Laurence Beaujard
Marie Perini- Department of Language Sciences, University Paris 8 & CNRS, Saint-Denis, France
In this mini-review, we investigate the role sign language (SL) might play in the development of deaf learners' reading skills. Since Stokoe's recognition, in the 1960s, of American Sign Language (ASL) as a language in its own right, the ASL has been progressively included in the research on the development of reading in the deaf, but with different statuses. Two contrasting paradigms can thus be identified in the literature. The first considers that sign language (SL) plays an indirect role in the development of reading skills. In line with the dominant psycholinguistic model of reading acquisition in hearing children, the authors consider that deaf children must first develop phonological representations in order to learn to read, like their hearing peers. For the authors of the second paradigm, SL plays a direct and central role in deaf children's access to reading as long as an appropriate visual (rather than phonological) mediation is made between the SL and the written language. We propose to present an overview of studies in both paradigms, in the American and French contexts. Then, we defend the idea of a “deaf norm”, operating both in SL structuring and in information processing in general, justifying the central position that SL must have in any learning by deaf people. We will conclude by outlining some promising avenues for teaching reading to deaf learners.
Introduction
The importance of a sign language (SL) for a true social inclusion of deaf people is now well recognized in major international texts1. However, the interest of using SL in the schooling of young deaf people and in particular for teaching them writing and reading is strongly discussed. Can SLs, as visual-gestural and multilinear languages, provide access to an alphabetic type written language, which is based on the matching of graphic and phonetic units?2
Many authors consider deaf students' phonological skills in spoken language to be a prerequisite to their access to literacy, thus minimizing the role of SL in this process. In contrast, some other authors have shown that SL skills would be a stronger predictor of literacy skills (e.g., Goldin-Meadow and Mayberry, 2001; Mayberry et al., 2011; Humphries, 2013). The key question, then, is whether deaf people learn to read in the same way as hearing people. Should “mainstream” models of learning to read be a single standard, to which all learners, regardless of who they are, must conform? Or should specific models be proposed to best account for deaf-specific pathways to reading? The place given to SLs in models of learning to read among the deaf is indicative of this dichotomy between following or breaking away from a majority model. It should be noted here that for us, learning to read does not stop at identifying words; we prefer the concept of literacy which include, according to Barré-de Miniac et al. (2004), not only reading and writing, but also their function and use in multiple contexts.
After an overview of recent representative American and French studies on this issue, we highlight recent lines of inquiry supporting our hypothesis of a deaf norm, i.e., a specific cognitive processing of information related to deafness (Garcia and Perini, 2010; Perini, 2013), which could contribute to the recognition of SLs as a key vehicle for deaf access to writing.
Highly Contrasting English-Language Studies
Research on the acquisition of written English by deaf children has led to very divergent theoretical models. A first and dominant approach consists in considering that deaf children follow the same acquisition paths as hearing children. For both, mastery of phonological skills in English is the main prerequisite for the development of literacy skills. The difficulties of the deaf are therefore attributed to their more fragile access to spoken language phonology. The Simple View of Reading (SVR) is a model that describes the process of reading development in most learners (Gough and Tunmer, 1986; Kilpatrick, 2015) and provides an explanation for some reading difficulties such as dyslexia. In this model, reading comprehension (R) results from the interaction of two components: word recognition or decoding (D) and language comprehension (C). These two components are absolutely necessary: the deficiency of one element leads to the deficiency of the outcome (R). Trezek and Mayer (2019) consider the SVR formula (R = D*C) to be a strong hypothesis for explaining reading development in the deaf, based on the premise that deaf people differ from hearing people only in the hearing ability. Depending on their level of face-to-face English proficiency, deaf children may show deficits in either the two components or in D alone. For them, SL plays no role. Another model designed specifically for the deaf, the QSH (Qualitative Similarity Hypothesis: see Paul, 2009; Paul et al., 2013; Andrews and Wang, 2015), also considers that deaf and hearing learners go through qualitatively similar processes, while acknowledging that skill development may be quantitatively delayed in the deaf. According to both models, while SL is considered beneficial in cognitive terms for deaf children due to its visual-gestural modality, it is not considered to contribute in any way to learning to read, as it does not provide access to phonological skills in the spoken language.
A part of the American research argue on the contrary in favor of deaf-specific literacy pathways. Some authors, while convinced of the importance of phonological skills in learning to read, temper the QSH hypothesis, arguing that these essential phonological skills are not necessarily linked to the auditory modality (Allen et al., 2014). Good abilities in ASL phonology may be sufficient, as argued by McQuarrie and Parrila (2014)—finding a positive correlation between phonological skills in ASL and reading proficiency in Deaf children. Few teaching programs have been proposed to exploit this hypothesis, including the noteworthy Cripps (2008) and Supalla (2017) on the reading of ASL as a transitional means to access the reading of English. Others, like Mayberry et al. (2011) and Miller and Clark (2011), suggest that deaf people's difficulties are due to a lack of early access to a SL (see also Cummins, 2007). Allen and Morere (2020), in a study involving deaf signing children aged 3–6, show that these children's identification of words and letters is better when they have had early access to ASL, even if they do not have deaf parents. That's why, for Caldwell-Harris (2021), ASL must be sufficiently established by the time the child begins formal reading instruction. Indeed, without a fluent language of instruction, the written language cannot be finely explained to the deaf student. Hoffmeister and Caldwell-Harris (2014), Hoffmeister et al. (2022) similarly propose a model describing the learning of written English in three stages: the deaf child initially relies heavily on word-sign connections, gradually breaks away from this strategy and implements new ones to acquire increasingly complex written structures. The experience of communication and discourse in ASL is therefore fundamental to understanding increasingly long texts. Kuntze et al. (2014) propose a model based on the observation of strategies employed by deaf parents and teachers and on the natural tendency of deaf people to learn in a visual mode. Their “visual model” has five components: ASL acquisition and visual engagement, emergent literacy, adult mediation via written English, knowledge of Deaf culture, and finally support of visual media such as video. Rooted in a sociocultural view of literacy, their concept of “Multiliteracy” allows them to take into account the role of deaf children's multilingual and multicultural skills in learning to read and write. Recalling that the deaf child, in learning written English, is learning a new language, the authors aim to take into account developmental factors that contribute to reading acquisition, such as the early linguistic and literary skills that emerge as early as birth. They show how these early skills can be acquired through the five components identified above.
French studies give to LSF (French Sign Language) more or less importance in the teaching of writing to deaf children, strongly depending on the field.
A Part of French Research: Minimizing the Role of SL in Access to Literacy
SVR is the dominant model adopted in the majority of French studies in cognitive psychology. They presuppose a common development in hearing and deaf people and have a restricted conception of reading, which consists mainly of converting graphemes into phonemes. The experiments aim to demonstrate the major role of phonological awareness in the acquisition of efficient written word recognition processes (Colin, 2004; Colin et al., 2007, 2013). For this purpose, the authors emphasize visual strategies for accessing the phonological structure of spoken language (lip reading, Cued Speech), as a means of compensating for the auditory deficit (Leybaert et al., 2018), which they call “Visual (or amodal) Phonology”. These authors, who have so far overlooked any possible link between SL and written language (the D and C components of the SVR formula only play their role with a spoken language), have recently been considering the interest of using SL at two levels. On the one hand, because it allows for the natural development of the C component (Colin, 2004); on the other hand, because of the complementary role it can play for the R component, alongside Cued speech and lip reading. Indeed, according to Leybaert et al. (2018), (p. 90), SL allows “the exercise of segmentation, categorization and regularity detection skills”. It is then mainly mentioned for the possibilities SL would offer to establish formal correspondences between its units and those of the written language. However, SL and spoken language being quite different, these correspondences are limited to the configurations of the initialized signs and the dactylological units. It is noteworthy to note that (Courtin Cyril, 2005) is the only French psycholinguist to recognize the potential of SLs to support the development of good writing skills, with or without oral parallel education.
Some French researchers, however, take into account SL in the educational curriculum of the deaf, but through the perspective of bimodal bilingualism. In a similar vein as Swanwick (2016), (Mugnier, 2016, 2021) defined bimodal bilingualism as the simultaneous use of all linguistic resources available to deaf children (signs, spoken and written language). This approach wants to be as close as possible to the linguistic reality of deaf students, who in fact come mostly from hearing families, in which communication is mainly vocal. She thus insists on the importance of the use of signs and speech at the same time in the classroom, as a pragmatic solution to the linguistic variety of deaf students. Indeed, (Esteve, 2011) proposes a “reasoned pedagogy of code switching” which lets bimodal interactions develop freely. Nonetheless, for now, no well-defined proposals are made concerning bimodal teaching strategies for reading and writing French. As a matter of fact, “there is no real agreement in the international literature regarding what comprises a bimodal bilingual teaching approach and so it is difficult to compare and contrast strategies or draw firm conclusions about efficacy” (Swanwick, 2016, p. 42). Furthermore, considering the bimodal bilingualism propositions, some professionals seem to fear the risk of relegating the SL to a simple communication tool and to further weaken an already minority language (Swanwick, 2016).
In these two fields of French research, which admittedly have different perspectives, the fact that the majority of deaf children are born to hearing parents seems to justify not giving a central role to SL in access to literacy. The importance of early access to SL is little discussed, whereas it is well documented in the American literature presented above. The reference to the hearing norm is omnipresent in these works as well as in the SVR and QSH models. However, we believe to be essential to explore the hypothesis that the predominance of the visual in the deaf could influence their learning to read. This question is important in that a better understanding of deaf “functioning” could lead to a more appropriate written language instruction.
A Deaf Norm Hypothesis and its Implications
North American studies on proficient deaf sign readers/writers have recently revealed specific cognitive functioning and strategies for deaf people. The study of eye movement during reading in proficient deaf adult readers and young deaf children aged 6–12 (Bélanger et al., 2012, 2018; Bélanger and Rayner, 2015) showed that all of them have a more developed visual span than hearing readers, allowing them to process more visual information within a single fixation (when reading, the reader moves his eyes alternating short saccades and longer fixations). They also perform fewer re-fixations and backtracking when reading a text. No evidence of phonological procedures was found in the panel of deaf readers, suggesting that word identification in deaf readers is more likely based on visual recognition of whole words or word fragments. This hypothesis of a global word identification process is supported by analysis of the early writing of deaf preschoolers who are ASL or LSF signers: these “invented spellings” demonstrate a variety of visual strategies, which, it should be noted, rely heavily on the SL (Cripps, 2008; Herbold, 2008; Williams and Mayer, 2015; Beaujard and Garcia, 2020).
Other studies, this time from the social sciences, have also revealed cognitive specificities in deaf people and confirm, in a completely different way, the hypothesis of a global grasp of words in reading, and this, via a SL. Interviews with expert deaf readers were conducted and analyzed with a qualitative method, whose interest is to provide a holistic view of the processes of literacy acquisition in deaf people, and also to take into account the different contexts of acquisition. Adults interviewed by Silvestri and Wang (2018), and Mounty et al. (2014) report visual thinking “like a movie”, reading strategies that directly link signs and written words, and understanding texts as “a whole, like a picture”. In the panel studied by Silvestri and Wang (2018), as in the French panel of Garcia et al. (2007), the criterion distinguishing the most successful readers was the use of SL, at home and then at school. The most proficient were also the ones who most readily recalled the teaching activities performed in the classroom. Caldwell-Harris (2021) explains this through the presence of ASL in teaching allowing for a full understanding of the learning. Other interviews with deaf signers show a clear link between good reading skills and early access to a SL (Morere et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2016).
The analysis of deaf writing provides yet another perspective on acquisition strategies that are thought to be unique to the deaf. Charrow and Fletcher (1974) were the first to suggest that the written language of American deaf people would be partly comparable to that of L2 learners (see also more recently Stokoe, 1960; Koulidobrova et al., 2018; Howerton-Fox and Falk, 2019). However, work on Quebec deaf written French conducted by the Groupe de recherche sur la LSQ et le français sourd at UQAM has revealed a number of particularities encountered only in deaf written productions. These include a disruption of syntax aiming at organizing utterances according to a visual logic (e.g., “la chambre du lit de l'oreiller”, instead of “l'oreiller du lit de la chambre”). With her panel of deaf adults, Perini (2013) highlights specific details that deaf people use to mention in their text. For example, for the action of hanging a picture on the wall, Deaf people often describe the tools used and the actions performed, compared to hearing people: avec un clou frappe marteau pour crochet (Simon); Il a tapé la pointe sur le mur avec le marteau (Charles). The fact that these particularities are found in both deaf signers and non-signers suggests a processing of information specific to deafness prior to the linguistic processing in either language.
Based on these distinct studies with regards to both discipline and methodology, it appears that deaf people access literacy through specific pathways. The innovative hypothesis of a deaf norm as proposed by Garcia and Perini (2010) and Perini (2013) emerges, evoking the “cognitive common core” mentioned by Cuxac (2000) as the basis of any SL. Such a cognitive common core could indeed, to a lesser extent, be at work in deaf writing. Research on emergent SLs (e.g., Fusellier Souza, 2006, 2012; Martinod, 2019), conducted within the framework of the Semiological Approach (e.g., Garcia and Sallandre, 2014, 2020) has indeed shown the relevance of deafness in the structuring of sign languages. This would imply that SLs, as deaf creations, would best reflect the deaf-specific cognitive processing of information and would for this reason be the most likely to support successful cognitive development of the deaf child, whether he has deaf or hearing parents. We therefore hypothesize that SL is the best metalanguage for deaf access to literacy.
Some Promising Avenues
None of the studies presented proposes a specific method of teaching written language through SL. This is, more broadly, one of the major gaps in the work on written language acquisition in the deaf population (Hoffmeister and Caldwell-Harris, 2014). Nevertheless, the studies presented in this section allow us to identify a number of avenues that could guide the formalization of more effective pedagogical approaches. They show indeed that it is possible to learn to read and write via a SL. This simply requires early exposure of deaf children to a SL in the family, and then formalization of its learning in schools, so that it becomes a rich and fluid language for the child. Considering the written language of the deaf as a second language also makes it possible to specify the status of SL in access to literacy: a first language, that is to say a face-to-face language capable of playing the role of reference language in all school acquisitions.
Another important avenue, which goes beyond the question of the choice of first language for the deaf child, concerns the way in which written words are identified. In the majority model for hearing people, word identification is done through a phonological process. However, it seems that for deaf people this identification is done in a visual way, i.e., by global recognition of the word. Several authors exploit the idea of morphological awareness instead of phonological awareness (Gaustad, 2000; Clark et al., 2011; Perini, 2013; Beaujard, 2015). The study of orthographic regularities and word formation (radicals, lexical and grammatical affixes) would allow deaf people to improve word identification and extract meaning more easily. Some feedback from pedagogical experiments with adults (Marçot, L., and Perini, M., Marçot, L., and Perini, M.) and children (e.g., Duhayer, 2005; Kellerhals, 2005) describes the process by which deaf teachers and learners use SL to construct meaning in written language (see also Humphries and MacDougall, 1999). However, the processes by which deaf children acquire written language using SL as a metalanguage still need to be described in more detail in order to understand the cognitive strategies that are put in place and to exploit them for teaching.
Conclusion
The inclusion of all people in society requires a rethinking of what is traditionally understood as part of the norm. Every human being is now considered normal, not in spite of their differences but with their differences. If states adhere to this concept of inclusion, through the ratification of major international texts, schools must also welcome all ways of being in the world, including language. We consider that there are different paths to literacy and that the hearing majority model alone does not explain how it works.
The differences between “assimilative” approaches and approaches that deviate from a dominant model are very profound, touching on the way in which the written word and the deaf public themselves are viewed. Researchers adopting the assimilative view have a reductionist approach to writing, which is primarily understood in terms of its smallest units and how they are combined (Perini and Garcia, 2022). Most of these authors rely on experimental research based on the comparison of performance between deaf and hearing people. This both presupposes and reinforces a vision of the deaf public as being deficient, inevitably lagging behind hearing people in terms of the quality of phonological representations. The only foreseen solution is then to reduce the gap with the supposed norm (improve hearing) and to compensate for it with visual tools (cued speech for example). Researchers calling for a move from the mainstream model take a broader and more qualitative view of literacy, encompassing its linguistic, cognitive, sociological and cultural dimensions. They conduct more general studies of good deaf writers to identify success factors. This broader and less prescriptive view allows access to writing to be seen as a complex and multifactorial process and to consider the deaf public in all its diversity. Although no generalizable pedagogical solution has been proposed to date, the studies presented here, even though still essentially descriptive and partly programmatic, allow us nevertheless to highlight avenues for teaching writing to the deaf that meet their specific cognitive and attentional needs.
Author Contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Funding
The publication of this article is made possible by funding from the Eurasign International Network (2018–2022) coordinated by Brigitte Garcia and Marie-Anne Sallandre.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Acknowledgments
We warmly thank our colleague Brigitte Garcia, for her wise advices and proofreading during the preparation of this paper.
Footnotes
1. ^International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, or ICF for short (WHO); Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN).
2. ^the issue is different for other graphic systems, like Chinese (see for instance Gabrielle Jones' Ph.D. dissertation: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/44319).
References
Allen, T., Letteri, A., Choi, S., and Dang, D. (2014). Early visual language exposure and emergent literacy in preschool deaf children: findings from a national longitudinal study. Am. Ann. Deaf 159, 346–358. doi: 10.1353/aad.2014.0030
Allen, T. E., and Morere, D. A. (2020). Early visual language skills affect the trajectory of literacy gains over a three-year period of time for preschool aged deaf children who experience signing in the home. PLoS ONE 15, e0229591. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229591
Andrews, J. F., and Wang, Y. (2015). The qualitative similarity hypothesis: research synthesis and future directions. Am. Ann. Deaf 159, 468–483. doi: 10.1353/aad.2015.0005
Barré-de Miniac, C., Brissaud, C., and Rispail, M. eds (2004). La Littéracie. Conceptions théoriques et pratiques d'enseignement de la lecture-écriture. Paris: L'Harmattan.
Beaujard, L. (2015). Enseigner la langue écrite aux enfants sourds: ce que nous disent les analyses de pratiques pédagogiques en classes bilingues LSF-français écrit. (Master degree dissertation). Université Paris, Paris, France.
Beaujard, L., and Garcia, B. (2020). Étudier l'émergence de l'écrit chez des enfants sourds signeurs en maternelle: questions et enjeux méthodologiques. J. French Lang. Stud. 30, 117–140. doi: 10.1017/S0959269520000095
Bélanger, N. N., Lee, M., and Schotter, E. R. (2018). Young skilled deaf readers have an enhanced perceptual Span in reading. Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. 71, 1–34. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1324498
Bélanger, N. N., Mayberry, R. I., and Baum, S. R. (2012). Reading difficulties in adult deaf readers of French: phonological codes, not guilty! Sci. Stud. Read. 16, 263–285. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2011.568555
Bélanger, N. N., and Rayner, K. (2015). What eye movements reveal about deaf readers. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 24, 220–226. doi: 10.1177/0963721414567527
Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2021). “Theoretical underpinnings of acquiring English via print”. in Discussing Bilingualism in Deaf Children: Essays in Honor of Robert Hoffmeister, eds C. Enns, J. Henner, L. McQuarrie (Milton Park: Routledge), 72–95.
Charrow, V. R., and Fletcher, J. D. (1974). English as the second language of deaf children. Dev. Psychol. 10, 463–470. doi: 10.1037/h0036711
Clark, M. D., Gilbert, G., and Anderson, M. L. (2011). Morphological knowledge and decoding skills of deaf readers. Psychology 2, 109–116. doi: 10.4236/psych.2011.22018
Colin, S. (2004). Développement des habiletés phonologiques précoces et apprentissage de la lecture et de l'écriture chez l'enfant sourd: apport du Langage Parlé Complété (LPC). (Thèse de doctorat en psychologie cognitive). Université Lyon, Lyon, France.
Colin, S., Leybaert, J., Ecalle, J., and Magnan, A. (2013). The development of word recognition, sentence comprehension, word spelling, and vocabulary in children with deafness: a longitudinal study. Res. Dev. Disabil. 34, 1781–1793. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd,.2013.02.001
Colin, S., Magnan, A., Ecalle, J., and Leybaert, J. (2007). Relation between deaf children's phonological skills in kindergarten and word recognition performance in first grade. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 48, 139–146. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01700.x
Courtin Cyril (2005). Langue des signes française, français oral, Langue française parlée complétée et développement de la lecture-écriture chez l'enfant sourd, quelle complémentarité? Enseigner et apprendre en LSF: vers une éducation bilingue. [Dossier]. La nouvelle revue de l'AIS: adaptation et intégration scolaires, n° hs, 37–44.
Cripps, J. (2008). A case study of reading processes of signing deaf children. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson.
Cummins, J. (2007). The relationship between American sign language proficiency and english academic development: a review of the research. In: Paper Presented at the Workshop Challenges, Opportunities, and Choices in Education Minority Group Students. Hamar University College, Norway.
Duhayer, V. (2005). Pratiques d'une enseignante en structure bilingue. Nouvelle revue de l'AIS. HS. 67–75.
Esteve, I. (2011). Approche bilingue et multimodale de l'oralité chez l'enfant sourd: Outils d'analyses, socialisation, développement (Thèse de doctorat). Université Stendhal – Grenoble 3, Saint-Martin-d'Hères, France.
Fusellier Souza, I. (2006). “Processus de création et de stabilisation lexicale en langues des signes (LS) à partir d'une approche sémiogénétique”. in Les langues des signes (LS): recherches sociolinguistiques et linguistiques, eds R. Sabria (Rouen: Glottopol n°7, DYALANG), 72–95.
Fusellier Souza, I. (2012). “Multiple Perspectives on the Emergence and Development on Human Language”. in Comparative Perspectives on Language Acquisition: A Tribute to Clive Perdu, eds M. Watorek, S. Benazzo, and M. Hickmann (Bristol; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters), 223–244.
Garcia, B., Brugeille, J. L., Kellerhals, M. P., Braffort, A., Boutet, D., Dalle, P., et al. (2007). Rapport du projet RIAM-ANR LS-Script, 2005-2007. Agence Nationale de la Recherche, Paris.
Garcia, B., and Perini, M. (2010). “Normes en jeu et jeu des normes dans les deux langues en présence chez les sourds locuteurs de la Langue des Signes Française (LSF),” in Sourds et langue des signes, eds B. Garcia, and M. Derycke (Paris: Norme et variations, Langage et Société, no 131), 75–94.
Garcia, B., and Sallandre, M.-A. (2014). “Reference resolution in French Sign Language (LSF)”. in Crosslinguistic Studies on Noun Phrase Structure and Reference, Syntax and Semantics Series, Vol. 39, eds P. C. Hofherr, and A. Zribi-Hertz (Leiden/Boston: Brill), 316–364.
Garcia, B., and Sallandre, M.-A. (2020). Contribution of the semiological approach to deixis-anaphora in sign language: the key role of eye-gaze. Front. Psychol. 11, 583763. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.583763
Gaustad, M. (2000). Morphographic analysis as a word identification strategy for deaf readers. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 5, 60–80. doi: 10.1093/deafed/5.1.60
Goldin-Meadow, S., and Mayberry, R. I. (2001). How do profoundly deaf children learn to read? Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 16, 222–229. doi: 10.1111/0938-8982.00022
Gough, P. B., and Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remed. Spe. Educ. 7, 6–10. doi: 10.1177/074193258600700104
Herbold, J. (2008). Emergent literacy development: case studies of four deaf ASL-English bilinguals (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson.
Hoffmeister, R., Henner, J., Caldwell-Harris, C., and Novogrodsky, R. (2022). Deaf children's ASL vocabulary and ASL syntax knowledge supports English knowledge. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 27, 37–47. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enab032
Hoffmeister, R. J., and Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2014). Acquiring english as a second language via print: the task for deaf children. Cognition 132, 229–242. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.014
Howerton-Fox, A., and Falk, J. L. (2019). Deaf children as ‘English learners': the psycholinguistic turn in deaf education. Educ. Sci. 9, 133. doi: 10.3390/educsci9020133
Humphries, T. (2013). Schooling in American Sign Language: A paradigm shift from a deficit model to a bilingual model in deaf education. Berkeley Rev. Educ. 4, 7–33. doi: 10.5070/B84110031
Humphries, T., and MacDougall, F. (1999). “Chaining” and other links: making connections between american sign language and english in two types of school settings. Visual Anthropol. Rev. 15, 84–94. doi: 10.1525/var.2000.15.2.84
Kellerhals, M.-P. (2005). Une expérience d'entrée en littérature en cycle 3 en classe de LSF. La nouvelle revue de l'AIS: adaptation et intégration scolaires, numéro hors-série. (Suresnes: INSHEA), 53–65.
Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of Assessing, Preventing, and Overcoming Reading Difficulties. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Koulidobrova, E., Kuntze, M., and Dostal, H. M. (2018). If you use ASL, should you study ESL? Limitations of a modality-b(i)ased policy. Language 94, 99–126. doi: 10.1353/lan.2018.0029
Kuntze, M., Golos, D., and Enns, C. (2014). Rethinking literacy: broadening opportunities for visual learners. Sign Lang. Stud. 14, 203–224. doi: 10.1353/sls.2014.0002
Leybaert, J., Van Vlierberghe, C., Croiseaux, E., and Mattar, M. (2018). Chapitre 5 : Lecture et reconnaissance des mots écrits chez les enfants sourds, y compris avec un implant cochléaire : codage phonologique et/ou orthographique?. In Neuropsychologie de l'enfant: Approches cliniques, modélisations théoriques et méthodes, eds. A. Roy. (Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur), 82–93. doi: 10.3917/dbu.roy.2018.01.0082
Marçot, L., and Perini, M. (in press). “La formation à l'écrit des sourds adultes: État de la question, du terrain à la théorie, de la théorie au terrain”, in ‘Les voies de l'iconicité' aujourd'hui. Ouvrage rétrospectif autour des travaux de Christian Cuxac, eds M.-A. Sallandre, S. Gobet (Editions Lambert-Lucas, Limoges), 12.
Martinod, E. (2019). Approche typologique des composants minimaux porteurs de sens dans plusieurs langues des signes (LS) se situant à divers degrés de communautarisation. Implications pour une typologie des LS et apports d'un premier examen phylogénétique des LS du Marajó. (Thèse de doctorat en sciences du langage). Université Paris 8, Paris, France.
Mayberry, R. I., Del Giudice, A. A., and Lieberman, A. M. (2011). Reading achievement in relation to phonological coding and awareness in deaf readers: a meta-analysis. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 16, 164–188. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enq049
McQuarrie, L., and Parrila, R. (2014). Literacy and linguistic development in bilingual deaf children: implications of the “and” for phonological processing. Am. Ann. Deaf 159, 372–384. doi: 10.1353/aad.2014.0034
Miller, P., and Clark, D. M. (2011). Phonemic awareness is not necessary to become a skilled reader. J. Dev. Phys. Disabil. 23, 459–476. doi: 10.1007/s10882-011-9246-0
Morere, D. A., and Allen, T. eds. (2012). Assessing Literacy in Deaf Individuals: Neurocognitive Measurement and Predictors. Berlin: Springer Science + Business Media.
Mounty, J. L., Pucci, C. T., and Harmon, K. C. (2014). How deaf American Sign Language/English bilingual children become proficient readers: an emic perspective. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 19, 333–346. doi: 10.1093/deafed/ent050
Mugnier, S. (2021). “Plurilingualism in deaf education in France: language policies, ideologies and practices,” in Critical Perspectives on Plurilingualism in Deaf Education, eds K. Snoddon and J. Weber (Multilingual Matters).
Mugnier, S. (2016). “9. Succès et revers dans l'élaboration de modèles de plurilinguisme en contexte de surdité,” in Plurilinguisme et pluriculturalisme: Des modèles officiels dans le monde, eds J. Koustas, D. Merkle, and G. Lane-Mercier (Montréal: Presses de l'Université de Montréal).
Paul, P., Wang, Y., and Williams, C. (2013). Deaf Students and the Qualitative Similarity Hypothesis: Understanding Language and Literacy Development. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Perini, M. (2013). Que peuvent nous apprendre les productions écrites des sourds? Analyse de lectes écrits de personnes sourdes pour une contribution à la didactique du français écrit en formation d'adultes. (Thèse de doctorat en sciences du langage). Université Paris 8, Paris, France.
Perini, M., and Garcia, B. (2022). “Insertion des langues des signes dans la discipline linguistique/des sourds parmi les lecteurs scripteurs: intégration ou inclusion?” in Proceedings of the International Conference on “Minority languages spoken or signed and inclusive spaces”, eds C. Moreau et al. (INSHEA Publishing Department: Suresnes), 146–149.
Silvestri, J. A., and Wang, Y. A. (2018). Grounded theory of effective reading by profoundly deaf adults. Am. Ann. Deaf. 162, 419–444. doi: 10.1353/aad.2018.0002
Stokoe, W. (1960). Sign Language Structure, An outline of the visual communications systems of American deaf . Studies in linguistics occasional paper, 8.
Trezek, B., and Mayer, C. (2019). Reading and deafness: state of the evidence and implications for research and practice. Educ. Sci. 9, 216. doi: 10.3390/educsci9030216
Wang, Q., Andrews, J., Liu, H. T., and Liu, C. J. (2016). Case studies of multilingual/multicultural asian deaf adults: strategies for success. Am. Ann. Deaf 161, 67–88. doi: 10.1353/aad.2016.0012
Keywords: sign language, literacy acquisition, deaf children, phonological awareness, visual methods, deaf norm
Citation: Beaujard L and Perini M (2022) The Role and Place of Sign Language in Deaf Youth's Access to Literacy: Contributions of a Cross-Review of ASL-English and LSF-French Research. Front. Commun. 7:810724. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2022.810724
Received: 07 November 2021; Accepted: 16 February 2022;
Published: 31 March 2022.
Edited by:
Erin Wilkinson, University of New Mexico, United StatesReviewed by:
Kristin Snoddon, Ryerson University, CanadaJoanne Weber, University of Alberta, Canada
Copyright © 2022 Beaujard and Perini. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Marie Perini, marie.perini@gmail.com; laurencebeaujard@free.fr
†These authors have contributed equally to this work