Translanguaging Framework for Deaf Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer comments

 

The authors present an argument to reframe the Language Zone conceptualization to one that incorporates a translanguaging viewpoint. The case studies of Felix and Gabrielle are very illustrative and helpful to building understanding.

 

Abstract, line 13: Suggested edit: “while also working to expand their linguistic resources and increase communication flexibility”

 

Abstract, line 14: “moves” seems like an awkward word choice here. I’m having trouble figuring out what you mean: “practices”? “adjustments”?

 

Line 28: I’m not sure ‘cf’ is right here. It’s used to present an alternative option or stance. Do the omitted articles present a conflicting perspective of the Language Zone? Or just additional evidence of it?

 

Lines 75-76: This section seems to conflate the language (e.g., English) which is comprised of vocabulary, syntax rules, morphological systems, etc. and an “English speaker”. You move back and forth between discussing the internal view of using a language (i.e., being an English speaker) with the language itself. English is still English with its grammatical system and vocabulary even if it can also be blended with another language through something like codeswitching. Because you can use Spanish words in English matrix sentences or switch between Spanish and English mid-sentence doesn’t mean that English is not a thing. English is still English even if a person can fluidly interact with it and other languages. Please clarify in this paragraph when you’re referring to the person who uses language and the language system.

 

Line 99: This sentence seems to be cut off.

 

Line 113: It might be worthwhile to note that not all sign languages use the same visual imagery (e.g., representing a bird via iconically depicting its beak or wings; Emmorey, K. (2014). Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1651), 20130301.)

 

Line 117: “not similar in any way to simultaneous expression” seems particularly defensive. Suggest rewording to a more objective description: “Simultaneous communication means speaking and signing at the same time, while simultaneous expression refers to production of multiple linguistic components within the same movement”

 

Line 126: Do you mean Example B shows SVO and example C shows OSV?

 

Line 127: TREE CAT SIT would be OSV. With the ‘ON’ included it becomes a prepositional phrase which complicates the essence of the example. I suggest changing the example to be TREE CAT SIT.

 

Line 154: is the ability for a language to use both sequential and simultaneous expressions unique to signed languages or are there examples of this in spoken language? Your examples would benefit from a comparison here.

 

Line 167: What do you mean by the interlocutor is not flexible in their use of ASL?

 

Line 167-171: What examples or evidence can you present in support of these claims?

 

Line 174: This section might benefit from an additional discussion of codeblending

Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H. B., & Thompson, R. (2005). Bimodal bilingualism: code-blending between spoken English and American Sign Language. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 663-673). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press

 

Line 195: Your inclusion of Spanish here doesn’t add anything additional to the discussion. This figure is depicting sequential vs. simultaneous and both English and Spanish provide the same sequential example. You might consider using German as an alternative as it is agglutinative and will take more morphemes into a single word.

 

Lines 201-210 don’t seem to add much to your claim. They start down the pathway of a linguistic analysis but don’t get far enough to be informative and instead seems to detract from the overall argument.

 

Line 219: Should avoid secondary citations

 

Lines 268-274: The quotation needs to be enclosed in quotation marks

 

Lines 275-293: Please comment on how the student’s individual linguistic preferences and choices play out in this idea of protected spaces for minoritized languages, as you also are discussing how individuals should be allowed to flexibly use all of their languages.

 

Line 298: “deaf educators” – I think you mean educators who are deaf and not educators of students who are deaf/educators in the field of deaf education, but it is ambiguous as written. Please clarify the ambiguity in this sentence.

 

Line 306-308: This is not always the case. Please soften this claim to allow for the variability that is actually observed in classrooms, especially in light of the LEAD-K reforms/advocacy.

 

Line 323-324: Please comment on classrooms with deaf children who exclusively use spoken language and not sign language, or clarify that these classrooms you are referencing would be with deaf students who use sign language and some form of the surrounding area’s spoken language (written or spoken). These statements would not be accurate for a middle school classroom of someone who has never been exposed to sign language. In that case, it would be inappropriate to put them in a classroom of only sign language.

 

Lines 331-339: You might consider including work by Caselli et al. (2020) here:

Caselli, N. K., Hall, W. C., & Henner, J. (2020). American Sign Language interpreters in public schools: An illusion of inclusion that perpetuates language deprivation. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 24(11), 1323-1329

 

Lines 348-349: Inclusion of AAC here is a little problematic. People who work or live in AAC spaces aren’t trying to avoid AAC or remediate it. In fact, AAC can often allow people the opportunity to communicate when they have no (or limited) other ways. Please further explain this inclusion or remove it.

 

Line 373: “difference paces, motions, and processes” – please explain this further.

 

Lines 382-383: The argument being posed here seems to be: accept all gestures, facial expressions, and pictures and communicate in these ways to the deaf person to affirm their communication efforts and you will avoid language deprivation. Brains seek to impose regularity and patterns onto to communication thereby creating (or using) standard languages. That’s what we see with Nicaraguan Sign Language (see work by Senghas, Coppola, Pyers) and home sign systems (see work by Diane Brentari). Gestures are not treated the same way by the brain. Please clarify this section further to not throw the baby (what the brain craves in language) out with the bath water (encouraging many types of communication).

 

Line 396-397: Do you mean promote teacher candidates that will teach only in English or the professors in the teacher prep programs teach only in English? Please clarify.

 

Line 458: “language moves” is an ambiguous clunky term. Please clarify what you mean.

 

Line 478: “idolect” is a typo

 

Lines 519-520: “avoid using named languages if they are no comprehensible to students” – We use vocabulary and expressions all the time with children that they do not understand but with scaffolding they are able to understanding (either something like linguistic bootstrapping or overt explanation). I would suggest adding “exclusively” to your sentence to encompass that we don’t use English or ASL exclusively with someone who doesn’t have a full understanding of these languages but that is not to say we do not expose them to these languages and ways of communicating through them (in addition to other ways)

 

Line 683: You haven’t established that Felix knows Spanish, Please clarify why you have included that in the example.

 

Line 852: fully accessible to sighted individuals

 

Lines 896-905: please include quotation marks.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Hi there,

Thanks for your paper, I enjoyed reading it and it gave me a lot of food for thought!

I don't have many comments because I feel the standard of the paper is very high. However I have a few things that I think need to be addressed.

Firstly and most importantly, you need to cite Henner and Robinson 2021 on crip linguistics, particularly on p.8. They coined the term, so you need to cite them. I don't know who the authors of this paper are, but since there is no "omitted for peer review" in this section I can only imagine that this is an oversight rather than  leaving the citation out to preserve author anonymity.

On p.7 you talk about the 1880 Milan congress. I would tone this down. Evidence increasingly suggests that Milan had a minimal impact on the spread of oralism. While it's been the tradition in Deaf Studies and other fields to point to Milan as the cause of oralism, this is not actually the case. Instead I would simply refer to the spread of oralism during that time period (late 19th century) rather than specifically naming Milan. We need to move away from this overly simple interpretation and overestimation of Milan's influence.

On p.15 onwards, the scenarios, I think it would be good to root these a bit more in reality. Do the authors have experience of these events in the real world? Are they based on empirical evidence/case studies? At the moment they read like they're grounded in hope, almost, rather than reality, so it would be good to see you mention that they are based on something.

I would also like to see a bit more complexity in the scenarios - what happens in Suzie's class if Felix is only one of several children with complex and differing language repertoires/ideolects? How does she juggle this? I think you need to pre-empt the possible criticism of "that looks great, but in the real world..."

Other than that, I think this is a really good paper. Thank you!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review Translanguaging Framework for Deaf Education. I am doing something unusual for me and writing this review directly into the reviewer box in the webpage instead of in a word processor. The reason I am doing this is because quite frankly, I am not sure why I have to review this article. It is, bluntly speaking, as close to perfect as a paper gets. Certainly, there's some room for improvement, some cross field inconsistencies, some citations that could be added to make the arguments more robust, but that is true of anything written ever. If it were published today in this form, I would be content and cite it forever. 

But since everyone's time is being wasted by not publishing it in this form and forcing the authors to do another round of reviews, I will add some minor comments and the authors can regard it or disregard it as they deem necessary.

 

1. Communicative repertoires can probably be replaced with semiotic repertories. That would add a Kusters citation which I think is fine.

2. I think the paper could do with a small discussion of "calibration".  Moriarty and Kusters (2021) define it as "in this process, mobile deaf people quickly adopt new semiotic resources by engaging in rapid, immersive and informal (sign) language learning, acquiring (bits of) new sign languages, mouthing, written words, and fingerspelling alphabets, and including them in their practice of calibrating. Our analysis centres language ideologies about these practices, demonstrating moral ideas about what strategies and semiotic resources are most appropriate in specific contexts and/or with/by whom." I'm curious about how calibration operates in the TFDE but perhaps that's another paper? That's fine too. Not everything has to be in a single paper.

3. The sequential v simultaneous expression brings to mind a Pisoni paper which concluded that deaf people are cognitively deficient because they don't language sequentially. 

4. You may want to consider alt text in the included pictures.

5. The TFDE needs to be updated for haptic/tactile signed languages and perhaps semiotic languages. So receptive language is viewing, listening, reading, feeling, capturing. Expressive language can also be updated as well.

6. I have some minor beefs with how the vocabulary is defined and used, but honestly, it's cross field contrasts and utterly worthless. Why am I saying that here? Because some other people may have the same issues but they, like me, can get over it. Not every concept will transmit across fields perfectly. 

 

Fantastic work. I cant wait to throw this in the faces of people. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, I am happy with the changes made. An excellent paper.

 

A few minor points that I would (optionally) advise you consider addressing:

-       While I understand that not mentioning the deaf or hearing status of teachers was intentional – to focus on signing skills instead – I think it would be powerful to say something about the role of deaf adults in deaf education, even if only at the end. Having deaf teachers allows students to have role models who at the very least have lived experience of deafness just like they do, in addition to possibly sign language fluency as well. And hearing teachers could learn a lot by working together with deaf teachers. To what extent do you think teachers of the deaf (in addition to their deaf students) should mix with / become part of the deaf community? Is there anything at all you want to say about this? It seems like a missed opportunity.

-       While an explanation of the continuum between simultaneous and sequential meaning units in Figure 1 is certainly an improvement, it still does not really make sense to have CAT followed by the classifier construction on the far left – these two elements are sequential. It would be more appropriate to delete CAT entirely from both the left and right sides of the continuum – therefore leaving only the production about a two-legged or seated entity sitting in a tree as either fully simultaneous in one single construction, versus 3 separate signs which are fully sequential: SIT, ON, TREE.

 

In addition make sure you proofread/spellcheck etc. E.g. “Expanding Perspectives of Deaf Individuals’ Repertoires: Insights from Crip Linguistics” seems to have  been mistakenly added on the top of pg 6.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version is much improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for this resubmission! Thanks also for your engagement with my comments. I think this is much stronger in the revised form. Thanks again for the opportunity to read your very interesting work.