A First Language: Whose Choice Is It?

In addition to these very real biological considerations about the importance of a community of language users, the idea that children need people of all ages and all walks of life with whom to comfortably converse throughout their lifetime is an extremely important consideration. This consideration is often overlooked in widespread decisions in many countries to base the education and upbringing of Deaf children on artificial sign-based codes, cued speech, and other efforts to manually represent the majority language; as neither communities of deaf nor hearing people use these methods for everyday communication. Linguists argue that none of these manual coding systems, as they are theoretically conceptualized, evidence the very important characteristics common to natural languages. Petitto (1993b), summarizes some of the primary inconsistencies below:

Indeed, there is general scientific agreement about the status of these invented sign-based codes: Invented sign-based codes that are used as a pedagogic tool with deaf pupils are not "real" or natural languages. Instead, (i) they are artificially-invented teaching devices that are not used spontaneously by any native deaf community anywhere in the world, (they do not delineate cultural communities), (ii) they are not passed down from generation to generation of deaf people, (iii) they do not demonstrate the formal linguistic changes that natural languages exhibit over time, and (iv) there is substantial evidence that they are processed in the brain differently from natural language, be it spoken or signed [e.g., Bellugi, 1980; Klima & Bellugi, 1979; Marmor and Pettito, 1979]. (Petitto, 1993b, p. 1).

Furthermore, it is has been repeatedly demonstrated that manual codes for spoken languages (which are widely used in the education of Deaf children in the United States) do not successfully serve as a model for children to learn the language of the Deaf community or the language of the majority (Bergman, 1978; Charrow, 1975; Hansen, 1980b; Hoffmeister, 1992; Hoffmeister & Bahan, 1991; Klima and Bellugi, 1979; Livingston, 1983; Marmor and Pettito 1979; Maxwell, 1987; Quigley and Paul, 1984; Stevens, 1976; Supalla 1986; Svartholm, 1993).

Thus far, studies that have correlated the English skills of Deaf children with various forms of manual English have tested children ages 7 and older (typically much older). It is important to remember that, even by the age of 7, most of these children have had many years of exposure to text for the learning of English. In other words, it cannot be reasonably claimed that the knowledge these Deaf children possess of English was acquired through signed codes, unless that knowledge is measured well before they have learned to read—that is, during the same time period when very young Deaf children exposed to ASL and hearing children exposed to English are already becoming quite fluent in grammatical use of their own language, and have a broad vocabulary and knowledge of the world.

Finally, researchers continue to find that the constraints of simultaneously communicating in two different modes result in problems for both the communicator and the receiver. Due to inherent differences in spoken and signed languages, it is not considered possible for individuals to produce both an accurate string of manual symbols for units of meaning in the spoken language and many of the features that are syntactically important in the visual mode (Hansen, 1975, 1989; Marmor and Petitto, 1979). While there is a higher rate of success among signers already fluent in a natural Sign Language, it has been demonstrated that these signers still do not represent each English unit of meaning (suffixes, prefixes, etc.) and that artificial sign systems are not effectively produced by hearing signers who are talking at the same time (the people for whom they were designed to use with deaf children). In an effort to speak at a fairly normal rate while signing, even the most proficient signers are likely to modify and delete a significant number of the manual symbols needed to represent the words they are speaking (Baker, 1978; Bergman, 1977, 1979a; Crandall, 1978; Hoffmeister, 1992; Johnson and Erting, 1989; Kluwin, 1981; Luetke-Stahlman, 1988; Mahshie, S., 1995; Marmor and Pettito 1979; Nover, 1994; Swisher, 1984).

As these American research results have been confirmed by studies in Canada, Sweden, France, Denmark, and other nations; professionals in Sweden and Denmark have moved on to what they consider theoretically-sound language principles; parents today are advised that the children's model for early exposure to visual communication should be the natural signed language of the Deaf community, and the model for aural communication should be the natural spoken language of the majority (or the home). Artificial or educationally-based attempts to represent spoken languages manually are not considered to be comprehensible language input in either modality (Mahshie, S., 1995, for extensive discussion of natural language and evidence calling use of sign-based codes into question as sole input for acquisition of a first language, as well as of their potential use in study of spoken language grammar later in a child's school career).

Parents are seen as the most important communicators in their Deaf child's early life, but not as the sole language models. While many parents become very skilled at communicating visually in a short time, it is also seen as crucial to have fluent language models who use a natural Sign Language as their primary language for daily communication present in the child's environment as much as possible. Such individuals not only carry with them at all times a form of language that is fully "learnable" by very young deaf and hard of hearing children, but also possess ways of using that language that hearing parents quickly notice really work to maintain their child's interest, attention, and comprehension.

Deaf adults' presence also supports parents' developing these same pragmatic skills and understanding of deaf children, as well as bringing their own Sign Language skills to a real conversational—not just sign class or baby-talk—level. When both parties are present in a deaf or hard of hearing child's early education and upbringing, the child's timely acquisition of language need no longer be a "wait and see" proposition.