Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (9)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = bimodal-bilinguals

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
18 pages, 2794 KiB  
Case Report
“This Clock Is Oop” Development of Translanguaging Strategies and Language Attitude in a Deaf Bimodal Bilingual Student
by Rhys McGovern
Languages 2023, 8(1), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8010034 - 19 Jan 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2386
Abstract
Bilingual students do not always use language exactly the way teachers expect. This is especially true for deaf students who use a signed language and a spoken language. When students mix languages, they are often told they are making mistakes. Instead of forcing [...] Read more.
Bilingual students do not always use language exactly the way teachers expect. This is especially true for deaf students who use a signed language and a spoken language. When students mix languages, they are often told they are making mistakes. Instead of forcing students to keep languages completely separate, teachers can let students use any and all of their language tools. When students can practice language with all of the languages they know, they feel better about their language skills. This article describes the language of one deaf bilingual student over one year. The author taught the student how to carefully examine and discuss his own language. The student then wrote about pictures and videos that he was interested in. At the end of the year, the student was comfortable using many types of language tools. He also felt powerful about his own language skills. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Translanguaging in Deaf Communities)
Show Figures

Figure 1

20 pages, 5194 KiB  
Review
Fingerspelling and Its Role in Translanguaging
by Brittany Lee and Kristen Secora
Languages 2022, 7(4), 278; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7040278 - 1 Nov 2022
Cited by 10 | Viewed by 6668
Abstract
Fingerspelling is a critical component of many sign languages. This manual representation of orthographic code is one key way in which signers engage in translanguaging, drawing from all of their linguistic and semiotic resources to support communication. Translanguaging in bimodal bilinguals is unique [...] Read more.
Fingerspelling is a critical component of many sign languages. This manual representation of orthographic code is one key way in which signers engage in translanguaging, drawing from all of their linguistic and semiotic resources to support communication. Translanguaging in bimodal bilinguals is unique because it involves drawing from languages in different modalities, namely a signed language like American Sign Language and a spoken language like English (or its written form). Fingerspelling can be seen as a unique product of the unified linguistic system that translanguaging theories purport, as it blends features of both sign and print. The goals of this paper are twofold: to integrate existing research on fingerspelling in order to characterize it as a cognitive-linguistic phenomenon and to discuss the role of fingerspelling in translanguaging and communication. We will first review and synthesize research from linguistics and cognitive neuroscience to summarize our current understanding of fingerspelling, its production, comprehension, and acquisition. We will then discuss how fingerspelling relates to translanguaging theories and how it can be incorporated into translanguaging practices to support literacy and other communication goals. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Translanguaging in Deaf Communities)
Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 372 KiB  
Commentary
Deaf Children Need Rich Language Input from the Start: Support in Advising Parents
by Tom Humphries, Gaurav Mathur, Donna Jo Napoli, Carol Padden and Christian Rathmann
Children 2022, 9(11), 1609; https://doi.org/10.3390/children9111609 - 22 Oct 2022
Cited by 14 | Viewed by 8596
Abstract
Bilingual bimodalism is a great benefit to deaf children at home and in schooling. Deaf signing children perform better overall than non-signing deaf children, regardless of whether they use a cochlear implant. Raising a deaf child in a speech-only environment can carry cognitive [...] Read more.
Bilingual bimodalism is a great benefit to deaf children at home and in schooling. Deaf signing children perform better overall than non-signing deaf children, regardless of whether they use a cochlear implant. Raising a deaf child in a speech-only environment can carry cognitive and psycho-social risks that may have lifelong adverse effects. For children born deaf, or who become deaf in early childhood, we recommend comprehensible multimodal language exposure and engagement in joint activity with parents and friends to assure age-appropriate first-language acquisition. Accessible visual language input should begin as close to birth as possible. Hearing parents will need timely and extensive support; thus, we propose that, upon the birth of a deaf child and through the preschool years, among other things, the family needs an adult deaf presence in the home for several hours every day to be a linguistic model, to guide the family in taking sign language lessons, to show the family how to make spoken language accessible to their deaf child, and to be an encouraging liaison to deaf communities. While such a support program will be complicated and challenging to implement, it is far less costly than the harm of linguistic deprivation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pediatric Otolaryngology-Expert Reviews and Advances)
20 pages, 783 KiB  
Review
Regulation and Control: What Bimodal Bilingualism Reveals about Learning and Juggling Two Languages
by Anne Therese Frederiksen and Judith F. Kroll
Languages 2022, 7(3), 214; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7030214 - 11 Aug 2022
Cited by 7 | Viewed by 5309
Abstract
In individuals who know more than one language, the languages are always active to some degree. This has consequences for language processing, but bilinguals rarely make mistakes in language selection. A prevailing explanation is that bilingualism is supported by strong cognitive control abilities, [...] Read more.
In individuals who know more than one language, the languages are always active to some degree. This has consequences for language processing, but bilinguals rarely make mistakes in language selection. A prevailing explanation is that bilingualism is supported by strong cognitive control abilities, developed through long-term practice with managing multiple languages and spilling over into more general executive functions. However, not all bilinguals are the same, and not all contexts for bilingualism provide the same support for control and regulation abilities. This paper reviews research on hearing sign–speech bimodal bilinguals who have a unique ability to use and comprehend their two languages at the same time. We discuss the role of this research in re-examining the role of cognitive control in bilingual language regulation, focusing on how results from bimodal bilingualism research relate to recent findings emphasizing the correlation of control abilities with a bilingual’s contexts of language use. Most bimodal bilingualism research has involved individuals in highly English-dominant language contexts. We offer a critical examination of how existing bimodal bilingualism findings have been interpreted, discuss the value of broadening the scope of this research and identify long-standing questions about bilingualism and L2 learning which might benefit from this perspective. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Multilingualism: Consequences for the Brain and Mind)
Show Figures

Figure 1

27 pages, 1519 KiB  
Article
Predictors of Word and Text Reading Fluency of Deaf Children in Bilingual Deaf Education Programmes
by Ellen Ormel, Marcel R. Giezen, Harry Knoors, Ludo Verhoeven and Eva Gutierrez-Sigut
Languages 2022, 7(1), 51; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7010051 - 25 Feb 2022
Cited by 13 | Viewed by 6594
Abstract
Reading continues to be a challenging task for most deaf children. Bimodal bilingual education creates a supportive environment that stimulates deaf children’s learning through the use of sign language. However, it is still unclear how exposure to sign language might contribute to improving [...] Read more.
Reading continues to be a challenging task for most deaf children. Bimodal bilingual education creates a supportive environment that stimulates deaf children’s learning through the use of sign language. However, it is still unclear how exposure to sign language might contribute to improving reading ability. Here, we investigate the relative contribution of several cognitive and linguistic variables to the development of word and text reading fluency in deaf children in bimodal bilingual education programmes. The participants of this study were 62 school-aged (8 to 10 years old at the start of the 3-year study) deaf children who took part in bilingual education (using Dutch and Sign Language of The Netherlands) and 40 age-matched hearing children. We assessed vocabulary knowledge in speech and sign, phonological awareness in speech and sign, receptive fingerspelling ability, and short-term memory at time 1 (T1). At times 2 (T2) and 3 (T3), we assessed word and text reading fluency. We found that (1) speech-based vocabulary strongly predicted word and text reading at T2 and T3, (2) fingerspelling ability was a strong predictor of word and text reading fluency at T2 and T3, (3) speech-based phonological awareness predicted word reading accuracy at T2 and T3 but did not predict text reading fluency, and (4) fingerspelling and STM predicted word reading latency at T2 while sign-based phonological awareness predicted this outcome measure at T3. These results suggest that fingerspelling may have an important function in facilitating the construction of orthographical/phonological representations of printed words for deaf children and strengthening word decoding and recognition abilities. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Cognitive Nature of Bilingual Reading)
Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 437 KiB  
Article
The Writing Process and the Written Product in Bimodal Bilingual Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children
by Moa Gärdenfors
Languages 2021, 6(2), 85; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6020085 - 11 May 2021
Cited by 6 | Viewed by 4291
Abstract
How does bimodal bilingualism—a signed and a spoken language—influence the writing process or the written product? The writing outcomes of twenty deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) children and hearing children of deaf adults (CODA) (mean 11.6 years) with similar bimodal bilingual backgrounds [...] Read more.
How does bimodal bilingualism—a signed and a spoken language—influence the writing process or the written product? The writing outcomes of twenty deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) children and hearing children of deaf adults (CODA) (mean 11.6 years) with similar bimodal bilingual backgrounds were analyzed. During the writing of a narrative text, a keylogging tool was used that generated detailed information about the participants’ writing process and written product. Unlike earlier studies that have repeatedly shown that monolingual hearing children outperform their DHH peers in writing, there were few differences between the groups that likely were caused by their various hearing backgrounds, such as in their lexical density. Signing knowledge was negatively correlated with writing flow and pauses before words, and positively correlated with deleted characters, but these did not affect the written product negatively. Instead, they used different processes to reach similar texts. This study emphasizes the importance of including and comparing participants with similar language experience backgrounds. It may be deceptive to compare bilingual DHH children with hearing children with other language backgrounds, risking showing language differences. This should always be controlled for through including true control groups with similar language experience as the examined groups. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Language and Literacy in Bilingual Learners)
19 pages, 3884 KiB  
Article
Constructed Action in American Sign Language: A Look at Second Language Learners in a Second Modality
by Kim B. Kurz, Kellie Mullaney and Corrine Occhino
Languages 2019, 4(4), 90; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4040090 - 12 Nov 2019
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 7209
Abstract
Constructed action is a cover term used in signed language linguistics to describe multi-functional constructions which encode perspective-taking and viewpoint. Within constructed action, viewpoint constructions serve to create discourse coherence by allowing signers to share perspectives and psychological states. Character, observer, and blended [...] Read more.
Constructed action is a cover term used in signed language linguistics to describe multi-functional constructions which encode perspective-taking and viewpoint. Within constructed action, viewpoint constructions serve to create discourse coherence by allowing signers to share perspectives and psychological states. Character, observer, and blended viewpoint constructions have been well documented in signed language literature in Deaf signers. However, little is known about hearing second language learners’ use of constructed action or about the acquisition and use of viewpoint constructions. We investigate the acquisition of viewpoint constructions in 11 college students acquiring American Sign Language (ASL) as a second language in a second modality (M2L2). Participants viewed video clips from the cartoon Canary Row and were asked to “retell the story as if you were telling it to a deaf friend”. We analyzed the signed narratives for time spent in character, observer, and blended viewpoints. Our results show that despite predictions of an overall increase in use of all types of viewpoint constructions, students varied in their time spent in observer and character viewpoints, while blended viewpoint was rarely observed. We frame our preliminary findings within the context of M2L2 learning, briefly discussing how gestural strategies used in multimodal speech-gesture constructions may influence learning trajectories. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue HDLS 13: Challenges to Common Beliefs in Linguistic Research)
Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 1927 KiB  
Article
ERP Evidence for Co-Activation of English Words during Recognition of American Sign Language Signs
by Brittany Lee, Gabriela Meade, Katherine J. Midgley, Phillip J. Holcomb and Karen Emmorey
Brain Sci. 2019, 9(6), 148; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci9060148 - 21 Jun 2019
Cited by 29 | Viewed by 6435
Abstract
Event-related potentials (ERPs) were used to investigate co-activation of English words during recognition of American Sign Language (ASL) signs. Deaf and hearing signers viewed pairs of ASL signs and judged their semantic relatedness. Half of the semantically unrelated signs had English translations that [...] Read more.
Event-related potentials (ERPs) were used to investigate co-activation of English words during recognition of American Sign Language (ASL) signs. Deaf and hearing signers viewed pairs of ASL signs and judged their semantic relatedness. Half of the semantically unrelated signs had English translations that shared an orthographic and phonological rime (e.g., BAR–STAR) and half did not (e.g., NURSE–STAR). Classic N400 and behavioral semantic priming effects were observed in both groups. For hearing signers, targets in sign pairs with English rime translations elicited a smaller N400 compared to targets in pairs with unrelated English translations. In contrast, a reversed N400 effect was observed for deaf signers: target signs in English rime translation pairs elicited a larger N400 compared to targets in pairs with unrelated English translations. This reversed effect was overtaken by a later, more typical ERP priming effect for deaf signers who were aware of the manipulation. These findings provide evidence that implicit language co-activation in bimodal bilinguals is bidirectional. However, the distinct pattern of effects in deaf and hearing signers suggests that it may be modulated by differences in language proficiency and dominance as well as by asymmetric reliance on orthographic versus phonological representations. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cognitive Neuroscience of Cross-Language Interaction in Bilinguals)
Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 785 KiB  
Article
Brazilian Bimodal Bilinguals as Heritage Signers
by Ronice Müller de Quadros and Diane Lillo-Martin
Languages 2018, 3(3), 32; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages3030032 - 10 Aug 2018
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 5371
Abstract
This paper presents an analysis of heritage signers: bimodal bilinguals, who are adult hearing children of Deaf parents who acquired sign language at home with their parents and the spoken language from the surrounding community. Analyzing heritage language with bimodal bilinguals who possess [...] Read more.
This paper presents an analysis of heritage signers: bimodal bilinguals, who are adult hearing children of Deaf parents who acquired sign language at home with their parents and the spoken language from the surrounding community. Analyzing heritage language with bimodal bilinguals who possess pairs of languages in different modalities provides a new kind of evidence for understanding the heritage language phenomenon as well as for theoretical issues regarding human language. Language production data were collected from four Brazilian bimodal bilinguals separately in both sign and speech, as well as from monolingual comparison Deaf signers and hearing speakers. The data were subsequently analyzed for various grammatical components. As with other types of heritage speakers, we observed a great degree of individual variation in the sign (heritage) language of balanced participants who patterned similarly to the monolingual signers, compared to those whose use of sign language differed greatly from monolinguals. One participant showed some weaknesses in the second (spoken) language. We approach the variation in language fluency in the two languages by considering the different contexts of language development and continuing use. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop