learning of the deaf are collected, and a small-scale research is carried out on a
... have striven to keep to the proposed focus and yet attempted to reflect my ...
Masaryk University Faculty of Education Department of English Language and Literature
Language Learning and Deafness Bachelor Thesis
Brno 2009
Author: Vaněk Martin
Supervisor: Dr. Rita Chalmers Collins
Annotation This thesis focuses on the processes affecting the linguistic development of the deaf individual. The existent findings regarding first and second language acquisition of the deaf in the USA and the Czech Republic are examined, as well as the product of the methods used to facilitate the process of acquisition. The available data concerning third language learning of the deaf are collected, and a small-scale research is carried out on a representative sample of four deaf individuals. The aim of the work is to shed light on the specific factors defining the way the deaf individual learns a foreign language – English, and thus pave the way to further research in the area.
Key words Language acquisition, language learning, literacy, deafness, hearing impairment, linguistic development, sign language
2
Declaration I declare that I worked on my bachelor thesis on my own and that I used only the sources mentioned in the bibliography section.
………………............................... Martin Vaněk 3
Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to my supervisor, Dr. Rita Chalmers Collins, for her tremendous support, continuous feedback, and words of encouragement.
4
Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. The terminology 2.1. Language acquisition vs. language learning 2.2. Perspectives on deafness
3. Primary languages in the USA and the Czech Republic 3.1. Sign language introduced 3.1.1. Basic sign language characteristics 3.1.2. Questioning the language status 3.1.3. Sign language development
3.2. American Sign Language 3.2.1. Short history of American Sign Language 3.2.2. The product of acquisition and the environment
3.3. Czech sign language 3.3.1. The situation of Czech Sign Language
3.4. The process of acquisition and the environment
4. Deafness and second language acquisition
7 9 9 9 12 12 12 12 14 15 15 16 18 18 19 21 22
4.1. Introduction into the ambiguities in majority language acquisition 4.2. Second language learning and bilingualism in the deaf population24 4.3. Theoretical models in second language learning and deafness 25 4.4. Theories in second language literacy 25 4.4.1. Development of literacy in the hearing individual 4.4.2. Development of literacy in the deaf individual
5. Deafness and third language learning 5.1. Learner characteristics affecting the language learning process 5.2. Linguistic development and third language learning 5.3. Interlanguage and cross-linguistic influence
6. Research
27 28 31 31 32 34 36 36 36
6.1. Research introduction 6.2. Research type support 5
37 37 38 39
6.3. Research procedure 6.4. Interviewee profiles 6.5. Interview questions 6.6. Research analysis
7. Conclusion
42
Bibliography
44
Appendices
6
1. Introduction The deaf have always faced a great challenge, as their mode of communication makes them stand apart from all the other individuals in a society where interpersonal communication is dominated by speech. Nevertheless, the deaf from all over the world rise to the challenge every day, not only proving that their language – sign language – is a genuine linguistic system, but also manifesting their ability to learn additional languages. I firmly believe that the issues surrounding language learning and deafness deserve our attention. This thesis will take a closer look at the factors and variables affecting the linguistic development of the deaf individual. As for the motivation behind this thesis, I have long harboured an ambition to make a contribution to the somewhat modest collection of works dealing with language learning and deafness. Yet the subject matter itself is not the driving force behind my endeavour. It is my hands-on experience and personal involvement in the deaf community that prompted the thought that I should set pen to paper. I have had the golden opportunity to become a true ’member’ of the deaf world. Mindful of the value attributed to personal experience, I have striven to keep to the proposed focus and yet attempted to reflect my knowledge in this work whenever I deemed it necessary. The objectives stated in the annotation seem fairly clear. The execution of the task should therefore be equally straightforward. Indeed, the properties of second language acquisition have been studied and examined exhaustively. However, very little is known about how deaf individuals learn a foreign language, as this subject has only been touched upon in a small number of research papers. The scope of this thesis cannot possibly cover all forms of hearing impairment, for the focus of attention is the process of language acquisition in the deaf individual, rather than the peculiarities of acquisition reflecting the degree of hearing impairment. The hardof-hearing, for instance, are able to process auditory input to a certain degree, and thus they should be distinguished from the profoundly deaf, who are limited in this respect. Deaf individuals are incapable of perceiving any auditory input, i.e. spoken language. Despite these fundamental differences between the two aforementioned groups a number of widespread misconceptions continue to hinder the development and use of
7
appropriate teaching methods and approaches. I have tried not to be ignorant of these substantial differences, and so the accent is primarily on language acquisition in profoundly deaf individuals. This selection further limits the range of language skills which receive attention. Fully cognizant of the fact that for the deaf individual the development of literacy is more important than the development of the spoken form of language, the skills that receive most attention are the skills of reading and writing. I would not have taken on this ambitious task had I not believed that further research into the life of the deaf community and, more specifically, the characteristics of third language acquisition will be of great benefit to all concerned with language development, not only those concerned with deaf education.
8
2. The terminology This chapter is largely interpretative and its aim is to elucidate the meaning and use of the key terms as applied in this thesis. The terms central to proper understanding of the analysed phenomenon are language acquisition and the deaf.
2.1. Language acquisition vs. language learning Although there are a number of hypotheses that distinguish between language acquisition and language learning, the character and interdependence of the two processes remain a linguistic hot potato. According to Krashen, there are two systems for developing ability in second languages: language acquisition, defined as a subconscious process analogous to primary language acquisition, and language learning, a conscious process based on formal language instruction the product of which is the learned system (1-2). As is generally assumed, the theory of language acquisition presupposes a certain (though non-specified) amount of exposure to the target language. It is difficult to determine the extent to which the deaf individual meets this fundamental prerequisite, principally due to the sensory impairment in question. Therefore, the author shall use the term language acquisition (in connection with deafness) to refer to both the types of language attainment, that is, language acquisition and language learning.
2.2. Perspectives on deafness The audiological definition describes the cause and severity of the hearing loss in a deaf individual. It would appear that to characterize a deaf individual in terms of such a definition is sufficient. It is, in fact, a rather disturbing thought that deafness should only be understood within this limited concept. The popular misconceptions about the hearingimpaired (esp. in the field of education) usually stem from inadequate knowledge after all. Since the learner-culture characteristics have been observed to play an important role in the process of language acquisition (language, social interaction, perception), a cultural definition should also be taken into account.
9
The pioneer of sign language research, William C. Stokoe, was one of the first researchers to penetrate deeper into the cultural-linguistic dimension of deafness, that is, the deaf being a specific sub-cultural community, as opposed to a collection of individuals with a hearing impairment. Stokoe (11) argues:
The deaf as a group fall into a completely unique category in society because of their unusual relation to the communication process . . . No other group with a major physical handicap is so severely restricted in social intercourse. Other handicapped persons, even those with impaired vision, may normally learn to communicate through speech and engage in normal social relations. Congenitally deaf persons and those who have never learned speech through hearing (together representing the majority of the deaf population) never perceive or imitate sounds. Speech must be laboriously acquitted and speechreading, insofar as individual skill permits, must be substituted for hearing if socially approved intercommunication is to take place. The rare mastery of these techniques never fully substitutes for language acquisition through hearing.
Not only are the deaf a unique sub-cultural group distinct from the majority of population – the deaf are also distinct from other individuals with hearing impairment. Padden and Humphries, being deaf themselves, refer to the situation of the deaf in the USA: ’’The members of this group reside in the United States and Canada, have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society. We distinguish them from, for example, those who find themselves losing their hearing because of illness, trauma or age; although these people share the condition of not hearing, they do not have access to the knowledge, beliefs, and practices that make up the culture of Deaf people’’ (2). Early identification of individual types of hearing impairment (e.g. deafness, hardof-hearingness) is of great significance to deaf educators in particular. Ideally, an educational method or approach applied in teaching practice should reflect these learner differences. A deaf person, for instance, should not have to rely on oral instructions only,
10
although such educational endeavours are not a rare occurrence. Macurová observes that the deaf ’’are incapable – even if provided with hearing aids – of perceiving phonemes of spoken language, and (unlike deafened people) they have never been capable of perceiving them at any time in their lives. However self-evident this may be, this fact continues to be, at least in the Czech Republic, hidden beneath a layer of preposterous misconceptions (that while deafness may not be downright curable, it can at least be mended somehow), and prejudice’’ (28-29). Respecting the reasons stated above, the author takes both definitions into consideration.
11
3. Primary languages in the USA and the Czech Republic The role of the primary language in the educational process and in language learning is indisputable. This chapter provides the basic theoretical background about the primary languages used by the deaf in the United States of America and the Czech Republic. For the convenience of the reader, a portion of the text is devoted to the linguistic properties, the status and the changing perception of sign language, the influence of which is evident in the sphere of education. American Sign Language (ASL) has so far received substantially more attention in the field of sign linguistics than its Czech counterpart, as a result of which the two languages are treated here from slightly different perspectives.
3.1. Sign language introduced 3.1.1. Basic sign language characteristics Language is a unique communication system governed by rules. The absence of rules renders communication impossible. Sign language has a clearly organized internal structure, and a set of rules according to which units of information are composed. It is a complex linguistic system based on the visual/manual mode of communication. Apart from being rule-governed, languages communicate meanings through linguistic symbols. A symbol represents a particular entity, either abstract of concrete. In oral languages, which have both a spoken and a written system, a symbol may be a written word (a set combination of graphemes), or a set combination of sounds (phonemes). Sign language, however, being a purely visual-gestural language given the hearing impairment of those who use it, relies on visual representations (signs) for the transmission of meaning.
3.1.2. Questioning the language status Sign language has long been treated as an imperfect and unsophisticated communication system manifesting few fully linguistic features. Prior to 1960, a year marked by the publication of the revolutionary monograph Sign Language Structure: An
12
Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf, sign language had been denied its linguistic status for a number of reasons. As the linguistic status of sign language is not the sole topic of this chapter, only the most frequently occurring arguments against the use of sign language in education will now be mentioned. People and perhaps a number of linguists frequently pointed out the apparent iconicity of signs. It was as though they were led to believe that the existence of iconicity in sign language meant that sign languages were not languages in the true sense (Valli and Lucas 5). Admittedly, a large number of signs (in sign language) may be classified as iconic; meaning that ’’the form of the symbol is an icon or picture of some aspect of the thing or activity being symbolized’’ (Valli and Lucas 5). For illustration, the origin of iconic signs is popularly explained thus: ’’the sign GIRL, which is made on the chin to represent bonnet ribbons; and the sign MAN, which depicts the brim of a hat’’ (Valli and Lucas 5). However, the argument that all signs are iconic hardly holds water – there is a strong supposition that the iconic character of a sign weakens over time (e.g. when the sign is passed from generation to generation). Furthermore, it is noteworthy that instances of iconic forms have been observed in spoken languages as well, although the overwhelming majority of forms in spoken languages are indeed arbitrary (unmotivated). Valli and Lucas (5) observe that linguistic signs based on iconicity and arbitrariness can be found in all languages, including sign languages. The assumption that sign languages lack a system according to which the principal connection between sign is realized, and therefore have no grammar has also remained unchallenged for a long period of time. An important shift in the perception of visualgestural languages can be traced back to the second half of the eighteenth century, when Abbe´ de l’E´ pe´e began his assiduous study of sign language, adopting individual signs (a form of metalanguage) to teach the French language to deaf-mutes (Stokoe 6-7). The work of Abbe´ de l’E´ pe´e was all the more important as ’’none before him and all too few after him to the present day have been willing to face the fact that a symbol system by means of which persons carry on all the activities of their ordinary lives is, and ought to be treated as, a language’’ (Stokoe 7). Regrettably enough, the existent evidence arguing for the linguistic
13
recognition of sign language has been ignored by many, including those working in the field. In the eighteenth and nineteenth century, a number of scholars recognized that certain grammatical relationships in sign languages were realized differently from those in spoken languages. For instance, Stokoe highlights the contribution of Valade, who ’’states that the syntax of sign language has no need for the copula in such statements as ‘the corn is green’ or ‘the girl is beautiful’ because the visual juxtaposition of the signs for substantive and adjective serves the same purpose. Such analysis is far superior to the conclusions sometimes encountered that the language of signs has no grammar or syntax’’ (Stokoe 9). However, as was mentioned earlier, it wasn’t before William Stokoe produced his famous monograph in which he proves that sign language has all linguistic features, that sign language was officially recognized as a language.
3.1.3. Sign language development Sign language, either in its rudimentary or current form, has existed for as long as humankind itself. It is feasible to assume that as any other language, sign language developed gradually, serving the needs of survival first (e.g. communication to obtain food), accommodating the hearing impaired with social communication formulae later. Stokoe notes: ’’Communication by a system of gestures is not an exclusively human activity, so that in a broad sense of the term, sign language is as old as the race itself, and its earliest history is equally obscure’’ (3). Throughout history, individuals with hearing impairment would need to develop an alternative communication system, for the ability to communicate basic needs, feelings, and notions is material to survival in society. Although it appears that the specific signalling systems peculiar to the deaf have developed independently of the primary mode of communication – speech, the relation between the development of sign language and spoken language has been established. In Sign Language Structure, Stokoe argues that ’’special signaling systems of the deaf … can only develop in a culture, built, operated, and held together by a language, a system of arbitrary vocal symbols’’ (6). Surely, the primary communicative patterns of the deaf may once have been derived from the kinesic communicative behaviour, that is, the non-vocalized communicative
14
phenomenon, but ’’it cannot have been until long after the development of human speech as we know it that human culture had advanced to a point where individuals deprived of the normal channels of communication could be given a chance to develop substitutes’’ (Stokoe 6). The initial attempts at improving the then communication systems are discussed in a subchapter titled Short history of American Sign language..
3.2. American Sign Language The primary linguistic features of sign language have been discussed in the introductory part of this chapter (see Stokoe 1960 for analysis). It will therefore be sufficient to note that American Sign Language is a communication system used as the primary means of communication of the deaf in the United States of America. Apart from ASL, other language varieties are used as primary languages among the deaf in the USA, and they should also be taken into account.
3.2.1. Short history of American Sign Language l’E´ pe´e and other prominent educators of the period shared the goal of teaching the French language to the deaf, however, instead of devoting far too much attention to the practice of articulation like the predominance of his predecessors, l’E´ pe´e made use of the already existing language. ’’l’E´ pe´e was the first to attempt to learn it (sign language), use it, and make it the medium of instruction for teaching French language and culture to the deaf-mutes of his country’’ (Stokoe 5). In order to teach the French Language efficiently, l’E´ pe´e devised a method using the natural language of deaf-mutes and a system of methodical signs – signes me´thodiques (Valli and Lucas 14). These methodical signs were signs representing certain grammatical concepts (e.g. function words) for which the natural sign language in use had no sign equivalent. In other words, Adebe either adapted the existent signs or, if necessary, invented new signs (Stokoe 6). Undeniably, the methodological approach put forward by l’E´ pe´e stands out as a crucial breakthrough in the educational tendencies typical of that time. Sicard, who followed in the footsteps of l’E´ pe´e, ’’is the direct link between the French development of the sign language and the American Sign Language’’ (Stokoe 6). In 15
London, Sicard met Thomas Gallaudet, whose previous attempts to learn about the methods of teaching the deaf had failed, and Gallaudet was invited to study the method used at the Royal Institution of the Deaf in Paris (Valli and Lucas 14). Accompanied by Laurent Clerc, a deaf student and educator, Gallaudet returned to the United States and established the American School for the Deaf (1817). Given that the deaf live in close-knit communities, it is arguable that different variants of sign language developed and existed prior to 1817 – ’’Deaf people who came from other countries probably brought their sign languages with them, and other communities living in America probably developed their own language’’ (Valli and Lucas 14). Deaf people who attended the American School for the Deaf were educated using the methods originally ascribed to l’E´ pe´e, and the supposition that the new educational method had an impact on the structure and form of American Sign Language is strong. It is also possible to assume that the graduates of the American School for the Deaf became teachers and thus spread the then form of sign language across the entire United States of America (Vali and Lucas 14). ’’At any rate the present language of signs in general use among the American deaf stems from both the natural and methodical sign languages of l’E´ pe´e’’ (Stokoe 7).
3.2.2. The product of acquisition and the environment It would be convenient to state that American Sign Language is the primary language for a vast majority of deaf people in the USA. In actuality, the figures pertaining to the number of ASL users vary greatly in literature, mainly due to the recognition of other language varieties distanced from ASL. A variety called Pidgin Sign English has been identified among the American deaf (see Woodward 1973). The range of the language varieties in general use among the deaf individuals will perhaps be best demonstrated on a sociolinguistic continuum proposed by Fischer (1978). On this continuum, a variety which is in structure the closest to ASL constitutes what Fisher calls the ‘basilect’; Pidgin Sign English represents the ‘mesoclect’ and a language variety approximate to English is the ‘acrolect’ (qtd. in Bochner and Albertini 11).
16
The mesolect could be in part a result of ’’language-switching situations where one language may be superimposed over the other’’ (Bochner and Albertini 12). Studies of language variation among the deaf in the Czech Republic have not yet been conducted, however, the author believes that corresponding types of language varieties (ranging from CSL to Czech) as demonstrated by Fisher could be observed in the Czech Republic, as the conditions triggering the processes of pidginization and creolization (e.g. the language contact between majority and minority language) are probably common to all deaf communities. Moreover, there is the vexed question of the primary language of the deaf with incomplete, or better, restricted language input (e.g. deaf children of hearing parents). Bochner and Albertini argue: ’’Deaf individuals who in adulthood acquired a meso level/variety of English may also have independently acquired a meso level/variety of ASL. A substantial portion of the deaf probably falls into this category, attaining native proficiency in neither English nor ASL’’ (25). The reduced availability of linguistic input is indirectly evidenced by the oft-quoted estimation that 90 % of the deaf children have hearing parents (Strong 116). Bochner and Albertini suggest a psycholinguistic continuum ’’in order to capture the various levels of proficiency evident among adult deaf signers’’ (33). This continuum makes a distinction between the acro level of ASL at one end (’genuine’ ASL) and the acro level of English at the other (’genuine’ English). The meso levels represent language varieties diverging from ASL and English respectively. Bochner and Albertini claim that the ’’acro level is typically used by deaf (and hearing) children of deaf parents’’ and that ’’meso varieties are used by children at early stages of acquisition and by adults who have not learned ASL at an early age’’ (33-34). The factors affecting the acquisition of language are numerous, and of these factors ’’two seem primary: age and intake’’ (Bochner and Albertini 24). Since the significance of primary language acquisition cannot be overemphasized, these two variables are briefly discussed in a separate subchapter (3.3.2.), even though first language acquisition is not the major area of interest in this work.
17
3.3. Czech Sign Language The formal linguistic study of Czech Sign Language (CSL) is, unlike the study of American Sign Language (ASL), still in its infancy. This makes the task of providing a complete theoretical description of CSL hardly feasible. Nevertheless, it is possible to draw a number of conclusions about CSL and other sign languages at this point. The available findings concerning the structure and system of signs indicate that all national varieties of sign language are distinct in terms of their internal structure (system). Generally speaking, each sign language has its own syntax and a system of signs. This invalidates the assumption that the deaf all around the globe share one sign language. ’’It has often been said that sign language is a universal language – easy to learn and therefore available to anyone for worldwide communication’’ (Markowicz 1). CSL is distinct from other national varieties, for instance, American Sign Language or British Sign Language.
3.3.1. The situation of Czech Sign Language Czech Sign Language is considered to be the mother tongue of the deaf in the Czech Republic. Despite the official recognition of the linguistic status of CSL in 1998, the approach of Czech society towards the deaf and the language peculiar to their culture has changed very little. CSL is still often regarded as a form of pantomime, or at best a visual representation of the Czech Language. It comes as no surprise that in a society which considered the member of the deaf community to be inferior in terms of language and social status, the deaf individual was frequently denied the right to use sign language. Janáková cautions that ’’it is necessary to change not only the whole Czech deaf education system, but also the approach of the Czech hearing community towards the deaf community’’ (13). The palpable differences between the types of hearing impairment have been ignored for decades, and a typical instance of this is the emphasis placed on spoken performance of deaf children (possibly a result of successful productions of hard-of-hearing children), a tradition deeply-rooted in Czech deaf education system (Macurová 29). There are several dangers stemming from such approaches. The greatest danger is the non-existence of a fully-fledged language. The cause and severity of hearing impairment should be identified properly so that the parents may learn and decide on the 18
appropriate communication system most suitable to the child. This ensured, the deaf child will not be deprived of their essential chance to acquire a language early in the critical stage, because the absence of exposure hinders the process of acquisition (Bochner and Albertini 36). Without the exposure to the language, the deaf child has nothing to acquire and there are setbacks to the cognitive and social development of the child (Macurová 32). Further, the primary language serves as a meta-language on the basis of which the child can recognize the properties and structure of language itself, and to which other languages may be compared (Macurová 31). Positive is the development in educational trends and in the sphere of research, with recent studies of Czech Sign Language and its possible use in education being discussed in the academic spheres. ’’Teaching on the basis of sign language, as it is the mother tongue for most of the deaf, seems within the international context to be much more effective, and we are likely to gradually switch to it in the Czech Republic, too, especially in primary schools’’ (Janáková 13). The endeavour of educators and deaf students from Charles University, who have accentuated the importance of CSL recognition and who contributed to the reform of deaf education in the Czech Republic, is most notable.
3.4. The process of acquisition and the environment If a deaf child has deaf parents, the exposure to the language takes place at an early age, and is likely to be relatively constant. This ascertains the appropriate conditions for language acquisition. Deaf children with deaf parents usually represent a minority of the deaf population, however (Macurová 31). Lane and Grosjean state that ’’only about 10% of all deaf children have deaf parents. Although a minority of the deaf population, they are nonetheless the advantaged’’ (61). This is because ’’deaf children of deaf parents are brought up in an environment paralleling that of hearing children of hearing parents, save the language difference’’ (Lane and Grosjean 62). Children growing up in such primary language environments are most likely to perceive the language of their parents (e.g. Czech Sign Language) as their first language. In addition to benefits relative to linguistic development, deaf children of deaf parents usually perform better both academically and socially than their peers with hearing parents (Marschark, Lang, and Albertini 8).
19
The acquisition of language may also occur under the conditions of restricted input. For instance, if a deaf child has hearing parents who have little or no knowledge of sign language. The hearing status of parents has been proven to influence the process of acquisition of sign language in deaf children, as the product of acquisition (the language) differs in morphology and syntax from the language acquired by children whose parents are deaf (Hoffmeister and Wilbur 62). It follows that a child with hearing parents is exposed to spoken language (majority language) at home, although the effects of such exposure can be questioned, and learns sign language (e.g. CSL) from peers, who either acquired the language in childhood or learned it from peers of their own. According to Powers, Gregory and Thoutenfould (170), a large number of deaf people tend to develop bilingually (majority language and sign language), as a result of which certain deaf individuals have trouble achieving proficiency in either language.
20
4. Deafness and second language acquisition This chapter is a fairly comprehensive discussion of issues pertinent to second language acquisition (learning) in the deaf individual with a special focus on literacy development. Instead of analysing the product of second language acquisition (i.e. 3.2.2.), the attention will turn to the very aspects of the process of language acquisition. The avowed purpose is to provide a theoretical framework of selected models and theories in the field of language learning and literacy. The emphasis is laid on theories which have established the ground for newly emerging educational programs and trends. In the following subchapters, the second language learned or acquired by the deaf individual is, and will be referred to as, the majority language (Czech or English) typically in use outside the deaf community; although some researchers may argue that the majority language is the first language for a number of the deaf in the respective deaf communities. This line of thinking seems to find support in the fact that only a small number of the deaf learn sign language from their parents, since the overwhelming majority of the deaf have hearing parents (Macurová 31). Nevertheless, Strong writes that in the USA ’’the children of hearing parents not already fluent in that language (ASL) learn it quickly as they are socialized into the deaf community. ASL then becomes their primary language, and English is reserved for academic purposes and for conversing with hearing teachers’’ (xi). In addition to the issue of family language, the question of the first and second language is further complicated by the unique position of the deaf in the society. Washabaugh, among others, argues that a deaf community is, in fact, a diglossic community and that ’’the essential features of prototypical diglossia, i.e. a stigmatized vernacular and a prestigious second language, are evident in Deaf communities’’ (243). The members of the deaf subcommunity are mostly minority language users who frequently come into close contact with members of the linguistically dominant group of speakers of the majority language, and thus with the majority language itself (see 3.2.2.). Inevitably, the deaf are often associated with the notions of bilingualism and biculturalism. It cannot be denied that being a sub-cultural group, the deaf are, to a certain extent, integrated into the majority community and the character of opinions the hearing people harbour about the deaf has an impact on the deaf society and the way the deaf view their
21
language. ’’Deaf people for the most part have always lived within the world of others. Thus it is not surprising that their theories about themselves and their language are powerfully coloured by the beliefs held by others’’ (Padden and Humpries 56). To avoid confusion as to the role played by the majority language, it is reasonable to reiterate that its assumed status in this work is largely that of a second language. This is not to say that necessarily all deaf individuals acquire sign language as a first language, but rather to stress that the centre of attention of this thesis is primarily the congenitally deaf learner for whom sign language, or a variety which is close in structure and modality to sign language (measurable on the continua described in 3.2.2.), is the first language.
4.1. Introduction into the ambiguities in majority language acquisition The interplay of unique factors affecting the process of language acquisition in the deaf individual often gives rise to confusion. This is particularly evident when researchers attempt to draw a parallel between the acquisition of a second language (majority language) in the deaf person to first language acquisition (majority language) in the hearing person. In this respect, contradicting conclusions have been reported. For example, Paul contends that second language acquisition (majority language) in the deaf individual is similar to first language acquisition in the hearing individual (177). In contrast, Charrow suggests that the deaf person learns a majority language in much the same way the hearing person learns a second language (qtd. in Paul 167-168). In reference to hearing children, McLaughlin writes: ’’The evidence from studies of second-language learning in pre-school children indicates, as we have seen, that young children in a natural setting approach the task of learning a second language in much the same way they approach the task of learning their first language’’ (22). However, as will be explained here, the language-learning situation of the vast majority of the deaf does not parallel that of preschool children learning a second language. Lillo-Martin argues that in the case of the deaf the input in the majority language is provided ’’significantly later than … for first language acquisition’’, that ’’ the form of the input does not make use of the primary modality for the language’’, and that ’’the quality of the input is impoverished’’ (132). Thus, the conditions under which the deaf individual
22
learns (acquires) the majority language are quite different from those experienced by individuals learning the majority language as a first language – ’’the language-learning situation for the acquisition of English is clearly different from the situation for children learning English as a first language’’ (Lillo-Martin 132). It has already been said that if the deaf child has deaf parents, the child will naturally learn sign language as the first language. The portion of these individuals (with deaf parents) is fairly low, however. Relative to language acquisition, the deaf child of hearing parents is often exposed to the majority language even before sign language is fully acquired. This begs the important question whether the product of majority language acquisition is to be viewed as a second language in the true sense. Lillo-Martin claims that ’’it would be imprecise to say that English is being acquired as a ’second’ language’’ (132). This could possibly be argued about Czech or any other majority language as well. Nevertheless, whereas it would perhaps be slightly inaccurate to suggest that a majority language is acquired as a ‘second’ language, claiming that a majority language is acquired as the first language would be even more imprecise (mainly due to input inaccessibility). The following may be concluded. Firstly, the acquisition of majority language in the deaf individual is, in many respects, different from the processes of first and second language acquisition as known in the hearing population, since there are numerous unique factors to be considered. Secondly, although the deaf child may well be in contact with the majority language in the early period, the quality of the input is often insufficient for the majority language to become the first language, and its auditory-oral modality means that the language is of lower accessibility to the child (compensated mostly through lip-reading). Thirdly, the linguistic continua introduced in the previous chapter suggest, in spite of the question of input quality, an influence of the majority language on sign language – sign language with certain linguistic features peculiar to the majority language being the language in actual use (e.g. a mesolect variety). And lastly, the bulk of literature on language learning and deafness associates the relationship between the national variety of sign language (CSL, ASL) and the majority language (Czech, English) with the notions of biculturalism and bilingualism. The plethora
23
of various interpretations and theories about second language acquisition and second language literacy will be discussed in the following subchapters.
4.2. Second language learning and bilingualism in the deaf population It appears appropriate that the difference between the concepts of bilingualism and second language learning should now be established. The first distinguishing feature is the attained language level. Bilingualism refers to mastery of two distinct language systems. The underpinning principle of the concept is proficiency in two languages. The bilingual individual should be able to use both languages in a range of linguistic and extralinguistic contexts. The other term, second language learning, suggests that proficiency in the second language has not yet been reached. In addition to the products (language level), the properties of the acquisition process are used to distinguish bilingualism from second language learning. McLaughlin (1984) proposes what could be termed the chronological principle hypothesis. The basic tenet of this hypothesis is that an individual who has had exposure to and has learned two languages before two years of age has undergone the process of simultaneous acquisition. This can be referred to as bilingualism. By the same token, an individual who has had exposure to and has learned a second language after three years of age is said to have undergone successive acquisition, or second language learning (McLaughlin, qtd. in Paul 149).
4.3. Theoretical models in second language learning and deafness The balance theory proposed by Macnamara (1966) hypothesizes that an individual has a restricted amount of language learning ability. This ability is divided between the two (or more) languages the person learns or is exposed to. It is then argued that the majority of these individuals cannot attain the level of language competence normally observed in native bilinguals. Further, the proponents of the balance theory claim there is ample evidence to suggest that bilingual persons often struggle to learn the majority language, which correlates with problems in academic performance (Paul 150).
24
The models put forward by Cummins have been particularly influential in the field of second language learning and have become the foundation of bilingual programs for hearing and deaf individuals alike (Paul 150). The developmental interdependence model suggests that the linguistic skills already developed in the first language may influence the potential development of skills in the second language (Cummins, qtd. in Paul 151). In other words, if first language skills are insufficiently developed, the development of second language skills is hampered. ’’Thus, low first language skills can exert a limiting effect on the development of the second language’’ (Strong 117). Furthermore, Cummins (2000) devises two constructs of language competence – basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALP). In Language, Power, and Pedagogy, Cummins concludes that the distinction between BICS and CALP ’’highlighted the fact that educators’ conflating of these aspects of proficiency was the major factor in the creation of academic difficulties for bilingual students’’ (58). It is argued that apart from developing BICS, individuals need to develop to use language ’’as an instrument of thought and to represent cognitive operations by means of language’’ (Cummins, qtd. in Strong 117). Again, in relation to academic achievement of deaf children, insufficient development of first language CALP skills may account for lowered levels of school performance. Relative to language development and literacy, the threshold model should also receive attention. This model suggests that an individual must attain a certain threshold level of linguistic competence in both languages in order to avoid lowered levels of cognitive and academic performance (Cummins, “Empowering Minority“ 42). By contrast, having acquired the first language, an individual needs to attain a threshold level in the second language to experience the beneficial effects of bilingualism (Cummins, “Empowering Minority“ 42).
4.4. Theories in second language literacy Cummins suggested that cognitive/academic language proficiency skills established in the first language could be transferred to the second language: ’’To the extent that instruction in Lx is effective in promoting proficiency in Lx, transfer of this proficiency to
25
Ly will occur provided there is adequate exposure to Ly (either in school or environment) and adequate motivation to learn Ly’’ (Cummins, “The role of primary language“ 29). The interdependence model finds support among the proponents of bilingual education for deaf students who, as Marschark and Spenser write, ’’suggested that if students achieved high levels of proficiency in a native sign language (L1), then a positive transfer would occur, which would support the development of literacy in the majority language as L2’’ (137). Meyer and Wells contradict the interdependence hypothesis positing that the conditions assumed by the interdependence model for the hearing individual do not correspond to those experienced by the deaf individual (93). As a result, the effectiveness of bilingual education programs for deaf children, which is based on the applicability of the interdependence model to the deaf learner, is challenged. In their analysis, Meyer and Wells not only ask crucial questions about the sole use of sign language in teaching literacy, but also illustrate the very stages of literacy development. The first argument to be considered is the issue of the first language. The hearing person exposed to the majority language learns the spoken and subsequently the written form of the language. In its primary modality (speech), the majority language input is hardly accessible to the deaf person. Given the ’’minimal access to the auditory-oral channel of communication, the majority of profoundly deaf people do not develop intelligible speech, but learn a visual-spatial language’’ (Meyer and Wells 94). This fact alone does not necessarily pose a developmental problem, because sign language has been confirmed to be a fully-fledged linguistic system. However, when the transfer of literacy skills from a first language to a second language is discussed, the integrity of the linguistic interdependence model as applied in the deaf context is called into question. ’’Since their first language … has no written form, profoundly deaf students cannot acquire literacy skills in their first language; consequently, they do not have literacy skills to transfer to the written form of a second, spoken, language’’ (Meyer and Wells 94). The aforementioned researchers expand on this premise to explain why the interdependence model does not apply to the congenitally deaf person and why the supposition that sign language (ASL or CSL) alone may be used in teaching literacy in a majority language to deaf children is to be questioned.
26
First, it is stated that if there is little resemblance between the orthographies of two languages, there is not as much transfer of reading skills from a first to a second language (Genesse, qtd. in Meyer and Wells 94). Surely, sign languages and spoken languages can hardly be compared at the level of orthography – sign language has no written system. What is more, no evidence as yet has suggested a link between oral skills established in a first language and the ensuing existence of literacy skills in a second language (Goldman, qtd. in Meyer and Wells 94). Meyer and Wells (94) thus resort to the original premise that ’’for facilitation in L2 literacy learning to occur, the learner must have mastered the comparable literacy skills in his or her first language’’, and commence the analysis of literacy development by illustrating this process on a trajectory peculiar to the hearing individual.
4.4.1. Development of literacy in the hearing individual Meyer and Wells ’’draw on the work of Vygotsky and Halliday to develop a conceptualization of the processes involved in becoming literate’’ (95). In essence, the basic developmental stages (phases) are proposed (see table 1.). In the first phase, it is suggested that the hearing person masters the spoken form of the first language (for the purposes of social interaction). In Mind in Society, Vygotsky (22-28) draws on various experiments to point out that, after social speech has been mastered, children use ’’egocentric speech’’ – a form of ‘speech for self‘ – for the purposes of problem solving if the social (communicative) speech cannot perform the same function. Evidently, this ‘speech for self‘ then serves as a bridge to ’’inner speech’’ and characterizes the second phase. ’’Functionally, egocentric speech is the basis for inner speech, while in its external form it is embedded in communicative speech’’ (Vygotsky 27). The third phase is crucial in that the transition from inner speech to written text takes place. Inner speech could be characterized as a mode of thinking and reasoning which ’’stands in an intermediate position between oral speech and writing’’ (Meyer and Wells 95).
27
Table 1. Developmental bridges available to hearing and deaf children
Source: C. Meyer, and G. Wells. Can the Linguistic Interdependence Theory Support A BilingualBicultural Model of Literacy Education for Deaf Students? (1996), 101.
4.4.2. Development of literacy in the deaf individual The same developmental trajectory is assumed for the deaf individual (see table 1. above). Relative to the first phase, it is argued that for deaf children ’’sign language functions equivalently to oral speech’’ (Meyer and Wells 96). Meyer and Wells consider a number of hypotheses and studies about inner speech, intellect, and mental capacities of deaf children, concluding that ’’investigations into the cognitive processes of deaf children indicate that their thinking and reasoning abilities are essentially equivalent to those of hearing children, even though their literacy development is not’’ (Meyer and Wells 96). Interestingly, it is noted that while the difficulty deaf children have in learning to read and write is evident, no corresponding difficulty in learning to spell has been observed (Meyer and Wells 96). This is probably because for the hearing person ’’the resultant nature of inner speech is often characterized as having the qualities of an inner ear’’, while the deaf probably ’’utilize an inner eye’’ (Meyer and Wells 97). It is possible to assume that an inner eye is a highly effective tool for learning to spell, since whether a word is spelled correctly is determined visually. However, considering how written texts are constructed in terms of lexis and grammar, hearing 28
individuals rely on the acoustic (spoken) form when composing a text (Meyer and Wells 97). Kelly collects evidence from research on skilled deaf readers and observes that ’’researchers have discovered some evidence that relatively skilled deaf readers may use a phonological strategy for temporary storage of words in working memory’’ (321). The issues surrounding the transition from ‘inner signing’ to written text are numerous. First, as sign language has no written form, the written text encountered by the deaf individual will be, of necessity, a written representation of some other language. The crucial question to be asked at this point is what functions as a bridge when a transition from ‘inner signing’, which is possibly the equivalent of inner speech, to written text is realized. In the hearing person the transition from inner speech to written text occurs via the medium (bridge) of spoken language. In short, there is a correspondence between a spoken word and a written word – a correspondence at the level of lexis. The mastery of the spoken mode seems to be a key skill here because the user can rely on the knowledge of the grammatical structure of the language in order to construct sentences in the written mode, despite the differences between spoken and written grammar. The sign-word relationship is more complex – ’’because of the different modalities involved, signs are not in all respects equivalent to spoken words’’ (Meyer and Wells 98). Sign languages are linguistic systems substantially different from spoken languages (e.g. Czech or English), and a sign may convey much more than a word. More importantly, the degree to which sign languages and spoken languages differ at the level of syntax is more significant. For example, the means for expressing the semantic relationships may be strikingly different. Meyer and Wells mention English, where these relationships are ’’represented through word order or through the addition of prepositions to noun phrases’’ and compare it to sign language where semantic relationships are ’’represented through the spatial location in which signs are made, through directionality and through deictic gestures’’ (99). In sum, the issue related to the development of literacy in the deaf individual is as follows: Although its role diminishes with time, speech functions, at least in the case of the hearing person, as a bridge to written language (see table 1.) – ’’understanding of written language is first affected through spoken language, but gradually this path is curtailed and
29
spoken language disappears as the intermediate link’’ (Vygotsky, qtd. in Meyer and Wells 102). It is therefore apparent that for the hearing person, the code used in inner speech and in written text is based on one language, and the difference concerns only the use of different modes. ’’For the Deaf community, by contrast, inner speech and written speech are derived from two radically different codes … and, for this reason, there is no readily available ‘spoken’ mode to form the bridge between them’’ (Meyer and Wells 102). In the light of the arguments presented above, it becomes clear that the acquisition of literacy is an arduous task for the deaf individual, as the spoken mode of the language is not accessible and thus cannot serve as a bridge, and further because sign language has no written form in which to develop fist language literacy. It is ’’the nonequivalence of the two language codes that they (deaf students) need to master’’ that Meyer ad Wells (103) regard as the root of the problem in literacy development. The non-existence of a medium to bridge the transition from ‘inner signing’ to text means that deaf learners ’’do not ’know’ the language they are attempting to write’’ (Meyer and Wells 99). In bilingual programs sign language is used as the bridge. However, many questions remain unanswered about the effectiveness of this medium because, as was noted above, the code of the medium is substantially different from the code of the written text. The child thinks in one language (inner signing) while attempting to write in another language. The obstacles the deaf student encounters in becoming literate are therefore indicative of the enormity and complexity of the challenge unmatched by the hearing student. It seems reasonable that some manual equivalent of the spoken language in which the student is supposed to write should be used as the bridge. Indeed, the condition of two corresponding codes (inner speech/signing – target language text) would be met. In the context of bilingual programs in the USA this would probably be ’’some form of ’Englishlike signing’ … if deaf children are to master the code that is given representation in written English’’ (Meyer and Wells 98). Similarly, the use of Signed Czech would be considered in teaching literacy to Czech deaf. The benefits of individual methods used in education of the deaf remain ambiguous, however, considering that ’’very little research has been done on the relative effects of different systems’’ (Strong 115).
30
5. Deafness and third language learning There is a relatively large body of research on the acquisition of English by the deaf individual whose first language is ASL. In other words, the major research areas traditionally examine how the deaf individual learns the language of the larger society in which he or she lives. What remains relatively unclear, however, is how the deaf person learns a foreign language (third language), that is, a language spoken in another country. Drawing on ideas presented in the preceding chapters, this chapter is a synthesis of theories and models pertaining to first and second language acquisition and available information on third language learning. The information presented on the following pages concerns the Czech deaf learner. That said, the author believes that the basic tenets will be relevant outside the Czech context as well.
5.1. Learner characteristics affecting the language learning process The factors affecting the language learning process associated with a learner in general may be: cognitive style, learning style, motivation, attitude to target language, affective filter etc. (Macurová 34). Other factors are specific to the deaf learner: type and onset of hearing impairment, restricted input, family language, perception of language value etc. In the previous chapters, some of these factors affecting the process of language acquisition were discussed. How these factors relate to the process of learning a third language (auditory-based) will now be elucidated. For the deaf learner from a non-English speaking country, English is a third language. Vysuček , being a deaf Czech himself, explains that ’’in England and in the US English is the second language to Sign Language whereas in the Czech Republic Czech is the second language and English (or any other foreign language) is the third language’’ (61). Motivation to learn the language may have an impact on the learning process. The acquisition of the majority language by the deaf learner is driven by the force of integrative motivation. It should be noted that unlike for the deaf learning English in the USA, ’’there is no integrative motivation for the deaf [learning English] in the Czech Republic’’ (Macurová 36). For the deaf in the USA, the mastery of English is crucial for academic
31
success, social integration, and access to information. In this regard, English clearly has a different language function to the deaf Czech learner. This should be considered as one of the possible variables affecting the process of learning English. Of course, the actual effect of the motivation factor cannot be fully determined. The learning strategies and study skills can substantially contribute to successful language learning. Janáková (28) cautions that the learning strategies and academic skills of Czech deaf students entering university are inadequately developed. Whether to interpret this as inadequate development of CALP skills throughout the educational enterprise is not clear. Whatever the case here, it remains that for successful language learning to occur, ’’teachers will need to teach, monitor, and reinforce the development of appropriate study skills’’ (Eilers-Crandall 88). Janáková asserts that with proper training in these strategies and skills necessary for success in the academic environment deaf students ’’would gradually reach a level of foreign language skills equal to their hearing counterparts’’ (28). The degree and onset of hearing impairment are one of the key factors determining the peculiarities of the process of language acquisition and indeed language learning. For instance, according to the degree of hearing loss, some hard-of-hearing individuals can use their residual hearing to process auditory input. The advances in amplification technology have the power to put the hard-of-hearing and the hearing person on an equal footing. In relation to language learning, instruction presented orally will not be readily available to the deaf person, whereas the hard-of-hearing person will probably be able to process the auditory input, albeit with the help of hearing aids. It is regrettable that the significance of the distinction between types of hearing impairment is underestimated even in the Czech Republic, where the difference ’’appears to be ignored even by the standard teaching methods and approaches’’, many of which lay an emphasis on ’’development of the spoken form of language’’ (Macurová 29).
5.2. Linguistic development and third language learning The skills developed in the first and the second language influence the development of skills in the third language. In the deaf individual, the literacy skills developed in the majority language could be transferred to the third language (see 4.4.). The obstacles the
32
deaf person encounters in learning any auditory-oral language are numerous, however. As will be demonstrated, the process of learning a third language is interlinked with second and first language acquisition. The hearing status of parents, being directly related to the question of family language, seems to have a definite impact on primary language acquisition and thus on the general language learning abilities. Macurová (31) highlights that 90 to 95 percent of the deaf have hearing parents and that the inaccessibility of spoken language and the lack of exposure to models of signing exert a detrimental effect on the cognitive and linguistic development of these children. This ’’inevitably projects into the ability of the deaf to learn other languages’’ (Macurová 31). It is evident that the first language has a key role in learning other languages. The primary language is the medium of reflection on the extralinguistic reality (see 4.4.2.) and is essential for the perception of the language as an entity that can be analyzed (metalinguistic skills). Further, it is possible to link the lack of development in primary language cognitive/academic language proficiency with increased difficulty in language learning (see 4.2). The threshold model (see 4.3.) hypothesized that a lack of proficiency in one of the two languages influences the overall cognitive and academic achievement. According to Cummins (’’The role of primary language’’, 29), the literacy skills developed in one language may be transferred to another language. To interpret the interdependence model in the context of third language learning, it could be argued that the mastery of written Czech would contribute to the development of literacy skills in English (literacy skills transfer); on the condition that there is sufficient exposure and motivation to learn the language (see 5.1. for motivation). Vysuček asserts that ’’when the Deaf have perfectly mastered Czech, they can start learning another language, in this case English’’ (62). In the context of second language literacy, Meyer and Wells challenged the hypothetical literacy transfer from sign language to the majority language as suggested by the interdependence model (see chapter 4 for arguments). Eilers-Crandall (66) confirms that the nature of literacy transfer from a language lacking a written system is still not understood. The poor literacy levels of deaf learners attest to the complexity of such a transfer. ’’Within the Czech context, there is another obstacle for deaf and hard-of-hearing students: inadequate knowledge of Czech language, its written form, especially of
33
grammatical categories, and their both poor and narrow general and conceptual vocabulary’’ (Janáková 27). The results of a great number of studies have revealed that the ability to read and write (in the majority language) of about 50 per cent of the hearingimpaired is at the forth or fifth grade level (Trybus and Karchmer, qtd. in Strong 5). The second prerequisite for literacy transfer is the quality and quantity of language input. Students should be exposed to a form of language that is accessible and serves as a model. ’’We do not know how well humans can learn to use a language when they do not receive direct input in that language’’ (Eilers-Crandall 90). The use of auxiliary manual systems of communication, contrived systems reflecting certain properties of the oral language, may be discussed. However, given that these auxiliary systems (including English-based manual systems) are seldom complete representations of the given language, the degree to which they can be effectively used is to be carefully scrutinized (Bochner and Albertini 8-9). Clearly, the success of teaching English to the Czech deaf partly rests on the findings relative to Czech literacy development of the students (transfer of literacy skills to English).
5.3 . Interlanguage and cross-linguistic influence The concept of interlanguage can be understood as the ’’separate linguistic system based on observable output which results form a learner’s attempted production of a [target language] norm’’ (Selinker, qtd. in Berent, “An Assessment“ 133). Interlanguage is the interim stage of the language learning process, and it is the product of the linguistic influence of the mother tongue and the target language. And indeed, researchers have identified profound mother tongue influence in the written text of the deaf person. Lawton (57) claims that the mistakes deaf students make in the written mode of English indicate the influence of sign language structure, rather than the fact that the deaf are illiterate. Even though the available findings indicate that the majority of the deaf experience great difficulty attaining high levels of literacy in the majority language, it is conceivable that this second language, or interlanguage, has a bearing on the process of learning a third language. According to Cenoz (21), research into third language acquisition suggests that
34
the influence of the second language may be stronger than theorized previously. It was proposed earlier that the acquisition of a majority language (e.g. Czech) would facilitate the process of learning a third, foreign language (e.g. English). Arguably, the learner would derive some benefit from typological similarity: ’’influence from L2 is favoured if L2 is typologically close to L3, especially if L1 is more distant’’ (Cenoz 22). This assumption is partially relevant in the context of the Czech deaf learner, considering that the second (Czech) and the third language (English) are auditory-oral languages. The other side of the coin is that Czech and English are linguistic systems sharing very few features. According to Berent, some specific properties of English sentence structure pose a great challenge to deaf students – ’’deviation from expected SVO order, interruption of major grammatical relations by other constituents, movement of constituents from their typical positions, and establishing identity between two or more constituents’’ (“English for Deaf“ 134). However, these properties are typical of spoken languages in general. To highlight grammatical differences between Czech and English, Berent (“English for Deaf“ 137) lists three contrastive features (see below). The profound language differences can be regarded as additional hurdles to language learning as Berent concludes: ’’cross-linguistic differences might influence deaf students’ development of English grammar skills, over and above the general challenges confronting deaf students learning spoken languages’’ (“English for Deaf“ 137).
Table 2. Contrastive features between English and Czech
Source: Adapted from Gerrald Berent. English for Deaf Students: Assessing and Addressing Learners’ Grammar Development (2001), 137.
35
6. Research 6.1. Research introduction Chapters 2 to 5 address the central issues surrounding the acquisition of language by the deaf individual. The research presented herein shall attempt to link the theoretical perspectives on language learning and deafness with empirical data collected by the author. The task is threefold: first, examine whether research findings support the generally accepted theories related to language and deafness, second, characterize the linguistic, affective and sociocultural factors affecting language development; and, third, provide a personal insight into the human dimension underlying language learning.
6.2. Research type support Every researcher must make a decision as to the research method. In weighing up the pros and cons of a particular research method, a number of variables must be taken into account; to name but a few: time constraints, reliability, relevance, and research goals. Out of all imaginable variables, research goals have the decisive role. With a view to striking a balance between theory and practice, the interview, the merits of which will be discussed hereafter, is the research method used in this thesis. One of the greatest advantages of the interview is its personal dimension. In this sense, some form of an invisible connection is established between the reader and the interviewee. The research interview represents ’’a move away from seeing human subjects as simply manipulable and data as somehow external to individuals’’ (Kvale, qtd. in Cohen and Manion 267). The author believes that the interviews will lend a more personal feel to this research, a fact listed in the research objectives after all. According to Cohen and Manion (268), the interview may be used to ’’test’’ existent hypotheses or advance new ones, and to collect data directly related to research objectives. As was demonstrated in the above chapters, the great variety of affects influencing the process of language acquisition and language learning of deaf individuals requires an indepth exploration for a good understanding. One of the major advantages of the research interview is that ’’it enables you to see and understand what is reflected rather more
36
abstractly in other kinds of data (statistical summaries, for example)’’ (Gillham 10). In view of the foregoing, it is conceivable that the interview will function as an effective research tool in the attainment of the research objectives.
6.3. Research procedure There are several stages in conducting research. An avid reader would probably appreciate a detailed description of each individual stage; however, in order not to digress from the focus of this thesis, only selected research steps are discussed. Developing the questions – The interviews used here follow the standardized open-ended type. This means that the order of questions and their wording are fixed. This selection of interview type should enable greater comparability of the responses and ensure that the required information is obtained. Conducting an interview – In the stage of pre-interview set-up, all interviewees were given a list of questions to read over (see 6.5. below). All interviews were conducted faceto-face, and the language used was Czech Sign Language. After each question, the interviewees’ responses were translated into English and subsequently written down in a rudimentary form. The translation of the interviews itself is a valuable part of this research, as it was clearly one of the greatest challenges the author had to face in conducting the interviews. Transcribing an interview – The final transcriptions of the interviews were composed after careful revision, following consultations with a researcher versed in sign linguistics, and eventually presented to the respondents for publication approval.
6.4. Interviewee profiles One of the research aims was to draw attention to the human dimension behind language learning and deafness. It is time to briefly introduce the interviewees to the reader. The interviewees wish to remain anonymous, hence the few personal details. Interviewee 1 (N1) is a 28 years old Charles University graduate. The use of hearing aids enables her to fluently communicate in speech and it would have been possible to conduct the interview in Czech. She works as a deaf educator. 37
Interviewee 4 (N4), her husband, is 38 years old. He actively participates in the activities of Brno deaf community. He teaches sign language. Interviewee 2 (N2) and Interviewee 3 (N3) are university students. Both studied at the Secondary School for the Deaf in Hradec Králové. They are 24 and 23 years old respectively.
6.5. Interview questions It was the original intention of the author to include the interviews in the body of the thesis. The length of the interviews requires their placement in the respective appendices, however.
1. Were you born deaf? If not, when did you become deaf? 2. What is your degree of hearing loss? 3. Have you ever used any hearing aids? Do you have a cochlear implant? 4. Are your parents deaf or hearing? 5. How did you communicate with your parents in your early childhood? 6. What do you consider your first language? 7. How did you learn your first language? Who was your language model? 8. Do you consider yourself proficient in your first language? 9. When did you first come into contact with Czech? 10. What was your motivation to learn Czech? 11. How often do you use Czech? Do you regard Czech as your second language? 12. Which educational method and communication method were used to teach you Czech? 13. How well have you mastered Czech? How would you describe your current reading and writing abilities? 14. What problems can you identify in learning Czech? 15. Why do (did) you learn English? How do you think you will use English in your life? 16. Which educational method and communication method are (were) used to teach you English? 17. How often do (did) you have English lessons? 18. How long have you been learning English?
38
19. How well have you mastered English? How would you describe your current reading and writing abilities? 20. What problems can you identify in learning English?
6.6. Research analysis The common denominator of all interviewees, providing a common springboard to the analysis, is the age at the onset of hearing impairment, that is, the occurrence of hearing impairment prior to the acquisition of language. The use of hearing aids appears to be vitally important to the hard-of-hearing individual (Q7 in app.A), whereas its significance to the deaf interviewees remains unclear. The parent status (Q4) reported in all interviews is consistent with the oft-quoted estimation that 90-95% of all deaf children are born to hearing parents (Macurová 31). In fact, none of the interviewees, excluding interviewee 3 (N3), has reported any record of deafness in the family history. In the case of the hard-of-hearing individual (N1), the hearing status of parents does not seem to exert a particularly limiting effect on the acquisition of language (see 5.1.), especially when parents consciously strive to create an appropriate linguistic environment (Q7 in app.A). The deaf child, however, faces a much greater challenge, as the availability of language input is severely restricted. This may be further exacerbated by the fact that the parents are not competent signers (Q5 in app.C), or do not learn to sign at all (Q6 in app.D). That said, the basic knowledge of sing language may prove helpful in bridging the language gap and in fostering the mother-child relationship (Q5 in app.B). Conversely, language oversimplification and unwillingness to attempt meaningful communication may render language acquisition all the more difficult (Q5 in app.C). The issue of mother tongue (Q6) has produced some intriguing responses. N2 and N3 gave apparently equivocal answers, stating that Czech was their mother tongue. It would appear that N2 and N3 regard Czech as their mother tongue on the basis of (language) order, that is, the language one learns first (Davies 17). This seems to be in conflict with responses concerning forms of communication in childhood (Q5) and first language proficiency (Q8). In their responses to Q8, N2 and N3 stated that they were more competent
39
signers than users of Czech. In addition, sign language was referred to as the preferred language (Q6). Such reasoning is not necessarily wrong, since a unified definition of the ’mother tongue’ concept possibly does not exist. In this case, however, it is reasonable to regard sign language as the mother tongue of N2 and N3. The reasons are as follows. First, the actual acquisition of Czech is highly questionable (Q6 in app.B; Q7 in app.C) – the ability to perceive language in its auditoryoral modality is significantly reduced (Q5 in app.C; Q5 in app.B). Second, sign language is acquired with relative ease due to its visual-spatial modality. And third, both N2 and N3 have a considerably better command of sign language than Czech, they prefer it to Czech in everyday use, and identify with sign language better. All in all, these ambiguous answers justify the inclusion of subchapters dealing with majority language acquisition and bilingualism (see 4. and 4.1.), and indicate that further research and discussion of the very concept of bilingualism in the deaf population is needed. N2 suggests that there is a considerable degree of language variation among the deaf signers (Q8 in app.B), thus supporting the tenets upon which the sociolinguistic continuum proposed by Fisher (1978) is based (see 3.2.2. for discussion). Linguistic variation in the deaf population may partly be accounted for in terms of the interaction between age, input, and language model (see 3.4.). The research interviews reveal that first exposure to accessible language input occurred somewhat later than in the case of normally hearing children, i.e. when the deaf individuals began their nursery school attendance (Q6 in app.D). According to the responses to Q12 and Q16, the primary schools adhered to oral approaches, whereas secondary education was characterized by a transition from oralism to bilingual educational programs. In line with this is the shift in the importance attributed to individual language skills – a shift from speaking practice to the development of literacy. Out of the four interviewees, only the hard-of-hearing subject reports near-proficiency attainment of Czech (Q8 and Q13 in app.A). It emerges that assiduous efforts to provide good quality language input and consistent language feedback on the part of the parents, in conjunction with the use of appropriate hearing aids may ameliorate the effects of the physical condition (hearing impairment) to the point that mainstream schooling is made possible (Q16 in app.A). This brings to light the profound differences between two
40
seemingly interchangeable conditions – deafness and hard-of-hearingness (see 5.1.). Macurová asserts: ’’a person who is hard-of-hearing can be provided with aids through which his/her ’linguistic status’ becomes by and large comparable with that of a hearing person’’ (29). Turning to the deaf individuals, the problems relative to the acquisition of Czech (Q14) were: unsuitable educational approaches, the nonexistence of sign-word equivalence, polysemy, comprehension of non-literal meaning, grammar and little or no attention paid to literacy development in early childhood; whereas the problems in learning English were: interlanguage differences – syntax, absence of literacy development throughout primary and secondary education and specific areas – prepositions, phrasal verbs. It is certainly worthy of notice that N4 (Q20) views the problems concerning learning English as ’’similar’’ to those experienced in learning Czech. In this regard, it is arguable that the most evident hurdle to spoken language attainment (either Czech or English) was the absence of accessible language input (Q6, Q12 and Q16 in app.D). To a certain extent, N1, N2, and N3 resemble the general learner of English in that the problems encountered are similar – cross-linguistic differences (see 5.3.), complex grammatical structures, phrasal verbs and prepositions. In other respects, however, N2 and N3 are quite unlike the hearing learner. Their primary education was dominated by an approach creating an inappropriate language environment (oral approach) where the spoken mode takes precedence over literacy development. One can only hypothesize about the impact of such conditions on their linguistic development (both Czech and English). A more thorough analysis of the interviews is possibly beyond the scope of this research, as the manner in which each of the interviewees learned (acquired) Czech and English is specific, characterized by a unique interplay of factors and variables.
41
7. Conclusion The aim of this thesis was to identify and conceptualize the processes and variables affecting third language learning by examining the theories and research findings relative to primary and secondary language acquisition in the deaf individual. The chapters in this thesis reflect the current trend to explore the linguistic development of an individual from several perspectives – applied linguistics, sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics. The numerous hurdles to the acquisition of auditory-oral languages do not seem to be related to deafness per se, but rather to the unique interaction of processes arising from unique conditions: the primary language environment, the educational process, the languages in question etc. The research presented in this thesis confirms the that one of the decisive factors potentially determining the upshot of the language learning process, be it first, second, or even third language learning, is the primary language environment. In the majority of cases, the deaf child is born to hearing parents. Unless the parents are competent signers, the language input provided to the child is in the auditory-oral modality and thus largely inaccessible. Thus, both theory and research indicate that early childhood (i.e. first two years of life) is often marked by an absence of language. Such conditions are likely to exert a limiting effect on the linguistic and cognitive development of the child, which projects into the general language learning abilities. In order to make the auditory-oral input more accessible, the parents should foster the use of lip-reading and, according to the degree of hearing impairment, consider the use of hearing aids. Above all, most interpersonal communication should be conducted through a language in a visual-manual modality. This is because the intramental processes of the deaf are carried out in signs, and a language deriving from the same code would occupy the same position as speech in a hearing individual. The interviewees attest to the fact that Czech deaf education has a long tradition of oralism, an approach that lays strong emphasis on the development of speech. What educators should consider is that the profoundly deaf, unlike the hard-of-hearing, cannot process the auditory input, and that a speech-centered approach may give very little an impetus for the development of higher cognitive processes. Instead, the development of
42
literacy should become the centre of attention, and sign language should assume a central role as the language of instruction. The problems the Czech deaf encounter in developing English literacy are numerous. First, the Czech deaf learn Czech in order to integrate into the majority society. On the contrary, the process of learning English is not driven by integrative motivation. And second, if the deaf successfully surmount the existent obstacles (learning a language in a different modality, unsuitable educational approaches etc.) and learn Czech successfully, they encounter a completely different linguistic system (English) and new challenges arise. What is more, the hypothetical transfer of literacy skills from Czech to English is often impossible, as a great number of deaf generally experience difficulty reading and writing, performing below the level of their hearing counterparts. It appears that the greatest challenge confronting all deaf individuals learning an auditory-oral language, either Czech or English, is the fact that the deaf do not receive direct input in a language the written system of which they are supposed to master. In other words, their intramental activities are carried out in sing language, whereas the written code is based on another language. Further research into the nature of the medium facilitating the transfer from sign language to written language would certainly enhance our understanding of how the deaf person may learn to write in the language that is inaccessible in its primary modality, i.e. English. I am convinced that the research interviews in conjunction with the theoretical discussion provide a good jumping-off point for anybody wishing to understand the complex issues defining language learning and deafness as we know it today.
43
Bibliography
Berent, Gerald P. “An assessment of syntactic capabilities.“ Language Learning and Deafness. Ed. Michael Strong. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988. 133161. Berent, Gerald P. “English for Deaf Students: Assessing and Addressing Learners’ Grammar Development.“ Proceedings 2000: International Seminar on Teaching English to Deaf and Hard-of-hearing students at Secondary and Tertiary Levels of Education, Prague, Czech Republic, 2-4 November 2000. Ed. Daniela Janáková. Prague: Charles University, 2001. 129-138. Bochner, Joseph A., and John Albertini. “Language varieties in the deaf population and their acquisition by children and adults.“ Language learning and deafness. Ed. Michael Strong. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988. 3-48. Cenoz, Jasone, Britta Hufeisen, and Ulrike Jessner. Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: psycholinguistic perspectives. New York: Multilungual Matters, 2001. Cummins, Jimm. “The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students.“ In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Sacramento,CA: California State Department of Education, 1981. 349. Cummins, Jimm. Empowering minority students. Sacramento,CA: California Association for Bilingual Education, 1989. Cummins, Jimm. Language, power, and pedagogy: bilingual children in the crossfire. New York: Multilingual Matters, 2000. Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion, and Keith Morrison. Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge, 2003.
44
Davies, Alan. The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters, 2003. Eilers-Crandall, Kathleen. “Reading and Writing English as a Foreign Language: Variables to Consider for Deaf College Students.“ Proceedings 2000: International Seminar on Teaching English to Deaf and Hard-of-hearing students at Secondary and Tertiary Levels of Education, Prague, Czech Republic, 2-4 November 2000. Ed. Daniela Janáková. Prague: Charles University, 2001. 65-75. Eilers-Crandall, Kathleen. “Reading and Writing English as a Foreign Language: Factors Leading to Success for Deaf Adolescents and Young Adults.“ Proceedings 2004: The Second Prague International Seminar on Teaching English to the Deaf and Hard-ofHearing Students at Secondary and Tertiary Levels of Education, Prague, 23-27 August 2004. Ed. Daniela Janáková. Prague: Charles University, 2005. 88-97. Fischer, Susan. ‘‘Sign language and creoles.‘‘ Understanding Language through Sign Language Research. Ed. Patricia Siple. New York: Academic Press, 1978. Gillham, Bill. The research interview. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2000. Hoffmesiter, Robert, and Ronnie Wilbur. “Developmental: The Acquisition of Sign Language.“ Recent Perspectives on American Sign Language. Ed. Harlan Lane, and Francois Grosjean. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1989. 61-78. Janáková, Daniela. “Introductory Speech.“ Proceedings 2000: International Seminar on Teaching English to Deaf and Hard-of-hearing students at Secondary and Tertiary Levels of Education, Prague, Czech Republic, 2-4 November 2000. Ed. Daniela Janáková. Prague: Charles University, 2001. 12-16. Janáková, Daniela. “Teaching English to Deaf and Hard of hearing Students.“ Proceedings 2000: International Seminar on Teaching English to Deaf and Hard-of-hearing students at Secondary and Tertiary Levels of Education, Prague, Czech Republic, 2-4 November 2000. Ed. Daniela Janáková. Prague: Charles University, 2001. 26-29. 45
Kelly, Leonard P. “Processing of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Information by Skilled and Average Deaf Readers and Implications for Whole Language Instruction.“ Exceptional Children 61.4 (1995): 318-334. 17 December 2008 . Krashen, Steven D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981. Lane, Harlan, and Francois Grosjean. Recent Perspectives on American Sign Language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1989. Lillo-Martin, Diane C. “The Acquisition of English by Deaf Signers: Is Universal Grammar Involved?“ The generative study of second language acquisition. Ed. Suzanne Flynn, Gita Martohardjono, and Wayne A. O'Neil. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1998. 131-152. Lawton, Megan. “Developing Materials and Motivating Deaf Learners to Read and Write via the Internet.“ Proceedings 2000: International Seminar on Teaching English to Deaf and Hard-of-hearing students at Secondary and Tertiary Levels of Education, Prague, Czech Republic, 2-4 November 2000. Ed. Daniela Janáková. Prague: Charles University, 2001. 54-58. Macnamara, John. Bilingualism and primary education: A study of Irish experience. Chicago: Aldine, 1966. Macurová, Alena. “An Introduction to Principles of Language Learning.“ Proceedings 2004: The Second Prague International Seminar on Teaching English to the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students at Secondary and Tertiary Levels of Education, Prague, 23-27 August 2004. Ed. Daniela Janáková. Prague: Charles University, 2005. 28-41. Markowicz, Harry. “Myths About American Sign Language.“ Recent Perspectives on American Sign Language. Ed. Harlan Lane, and Francois Grosjean. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1989. 1-6.
46
Marschark, Marc, Harry Lang, and John Albertini. Educating Deaf Students: From Research to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Marschark, Marc, and Patricia Elizabeth Spencer. Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language and Education. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. McLaughlin, Barry. Second-language acquisition in childhood: Vol. 1. School-age children. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1984. McLaughlin, Barry. Second-language acquisition in childhood: Vol. 2. School-age children. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985. Padden, Carol A., and Tom Humphries. Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture. New York: Harvard University Press, 1988. Meyer, Connie, and Gordon Wells. “Can the Linguistic Interdependence Theory Support A Bilingual-Bicultural Model of Literacy Education for Deaf Students?.“ Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 1.2 (1996): 93-107. 20 November 2008 . Paul, Peter V. Literacy and Deafness: The Development of Reading, Writing, and Literate Thought. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1998. Powers, Stephen, Susan Gregory, and Ernst Thoutenhoofd. The Educational Achievements of Deaf Children. London: HMSO, 1998. Stokoe, William C. “Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American deaf.“ Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10.1 (ed. 2005): 11. 5 Nov. 2008 . Strong, Michael, ed. Language Learning and Deafness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
47
Valli, Clayton, and Ceil Lucas. Linguistics of American Sign Language: An Introduction. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2000. Vygotsky, Lev S. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. Vysuček, Petr. “The Deaf and Czech as a Foreign language.“ Proceedings 2000: International Seminar on Teaching English to Deaf and Hard-of-hearing students at Secondary and Tertiary Levels of Education, Prague, Czech Republic, 2-4 November 2000. Ed. Daniela Janáková. Prague: Charles University, 2001. 60-64. Washabaugh, William. “Sign Language in its Social Context.“ Annual Review of Anthropology 10 (1981): 237-252. Woodward, James. “Some Characteristics of Pidgin Sign English.“ Sign Language Studies 3 (1973): 39-46.
48
Appendices Appendix A Interview 1 1.Were you born deaf? If not, when did you become deaf? I am not sure. My mother tried to find the answer, but without success. We both think that I am deaf from my birth. 2.What is your degree of hearing loss? The doctors use a specific term – "practical deafness", but in my case it is hard-ofhearingness. 3.Have you ever used any hearing aids? Do you have a cochlear implant? Yes, I have. Hearing aids enable me to communicate with hearing people through speech. No, I do not have a cochlear implant. 4.Are your parents deaf or hearing? Hearing. 5.How did you communicate with your parents in your early childhood? There were a number of ways: speaking, lip-reading, pictures, gestures, and I used hearing aids. 6.What do you consider your first language? The Czech language. 7.How did you learn your first language? Who was your language model? Hearing aids were immensely helpful. I read a lot as well. I cannot forget to mention my mother and grandmother, who dedicated much of their time to me. They would explain things to me and correct me whenever I was wrong. And of course, there were nursery school teachers. 49
8.Do you consider yourself proficient in your first language? I do not know whether I can describe myself as proficient in Czech. There are things such as dialect and intonation, which I am not perfectly sure about. If a native speaker’s language level equals 100%, I may be close to 95%. For example, I can write well on a general topic, but academic papers will reveal that I am not a hearing person. In academic texts, I tend to combine words that do not collocate. 9.When did you first come into contact with Czech? As I said earlier, I spoke with my mother and grandmother with the help of hearing aids. 10.What was your motivation to learn Czech? I wanted to be able to understand Czech people – I live in the Czech Republic, where Czech is the majority language. I also wanted to understand books, to gain information etc. 11.How often do you use Czech? Do you regard Czech as your second language? I use Czech everyday. You may think that sign language is my second language, but the fact is that I did not learn sign language until I was sixteen. 12.Which educational method and communication method were used to teach you Czech? I don’t remember. I think it was the oral method and gestures. It was not genuine sign language, that is for sure. The thing is that I attended a primary school for the deaf only when I was in the first grade. I attended a mainstream school for hearing students from then on. 13.How well have you mastered Czech? How would you describe your current reading and writing abilities? I can read general texts with relative ease. Reading academic papers related to my field is a bit more challenging. I have some difficulty understanding scientific texts from other fields and writing academic papers.
50
14.What problems can you identify in learning Czech? Czech is one of the most difficult languages. It is a synthetic language with a great number of declensional endings and many exceptions. These are the difficulties concerning the language. The other issues concern the deaf child, who may not acquire Czech as their mother tongue.
15.Why do (did) you learn English? How do you think you will use English in your life? I learned English because it was a compulsory subject at the secondary school, and so was German. I’m grateful for that, because English has spread all around the world. You need it for work on the computer and for reading user manuals. I can read the lyrics of songs in English now, which is nice. I have also been able to read materials about sign languages and problems concerning the deaf.
16.Which educational method and communication method are (were) used to teach you English? I attended a mainstream secondary school for hearing students. Fortunately, I didn’t have to listen to recordings with native speakers. Later, at university (Charles University), it was more about copying what the teacher wrote on the blackboard. I also spent three weeks at Gallaudet University and some time at the University of Bristol. The approach in both institutions was different. There were deaf teachers using ASL, BSL, or a form of International Sign Language. It was all about signing, reading and writing.
17.How often do (did) you have English lessons? I had daily lessons at the secondary school and one lesson a week at university. 18.How long have you been learning English? I have learned English for about 12 years. I no longer attend English lessons.
51
19.How well have you mastered English? How would you describe your current reading and writing abilities? I don’t really know. Reading simple texts is quite alright. On the other hand, my writing skills are poor. My level of English is probably somewhere around B1. 20.What problems can you identify in learning English? What I find fiendish are relative clauses, conditional clauses and words that have multiple meanings. There are many phrasal verbs and I struggle with tenses.
52
Appendix B Interview 2 1.Were you born deaf? If not, when did you become deaf? I am deaf from my birth.
2.What is your degree of hearing loss? I am profoundly deaf. 3.Have you ever used any hearing aids? Do you have a cochlear implant? I have been using hearing aids for a long time. I use hearing aids every day, all day long. I do not have a cochlear implant. 4.Are your parents deaf or hearing? My parents are hearing. None of my relatives are deaf. Even my younger brother is hearing. 5.How did you communicate with your parents in your early childhood? My mother attended sign language courses and she learned some basic signs. I found it difficult to communicate with my father and I would communicate with him through my mother. 6.What do you consider your first language? Czech was the first language I came into contact with, so I guess I should regard Czech as my mother tongue. My parents spoke Czech and I learned Czech as a child. I only learned sign language at the nursery school. I prefer sign language to Czech though, as it is more natural and convenient as a means of communication. 7.How did you learn your first language? Who was your language model? I am not sure. I think I tried to lip-read whenever my mother spoke to me. We probably used gestures as well, but I can’t remember.
53
8.Do you consider yourself proficient in your first language? I am not proficient in Czech. I am much more confident about using sing language. How do you measure sign language proficiency? I think there is much language variation among the deaf. 9.When did you first come into contact with Czech? My parents are hearing and they spoke Czech when I was a child. Of course, we used gestures and some basic signs, but my parents would mostly speak Czech to me. 10.What was your motivation to learn Czech? It was necessary for integration into the majority society. I need to be able to communicate with people, to order goods etc. If sign language was the majority language I would simply use sign language. 11.How often do you use Czech? Do you regard Czech as your second language? It depends on the particular context. I use Czech for educational purposes and whenever I have to. I use sign language otherwise. I think that I should regard Czech as my mother tongue because it is my parent’s language. 12.Which educational method and communication method were used to teach you Czech? If I remember correctly, the oral method was used at the primary school. Sign language was used very little. It was different at the secondary school, where sign language was used quite a lot. The focus was more on reading and writing. 13.How well have you mastered Czech? How would you describe your current reading and writing abilities? I have difficulty writing academic papers. Reading Czech is quite fine, but this holds true for simple texts only.
54
14.What problems can you identify in learning Czech? The seven cases. I also combine words that do not go together. When reading, I often encounter words that I do not understand. This is a problem because there is no equivalence between a sign and a word. I often do not know how to understand a particular word. One word can have more meanings. There is the word Jazyk, for example. 15.Why do (did) you learn English? How do you think you will use English in your life? I have read that English is a lingua franca. It is a language used all over the world. I would certainly use it when travelling abroad. 16.Which educational method and communication method are (were) used to teach you English? The primary school used the oral approach in education. I was taught in Czech with occasional English translation written on the board. Some sign language instruction was also used. Again, the approach was different at the secondary school. The teacher spoke English with some sign language instruction. I think it was the bilingual approach.
17.How often do (did) you have English lessons? I can’t remember. I had two 90-minute lessons a week – this would be the secondary school, I think. I attended English classes at the Teiresias Centre for three semesters. There were two 90-minute classes a week. I am currently studying English at university. 18.How long have you been learning English? I’ve been learning English for about 12 years. 19.How well have you mastered English? How would you describe your current reading and writing abilities? I can read and write simple texts. Unfortunately, I am below the language level of my hearing peers. I have difficulty understanding complex structures. I am not sure about the language level. I think it is somewhere around B2.
55
20.What problems can you identify in learning English? I have problems with word-for-word translation. I tend to translate texts from English to Czech to understand, but it does not work. The main problem is that I did not read at all at primary and secondary school. I attended an English course designed for deaf some time ago, and the teacher made us read a lot, which was great. Reading books has helped improve my English.
56
Appendix C
Interview 3 1.Were you born deaf? If not, when did you become deaf? I was born deaf.
2.What is your degree of hearing loss? There are two ways of looking at this. The doctor would say I have residual hearing, but according to the cultural definition, I would certainly identify myself as deaf.
3.Have you ever used any hearing aids? Do you have a cochlear implant? I used hearing aids when I was a child. My parents wanted me to. I stopped using hearing aids at the secondary school, as my schoolmates were noisy and I could not concentrate. I do not use any hearing aids these days and I don’t have a cochlear implant.
4.Are your parents deaf or hearing? My parents are hearing, but I have a deaf sister. She is my junior by one year.
5.How did you communicate with your parents in your early childhood? I remember that we used home signs and simple gestures. It was difficult to communicate with my parents. They would often simply nod their heads instead of trying to get the message across. They used very simple sentences, for example: Máma vaří, Máma je pryč.
6.What do you consider your first language? Well, my mother tongue is Czech. I learned it from my parents. I don’t like the fact that they still use very simple language when communicating with me, even though I tell them not to do it. To be honest, I prefer sign language to Czech. There is no doubt about this.
57
7.How did you learn your first language? Who was your language model? I learned Czech from my parents and then at the primary school. My first experience with sign language was at the integrated nursery school I attended. There were many deaf children and I learned sign language from them.
8.Do you consider yourself proficient in your first language? I am much better at sign language than at Czech. I do not think I am proficient in Czech.
9.When did you first come into contact with Czech? My first contact was with Czech was when I was I child. I think I answered a similar question already.
10.What was your motivation to learn Czech? I did not like learning Czech at the primary school, because of the oral approach. I had to learn things by heart, which was too mechanical. I never liked learning Czech, really.
11.How often do you use Czech? Do you regard Czech as your second language? I use Czech when I need to communicate with my teachers, or other hearing people. Technically, Czech is my mother tongue.
12.Which educational method and communication method were used to teach you Czech? The primary school used the oral approach and the secondary school the bilingual approach.
13.How well have you mastered Czech? How would you describe your current reading and writing abilities? Reading is difficult. I often do not understand the context and the semantic connections. It is hard to ’’internalize’’ the text. I tend to look at individual words.
58
14.What problems can you identify in learning Czech? In my view, the biggest problem is that I did not have to write when I was a child. My parents are hearing and they never gave me written assignments. I would just sign with my sister most of the time. I also think that the oral approach was highly unsuitable.
15.Why do (did) you learn English? How do you think you will use English in your life? I would like to work in the field of special pedagogy and I think I would use English there.
16.Which educational method and communication method are (were) used to teach you English? The primary school used the oral approach as with teaching Czech. The focus was on speaking and writing. As to the secondary school, there was much more writing and we were educated bilingually.
17.How often do (did) you have English lessons? Once a week at the primary school and three times a week at the secondary school. I would like to attend an English course this summer. 18.How long have you been learning English? I have been learning English for 11 years. 19.How well have you mastered English? How would you describe your current reading and writing abilities? I have taken a placement test and I am at the pre-intermediate level. I can write simple sentences. I can read simple texts, but I often struggle with vocabulary and long, complex structures. I often fail to understand the connections between language items in the text and I get lost. 20.What problems can you identify in learning English? Basic English grammar is not too difficult. What I constantly wrestle with are prepositions and phrasal verbs.
59
Appendix D Interview 4 1.Were you born deaf? If not, when did you become deaf? I am deaf from my birth.
2.What is your degree of hearing loss? I am profoundly deaf.
3.Have you ever used any hearing aids? Do you have a cochlear implant? I use hearing aids occasionally. No, I do not have a cochlear implant.
4.Are your parents deaf or hearing? All of my relatives are hearing.
5.How did you communicate with your parents in your early childhood? Our communication was based on gestures mainly.
6.What do you consider your first language? (Why) It is not exactly clear. My parents spoke to me from an early age, but I did not consider their speaking to me to be a language. I just did not perceive the language. When I went to nursery school sign language immediately caught my attention. I joined in with the other children and became a signer.
7.How did you learn your first language? Who was your language model? I learned sign language from deaf children of deaf parents. Their sign language was distinctive, they had clear facial expressions and their signing was very effective in getting the message across.
60
8.Do you consider yourself proficient in your first language? If I should compare myself to deaf signers who were born to deaf parents, I would imagine that their sign language skills are better than mine. It does not have to do with education or Czech language skills. I have a friend whose sign language skills are on a higher level, but who has struggled in a number of school subjects, unlike me.
9.When did you first come into contact with Czech? Back in nursery school, where I was taught to lip-read.
10.What was your motivation to learn Czech? I hate Czech. My willingness to learn Czech reflected the qualities and approach of the particular teacher.
11.How often do you use Czech? Do you regard Czech as your second language? I don’t use Czech very often. Information presented in Czech is confusing and unclear. I perceive Czech as my second language. I use an interpreter to communicate with hearing people. Communication in sign language is clear and easy.
12.Which educational method and communication method were used to teach you Czech? We read aloud from a book, but without any comprehension whatsoever. I did not understand the text or the meaning of individual words, and not even the grammatical concepts. It was all focused on speaking. 13.How well have you mastered Czech? How would you describe your current reading and writing abilities? My Czech language skills are poor. I can read simple texts, but writing is really difficult.
14.What problems can you identify in learning Czech? I don’t understand the metaphorical meaning, jokes of the hearing and irony. I struggle with grammar in writing, and with producing the correct sentence structure.
61
15.Why do (did) you learn English? How do you think you will use English in your life? I travelled to the US with a theatre company some time ago and made a friend. He sent me a letter and I tried to translate it with the help of a dictionary. English is good for communication with friends from abroad.
16.Which educational method and communication method are (were) used to teach you English? I spent 4 years studying English from self-study books and then went to JAMU. English was a compulsory subject. I was tested by reading out loud and signing. There were some writing drills as well.
17.How often do (did) you have English lessons? I had 2 lessons a week when I was at university.
18.How long have you been learning English? I studied English at various educational institutions for about 8 years, and 4 years from selfstudy books.
19.How well have you mastered English? How would you describe your current reading and writing abilities? I have forgotten most of what I have learned. I have not used English for many years.
20.What problems can you identify in learning English? They are very similar to those I experienced in learning Czech.
62
