Signed English in the classroom,III. What gets signed?

Abstract

In the second paper of this series we reported evidence, compatible with the results of previous investigations, showing that teachers attempting to produce Signed English were unable to shadow each and every morpheme in their speech with signs. In this paper, detailed analyses of the relation between teacher speech and sign are used to address the question 'What gets signed?'. Generalizations in the literature about the lack of systematicity in the relations between sign and speech are challenged in the light of findings which show that both morpho-syntactic status and pragmatic factors are predictive of which morphemes in teacher speech will be accompanied by sign.

The results are also discussed in relation to recent studies of the relations between the structure of speech and features of non-verbal movements which accompany the act of speaking. These studies provide a source of hypotheses about the issue of what gets signed, and why, in Signed English. Also discussed are the educational implications of the current findings for deaf children's acquisition of English.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker, C. (1979). How does 'sim-con' fit into a bilingual approach to education? In F. Caccamise & D. Hicks (eds), American Sign Language in a Bilingual Context. Proceedings of the Second National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching ( California: Coronado).

Bamford, J.M. & Bench, J. (1979). A grammatical analysis of the speech of partially-hearing children. In D. Crystal (ed.), Working with LARSP. Studies m Language Disability and Remediation 1A (London: Edward Arnold).

Bellugi, U. & Fischer, S. (1972). A comparison of sign language and spoken language . Cognition, 1, 173-200.

Condon, W.S. (1980). The relation of interactional synchrony to cognitive and emotional processes. In M. Ritchie Key (ed.), The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication (The Hague: Mouton).

Crystal, D. , Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (1976). The Grammatical Analysis of Language Disability: A Procedure for Assessment and Remediation. Studies in Language Disability and Remediation 1 (London: Edward Arnold).

Kendon, A. (1980). Gesticulation and speech: two aspects of the process of utterance. In M. Ritchie Key (ed.), The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication (The Hague: Mouton).

Key, M. Ritchie (1980) Language and nonverbal behavior as organizers of social systems. In M. Ritchie Key (ed.), The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication (The Hague: Mouton).

Marmor, G.S. & Pettito L. (1979). Simultaneous communication in the classroom: how well is English grammar represented? Sign Language Studies , 23, 99-136.

McNeill, D. (1985). Language viewed as action. In J. V. Wertsch (ed.) Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

10.

Quigley, S.P. & Paul, P.V. (1984). Language and Deafness (London : Croom Helm).

11.

Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (London & New York: Longman).

12.

Wood, D.J. & Wood, H.A. (1991). Signed English in the classroom I. Teaching style and child participation First Language, 11, 189-217.

13.

Wood, H.A. & Wood, D.J. (in press). Signed English in the classroom IV. Aspects of children's speech and sign. To appear in First Language.

14.

Wood, H.A. , Wood, D.J. & Kingsmill, M.C. (1991). Signed English in the classroom II. Structural and pragmatic aspects of teachers' speech and sign. First Language, 11, 301-325.