Modality effects and modularity in language acquisition: The acquisition of American Sign Language.
| Number | 1167 |
|---|---|
| Year | 1999 |
| Drawer | 22 |
| Entry Date | 06/19/2000 |
| Authors | Lillo-Martin, Diane. |
| Contact | |
| Publication | In T. Bhatia, & W. Ritchie (Eds.) Handbook of child language acquisition. Academic Press, pp. 531-567. |
| url | http://www.haskins.yale.edu/Reprints/HL1167.pdf |
| Abstract | [Introduction] There have been two main themes in studies on the acquisition of American Sign Language (ASL) over the past 20 years. One is exemplified in the following quotation: The purpose of this paper is to argue for the inherent interest to linguistic theory of the acquisition of sign language by deaf children. (Gee & Goodhart, 1985, p.291) The second theme is related to the first, although in some instantiations the two could be considered contradictory. Two relevant quotes follow: One might have every reason to believe that such surfact differences between signed and spoked languages might influence the course of language acquisition...the change in transmission system (from the ear to the eye, from the vocal apparatus to the hand) might in itself be expected to influence the course of acquisition. (Bellugi & Klima, 1982, p.3) The modality in which the language is conveyed plays a significant role in language learning. (Reilly, McIntire, & Bellugie, 1991, p.22) It might be thought that the modality difference between signed and spoken languages makes signed languages uninteresting to linguistic theory. What responsibility should linguistic theory have to a communication system that does not even uses speech, a feature that many have considered a fundamental property of language? |
| Notes |
Search Publications