Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdrummer
Regarding language aquisition, I understand the deaf kids are more visual learners (obviously), and I understand the importance of aquiring language at an early age but I'm not sure I understand why learning ASL before English would be preferential. After all, at some point English should be learned so why not teach it first? It seems to me that if deaf kids have deaf parents that are fluent signers then ASL would be the natural choice but for deaf kids of hearing parents English might be a better choice for L1 language. What do you guys think and why?
|
Because acqusition is largely passive, not active learning. Because of that, the language presented in a mode that most readily agrees with an innate learning preference will be acquired more readily, thus laying the foundation for more directed, active learning of an L2 language. It is the process of acqusition that provides a child with the capacity to "play" with language and to use it in all of its infinite combinations. That foundation makes learning a second language easier. If one teaches an oral language to a deaf child first, it is in a directive manner, through drill and exercise. It has been supported through much research that hearing mothers of deaf children who are using an oral approach are much more directive in all of their interactions with that child. That directiveness does not allow time for the child to play with language, or to develop intuitive understanding of the ways in which language works. That leads to rigidity in usage, and restricts the way those skills can be applied to learning a second language. When we are talking about language acquisition, it is not so much dependent upon learning preference of the child, the the mode which most readily conveys the most information, and leaves fewer gaps in implicit understanding.