S IGN L ANGUAGE
T EACHING AND L EARNING
Papers from the
1st Symposium in Applied Sign Linguistics
Centre for Deaf Studies, University of Bristol, 24-26 September 2009
Edited by
Maria Mertzani
CENTRE
FOR
D EA F ST U D IE S U N IVER S IT Y
BR IST O L U N IT ED K IN G D O M
OF
BR IST OL
Published by
Centre for Deaf Studies
University of Bristol
8 Woodland Rd, BS8 1TN, Bristol, U.K.
www.bris.ac.uk/deaf/
Maria Mertzani 2010
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in
writing from the publisher.
Opinions expressed by the authors of these papers are their own and do not
necessarily reflect those of the editor or of the Centre for Deaf Studies, University of
Bristol. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of the references sited. This volume
takes no responsibility for copyright infringements made by or in behalf of authors,
and authors agree to indemnify the publisher of this volume against any illegal use of
original artwork or creation.
British Library in Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
57
This paper reviews the methodological practices applied in the field of sign
language teaching and learning from the mid 1970s and their implications for
applied sign linguistics. The question that has been raised is: Can we argue
that there is a developing and forming discipline of Applied Sign Linguistics?
The paper examines historically sign language teaching methodology,
documenting its decline and recent revival. The paper suggests the need for
work in three main areas: (a) on the specific methods used in sign language
teaching and learning worldwide to engage with real-world challenges; (b) on
the shared disciplinary nature of the specific field (taking into consideration
the larger cultural context within which sign languages operate); and (c) on
the constructs needed in order to research and study those fundamental
issues of applied sign linguistics. The paper concludes by posing questions for
an evidence based research, and argues that the future development of
pedagogically oriented applied sign linguistics is bound up with the capacity
of the research infrastructure to undertake process-product research on the
macro (i.e. sign language programme evaluations) and micro level (i.e. sign
language classroom).
INTRODUCTION
IT IS SOME THIRTY YEARS SINCE APPLIED LINGUISTICS WAS MOST CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH
researching the pedagogy of language teaching, initially focusing on the development of
principles and practices on the basis of informed linguistic description and the studies of
second language acquisition (SLA) (Bygate 2005). Currently, applied linguistics is defined
as the theoretical and empirical investigation of real-world problems in which language
is a central issue (Brumfit 2001). From this perspective, applied linguistics involves the
skills and knowledge associated with learning/teaching and assessment; pragmatics;
intercultural communication; cognition and teaching; and so many other real-world
contexts where language plays a central role (Bygate 2005).
On the basis of the above definition, can we argue that there is a developing and
forming discipline of Applied Sign Linguistics, when sign language use is implicated in
real-world problems? Applied sign linguistics, is used in a parallel fashion to applied
linguistics of spoken languages (first, second, foreign etc.), and it is the aim of this paper
to articulate the nature of this embryonic field. However, a quick answer is yes. A
careful look at the establishment of many sign language (SL) learning programmes in
Higher Education, School Education and Lifelong learning worldwide, depicts that any
attempt to define applied sign linguistics is closely associated with contemporary SL
teaching and assessment developments; transformations that have been occurred and
are still happening in the above areas; and with recent research.
As Weideman (2007: 591) states:
To understand the ongoing debate about the nature of applied linguistics, one
has to begin with an understanding of the historical beginnings of such work in
the realm of language teaching and learning, and specifically in what was once
termed the linguistic method, the oral approach or the audio-lingual method.
It is the aim of this paper to trace this formal SL teaching and all its transformations
for a better understanding of what applied sign linguistics brings with it and how directly
influences the training of professionals in the field. This historical understanding is done
in a parallel fashion to applied linguistics of spoken languages.
Since 1970s, when sign linguistics research advanced and established evidence of
sign languages as proper, natural languages, many sign language programmes started
planning SL teaching by designing curricula, and applying recognised second language
teaching methods (Wilcox and Wilcox 1997). The following quote is illustrative of the
situation at that time.
Sign Language instruction in all levels of education is growing at a rapid pace
(Newsweek, January 7, 1980). The recent establishment of the National
Consortium of Programs for the Training of Sign Langauge Instructors (NCPTSLI),
coordinated by the Communicative Skills Program of the National Association of
the Deaf, will insure that this growth will continue as more teachers become
qualified through training to teach ASL.
With this rapid expansion of courses in sign language has come a recognition
of the lack of well-developed curricula and methodologies. The teaching of ASL
[...] requires a linguistically-based curriculum based on second language
learning theory which follows a methodology that will ensure that learning
takes place in a systematic and effective manner.
(Newell, Mallery, Menkis et al. 1982: 108)
Historically, sign language teaching can be categorised by the following methods: the
Grammar-Translation Method, the Audiolingual Method, the Direct Method and the
Communicative Approach (Wilcox and Wilcox 1997).
58
from and into the target language. The belief was that teaching the target language
itself is not of much importance; on the contrary, "mental" training was its prime object
(Richardson 1983). It refers to the term academic style which uses a conversion
model of L2 learning that sees the learner progressing from controlled conscious
understanding of language to automatic processing of speech without thinking (Cook
1996: 177). Thus, the focus was on studying grammatical rules and morphology; doing
written exercices; memorising vocabulary; and translating literary passages sentence by
sentence from one language to another (Richards and Rodgers 2001). Little attention
was given to speaking and listening and almost none to pronunciation. The teacher was
the authority in the classroom and the language used in the class was students native
language (Larsen-Freeman 1986). The method dominated L2 teaching from the middle
of the nineteenth century to the 1940s.
Teachers of American Sign language (ASL) used the Grammar-Translation Method
from the 1950s up to the end of 1970s. A good evidence of such claim is the paper of
Lawrence Fleischer and Joyce Groode (1982) Grammar Translation Approach in
Teaching American Sign Language, published in the proceedings book of the Third
National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, Boston, Massachusetts
U.S.A., in October 26-30, 1980. The authors clearly point (Fleischer and Groode 1982:
133):
In ASL, the emphasis is primarily receptive and expressive signing; this is
somewhat unlike other languages that are taught in the grammar-translation
method. Students are expected to sign correctly and apply acceptable grammar.
A non-manual component (facial expression) is included in ASL instruction.
Fleischer and Groode (1982: 137), talking about the book of Lou Fant Ameslan: An
Introduction to American Sign Language, particularly its section How to Use This
Book, describe the application of the method in the classroom setting:
Sign Language contains 15 lessons with sequences of increasing difficulty in
content. The students have the opportunity to read the text in advance so that
they can come to class well-prepared for the next activity. The view part is
devoted primarily to the development of signing skills and to the explanation of
grammatical features. As soon as the teacher is satisfied with the students
comprehension and performance, the teacher should move on to the review
session [] Lets use Fants Sign Language, Chapter 10, for our illustration.
Before coming to class, the students have an assignment to preview Lesson 10.
The view portion of the class should be devoted to content; the instructor sets
the pace during class time. When Lesson 10 comes to an end, the class should
go into the review session []
[] The textbook begins with a limited amount of vocabulary so as to provide
students with a comfortable feeling using a visual-gestural form of
communicationThe students can develop insight into a grammatical pattern,
but they must realize that it is not sufficient itself. They must acquire the habits
of signing. Through seeing and signing many examples, the students learn to
anticipate language Although vocabulary is important in Sign Language, its
acquisition in the early stages should be considered secondary to the formation
of signs and understanding the structure of ASL.
Word lists in students native language were used and the teachers were showing
their equivalent signs. Textbooks were also used in which the students could focus on
word-sign correspondences (Berrigan and Rust 1987; Wilcox and Wilcox 1997).
Grammatical and syntactic rules were frequently memorised and students practised
them in short sentences from written language to sign language (Berrigan and Rust
1987).
Appli ed Sign Li ngui sti cs 2009 Vol ume 1
59
Moreover, ASL teachers used to develop their own instructional materials. There
was no curricular idea to help them in teaching, no establishment of a cultural context
for language instruction. Teachers themselves used to decide how to sequence course
materials and develop activities (Smith 1988).
60
61
Stern (1983: 460) addressed the problem of, firstly, how to convey meaning without
translating; and secondly, how to safeguard against misunderstanding without reference
to the L1. Despite these two problems, present language pedagogy has adopted many
of the techniques developed by the Direct Method.
Wilcox and Wilcox (1997) addressed that students made perfect reproductions of
signs without understanding what they used. Many textbooks and videotapes (most of
them in ASL) were based on this method, but soon it was understood that memorising
dialogues and analysing line-by-line dialogue units could lead to a mechanical rather
than spontaneous learning of sign languages.
With the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics, attention of linguists was drawn
towards the deep structure of language and a more cognitive psychology. Chomskys
theory of Transformational-generative Grammar focused attention on the rule-governed
nature of language and language acquisition rather than habit formation. This gave rise
in the 1960s to the Cognitive Code Learning method, where learners were encouraged
to work out grammar rules deductively for themselves. Language is not a habit
structure, mimicry, and analogy. It involves innovation, formation of new sentences and
patterns in accordance with rule of great abstractness and intricacy. This empiricist view
of language cannot acccount for the infinite capacity of L2 learners to create new,
never-before-uttered sentences, sentences generated from the learners underlying
competence. The Cognitive Method has been proposed by Cogen and Philip (1982) to
be applied in ASL teaching, but there is no evidence to my knowledge so far to proof
the actual application of this method in SL teaching.
62
63
CONCLUSION
It can be seen that applied linguistics started in the decade of 60s, when
audiolingualism and later, cognitivism, were believed to be the methods drawn directly
from a theory of language description (Weideman 2007). At that time, there was a link
between linguisitic theory and language teaching. In terms of applied sign linguistics, it
is easily claimed that there was not a theoretical continuity between sign linguistics and
SL teaching. The teaching methods, especially their principles, that have been tried out
throughout the 1970s, cannot be related to the results of the sign linguistic analysis of
that time. They are, instead, beliefs that underlie and support some techniques of
analysis, but they are not the results or conclusions of sign linguistics analysis. They
simply preceded sign linguistics. This is the reason why, in one single decade, different
programmes attempted to employ four methods, with different principles and
techniques. However, from 1980s to present, the application of CLT is based upon the
results of sign linguistics, thus, there is a theoretical continuity between applied sign
linguistics and sign linguistics.
From 1980s and ownards, investigation of the syntactical features of SL
demonstrated the need for a linguistically-based SL instruction, which differed
significantly from the SL teaching in the 1970s. Sign linguistic analysis was then utilised
in the selection and creation of SL teaching/learning materials (e.g. SL curricula such as
the VISTA curriculum for ASL; SL textbooks for the teachers and the learner such as the
publications by Baker and Cokely in 1981; SL dictionaries; multimedia DVD/CD titles; and
recently, online SL material/websites), and evaluation, assessment materials (see an
overview on existing SL tests that have been developed so far on the website:
www.signlang-assessment.info) to be used in SL classrooms. Thus, in order to make
such a selection, it was realised, that in order to apply any theoretical insight of sign
linguistics, there was the need for a contrastive analysis of learners L1 (spoken language
and/or another SL as a L1) and SL (the target language for teaching/learning). There was
enough scepticism about theory and practice, since sign linguistics has the same subjectmatter as SL teaching. In designing solutions to SL problems, sign linguistics theory led
the way. In the present volume, the paper of Matrick Matthews, Methodological
Challenges in Teaching Roleshift to Learners of Irish Sign Language (ISL) as a Second
Langauge, is indicative of the theoretical continuity between sign linguistics and
applied sign linguistics.
Moreover, it can be claimed that in applied sign linguistics there is continuity with
applied linguistics. The latter constitutes the tradition/model for SL teaching and
learning in their broad sense. As Weideman (2007) puts it very well, even though an
historical analysis may present applied linguistics as a progression of successive
generations or traditions, many of these traditions still exist, and/or co-exist. In the case
of applied sign linguistics, there was not any succession of theoretical traditions but
there was a progressive selection (from 1970s to 1980s and ownards) of certain wellknown in applied linguistics methods and principles, which were adjusted to SL
teaching/learning. Furthermore, this progression informs tradition about an already
established work. In doing applied sign linguistics work, theoretical traditions were and
still are a point of reference.
However, what is missing from applied sign linguistics is what Bygate (2005: 571)
addresses; what is needed is not simply to develop and cross-examine the theories, but
to explore their applicability within real-world contexts. In other words, this statement
calls for research-based prescriptions about what works in SL teaching/learning in
general. This is an important challenge for many SL teachers and scholars. For instance,
it is not sufficient to identify the context of CEFR levels according to SL learners needs;
Appli ed Sign Li ngui sti cs 2009 Vol ume 1
64
it is necessary to know what can then be done to help SL learners to achieve the levels.
This also raises the issue of communicating with the broader society, for example, with
the Deaf community, with special interest groups and/or the public, who the majority
at least - are non-specialists in SL (e.g. employers and employees around SL uses in the
workplace). In order to explore the applicability of the above theories, the applied sign
linguist needs to engage in a constructive collaboration with various authorities and
understand their diverse relations to real-world SL problems. At present, there is not
enough research about the theoretical traditions, which will inform the field about
what works. Currently, applied sign linguistic research is being conducted in contexts
remotely, and its results remain in most cases unknown2.
According to Mitchell (2000: 298), language learning theories and research findings
on effective teaching
can influence and widen the repertoire of possible actions and choices which
lie open to the teacher. In this sense, an expanded programme of research ...
could certainly support the development of more effective and consistent
practice in the area ... But any such programme needs to be founded on a clear
set of principles, if it is to generate robust new knowledge about effective
teaching and learning.
In line with this, applied sign linguistics needs to strengthen its research by evaluating
the overall effectiveness of the existing SL programmes through evidence-based practice
(e.g. classroom experiments and quasi-experiment). So far, for example, there is no
evidence on what to teach in each SL level; there is a lack of standard pedagogic
grammar, which is actually teachable and measurable. Applied linguistics research has
shown the effectiveness of certain instruction techniques; input, output and feedback
for the acquisition of the target language (Ellis, Basturkem, and Loewen 2001; Lyster and
Ranta 1997). Again, such evidence is missing from SL teaching and learning.
Applied sign linguistics is a challenging discipline. Richard Kiely (2009), at the keynote
discussion of the symposium pointed:
What it occurred to me today is that, in terms of Applied Sign Linguistics, there
is a very big challenge. In my feeling, in teaching English as a foreign language or
teaching foreign languages, when the work started forty or fifty years ago, the
task of language description had been done; dictionaries were there; grammars
were there; that had been going on for 100 years. It seems to me that you have
the challenge at the same time of describing sign languages, and trying to
negotiate issues of standards, variation etc. at the same time as working out
how to teach sign language and what are the involved processes. It is a very
complex issue with less activity.
Moreover, the above will mean that evidence-based practice will be grounded in a
network of close and long-term partnerships between researchers, teachers and other
participants in SL teaching and learning. In addition, it will mean the need to increase
agreement among the scholars on what kind of data will count as providing evidence of
SL teaching end learning.
Indicative of this situation is the comment by Clark Denmark in the discussion session of the presentation by
Leeson, L., and Grehan, C.A Common European Framework for Sign Langauge Curricula? D-Sign(-ing) a Curriculum
aligned to the Common European Framework of Reference.
65
REFERENCES
Basile, M.L., Ray, B.E., Quinsland, P.A., and Warren, K.N. (1977). The Application of the
Direct Experience Method for Instruction of American Sign Language. In W.C. Stokoe (ed.)
Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching,
Chicago Illinois, May 30-June 3 1977. Chicago, Illinois: National Association of the Deaf, 123133.
Berrigan, D., and Rust, K. O. (1987). Sign Language Teaching. In J. V. Cleve (ed.) Gallaudet
Encyclopaedia of Deaf People and Deafness. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc. Vol.
3, 23-26.
Bragg, B. (1992). Communication and the Deaf Community: Where Do We Go from Here?
Bilingual Considerations in the Education of Deaf Students: ASL and English, June 28 - July 1,
1990. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University, College for Continuing Education, 150-163.
Brumfit, C. J. (2001). Individual Freedom in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bygate, M. (2005). Applied Linguistics: A Pragmatic Discipline, a Generic Discipline?
Applied Linguistics , 26(4): 568-581.
Centre for Deaf Studies (2001). British Sign Language Teaching. University of Bristol,
Bristol, U.K.
Cogen, C., and Philip, M.J. (1982). On Teaching American Sign Language as a Second
Language: The Cognitive Method. In F. Caccamise, M. Garretson, and U. Bellugi (eds.)
Teaching American Sign Language as a Second/Foreign Language. Proceedings of the Third
National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, Boston-Massachusetts,
October 26-30 1980. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Association of the Deaf, 143-169.
Cokely, D., and Baker-Shenk, C. (1980). American Sign Language: A teachers Resource
Text on Curriculum, Methods, and Evaluation. Silver Spring, MD: T.J. Publishers.
Colville, M. (1981). The influence of British Sign Language Structure on Communication
Teaching Techniques. In B. Woll, J. Kyle, and M. Deuchar (eds.) Perspectives on British Sign
Language and Deafness. London: Croom Helm, 178-192.
Cook, V. (1996). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Great Britain:
Arnold.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., and Loewen, S. (2001). Learner Uptake in Communicative ESL
Lessons, Language Learning, 51(2): 281-318.
Fleischer, L., and Groode, J. (1982). Grammar Translation Approach in Teaching
American Sign Language. In F. Caccamise, M. Garretson, and U. Bellugi (Eds.) Teaching
American Sign Language as a Second/Foreign Language. Proceedings of the Third National
Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, Boston-Massachusetts, October 26-30
1980. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Association of the Deaf, 133-139.
Ingram, R. M. (1977). Principles and Procedures of Teaching Sign Languages. Carlisle:
British Deaf Association.
Knight, P. (2001). The development of EFL Methodology. In C. N. Candlin and N. Mercer
(eds.) English Language Teaching in its Social Context. London: Routledge, 147-166.
Kristiansen, I. (1990). Nonverbal Intelligence and Foreign Language Learning. Helsinki:
Yliopistopaino.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lyster, R., and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake, Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 20: 37-66.
Mitchell, R. (1994). The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching: An
Introduction. In A. Swarbrick (ed.) Teaching Modern Languages. London: The Open
University, 33-42.
Appli ed Sign Li ngui sti cs 2009 Vol ume 1
66
Mitchell, R. (2000). Applied Linguistics and Evidence-based Classroom Practice: The Case
of Foreign Language Grammar Pedagogy, Applied Linguistics 21(3): 281-303.
Newell, W., Mallery, D., Menkis, H.P., Holcomb, S., and Arthur, L. (1982). The Direct
Experience Method for Teaching American Sign Language and Manually Coded English. In F.
Caccamise, M. Garretson, and U. Bellugi (eds.) Teaching American Sign Language as a
Second/Foreign Language. Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Sign Language
Research and Teaching, Boston-Massachusetts, October 26-30 1980. Silver Spring, Maryland:
National Association of the Deaf, 108-132.
Richards, J. C., and Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, G. (1983). An Introductory Overview of Methods and Methodology. In G.
Richardson (ed.) Teaching Modern Languages. London: Croom Helm, 19-37.
Rudser, S.F. (1988). Sign Language Instruction and its Implications for the Deaf. In M.
Strong (ed.) Language Learning and Deafness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 99112.
Smith, C. (1988). Signing Naturally: Notes on the Development of the ASL Curriculum
Project at Vista College, Sign Language Studies, 59: 171-182.
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Weideman, A. (2007). The Redefinition of Applied Linguistics; Modernist and
Postmodernist Views, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 25(4): 589605.
Wilcox, S., and Wilcox, P. P. (1997). Learning to See: Teaching American Sign Language as
a Second Language. Washington, DC.: Gallaudet University Press.
ABOUT
THE
AUTHOR
67