Vocabulary Use by Low, Moderate, and High ASL-Proficient Writers Compared to Hearing ESL and Monolingual Speakers

• Published in: Journal of deaf studies and deaf education 2004-01, Vol.9 (1), p.86-103
• Main Authors: Singleton, Jenny L., Morgan, Dianne, DiGello, Elizabeth, Wiles, Jill, Rivers, Rachel
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: American Sign Language; Auditory perception; Biological and medical sciences; Children; Comparative Analysis; Deaf education; Deafness; Deafness - physiopathology; Elementary School Students; Empirical Articles; English (Second Language); English as a second language; Function words; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Handicap; Humans; Language Development; Language Skills; Literacy; Literacy Education; Psychology and medicine; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Reading Comprehension; Second Language Instruction; Second Language Learning; Sign Language; Students; Teaching Methods; Vocabulary; Vocabulary Development; Vocabulary Skills; Words; Writing; Written Language
• ISSN: 1081-4159; 1465-7325; 1465-7325
• DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enh011

The written English vocabulary of 72 deaf elementary school students of various proficiency levels in American Sign Language (ASL) was compared with the performance of 60 hearing English-as-a-second-language (ESL) speakers and 61 hearing monolingual speakers of English, all of similar age. Students were asked to retell "The Tortoise and the Hare" story (previously viewed on video) in a writing activity. Writing samples were later scored for total number of words, use of words known to be highly frequent in children's writing, redundancy in writing, and use of English function words. All deaf writers showed significantly lower use of function words as compared to their hearing peers. Low-ASL-proficient students demonstrated a highly formulaic writing style, drawing mostly on high-frequency words and repetitive use of a limited range of function words. The moderate-and high-ASL-proficient deaf students' writing was not formulaic and incorporated novel, low-frequency vocabulary to communicate their thoughts. The moderateand high-ASL students' performance revealed a departure from findings one might expect based on previous studies with deaf writers and their vocabulary use. The writing of the deaf writers also differed from the writing of hearing ESL speakers. Implications for deaf education and literacy instruction are discussed, with special attention to the fact that ASL-proficient, deaf second-language learners of English may be approaching English vocabulary acquisition in ways that are different from hearing ESL learners.