Around MSD - Maryland School for the Deaf

James E. Tucker, Superintendent, james.tucker@msd.edu
Bilingualism and Monolingualism
Hearing parents
of newly born
deaf or hard of
hearing infants are often overwhelmed
with information relating to deafness
and deaf education as well as dealing
with the initial shock and grieving that
their child has a hearing loss. Frequently
their deaf child is the first deaf person
they have met in their lives so they
need to quickly master a steep learning
curve when they read and digest
information on how deaf and hard of
hearing children grow and learn.
Sometimes parents meet professionals
such as audiologists or speech
and language pathologists and receive
information that does not address language
acquisition and development in
both American Sign Language (ASL)
and English. Too often, parents are given
a list of “communication options” such
as Cued Speech, Signed English, Pure
Oral Method, Total Communication
and the like. Regularly this list does not
include the acquisition of ASL. If the list
includes ASL it often lacks information
that English is taught along with ASL.
Such a list promotes the “monolingual
education approach”. That is, the acquisition
and development in only one
language is encouraged.
Many schools and programs including
the Maryland School for the
Deaf promote the bilingual education
approach. The acquisition and development
of both American Sign Language
and English is emphasized inside and
outside of classrooms. American Sign
Language is used every day by over
500,000 deaf and hard of hearing
Americans and is among the most frequently
used languages in this country.
Psycholinguists and neurolinguists
have in the past 50 years documented
American Sign Language as a bona fide
language possessing all the requisite
10 THE MARYLAND BULLETIN FALL 2010
linguistic properties as well as the natural
language of the Deaf community. In
short, deaf people use ASL because they
are primarily “seeing” people and ASL is
a language of the hands, face, and body.
Parents are often confused or led
astray when they are presented a list of
“communication options”. A better way
to frame this would be to explain the
monolingual and the bilingual education
approaches along with the different
communication systems available. Too
often parents are forced to choose one
language over another when in fact they
can choose a combination of languages.
For example, parents can choose the
development of both ASL and English.
Since English may be achieved through
any of these communication options,
professionals need to start emphasizing
“and” rather than “or”.
Parents also need to eventually
determine educational placement for their
child. Too often language development is
not the driving force behind placement
decisions. Many times a cochlear implant
or a hearing aid drives placement. Other
times the misapplication of the “least
restrictive environment” provision in the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) drives placements in the
local neighborhood schools. When this
happens educational interpreters are then
utilized and this sometimes compromises
natural language development.
At the Maryland School for the
Deaf, parents are encouraged to seek
educational placements that emphasize
language acquisition in both ASL and
English. Each child has a right to learn
the language of the country, English;
and to learn the natural language of
American Deaf and Hard of Hearing
people, American Sign Language.
Today thousands of hearing babies
are encouraged to sign. The media everywhere
extol the benefits of learning
ASL for hearing babies. They are able
to express themselves in sign language
a few months before they are able to
speak, giving them a jump start on
language and communication development.
While the Deaf community is
thrilled and sometimes giddy that their
language is being taught everywhere,
they also grieve that many deaf babies
are still forbidden to sign…
Perhaps it is time to reframe the
bilingual vs. monolingual education
approach debate. There is no research
evidence that bilingual education
inhibits English language acquisition
or the development of speech. Many
professionals, especially audiologists
and speech pathologists, are still ignorant
about ASL and its biological roots
in deaf people. Bilingualism needs to
be seen as an “addition”, and not as a
“subtraction” to the overall learning
experience for a deaf child.
It is time to rewrite the brochures
that are given to parents of newly identified
deaf and hard of hearing children.
Brochures should first detail the “bilingual
(ASL and English) approach”
and the “monolingual (English only)
approach” and then move on to “communication
options”. Parents should
always be encouraged to thoroughly
explore all options since every child
should be given the opportunity to
explore, grow, learn, and most of all
thrive in different environments.
Buddha once said, “There are only
two mistakes one can make along the
road to truth; not going all the way,
and not starting.” It is MSD’s sincere
hope that professionals who advocate
only the “monolingual (English only)
approach” will consider going to the
next level in their profession learning
the linguistics of American Sign
Language and the enormous benefits
the “bilingual (ASL and English)
approach” has for deaf and hard of
hearing children everywhere. MB