Deaf and sign and english grammar

People with relatively limited English language proficiency find the Internet's cancer and health information difficult to access and understand. The presence of unfamiliar words and complex grammar make this particularly difficult for Deaf people. Unfortunately, current technology does not support low-cost, accurate translations of online materials into American Sign Language. However, current technology is relatively more advanced in allowing text simplification, while retaining content. This research team developed a two-step approach for simplifying cancer and other health text...

Nonstandard grammatical forms are often present in the writing of deaf students that are rarely, if ever, seen in the writing of hearing students. With the implementation of Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI) in previous studies, students have demonstrated significant gains in high-level writing skills (e.g., text structure) but have also made gains with English grammar skills. This 1-year study expands on prior research by longitudinally examining the written language growth (i.e., writing length, sentence complexity, sentence awareness, and function words) of 29 deaf middle-school students...

Teachers of deaf and hard of hearing students must serve as language models for their students. However, preservice deaf education teachers typically have at most only four semesters of American Sign Language (ASL) training. How can their limited ASL instructional time be used to increase their proficiency? Studies involving deaf and hard of hearing students have revealed that glosses (written equivalents of ASL sentences) can serve as "bridges" between ASL and English. The study investigated whether glossing instruction can facilitate hearing students' learning of ASL...

It is known that in American Sign Language (ASL) span is shorter than in English, but this discrepancy has never been systematically investigated using other pairs of signed and spoken languages. This finding is at odds with results showing that short-term memory (STM) for signs has an internal organization similar to STM for words. Moreover, some methodological questions remain open. Thus, we measured span of deaf and matched hearing participants for Italian Sign Language (LIS) and Italian, respectively, controlling for all the possible variables that might be responsible for the discrepancy: yet, a difference in span between deaf signers and hearing speakers was found...

English language achievement of 29 prelingually deaf children with 3 or more years of cochlear implant (CI) experience was compared to the achievement levels of prelingually deaf children who did not have such CI experience. Language achievement was measured by the Rhode Island Test of Language Structure (RITLS), a measure of signed and spoken sentence comprehension, and the Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn), a measure of expressive (signed and spoken) English grammar. When the CI users were compared with their deaf age mates who contributed to the norms of the RITLS, it was found that CI users achieved significantly better scores...

Seventy-nine profoundly deaf 8 to 12-year-olds were tested for comprehension of spoken, written and signed (Paget-Gorman Sign System, PGSS) English grammatical contrasts. Understanding of spoken language was below the 4-year-old level, with few deaf children understanding enough vocabulary to attempt the test. On written and signed forms, many children responded to content words with little understanding of grammar. Others would interpret word order sequentially, producing characteristic errors. PGSS can provide a viable communication channel and does not hinder oral or written language acquisition, but it does not overcome the grammatical problems of deaf children...