Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A pilot study of recall of stories presented in signed English Clarke, Mary Ellen 1984

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A8 C52.pdf [ 5.3MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096290.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096290-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096290-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096290-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096290-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096290-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096290-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096290-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096290.ris

Full Text

A PILOT STUDY OF RECALL OF STORIES PRESENTED IN SIGNED ENGLISH By MARY ELLEN CLARKE B.A., Saint F r a n c i s X a v i e r U n i v e r s i t y , 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES artment of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology and S p e c i a l Education We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1984 © Mary E l l e n C l a r k e , 1984 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date October 9, 1984 DE-6 (3/81) i i Abstract This p i l o t study investigated the need for further research related to the reception and expression of signing s k i l l s by deaf students in t o t a l communication classrooms. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e revealed that an English sign system did not seem to be used by the adult language models for deaf students in the way that the system was designed—to make English completely v i s i b l e to the deaf student. The users of an English sign system tended to sign in a pidgin E n g l i s h - l i k e manner, and this signing tendency appeared to be more a result of possible b i o l o g i c a l constraints. There was also suggestion that deaf students themselves might be signing in a pidgin fashion despite the claims of some that American Sign Language (ASL) is the natural language of the deaf. This study s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed i t s e l f to two questions: (a) how much story content does a deaf student r e t e l l of a short story received in Signed English, and (b) what is the preferred signing usage of the student in the r e t e l l i n g of this story? Three deaf students participated in the study. Each watched a videotape of a short story in Signed English, and then immediately retold the same story while being filmed. The students saw three stories over three consecutive days. The students' performances in the r e t e l l i n g of the i i i s t o ries were analyzed for r e c a l l of story content and for sign usage. The results revealed that the average percentage of the r e c a l l for the main events of the stories ranged from 60% to 66%, and that the students signed usage was Pidgin Sign Language (PSE). This p i l o t study demonstrated the need for more research related (a) to deaf students' reception of various school material delivered in an English sign system and (b) the differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s between an English sign system, ASL, and PSE, as well as the educational implications of their respective usage. iv Table of Contents Abstract 11 L i s t of Tables v i Acknowledgement v i i Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Research Problem 6 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms.... 7 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 10 Sign Systems 10 The Effectiveness of Sign Systems for Learning English 18 The Processing of Sign Systems 23 Sign - word processing ....24 Signing and speaking simultaneously 26 Sign - word rate of production 28 American Sign Language.... 31 L i n g u i s t i c Description of ASL 32 Psycho-Social L i n g u i s t i c Description of ASL 35 Pidgin Sign English .....39 Empirical Investigations of PSE 41 Characteristics of a Pidgin 43 PSE - The F i r s t Language of the Deaf? 44 Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology.... 49 Sample 49 Research Procedures... 55 Development of the Three S t o r i e s 55 R e a d a b i l i t y l e v e l 56 S y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e 58 S i g n a b i l i t y 61 P l a c i n g the S t o r i e s on Videotape 65 C o l l e c t i n g the Data. 69 Development of the R e t e l l i n g Measures f o r Each Story. 72 Scor i n g Procedures f o r the Subject's R e t e l l i n g of a Story 75 The Measures f o r E v a l u a t i n g the Subject's Signing S k i l l s 77 Chapter 4: Res u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n 79 R e c a l l of the S t o r i e s 79 Si g n i n g S k i l l s Used i n the R e t e l l i n g of the S t o r i e s .87 Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusions 99 I m p l i c a t i o n s and Suggestions f o r Future Research 100 References..... 103 Appendix A............ 113 Appendix B 115 Appendix C 118 Appendix D 123 Appendix E 124 v i L i s t of Tables 1. Hearing Loss Information Re: Subjects 53 2. Family Information Re: Subjects 53 3. School Information Re: Subjects 54 4. R e a d a b i l i t y L e v e l of Each Story 58 5. S y n t a c t i c Complexity Value of Each Story 61 6. Number of F i n g e r s p e l l e d Words i n Each Story 63 7. Number of Sign Markers i n Each Story 64 8. D i f f e r e n c e s i n the F i n g e r s p e l l e d Words Between the O r i g i n a l Story and the Story T e l l e r ' s V e r s i o n . . . . 67 9. D i f f e r e n c e s i n the Sign Markers Between the O r i g i n a l Story and the Story T e l l e r ' s V e r s i o n . . . . 68 10. Order P r e s e n t a t i o n of Each Story f o r Each Subject 70 11. Number of Main and Minor Events i n Each Story 75 12. S u b j e c t s ' Mean Scores and Percentage R e c a l l s of the S t o r i e s 80 13. S u b j e c t s ' Raw Scores f o r Main Events Based on F u l l Scorer Agreement 82 14. Percentage of Agreement Between Scorers f o r the Subjects' R e c a l l of Main Events 83 15. The Su b j e c t s ' Percentage of R e c a l l Over Time f o r Main Events 85 16. Judges' Ratings of the Sub j e c t s ' S i g n i n g S k i l l s f o r Each Story 88 17. Judges' Ratings of the Subjects f o r ASL and SE Agreement 92 v i i Acknowledgement I would l i k e to e x p r e s s my thanks and a p p r e c i a t i o n to a l l t h o s e who h e l p e d me w i t h t h i s t h e s i s . T h e i r p o s i t i v e r e s p o n s e to b o t h my e m o t i o n a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l needs e n a b l e d me to c o m p l e t e t h i s work. I would l i k e to e x t e n d s p e c i a l t h a n k s to D r . B r y a n C l a r k e , my mentor. I hope t h a t one day I can o f f e r to a s t u d e n t the knowledge, wisdom, and e n c o u r a g e m e n t t h a t he gave me. I a l s o w i s h to thank the o t h e r members of my c o m m i t t e e , Dr. D a v i d K e n d a l l and D r . M a r g a r e t Csapo f o r her i n s i g h t f u l comments. Many thanks to my f r i e n d s who p l a y e d the r o l e s of s t o r y t e l l e r , d a t a c o l l e c t o r , E n g l i s h t r a n s c r i b e r of s i g n s , s c o r e r s , and j u d g e s . M.E.C. 1984 1 C h a p t e r 1: I n t r o d u c t i o n One p o p u l a r and c u r r e n t l y p r a c t i s e d method of c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n the e d u c a t i o n of the h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d i n N o r t h A m e r i c a i s the t o t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n a p p r o a c h ( A r n o l d , 1 984). A t e a c h e r i n a t o t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n c l a s s r o o m a d o p t s a m u l t i - s e n s o r y a p p r o a c h to the development of r e c e p t i v e and e x p r e s s i v e l a n g u a g e . The t e a c h e r combines the use of a u d i t i o n , pantomime, g e s t u r e s , s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s p e a k i n g and s i g n i n g , r e a d i n g , and w r i t i n g to e n c o u r a g e l a n g u a g e growth i n s t u d e n t s . The m a j o r i t y of t o t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n programs s p e c i f y the use of an E n g l i s h s i g n s y s t e m w h i c h accompanies the spoken words of s p e e c h , and, at f i r s t g l a n c e , t h i s p r a c t i c e a p p e a r s e d u c a t i o n a l l y sound a c c o r d i n g L e n n e b e r g ' s (1967) t h e o r y of l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . L e n n e b e r g s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e a r e two p r e r e q u i s i t e s to the l e a r n i n g of a l a n g u a g e : f i r s t , t h e r e must be f u l l l a n g u a g e i n p u t , and s e c o n d , t h i s i n p u t must o c c u r i n a s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t . He i n f e r s t h a t g i v e n t h e s e two p r e r e q u i s i t e s , the l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s w i l l a c t i v e l y i n t e r n a l i z e the r u l e s of the t a r g e t l a n g u a g e u n t i l t h e i r r u l e s a p p r o a c h t h o s e of the s k i l l e d n a t i v e l a n g u a g e u s e r s . I f the h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d l e a r n e r i s to i n t e r n a l i z e the r u l e s of E n g l i s h , the l a n g u a g e of s o c i e t y at l a r g e , s/he must have c o m p l e t e i n p u t of the E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e . 2 U n f o r t u n a t e l y , a h e a r i n g l o s s p r e c l u d e s f u l l E n g l i s h i n p u t v i a the a u d i t o r y c h a n n e l . I t i s a l s o i m p o s s i b l e f o r the h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d p e r s o n to f u l l y see E n g l i s h by s p e e c h r e a d i n g because o n l y 40% to 60% of E n g l i s h sounds a r e d i s c e r n i b l e on the l i p s ( V e r n o n , 1969). A m e r i c a n S i g n Language ( A S L ) , the n a t i v e s i g n l a n g u a g e of the deaf i n N o r t h A m e r i c a , i s a d i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e from E n g l i s h , and, t h e r e f o r e , c a n n o t be used to r e p r e s e n t E n g l i s h . W r i t t e n E n g l i s h does o f f e r a c o m p l e t e v i s u a l i n p u t of E n g l i s h ; however, t h i s f o r m a t i s not c o n d u c i v e to a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l mode of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . Thus, i n the e a r l y s e v e n t i e s , s e v e r a l E n g l i s h s i g n s y s t e m s , were d e v i s e d i n o r d e r to a s s i s t deaf s t u d e n t s to r e c e i v e a complete v i s u a l i n p u t of E n g l i s h i n a s i g n e d f o r m a t . The use of an E n g l i s h s i g n s y s t e m a p p e a r s to f u l f i l l L e n n e b e r g ' s f i r s t p r e r e q u i s i t e of l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g ; however, i t does not f u l f i l l L e n n e b e r g ' s second p r e r e q u i s i t e of l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n , t h a t of the need f o r l a n g u a g e i n p u t to o c c u r i n a s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t . The c l a s s r o o m i s c o n s i d e r e d to be a f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n a l e n v i r o n m e n t , and not the s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t of i n f o r m a l and i n t i m a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n exchanges to which L e n n e b e r g r e f e r s . Here i s where the dilemma b e g i n s and i s , y e t , u n r e s o l v e d . I f one were to base h i s c h o i c e of s i g n use on L e n n e b e r g ' s s e c o n d p r e r e q u i s i t e , t h e n one would s e l e c t ASL, the l a n g u a g e of the deaf community ( B a k e r & Padden, 1978; 3 Erting, 1978; Stokoe, 1981; Kannapell, 1982). As one can see, neither an English sign system nor American Sign Language s a t i s f y both aspects of Lenneberg's theory of language acquisition. The problem of how best to teach English to the deaf and to educate deaf students to communicate and read most e f f e c t i v e l y in English remains unanswered. A decade after the acceptance and implementation of English sign systems in t o t a l communication programs, the results of research both support and question the use of an English sign system to f a c i l i t a t e the learning of English. On the positive side, some improvement in English language s k i l l s seems to occur with the use of an English sign system, although this improvement is s t a t i s t i c a l l y non-significant (Brasel & Quigley, 1977; Raffin, Davis & Gilman, 1978; Bornstein, Saulnier & Hamilton, 1980; Bornstein & Saulnier, 1981). On the negative side, teachers of the hearing impaired do not appear to f u l l y represent English in signs as is proposed by the English sign system they use. Instead, they tend to sign in a pidgin fashion, using some features of the English language and some of the American Sign Language (Marmor & Pe t i t t o , 1979; Kluwin, 1981a). Woodward (1973) coined this pidgin use of signs as Pidgin Sign English (PSE). The teacher's input of PSE should be of great concern to educators. If the only reason for using an English sign 4 system is to make English f u l l y v i s i b l e , so as to give the deaf student f u l l input of the English language, and the limited research done in this area indicates that teachers do not use the system as proposed, then there is a need to find out what are the reasons for sigining in pidgin English and what are the educational implications of this method of communication. One possible explanation for the use of Pidgin Sign English by teachers of the hearing impaired can be found in the work of Bellugi and Fisher (1972) and Grosjean (1979a, 1979b) who propose that i t might be b i o l o g i c a l l y impossible to speak and sign continuously at the same time. If this i s the case, then the majority of hearing impaired students in a t o t a l communication program would be exposed most often In their preteen years, at school and at home, to a Pidgin Sign English and not to the English language, nor to the American Sign Language, the native language for less than 10% of the population of deaf children (Bornstein, Woodward & T u l l y , 1976). The c r i t i c a l questions become how does this PSE exposure effect the deaf students' learning of English and why is an English sign system used? Research also needs to focus on the kind of influence this PSE exposure has on the expressive sign language s k i l l s of the majority of deaf students in a t o t a l communication program. How do the students sign when communicating with each other and with adults both in a formal ( i . e . school) 5 and an i n f o r m a l s e t t i n g ( i . e . s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s o u t s i d e of s c h o o l ) ? Do th e y s i g n ASL o r a m i x t u r e of ASL and E n g l i s h ( P S E ) ? I f i t i s a m i x t u r e , how much i s ASL and how much i s E n g l i s h ? A r e the s t u d e n t s ' s i g n i n g s k i l l s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the scope and sequence of the s c h o o l ' s c u r r i c u l u m g o a l s f o r s i g n i n g s k i l l s ? An a d d i t i o n a l d i s a d v a n t a g e of the use of an E n g l i s h s i g n s y s t e m i s the p r o b l e m h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n have i n making sense of c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h a t i s r e c e i v e d i n an E n g l i s h s i g n s y s t e m . A p e r s o n might not be a b l e to s t o r e enough i n f o r m a t i o n from an E n g l i s h s i g n s y s t e m i n v i s u a l s h o r t term memory to make m e a n i n g f u l t r a n s f e r s of i n f o r m a t i o n to l o n g term memory f o r f u t u r e r e c a l l and use ( K l i m a & B e l l u g i , 1979). The e f f e c t i v e n e s s and the use of an E n g l i s h s i g n s y s t e m i n t o t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n programs i s c u r r e n t l y a most c o n t r o v e r s i a l t o p i c i n the e d u c a t i o n of the h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d . Some p r o p o n e n t s of A m e r i c a n S i g n Language c l a i m t h a t a l l s i g n i n g s h o u l d be t h a t of ASL, w h i l e o t h e r s promote a b i l i n g u a l a p p r o a c h In the c l a s s r o o m . Meanwhile p o l i c y makers c o n t i n u e to s u p p o r t an E n g l i s h s i g n system. T h i s whole a r e a i s an e x c i t i n g c h a l l e n g e to r e s e a r c h e r s , and e c o l o g i c a l l y i s most worthy of a t t e n t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g p i l o t s t u d y w i l l h o p e f u l l y u n c o v e r i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h w i l l s t i m u l a t e f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n the a r e a of what s i g n s y s t e m or what s i g n l a n g u a g e s h o u l d be 6 used to improve communication and the learning of English in the classroom. Research Problem This present study addresses a small part of the research issue of the effectiveness of using an English sign system in the education of the hearing impaired. It is a descriptive exploratory p i l o t study to reveal further insights about the use of an English sign system and the expressive signing s k i l l s of students in the classroom. The study attempts to answer the following two questions: 1. How much do profoundly deaf students understand in the reception of a short story signed in Signed English (an English sign system)? 2. What signing method is preferred by profoundly deaf students in their r e t e l l i n g of a short story received in Signed English? The rationale and ecological reasoning for this study are predicated on the fact that the Ministry of Education in the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia prescribes the use of the Signed English system in the various t o t a l communication programs throughout the Province, including the P r o v i n c i a l School for the Deaf; whereas, research findings do not f u l l y support this kind of a policy. The second question arose as a result of two factors. The f i r s t factor is that research findings indicate that 7 the majority of language role models for hearing impaired students seem to use Pidgin Sign English. Thus i t seems l i k e l y that the students would be learning and using PSE. If this is so, then, how does this effect the learning of English? The second factor is that proponents of American Sign Language state that ASL i s the natural and preferred language of the deaf and, as such, should be used in the education of the deaf (Kannapell, 1974). If ASL is the natural language of the deaf and i t is not used in the schools, then are we depriving our deaf students of a better educational environment? It is imperative that research address these questions and the many others concerned with signing in the classroom so that sound educational p o l i c i e s can be implemented. D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Hearing impaired is a term used to describe a person who has any degree of hearing loss. It is generic term which includes both deaf and hard-of-hearing persons. Deaf person is one whose hearing d i s a b i l i t y precludes successful processing of l i n g u i s t i c information through audition with or without a hearing aid ( F r i s i n a , 1975). Sign language is the visual language of signs, f a c i a l expression, and body language used by deaf people. It is the general global term that includes a l l sign languages of the world just as the term, spoken languages, includes a l l 8 spoken languages of the world. There are many different sign languages in the world as there are many different spoken languages. American Sign Language (ASL) is the language of the deaf community in North America. The language consists of di f f e r e n t hand movements, called signs, which are combined with f a c i a l expression and body movement. The language is a v i s u a l , non-sequential language which uses the communicator's physical space in front of his body for signed expression and is received via the eyes. ASL does not yet have a well adopted uniform written format, although work is currently underway to design a written system for this language. Sign system is a system of signs and sign markers which has been conceived to represent f u l l y a spoken language in a v i s i b l e format. It is a t r a n s l i t e r a t i o n of the spoken language. Its grammar is that of the spoken language. Signed English is the sign system devised by Bornstein, Hamilton, Saulnier, and Roy (1975) to represent the spoken English language in a complete v i s i b l e manner. It is the sign system prescribed in t o t a l communication programs in the Province of B r i t i s h , Columbia, Canada. Pidgin Sign English (PSE) Is the c a t c h - a l l phrase used to describe the sign communication that incorporates grammar from both ASL and English. The syntax of PSE can 9 vary from being more l i k e ASL to being more l i k e English. It can be seen as a continuum with ASL at one extreme and English at the other. Total communication is a communication approach in the education of the hearing impaired. It encompasses visual and auditory methods of communication simultaneously: audition, speechreading, signing and speaking, gestures, and pantomime. 10 Chapter 2 : Review of the Literature This chapter presents information and research findings from the l i t e r a t u r e related to English sign systems, American Sign Language, and Pidgin Sign English. Sign Systems Sign systems which are used in educational t o t a l communication environments for the hearing impaired are not sign languages. Rather, they are t r a n s l i t e r a t i o n s of a spoken language. In North America, these sign systems are another form of the English language because the syntax is isomorphic with the rules of English. Prior to the formulation of English sign systems, the English language had two forms of reception, that of l i s t e n i n g and reading, and two forms of expression, speaking and writing. However with the inception of English sign systems, a different form of reception and expression is now possible, that of watching and signing. In North America, during the normal process of learning English, the hearing child (birth to age 4 or 5) learns English through l i s t e n i n g and speaking. This language learning takes place through meaningful communication with other s k i l l e d users of English ( i . e parents, r e l a t i v e s , s i b l i n g s , neighbors) in the child's s o c i a l environment. The child gradually becomes a 11 competent language user through active p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the language learning process (Lenneberg, 1967). However, for the profoundly hearing impaired preschooler, who cannot hear speech sounds, the learning of English through l i s t e n i n g and speaking is an almost impossible task. Without the auditory reception of speech sounds, the deaf ch i l d must rely on those speech sounds which can be v i s i b l y discerned on the l i p s and mouth, and only 25% of what is said can be seen (Hazard, 1971). At age 5 or 6 the hearing child commences formal education at a school and learns a second form of English reception and expression, that of reading and writing. This second form of the English language, that of being l i t e r a t e , is considered necessary in our North America society to l i v e a f u l l and successful l i f e . Unfortunately, l i n g u i s t i c competence appears to be a prerequisite to becoming l i t e r a t e (Doehring, 1976), and the school age deaf c h i l d has yet to develop l i n g u i s t i c competence in English. Hence, the hearing impaired student does not readily find success in his attempts to learn English through the reading and writing mode when s/he starts school. One can, therefore, well imagine the excitement amongst educators of the deaf when English sign systems were devised in the early seventies to represent English in a completely v i s i b l e manner. This meant that every spoken English word and meaningful morpheme could now be expressed i 12 with the hands in a f u l l v i s u a l format for the deaf c h i l d . It was hoped that watching and signing English via a sign system would f a c i l i t a t e English language learning for the deaf child in the same way that l i s t e n i n g and speaking did for the hearing c h i l d . One should always bear in mind that a sign system is an alternate form of expressing a spoken language in much the same way as a code, such as morse. If a person uses a sign system s/he is not using a sign language. S/he is using the spoken language for which the sign system was fashioned. The four major North American English sign systems are Seeing E s s e n t i a l English (SEE I) by David Anthony (1971), Signing Exact English (SEE II) by Gustason, Pfetzing and Zawolkow (1972), L i n g u i s t i c s of Visual English (LOVE) by Dennis Wampler (1971), and Signed English (SE) by Bornstein, Hamilton, Saulnier and Roy (1975). Although there are more than four English sign systems, these four are the most often used in t o t a l communication classrooms in North America (Bornstein, 1973; Gustason cited in Williams, 1976). These four sign systems were devised to represent English in a f u l l v isual mode by using a sign for each English word and a sign marker for a f f i x e s , word endings and beginnings. Their differences relate c h i e f l y to their acceptance or rejection of native ASL signs, their degree 13 of dependence on a root word sign, and the extent of their use of derivational and i n f l e c t i o n a l affixes (Gustason cited in Williams, 1976). Seeing Essential English (SEE I) was designed to be used with a l l age groups. It has by far the largest number of l e x i c a l entries - 6,000 SEE I words. Its signs are selected from ASL or invented so that there is a sign to represent every English root word, prefix and s u f f i x . These signed representations are combined to form any desired word. It contains over 100 affixes in i t s usage. One problem with SEE I is that the user must be capable of analyzing English words into their most basic forms (root words plus prefixes and suffixes) to be able to use accurately the SEE I system. Another problem is that the process involved in selecting a SEE I sign often results in a sign lexicon that c o n f l i c t s with ASL. In SEE I, the process of deciding what sign to use for English pairs of words which are similar in meaning, sound, and/or sp e l l i n g requires the signer to analyze the pair of English words in terms of the three basic characteristics of meaning, sound, and s p e l l i n g , and then to decide how many of these characteristics both words share. If the English words share two of these three c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , then the same sign is used for the different English words. If the English words only share one of the three c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , then a different sign is used for each 14 word. For example, the noun bear, meaning the animal, and the verb bear, meaning to endure, are both spelled the same and pronounced the same; therefore, in SEE I they would have the same sign. In ASL these two words would be signed d i f f e r e n t l y because their meanings are d i f f e r e n t . In See I the words, big and enormous, only share the meaning c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , so they would be signed d i f f e r e n t l y . However, in ASL these two words use the same basic sign because they are synonyms, and any intended subtle difference in meaning would be indicated by a variation in f a c i a l expression and sign modulation. The differences in SEE I signs and ASL signs could confuse the deaf c h i l d , e s pecially i f s/he does not have formal instruction in ASL in school. Signing Exact English (SEE I I ) , another popular sign system, is an offshoot of SEE I. It has 2,100 signs (61% of these signs are borrowed from ASL), 70 a f f i x e s , and seven contractions. I t , too, uses the same two out of three cha r a c t e r i s t i c s for determining sign usage as does SEE I, consequently resulting in c o n f l i c t with some ASL signs. However, the authors of SEE II lessened i t s complexity for the user by omitting the need to find the root word, and by having fewer affixes compared to SEE I. Nonetheless, the number of affixes is s t i l l high, and the user s t i l l has to analyze English words into smaller morphological units to obtain the correct combination of 15 sign usage. Li n g u i s t i c s of Visual English (LOVE) was designed for use with preschoolers and kindergarten children. It consists of 500 morphemes which supposedly can be combined to form over 2,000 English words. I t , too, distinguishes i t s sign for morphemes on the basis of s i m i l a r i t y of two of the three factors of sound, meaning and s p e l l i n g . LOVE signs are meant to p a r a l l e l speech rhythm in that they follow the s y l l a b l i f i c a t i o n of English words. With so many sign morphemes, and the different combinations, this sign system appears even more complicated than the other two. The fourth system is Sign English (SE), the sign system used in this study. The Sign English Dictionary contains 2,200 sign words of which 1,353 signs are borrowed unchanged from ASL, 134 sign words are s l i g h t l y modified ASL signs, 317 are invented, and 255 signs are borrowed from SEE I, SEE II, and LOVE. Signed English consists of two kinds of signs: a sign word and a sign marker. A sign word represents an English word ( i . e . g i r l , mother, t a l k ) , and a sign marker indicates suffixes and prefixes ( i . e . talk + ed, un + happy). There are 14 different sign markers, and only one sign marker can be added to any one sign word, unlike the other three sign systems which have no l i m i t a t i o n on the addition of sign markers. If there is no sign to represent the English word, then the word is fi n g e r s p e l l e d . 16 The 14 sign markers represent the most frequently used meaningful English structural affixes (regular past verb -ed, irregular past verb, verb p a r t i c i p l e - en, verb form -ing, adverb form - l y , adjective form - v_j_ plural - s^ p l u r a l i r r e g u l a r , third person singular - s_^  possessive -'s, comparative - er, superlative - est, agent - er, prefixes - un, i n , and i_m ). Despite the fact that these 14 markers do not show a l l English word changes, the authors of this sign system f e e l that to have more sign markers would make the system too cumbersome for the user. They even suggest that i f 14 are too many for the user, then the user can start with seven of the sign markers (i r r e g u l a r past, irregular p l u r a l , verb form - ing, third person singular - s_^  and the adverbial, a d j e c t i v a l , and possessive forms) . If seven sign markers are s t i l l too d i f f i c u l t , then a minimum of three sign markers are recommended for the beginner (irregular past, irregular p l u r a l and the "ing" verb form). Although the creators of Signed English permit the user f l e x i b i l i t y in the use of the sign markers, they do. advise that the best strategy is to use a l l of the markers a l l of the time. The selection of this system's sign lexicon is from ASL, and the authors even advise using one's l o c a l deaf community signs whenever possible. Their signs are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d according to word meaning. For example there would be two signs to depict the Enlgish words, 17 l i g h t , meaning not heavy, and l i g h t , meaning not dark. Unlike the other systems, English homonyms are signed d i f f e r e n t l y . SE has adopted the ASL l e x i c a l rule of conceptual d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . They have also maintained some very common single ASL signs that are equivalent to two English words ( i . e . one sign for Santa Claus, one sign for of course ) . SE o r i g i n a l l y was intended for use with preschool and elementary students as were most of the other sign systems. However, Bornstein (1982), the pr i n c i p a l proponent of SE, presently recommends SE for use with adolescents to assist them in the learning of s p e c i f i c English grammar rules. He does say, though, that i t is not necessary to follow the sign system in i t s exact format once the student has inter n a l i z e d the grammar rules of English. The problem with this suggestion is that the teacher would continuously have to in d i v i d u a l i z e his/her use of Signed English for each student in the classroom. This paper w i l l discuss l a t e r , the already present d i f f i c u l t i e s involved in consistently using a sign system in one way, let alone adding to the problems by asking the teacher to vary the use of the sign system for each of the students. A great advantage in using the Signed English system i s that there are supplemental reading materials available which have been published for the classroom or home use/ This makes this system more consumer appealing than the 18 other three. The SE sign system is certainly simpler to use than the other three because of i t s fewer sign markers, i t s rule of only adding one sign marker to a sign word, and i t s conceptual basis for sign formation. A simpler expandable sign system is l i k e l y to be better liked and adopted by i t s users; however, the question does a simple sign system represent enough English in a v i s i b l e format so that the deaf child can easily learn English remains unanswered. For further reading on these sign systems, the writer recommends the reader to refer to the sign system dictionary texts themselves, mentioned above, or to read reviews by Bonrstein (1973), Meadow (1975), Gustason (cited i n Williams, 1976), Crystal and Craig (1978), Reimer (1979), and G r i f f i t h (1980). The Effectiveness of Sign Systems for Learning English Educators and policy makers assume that the deaf student is learning English via an English sign system; yet, there is i n s u f f i c i e n t empirical data to substantiate this assumption. It is now 14 years since the implementation of English sign systems, and the writer was able to find few relevant research a r t i c l e s that attempt to evaluate the sign systems to see i f they are doing what educators expect them to do. There are several studies that compare the use of t o t a l communication methods with 19 oral methods and achievement gains; however, these studies do not cl e a r l y indicate i f an English sign system was used, and their area of focus is not on English language gains. One study which does support the use of an English sign system in developing English language a b i l i t y is the Brasel and Quigley (1977) study. This study looked at the influence of a child's early language and communication environment on later syntactic language a b i l i t y . Brasel and Quigley sent a questionnaire, designed to identify the language and communication method used during infancy and early childhood, to a target population from which they selected subjects to f i t into four experimental groups. Two of the groups were from a manual communication home environment, and two were from an oral environment. Each group had 18 students, ages 10 to 18. The subjects of one of the manual groups had deaf parents, who had a good command of English, and who used a signed English method with their child from infancy. The parents of the other manual group were also deaf, but used American Sign Language in the home. Both of the oral groups' parents were hearing. The parents of one oral group had worked intensively and continuously with their child from the time the hearing loss was discovered to the commencement of school; the others had not. The experimenters gave the subjects the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) on paragraph meaning, word meaning, language, and sp e l l i n g , and the Test 20 of Syntactic A b i l i t y (TSA). They found that both manual groups s i g n i f i c a n t l y out performed the oral groups on both measures. They also found 'that the manual group who used the English sign system did s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than the ASL manual group except for the aspect of r e l a t i v i z a t i o n on the TSA for which both manual groups had equivalent scores. There are several cautions the reader must take in interpreting the results of this study. Selecting subjects via a questionnaire certainly involves a lack of control for many variables that could have influenced the findings. It is unclear i f the deaf parents used an English sign system exclusively or i f they also used ASL. Perhaps these parents emphasized English language goals for their children and the parents' behavior towards these goals was the key factor in their children's better performance than the other manual group. For example, i t seems reasonable to conclude that these deaf parents must have chosen to use an English sign system because they f e l t that i t would help their children to become s k i l l e d English users. It is possible that the parents, themselves, had struggled with English during their own growing years, and did not want their children to experience the same d i f f i c u l t i e s in learning English. These parents might also have tri e d to i n s t i l l a desire to read in their children by exposing them to books at a very early age. A second study accrediting the use of an English sign 21 system is that of Raffin, Davis, and Gilman (1978). Deaf students, ages 5 to 11, who had been exposed to a sign system representing English syntax, were asked to identi f y right versus wrong English sentences. The sentences were presented to the subjects via a videotape of a person signing the sentences in an English sign system. Hearing children, ages 4 to 6, were also asked to identify the sentences by l i s t e n i n g to the sentences, and their scores were compared to those of the deaf students. The results showed that deaf students performed s i m i l a r l y to the hearing group, and that there was a consistent increase in performance as a function of years of experience with the English sign system. Recently, Bornstein, Saulnier, and Hamilton (1980) and Bornstein and Saulnier (1981) published their conclusions on a five year and continuing program in which a signed English system is being used. In the f a l l of 1974, these reserchers selected 20 hearing impaired preschoolers, age 4, to participate in a longitudinal study of an educational program using an English sign system for communication. Annually the experimenters evaluated the development of English language s k i l l s by these children. They assessed receptive and expressive English s k i l l s by giving the children the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, the Northwestern Syntax Screening Test, and the Signed English Morphology Test which had been s p e c i f i c a l l y developed to 22 test 11 i n f l e c t i o n a l word endings and word changes (regular noun plura l - s_j_ i r r e g u l a r noun p l u r a l , noun possessive -'s, verb ending - ing, regular verb past - ed, irregular verb past, verb third person singular - S j^ adjective comparatives - e_r and est, verb p a r t i c i p l e - en, and agent marker - e_r ). At the end of the f i f t h year, the teachers appraised each child's expressive use of these markers on a 4-point rating scale. The conclusions of this long term study are very po s i t i v e , and they do support the use of an English based sign method. The children demonstrated annual improvement in their English s k i l l s , indicating that they were developing some competence in the English language. The investigators also noted that the children in this study reached the same vocabulary level on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test as another group of deaf students who had not been exposed to an English based morphological system of sign, but many years e a r l i e r . The findings of these three studies are most encouraging and supportive of an English sign system for use in the classroom. However, despite the marked improvement in English, i t must be stressed that these children s t i l l lagged behind their hearing peers. It remains for researchers to continue to probe this area to find the answers to many questions. Is there a level at which the English language gains seem to plateau? Is there 23 a difference in English gains when the English sign system i s used in i t s entirety and when It is not? Do the children who do not use an English sign system eventually catch up in their English s k i l l s to their peers who do use ah English sign system? Is i t the English sign system, i t s e l f , which causes the English improvement, or is i t another variable or some combination of variables that is responsible? How easy is i t to learn to use an English sign system, both receptively and expressively? These and many more questions need to be explored. Some research results which relate to the last question and which lead to some interesting inferences about sign systems are discuss in the following pages. The Processing of Sign Systems The processing of language concerns i t s e l f with how we receive language, how we cognitively process i t , and how we retrieve i t for expression. The l i t e r a t u r e refers to this area of research as that of information processing. To understand how sign systems are processed requires an understanding of how sign language and spoken language are processed, how they are similar and how they are di f f e r e n t . Both languages, sign and spoken, are complete l i n g u s t i c systems, and, yet, both are quite modality s p e c i f i c . A spoken language is auditory-vocal, and a sign language is visual-manual. 24 If a sign language and an oral language are processed d i f f e r e n t l y then the use of a sign system to teach English is questionable. Fenn (1976) and Stuckless (1978) both express concern as to whether a simple p a r a l l e l can be drawn between an auditory-vocal mode of communication and a visual-manual mode of communication. The ear appears to be designed for the analysis of temporal information, and, the eye, for sp a t i a l Information. Sign - word processing. Studies (Neville & B e l l u g i , 1978; Paivio, 1978) on information processing with hearing people have revealed the following: 1. The l e f t hemisphere is strongly related to verbal processing (language input) and the right hemisphere, to non-verbal processing ( i . e . v i s u a l - s p a t i a l and motor input). 2. The printed word, although a visual stimulus, is stored in the l e f t language hemisphere. The c o n f l i c t of a vi s u a l stimulus being stored in the l e f t hemisphere was resolved by theorizing that the receiver of the visual input changed the message into an auditory code before transfer occurred to long term memory. 3. If the input stimulus activates both the verbal and non-verbal storage areas, then the input would be easier to r e c a l l . In l i g h t of the above research findings, researchers were intrigued with how deaf students process information using sign language, a visual language input. Are the signs 25 given a right hemispheric preference even though they are a l i n g u i s t i c input? Do deaf people process information in the same manner as hearing people? Studies in this area have revealed the following: 1. Deaf asphasics and deaf people who had a damaged l e f t hemisphere due to a stroke were communicatively impaired in using signs (Kelly, 1978). 2. There is a l e f t brain hemispheric preference for signs which are l i n g u i s t i c visual stimuli (Neville & B e l l u g i , 1978). 3. Signs for a deaf person render words more meaningful for r e c a l l (Conlin & Pavio, 1975). 4. The deaf use a strategy of visual manual rehearsal of sign input in short term memory before storage in long term memory (Klima & B e l l u g i , 1979). It appears that, for both the hearing and the deaf, the processing of l i n g u i s t i c information takes place in the l e f t hemisphere. Perhaps the brain pulls out the message content and stores i t in Its l i n g u i s t i c abode, the l e f t hemisphere, irr e s p e c t i v e of mode of transmission. Indeed, Levelt (1980) advises against concern for the nature of the input signal because i t does not need to coincide with what is in the process. On the whole, none of these studies negate the use of a sign system for acquiring English. In fact, they support the use of an English sign system in that they indicate that 26 signs and words are both processed l i n g u i s t i c a l l y , and that signs possibly help f a c i l i t a t e the remembering of words for deaf subjects. Signing and speaking simultaneously. The originators of sign systems have taken great care to invent sign affixes to convey the important meaningful morphemes of English, and where there is no sign to represent a word, the speaker-signer is advised to f i n g e r s p e l l . The sign systems, themselves, are complete representations of English, and, yet, the users of these systems, apparently, are not signing everything that they say (Manor & Petito, 1979; Kluwin, 1981a). This i s , also, the case with the Rochester method of f i n g e r s p e l l i n g each spoken word, and this method appears even less representative of complete English than the sign systems (Reich & Bick, 1976, 1977). Marmor and Petitto (1979) videotaped the English signed communication of teachers during a s o c i a l studies class for l a t e r analysis. It is important to note that the teachers in this study were considered by the school's administrators to be the best users of the sign system. Also, the class routine exemplified a t y p i c a l variety of classroom int e r a c t i o n : teacher lecture and questions; reading from a prepared chart; spontaneous question and comments from the students. The analysis revealed that the teachers signed exactly as spoken only 5% to 8% of the time. The signed errors 27 consisted of omitting English words and English i n f l e c t i o n a l word endings, and the signed sentences were ungrammatical In both English and ASL. Kluwin's (1981a) study revealed similar results. He further noted that deaf teachers deleted far fewer signs and used more elements of ASL than hearing teachers. In other words, the deaf teachers' signing followed the grammar of English and ASL better than the signing of the hearing teachers, although similar grammatical errors were made by both groups of teachers. These two studies imply that the consistency of the English language behavioural model is in serious question. Kluwin (1981b) proposes that we re-evaluate the use of conventional sign systems not only because of the d i f f i c u l t i e s in signing and speaking simultaneously, but, also, because they are flawed in truly representing spoken English. A sign system, i t appears is more representative of written English, than the spoken English of current every day common usage. Schools for the deaf need to seriously address the question of what are the effects of English language development from an inconsistent English model. It could be that an inconsistent model may restrain the English language development of deaf students. A possible explanation for this lack of one-to-one correspondence in simultaneously signing and. speaking can be inferred from studies dealing with the s i m i l a r i t i e s and 28 differences between signing and speaking and their allusion to b i o l o g i c a l constraints (Bellugi & Fischer, 1972; Dalgleisch, 1977; Grosjean, 1979a, 1979b; Wilbur, 1979; B e l l u g i , 1980). These aspects are examined below. Sign ~ word rate of production. B e l l u g i and Fischer (1972) and Grosjean (1979a, 1979b) compared the production rates of speech to signs, and found that the rate of a r t i c u l a t i o n for words was nearly double the rate of a r t i c u l a t i o n for ASL signs. However, despite this difference in production rates, the number of propositions produced was the same in each language. From these findings, the researchers inferred that perhaps there is a neurological central language system that controls the rate of output of l i n g u i s t i c information. If this were so, then there would be an optimal range of time in which l i n g u i s t i c processing occurs. The users of sign languages and oral languages would create special l i n g u i s t i c devices s p e c i f i c for each modality (auditory-vocal and visual-manual) so as to keep the length of productions of language within this central neurological optimal range. Theoretically, there would be no production rate problem in simultaneously processing spoken English and ASL because the special l i n g u i s t i c devices of ASL make i t possible to have i d e n t i c a l proposition rates with that of spoken language (B e l l u g i , 1980). However, the problem occurs when one tr i e s to simultaneously process spoken English in a one-to-one sign 29 correspondence. In this situation one is trying to represent a temporal-sequential input (spoken English), simultaneously, in a visual-sequential mode with the f u l l l i n g u i s t i c devices of English which are designed for a temporal-sequential mode. Is this b i o l o g i c a l l y possible? Bellugi's (1980) work gives insight into this question. She found that i t took twice as long to express an underlying proposition in a sign system as i t did in spoken English or ASL. Therefore, in a given period of time, the signer-speaker of English w i l l have to somehow b i o l o g i c a l l y process meaningful content in which the rate of production for an underlying proposition in signs and words c o n f l i c t . We can infer from the l i t e r a t u r e that our system seems to handle this discrepancy of production in one of two ways. Either the speech is slowed down in order to accommodate the manual English representations (Grosjean, 1979b), or signs and i n f l e c t i o n a l endings are omitted (Manor & P e t i t t o , 1979; Kluwin, 1981a); neither of which seems adequate. When speech is purposely slowed, i t is cognitively and b i o l o g i c a l l y uncomfortable for the sender and the receiver, and when signs and sign markers are omitted then English is not being represented. The lengthy time i t takes to produce an underlying proposition with a sign system possibly creates problems in processing information from short term memory to long term memory. Stuckless (1978) cautions that iconic memory is so 30 short that a temporal-sequential input (spoken English) through the eyes (sign systems and fingerspelling) is often lost before meaning is attached to input. It is possible that receivers of a sign system are not getting enough sign information in short term memory for clause and sentence processing into long term memory. This inference is made from the the results of the following three studies. Two studies were on the processing of signs and words. Conlin and Paivio (1975) and Parasnis (1979) found that hearing subjects had better r e c a l l for words than deaf subjects had for signs. The third study by Klima and Bellugi (1979) offered an explanation for the better r e c a l l of the hearing. They noted that the memory span for l e x i c a l signs for deaf subject is one item shorter than the memory span for comparable English words for hearing subjects. The question how much message content of a sign system is retained in short term visual memory as compared to the ident i c a l message retained in auditory short term visual memory is an important one to consider. According to these studies, the maximum verbal message in auditory memory w i l l not entirel y f i t into v i s u a l memory If there is a one to one correspondence between spoken words and the signs. What kind of semantic sense does the brain make of these differences? What kind of semantic meaning is perhaps l o s t . Research needs to c l a r i f y these b i o l o g i c a l concerns about English sign systems. If i t is not feasible for a 31 person to speak and sign simultaneously, then perhaps we can a l t e r the English sign system to be more educationally sound. Its new form might not f u l l y represent English, but then fullness might not be necessary for the child to grasp a good understanding of English. Consistency in the use of an English sign system w i l l no doubt assist the deaf child better than i t s current non-standard application. This study investigates further the educational implications of an English sign system by asking the simple exploratory question, how much of a short story presented in Signed English does a deaf student r e t e l l ? American Sign Language American Sign Language is the visual language used by the deaf community in North America. Although ASL, today, Is accepted by l i n g u i s t s as a true language, there are s t i l l skeptics as to i t s l i n g u i s t i c and cult u r a l value. Perhaps, this is because the l i n g u i s t i c study of ASL only began in the s i x t i e s with the work of Stokoe (1960), and, the l i n g u i s t i c s rules governing ASL are not as well understood as those of English. American Sign Language is not a universal form of sign language (Bellugi & Klima, 1975; Battison & Jordon, 1976; Mayberry, 1978). People of different geographical areas have di f f e r e n t sign languages. Researchers have also proceeded to dispel other myths about ASL (Bellugi & Klima, 1975; Mandell, 32 1977; Battison, 1978; Siple, 1978; Klima & B e l l u g i , 1979). ASL i s not a derived form of English, i t is not a language of limited expression, and i t s signs are not iconic representations, but arbitrary symbols. It has i t s own lexicon and grammatical p r i n c i p l e s , and i t has the l i n g u i s t i c means to express different levels of abstractions. L i n g u i s t i c Description of ASL The following is a brief summary of the important l i n g u i s t i c s features of ASL. Stokoe (1960, 1972, 1976, 1978) was the f i r s t researcher to describe ASL in a l i n g u i s t i c manner. He o r i g i n a l l y divided ASL into three elements, and later a fourth was added: (a) the place where the sign occurs; (b) the hand configuration; (c) the movement of the hand; and (d) the orientation of the hand in re l a t i o n to the body. These elements combine in different ways to form the lexicon (signs) of ASL i n the same way that sounds combine to form a word (Wilbur, 1979). Signs have meanings as do words, and there is no i d e n t i c a l one-to-one correspondence between the lexicon of signs and the lexicon of English words. The morphological processes in ASL seem to be a result of modifying a basic sign along with f a c i a l expression and body movement, rather than by adding a marker to the basic sign (Wilbur, 1979; Baker & Cokely, 1980). The one known derivational a f f i x is the agent sign marker, person, which 33 changes the verb to the doer (teach to teacher). The modification of a basic sign can be accomplished through (a) changes of hand movement and orientation (Edge & Herrmann, 1977), (b) reduplication of a sign (Fischer, 1973; Hoemann, 1978), and (c) the manipulation of space (Friedman, 1976; Edge & Herrmann, 1977). This way of changing grammar case in ASL i s quite different from that of English which uses a f f i x e s . In ASL, nouns are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from verbs by analyzing the changes in movement on three dimensions: (a) frequency, (b) d i r e c t i o n a l i t y , and (c) manner (Baker & Cokely, 1980). An ASL noun and verb usually have the same di r e c t i o n , but d i f f e r in frequency and manner. With few exceptions, nouns have repeated and restrained movements in comparison to the verb form. Some examples of these noun -verb signs are chair - s i t , food - eat, and f l y - airplane. In ASL, nouns may be pluralized by repeating the sign. However, i f the noun is already modified by a plural adjective marker ( i . e . many + noun), then the plural adjective marker becomes the indicator for number, and there i s no need to repeat the noun sign. In English, however, p l u r a l i z a t i o n most often occurs by adding an s^  to the noun ( i . e . boy + s ) , and a noun which is modified by a plural adjective s t i l l requires a plural morpheme ( i . e . many boy + s ) . In ASL, time aspect is primarily manifested by an imaginary time line extending forward and backward from the body at the shoulder. The signer points to a place somewhere 34 on this imaginary time line to establish time reference. ASL does not have different signs to represent pronouns as does English. Instead, ASL establishes pronominal reference through representation in space. At the start of a conversation, a signer assigns an area in space to represent an object or a person. Throughout the discourse this established location in space refers to the referent. The signer refers to the referent by either pointing to the pre-established space with his index finger or by assuming the position with his body. The syntax of English allows for words to be ordered in a certain way, and this ordering determines grammatical re l a t i o n s . However, ASL appears unexplainable most of the time by ordering rules of linear sequence, although Fischer (1975) would argue the contrary. More researchers (Baker, 1976; Friedman, 1976; Baker & Padden, 1978; L i d d e l l , 1978; Baker & Cokely, 1980; Mclntire, 1983) seem to think that ASL depends on a complex i n f l e c t i o n a l system for grammatical re l a t i o n s , which thereby allows for freedom of word order. This i n f l e c t i o n a l system consists of modification of hands, eyes, face, head, and body posture. In discourse, these sign and non-sign channels combine together to give unambiguous meaning to the sender's utterances. As research continues to describe ASL, we should c l e a r l y come to appreciate a l l of the l i n g u i s t i c devices of ASL, especially i t s non-sign features. 35 Psycho-Social L i n g u i s t i c Description of ASL In describing any language i t is also important to include information on the so c i a l situation in which the language occurs. According to Hymes (1971) a person's communicative competence requires a twofold knowledge: (a) an underlying knowledge of soc i a l appropriateness and (b) an underlying knowledge of grammatical structure. Lenneberg's (1967) theory of language acquisition states that the child w i l l learn the language rules only through active social i n t e r a c t i o n . ASL, the language of the deaf community, is not acquired by a l l members of the deaf community in the same manner (Cicourel & Boese, 1972a, 1972b; Stokoe, 1960, 1970). There appear to be two groups of native ASL signers, and a group of non-native signers within the deaf community. Some members are true native signers who learned ASL as a f i r s t language, and, therefore, know the subtleties of signing for the appropriate communications of intimacy, emotion, and humour (Circourel & Boese, 1972a). True native signers are usually the children born to deaf parents and who have had ASL language input since infancy. Studies on ASL language acq u i s i t i o n of deaf children born to deaf parents p a r a l l e l s the acquisition of language in hearing children (Brown & B e l l u g i , 1964; B e l l u g i , 1971; Olson, 1972; Col1ins-Ahlgren, 1975; B o n v i l l i a n , Nelson, & Charrow, 1976). The child 36 i n i t i a l l y expresses one word phrases and over time continues to increase the syn t a c t i c a l complexities utterances u n t i l the utterances match those of the adult user. The other ASL native signers of the deaf community are the,deaf child born to hearing parents who did not use ASL in the home. This group comprises of the great majority of deaf people. It has been suggested that these members of the deaf community learned ASL in school—on the playground with their peers and in the dormitory. ASL is their native language, a l b e i t , not from b i r t h . Their s k i l l in using the subtleties of ASL is dependent on their school l i f e either as a r e s i d e n t i a l student or non-residential student, and their involvement in the deaf community as young adults and in la t e r l i f e . The majority of these deaf people become the ASL adult language role models for the new generation of deaf children. The non-native signers, on the other hand, are the signers who find i t d i f f i c u l t to express the subtleties of Intimacy, emotion, and humour in ASL, and who use a mixture of ASL signs and English signs. Often these deaf signers had hearing parents and were not exposed to ASL u n t i l their later years in school or u n t i l adulthood. Meadow (1972) noted that there were three time periods in the l i f e of a person that may mark his or her entrance into the deaf community: (a) infancy, (b) enrollment in a r e s i d e n t i a l school for the deaf, and (c) the period following 37 graduation. It is l i k e l y that the l i n g u i s t i c and social competence of the ASL user is also correlated to these periods of i n i t i a l a f f i l i a t i o n with the deaf community. Stokoe (1970) found that there was a d i g l o s s i c language s i t u a t i o n in the deaf community. A d i g l o s s i c situation is one in which there is more than one variety of the same language, and these va r i e t i e s are ranked according to status by the members of the society. Stokoe described the language v a r i e t i e s of the deaf community in terms of a two-dimensional continuum with ASL at one end of the continuum, and English at the other end. Stokoe f e l t that members of the community varied their sign use dependent on the formalness or informalness of the so c i a l s i t u a t i o n . The high variety, a more En g l i s h - l i k e signing was used for formal situations such as church sermons and university lectures, and the low variety , ASL, was found in conversations with friends and family. Woodard (1973) elaborated on Stokoes's ideas, and coined the term Pidgin Sign English (PSE) to describe these in-between va r i e t i e s (on the ASL-English continuum) of language usage in the deaf community. It is unfortunate that the deaf people in Stokoe's (1970) studies looked upon ASL as a lower status language than that of English signs. The former educational denial of American Sign Language as a language and i t s current r e j e c t i o n from the school curriculums can lead deaf students to believe that American Sign Language is something less than 38 English, and that by using ASL, they are something less than a normal person. Kannapell (1974) and Bellugi (1975) feel that to deny ASL as a language of the deaf is to deny a person's deafness. Fortunately, deaf people are now openly declaring pride in their language, and they would l i k e to see ASL included in the school curriculum (Stewart, 1982). This pride in ASL goes hand in hand with recent trends in human rights, native language rights, and l i n g u i s t i c ASL studies. B i l i n g u a l education is being suggested as an alternative to the sole use of an English sign system (Kannapell, 1974; B e l l u g i , 1975). The argument for b i l i n g u a l education is based on the educational psycho-social development of the deaf person. Not only are there educational problems with the reception and expression of an English sign system as discussed in the previous section, but sign systems are not used in the soc i a l i n t e r a c t i o n of the deaf community (Stewart, 1982). Cohen (1978) stressed that the deaf adolescent should be encouraged to participate f u l l y in his or her community be i t the hearing or the deaf community. The schools are certainly encouraging the deaf child to participate in the hearing community, but what about the deaf community? Pronovost (1978) asserted that i t is essential that members of an adolescent communicative environment accept and support whatever communicative style s/he uses. If deaf students are 39 signing ASL, school p o l i c i e s do not r e f l e c t t h i s . Studies have shown that deaf chidren of deaf parents who use ASL in the home have overall better school performance than other deaf children (Vernon & Koh, 1970; Balow & B r i l l , 1975). If ASL helps students to perform better, then perhaps schools should be teaching ASL to a l l of their deaf students. The second question in this study probes for information on the expressive signing s k i l l s of the students in the r e c a l l of a short story. Where are the students on the signing continuum? Are their signing s k i l l s more l i k e ASL or more l i k e English?" Pidgin Sign English Woodward (1973) further investigated Stokoe's (1970) description of the d i g l o s s i c language situation in the deaf community, and concluded that there were three elements of concern: two languages, ASL and English, and a pidgin l i n g u i s t i c system which bridges these two languages. He coined the phrase, "Pidgin Sign English" (PSE) to describe the communication used to bridge the two languages. Bragg (1973) named the same signed communication, "Ameslish" (a combination of the words Ameslan and English). Pidgin Sign English (PSE) is the term used to describe a signed communication that consists of some grammar from ASL and some grammar from English. Its scope is wide in that sometimes PSE communication includes more ASL features, and 40 at other times i t has more English, features. R e i l l y and Mclntire (1980) compared the features of ASL with those of PSE and found both s i m i l a r i t i e s and difference. It appears that a l l signed communication which does not follow completely an ASL format or an English sign system format is called PSE. Baker and Cokely (1980, p. 76) give us the following examples to help us appreciate the range of sign v a r i a t i o n of PSE. The target sentence in English is "Pat gave the books to the secretary yesterday". In Signed English (SE) i t is signed "P-A-T me-GIVE-you + PAST THE  BOOK + S TO THE SECRETARY YESTERDAY" . In ASL i t is signed "YESTERDAY P-A-T-rt B00K+-rt SECRETARY-lf  pat-GIVE-secretary or YESTERDAY P-A-T-rt BOOK+rt  pat-GIVE-lf SECRETARY-lf" (refer to Appendix A for sign gloss explanation). Listed below are a few examples of the same utterance in PSE variations and their approximations to ASL and English. The ditt o marks (") show that the sign is similar to the SE and/or the ASL sign. The single ditto mark (') means that the PSE sign is almost i d e n t i c a l to the SE sign or the ASL sign; however, some l i n g u i s t i c aspect has been modified, added, or omitted from the SE or ASL sign. The x. mark means that the sign is not similar to the SE or ASL sign or that the sign is in the wrong word order position. A 1. p-SE A-•« -T G-A-V' i -E THE BOOK+S t t TO THE i t SECRETARY YESTERDAY ASL i X X X X X I X 2. P SE -A-•• -T me-GIVE X -you THE BOOK+S i t TO i t THE t t SECRETARY YESTERDAY i t ASL i X X X X X i X 3. P' SE -A-•« -T me-GIVE-X -you THE t t BOOK+ X TO X SECRETARY •• YESTERDAY ASL • X X i t X X 4. P' SE -A-i -T-rt pat-GIVE-X -If X I t BOOK+ X i t TO X II SECRETARY t i 1 YESTERDAY • i ASL " x " " x " x In the last example, number 4, the verb is marked wrong for ASL because i t is in the wrong word order position, although the sign is perfectly executed. One can see from these examples how many different variations of PSE are possible, and how nebulous and undefined i t s scope r e a l l y i s . PSE i s d e f i n i t e l y an area of communication that needs much more research. Empirical Investigations of PSE Woodward (1973) f e l t that PSE was used by deaf students i n the classroom, and Livingston's (1983) study supported his suspicions. Other research which w i l l be mentioned later in this section has also indicated that this might well be the case. Livingston (1983) found that deaf students used PSE in school, and that the older deaf students" used more ASL grammatical devices as well as more grammatical devices of the English sign system than the younger deaf students. If PSE i s the main mode of communication in the classroom, then 42 educators need to answer this very important question, "What are i t s educational benefits and/or i t s negative effects?". Higgins (1973) concluded a study which claimed that students who received information in a PSE form of signing performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than students who received the same information in either ASL or in the Rochester Method ( i . e . f i n g e r s p e l l i n g a l l spoken communication). The study compared three groups of students' comprehension of factual information which had been presented in one of three di f f e r e n t signed communication methods: (a) PSE, (b) ASL, and (c) the Rochester Method. The students were assigned to one of the three methods, and then they watched a videotape of two passages delivered by a competent signer of that p a r t i c u l a r method. The students later answered 10 printed multiple choice questions on each passage. Higgins found that the students in the PSE group scored higher than the other two groups. Perhaps the PSE students in this study performed better than the ASL students because of the method used to measure comprehension. Higgins used a multiple choice test written in standard English. The PSE students could have had an advantage over the ASL students in that the test and the PSE probably had more language s i m i l a r i t i e s which could have aided the PSE students in r e c a l l . If this were the case, then one might have expected the Rochester group to have done better than the PSE group because one might have thought that 43 the Rochester method would have been a more accurate representation of English than PSE. However, later studies by Reich and Bick (1976, 1977) showed that the Rochester method of f i n g e r s p e l l i n g was even less representative of spoken English than that of an English sign system which appears to be expressed in a pidgin fashion rather than straight English (Manor & P e t t i t o , 1979; Kluwin, 1981a). This would explain why the PSE students out performed the Rochester students. A similar study by Murphy and Fleischer (1977), however, found no differences in the comprehension scores of the ASL and PSE students. The writer was unable to find any other empirical research data on PSE and comprehension of information. Characteristics of a Pidgin Some general information about a pidgin language w i l l now be presented to help the reader appreciate the issues involved. M i t c h e l l (1978) reminded us that the l i t e r a t u r e on l i n g u i s t i c research defines a pidgin as a functional system accorded l i n g u i s t i c communication c r e d i b i l i t y , although not given the prestigous t i t l e of language. Woodward (1973), Fischer, (1978), and Newport and Supalla (1980) have l i s t e d the following special c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a pidgin which d i f f e r e n t i a t e i t from a language: 1. A pidgin form of communicati on serves the purpose of limited interactions with societies at large. 44 2. It is used primarily in r e s t r i c t e d social situation for communicative purposes, and not for s o c i a l l y integrative and personally expressive functions. 3. It has no history of native speakers, and i s , therefore, no one's f i r s t language. 4. It has no special i n f l e c t i o n a l or derivational morphology, and no specified system of grammar relations. Word order appears to be i t s only grammar. 5. Its l e x i c a l base is normally based on the language of the more powerful society. 6. It contains a p a r t i a l mixture of the structure of the languages in the two s o c i e t i e s , but, also, contains structure common to neither of these languages. PSE ~ The F i r s t Language of the Deaf? The above cha r a c t e r i s t i c s of a pidgin certainly seem to describe the signing model for deaf students in classrooms when one r e c a l l s the studies that described the signed communication of teachers of the hearing impaired (Marmor & P e t t i t o , 1979; Kluwin, 1980a). It makes sense to c a l l the teacher's signing, Pidgin Sign English. Cokely and Gawlick (1974) noted that many parents and educators, including p r o f i c i e n t ASL users, did not f u l l y understand the communication of deaf children. These children often had a language that differed from ASL and English, and the researchers claimed that i t was a 45 chlldrenese , another name for a child based pidgin. Charrow (1975) and Jones (1979), who studied the writing of deaf students, stated that deaf students' written expressions are also very much lik e a PSE. It seems that the majority of deaf children might be exposed to PSE as a f i r s t language, despite the claims of some that ASL i s the deaf child's f i r s t language, and a pidgin is no one's f i r s t language. Naturally, for those deaf children born to ASL deaf parents, ASL i s their f i r s t language, but what about the 90%-95% born to hearing parents (Bornstein, Woodward, & T u l l y , 1976)? We know that deaf children struggle greatly with the learning of English, and that the majority deaf children do not become "competent" English users. We, also, know that not a l l members of the deaf community are "competent" ASL users, and that there appears to exist a continuum of signing s k i l l s with ASL at one end and English at the other. Perhaps, PSE is the model for the f i r s t language of most deaf students. A pidgin is normally not recognized as a child's f i r s t language because usually a child is born to parents who have a language which the child learns. However, most deaf children are isolated from their parents' language because of their hearing loss. In the case of a child who is exposed to a pidgin as a f i r s t language, l i n g u i s t s believe that the ch i l d applies rule formations to the ungrammatical pidgin and creates a new language, called a creole (Newport & Supalla, 46 1980). This same process could very well be occurring with deaf students and their learning of signed communication. It might well be that deaf students create a creole sign language from the Pidgin Sign English input that they receive. This creation of a creole language from a pidgin communication Input f i t s in beauti f u l l y with Lenneberg's (1967) theory of language acq u i s i t i o n . We are b i o l o g i c a l l y programmed to make sense of l i n g u i s t i c input, and we make sense by creating rules of grammar. If the l i n g u i s t i c input i s a language with i t s own grammar, then we eventually refine our child-created rules to conform to, and duplicate the existing established rules of the language. Nevertheless, each generation does contribute some new rule change, either in the form of an addition or deletion to the existing language. This is one way in which a language changes over time. It is thought that i f the l i n g u i s t i c input does not have a grammar ( i . e . PSE), the child s t i l l creates rules; however, there is no refinement towards a target grammar of a language ( i . e . English or ASL). The child's grammatical rules remain, and the new language created is called a creole. Fischer (1978) believed that ASL is r e a l l y a creole that was recreated with each generation of deaf students. Her basis for this claim rested on the fact that ASL shared similar c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with other creole languages such as 47 borrowing l e x i c a l items from the language of the society of power (i. e English), and the manner of expressing semantic content by grammatical form. Such a theory provides one way of explaining the v a r i e t i e s of sign usage among the deaf in the deaf community. One group of signers would be the true native ASL users, those second or more generation of ASL signers. A second group would be those deaf who had received a pidgin input from an early age and who in turn created a C r e o l e sign language, and a third group would be those who had had a pidgin input from an older age and who s t i l l use PSE to communicate. If Fischer's theory is correct, then the majority of the deaf community would not be true ASL users because only a few are second generation deaf who have had ASL input from b i r t h . Yet, the l i n g u i s t i c l i t e r a t u r e describes ASL as a language, not a creole. Deaf adults in the deaf community i n s i s t that they use ASL, and would l i k e l y f e e l insulted by the suggestion that they are using a C r e o l e . Andersen's (1981) work on pidginization and depidginization offers further insight into the possible language process that is taking place. Anderson believed that second language learners go through a process of p i d g i n i z a t i o n and depidginization. The depidginization is movement towards the native target language, and must occur i f the learners are to become a successful second language users. However, depidgination w i l l only occur when the learners have ample access to native speaker-input, and have 48 a feeling of s o c i a l , psychological, and physical proximity to the target language. Perhaps the deaf children in school do create a creole sign language from PSE input. However, as the deaf children mature and associate more and more with members of the deaf community, their language w i l l develop and change to become more l i k e ASL, the language of the deaf. If the target language were English, we seem to lack almost a l l of Anderson's (1981) requirements for successful depidginization. Deaf people do not have a combined special f e e l i n g of s o c i a l , psychological, and physical proximity with the hearing community, but do so for the deaf community (Bolton, 1976). The secondary question in this study investigates how the students sign the r e t e l l i n g of a short story. It w i l l indeed be interesting to discover whether their signs are a PSE form of communication which is what one might expect. 49 Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology As stated e a r l i e r , this study is an exploratory descriptive p i l o t study, designed to investigate the following two questions: 1. How much of a short story presented in Signed English does a profoundly deaf student r e t e l l ? 2. What sign language or sign system does a profoundly deaf student prefer to use in the r e t e l l i n g of a short story presented in Signed English? The experimenter had i n s u f f i c i e n t research data to support an hypothesis for the f i r s t question which dealt with the subjects' r e c a l l performance. However, for the second question, there were three possible expectations which arose from the l i t e r a t u r e review in chapter 2: (a) the subjects would use Signed English (SE) when r e t e l l i n g the stories because this is the signed communication policy in the schools; (b) the subjects would use American Sign Language (ASL) because i t is claimed to be their natural language; or (c) the subjects would use Pidgin Sign English (PSE) because the majority of language models for deaf students seem to be people who use PSE. Sample This p i l o t study involved 3 subjects from a group of 25 hearing impaired students in a secondary off-campus program 50 of the provincial school for the deaf. This off-campus program is located in a regular secondary school which offers grades 8 to 12 for a population of approximately 1300 students. The majority of the deaf students take their academic courses in self-contained classes with a teacher of the hearing impaired, and integrate into regular classes for non-academic classes with the assistance of a teacher of the hearing impaired who acts as interpreter-tutor. The selection of the 3 subjects for this study was based on convenience and a c c e s s i b i l i t y of subjects and the experimenter, who is one of the teachers of the hearing impaired at this location. For this study, the experimenter i d e a l l y wanted 3 subjects who were matched on the following six c r i t e r i a : (a) profound hearing loss, (b) prelingually deaf, (c) hearing parents, (d) l i v i n g at home with family, (e) a minimum of four years in a to t a l communication program using Signed English (SE), and (f) a minimum of one year of involvement with the l o c a l deaf community sports organization which meets weekly for various team sports. The reasons for these c r i t e r i a were as follows. This p i l o t study was about deaf students, meaning those with a profound hearing loss. A prelingual deaf child does not have the opportunity to learn an oral language during the early c r i t i c a l years of language learning (birth to age 2) because of his or her hearing loss. On the other hand, the • 51 postlingual deaf c h i l d , whose hearing loss occurs after the age of 2, might well have an advantage over the prelingual deaf child in the learning of an English sign system. This advantage might occur because of the postlingual deaf child's opportunity to access spoken English a u d i t o r i l y during the c r i t i c a l years of language learning. This opportunity would give the postlingual deaf child a chance to establish an English language base which would naturally f a c i l i t a t e the learning of an English sign system, another form of the English language. Most deaf students are born to hearing parents, and the majority l i v e at home during their school years. The study was about the English sign system called Signed English (SE), so i t was important for the subjects to have had equal exposure to SE and for as long as possible. A four year minimum allowed for the longest consistency in Signed English for most of the students in this program. The l a s t criterion—involvement in the deaf community—was added because the experimenter wanted the subjects to have had some s o c i a l exposure to adult models using ASL. The experiment was designed so that the subjects would have the opportunity to r e t e l l the stories in ASL i f s/he so desired. It was, therefore, important that the students had had occasion to experience ASL. It must also be remembered that proponents of ASL state that ASL i s the deaf child's natural language, and that students prefer to use i t . This c r i t e r i o n eliminiated the junior high school students as subjects 52 because these students were often too young to participate in these sports events. On the other hand, most of the senior students had joined these evening sports events which often occurred twice weekly. To obtain the 3 subjects for this p i l o t study, the experimenter approached the grade 11 and 12 students, 11 i n t o t a l , and asked for volunteers. The experimenter told the students that she needed volunteers for a project in order to complete her university M.A. degree. She also informed the students that the volunteers would be required to watch a story on videotape and then sign the same story, and that their signing of the story would be filmed. Six students volunteered. It was noted that the non-volunteers expressed some concern and self-consciousness about being videotaped. The experimenter gave the volunteers consent forms for parental approval. Five of the six students returned the consent forms. Of these f i v e , one was eliminated because he was a s i b l i n g to another volunteer. Of the four l e f t , two of the subjects did not meet a l l of the c r i t e r i a l i s t e d above. One subject had been only using the Signed English system for two years, and the other had become deaf at age 5. Because the study was testing for r e c a l l of a short story received in Signed English, i t was f e l t that the minimum four year exposure c r i t e r i o n was most important. Therefore, the student who became deaf at age 5 was selected. The decision for this selection was made easier by the fact that the 53 family of this student had used English in the home during their son's preschool years. English was not the native language of this family. Tables 1, 2, and 3 summarize some important information about the subjects. Table 1 Hearing Loss Information Re: Subjects Subj ect Gender Age Hearing Loss Age of Onset Cause Wears Hearing Aid 1 F 19 105dB+ bir t h genetic no 2 M 19 119dB+ 5 yrs. meningitis no 3 M 17 90dB+ birth genetic no Table 2 Family Information Re : Subjects Subj ect Parents Other Deaf Relatives Parental Use of Signs 1 hearing yes - older s i b l i n g yes 2 hearing none yes 3 hearing yes - older s i b l i n g yes 54 Table 3 School Information Re: Subjects Reading Elementary Secondary Level Subj ect School School Grade SAt-HI'84 1 -school for the -school for the 12 5.8 deaf, off-campus deaf, off-campus in a regular in a regular school, special school, special class and regular classes -mixture of cued -T.C. program speech, and T.C. 2 -regular school, -same as above 11 6.3 regular clas s -oral program ' 3 -same as Subj. 1 -same as above 11 6.3 Note. T.C. means t o t a l communication These 3 subjects had also participated in many after school a c t i v i t i e s at the school for the deaf throughout their high school years. Therefore, they had had more than one year exposure to deaf adults and other deaf students who used ASL. Furthermore, some of the students who attended the off-campus program were native ASL users, which again offered more ASL exposure to the subjects. The three students were thought by their teachers to be good academic students and, indeed , future Gallaudet candidates,. In fact, Subject 1, who graduated this year (1984), was planning on attending the Gallaudet preparatory year in London, Ontario. 55 The experimenter was aware of the limitations of this study due to small sample size which does not permit generalization of the results to other deaf students. However, the major purpose of the study was to probe for other research questions. Sample size is usually a l i m i t a t i o n of research with the hearing impaired because of the small population and the d i f f i c u l t y of finding subjects who match on a number of variables. Research Procedures The design required that a deaf student view a short story signed in Signed English, and then r e t e l l the same story to the camera in his or her preferred method of signing. The student was asked to do this for three di f f e r e n t s t o r i e s . Recall was measured by having three teachers score the student's r e t e l l i n g of each story for main and minor points. The kind of sign language, sign system, or mixture of both the student used was measured by asking five deaf adults to rate the student's signing of each story along a 7-point scale with ASL at one end and Signed English at the other. Development of the Three Stories The experiment required three stories that were compatible in theme, re a d a b i l i t y , length, syntactic structure, and s i g n a b i l i t y . It was known that i t would be 56 very d i f f i c u l t to find three st o r i e s , in their o r i g i n a l format, that would meet these c r i t e r i a . Hence, the experimenter decided to find three short stories with a similar theme, and then through a process of rewriting and revising make the stories comparable for readability, length, syntactic structure, and s i g n a b l l i t y . The experimenter selected three short stories from C h i l l e r s and T h r i l l e r s : Scope/Reading S k i l l s 4 (Claro, 1974). A l l three stories dealt with the topic of the supernatural, which the experimenter f e l t might be of high interest to the teenage subjects of this study. The o r i g i n a l format of the stories followed that of a close procedure with every seventh word l e f t blank. The f i r s t step in the process of story revision was to f i l l in the blank spaces with appropriate words that would flow with the content of the st o r i e s . Then the experimenter and a teacher colleague, independently, proceeded to read the stories and to make a l i s t of the most basic key concepts necessary for each story's plot while omitting unnecessary d e t a i l s . Upon completion of this task, the experimenter and colleague met to compare, discuss, and agree upon a basic key concept l i s t for each story. Readability l e v e l . Using the basic concept l i s t , the experimenter rewrote each story. The experimenter's goal in the ^rewrite was to keep each story at as low a reading level as possible due to the d i f f i c u l t i e s many deaf students 57 experience reading materials above a grade 4 l e v e l (Furth, 1966; Gallaudet College, 1971). The readability level for each rewritten story was ascertained by using the Spache re a d a b i l i t y test from the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium Program (1982) t i t l e d , "Finding Readability Levels". This computer program offered a choice of six d i f f e r e n t r e a d a b i l i t y tests of which only two were appropriate for grade four and below. The other test, the Fry, was not used because i t included the c r i t e r i o n of s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n in i t s readab i l i t y calculation and this was f e l t to be inappropriate for deaf students. The readability levels of the rewritten s t o r i e s ' ranged from a Spache grade l e v e l of 2.6 to 3. However, the stories were further revised during the process of making the stories comparable for snytactic structure and s i g n a b i l i t y , and the stories ended up with f i n a l Spache readab i l t i y levels ranging from 2.4 to 2.8. as shown in Table 4 which summarizes information concerning the r e a d a b i l i t y levels of each story. 58 Table 4 Readability Level of Each Story Story A Story B Story C S pache Grade Level 2.8 2.4 2.8 Number of Sentences 37 37 37 Number of Words 390 399 393 Average Sent.Length 10.5 10.8 10.6 Syntactic structure. The next step was to control as much as possible for syntax because i t is known that the syntactic structures of the reading text can influence the hearing impaired student's reading comprehension (Hargis, 1970; Hargis, Evans, & Masters, 1973; Russel, Quigley, & Power, 1976; Hart, 1975, 1978; Anken & Holmes, 1977; Layton, Schmucker, & Holmes, 1979). This task was the most d i f f i c u l t to achieve. At f i r s t , the experimenter tried to analyze the stories by c l a s s i f y i n g the sentences of each story into one of five basic sentence patterns, or combinations thereof, based on Streng's (1972) work. The experimenter ended up with too many isolated examples of combinations so that the end results were confusing. Another attempt at c l a s s i f y i n g the sentences was based on grouping the sentences into simple and complex sentences, but there were too many combinations 59 of complex sentences for this method to prove useful. F i n a l l y , the experimenter used the Syntactic Complexity Formula by Botel, Dawkins, and Granowsky (1973) to analyze each story's syntactic l e v e l . This formula assigns a count value, ranging from 0 to 3, to the sentence and i t s various structures. Thus, each sentence is given a complexity rating and a numerical value can be calculated for an entire passage. The experimenter followed and accepted Botel et al.'s complexity rating except for one structure, that of the noun clause of dialogue. Botel et a l . chose to treat a noun clause of dialogue as a basic sentence and gave a 0 count to this type of noun clause instead of the 2 count rating they gave other nominal clauses. For example the sentence, John  said that Mary went to the store, consisted of two basic sentences, John said something and Mary went to the store. According to Botel et al each basic sentence was equal to a 0 count and, therefore the t o t a l complexity rating for this sentence, which included a noun clause of dialogue, added up to 0. However other noun clauses were awarded two points. For example, the sentence, He asked me what I did, consisted of the basic sentence, He asked me which was worth 0 points, and the added noun clause, what I did, which was equal to 2 points. Thus, the entire sentence had a complexity rating or count value equal to 2 points. In this study, the experimenter decided to score a noun clause of dialogue as equal to 2 points, the same count value awarded other noun 60 clauses. Once a complexity rating for each sentence in each story was calculated, i t was r e l a t i v e l y easy to tabulate an overview of each story's rating and to revise sentences so that a l l three stories were comparable with respects to syntactic complexity. Table 5 gives a breakdown of each sentence's count value in the f i n a l written version of each story. The f i r s t column indicates the tot a l complexity rating awarded each sentence within the sto r i e s . The column t i t l e d Sent. Number indicates the sentences within each story which have a value equivalent to that noted in the Sentence Count column. The sentences in each story were i d e n t i f i e d by consecutive rank order number. The column t i t l e d Tot. Sent. represents the tot a l number of sentences within each story that have the same sentence count value. The complexity rating per sentence ranged from a count value of 0 to a high of 7 with the majority of the sentences for each story f a l l i n g in the 3 to 5 sentence count value. Botel et a l . suggested that a primary reading program may begin at a 0 count level and progress to an average complexity count of 4. At least two thirds of the sentences in a l l three stories were valued at count 4 and below. 61 Table 5 Syntactic Complexity Value of Each Story Story A Story B Story C Sent. Count Sent. Number Tot. Sent. Sent. Number Tot. Sent. Sent. Number Tot. Sent. 0 5,21 2 7,11 2 19,31 2 1 4,25,31, 34 4 9,13,21, 36 4 3,16,20,36 4 2 9,16,19, 24 4 17 ,32 ,33, 37 4 8,10,25,9 4 3 1,2,6,11, 12,22,28, 30,32 9 3,5,8,10, 15,18,19, 28,31 9 7,11,13,17 24,26,27, 32,35 9 4 3,13,17, 20,26,29, 35 7 2,6,12,14 25,29,30 7 4,6,12,15 21,23,30 7 5 7,10,15, 18 ,27 ,33 , 36,37 8 1 ,4, 16,20 24,27,34, 35 8 1,2,5,18, 28,29,33, 34 8 6 8 1 26 1 22 1 7 14,23 2 22,23 2 14,37 2 Note. The t o t a l syntactical count for each story equals 127. S i g n a b i l i t y It was not r e a l l y possible to make the stories comparable in s ligns because to analyze the signs for s i m i l a r i t i e s would have meant using the l i n g u i s t i c knowledge of ASL and the experiment focused on English in signs. The best the experimenter could do was to discuss the use of sign lexicon and to note the number of sign markers used in each story. 62 The stories were read by the experimenter and the story t e l l e r who is a current teacher of the hearing impaired, and a ret i r e d deaf teacher to note and discuss s i g n a b i l i t y of the s t o r i e s ' vocabulary in the Signed English system. A l l of the Signed English word endings were included as prescribed by Bornstein, Hamilton, Saulnier, and Roy (1975). When there was more than one sign lexicon for an English word, the sign which was f e l t to be most familiar to the students was chosen. This recommendation came from the experimenter who taught the subjects. The experiment was not concerned with in d i v i d u a l sign vocabulary usage, but with the f u l l visual representation of spoken English. Where possible, the three evaluators of the s i g n a b i l i t y of the stories made vocabulary changes in the written version of the stories so that the signed vocabulary would adhere to an ASL vocabulary rule of signs which follows a conceptual basis for sign formation. For example, the words heavy snow were changed to deep snow and a year l a t e r to one year l a t e r . Care was taken so that none of these changes influenced the syntactic complexity rating or the readability l e v e l . There were several single English words that required more than one sign. For example, coin was signed as money + hand  c l a s s i f i e r (a small c i r c l e drawn on the l e f t palm with the right hand index finger); footprints as foot + hand  c l a s s i f i e r s (B-shaped hands, palms facing downward, moved to represent the feet walking and making footprints in the snow) 63 + s ( p l u r a l sign marker). Table 6 summarizes the number of fingerspelled words, and Table 7, the number of occurrences of the different sign markers In the written version of each story. Table 6 Number of Fingerspelled Words i n Each Story Story A Story B Story C Word No. Word No. Word No J-i-m 25 B-i-1-1 9 B-o-b 11 B-i-1-1 18 K-e-n 11 S-u-e 18 j-o-b 3 J-o-h-n 6 b-a-n-k 2 d-i-d 5 d-i-d 3 d-i-d 2 o-f 3 o-f 8 o-f 4 s-o 1 s-o 2 s-o 1 a-n 1 m-i-l-e-s 1 a-n 1 o-u-1 2 d-o 1 Tot a l : 59 40 39 The differences between the tota l number of fIngerspelled words In each story can be accounted for by the number of times a character's name appears in the story. In actual fact the tota l number of different fingerspelled words for each story is almost the same: 9 for Story A, and 7 for the other two. 64 Table 7 Number of Sign Markers i n Each Story Story A Story B Story C Sign Marker No. No. No . 's (poss. ) 8 4 5 s_ (reg. p i . ) 3 11 17 repeated sign ( i r r e g . p l . ) - 3 -. ing (verb) 3 5 3 s (verb-3rd person) - -d^  (reg. verb, past) 23 27 21 past marker (irreg.past) 19 23 19 n ( p a r t i c i p l e ) 1 3 2 person (agent) 1 - 3 y_ (adjective) -er (comparative) - - -est (superlative) - - -ly (adverb) 3 1 2 un, i n , im (prefix, not) - - -Total: 61 77 72 For each of the three written stories the majority of sign markers were for the regular and irregular verb past tense, followed by the regular noun, plural s_ for Stories B and C. 65 Placing the Stories on Videotape When the three stories were made similar in content, r e a d a b i l i t y , length, and syntax (see Appendix B for the written version of the three stories used in this study), then the experimenter placed the stories on videotape. The experimenter had the story t e l l e r voice and sign the stories while reading them from a script in order to obtain as much of a one-to-one correspondence between the spoken word and the signed word as possible. This decision was based on research which suggested that i t was rare for a teacher of the hearing-impaired to speak and sign simultaneously in a one-to-one correspondence (Marmor & Pet t i t o 1979; Kluwin, 1981a). In these studies the communication utterances of the speaker-signer often resembled a spoken pidgin-like English and a signed pi d g i n - l i k e English with l i t t l e one-to-one correspondence. However, a greater, although not 100%, one-to-one correspondence did occur between the spoken and signed word when the speaker-signer o r a l l y read from a written text and signed simultaneously (Marmor & P e t t i t o , 1979). The story t e l l e r in this experiment was a deaf teacher of the hearing impaired who worked at the school for the deaf. The three stories were placed on videotape over a three night period. The filming of the stories occurred in the subjects' classroom. There was no special l i g h t i n g and a classroom divider was used as background for the story t e l l e r 66 who wore a dark colored long sleeve t u r t l e neck to enhance the viewing of the signer's face and hands. The experimenter used a Panosonic VHS Omnivision II camera, #WV-3100, a NV-8410 VHS portable recorder, and a Scotch T-120 magnetic VHS tape for the videotaping of the story t e l l e r . The experimenter set up the camera so that the story t e l l e r was centred in the view finder, from her waist to the top of her head. This resulted in the story t e l l e r standing a focused distance of 7 feet away from the camera with the zoom ring and knob set at 3/5th's (the third dot) the distance between the close up (T) and the wide angle (W) picture. The i r i s lens was set to automatic; the color temperature, to indoor; the color adjustment, to balance; and the white balance switch was set. There were no camera adjustments made after the start of the filming. The story t e l l e r read the stories from hand printed overhead transparencies which were projected by a 3M Overhead Projector onto a white screen d i r e c t l y in li n e and to the right of the camera operator. The script for each story was kept at the story t e l l e r ' s eye level during i t s reading while the story t e l l e r simultaneously signed and voiced the story. After the stories were placed on videotape, the experimenter made a sign gloss transcription of the story t e l l e r ' s signed version of each story for comparison with the written version. The experimenter used an RCA Selectavision VHS recorder, #VJT500, to analyze the videotape of the story 67 t e l l e r . Three different palyback speeds were used in this analysis: (a) normal playback speed, (b) l/30th the normal playback speed, and (c) frame by frame for c l a r i f i c a t i o n of subtle sign related hand movements. Tables 8 and 9 show the differences that occurred in the fingerspelled words and sign markers when the story t e l l e r signed each story compared to the written versions. (See Tables 6 and 7 for the fingerspelled words and sign markers i n the o r i g i n a l stories.) Table 8 Differences in the Fingerspelled Words Between the O r i g i n a l  Story and the Story T e l l e r ' s Version Story A Story B Story C Orig. Story Orig. Story Orig. Story Word Story T e l l e r Word Story T e l l e r Word Story T e l l e r o-f 3 2 K-e-n 11 10 t-o - 1 s-o-o -n - 1 i - f • — 1 i - f — 1 u-p — 1 The difference between the number of words fingerspelled by the story t e l l e r and the words fingerspelled in the o r i g i n a l stories was minimal. These differences were mainly due to words that can be either signed or fingerspelled. The story t e l l e r , due to her signing habits, automatically fingerspelled these small words instead of signing them, except for the word o-f, which she preferred to sign. In 68 Story B, the story t e l l e r did not f i n g e r s p e l l the word K-e-n on one occasion. This word in the written version happened to be redundant, and i t s deletion was accepted. Table 9 Differences in the Sign Markers Between the O r i g i n a l Story  and the Story T e l l e r ' s Version Story A Story B Story C Sign Markers Orig. Story Story T e l l e r Orig. Story Story T e l l e r Orig. Story Story T e l l e r ' s (poss.) 8 7 4 3 j3 ( reg. p i . ) 11 9 17 13 repeated sign ( i r r e g . pi.) - 1 - 2 ing (verb) 5 4 ji ( reg. verb-past) 23 24 past marker ( i r r e g . past) 19 20 The differences in the sign markers between the story t e l l e r ' s versions and the o r i g i n a l stories were also minimal. The story t e l l e r omitted some plural s^  and possessive ' s sign markers, and in a few cases, substituted the regular English plu r a l s^  marker with the irregular plural marker of repeating the sign. The experimenter also noted that the story t e l l e r made other signed errors such as (a) the placement of the sign, 69 (b) the use of one hand instead of two, (c) slight variations in sign formation, and (d) incomplete f i n g e r s p e l l i n g for several small words that were often repeated throughout the story, i . e . d-i for d-i-d . The experimenter f e l t that none of these signed errors were serious enough to warrant refilming of the signed s t o r i e s . Most of these errors were simi l a r to those of reading miscues, and they did not alter the semantic meaning of the signs in the s t o r i e s . C o l l e c t i n g the Data A colleague of the experimenter showed the videotaped Signed English stories to the subjects in three s i t t i n g s . The viewing of the stories and the videotaping of the subjects' r e t e l l i n g of the stories took place in the subjects' school in a room attached to the school l i b r a r y . Only the subject and the person who collected the data were present. The data c o l l e c t o r , hearing impaired himself, was a former teacher of the hearing impaired and known to the subjects through his active involvement in the deaf community. The data were collected over three consecutive school days during the morning hours. On each day, each subject viewed one of the three stories and was asked to r e t e l l the story while being filmed. The stories were arranged in the viewing order as shown in Table 10. 70 Table 10 Order Presentation of Each Story for Each Subject Subj ect Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 1 Story A Story B Story C 2 Story B Story C Story A 3 Story C Story A Story B When the subject entered the l i b r a r y room, s/he was greeted by the data c o l l e c t o r and asked to have a seat in a chair that was located 6 feet d i r e c t l y in front of the camera. The data c o l l e c t o r then proceeded to inform the subject that, with her/his assistance, he would set up the camera for the later filming of the subject. The camera equipment and the camera settings were i d e n t i c a l to those that were used during the filming of the story t e l l e r , except for a s l i g h t variation in the focus distance and the zoom ring and knob. The focus distance used for the subjects varied between 6.75 feet and 7 feet and the zoom ring and knob were set at 4/5th of the distance between the close up and wide angle picture. These differences were due to the subjects varying heights and to the fact that they were s i t t i n g for the filming, whereas, the story t e l l e r stood for the filming. After a l l of the camera adjustments were completed, the data c o l l e c t o r then gave the following instructions to the subject in Pidgin Sign English: "YOU 71 WILL SEE STORY ON T.V. WHEN YOU FINISH SEE STORY, YOU SIGN SAME STORY. I WILL FILM YOU. NOW, TELL ME, 'WHAT YOU HAVE-TO D-O?'" (See Appendix A for a sign transcription explanation.) The experimenter had to use one of the three signed communication methods (SE, ASL or PSE) for giving the instructions to the subjects, and was aware that the communication method chosen could influence the way the subjects signed the st o r i e s . In other words, i f the instructions were signed in ASL, this might lead the students to respond in ASL. The experimenter chose a PSE format because i t was f e l t that PSE instructions would give the subjects an option of signing the stories in either one of the three communication methods because PSE also includes SE and ASL. Therefore, the experimenter considered PSE instructions to be the most neutral form of stimulus. Although the filming of the story t e l l e r was done in colour, the subjects viewed the stories on a black and white Electrohome t e l e v i s i o n , Model #ETV3B, with a 19 x 15 inch screen. This choice was based on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of equipment and not on the experimenter's preference. The te l e v i s i o n was positioned 6 feet away from the subject, s l i g h t l y to the subject's l e f t and next to the camera. When the subject finished viewing the story, the data c o l l e c t o r turned off the t e l e v i s i o n , took out the story tape and put in the subject filming tape. Then the subject was 72 given the following instructions in Pidgin Sign English: "YOU SIGN SAME STORY. USE YOUR LANGUAGE. WHEN I (mimes  ra i s i n g hand), YOU START. NOW, TELL ME, 'WHAT YOU HAVE-TO D-0?'" The experimenter instructed the data c o l l e c t o r to prompt the subjects during the filming of the r e t e l l i n g of the stories i f the subjects seemed to pause for an unseemly long time. The prompt words were "Can you remember more?" The data c o l l e c t o r had only to use this prompt three times with each subject, and this was at the end of each subject's r e t e l l i n g of each story. When the subject had finished r e t e l l i n g the story, s/he was instructed not to t e l l the story to her or his peers because other students would be viewing the same story at a lat e r date. The data c o l l e c t o r thanked the subject and told her or him that s/he would see another story the next day. Development of the Rete l l i n g Measures for Each Story O r i g i n a l l y the experimenter devised a scoring system for the r e t e l l i n g of the signed stories by following Goodman and Burke's (1971) procedure outlined in their reading miscue manual. Goodman and Burke suggested that a to t a l of 100 points be a l l o t t e d for the r e t e l l i n g of story material: (a) 30 points for character analysis which would include r e c a l l and character development, (b) 30 points for events, (c) 20 points for plot, and (d) 20 points for theme. 73 However, the experimenter found several scoring problems with the Goodman and Burke measure for the stories used in this study, and subsequently developed a different measure. The problems occurred because of the point value Goodman and Burke assigned for the different categories of story r e c a l l which seemed unreasonable for the stories involved in this study. For example, Goodman and Burke allowed 30 points for character analysis and the three short stories used in this study contained very l i t t l e material on character development. They revolved around events. To give 30 points to a subject because s/he mentioned a character's name seemed excessive. Another problem was with the 20 points allowed for the theme of the story. The experimenter did not prompt for theme, "and, thus, i t was f e l t that the subjects should not be scored for this area of r e c a l l without such a prompt. To infer a theme for a story is a reading a c t i v i t y which requires a deeper cognitive level of s k i l l than that of simple r e c a l l of e x p l i c i t story informtion. In this study the experimenter was interested in the l a t t e r s k i l l . Due to these problems, the experimenter devised her own measures for scoring each story. Because the stories revolved around events, the experimenter used a system that would represent each story's main and minor events. The experimenter and four teachers of the hearing impaired independently read each story and underlined i t s main events. Each event that was underlined by at least 74 three of the five teachers was c l a s s i f i e d as a main event. A l l of the other events, those not underlined and those underlined by less than three of the five teachers, were c l a s s i f i e d as minor. The experimenter then collated this information and made a scoring checklist for each story based on main and minor events. The experimenter f e l t that these scoring checklists needed further revision in order to delete redundant information, and information that would be i m p l i c i t l y understood from the story context. For example, in Story A, B i l l ' s wife informs him that something t e r r i b l e had happened—that the police said that Jim had k i l l e d himself. O r i g i n a l l y , three out of the five teachers l i s t e d these two events as two separate scoreable events. However, the experimenter f e l t that the event something t e r r i b l e had  happened was redundant to the event that the police said that  Jim had k i l l e d himself. The something t e r r i b l e was that the  police said that Jim had.killed himself, and therefore the two events should be scored as one event. Also, in this same story, the events Jim never phoned B i l l and to explain why he  wasn't going to work were o r i g i n a l l y l i s t e d as two independent events. However, the exprimenter f e l t that to  explain why he wasn't going to work need not be expressed in the r e t e l l i n g of this story because this event was i m p l i c i t l y understood from the two previous story events— Jim did not  go to work and Jim never phoned B i l l (his boss). To resolve 75 the problem of unnecessary points that had been o r i g i n a l l y assigned to the events that were duplicated in the st o r i e s , the experimenter gave the three scoring checklists of major and minor events to a sixth independent person whose task was to omit redundant information and information that was i m p l i c i t l y understood from story context. Thus, the experimenter arrived at three f i n a l scoring measures for the r e t e l l i n g of main events and minor events for each story. The t o t a l number of main and minor events for each story are represented in Table 11, and a detailed l i s t i n g of these events for each story can be found in Appendix C. Table 11 Number of Main and Minor Events in Each Story Story A Story B Story C Main Events 27 29 37 Minor Events 28 22 23 Scoring Procedures for the Subject's Re t e l l i n g of a Story The experimenter made a written English transcription of each subject's signing of each story: a t o t a l of nine, three per subject. These transcriptions were to be used in the scoring of the subject's r e c a l l of main and minor events. The transcriptions were given to a retired deaf teacher, s k i l l e d in ASL and English, for v e r i f i c a t i o n and/or 76 correction. The deaf teacher viewed each subject's signed story, compared i t to the English transcription, and edited the transcription wherever needed. The experimenter then gave the nine v e r i f i e d and corrected English transcriptions and the corresponding story checklists of main and minor events to three teachers of the hearing impaired for scoring. The experimenter instructed the teachers to read through the stories and check off each main and minor event that the subject retold. Each check point was equal to one point. The experimenter gave the teachers the following guidelines to assist them in the scoring: 1. Check each point i f you feel that the subject expressed that point. 2. It is not important that the words be the same, only that the idea being expressed is the same as that on the che c k l i s t . 3. It is possible that the subject only expressed part of the idea. In this instance give her or him half points ( 1 / 2 ) . 4. If the subject names the character(s) i n c o r r e c t l y , but is consistent throughout the story, give the subject f u l l points. The experimenter t a l l i e d the scores for both main points and minor points for each subject for each story as per scorer. These findings are presented and discussed in 77 chapter 4. The Measure for Evaluating the Subject's Signing S k i l l s The experimenter needed a way to evaluate the sign language (ASL), or Signed English (SE), or combination of both (PSE) of the subject's signed expression In the r e t e l l i n g of the st o r i e s . The ideal way to do this would be to make a detailed sign gloss transcription of each subject's r e t e l l i n g of each story, and then to analyze the transcriptions for ASL features and Signed English features. However, due to the lack of expertise available to perform such an analysis, the experimenter settled for a general rating of the subject's signing s k i l l s by five deaf judges. Two of the judges were s k i l l e d SE users, two were s k i l l e d ASL users, and one was s k i l l e d in both ASL and SE. In addition, the exprimenter commented on the subject's use or lack of use of both Signed English and on some well-documented ASL f e atures. The experimenter gave the judges a scale on which to rate the subject's signing s k i l l s and a rating guide to help the judges understand how to use the scale (see Appendix D for the rating scale and rating guide). The rating scale consisted of a continuum from numbers 1 to 7, with ASL at the end of the scale which corresponded to number 1 and SE at the other end, at number 7. The judges were asked to rate each subject by marking the point on this scale which they f e l t 78 most accurately represented the subject's signing s k i l l s . The judges were permitted to mark in between the scale numbers as well as at the scale numbers. The five judges, two at two different times and three at another time, viewed the videotapes of the subjects' r e t e l l i n g of the st o r i e s . Immediately after watching each r e t e l l i n g of a story, they independently rated the subject's signing s k i l l s for that r e t e l l i n g . They did this for a l l nine stories in one s i t t i n g . The findings are discussed in chapter 4. 79 Chapter 4: Results and Discussion The results of this descriptive p i l o t study are discussed in two sections. The f i r s t section deals with the subjects' r e c a l l of the s t o r i e s , and the second with how the subjects signed their r e t e l l i n g of the s t o r i e s . Recall of the Stories Before discussing the r e c a l l of story events for the subjects in this study, the reader is reminded that the amount of r e c a l l of a story by a person is a function of (a) the various c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the l i s t e n e r , (b) the oral prose i t s e l f , and (c) the cognitive processes involved in encoding and decoding. These factors alone and together can influence how much a person r e c a l l s of a short story, and researchers are s t i l l quite confounded by how these variables operate i n d i v i d u a l l y and w h o l i s t i c a l l y . With this in mind, the reader is advised that the scores in Table 12, which represent the amount of r e c a l l of the stories for the subjects, does not make a statement about how much of the story the subjects understood. The subjects might have comprehended more than they expressed. Researchers have yet to c l e a r l y show the relationship between verbal comprehension s k i l l s and verbal memory s k i l l s (Paris & Lindauer, 1977 ). The subjects r e c a l l scores could have been influenced by several variables: (a) their expository s k i l l s , (b) the 80 story material i t s e l f , and (c) variables within the subject. Table 12 presents the following data: (a) the mean raw score and (b) r e c a l l percentage of each subject for the main and minor events of each story, and (c) the subject's t o t a l average percentage of r e c a l l for main and minor events over the three s t o r i e s . (Table E-l i n Appendix E records the raw scores of each subject per scorer for each of the stories.) Table 12 Subjects' Mean Scores and Percentage Recalls of the Stories Story A Story B Story ' C Story A+B+C Subj ect Events Ma % Mb % MC % Tot. Av.% 1 Main 14. 7 54 19 66 23.8 64 61 Minor 9 32 9.8 44 4.8 21 32 2 Main 19.5 72 18.3 63 21.3 58 66 Minor 17 61 6.6 30 5 22 38 3 Main 17 . 8 66 20. 2 70 16.3 44 60 Minor 11.8 42 11 50 2.7 12 35 Note. aMaximum main events equals 27; minor , 28. DMaximum main events equals 29; minor, 22. Maximum main events equals 37; minor, 23. For each of the sto r i e s , each subject scored higher on r e c a l l of main events than on minor events. This finding is similar to the findings on oral prose r e c a l l by other 81 researchers who have noted that the more important information is often recalled better than the less important information (Meyer & McConkie, 1973; Meyer, 1975; Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Thorndyke, 1977). The discussion on results w i l l focus on the subjects' r e c a l l of the main events of the s t o r i e s , which represent the more important information in oral prose that educators hope students attend to, understand, remember, and r e t e l l . The tot a l average r e c a l l of the main events for each subject over the three stories ranged from 60% to 66% (see Table 12). It is not known i f these average percentages of r e c a l l represent "good", "average", or "weak" r e c a l l s k i l l s for the story material used in this study, but i t should be remembered that the subjects were considered by their teachers to be "good" academic students. It would be inter e s t i n g to note the r e c a l l performance of the "less" academic deaf students for these Signed English stories. The experimenter would recommend that these stories be presented to hearing teenagers to see how much they r e c a l l of the main events. It would also be interesting to compare the amount of r e c a l l of these stories between a SE, ASL, and a PSE form of presentation. Do deaf students r e c a l l more information of material presented in one of these sign communication methods than the same information presented in the other two? These average percentages of r e c a l l for main events for 82 each subject were based on a l i b e r a l way of scoring in that the experimenter used the average raw scores of a l l three evaluators. Each subject's r e c a l l would have been reduced by approximately 10% i f the experimenter had based the subject's r e c a l l score on only those story events for which a l l three evaluators were in to t a l agreement as shown In Table .13. Table 13 Subjects' Raw Scores for Main Events Based on F u l l Scorer  Agreement Story A Story B Story C Story A+B+C Subj e ct a Score % Scoreb % Score 0 % Tot. Av. % 1 11 41 16.5 57 21 57 52 2 17 63 17.5 60 18 49 57 3 14 52 18 62 13 35 50 Note. Maximum main events equals 27. Maximum main events Q equals 29. Maximum main events equals 37 Table 14 shows the percentage of main events in each story which received credit from a l l three scorers. It can be seen that f u l l agreement between the three scorers ranged from a low of 74% for Subject 1 (Story A) to a high of 93% for Subject 2 (Story B). 83 Table 14 Percentage of Agreement Between Scorers for the Subjects' Recall of Main Events Story A Story B Story C Subj ects No .a % No.b % No .C % 1 20 74 24 83 32 86 2 23 85 27 93 29 78 3 22 81 24 83 29 78 Note. Maximum main events equals 27. Maximum main events c equals 29. Maximum main events equals 37. In examining the differences among the scorers, i t appeared that the most l i k e l y cause was the ambiguity of the subject's r e t e l l i n g of certain events. In several instances the subjects f a i l e d to give e x p l i c i t l y clear information, and the scorers did not have the opportunity to question the subjects for c l a r i f i c a t i on. This ambiguity l e f t the scorers i n a situ a t i o n in which they had to make a decision as to the story t e l l e r ' s intended meaning. The following examples of Subject l ' s r e t e l l i n g of Story A w i l l serve to i l l u s t r a t e this point. In Story A, the scorers disagreed as to whether Subject 1 included the event B i l l offered Jim back his old job. Subject 1 did not e x p l i c i t y state that B i l l offered Jim back his old job, but said that B i l l thought to himself that Jim 84 had been a good worker and thought that he wanted to hire Jim again. It was up to the scorer to decide i f B i l l actually rehired Jim or only thought about i t , and obviously the scorers arrived at different conclusions. The scorers also disagreed on the subject's mention of the event Jim went to  the party. Subject 1 stated that there was a party and then talked about a dream that B i l l had in which Jim was at a party. In the o r i g i n a l story there was a party and a dream, but the dream was not about the party. These were two separate events. Thus, up to this point, a l l scorers should agree that the subject did not mentioned the event Jim went  to a party. However, towards the end of the story r e t e l l i n g , the subject stated that the police found out that Jim had taken out a bottle of alcohol from the party. This new information implied that Jim had gone to a party. Therefore, a scorer who used the new information at the end of the r e t e l l i n g to mark the event Jim went to a party would now remark i t as included. A scorer who did not relate this new information to the e a r l i e r event would leave the e a r l i e r event as s/he had o r i g i n a l l y scored i t ( i . e . not included in the r e c a l l ) . The above examples i l l u s t r a t e some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s the evaluators experienced in the scoring of the free r e c a l l of the story material in this study. Perhaps a better way to have scored the subjects' r e t e l l i n g would have been to have had the evaluators meet to discuss their independent scoring 85 and to attempt to resolve their differences. The t o t a l average percentage of r e c a l l of main events over subjects was 64% for Story A, 66% for Story B, and 55% for Story C. It appears that there might be a possible story ef f e c t for Story C. Story C was recalled less than the other two, which had similar r e c a l l percentages. This difference can possibly be accounted for by one of two factors: (a) Story C was a more d i f f i c u l t story to r e c a l l than the other two, or (b) the low score obtained by Subject 3 on Story C. Table 15 shows the percentage of r e c a l l over time. It can be seen that the scores for the 3 subjects improved in r e c a l l over time when Day 1 results are compared with those of Day 3. However, when results for a l l three days are examined only Subject 3 showed consistent r e c a l l improvement over time. Because Subject 3 viewed Story C on Day 1, the time of viewing could have contributed to his low r e c a l l score for this story. Table 15 The Subjects' Percentage of Recall Over Time for Main Events Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Subj ect Story % Story % Story % 1 A 54 B 66 C 64 2 B 63 C 58 A 72 3 C 44 A 66 B 70 86 One aspect of the r e t e l l i n g which the experimenter, as a teacher of the hearing impaired, found most interesting was the differences in the story content given by the subjects and that of the o r i g i n a l story. Many of these differences took the form of distortions and additions. For example, in Story A, Jim went to the company party, and B i l l didn't go because he was too busy. However, the same night as the party, B i l l had a dream about Jim in which Jim was t e l l i n g B i l l of his innocence... Two of the subjects in the r e t e l l i n g of Story A distorted the story by saying that B i l l ' s dream was about Jim attending a party. In Story B, Ken and John stopped at a huge house to ask for directions. One subject elaborated on the house and said that i t was a fancy house, a mansion. In Story C, Sue found in the car another box which contained a l e t t e r as well as more money and diamonds. The l e t t e r had been written by Bob and i t explained that he had hidden his valuables which he wanted Sue to have and not his r e l a t i v e s . However, Bob died before giving the l e t t e r to his lawyer, so his ghost returned to t e l l Sue where to find his valuables and the l e t t e r . . . One subject stated that Bob had given his lawyer a paper, a l i s t , which the lawyer gave to Sue. Another subject said that inside the box, Sue found a l e t t e r which informed her of the hiding place of the diamonds and money. In Story C, Bob's relatives ordered Sue to leave the country after Bob's death, and Sue went to England. One 87 subject stated that Bob's relatives were upset about his death, and therefore moved out to the country. Additions and distortions are expected in the r e c a l l of oral prose but they only become a concern when they alter the o r i g i n a l intended meaning of the key events in a the story. Some researchers claim that additions and distortions are a function of the story material, i t s e l f , and that the better organized a story is in structure and syntax, then the lower the number of additions and distortions in the story r e c a l l (Rumelhart, 1975; Thorndyke, 1977; Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Mandler, 1978). Although the experimenter controlled for r e a d a b i l i t y , length, syntax, and signed lexicon, i t would be interesting to analyze these stories according to the story schemas of these researchers to see i f they have weak ambiguous structures which could have influenced r e c a l l . Signing S k i l l s Used i n the Retelling of the Stories O r i g i n a l l y , the experimenter planned on using a l l of the f i v e evaluators in the analysis of each subject's rating of signing s k i l l s . Three judges were to evaluate the signers American Sign Language (ASL) s k i l l s and three were to evaluate Signed English (SE) s k i l l s . One judge's rating would be used twice, once for ASL and once for SE because she was considered to have both ASL and SE s k i l l s . However, this judge's ratings were so different from the other two members of each grouping, that the experimenter did not included her 88 ratings in the results of the study. This l e f t four evaluators* ratings for analyses and discussion. Table 16 represents the ratings for signing s k i l l s given each subject for each story by the evaluators and the subject's t o t a l mean rating by each rater over the three s t o r i e s . Table 16 Judges' Ratings of the Subjects' Signing S k i l l s for Each  Story Stories Judges A+B+C Subject ASL SE Story A Story B Story C M 1 5 4.3 4.3 4.6 1 2 3 3 4 3.3 3 5.5 4 4.7 4.7 4 4.3 3.4 4.3 4 1 5.3 4.3 4.4 4.7 2 2 3 3 4 3.3 3 2.5 3 4 3.2 4 4.5 3.3 3.3 3.7 1 6.3 4.4 6.3 5.7 3 2 4 3 5 4 3 5.5 2.5 4 4 4 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.5 Note. The rating scale consisted of a continuum from numbers 1 to 7. A rating of 1 equals 100% ASL usage. A rating of 7 equals 100% SE usage. Judges 1 and 2, the ASL raters, evaluated a l l - of the subjects' signing s k i l l s as having a rating of 3 or more. 89 This corresponded to less than 65% ASL s k i l l s as was indicated on the Rating Guide that they had used (see Appendix D for Rating Guide). Judges 3 and 4, the SE evaluators, rated a l l of the subjects' signing s k i l l s as having a rating of 5.5 or less which corresponds to less than 70% SE s k i l l s . Neither the ASL judges nor the SE judges f e l t that the subjects' signing s k i l l s f u l l y expressed the features of the language for which they were judged. It would appear that the subjects' signing s k i l l s , as defined by the judges' ratings, f e l l into that area of signing s k i l l s on the ASL-SE continuum which researchers have called PSE. The experimenter also decided to interpret the rating results in a s l i g h t l y different way, other than by following the o r i g i n a l rating scale for PSE which included a l l signing that was not "pure" ASL (above scale point 1) nor "pure" SE (below scale point 7). This f i r s t interpretation of scale points was quite l i m i t i n g in that there was l i t t l e error margin allowed in the signer's usage of ASL or SE before the expression was classif i e d , as PSE. The experimenter f e l t that this kind of s t r i c t error l i m i t a t i o n is often not the case in real l i f e s ituations. For example, a s k i l l e d user of English, w i l l often perceive the English expression of a foreigner as being that of English despite the foreigner's numerous errors in pronounciation, lexicon usage, and syntax. In Table 17, the experimenter rearranged the ASL judges' ratings to represent ASL or lack of ASL, and s i m i l a r l y , the 90 SE judges' ratings to represent SE or lack of SE. An ASL judge's rating of signing s k i l l s was interpreted in^the followng way: (a) a scale rating between 1 and 4 meant that the subject used ASL, (b) a scale rating from 4 to 7 meant that the subject did not use ASL, and (c) a scale rating of 4, the mid-point in the scale, could be either ASL or not ASL. If an ASL judge rated a subject above the scale number four, then the judge was making a statement about the subject's lack of ASL s k i l l s , and not about the subject's command of SE s k i l l s . A SE judge's rating was interpreted in a similar fashion: (a) a scale rating from 4 to 7 meant that the subjects used SE, (b) a scale rating from 1 to 4 meant that the subject did not use SE, and (c) a rating of 4 could mean either (a) or (b). If a SE judge rated a subject as below four on the scale, then the judge was indicating that less than 50% of the subject's sigining s k i l l s were l i k e SE, but this rating did not mean that the signing s k i l l s were l i k e ASL. It was assumed that the subject was signing ASL, i f both ASL judges rated the subject's signing of one of the stories as having 50% or more ASL features (1 to 4), and both SE judges gave a rating of less than 50% for SE s k i l l s (1 to 4) for the same subject and story. Likewise, i f the two SE judges rated a subject's story as containing 50% or more SE signs (4 to 7), and the two ASL judges rated the same subject's story as having 50% or less ASL signs (4 to 7), 91 then the subject was considered to be signing SE. A subject was thought to be using ASL or SE only when there was 100% agreement of this kind between the evaluators. PSE was the name given to the signing s k i l l s of those subjects for which at least one of the judges disagreed. 92 Table 17 Judges' Ratings of the Subjects for ASL and SE Agreement Stories Subj ects Judges A B C A B C ASL 3  -Not ASL b  1 5 4.3 4.3 2 3 3 4_ 4 1 Not SE- SE 3 4 5.5 4 4.7 4 3.4 4.3 4.3 A S L  Not ASL 1 5.3 4.3 4.4 2 3 3 4_ 4_ 2 Not SE S E -3 2.5 3 4 4 4 3.3 3.3 4.5 ASL Not ASL 1 6.3 4.4 6.3 2 iL 3 4_ 5 3 Not SE SE — — -3 2.5 4 5.5 4_ 4 3.7 3.5 3.3 Note. A scale rating ; of 4 i s underlined to indicate that i t can belong to either a category. ASL and Not SE equal scale ratings between 1 to 4. bSE and Not ASL equal scale ratings between 4 to 7. Judge 1, an ASL rater, f e l t that a l l of the subjects' 93 signed stories contained less than 50% of ASL s k i l l s . Judge 2, the other ASL rater, f e l t that a l l of the subjects demonstrated ASL signing s k i l l s , although Subjects 1 and 2 used more ASL in tot a l than Subject 3. Both ASL judges without question agreed that Story C by Subject 3 did not resemble ASL; however, only one SE judge rated this story as an SE story. Therefore the signing s k i l l s of this subject for Story C was c l a s s i f i e d as PSE. Both SE judges agreed f u l l y that Subject 1 used SE to sign Story A and C; however, one ASL judge disagreed and f e l t that i t was ASL. Both SE judges agreed that Subject 3's Story B was not SE; but only one ASL judge thought that i t was ASL. If we include the scale point number 4, then there was f u l l agreement as to c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of signing s k i l l s on only one subject for one s t o r y — S u b j e c t 1 used SE for Story A. Once again i t appears that the subjects used a form of signing s k i l l s from which at times the ASL judges recognized both ASL and non-ASL features and the SE judges recognized both SE and non-SE features. This form of signing has been termed PSE. The experimenter would l i k e to discuss several concerns about two variables involved in this study and other studies which attempt to delineate a subject's signing s k i l l s : (a) the mesasure, i t s e l f , and (b) the evaluators. In future studies a better procedure for obtaining a measure for signing s k i l l s would be to ask the evaluators to rate the signer on s p e c i f i c features of the language, such as the lexicon, syntax, and semantics. However, the problem with thi s procedure is the d i f f i c u l t y in finding competent judges for ASL. Unfortunately, the deaf are not formally taught the l i n g u i s t i c features of ASL, so how can they be asked to judge these features? The best ASL judges would be native born ASL users and they are few in number. Another problem is finding s k i l l e d SE judges. Native English users can competently judge spoken English, but this does not mean that they can do the same for English in signs. How do we judge a s k i l l e d SE user? If a rating continuum is used, then the scale, should only represent one signing s k i l l at a time, either ASL or an English sign system. The evaluator should only be asked to make a statement about the s k i l l s or lack of s k i l l s of one language, and that language should be the same as the evaluator's language. The evaluators, irrespective of the measurement used, should consist of two separate groups: ASL judges, s k i l l e d ASL users themselves, and SE judges, s k i l l e d SE users themselves. As stated e a r l i e r in chapter 3, the ideal way of knowing what kind of signing s k i l l s the subjects used in this study was to make a detailed signed gloss transcription for each subject's signing of each story, and then to analyze the tra n s c r i p t i o n for ASL features and English features. However, the experimenter was unable to do this due to her of expertise in this area and the lack of a s k i l l e d resource 95 person. Nevertheless, the experimenter did view the videotapes of the subjects in a search for definite SE features, and for some general ASL features as described in the l i t e r a t u r e (Baker & Cokely, 1980). The experimenter's insights are shared with the reader in the following paragraphs. Although none of the subjects' signing was a true SE form, a l l of the subjects did exhibit some SE features. At times the subjects followed English word order but at other times did not. Subjects 2 and 3, mouthed and voiced words as they signed, while Subject 1 just mouthed the words with no voice. The following examples of English sign usage by the subjects are not a l l i n c l u s i v e , nor are they used consistently throughout the subjects' signing of the s t o r i e s . Subject 1 used the English adverb so, the conjunction and, some English verb forms such as i s , was, have been, the English pronouns I, she, him, hi s , he, the occasional a r t i c l e , a_^  and nominal clauses beginning with the word that. Subject 1 also i n i t i a l i z e d some signs, i . e . house, valuable. Subject 2 sometimes used the re l a t i v e pronoun who, the a r t i c l e a, the verbs was , should be, the possessive sign marker 's, the adverb so, the conjunction and, the pronoun her, and i n i t i a l i z e d some signs, i . e . house, decide. Subject 3 used the conjunction and, the possessive sign marker 's, the verbs i s , be, the adverb so, the rel a t i v e pronoun who, the a r t i c l e the, and the i n i t i a l i z e d sign k i l l . As well as 96 these SE s k i l l s , one of the judges commented that the subjects, especially 2 and 3, seem to be trying to follow th e i r speech which made their signs follow English word order. The experimenter f e l t that a more detailed analysis of the subjects' signing s k i l l s would undoubtly have revealed more English sign usage than those presented above. The subjects' signing also contained some ASL features. As with SE, the ASL features did not appear consistently throughout the subjects' signing of the s t o r i e s . Although Subject 1 used many English signs for pronouns, she also used ASL pronominal reference by pointing to the space to her l e f t or right. During dialogue, the subject used her body to assume the position of the speaker, and indicated a new speaker by changing her body position. The subject sometimes repeated a sign and combined the sign repetition with f a c i a l expression to show degree of meaning as well as duration. This subject made use of space to establish relationships between people and objects, used mime to restate old information, and used hand c l a s s i f i e r s to show people performing an action. Subject 2 used more of the ASL feature of pointing in space for pronominal reference than did Subject 1. He too shifted his body to assume the position of the speaker during dialogue as well as using space to es t a b l i s h relationships between people and objects. He used reduplication of a sign to express p l u r a l i t y . He used mime for stating a proposition which added new information to old 97 information. He used the f a c i a l expression of raised eyebrows combined with a forward body movement from the waist to indicate an interrogative statement. He used a verb sign simultaneously with a negative f a c i a l expresion and head shake to show negative aspect. Subject 3 used many of the same ASL features as Subjects 1 and 2. There was a strong use of ASL pronominal reference and the use of space to establish relationships. Subject 3 used hand c l a s s i f i e r s for people and objects, and mime to emphasize old information. He repeated signs to show degree of meaning as well as progressive verb tense. He executed d i r e c t i o n a l verb signs, showing an awareness of the combination of pronominal reference and verb movement to establish the agent of the action and the receiver. He, too, used his body to indicate the speaker in a dialogue. It would appear that a l l three subjects used both SE and ASL features in their signing of the st o r i e s . This is what the l i t e r a t u r e refers to as PSE. These findings seem to agree with those of Livingston (1983) who did a detailed study of the spontaneous signed expressions of seven students, ages 6 to 16, over a 15 month period. She, too, found that her deaf students used PSE which exhibited features of both ASL and English. It was interesting to note that one of the judges commented that two of the subjects' signing s k i l l s of the stories differed markedly from the way they sign outside of 98 school. Outside of school, they did not use as much English, and they did not use a lot of l i p movements for English speech sounds, but used l i p movements related to ASL features. It would be interesting to examine the signed expressions of these students in a soc i a l environment outside of school to note the s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences of signing s k i l l s in the two environments. 99 Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusions This p i l o t study investigated two questions: how much of a short story presented in an English Sign System do deaf students r e c a l l and what kind of signing s k i l l s do deaf students use in the r e t e l l i n g of a short story presented in English? Three profoundly deaf students from the provincial school for the deaf's off-campus program in a regular high school participated in the study. The students viewed a videotape of three different short stories signed in the Signed English system: one story per day, over three consecutive days. After viewing each story, the students were asked to sign the same story, using their own sign language, while being videotaped. To measure the students' r e c a l l , the number of main and minor story events that the students' included in their r e t e l l i n g of each story were tabulated. The measure for determining what kind of signing s k i l l s they had used was based on ratings on a ASL-SE 7-point continuum scale by judges s k i l l e d in ASL and SE. The findings of this study were as follows: 1. The subjects recalled more story main events than minor events. 2. The average of the subjects' r e c a l l score across stories was between 60% - 66% for the main events. 3. The students' signing s k i l l s reflected that of PSE and consisted of both ASL and SE grammatical features. 100 Implications and Suggestions for Future Research The percentage of the r e c a l l by the subjects in this story leaves the experimenter, as a teacher of the hearing impaired, curious about two other important pedagogically v a l i d questions for the classroom: (a) how much information are deaf students able to r e c a l l of Signed English presented material related to various school topics, many of which are not as simple as the stories in this study, and (b) what are the differences in r e c a l l between the better, average and less academic students? It must be remembered that the r e c a l l scores in this study were the scores of "good" academic students. It was interesting for the experimenter to note that one of the scorers, while attempting to score one subject's r e t e l l , thought that the r e t e l l i n g of that par t i c u l a r story must have belonged to one of the less English s k i l l e d students in the program, which was indeed not the case. So much of school learning involves r e c a l l i n g of signed presented information, that we as teachers need to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of learning this way for our students. It is known that rehearsal of material helps increase r e c a l l of o r a l l y presented material (Dunham & Levin, 1979; Petros & Hoving, 1980); hence, hearing students are encouraged to make notes during oral lectures. The deaf students need their eyes to watch the signs, and cannot take 101 advantage of this rehearsal strategy. Teachers of the hearing impaired generally use other rehearsal strategies such as asking questions that require the student to process the signed material more deeply and to look for interconnecting relationships. Another strategy for the teacher might be to chunk the lecture material, stopping aft e r each chunking period to give the student time to make his/her own notes. The fact that the deaf students themselves are signing PSE and that i t appears that their language models are doing the same (Marmor & P e t i t t o , 1979; Kluwin, 1981a) should be of concern to a l l educators in t o t a l communication programs. The concern should not take the form of blame, but the form of questioning the possible educational aspects of this s i t u a t i o n especially in relationship to the development of l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s . This is not to suggest that school administrators i n s i s t that teachers follow the current policy of Signed English in the s t r i c t e s t format. B i o l o g i c a l l y , this might not be possible to do in a natural communicative environment. However, i t surely would seem that some form of consistency would be better than none! Further, as educators of the hearing impaired, we are also responsible to prepare our students to become members of the deaf community. It seems timely to ask ourselves, why we do not have ASL in the school curriculum. Our students have a right not only to learn English but also American Sign 102 Language, and to know that the two are d i f f e r e n t , yet both serve the same communicative function of language. The experimenter is aware that there are no easy solutions to these issues; however, the time to attempt a solution is now, not tomorrow. Good solutions can be derived from good research, and the area of English sign systems, ASL, and PSE demands further investigation. S p e c i f i c a l l y this p i l o t study has shown the need for more research In the following areas: 1. To ascertain the differences and/or s i m i l a r i t i e s in the r e c a l l of a short story presented in Signed English, ASL and PSE. 2. To discover the differences and/or s i m i l a r i t i e s in the r e c a l l s k i l l s of deaf students and their hearing peers for the same oral prose material. 3. To delineate the differences and/or s i m i l a r i t e s in the r e c a l l of a variety of oral prose material presented to deaf students. 4. To describe and compare the signing s k i l l s of deaf students in school and in s o c i a l situations. 103 References Andersen, R.W. (1981). Two perspectives on pidginization as second language a c q u i s i t i o n . In R.W. Andersen (Ed.), New dimension in second language acqu i s i t i o n research (pp. 165-195). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publisher. Anken, J.R., & Holmes, D.W. (1977). Use of adapted classics i n a reading program for deaf students. American Annals  of the Deaf. 122, 8-14. Anthony, D.A. (Ed.). (1971). Seeing Esse n t i a l English/manual. Anahein, CA: Anaheim Union High School D i s t r i c t . Arnold, P. (1984). The education of the deaf c h i l d : For integration or autonomy? American Annals of the Deaf,  129, 29-37. Baker, C L . (1976). What's not on the other hand in American Sign Language. In S.S. Mufwene, C.A. Walker, and S.B. Steever (Eds.), Papers from the Twelfth Regional Meeting  Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society. Chicago: Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society. Baker, C., & Cokely, D. (1980). American Sign Language: A teacher's resource text on grammar and culture. S i l v e r Spring, MD: T.J. Publishers. Baker, C., & Padden C. (1978). American Sign Language: A look at i t s history, structure, and community. Si l v e r Spring, MD: T.J. Publishers. Balow, I.H., & B r i l l , R.G. (1975). An evaluation of reading and academic achievement levels of 16 graduating classes of the C a l i f o r n i a School for the Deaf, Riverside. The  Volta Review, 77, 255-266. Battison, R. (1978). L e x i c a l borrowing in American Sign  Language. Si l v e r Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Battison, R., & Jordon, I.K. (1976). Cross c u l t u r a l communication with foreign signers: Fact and fancy. Sign Language Studies, 10, 53-68. B e l l u g i , U. (1971). S i m p l i f i c a t i o n in children's language. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acqu i s i t i o n :  models & methods (pp. 95-117). New York: Academic Press. 104 B e l l u g i , U. (1975). Attitudes toward sign language: Is there a need for change? In B. Florence & A.B. Crammatte (Eds.), VII World Congress of the Federation of the Deaf (pp. 266-273). Maryland: National Association of the Deaf. B e l l u g i , U. (1980). Clues from the s i m i l a r i t i e s between signed and spoken language. In U. Bellugi & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Signed and spoken language:  B i o l o g i c a l constraints on l i n g u i s t i c form" (pp. 115-139). West B e r l i n : Verlag Chemie. B e l l u g i , U., & Fischer, S. (1972). A comparison of sign language and spoken language. Cognition, 1, 173-200. B e l l u g i , U. & Klima, E.S. (1975) Aspects of sign language and i t s structure. In J.F. Kavanagh & E. Cutting (Eds.), The role of speech in language (pp. 174-203). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T Press. Bolton, B. (Ed.) (1976). Psychology of deafness for r e h a b i l i t a t i o n counselors. Maryland: University Park Press. B o n v i l l i a n , J.D., Nelson, K.E., & Charrow, V.R. (1976). Language and language related s k i l l s in deaf and hearing children. Sign Language Studies, 12, 211-250. Bornstein, H.A. (1973). A description of some current sign systems designed to represent English. American Annals  of the Deaf, 3, 454-463. Bornstein, H. (1982). Towards a theory of use for Signed English: From birth through childhood. American Annals  of the Deaf. 127, 26-31. Bornstein, H., Hamilton, L.B., Saulnier, K.L., & Roy H.L. (Eds.). (1975). The Signed English dictionary: For  preschool and elementary l e v e l s . Washington, DC: Gallaudet Press. Bornstein, H., & Saulnier, K.L. (1981). Signed English: A brief follow-up to the f i r s t evaluation. American  Annals of the Deaf, 121, 69-72. Bornstein, H., Saulnier, K.L., & Hamilton, L.B. (1980). Signed English: A f i r s t evaluation. American Annals of  the Deaf, 125, 467-481. Bornstein, H., Woodward, J.C., & T u l l y , N. (1976). Language 105 and communication. In B. Bolton (Ed.), Psychology of  deafness for r e h a b i l i t a t i o n (pp. 19-41). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Botel, M., Dawkins, J., & Granowsky, A. (1973). A syntactic complexity formula. In W.H. MacGinitie (Ed.), Assessment problems in reading (pp. 77-86). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Bragg, B. (1973). Ameslish - our American heritage. American Annals of the Deaf, 118, 672-674. Brasel, K., & Quigley, S. (1977). The influence of certain language and communication environments in early childhood on the development of language in deaf i n d i v i d u a l s . The Journal of Speech & Hearing Research,  20, 95-107. Brown, R.W., & B e l l u g i , U. (1964). Three processes in the child's acquisition of syntax. Harvard Educational  Review, 34, 133-151. Charrow, V.R. (1975). A psycho1inguistic analysis of "Deaf English". Sign Language Studies, 7, 139-150. Cicourel, A.V., & Boese, R.J. (1972a). Sign language acq u i s i t i o n and the teaching of deaf children, part I. American Annals of the Deaf. 117, 27-33. Cicourel, A.V., & Boese, R.J. (1972b). Sign language ac q u i s i t i o n and the teaching of deaf children, part I I . American Annals of the Deaf, 117, 403-411. Claro, J. (Ed.). (1974). C h i l l e r s and t h r i l l e r s : Scope/reading s k i l l s 4 (pp. 64-70, 82-85). New York: Scholastic Book Services. Cohen, O.P. (1978). The deaf adolescent: Who am I? The  Volta Review, 80, 263-274. Collins-Ahlgren, M. (1975). Language development of two deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 120, 524-539. Conlin, D, & Paivio, A. (1975). The associative learning of the deaf: The effects of word imagery and s i g n a b i l i t y . Memory & Cognition, 3, 335-340. Cokely, D., & Gawlik, R. (1974). Option II: Childrenese as pidgin. Sign Language Studies, 5, 72-82. Cr y s t a l , D., & Craig, E. (1978) Contrived sign language. In 106 I.M. Schlesinger & L. Namir (Eds.), Sign language of the  deaf; Psychological, l i n g u i s t i c , and s o c i o l o g i c a l  perspectives (pp. 141-168). New York: Academic Press. Dalgleisch, B. (1977). Systematically i n f l e c t e d versus grapheme modified signing: An educational viewpoint. Exceptional Child, 24, 73-78. Doehring, D.G. (1976). Reading theories and hearing impairment. In S.K. Hirsh, D.H. Eldredge, I.J. HirBh, & S.R. Silverman (Eds.), Hearing and Davis: Essays  honoring Hallowell Davis. Missouri: Washington University Press. Dunham, T.C. & Levin, J.R. (1979). Imagery instructions and young children's prose learning: No evidence of "support". Comtemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 107-113. Edge, V.L., & Herrmann, L. (1977). Verbs and the determination of subject in American Sign Language. In L.A. Friedman (Ed.), On the other hand: New perspectives  on American Sign Language (pp.137-179). New York: Academic Press. Erting, C. ( 1978). Language policy and deaf e t h n i c i t y . Sign  Language Studies, 19, 139-152. Fenn, G. (1976). Development of language in profoundly deaf children through the medium of manual signs. Sign  Language Studies, 11, 109-120. Fischer, S. (1973). Two processes of reduplication in American Sign Language. Foundations i n Language, 9, 469-480. Fischer, S. (1975). Influences on word order change in American Sign Language. In C.N. L i (Ed.), Word order  and word order change (pp. 1-25). Austin: University of Texas Press. Fischer, S. (1978). Sign language and creole. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language  research (pp. 309-331).New York: Academic Press. Friedman, L.A. (1975). Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language. Language, 51, 940-961. Friedman, L.A. (1976). The manifestation of subject, object, and topic in American Sign Language. In C. L i (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 125-148). New York: Academic 107 Press. F r i s i n a , R. (1975). Report of the ad hoc committee to define deaf and hard of hearing for educational purposes [Summary]. American Annals of the Deaf, 120, 509-512. Furth, H.W. (1966). A comparison of reading test norms for deaf and hearing children. American Annals of the Deaf,  111, 461-462. Gallaudet College (1971). Annual survey of hearing impaired  children and youth (Series D, No. 9, Spring). Washington, DC: Office of the Demographic Studies. Goodman, Y.M. & Burke, C.L. (1971). Reading miscue inventory  - manual - procedure for diagnosis and evaluation. Toronto, Ontario: Macmillan Publishing Co. G r i f f i t h , P.L. (1980). Sign systems for normal children: What teachers need to know. Journal of Childhood  Communication Disorders, 4, 99-110. Grosjean, F. (1979a). The production of sign language: psycholinguistic perspectives. Sign Language Studies,  2 5 , 317-329. Grosjean, F. (1979b). A study of timing in a manual and a spoken language: American Sign Language and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8, 379-405. Gustason, G., Pfetzing, D, & Zawolkow, E. (1972). Signing  Exact English. Rossmoor, CA: Modern Signs Press. Hargis, CH. (1970). The relationship of available i n s t r u c t i o n a l reading materials to deficiency in reading achievement. American Annals of the Deaf, 115, 27-29. Hargis, C.H., Evans, C.C, & Masters, C. ( 1973). A c r i t i c i s m of the direct discourse form in primary level basal readers. The Volta Review, 75, 557-563. Hart, B.O. (1975). Learning to read begins at b i r t h . The  Volta Review, 77, 168-172. Hart, B.O. (1978). Teaching reading to deaf children. Washington, DC: The Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf. Hazard, E. (1971). Lipreading for the oral deaf and hard of  hearing person. I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas. 108 Higgins, E. (1973). An analysis of the comprehensibility of three communication methods used with hearing impaired students. American Annals of the Deaf, 118, 46-49. Hoemann, H.W. (1978). Communicating with deaf people: A resource manual for teachers and students of American  Sign Language. Baltimore: University Park Press. Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Jones, P.A. (1979). Negative interference of signed language in written English. Sign Language Studies, 24, 273-279. Kannapell, B.M. (1974). Bilingualism: A new dire c t i o n in education of the deaf. The Deaf American, 26, 9-15. Kannapell, B.M. (1982). Inside the deaf community. Deaf  American, 34, 23-26. Ke l l y , R. (1978). Hemispheric s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of deaf children: Are there any implications for instruction? American Annals of the Deaf, 12 3, 637-645. Klima, E.S., & B e l l u g i , U. (1979). The signs of language. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Kluwin, T.N. (1981a). The grammaticality of manual representations of English in classroom settings. American Annals of the Deaf, 126, 447-421. Kluwin, T.N. (1981b). A rationale for modifying classroom signing systems. Sign Language Studies, 31, 179-187. Layton, T., Schmucker, K.J., & Holmes, D.W. (1979). Vocabulary and syntactic structures in the adapted c l a s s i c readers for deaf children. American Annals of  the Deaf, 124, 433-443. Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). B i o l o g i c a l foundations of language. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Levelt, W.J.M. (1980). On-line processing constraints on the properties of signed and spoken language. In U. Bellugi & M. Studdert-Kennedy, Signed and spoken language:  B i o l o g i c a l constraints on l i n g u i s t i c form (pp. 141-160). West Ber l i n : Verlag Chemie. L i d d e l l , S.K. (1978). Nonmanual signals and relat i v e clauses i n American Sign Language. In P. Siple (Ed.), 109 Understanding language through sign languge research. New York: Academic Press. Livingston, S. (1983). Levels of development in the language of deaf children: ASL grammatical processes, Signed English structures, semantic features. Sign Language  Studies, 40, 193-286. Mandell, M. (1977). Iconic devices in American Sign Language. In L.A. Friedman (Ed.), On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language (pp. 57-107). New York: Academic Press. Mandler, J.M. (1978). A code in the node: the use of a story schema in r e t r i e v a l . Discourse Processes, 1, 14-35. Mandler, J.M., & Johnson, N.S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: story structure and r e c a l l . Cognitive  Psychology, 9, 111-151. Marmor, G.S. & P e t i t t o , L. (1979). Simultaneous communication in the classroom: How well is English grammar represented? Sign Language Studies, 22, 99-135. Mayberry, R. (1978). French Canadian Sign Language: A study of in t e r - s i g n language comprehension. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language  research. New York: Academic Press. Mclntire, M. (1983). Constituent order and location in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 3 7, 345-386. Meadow, K. (1972). S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s , sign language and the deaf sub-culture. In T.J. O'Rourke (Ed.), Psycholinguistics and t o t a l communication (pp. 19-33). Washington: American Annals of the Deaf. Meadow, K.M. (1975). A developmental perspective on the use of manual communication with deaf children. In Royal National Institute for the Deaf, Methods of  communication currently used i n the education of deaf  children (pp. 87-98). Hertfordshire: Garden City Press. Meyer, B.J. (1975). The organization of prose and i t s  effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Meyer, B.J., & McConkie, G.W. (1973). What is recalled after hearing a passage? Journal of Educational Psychology,  65, 109-117. 110 Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium (MECC). (1982). Finding r e a d a b i l i t y levels [Computer Program]. Minnesota. (MECC School U t i l i t i e s Vol. 2, Version 1) M i t c h e l l , G.S. (1978). - Can deaf children acquire English? An evaluation of manually coded English systems in terms of the principles of language acq u i s i t i o n . American  Annals of the Deaf, 127 , 331-336. Murphy, H.J., & Fleischer, L.R. (1977). The effects of ameslan versus s i g l l s h upon test scores. Journal of  Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 11, 15-18. N e v i l l e , H.J., & B e l l u g i , U. (1978). Patterns of cerebral s p e c i a l i z a t i o n in congenitally deaf adults: A preliminary report. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding  language through sign language research (pp.239-255). New York: Academic Press. Newport, E.L., & Supalla, T. (1980). Clues from the acq u i s i t i o n of signed and spoken language. In U. Bell u g i & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Signed and spoken  language: b i o l o g i c a l constraints on l i n g u i s t i c form (pp. 180-207). West B e r l i n : Verlag Chemie. Olson, J.R. (1972). A case for the use of sign language to stimulate language development during the c r i t i c a l period for learning in a congenitally deaf c h i l d . American Annals of the Deaf, 117, 397-400. Paivio, A. (1978). On exploring visual knowledge. In B.S. Randhawa & W.E. Coffman, Visual learning, thinking, and  communication (pp. 113-131). New York: Academic Press. Parasnis, I. (1979). Imagery effects and memory for signs and words. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association in San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 176 427). Paris, S.G. & Lindauer, B.K. (1977). Constructive aspects of children's comprehension and memory. In R.V. K a i l , J r . & J.W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the development of  memory and cognition (pp. 35-60). New York: Erlbaum. Petros, T. & Hoving, K. (1980). The effects of review on young children's memory for prose. Journal of  Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 33-43. Pronovost, W.L. (1978). Communicating with the I l l world-at-large. The Volta Review, 80, 301-318. Ra f f i n , M.J., Davis, J.M., & Gilman, L.A. (1978). Comprehension of i n f l e c t i o n a l morphemes by deaf children exposed to a visual English sign system. Journal of  Speech & Hearing Research, 21, 387-400. Reich, P., & Bick, M. (1976). An empirical investigation of some claims made in support of v i s i b l e English. American Annals of the Deaf, 121, 573-577. Reich, P.A., & Bick, M. (1977). How v i s i b l e is v i s i b l e English? Sign Language Studies, 121 573-577. R e i l l y , J., & Mclntire, M.L. (1980). American Sign Language and Pidgin Sign English: What's the difference? Sign  Language Studies, 27, 151-192. Reimer, B.L. (1979). A viable classroom model for using various communication modes. American Annals of the  Deaf, 124 838-846. Rumelhart, D.E. (1975). Notes on a schema for s t o r i e s . In D.G. Bobrow & A. Co l l i n s (Eds.), Representation and  understanding: studies i n cognitive science (pp. 211-236). New York: Academic Press. Russell, W.K., Quigley, S.P., & Power, D.J. (1976). L i n g u i s t i c s and deaf children: transformational syntax  and i t s application. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham B e l l Association for the Deaf. Sip l e , P. (Ed.) (1978). Understanding language through sign  language research. New York: Academic Press. Stewart, D.A. (1982). The opinions of the adult deaf  community towards methods of communication in the  education of deaf children. Unpublished master's thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Stokoe, W.C., J r . (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American deaf. Studies i n L i n g u i s t i c s Occasion Papers  No. 8. Buffalo: University of Buffalo Press. Stokoe, W.C. (1970). Sign language d i g l o s s i a . Studies i n  L i n g u i s t i c s , 21, 27-41. Stokoe, W.C. (1972). Semiotics and human sign languages. The Hague: Mouton. 112 Stokoe, W.C. (1976). The study and use of sign language. Sign Language Studies. 10, 1-36. Stokoe, W.C. (1978). Sign Language Structure. Silver Springs, MD: Linstok Press. Stokoe, W.C. (1981). The study and use of sign language. In M.L. Sternberg, American Sign Language: A comprehensive  dictionary (pp. x i - x x x v i i ) . New York: Harper fie Row. Streng, A.H. (1972). Syntax, speech & hearing: Applied l i n g u i s t i c s for teachers of children with language and  hearing d i s a b i l i t i e s . New York: Grune & Stratton. Stuckless, E.R. (1978). Technology and visual processing of verbal information by deaf people. American Annals of  the Deaf. 123, 630-636. Thorndyke, P.W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110. Vernon, M. (1969). Soci o l o g i c a l and psychological factors associated with hearing loss. Journal of Speech &  Hearing Research, 12, 541-563. Vernon, M., & Koh, S.D. (1970). Early manual communication and deaf children's achievement. American Annals of the Deaf, 115, 527-536. Wampler, D. (1971). Lingustics of visu a l English. Santa Rosa: Aurally Handicapped Programs, Santa Rosa City Schools. Wilbur, R.B. (1979). American sign language and sign  systems. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Williams, C.H. (Ed.). (1976). Language and communication research problems. Proceeding of the Second Gallaudet  Symposium on Research i n Deafness (pp. 3-6). Washington, DC: Gallaudet College. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 138 020) Woodward, J. (1973). Some chara c t e r i s t i c s of Pidgin Sign English. Sign Language Studies, 3, 39-46. 113 Appendix A Sign Transcription Symbols1 Symbol Example Explanation CAPITAL LETTERS YESTERDAY An English word in capit a l l e t t e r s represents an ASL sign; this word is called a gloss. P-A-T An English word that has hyphenated capital l e t t e r s represents an English word that is fingerspelled. HAVE-TO Two English words that are represented by one sign. + BOOK+ When a plus sign follows a gloss, this indicates that sign is repeated. In this example the repetition shows p l u r a l i t y . BOOK+S A plus sign followed by a capita l l e t t e r ( s ) or a word indicates the addition of an English sign marker. - r t - I f P-A-T-rt SECRETARY-lf The symbol rt means the space to the Signer's r i g h t , and l_f , the space to the Signer's l e f t . When a sign i s made toward a particular d i r e c t i o n , that place is indicated after the gloss. These symbols can also be written before a gloss to show where the sign begins. From Baker and Cokely, 1980, p. 3 and 9. 114 lower case me-GIVE-you words pat-GIVE-lf Lower case words connected to a verb gloss indicate where the verb sign begins and ends. These s p e c i f i c words are not used u n t i l the things that they represent have been given a sp a t i a l location. 115 Appendix B The Written Versions of the Three Stories Story A Jim worked at B i l l ' s store for three years. Then one day Jim decided to quit his job at the store. About a year l a t e r , B i l l was walking down a street when he saw a young man. The man seemed depressed and sick. He was very thin and his clothes were old. He looked l i k e he might be broke. Suddenly, B i l l realized that the young man was Jim. B i l l offered Jim his old job back because Jim had been a good worker. Jim was very thankful and accepted the job. Every year B i l l had a party for the people who worked in B i l l ' s store. B i l l was too busy to attend but Jim went to the big party. The same night as the party, B i l l had a strange dream. He dreamed that Jim was talking to him about something very important. Jim said that people blamed him for something, but that he did not do i t . Jim did not want B i l l to think that he was g u i l t y of i t . Jim said that he was innocent. After the party, Jim did not go to work for several days. He never phoned B i l l to explain why he wasn't coming to work. F i n a l l y , B i l l began to worry about Jim. He tr i e d to contact Jim but was not successful. He phoned the police. He asked the police to find out what had happened to Jim. When B i l l arrived home from work, his wife informed him that something t e r r i b l e had happened. The police said that Jim had k i l l e d himself. It happened right after the party. B i l l thought about the dream that he had the night of the party. B i l l told his wife that the police were wrong about Jim's death. B i l l did not believe that Jim k i l l e d himself. B i l l told the police to investigate Jim's death more. The police later found out that they had made a mistake. Jim's death had been an accident. Jim l e f t the party with a bottle and went home. He thought that i t was a bottle of alcohol, but i t was r e a l l y poison. Jim had a drink from the bottle and the poison k i l l e d him. When the police found his body, they thought that he had k i l l e d himself. So, on the night of Jim's death, his ghost came back in B i l l ' s dream. Jim's ghost told B i l l that Jim did not k i l l himself. See Claro, 1974, for the o r i g i n a l source of the s t o r i e s . 116 Story B B i l l invited his friends, John and Ken, to v i s i t him. While John and Ken were driving to B i l l ' s , i t began to snow. John and Ken became lost in the deep snow. Ken noticed a l i g h t a few miles away, so they drove toward i t . They soon came to a large metal gate. A huge house was behind the metal gate, at the top of a h i l l . Some lights were on in the house. They opened the gate and drove up to the house. Ken went to ask for directions and John stayed in the car. Ken went to the front door and rang the doorbell. A man answered the door. When Ken finished talking to the man, he gave the man something. Then Ken went back to the car. The man had _ explained how they could get to B i l l ' s house. John asked Ken what he had given the man. Ken told John that he had given the man a coin for his help. The two men followed the man's directions. They arrived at B i l l ' s house late that night. They explained to B i l l what had happened. They told B i l l about getting l o s t , the house, the man, and the coin. B i l l listened to a l l of their story. When they had finished, B i l l told them that he did not believe a word of i t . B i l l said that they couldn't have v i s i t e d that house because i t burned to the ground 20 years ago. So the next morning, the three of them drove to the house to see i f i t was there. When they reached the gate, i t was locked. It looked l i k e i t had not been opened for years. The men looked up the driveway, but did not see a house at the top of the h i l l . They only saw the house that had burned down. Then they noticed car t i r e tracks that continued up the driveway. The gate was locked, but the tracks did go up to the house. The tracks, also, went back down to the gate. The tracks proved that a car had been there. The three men ran to the top of the h i l l . They found clear footprints that went to the house and away from i t . They found the most surprising thing of a l l at the door of the burned house. Something was brightly shining in the snow. It was the coin that Ken had given the man. Story C Bob loved Sue very much but his family did not want him to marry her. His relatives would take away a l l of his money i f he married her. Bob and Sue married anyway. After the wedding, they went to v i s i t Bob's relatives in France. They wanted his family to meet Sue, but his family was not nice to Sue. His rel a t i v e s thought that Sue did not r e a l l y love Bob. They said that she only wanted his money. Then one day a t e r r i b l e thing happened. Bob had a heart 117 attack and died. His family ordered Sue to leave the country. Sue kept the jewelry and clothes that she was wearing. Bob's family permitted Sue to keep nothing else. Sue decided to go to England and a lucky thing happened to her there. One day she was talking to a woman when the woman suddenly sat up straight and became very s t i f f . The woman told Sue that she had a message for her. The message was from her dead husband. The woman began writing very fast on a piece of paper. The woman wrote the address of a bank, a man's name, and a number on the paper. Sue went to the bank and she asked for the man. She showed the man the number. He gave her a special box that matched the number. She found money, diamonds, car keys, and the address of a garage inside the box. She went to the garage and gave the car keys to a mechanic. The mechanic went to get the car that matched the keys. She found another box inside the car. There were more money, more diamonds, and a l e t t e r inside this box. Sue's husband had written the l e t t e r before he died. The l e t t e r explained that Bob knew that his rel a t i v e s would cheat Sue. They would keep his money and diamonds and give Sue nothing. But Bob wanted Sue to have his money and valuable diamonds. Bob had an idea. He decided to hide his money and diamonds from his r e l a t i v e s . He would t e l l Sue where he had hidden his money and diamonds. This way Sue would be able to have his money and diamonds. But Bob died before he gave the l e t t e r to his lawyer. So Bob's ghost returned from the dead. His ghost told Sue where she would find the money, the valuable diamonds, and the l e t t e r . 118 Appendix C Main and Minor Events - Recall Checklists Story A Main events 1. Jim worked at a store 2. the store was B i l l ' s 3. Jim quit his job 4. Later 5. B i l l saw a man 6. B i l l realized that the man was Jim 7. B i l l offered Jim back his old job 8. Jim accepted the job 9. There was a party 10. Jim went to the party 11. The same night as the party 12. B i l l had a dream 13. The dream was about Jim 14. In the dream Jim said that people blamed him for something 15. In the dream Jim said that he did not do i t 16. Jim did not go to work 17. B i l l began to worry about Jim Minor Events 1. for three years 2. about a year later 3. B i l l was walking 4. down a street 5. the man seemed poor (seemed broke, clothes old) 6. the man- seemed sick (thin) 7. the man seemed depressed 8. because Jim had been a good worker 9. Jim was thankful 10. It was B i l l ' s party 11. for the people who worked in his store 12. B i l l didn't attend 13. because he was too busy 14. Jim was talking about something important 15. Jim did not want B i l l to think that he was g u i l t y 16. After the party (time indicator) 17. He was away from work for several days 18. Jim never phoned 19. B i l l t r i e d to contact Jim 119 18. B i l l phoned the police 19. 20. 21 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, that the police said that Jim k i l l e d himself B i l l did not beleive that Jim k i l l e d himself because of his dream about Jim B i l l told the police to further investigate Jim's death The police found out that Jim's death had been an accident Jim l e f t the party with a bottle He thought that i t was a bottle of alcohol but i t was re a l l y poison Jim's ghost told B i l l that Jim did not k i l l himself 20. B i l l was not successful 21. B i l l asked the police to find out what happened to Jim 22. When B i l l arrived home from work 23. his wife informed him 24. right after the party 25. B i l l told his wife that the police were wrong 26. He went home 27. On the night of Jim's death 28. Jim's ghost appeared in B i l l ' s dream Story B Main Events Minor Events 1. B i l l invited his friends to v i s i t 2. His friends were John and Ken 3. While John and Ken were driving 4. It was snowing (or in the snow) 5. Ken and John became lost 6. Ken noticed a light 7. The li g h t was a few miles away 8. So they drove toward i t 9. They came to a large metal gate 10. There was a house 1, 2, 3, 4 driving to B i l l ' s the snow was deep the house was huge At the top of a h i l l 120 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 , 22 23, 24, 25, 26, Some lig h t s were on in the house They drove up to the house Ken went to the front door A man answered the door and explained how to get to B i l l ' s house Ken gave the man a coin 5, 6, They arrived at B i l l ' s hous e They told B i l l about getting lost the house the man and the coin B i l l told them that he did not believe a word of because the house burned to the ground the three of them drove to the house The gate was locked They did not see a house Then they noticed car t i r e tracks 27. They found clear footprints 28. They found a coin 29. It was the coin that Ken had given the man 7. 8, 9, 10, 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. They opened the gate and rang the doorbell for his help Then Ken went back to the car John asked Ken what had given the man Ken told John that he had given the man a coin late that night twenty years ago So the next morning It looked li k e i t had not been opened for years They only saw the house that had burned down the tracks went to and from the house The tracks proved that a car had been"there The three men ran to the top of the h i l l that went to the house and away from i t at the door of the burned house brightly shining in the snow 121 Story C Main Events 1 . Bob loved Sue 2. His family did not want him to marry her 3. Bob and Sue married anyway 4. They went to v i s i t r e l a t i v e s 5. The relatives were Bob's 6. His family was not nice to Sue 7. His r e l a t i v e s thought that Sue only wanted Bob's money 8. Bob had a heart attack 9. and died 10. Bob's family permitted Sue to keep very l i t t l e 11. One day she was talking to a woman 12. The woman told Sue that she had a message for her 13. The message was from her dead husband 14. The woman wrote the address of a bank 15. a man's name 16. and a number 17. She went to the bank 18. She showed the man the number 19. He gave her a special box 20. She found money 21. diamonds 22. car keys 23. and the address of a Minor Events 1. His relatives would take away a l l of his money 2. i f he married Sue 3. After the wedding 4. in France 5. Bob wanted his family to meet Sue 6. His relatives thought that Sue did not r e a l l y love Bob 7. His family ordered Sue to leave the country 8. Sue kept her jewelry and clothes that she was wearing 9. Sue decided to go to England 10. A lucky thing happened to her there 11. When the woman suddenly sat up straight and became s t i f f 12. The woman began writing fast 13. on a piece of paper 14. She asked for the man 15. that matched the number 16. inside the box 122 garage 24. She went to the garage 25. Inside the car 26. She found another box 27. with more money 28. more diamonds 29. and a l e t t e r 30. Sue's husband had written the l e t t e r 31. The l e t t e r explained that Bob knew that his rela t i v e s would cheat Sue 32. Bob wanted Sue to have his money and valuable diamonds 33. He decided to hide his money and diamonds 34. He would t e l l Sue where he had hidden his money and diamonds 35. But Bob died 36. So Bob's ghost returned from the dead 37. to inform Sue where she could find the money, the valuable diamonds, and the l e t t e r 17. She gave the car keys to a mechanic 18. The mechanic went to get the car 19. inside this box 20. 21. They would keep his money and diamonds They would give Sue nothing 22. from his relatives 23. before he gave the l e t t e r to his lawyer 123 Appendix D Rating Scale and Rating Guide Directions: Mark on the following scale what kind of sign language the student uses. Rating Scale Subj. , Day , Story 1 2 3 4 5 7 ASL SE Rating Guide 1 = 90 to 100% ASL 7 = 90 to 100% Signed English (SE) 2 = 75% ASL 6 = 75% SE 3 = 65% ASL 5 -•• 65% SE 4 - 50% ASL + 50% SE 124 Appendix E Table E-l Subjects' Raw Re t e l l Scores For Each Story By Each Scorer Story A3 b Story B Story CC Subjects Events 1 Scorers 2 3 Scorers 1 2 3 1 Scorers 2 3 1 Main 14 14 16 18.5 17.5 21 24 24 23.5 Minor 9.5 8.5 9 9 10 10.5 5 4 5.5 2 Main 18.5 19 21 17.5 18.5 19 19.5 22 22.5 Minor 17 17 17 6 6 8 5.5 4.5 5 3 Main 17.5 18 18 19 20 21.5 16 15 18 Minor 12 10 13.5 11 10 12 3 2 3 Note. 3 Maximum main events equals 27; minor,28 M^aximum main events c equals 29; minor, 22. Maximum main events equals 37; minor,23. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096290/manifest

Comment

Related Items