Applied Sign Linguistics? A Forming Descipline?

A P P L I E D S I G N L I N G U I S T I C S V O L U M E 0 1

SIGN LANGUAGE

TEACHING AND LEARNING

Papers from the

1st Symposium in Applied Sign Linguistics

Centre for Deaf Studies, University of Bristol, 24-26 September 2009

Edited by

Maria Mertzani

C E N T R E F O R D E A F S T U D I E S U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I S T O L

B R I S T O L U N I T E D K I N G D O M

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

Address for Editorial Correspondence and/or for Orders Centre for Deaf Studies, University of Bristol, 8 Woodland Rd, BS8 1TN, Bristol – U.K. ISBN: 978-0-9566742-0-3 (pbk) Printed and bound in United Kingdom by Print Services, University of Bristol 1-9 Old Park Hill, BS2 8BB, Bristol

57

Applied Sign Linguistics? A Forming Discipline?

M A R I A M E R T Z A N I Centre for Deaf Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol – U.K.

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).

I N T R O D U C T I O N

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:

A p p l i e d S i g n L i n g u i s t i c s ? A F o r m i n g D i s c i p l i n e ? 58

A p p l i e d S i g n L i n g u i s t i c s 2 0 0 9 V o l u m e 1

“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.

T H E R I S E O F A P P L I E D S I G N L I N G U I S T I C S

As mentioned above, applied sign linguistics began its modern life in the sphere of SL teaching and its sub-fields, SL testing and assessment. This emphasis has been the source of critical debate since 1970s. For example, Ingram (1977: 13) stated: “It is a matter of opinion whether the history of sign language teaching should be characterized as adhering to a single method or as lacking any methods at all”. Likewise, Cogen and Philip (1982: 143) pointed:

“The application of principles of second-language acquisition and instruction to the teaching of American Sign Language (ASL) is a relatively new idea (Battison and Cogen, 1978; Baker and Cokely, 1980). Only in the last three to five years has there been any serious attempt to teach ASL as other modern languages are taught. In many programs, ASL instruction still takes place in informal classes.”

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).

The Grammar-Translation Method

Applied linguistics (for spoken languages) as it relates to language teaching, goes back at the 19th century, when Grammar-Translation (or Classical) was the dominant method in second language (L2) teaching. The main objective of the method was to teach the L2 deductively, through language grammar learning and translation practicing



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 […] Let’s use Fant’s 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 communication…The 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).



Modern objections to this method rest on the use of translation as a means of acquiring the target language. Translation presupposes a competence in both languages. If both languages have not been mastered, then translation becomes transliteration, that is, the learner considers utterances from the L1 as separated, isolated words, each having its equivalent in the L2. As a result, the learner fails to understand the L2 in its totality (Richardson 1983). Additionally, this method pays little attention to components of language other than grammar and vocabulary (e.g. listening, communicative language functions) and it has no principled way of guiding teachers to teach the linguistic forms. Usually teachers teach whatever comes up in the text (Cook 1996).

Rudser (1988: 100) discusses some difficulties that characterised ASL instruction according to this method:

“The difficulty with both the texts and the instruction of this initial period [by 1960s] was that they [ASL teachers] taught only vocabulary. Although the students might be able to express their own language, they did not learn to communicate with deaf people in the way that deaf people themselves use sign language. An additional difficulty was that instruction focused on learning to produce signs, not necessarily on learning deaf signers, even when the deaf person signed in English.”

SL classes employing the Grammar-Translation method used three techniques: (a) the use of fingerspelling; (b) the use of outdated publications with signs; and (c) teaching of one sign for one word. Moreover, teachers of British Sign Language (BSL) had often to deal with the following problems (Colville 1981: 183):

1. An over-reliance on fingerspelling. 2. The domination of their mother tongue [spoken language] over certain aspects of sign language grammar. 3. Ignorance and suppression of aspects of [sign languages] structure which are essential even to a fluent [artificial sign language]. 4. The inability of students to read fingerspelling and fingerspelling patterns as used by deaf people. 5. The inability of students to understand deaf people when they sign to each other. 6. The inability of deaf people to understand the communication patterns used by the students even though students have developed excellent [artificial sign language] skills. 7. The high drop out rate of students owing to the teacher failing to recognise the importance of small classes.

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).

The Direct Method

This method (also known as Berlitz Method1) was developed from the 1850’s to 1900 so as to make teaching more effective compared to that of Grammar Translation Method, and it is linked with the introduction of phonetics into language pedagogy. Emphasis is given to oral skills, in the spoken everyday language (Larsen-Freeman 1986).

1 Charles Berlitz was the founder of the Direct Method.



Language learning was viewed as analogous to L1 acquisition. Thus, the teaching procedures emphasised sounds and simple sentences directly associated with objects (e.g. in reality or in pictures) and presented in the immediate classroom environment (Stern 1983). Standard characteristics of the teaching and learning process involve presentation of new target language words or phrases or short texts; explanation of meaning and unknown vocabulary through the use of reality, pictures, or pantomime; grammatical observations derived from examples or texts; questions and answers on the text or the sentences and conversation practice. Grammar is taught inductively; students learn grammar structures by generalising from examples. Explicit rules may never be given and students have to figure them out in complete and meaningful sentences. Translation is not permitted and the target language only is used in the classroom (Larsen-Freeman 1986).

Berrigan and Rust (1987) described the Direct Method as it was applied in ASL teaching. According to their description, sign vocabulary and grammar are taught by using only sign language; students and tutors use only the target language; vocabulary is presented by using objects or, pictures that are available in the classroom; emphasis is given to conversational competence in sign language; therefore the focus is on the function rather than the form of the sign language.

Basile, Ray, Quinsland et al. (1977), and Newell, Mallery, Menkis et al. (1982), also described the Direct Method or else, as they named it, the ‘Direct Experience Method (DEM)’. Beginning in 1975, DEM has been developed at the National Institute for the Deaf for ASL teaching, and included six basic principles: (1) use of the target language – ASL or manually coded English; (2) cumulative and sequential structuring of content; this means that vocabulary and grammar features were chosen carefully and sequenced as to make learning possible in sequenced steps; “… each sign is taught through bringing the learner to the realization of a concept and then labelling it, any signs used in developing the concept must be clearly understood by the learner” (Newell, Mallery, Menkis et al. 1982: 110); (3)receptive skills accompanied by expressive skills; (4) emphasis on conversational fluency; (5) self-generated language and active student participation; and (6) mastery learning as students proceed through the course.

DEM was developed so as to improve SL teaching which

“[…] consisted of a vocabulary approach involving teacher demonstration of signs followed by student imitation. Signs were often taught from English word lists in isolation and often only in their citation form without demonstration of how the sign context might influence production when signs were placed into meaningful conversational discourse. Practice was often accomplished through use of practice sentences without reference to meaningful student-generated dialogue.”

(Newell, Mallery, Menkis et al. 1982: 108)

DEM was a modification of the Berlitz Method to accommodate the manual-visual modality of signing (Newell, Mallery, Menkis et al. 1982: 109).

“Whereas the Berlitz Method is highly dependent on a dialogue between the teacher and student to introduce vocabulary and structure of the target language, DEM uses, to a large extent, visual aids, such as pictures, real objects, transparencies, etc., as well as mime, gesture, and body language to set the scene or elicit a concept in the learner’s mind before labelling it in sign. Berlitz is also entirely free from exposure to or contact with learner’s first language while learning or practicing the second (target) language. Because transcription of ASL often takes place with English-word glosses, DEM cannot be entirely free of English instructions.”



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.

The Audiolingual Method

The Audiolingual Method was the first of language teaching theories that was based on structuralistic and behaviouristic principles, which were developed in the ‘60s. Structuralism viewed language as a system of structural levels for the encoding of meaning (Kristiansen 1990): phonological, morphological, and syntactic, each with its own distinctive patterns and complexity. In behaviourist psychology, language learning is a mechanistic process of habit formation (Knight 2001; Richards and Rodgers 2001), in terms of carefully structured pattern-drills with stimulus-response format and in small well-prepared steps and stages. Behaviourists saw language as a behaviour skill; students receive a stimulus and respond by giving the correct answer. Emphasis is on teaching the language through dialogues and drills. The students listen to a dialogue as a whole and they repeat it sentence by sentence, and they memorise it through mimicry, either played back by a tape or read by the teacher. Grammatical points are learned inductively; grammar rules are not provided explicitly but they are figured out or induced from examples (Cook 1996). Vocabulary is also taught in context within the dialogues, and the target language is used in the classroom. The teacher is the model that students have to imitate and the manager of classroom activities (Knight 2001).

Berrigan and Rust (1987: 25) described this method as applied to the teaching of ASL:

“This relies on sign language dialogues and a heavy use of drills constructed to illustrate particular syntactic patterns or vocabulary items. Rote memory is a major tool for learning. The emphasis is on learning to produce the vocabulary and grammar of ASL correctly, rather than on using ASL to communicate effectively.”

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. Chomsky’s 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.



Communicative Language Teaching

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has emerged as the norm in L2 teaching. It is a broadly-based approach, with a number of definitions and interpretations, which emerged during the 1980s and 1990s, and which concentrated on the fundamentally communicative functions of language. According to CLT, language is the medium for communication, and language teaching is related to the functions of language. From a CLT perspective, language is considered as it is used, not as an abstract system, giving emphasis to communicative competence (Knight 2001). Not only do the students command the grammar and vocabulary of the target language accurately, but they also know how to use that linguistic knowledge appropriately in a given social context (Mitchell 1994). Thus, CLT aims to make communicative competence the goal of language teaching and to develop procedures for language skills teaching that acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication (Richards & Rodgers 2001).

In CLT there is a clear shift of emphasis from grammar rules to the communicative functions of language; from grammatical accuracy to the conveyance of meaning. Its objective is to teach students to perform a variety of functions with different language forms and for the accomplishment of this aim, a functional syllabus is used where language items are grouped in terms of the grammatical categories of the target language and in terms of its functions (Mitchell 1994). CLT is based on activities that give priority to interactive processes of communication in the classroom such as role-plays or/and work in pairs (Cook 1996).

Since the early 1980s CLT has influenced sign language teaching focusing on the development of sign language learners’ communicative competence (Berrigan and Rust 1987; Cokely and Baker-Shenk 1980; Ingram 1977; Wilcox and Wilcox 1997). From that period, CLT was seen as the opposite of previous teaching methodology, which had focused on mechanical rather than spontaneous learning of sign languages, whereby emphasis was on the correct production of vocabulary and grammar of sign language rather than on using the language to communicate effectively. The premise was that the development of communicative competence would stem from the competence in sign language itself (Wilcox and Wilcox 1997). Hence, sign language was taught based on the hierarchy of manual communication. In other words, sign language was taught before any other artificial sign language and students were engaged in the learning of sign language from the base (e.g. from a traditional sign language) and work up (e.g. towards the learning of Englished sign language). Learners and teachers could vary their approach, depending on various situations arising during the teaching and learning process (Bragg 1992; Ingram 1977).

A chief role for the sign language teacher was to create or use situations in which the students could learn how to interact in sign language by communicating in sign language itself (Cokely and Baker-Shenk 1980). Still, teachers’ main concern is to set up different kinds of interactional opportunities which required learners to use what they know and thereby their communicative competence in a wide range of situations. Therefore, attention is paid to the creation of communicative situations in which the learners will understand how Deaf people use their language. As there is no ‘deafland’ to visit, the idea of CLT is to plunge students into the Deaf community having frequent extra-mural contacts and not just the hourly sessions that sign language courses often offer (CDS 2001). The aim is to teach learners to communicate with Deaf people in the way that Deaf people themselves use sign language.



C O N C L U S I O N

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 subject-matter 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;



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.

2 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”.



R E F E R E N C E S

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, 123-133.

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 teacher’s 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.



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, 99-112.

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): 589-605.

Wilcox, S., and Wilcox, P. P. (1997). Learning to See: Teaching American Sign Language as a Second Language. Washington, DC.: Gallaudet University Press.

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R

Maria Mertzani is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Deaf Studies, University of Bristol, U.K. Her PhD degree was focused on Video-based Computer Mediated Communication for sign language learning from a distance. She also holds a M.Phil. Degree in Sign Language Teaching Methodology from the University of Bristol and a B.A. Hons Degree in Philosophy and Education from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. She worked as a teacher of Deaf children and a trainer of teachers of Deaf people in Greece. After the completion of her PhD, she worked as a part-time Lecturer in the Centre for Deaf Studies. At the moment she works in the D-Signs Project - a European collaboration in the e-Learning of sign languages. Her research interests include Deaf education, learning and teaching of sign languages as second/first languages, curriculum and assessment, and e-Learning.

Date post:	18-Jul-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	milosmou
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Applied Sign Linguistics? A Forming Descipline?

Documents