This paper discusses the meaning of inclusive education for deaf learners in a way that acknowledges the diversity of learner identities, and outlines problems with normative definitions of inclusive education as advanced by recent interpretations of Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This discussion calls on us to reconsider how the concepts of inclusion and segregation are understood in education for all learners with intersectional identities. We outline the legislative history of the CRPD and Article 24, show the active involvement of deaf advocacy organisations, and highlight contradictions with this history in the CRPD Committee’s recent General Comment No. 4 on Article 24. We provide examples of innovative models of inclusive education for deaf learners that provide an education in sign language and discuss the implications of these arguments for inclusive education as a whole.
LINK
ion of verb agreement by hearing learners of a sign language. During a 2-year period, 14 novel learners of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) with a spoken language background performed an elicitation task 15 times. Seven deaf native signers and NGT teachers performed the same task to serve as a benchmark group. The results obtained show that for some learners, the verb agreement system of NGT was difficult to master, despite numerous examples in the input. As compared to the benchmark group, learners tended to omit agreement markers on verbs that could be modified, did not always correctly use established locations associated with discourse referents, and made characteristic errors with respect to properties that are important in the expression of agreement (movement and orientation). The outcomes of the study are of value to practitioners in the field, as they are informative with regard to the nature of the learning process during the first stages of learning a sign language.
DOCUMENT
The aim of this dissertation is to examine how adult learners with a spoken language background who are acquiring a signed language, learn how to use the space in front of the body to express grammatical and topographical relations. Moreover, it aims at investigating the effectiveness of different types of instruction, in particular instruction that focuses the learner's attention on the agreement verb paradigm. To that end, existing data from a learner corpus (Boers-Visker, Hammer, Deijn, Kielstra & Van den Bogaerde, 2016) were analyzed, and two novel experimental studies were designed and carried out. These studies are described in detail in Chapters 3–6. Each chapter has been submitted to a scientific journal, and accordingly, can be read independently.1 Yet, the order of the chapters follows the chronological order in which the studies were carried out, and the reader will notice that each study served as a basis to inform the next study. As such, some overlap in the sections describing the theoretical background of each study was unavoidable.
MULTIFILE
The following guidelines address issues related specifically to sign language tests and testing of children since most of the existing guidelines focus on tests for adult learners. Links are provided to existing guidelines for test development, such as from the International Testing Commission (ITC), or the European Association of Language Testing and Assessment (EALTA), which include more general, construct-independent issues on (language) tests to provide additional/in-depth information. The guidelines stated here serve as a point of reference to develop, evaluate, and use tests, both for children or adult learners of a sign language. To investigate specific topics more in-depth, we recommend using existing guidelines (see Additional resources and guidelines for (language) test development) or refer to publications on sign language test development and adaptation (see Selected references
DOCUMENT
Binnen het onderwijs van Nederlandse Gebarentaal wordt in Nederland vrijwel uitsluitend gebruik gemaakt van de doeltaal, en niet van het Nederlands. In dit artikel wordt gezocht naar argumentatie voor deze praktijk, op basis van literatuur met betrekking tot gebarentalen en gesproken talen. Argumenten voor en tegen het toepassen van de moedertaal (i.c. het Nederlands) zijn in te delen in taalkundige argumenten, organisatorische argumenten en socio-culturele argumenten. Hoewel taalkundige argumenten pleiten voor het toestaan van de moedertaal in het gebarentaalonderwijs, wegen de socio-culturele argumenten zwaar. In de conclusie wordt daarom gepleit voor een tussenweg: het gesproken Nederlands weglaten en het geschreven Nederlands gedoseerd toepassen als hulpmiddel
DOCUMENT
Sign languages have been recognized as indigenous to Europe by the key European institutions. The European Parliament has passed resolutions on sign languages on three occasions (1988, 1998, 2016a). The Council of Europe’s (CoE) Parliamentary Assembly supported a resolution on sign languages in 2003 (Council of Europe, 2005), and the European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML; an organization established under the auspices of the CoE) has supported work on sign language teaching, learning and assessment (Leeson, Van den Bogaerde, Rathmann, & Haug, 2016
DOCUMENT
In this paper we describe our work in progress on the development of a set of criteria to predict text difficulty in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). These texts are used in a four year bachelor program, which is being brought in line with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001). Production and interaction proficiency are assessed through the NGT Functional Assessment instrument, adapted from the Sign Language Proficiency Interview (Caccamise & Samar, 2009). With this test we were able to determine that after one year of NGT-study students produce NGT at CEFR-level A2, after two years they sign at level B1, and after four years they are proficient in NGT on CEFR-level B2. As a result of that we were able to identify NGT texts that were matched to the level of students at certain stages in their studies with a CEFR-level. These texts were then analysed for sign familiarity, morpheme-sign rate, use of space and use of non-manual signals. All of these elements appear to be relevant for the determination of a good alignment between the difficulty of NGT signed texts and the targeted CEFR level, although only the morpheme-sign rate appears to be a decisive indicator
DOCUMENT
This extensive, well-researched and clearly formatted lexicon of a wide variety of linguistic terms is a long overdue. It is an extremely welcome addition to the bookshelves of sign language teachers, interpreters, linguists, learners and other sign language users, and of course of the Deaf themselves. Unique to this lexicon is not only the inclusion of many terms that are used especially for sign languages, but also the fact that for the terms, there are not only examples from spoken languages but there are also glossed and translated examples from several different sign languages. There are many interesting features to this lexicon. There is an immediate temptation to find examples of terms in the sign language one is studying as well as determining how many of the most used concepts would be signed in the local language. As there are to date still almost no reference grammars of sign languages, the definitions of many of these concepts would be extremely helpful for those linguists planning to make a reference grammar of their sign language.
DOCUMENT
Research into automatic text simplification aims to promote access to information for all members of society. To facilitate generalizability, simplification research often abstracts away from specific use cases, and targets a prototypical reader and an underspecified content creator. In this paper, we consider a real-world use case – simplification technology for use in Dutch municipalities – and identify the needs of the content creators and the target audiences in this scenario. The stakeholders envision a system that (a) assists the human writer without taking over the task; (b) provides diverse outputs, tailored for specific target audiences; and (c) explains the suggestions that it outputs. These requirements call for technology that is characterized by modularity, explainability, and variability. We argue that these are important research directions that require further exploration
MULTIFILE
