ASL Lessons | Bookstore | Library | ASL University Main ►
The theory that L1 should not be used to expedite L2 acquisition -- is a myth:
Common underlying proficiency / language interdependency
Recently a student stated something to the effect of:
"I know I should get away from relying on English equivalents for signs."
I would like to suggest to you all that is not a fact.
I would like to suggest to you all that the concept of "avoid English labels for signs in order to speed up your learning of ASL" is actually a myth.
I would like you to at least consider the possibility that you have been misled by well-meaning but misinformed ASL instructors and curriculum developed on false or inaccurate principles.
Dr. Jim Cummins introduced (back in 1981) the idea of "common underlying proficiency" as a process through which cross-language transfer could (and does) happen.
I encourage readers to visit and study this page:
http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/cummins.htm (If that disappears, try archive.org and see if you can access an archived version).
Then ask yourself:
If it is good to use ASL to teach English to English as a second language learners (such as Deaf children learning English)?
Yes or no?
Seriously -- have you decided yes or no on that question?
Decide if you think we should use ASL "to help" teach Deaf children how read, write, and understand English.
If you thought, "yes" -- ask yourself why you believe that.
Then list the reasons.
After you have a list of reasons next ask:
Do those same reasons apply to learning ASL as a second language?
People go through all kinds of false or misleading mental gymnastics to justify the first statement below and then discredit or criticize number 2 even though they are two sides of the same coin.
1. It is good to incorporate ASL in the teaching of ESL to native ASL speakers to expedite (speed up) acquisition of English.
2. It is good to incorporate English to teach ASL-as-a-second-language to English speakers to speed up acquisition of ASL.
I'll state that again this way:
If you ask someone in the Deaf Community if it is good to use ASL to teach Deaf kids about math, history, English, and other topics -- they will typically respond "Yes! Of course!"
If on the other hand you ask someone in the Deaf Community (or the ASL teaching profession)
Is it good to teach Hearing kids ASL by using English? -- They will typically respond, "Oh no! That is bad!"
The question becomes why is the incorporation (or partial use) of L1 (the first language) good for teaching L2 (the second language) when the second language is English but not when the second language is ASL?
The answer to the question is simply:
"Actually, it works both ways."
I'm going to give you an example and you will either understand my point or your mind will be so clouded that you will disregard my point.
It is easy to teach concepts that are
Each language has many concepts that are abstract.
...
(To be continued -- but the gist is that if you want to teach "banana" via immersion it is fairly easy. If you want to teach the concept of "for" --- via immersion it is wicked hard. However it is much easier to introduce an abstract concept such as "for" by mapping it to the closest comparable concept to "for" in the student's native language.
Notes:
Note to self: keywords for story about breakfast at Denny's and student didn't understand the sign buy vs pay and responded "thats what that means!" my teacher wouldn't tell us he kept miming and gesturing until
* Want to help support ASL University? It's easy: DONATE (Thanks!)
* Another way to help is to buy something from Dr. Bill's "Bookstore."
* Want even more ASL resources? Visit the "ASL Training Center!" (Subscription Extension of ASLU)
* Also check out Dr. Bill's channel: www.youtube.com/billvicars
You can learn American Sign Language (ASL) online at American Sign Language University ™
ASL resources by Lifeprint.com © Dr. William Vicars