MORPHOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY, ASL, AND THE ACQUISITION OF SIGN LANGUAGE IN DEAF CHILDREN

This study explores the acquisition of sign language in deaf children of deaf parents (d/d) and deaf children of hearing parents (d/h). Based on Slobin's (1977) charges that language must be clear and expressive, it is argued that sign languages used as fully functional languages must have certain core properties (e.g. given that they are slower than speech, they must be morphologically complex).;Chapter Two is an empirical study which compares d/d and d/h quantitatively on the core properties of ASL as specified in Chapter One. D/d show a developmental trend on these features that in part validates the linguistic theories that lead us to identify these core properties. Further, d/h show the beginnings of the development of these properties, as would be predicted by a "nativization" model applied to ASL (as argued in Gee 1984 for instance). Finally, the study shows a good deal of variability within each group before the age of seven. This variability calls for individual case studies and for the application of dynamic models (pidgin/creole, bilingual, nativization/denativization approaches) to the acquisition of sign languages.;Chapter Three provides detailed comparisons of d/d and d/h called for by the patterns of linguistic variation in Chapter Two. These comparisons are carried out on the basis of the theories covered in Chapter One. Descriptions of how various d/d and d/h sign the same semantic content show that d/h are indeed "innovating" forms that are core properties of ASL as specified in the linguistic theories in Chapter One.;Chapter One describes and compares three current linguistic systems for the description of ASL: Padden (1983), Supalla (1982) and Gee and Kegl (1982;1983). All attribute a great deal of morphological complexity to the language. This chapter in essence amounts to a search for the core properties of ASL grammar, i.e. the ones that will constitute a good measure of how ASL-like a child's grammar is and the ones that we might well expect to be innovated by d/h under the control of their biological capacity for language as this is expressed in sign languages (that is, given the need for a morphologically complex language). It is this chapter that tells us what to count in any quantitative study.