Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

American Sign Language Interpreters in Public Schools: An Illusion of Inclusion that Perpetuates Language Deprivation

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Maternal and Child Health Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Many deaf children have limited access to language, spoken or signed, during early childhood – which has damaging effects on many aspects of development. There has been a recent shift to consider deafness and language deprivation as separate but related conditions. As such, educational plans should differentiate between services related to deafness and services related to language deprivation.

Description

Many deaf children attend mainstream public schools, and the primary service offered to students who use American Sign Language (ASL) is generally a sign language interpreter.

Assessment

We argue that while sign language interpreters can be an effective accommodation for deafness (i.e., students who are deaf and not language-deprived), there is no reason to believe they are an effective accommodation for language deprivation (i.e., students who are deaf and language-deprived).

Conclusion

Using interpreters instead of appropriate educational supports may exacerbate symptoms of language deprivation by prolonging the period of time a child goes with limited access to language.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We recognize that the term inclusive is often used to describe an educational setting in which a disabled child is placed into the general education classroom. In recognition that such classrooms are not meaningfully inclusive for signing deaf children (e.g., Murray et al. 2018a, b), we use the term mainstreamed instead.

  2. Geers et al. (2017) made claims about the use of sign language that were wholly unfounded, and did not highlight what, in our view, was the most noteworthy finding from the study: the majority of deaf children did not successfully learn spoken language. See Hall et al. (2019) for an analysis.

  3. We use the term “language” inclusively, as it is generally understood by linguists, to refer to spoken languages and variants (e.g., English, Arabic, African American Vernacular English), and signed languages (e.g., ASL, British Sign Language, Kenyan Sign Language).

  4. We recognize that some people find the label deafness offensive, as it medicalizes a cultural identity In the absence of a better alternative, we use this term judiciously and narrowly as a clinical term to refer to audiological statuses.

  5. This is an oversimplification, of course. Deaf children without language deprivation often benefit from supports beyond access (e.g., literacy instruction designed for deaf children, guidance on strategies for adapting to a world predominantly designed by and for hearing people).

  6. For reference, there are currently 14,284 members of the national professional organization for sign language interpreters (RID 2018), and as we review in the following sections many educational interpreters may not be affiliated with this certifying body.

References

  • Brasel, B. (1976). The effects of fatigue on the competence of interpreters for the deaf. In H. Murphy (Ed.), Selected readings in the integration of deaf students at CSUN (pp. 19–22). Northridge: Center on Deafness, California State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Meulder, M., & Haualand, H. (2019). Sign language interpreting services: A quick fix for inclusion? Translation and Interpreting Studies. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.18008.dem.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Second language acquisition (42 Vols.). Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

  • Gagne, D. L. (2017). With a little help from my friends: The contributions of a peer language network on the conventionalization of space in an emerging language. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/1493/.

  • Gallaudet Research Institute. (2012). Annual Survey of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth 2009–2010 regional and National Summary. Retrieved from https://research.gallaudet.edu/Demographics/2010_National_Summary.pdf.

  • Geers, A. E., Mitchell, C. M., Warner-Czyz, A., Wang, N., Eisenberg, L. S., & CDaCI Investigative Team. (2017). Early sign language exposure and cochlear implantation benefits. Pediatrics, 140(1), e20163489.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, W. C. (2017). What you don’t know can hurt you: The risk of language deprivation by impairing sign language development in deaf children. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 21(5), 961–965.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M. L., Hall, W. C., & Caselli, N. K. (2019). Deaf children need language, not (just) speech. First Language, 39(4), 367–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henner, J., Caldwell-Harris, C. L., Novogrodsky, R., & Hoffmeister, R. (2016). American sign language syntax and analogical reasoning skills are influenced by early acquisition and age of entry to signing schools for the deaf. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1982.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Henner, J., Novogrodsky, R., Reis, J., & Hoffmeister, R. (2018). Recent issues in the use of signed language assessments for diagnosis of language disorders in signing deaf and hard of hearing children. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 23(4), 307–316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, M., Tiddens, E., Quittner, A. L., & CDaCI Investigative Team. (2018). Comparisons of visual attention in school-age children with cochlear implants versus hearing peers and normative data. Hearing Research, 359, 91–100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Napoli, D. J., Padden, C., Rathmann, C., et al. (2012). Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal, 9(1), 16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. J., Taylor, M. M., Schick, B. S., Brown, S., & Bolster, L. (2018). Complexities in educational interpreting: An investigation into patterns of practice. Edmonton, AB: Interpreting Consolidated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. E., Clark, G. M., & Soltz, D. F. (1997). Characteristics and practices of sign language interpreters in inclusive education programs. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayberry, R. I., Chen, J.-K., Witcher, P., & Klein, D. (2011). Age of acquisition effects on the functional organization of language in the adult brain. Brain and Language, 119(1), 16–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayberry, R. I., & Kluender, R. (2018). Rethinking the critical period for language: New insights into an old question from american sign language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(5), 886–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. E., & Karchmer, M. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the united states. Sign Language Studies, 4(2), 138–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. E., & Karchmer, M. A. (2005). Parental hearing status and signing among deaf and hard of hearing students. Sign Language Studies, 5(2), 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. J., De Meulder, M., & le Maire, D. (2018a). An education in sign language as a human right?: The sensory exception in the legislative history and ongoing interpretation of article 24 of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Human Rights Quarterly, 40(1), 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. J., Hall, W. C., & Snoddon, K. (2019). Education and health of children with hearing loss: the necessity of signed languages. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 97(10), 711–716.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. J., Snoddon, K., De Meulder, M., & Underwood, K. (2018b). Intersectional inclusion for deaf learners: Moving beyond General Comment No. 4 on Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(7), 691–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napoli, D. J., Mellon, N. K., Niparko, J. K., Rathmann, C., Mathur, G., Humphries, T., … Lantos, J. D. (2015). Should all deaf children learn sign language? Pediatrics, 136(1), 170–176.

  • Nicodemus, B., & Emmorey, K. (2013). Direction asymmetries in spoken and signed language interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(3), 624–636.

  • Pénicaud, S., Klein, D., Zatorre, R. J., Chen, J. K., Witcher, P., Hyde, K., et al. (2013). Structural brain changes linked to delayed first language acquisition in congenitally deaf individuals. Neuroimage, 66, 42–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petitto, L. A. (2000). The acquisition of natural signed languages: Lessons in the nature of human language and its biological foundations. In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford, & R. I. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 41–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. (2016). Job/task analysis for National Interpreter Certification (NIC). Retrieved from https://rid.org/2018-annual-report/.

  • Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. (2018). Annual Report. Retrieved from https://www.casli.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NIC-JTA-Report.pdf.

  • Russell, D., & McLeod, J. (2009). Educational interpreting: Multiple perspectives of our work. In J. Mole (Ed.), International perspectives on educational interpreting (pp. 128–144). Brassington: Direct Learned Services Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schick, B., De Villiers, P., De Villiers, J., & Hoffmeister, R. (2007). Language and theory of mind: A study of deaf children. Child Development, 78(2), 376–396.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schick, B., Williams, K., & Bolster, L. (1999). Skill levels of educational interpreters working in public schools. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4(2), 144–155.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schick, B., Williams, K., & Kupermintz, H. (2005). Look who's being left behind: Educational interpreters and access to education for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(1), 3–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. (1992). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Toealli-Bcller, A. (2002). 9. Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thoutenhoofd, E. D. (2005). The sign language interpreter in inclusive education: Power of authority and limits of objectivism. The Translator, 11(2), 237–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trahan, A. K., Wolsey, J. L. A., & Clark, M. D. (2018). Experiences of culturally and linguistically diverse parents with deaf children during the individualized educational plan process. Psychology, 9(3), 427–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winston, E. A. (1994). An interpreted education: Inclusion or exclusion? In R. C. Johnson & O. P. Cohen (Eds.), Implications and complications for deaf students of the full inclusion movement (pp. 55–62). Gallaudet Research Institute Occasional Paper 94-2. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

  • Yarger, C. C. (2001). Educational interpreting: Understanding the rural experience. American Annals of the Deaf, 146(1), 16–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute On Deafness And Other Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R21DC016104. Wyatte Hall was supported by the University of Rochester CTSA award number 3 UL1 TR002001-03S2 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. This work is also supported by National Science Foundation grants BCS 1625793 and 1918252 to Naomi Caselli.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naomi K. Caselli.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Caselli, N.K., Hall, W.C. & Henner, J. American Sign Language Interpreters in Public Schools: An Illusion of Inclusion that Perpetuates Language Deprivation. Matern Child Health J 24, 1323–1329 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-020-02975-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-020-02975-7

Keywords

Navigation