This presentation explores various transformations that inform Deaf Studies research, ranging from transformations in deaf networks to larger sign language networks and transformations in applied linguistics, society, and language ideologies, and the related potential impact on sign language policy and revitalisation. After discussing some new research lenses in Deaf Studies, such as visual methods, the presentation suggests some ways forward for Deaf Studies in terms of research priorities and rights discourses.
LINK
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
Background: Collaboration between Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) and parents is considered best practice for children with developmental disorders. However, such collaborative approach is not yet implemented in therapy for children with developmental language disorders (DLD) in the Netherlands. Improving Dutch SLTs’ collaboration with parents requires insight in factors that influence the way SLTs work with parents. Aims: To explore the specific beliefs of Dutch SLTs that influence how they collaborate with parents of children with DLD. Methods and procedures: We conducted three online focus groups with 17 SLTs using a reflection tool and fictional examples of parents to prompt their thoughts, feelings and actions on specific scenarios. Data were organised using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Outcomes and results: We identified 34 specific beliefs across nine TDF domains on how SLTs collaborate with parents of children with DLD. The results indicate that SLTs hold beliefs on how to support SLTs in collaborating with parents but also conflicting specific beliefs regarding collaborative work with parents. The latter relate to SLTs’ perspectives on their professional role and identity, their approach towards parents, and their confidence and competence in working collaboratively with parents.
DOCUMENT
Across the globe, linguistically heterogeneous populations increasingly define school systems at the same time that developing the ability to communicate cross-culturally is becoming essential for internationalized economies. While these trends seem complimentary, they often appear in paradoxical opposition as represented in the content and execution of nationwide education policies. Given the differing geopolitical contexts within which school systems function, wide variation exists with regard to how policymakers address the challenges of providing language education, including how they frame goals and design programs to align with those goals. Here we present a cross-continental examination of this variation, which reveals parallel tensions among aims for integrating immigrant populations, closing historic achievement gaps, fostering intercultural understanding, and developing multilingual competencies. To consider implications of such paradoxes and parallels in policy foundations, we compare language education in the US and in the EU, focusing on the Netherlands as an illustrative case study.
LINK
Purpose: Most speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with children with developmental language disorder (DLD) do not perform language sample analysis (LSA) on a regular basis, although they do regard LSA as highly informative for goal setting and evaluating grammatical therapy. The primary aim of this study was to identify facilitators, barriers, and needs related to performing LSA by Dutch SLPs working with children with DLD. The secondary aim was to investigate whether a training would change the actual performance of LSA. Method: A focus group with 11 SLPs working in Dutch speech-language pathology practices was conducted. Barriers, facilitators, and needs were identified using thematic analysis and categorized using the theoretical domain framework. To address the barriers, a training was developed using software program CLAN. Changes in barriers and use of LSA were evaluated with a survey sent to participants before, directly after, and 3 months posttraining. Results: The barriers reported in the focus group were SLPs’ lack of knowledge and skills, time investment, negative beliefs about their capabilities, differences in beliefs about their professional role, and no reimbursement from health insurance companies. Posttraining survey results revealed that LSA was not performed more often in daily practice. Using CLAN was not the solution according to participating SLPs. Time investment remained a huge barrier. Conclusions: A training in performing LSA did not resolve the time investment barrier experienced by SLPs. User-friendly software, developed in codesign with SLPs might provide a solution. For the short-term, shorter samples, preferably from narrative tasks, should be considered.
DOCUMENT
Educational linguistics lays at the interface of contributions from linguistics (in our case focused on L1) and education. It aims at teaching students in compulsory schooling how to engage in fruitful reflection when facing both language in use (especially in the written mode) and language as a system, approaching language as something worthwhile exploring and targeting the development of students’ encyclopaedic knowledge about it. In this context, the educational game can be seen as a process in which specific contents are made accessible to specific learners through mediation, which comprises well-articulated conceptual systems, as well as methodological procedures, directly provided by teachers in the classroom. Nonetheless, such mediation can indirectly be provided by other agents (curriculum theorists, linguists, material designers, etc.), and this is the focus of the papers in this special issue: the role of linguistics, teachers’ beliefs and preparedness, the role of grammar in the curriculum, the concepts of sentence, and the difficulties in linking grammar knowledge and knowledge on language use. The ulti- mate goal of this special issue is to contribute a common ground for a debate.
DOCUMENT
The aim of this study was to assess the criterion validity of a new screening instrument, the Early Language Scale (ELS), for the identification of young children at risk for developmental language disorder (DLD), and to determine optimal age-adjusted cut-off scores. We recruited a community-based sample of 265 children aged 1 to 6 years of age. Parents of these children responded on the ELS, a 26-item "yes-no" questionnaire. The children were assessed with extended language tests (language comprehension, word production, sentence production, communication). A composite score out of these tests (two tests below - 1 SD or one below - 1.5 SD) was used as reference standard. We assessed the validity of the ELS, measured by sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and AUC. The optimal sensitivity/specificity age-dependent cut-off ELS score was at 15th percentile. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.62 and 0.93, respectively. Positive predictive value was moderate (0.53), negative predictive value was high (0.95), the positive likelihood ratio was 9.16, and negative likelihood ratio was 0.41. The area under the ROC curve was 0.88. The items covered the increasing language development for the ages from 1 to 6.Conclusion: The ELS is a valid instrument to identify children with DLD covering an age range of 1 to 6 years in community-based settings.What is Known:• Early identification and treatment of developmental language disorders can reduce negative effects on children's emotional functioning, academic success, and social relationships.• Short, validated language screening instruments that cover the full age range of early childhood language development lack.What is New:• The 26-item Early Language Scale (ELS) is a valid instrument to identify children at risk for developmental language disorder in well-child care and early educational settings among Dutch children aged 1-6 years.
DOCUMENT
Full text met HU account Although people all over the world learn sign languages as a second language (SL2), there is scant literature on sign language acquisition processes to guide professionals in the field. This study focuses on one of the modality-specific phenomena that SL2 learners with a spoken language background encounter that do not exist in their native language (L1): the use of space for grammatical reasons. We analyzed the sign language production data of two learners of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) who we followed for four years. Data comprise interviews that were coded for use of space. Use of space was operationalized by measuring the number of occasions of pointing signs, agreement verbs, classifier verbs, and spatially modified signs from the nominal domain. In addition, we identified examples of typical L2 signing (e.g. errors of overgeneralization, omissions, et cetera). Data show that learners initially produce modified signs that have a gestural counterpart. It might be that they "borrow" signs from the gestural domain, or they produce these highly iconic structures because their gestural inventory has helped them to acquire these structures. Furthermore, the data show that particularly classifier verbs and agreement verbs within a constructed action sequence pose challenges for the learners, and we observed some general error patterns that have been found in L1-learners, such as stacking and reversing the movement path of agreement verbs
LINK
Poster presented at the workshop Rural signing varieties: social dynamics and linguistic structure, results from the EuroBABEL project on 'Endangered Sign Languages in Village Communities', Leiden, 7th November 2012
DOCUMENT
This paper reports on CATS (2006-2007), a project initiated by the Research Centre Teaching in Multicultural Schools, that addresses language related dropout problems of both native and non-native speakers of Dutch in higher education. The projects main objective is to develop a model for the redesign of the curriculum so as to optimize the development of academic and professional language skills. Key pedagogic strategies are the raising of awareness of personal proficiency levels through diagnostic testing, definition of linguistic demands of curriculum tasks, empowerment of student autonomy and peer feedback procedures. More specifically, this paper deals with two key areas of the project. First, it describes the design and development of web-based corpus software tools, aimed at the enhancement of the autonomy of students academic reading and writing skills. Secondly, it describes the design of three pilots, in which the process of a content and language integrated approach - facilitated by the developed web tools - was applied, and these pilots respective evaluations. The paper concludes with a reflection on the project development and the experiences with the pilot implementations.
DOCUMENT
