Thoughts About a Possible Bridge From ASL to English Literacy

This issue contains a special section, composed of five articles that address what I call a possible bridge from American Sign Language (ASL) to the development of English literacy. Grushkin (this issue) provides his perspectives on the development of a written-language component for ASL (i.e., written ASL), which can be used to facilitate the acquisition of English literacy (reading and writing) skills. I invited four reactants with the hope of securing a panorama of views on this possible bridge.

From one standpoint, it can be argued that this special section is a follow-up to a previously published special issue, edited by Wang and Andrews (2014, 2015)—Reading and Deaf Individuals: Perspectives on the Qualitative Similarity Hypothesis. In the conclusion of the second part of that special issue (Paul, 2015), I mentioned the work of Cripps, cited in Andrews, Byrne, and Clark (2015). Among other assertions, Cripps proposes that ASL sign writing might function as an intermediate writing system or an intermediary system. This intermediary system might serve as the bridge (e.g., cross-linguistic transfer) on which ASL-using individuals could travel along to the acquisition of English literacy skills.

Does this bridge have any theoretical or research support? Should we explore this pathway regardless and ascertain its feasibility or practicality? To whom would this bridge be applicable? What exactly is the nature of this bridge? Is this a bridge to nowhere, or can it be a possible accessible connection to the development of English literacy skills? Per my editorial approach to any controversial topic in the Annals, I shall cherry-pick a few assertions and passages from Grushkin and the reactants; however, I strongly encourage you to read all of the articles carefully, given the complexity of the arguments.

Of course, I provide my own one-and-one-half cents, which might be worth a little less now because you have to wonder if I am planning to offer anything new and exciting in light of the information already provided in my previous editorials (Paul, 2014, 2015). Only poets and philosophers can travel along the same route and offer something innovative—however, my repeating of a few timeworn salient points is always instructive and beneficial.

Moores’s Response

In reacting to Grushkin’s proposal, Moores (this issue) offers a historical perspective, buttressed by extensive amounts of professional and scholarly experience. This scholar believes that the construct of a written ASL is a topic that is timely and worthy of attention. In fact, Moores remarks, “I approached the article with a predisposition to accept its advocacy of a written ASL” (p. 537). In short, it is clear that Moores has argued that a written system should be developed (i.e., that it has inherent merit), especially if this system can become a beneficial educational tool for d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/Dhh) children and adolescents.

One of the most interesting assertions by Moores concerns the composition or nature of the written ASL system. He questions whether a written ASL system should be influenced (or, perhaps, constrained) by the structure of written English (or the written system of any other spoken language). This seems to be in response to Grushkin’s summary statements, two of which are the following: “The script should be alphabetic, for maximal congruence with English-learning strategies” and “The script should have a phoneme/grapheme relationship that is as clear as possible” (p. 524). In my view, Grushkin is attempting to construct a bridge to English literacy, and this approach provides the context for his summary points.

In any case, Moores strongly encourages research and development related to Grushkin’s main ideas, but cautions that such research should not be constrained by the structure of a spoken language. It is possible that Moores believes that the written ASL system would have a range of differential benefits for d/Dhh students. This written system may be a possible bridge to the development of English literacy; however, it can serve other critical educational functions.

Supalla, Cripps, and Byrne’s Response

It is safe to conclude that Supalla, Cripps...