborate set of conventions. Al - second language, for example. For ASL the morphological markings known though the Signing Naturally curricu - gloss, the question is: What is special for ASL being absent in his rendition, lum’s gloss system was initially seen as about this system? Grushkin made the claim that ASL a model, it was not necessarily in - It is necessary to first look at the gloss is incomplete by nature, which is tended to be an efficient system field of ASL instruction where glossing not a fair treatment of the system or friendly to children and adults alike. is widespread. The particular experi - the concept of glossing. This explains why the newer ASL gloss ences ASL instructors and students As discussed for the verb agreement system is subject to discussion here. have had with ASL gloss demand atten - marking, the Arizona charter school’s It is important to emphasize that tion. There is something transparent gloss system has a way of incorporat - Grushkin does correctly gloss some about the intermediary writing system ing the ASL conditional rule as well. features. The fact that he deletes the in question, which has implications for For example, in Grushkin’s gloss rendi - use of articles (i.e., a and the ) in his the education of deaf children (to be tion, FINISH must be underlined. This gloss rendition falls in line with how discussed shortly). Because capitalized writing convention corresponds to the ASL works as a language. In the area of English words are used, the gloss text facial behavior that a signer incorpo - semantics, Grushkin’s use of a differ - demonstrates a high level of readabil - rates by raising his eyebrows when ent gloss FINISH for afterward (as used ity. In comparison, a hearing student signing FINISH . This grammatical marker in the English sentence) is correct. FIN - who studies a foreign language, for indicates that when one finishes with ISH addresses the concept of finishing example, French, experiences a more going to the store, he will come home the task of going to the store. The clos - difficult text, as it includes the use of and take a shower. The signer thus re - est lexical concept to afterward that Roman letters with words spelled dif - lies on his face to express the neces - ASL has is FROM -NOW -ON , which is not ferently from English. sary syntactic information. With ASL the same in meaning. In any case, ASL instructors who gloss, the use of underline captures use the Signing Naturally curriculum the ASL sentence’s conditional charac - Use of ASL Gloss With are known for teaching themselves terization of the events. Deaf Children how to read gloss text by studying the Finally, Grushkin’s gloss SHOWER is At this point in the present article, it conventions and then being able to changed to TAKE -SHOWER . Given that the is clear that ASL gloss has merit for read in gloss in a very short time. In English sentence includes “taking a exploration for use in the field of deaf addition, with other ASL curricula in shower” (not “showering”), it needs to edu cation. This includes Grushkin’s which students have the opportunity be accepted as two words for one acknowledgment that deaf children to read ASL gloss, they experience word in ASL. The use of the hyphen to have the disability of hearing loss, comprehension rather easily. It is connect the two words take and which affects their potential to learn important to stress that the best poten - shower informs readers that one word and master the reading skills of Eng - tial for successful reading comprehen - expressed in one language may re - lish. This suggests that something sion with the gloss text occurs when quire more than one word in another needs to be put together to help these students know more about ASL. This language. One well-known example in children cope with learning to read in includes instructors explaining the dif - ASL of having one sign for a two-word that language. Grushkin’s proposal ferent conventions (with ASL grammar term is give up , which is easily glossed that whole language and the use of a being taught at the same time), which as GIVE -UP . These examples suggest that conventional writing system for ASL helps with the process. Yet the reading Grushkin’s one-to-one word corre - would take care of English literacy is transparency reported for ASL gloss

543

VOLUME 161, N O. 5, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 544

WHY ASL G LOSS MUST MATTER

should not be overlooked and must be cludes English lexicon provides the its words listed in the Resource Book seen as scientifically interesting. gateway to English literacy (as it does as follows: Deaf children typically do not know for ASL instructors and students with any English and have not developed ASL literacy). Equally important is the IX =1 WILL GO >IX =3 store, FINISH , COME reading skills when they enter kinder - gloss text’s consistency with ASL’s mor - HOME TAKE -SHOWER . garten, yet they are poised to benefit phosyntactic structure, which allows from ASL gloss. This starts with consid - deaf children to read it word for word. COME ering that English literacy is inaccessi - This results in the gloss text being ac - FINISH ble to deaf children and that their cessible and in tune with the signed GO experiences with reading may not have language knowledge that deaf children HOME been pleasant. With English text nor - possess. STORE mally introduced to deaf children in With hundreds of children’s litera - TAKE -SHOWER school as their only source for learning ture books and basal readers glossed WILL to read, Hoffmeister and Caldwell-Har - from kindergarten through third ris (2014) describe these students’ grade, the Arizona charter school had Now let’s look at how a deaf child reading experience as “bewildering.” the important understanding that deaf reads the gloss sentence and uses the One must realize that deaf children children must have a way of identifying Resource Book. Suppose that the child encountering English text do not rely English words that are unfamiliar in a reads the sentence all the way until on what is called spoken-language given gloss book. The sight words HOME , a word he does not know. This is knowledge . They are disabled in terms these children bring to school are few where the child will need to use the of thinking in and processing English or in number. For this reason, the school Resource Book to locate the English any spoken language (although the sit - created a form of bilingual word (based on the English alphabetic uation for ASL is different, of course). called the “Resource Book.” The Re - order) and read the ASL equivalent The English text winds up being strange source Book allows deaf children to printed next to it: . In or - and inconsistent with how they sign, for look up and identify unknown English der to do this cross-linguistic word example. gloss by reading the ASL word equiva - recognition task successfully, deaf chil - This is where the Arizona charter lent. Thousands of English glosses dren at the Arizona charter school had school set its course to create a were paired with their ASL word equiv - to learn the signed language–based al - process starting with what deaf chil - alents written in a system called the phabetic principle so that they could dren know linguistically, which is ASL, “ASL-phabet.” This system is made up read the ASL words. This led to the and moving to English literacy. ASL of 32 graphemes, which represent the children’s ability to decode written gloss serves as the critical “missing three phonological parameters of signs based on their knowledge in link” in the realization of a reading in - , location, and movement signed language phonology and pho - struction program that works around (which underline the formation of all netics, for example. deafness and is consistent with reading signs). Each sign must be written with Please note the reading example as theory in general. The question, then, the handshape information that it discussed is a simpler example. Should is this: What exactly did the charter possesses, then followed with its loca - a gloss word have two or more ASL school see in ASL gloss? The answer tion and, finally, movement. Up to 8 equivalents, such as RIGHT referring to lies in the reversal of the beneficial ef - graphemes may be necessary to write (a) someone being right, (b) having a fect of ASL gloss from English-to-ASL as a word in ASL. For example, the sign right, and (c) turning right, the Re - reported for ASL instructors and stu - WORK requires the use of two hands; source Book will include three differ - dents to ASL-to-English with deaf chil - thus, two handshape graphemes are ent written signs in a list next to the dren. For the ASL-to-English transition, written. By comparison, TELL includes English gloss. A deaf child who did not the charter school took advantage of only one hand and thus one hand - know the gloss RIGHT would need to the fact that deaf children know sight shape in writing. (See Supalla, McKee, read all three signs. Knowing the con - words (in English, due to exposure to & Cripps, 2014, for more information text of the gloss sentence being read print in the environment during early on the ASL-phabet.) would help this child narrow the childhood). Sight words are a way in To serve as a demonstration, the choices down to the right sign equiva - which to begin to teach reading ASL edited gloss sentence from the preced - lent and then identify the meaning of gloss. The fact that the gloss text in - ing section is shown along with all of the English word and proceed with

544

VOLUME 161, N O. 5, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 545

reading the rest of the gloss text. The ing the indefinite article in English and knowing what is involved with design of the Resource Book also in - and that the English version is now a reading comprehension). According to cludes another component in which phrase (and no longer a word as found Supalla and Blackburn (2003), around written signs are organized (in the in ASL). the time of fourth grade, ASL gloss will ASL-phabet’s own order) with English The teacher is also expected to go cease to be used with deaf children equivalents next to them. During a through other features of the English who demonstrate reading fluency writing task (with ASL gloss), deaf sentence example with deaf children. through assessment. (More on how children are expected to use this part What is different from the gloss text in - reading abilities are measured for deaf of the Resource Book to locate the cludes the form of English pronouns children is provided in the next section sign they know, learn what the Eng - that account for case marking (i.e., I be - of the present article.) The ideal situa - lish equivalent is, and copy it through ing the subject and me the object). tion includes their shift to the process writing. Deaf children will also learn about the of reading to learn and continue using For deaf children’s transition to definite article used in the sentence ASL with all reading materials in English. English literacy, the development of a (the ) in the beginning of the English large English vocabulary base through sentence and its difference from the in - Gloss Text Subject to regular use of the Resource Book must definite article ( a) as used in the later Oral Reading be seen as a key benefit associated part of the sentence. The use of after - While the value and rationale of ASL with ASL gloss. Deaf children find the ward in the English sentence will be gloss may both be strong, a brief de - regular English text readable, with studied as something specific to Eng - scription of how a deaf child reads with words being the same as in the gloss lish. It is important to note that ASL has it is still important, especially because text. The lexical transfer from ASL gloss the sign AND , but it is used rarely, only the concept of signed language read - to the regular text is automatic. The re - with certain sentence structures. Fi - ing is new. Looking closely at how a ported transparency of gloss text for nally, deaf children will have the oppor - child reads a gloss text means ventur - deaf kindergarteners extends to Eng - tunity to understand that the English ing beyond the scope of Grushkin’s ar - lish print. Going back to the gloss sen - sentence requires the use of I will ticle. The data-based description of tence example and the identification twice, while this is not the case for ASL. signed language reading we discuss of HOME , should the child read any - During this entire experience, deaf below serves as a different step toward thing in English with the word home in children will be learning about how ASL the goal of understanding what consti - use, it would be recognizable and un - works (through looking closely at the tutes “best practice” in teaching read - derstandable to him. With both read - gloss version) to appreciate the similar - ing to deaf children. Although ASL ing and writing tasks occurring, deaf ities and differences between it and gloss is embraced in the field of ASL in - children can learn one sight word after English. The simple text as found at the struction, only one known study on its the other with English throughout kindergarten level (in both gloss and use has been published. The results their elementary school years. English versions) will allow deaf chil - were positive, according to the re - The last aspect of ASL gloss, called dren to work on a small number of searcher, Buisson (2007), who found comparative analysis , is what com - grammatical features. As time goes by, that ASL students who had the oppor - pletes the transition to English literacy with the scaffolding of more grammati - tunity to learn the language with ASL for deaf children. In the classroom, a cal features to learn and those that are gloss performed better (with ASL) teacher leads comparative analysis ac - learned subject to review (through the than without ASL gloss. For deaf chil - tivities based on a sentence-by-sen - increasingly complex texts being read), dren, signed language reading is a tence comparison of gloss and regular these children will see grammatical pat - wide-open and uncharted territory. texts. This occurs with the understand - terns being repeatedly employed in var - To facilitate the description of a ing that the gloss text has already been ious books in English that they read on signed language reading example, it is read by the deaf children. With TAKE - their own. The result of following an necessary to review what is involved in SHOWER , as used in the gloss sentence ASL-to-English reading instruction pro - oral reading. Oral reading is typically example, children will see that a hy - cedure includes the establishment of done from kindergarten through third phen is removed in the English ver - English-language knowledge along with grade, a time when children focus on sion, and that the letter a is inserted. the transfer of reading skills from ASL the process of learning to read. Rasin - This is where the teacher provides for deaf children (such as reading left to ski (2003) made a list of benefits asso - an English-language lesson by ex plain - right, paying attention to what is read, ciated with oral reading:

545

VOLUME 161, N O. 5, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 546

WHY ASL G LOSS MUST MATTER

1. connecting spoken to written any text. With hearing children, the small number of words is not surpris - language running records are most helpful in ing when one looks at the research of 2. building readers’ confidence providing evidence on how well they Klima and Bellugi (1979). They did a 3. strengthening readers’ decoding are directing their knowledge of let - study comparing the rate of speaking skills ters, sounds, and words to understand - and signing and confirmed that a 4. fostering readers’ fluency ing the message in the text (Clay, signer would consistently use fewer 5. boosting readers’ comprehension 2000). To conduct running records, a signs in a sentence to convey the 6. allowing teachers to view their teacher listens to a child’s oral reading equivalent meaning in English. On av - students’ reading process and follows a script of the passage, tal - erage, individual signs require twice as lying the words being read success - much time for production as spoken The benefits of oral reading for deaf fully. Errors are marked when the child words. At the same time, ASL is de - children with ASL gloss are substantial. skips a word or fails to decode a word. scribed as having a rich and multilay - These children experience a connec - The assessor knows the total number ered morphology (in the form of tion of signed to written language, of words in the English passage, and inflections, classifiers, etc.) and the use thanks to the matching of signing and this results in a computation based on of nonmanual signals (such as raised print. Their confidence as readers in - the number of errors that produces a eyebrows for marking a sentence con - creases when they are provided with percentage. Should the child obtain ditional) that compensate for the the experience of reading based on an accuracy rate higher than 98% in longer time it takes to sign words and the language they know, ASL. Since running records, that child would be the smaller number of signs per sen - these children can sign word for word, considered an independent reader tences as compared to English. The it is easy for the teacher to see if they and would not need the teacher’s as - question is, then: What should be are reading with accuracy, for example. sistance. Thus, the text would be con - done with the running records to ad - The teacher can also monitor whether sidered “easy.” If a child read the text just for this? these children use the Resource Book (and decoded words) at grade level It was a master’s thesis by a gradu - any time they encounter unfamiliar with an accuracy rate in the range of ate student at the University of Ari - English words in print. This allows the 90%–95%, that child would be consid - zona (under the supervision of the teacher to see how the children fare ered to be reading at an instructional lead author of the present article, with reading the ASL equivalents writ - level and would need the teacher’s as - Samuel Supalla) who solved the seem - ten in the ASL-phabet. The teacher’s sistance. If the accuracy rate were be - ingly big problem of how to make the guidance on reading written signs will low 90%, the child would likely be running records work for deaf chil - strengthen the deaf child’s decoding faltering as a reader and reading at the dren. A published reading inventory skills. The same holds true for model - frustration level. In other words, the with English passages increasing in ing how to best read a gloss text with a text would be too difficult for the child complexity over grade levels was first wide range of conventions in use. One (Gillet & Temple, 2000; Leslie & Cald - subject to glossing. The next task was way or another, these children’s read - well, 2001). to come up with a word count formula ing comprehension will be boosted. The opportunity to measure deaf for ASL that ensured a parallel between Fluency will ultimately develop, with children’s oral reading with ASL gloss gloss passages and their originals in practice opportunities provided along was provided at the Arizona charter the English reading inventory. It was with the teacher’s coaching efforts. school, as it had accepted the chal - through the necessary alignment of The development of English literacy lenge of using the running records. the ASL word count formula that the for deaf children is contingent on the The obstacle that had to be overcome total number of words did increase. In features of oral reading being imple - was how to count words in a gloss addition, each gloss passage shared mented through ASL gloss along with text. Teachers at the charter school the same spot of ordering with the the perusal of comparative analysis and complained that the “English way” of English version. The thesis author, the teaching of English-language les - counting the words in ASL seemed to Michelle Nersesian (2002), devised a sons on a regular basis. always lead to a much smaller number formula for use with the running In terms of measuring oral reading, and caused the computations to be records (with ASL and ASL gloss). Serv - the running records (or miscue analy - “off” and unrepresentative of how deaf ing as one example, a classifier predi - sis) are one well-known way of exam - children perform with reading. The cate in ASL has the appearance of a ining how well a child reads orally from dilemma of ASL sentences having a single sign, but not according to Ners -

546

VOLUME 161, N O. 5, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 547

esian’s word count formula. In Figure Figure 1 1, the illustration shows a classifier The classifier predicate example ‘jumping out of bed’ subject to glossing. predicate example of the English equiv - alent jumped out of the bed . It is fol - lowed by written ASL gloss. Before discussing how [ -BED -JUMP >OUT ] is counted, it is important to understand how this classifier pred - icate is written. There are two ASL- phabet letters in use (i.e., and ). The ASL gloss conventions developed at the Arizona charter school allows borrowing of these letters from the ASL- phabet. Each letter originally rep - resents a phoneme in ASL, and now functions as a here. To il - lustrate this, refers to the flat palm of a handshape, which is appropriate for the flat surface as found on a bed. refers to the “V” handshape that is appropriate for the “legs” or a person. The parentheses in use indicate that two classifier are at play. They intuitively knew where the chil - present article, only the first three sen - The English glosses BED , JUMP , and OUT dren stood with reading, and wel - tences are subject to discussion in re - are what a deaf child needs to identify comed the support provided by the gard to her oral reading performance. as conventional signs (and the child results of the running records. The excerpt of the English passage and can use the Resource Book to identify Here one will now see that the im - its gloss version follow: their meaning through ASL). proved running records with a young The counting of [ -BED -JUMP >OUT ] deaf child reading a gloss passage are English: will be three, according to Nersesian’s visibly consistent with what the charter The day was bright and sunny. Carlos formula. BED , JUMP , and OUT are subject school’s teachers felt about the assess - and Maria jumped out of the bed and to counting as “tokens” in one gloss ment. The child in question was a girl dressed in a hurry. They didn’t want word. The ASL word count formula es - (age 9 years) who had been pro - to be late for school today. tablished in her master’s thesis does foundly deaf since birth and grew up in not limit itself to the handling the clas - a signing household with deaf parents. ASL gloss: sifier predicates, as it includes some This student attended the Arizona THAT DAY BRIGHT SUNNY . fs -CARLOS BOY NAME morphosyntactic markings for count - charter school (as a third grader) AND fs -MARIA GIRL NAME [-BED -JUMP >OUT ] ing as well. The original attempt to and was ranked as proficient on the BED DRESS IN -A-HURRY . IX =3# NOT -WANT LATE count English glosses was clearly not Amer ican Sign Language Proficiency FOR SCHOOL TODAY . sufficient. One must also realize that Assessment (Maller et al., 1999). A the contribution of ASL gloss to the third-grade English passage titled “The Please note the child reads only the study by Nersesian (2002) cannot be Trip to the Zoo,” from the Qualitative ASL gloss text. The names of Carlos underestimated. Imagine how one Reading Inventory–3 (Leslie & Cald - and Maria start with fs- to indicate that tries to decide on the counting of well, 2001), was subject to interlinear they are fingerspelled. The gloss IN -A- tokens with classifier predicates when translation leading to the creation of a HURRY is similar to what was discussed there is no gloss writing to rely on. gloss version. The child was instructed earlier with TAKE -SHOWER and GIVE -UP . Most importantly, when Nersesian’s to read and sign the gloss text from the Please note that the gloss conventions formula was tried at the charter beginning to the end. The Resource were subject to modifications since the school, the teachers found the run - Book was made available for her use time of this assessment with the run - ning records to be working for them. when needed. For the purpose of the ning records. The English phrase “in a

547

VOLUME 161, N O. 5, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 548

WHY ASL G LOSS MUST MATTER

hurry” is now glossed as IN -HURRY , not stances was marked as an error (i.e., that the child performed at 91%, which IN -A-HURRY . NOT -WANT serves as another E). In ASL, it is important to sign NAME is at the instructional level, with an er - example of this type of glossing. Fi - when introducing someone’s name. ror rate of 1:11.5. The child could be nally, the use of the # symbol after the the person’s name with - described as capable of reading, but third-person pronoun IX =3 indicates out signing NAME is incorrect. The she was not an independent or fluent its pluralization. Instead of pointing to child read the more complex classifier reader. As shown by the running a single location on the left or right of pred icate with no difficulty, which is records, the child needed continued the signing space, IX =3# involves a encouraging. However, she made teacher’s assistance in oral reading at pointing that sweeps across the sign - another self-correction when she an age-appropriate level of the gloss ing space (as if one were pointing to a skipped BED and signed DRESS prema - reading materials. The fact that the group of people, not just one person). turely. She quickly realized that an er - child identified a vast majority of the As shown in Table 1, the running ror had been made and went back in English glosses can be seen as a posi - records format indicates the child’s the sentence to sign BED and then tive result of her previous reading ex - oral reading performance. Gloss text DRESS . While the child did not recog - periences, especially with the regular that is signed successfully is marked nize the last word IN -A-HURRY , she did use of the Resource Book. It should be with a check. With the first word, the use the Resource Book and looked up recalled that whenever the child used child did a self-correction (i.e., SC) and read the ASL equivalent, . the Resource Book, she was reading when she signed incorrectly, and ulti - The convention “RB” is used to mark the ASL equivalent of the gloss. While mately signed THAT . No penalty was as - successful English word identification. this is only one example of the child sessed for this reading behavior. The More specifically, the child read the being successful with reading the ASL child was able to complete the first written sign and started to sound it out equivalent to IN -A-HURRY , it is easy to sentence with no apparent difficulty. in ASL and came up with the sign. The imagine that she had an adequate With the second sentence, the child’s child produced the last sentence in amount of word-decoding skills. The oral reading performance has a few in - the oral reading task perfectly, as she identification of the child’s reading teresting features to consider. The used the pluralized form of the third level as instructional indicates that child fingerspelled the two proper person pronoun IX =3. more work in developing reading skills names correctly, but she skipped the The use of Nersesian’s formula for was needed. The key area of reading word NAME twice, which in both in - counting tokens in ASL gloss shows improvement for the child lay in her

Table 1 Deaf Student’s Reading Performance using Running Records

SC √ √ √ 1. THA T DAY BR IGH T SUNN Y. √ √ E √ √ √ 2. fs-CAR LOS BOY NA ME AN D fs -MAR IA GIRL E √ √ √ SC √ √ RB NA ME [R-BED J-JUMP>OU T] ∧ BED DRESS IN-A-HU RR Y. DRESS √ √ √ √ √ √ 3. IX=3# NO T-WAN T LATE FOR SCHOO L TOD AY.

Key to Conventions for Coding Student Data √ = correct response 23 running words E = error 2 E, 1 RB, 2 SC RB = used The Resource Book Accuracy: 91% (75%) SC = self-correction Error rate: 1:11.5 (1:4)

548

VOLUME 161, N O. 5, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 549

paying attention to what was read. For have demonstrated over the last few cussed in the present article. The edu - example, she seemed inclined to read decades), then reading in the signed cational system will need to start think - too fast, which caused her to skip NAME language is a real possibility. To accept ing about signed language reading and twice and BED once. this, deaf education would have to un - ASL gloss, as deaf children’s reading dergo some changes, something that difficulties are well known, and must Closing Remarks on is inherently difficult to do. be addressed in the present era of pur - Teaching Reading to Deaf By all accounts, Grushkin must be suing best practices and accountability. Children commended for challenging the dom - As pointed out in the present arti - As evidenced by the preliminary oral inance of spoken- language reading. cle, Grushkin has a number of weak - reading example with ASL gloss, deaf (See also Cripps & Supalla, 2012, for nesses in his understanding about children have a strong potential to ex - further discussion of the power of spo - signed language reading when it perience a variety of reading develop - ken language and its effects on the ed - comes to how deaf children best learn ment features and have their reading ucation process.) It is important to and master English literacy. Yes, ASL abilities measured. The child discussed note that many educators have recog - and English are two languages under above was cognitively engaged in read - nized ASL as a full-fledged human lan - consideration, but only one is accessi - ing the gloss text, which appeared to guage. Signing is widely encouraged in ble, while the other is not. This clarifi - be authentic and normal (with no con - schools and programs serving deaf stu - cation is crucial for explaining why ASL fusion or any indication of incomplete - dents as well as for those integrated gloss had to enter the picture, as pro - ness associated with the gloss text that into regular public schools. In inte - moted at the Arizona charter school. may have affected the child’s reading grated settings, the provision of signed Different components and tools of this experience). This included a form of language interpreting services is a tes - program have been strategically put inner speech in the child’s head as she timony to society’s acceptance of an al - together to ensure that deaf children read the gloss text, according to the ternative modality to language (i.e., experience signed language reading language that she knew (i.e., ASL). The signed and ASL). However, the persist - with a systematic transition to English phenomenon of signed language read - ent problem for the education of deaf literacy. As shown in Figure 2a, the pro - ing as described is not strictly theoret - children lies in how ASL has been con - posal by Grushkin to have a conven - ical, but practical as well. fined to use “through the air.” Adding tional writing system for ASL covers The remaining question is: Why to this dilemma is how the linguistic the oral-to-print process with a first don’t educators working with deaf accessibility concept has not been se - language, or L1, but not with English as children pursue ASL gloss similarly to riously addressed, with the exception a second language, or L2. Deaf chil dren what has been reported in the field of of the Arizona charter school dis - continue to experience restrictions ASL instruction? One answer is histor - ical. The field of ASL instruction is a re - Figure 2a cent phenomenon, while the field of Some limitations of Grushkin’s proposal in accessing English literacy. deaf education is old, tracing back to the early nineteenth century. The field of ASL instruction had its start with a L1 Oral L2 Oral “clean slate” with the notion that ASL is (ASL) (Engli sh) a language and people are interested in learning it. Deaf education is more complex, as it is part of a large educa - tional establishment that caters to chil - dren who can hear. One can say that in theory and practice, reading is treated as synonymous with spoken language out of convenience, which is both er - roneous and antiquated in terms of what is understood about human lan - L1 Print L2 Print guages. If ASL possesses linguistic prin - (ASL) (Engli sh) ciples (as linguists and researchers

549

VOLUME 161, N O. 5, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 550

WHY ASL G LOSS MUST MATTER

Figure 2b Clay, M. M. (2000). Running records for class - The alternative proposal using ASL for teaching English literacy. room teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heine - mann. Cripps, J. H., Cooper, S. B., Supalla, S. J., & Evitts, P. M. (2015). Meeting the needs of signers in L1 Oral L2 Oral the field of speech-language pathology: Some (ASL) (Engli sh) considerations for action. Communication Disorders Quarterly . Advance online publica - tion. http://cdq.sagepub.com/content/early/ 2015/03/18/ Cripps, J. H., & Supalla, S. J. (2012). The power Glossi ng of spoken language in schools and deaf stu - dents who sign. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2 (16), 86–102. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and ped - agogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire . L1 Print L2 Print Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. (ASL) (Engli sh) Enns, C. J., & Herman, R. C. (2011). Adapting the Assessing Develop - ment: Receptive Skills Test into American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16 (3), 362–374. Garate, M. (2012, June). ASL/English bilingual education: Models, methodologies, and re lated to the English reading process scope to include signed language or strategies (Research Brief No. 8). Retrieved (as indicated by the fragmented arrow ASL for the reason of linguistic accessi - from Visual Language and Visual Learning in the figure). The ASL gloss set-up, on bility. The notion of deaf children Science of Learning Center website: http://vl2 .gallaudet.edu/files/3813/ 9216/6289/research the other hand, addresses both lan - needing to become proficient in ASL -brief-8-asl-english-bilingual-education.pdf guages, ASL and English. Children who due to their disability is a paradigm Gillet, J. W., & Temple, C. (2000). Understanding use it rely on glossing for learning and shift that requires attention in research reading problems (5th ed.). New York, NY: Longman. mastering English literacy through and scholarship. Goldin-Meadow, S., & Mayberry, R. I. (2001). ASL, as shown in Figure 2b. ASL gloss is innovative and is sensi - How do profoundly deaf children learn to Finally, the issue of ASL proficiency tive to the issue of how deaf children read? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice , 16 (4), 222–229. has become more important than at best learn English literacy. As described Hoffmeister, R. J., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2014). any other time in the history of deaf in the present article, ASL gloss is elab - Acquiring English as a second language via education, as it underlines the efficacy orate enough to provide deaf children print: The task for deaf children. Cognition , of ASL gloss. Up to now, deaf children with the ability to learn to read, which 132 (2), 229–242. Hoiting, N., & Slobin, D. I. (2002). Transcription have not been required to know ASL, is the ultimate cognitive achievement as a tool for understanding: The Berkeley and thus signed language proficiency of human beings. Transcription System for sign language re - has varied among deaf children (see, search (BTS). In G. Morgan & B. Woll (Eds.), Directions in sign language acquisition e.g., Lederberg, Schick, & Spencer, References (pp. 55–75). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John 2013). The status of ASL as a signed Andrews, J. F., Leigh, I., & Weiner, M. T. (2004). Benjamins. Deaf people: Evolving perspectives from psy - language requires that the educational Hoza, J. (2011). The discourse and politeness chology, education, and sociology . Boston, functions of HEY and WELL in American Sign establishment take a hard look at what MA: Allyn & Bacon. Language. In C. B. Roy (Ed.), Discourse in language really means to deaf children Baker, A., van den Bogaerde, B., & Woll, B. signed languages (pp. 69–95). Washington, (including how the linguistic structure (2008). Methods and procedures in sign lan - DC: Gallaudet University Press. guage acquisition studies. In A. Baker & B. must be different from English) so that Humphries, T., & MacDougall, F. (2000). “Chain - Woll (Eds.), Sign language acquisition (Vol. ing” and other links: Making connections it achieves the critical element of learn - 14, pp. 1–49). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John between American Sign Language and Eng - ability and ease of use (see Supalla & Benjamins. lish in two types of school settings. Visual Baker-Shenk, C. L., & Cokely, D. (1980). Ameri - McKee, 2002, for further discussion of Anthropology Review, 15 (2), 84–94. can Sign Language: A teacher’s resource Humphries, T. L., & Padden, C. A. (2004). Learn - this topic). As discussed by Cripps, text on curriculum, methods, and evalua - ing American Sign Language: Levels I and Cooper, Supalla, and Evitts (2015), the tion. Silver Spring, MD: T. J. Publishers. II, beginning and intermediate (2nd ed.). Buisson, G. J. (2007). Using online glossing les - field of speech and language pathol - Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. sons for accelerated instruction in ASL for Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of ogy, which has a strong influence on preservice deaf education majors. American language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer - deaf education, will need to expand its Annals of the Deaf , 152 (3), 331–343. sity Press.

550

VOLUME 161, N O. 5, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 551

Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R., & Bahan, B. J. (1996). ing Naturally: Teacher’s curriculum guide, how to read and bypassing sound. Odyssey , A journey into the Deaf-world . San Diego, level 3. San Diego, CA: DawnSignPress. 5(1), 50–55. CA: DawnSignPress. Neidle, C. J., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, Supalla, S. J., & Cripps, J. H. (2008). Linguistic ac - Lederberg, A. R., Schick, B., & Spencer, P. E. B., & Lee, R. G. (2000). The syntax of Amer - cessibility and deaf children. In B. Spolsky & (2013). Language and literacy development of ican Sign Language: Functional categories F. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational deaf and hard-of-hearing children: Successes and hierarchical structure . Cambridge, (pp. 174–191). Oxford, England: and challenges. Developmental Psychology , MA: MIT Press. Blackwell. 49 (1), 15–30. Nersesian, M. A. (2002). A comparison study Supalla, S. J., & Cripps, J. H. (2011). Toward uni - Lentz, E. M., Mikos, K., & Smith, C. (1988). Sign - of lexical and grammatical complexity versal design in reading instruction. Bilin - ing Naturally: Teacher’s curriculum guide, across K- texts in English and American gual Basics, 12 (2). Retrieved from https:// level 1 . San Diego, CA: DawnSignPress. Sign Language (ASL) gloss. (Unpublished www.researchgate.net/profile/Jody_Cripps/ Lentz, E. M., Mikos, K., & Smith, C. (2014). Sign - master’s thesis). University of Arizona, publication/275354127_TOWARD_UNIVER ing Naturally: Teacher’s curriculum guide, Tucson. SAL_DESIGN_IN_READING_INSTRUCTION/ units 7–12. San Diego, CA: DawnSignPress. Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral links/553aa8f10cf2c415bb 08e890.pdf?origin Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2001). Qualitative reading strategies for building word recog - =publication_detail reading inventory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: nition, fluency, and comprehension. New Supalla, S. J., & McKee, C. (2002). The role of Longman. York, NY: Scholastic Professional Books. in language develop - Madsen, W. J. (1982). Intermediate conversa - Singleton, J. L., & Supalla, S. J. (2011). Assessing ment of deaf children. In R. Meier, K. tional sign language (2nd ed.). Washing - children’s proficiency in natural signed lan - Cormier, & D. Quinto-Pozos (Eds.), Modality ton, DC: Gallaudet University Press. guages. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.), and structure in signed and spoken lan - Maher, J. (1996). Seeing in signs: The works of The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, lan - guages (pp. 143–165). Cambridge, England: . Washington, DC: Gallaudet guage, and education (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. Cambridge University Press. University Press. 306–319). Oxford, England: Oxford Univer - Supalla, S. J., McKee, C., & Cripps, J. H. (2014). Maller, S. J., Singleton, J. L., Supalla, S. J., & Wix, sity Press. An overview on the ASL-phabet. Tucson, AZ: T. (1999). The development and psychomet - Singleton, J. L., Supalla, S. J., Litchfield, S., & Sch - Gloss Institute. ric properties of the American Sign Language ley, S. (1998). From sign to word: Consider - Supalla, S. J., Wix, T. R., & McKee, C. (2001). Proficiency Assessment. Journal of Deaf ing modality constraints in ASL/English Print as a primary source of English for deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4 (4), 249–269. bilingual education. Topics in Language Dis - learners. In J. L. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two Meier, R. P. (2002). Why different, why the same? orders , 18 (4), 16–29. languages: Studies in bilingual language Explaining effects and non-effects of modal - Slobin, D. I. (2008). Breaking the molds: Signed processing (pp. 177–190). Oxford, England: ity upon linguistic structure in sign and languages and the nature of human language. Blackwell. speech. In R. P. Meier, K. Cormier, & D. Sign Language Studies , 8(2), 114–130. Trezek, B., Wang, Y., & Paul, P. (2010). Reading Quinto-Pozos (Eds.), Modality and struc - Smith, C., Lentz, E. M., & Mikos, K. (2008). and deafness: Theory, research, and prac - ture in signed and spoken languages (pp. Signing Naturally: Teacher’s curriculum tice. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. 1–25). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni - guide, units 1-6. San Diego, CA: DawnSign - Zinza, J. E. (2006). Master ASL! Fingerspelling, versity Press. Press. numbers, and glossing . Burtonsville, MD: Mikos, K., Smith, C., & Lentz, E. M. (2001). Sign - Supalla, S. J., & Blackburn, L. (2003). Learning Sign Media.

551

VOLUME 161, N O. 5, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF