Russell S. Rosen
The ability of individuals to have meaningful conversations, clearly express thoughts and feelings, reduce ambiguity, exhibit fluency, and be effective in their intent hinges on their grammatical constructions (Ellis, 2002a). Grammar, or syntax, consists of morpho-syntactic devices and sign (word) order that combine lexical items into phrases and sentences. There are different grammatical constructions that are based on topics, contexts, and relationships. As individuals navigate through different topics, contexts, and relationships, the grammatical constructions they use vary. This is the main consideration in the teaching of grammar.
The teaching of sign language grammar is the imputation of knowledge of linguistic rules, how grammar is used, and situations where grammar is used. It requires the explication of the grammatical features and different grammatical structures for the learners to talk about different topics under different situations and for different social relationships. As grammar varies by topics, contexts, and relationships, there are different aspects in the teaching of grammar. They include lexical parts of grammar, phrase structures, grammatical order structures, and uses of grammar. Sign languages carry certain features that are shaped by its visual and manual modality which are not shared by spoken languages. They are, for instance, non-manual facial and bodily expressions, constructed action, and the type of classifier systems found in many sign languages.
The goal for grammar teaching is for the learners to develop grammatical, communicative, and pragmatic competencies in using sign language for social interaction. In the teaching of sign language grammar, however, Rosen and Woodward in Chapter 10 of this volume, McKee et al. (2014), and Quinto-Pozos (2011) saw that sign language instructors who did not receive specialized training possess little knowledge of the grammatical features of the languages, much less on the application of their knowledge of sign language linguistics to curriculum design and teaching strategies. When sign language instruction was first introduced at the elementary, middle, secondary, and collegiate education institutions in the US, many countries in the European Union (EU), Africa, Asia, and other places in the world in the 1980s and 1990s, there are no teacher training programs (Wilcox & Wilcox, 1997), or national curriculum. Wherever teacher training programs were established in the countries, mostly in the 1990s and 2000s, they were left with insufficient materials, no standard curriculum, and a few studies on second language instruction and acquisition that were available for sign language teachers (Wilcox & Wilcox, 1997). The teachers developed their teaching of grammar with gut feelings, based on knowledge of Deaf community and culture customs, and were not evidence- or data-based (Wilcox & Wilcox, 1997; Nilsson & Schönström, 2014). There were earlier attempts to introduce some teaching strategies, particularly in the US with Caccamise, Garretson, and Bellugi (1981) and Padden (1986). Their approaches were dependent on the grammatical constructions that were known at that time. Several chapters in Caccamise, Garretson, and Bellugi (1981) and Padden (1986), discussed linguistic rules and provided examples of how to teach them. However, they did not provide evidence to assess its effectiveness.
Consequently, early sign language teachers operated with little knowledge and understanding of L2/Ln teaching, curriculum, assessment, and learning process. They acquire information about teaching from workshops, face-to-face encounters, conferences, and on-the-job (Wilcox & Wilcox, 1997). Teachers often bring their intuitions and perspectives on grammar to classrooms that are not drawn from research studies in pedagogy (Quinto-Pozos, 2011; McKee et al., 2014; Rosen & Woodward, Chapter 10 of this volume). Wilcox and Wilcox (1997) reported that the earliest teaching approach was the teaching of signed spoken language, such as Signed English, Pidgin Sign Language, or codes of manual sign language for spoken languages in the US and signed spoken languages in the other countries.
The teachers ought to have a knowledge, or “metalinguistic awareness” (Andrews, 1999) of grammar and know how to incorporate it in curriculum and instruction. There is a need to provide grammar teachers and practitioners with what researchers know and understand about what constitutes and what works in the teaching of sign language grammar. To this end, this chapter explicates and discusses the main theoretical perspectives and pedagogical practices in the teaching of sign language grammar with second language (L2/Ln) learners.
Different approaches and strategies have been developed during the history of the teaching of grammar in classrooms with learners who learn sign languages as L2/Ln. The pedagogy of grammar in L2/Ln sign languages is guided by theories of the psychology of learning, linguistics theories, and principles of teaching. The pedagogies in the importation of sign language grammar differ in approaches, which include the selection of topics, types of linguistic structures, and the degree of emphasis on vocabulary and grammar. The language forms and pedagogies carry certain assumptions about linguistics and the psychology of learning, and are often influenced by the prevailing theories and approaches in linguistics, the psychology of learning and teaching, and the values of a society that dictate topics to be taught. In addition, the approaches differ in how learners deal with grammatical issues and how they should be presented to them. The following overview of the different theoretical perspectives and pedagogical approaches in the teaching of grammar is based on a study on the history of sign language curriculum conducted by Rosen (2010).
Linguistic theories are one of the drivers of teaching strategy. Linguists develop theories by identifying components of and rules for constructing languages. Language users create language structures, and linguists examine patterns in language structures. Their theories are their discerning of the underlying rules that govern the creation of lexemes, morphemes, and syntax (O’Grady et al., 2004). The linguists looked into lexical items, combinations of lexical items into phrases, modifications of lexical items for grammatical purposes of connecting between phrases, lexical and functional categories, word order, and meanings of utterances.
Psychological theories of learning are another driver of teaching strategy. Psychologists study the learning process and the acquisition of language (Gleitman, Reisberg, & Cross, 2007), and generally find that psychological processes shape learning. Variations in learning success are attributable to the substantial individual differences in how they discover the patterns (Brooks & Kempe, 2013). Grammar instruction would need to be made more explicit for the learners to discover patterns (Brooks & Kempe, 2013).
Models of L2/Ln sign language teaching tend to follow models of L2/Ln spoken language teaching. Teaching a language entails teaching the linguistic rules for creating utterances in the language (Brown 2006). Language teaching is shaped by the linguistic theories and the psychological theories of language acquisition. Developments in teaching approaches follow developments in linguistics and psychology of learning. Studies in learning drive psychological theories of learning, and new studies generate not only new theories of learning but also new linguistic theories. The resultant changes in linguistic theories change teaching approaches in second language. Later studies in learning generate changes in learning theories, which then change linguistic theories and teaching approaches, and the cycle is repeated (cf. Richards & Swan, 2001). In addition, ASL curricular material may model that of existing spoken-language curricula, or it may be designed straight from the theories and approaches they employ. Different teaching approaches employ various combinations of linguistic rules, uses of language, and the characteristics of a community and are often shaped by certain theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical assumptions.
The following review is drawn from Rosen (2010) and is divided into sections that contextualize different ASL teaching methods according to different theories and approaches in linguistics, learning, and teaching that were prevalent at the time of their development. The spoken language instructional approaches are identified for each teaching approach, and the reader is referred to Rosen (2010) for further description of the identified approaches.
One of the oldest theories in the teaching and learning of languages is based on the assumption that learners came to classroom with a “tabula rasa.” Teachers would need to condition them to learn languages. The behaviorists such as Watson (1930) and Skinner (1957) proposed that individuals do not act freely but in response to outside stimuli in a programmed way. They suggested that languages are best learned through modeling, drills, and rote memorization. Linguists such as Bloomfield and Harris believed in fixed, predetermined, immutable, and irreproducible types of language structures as “word classes” (Bloomfield, 1933), which are parts of speech defined in terms of their grammatical features. Sentences that are formally alike may be mapped, or transformed, into another that preserves the linear combinations (Harris, 1951). Languages can be learned by memorizing strings of word chunks, substituting words within strings, and arranging different word strings into a word order. In spoken language instruction, the grammar translation method (Titone, 1968), direct method (Titone, 1968), situational language teaching (Palmer, 1917), and the audiovisual method (Brooks, 1964; Fries, 1945) followed the percepts of behaviorism.
Several studies have pointed out the limitations of the behaviorist approach. The issue with the behaviorist teaching approach is that it does not make grammar explicit to the learners. Brooks and Kempe (2013) found that learners are made aware of the grammatical structures in a language if the structures are explicitly shown, described, and explained to the learners. Without this, the learners are left with their own devices to learn the grammatical structures, including asking teachers about the grammatical principles, while other learners do not and instead use their beliefs about language, communication, and grammar (Loewen, 2015). Studies showed that the learners frequently expressed sentences not in the target language but translated from the L2/Ln into the L1, suggesting that L1 transfer plays a role in the learning of L2/Ln vocabulary and grammatical constructions (Gorsuch, 1998; Shih, 1999). Other studies showed that the learners made minimal gains in L2/Ln communication skills (Gorsuch, 1998; Swain, 1985; Anderson, 1993; Fotos, 2001; Shih, 1999). The learners are active agents of learning, which informed a new theory in linguistics.
Instead of agreeing that people learn languages by imitation and rote memorization, Chomsky (1965), and supported by Radford (1997), argued for innatism, or an innate human ability to create languages. A Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is proposed as a mentalistic, internalized linguistic system for language that appears in actual utterances through the process of generative rules, which are compounded when language is exhibited on the surface. Rationalism emphasizes top-down thinking skills and posits that languages are learned by analyzing linguistic rules. The learners bring their linguistic knowledge to learn how to create meaningful sentences in L2/Ln languages. The approaches in spoken language instruction that follow the percepts of rationalism are Total Physical Response (Asher, 1969), the Silent way (Gattegno 1972), and the Whole Language Approach (Rigg, 1991).
Empirical studies of rationalism showed that grammar instruction improves learners’ metalinguistic knowledge of the structure and rules of L2/Ln languages but not their actual use of the languages (Alderson, Clapham, & Steel, 1997; Norris & Ortega, 2001; Ellis, 2002a, b). Those who learn an L2/Ln by negotiating meanings of utterances during conversation fare better than those who focus on language generation drills (Savignon, 1997; Pica, Young, & Dougherty, 1987; Harley, 1989; Day & Shapson, 1991; Lyster, 1994; Murunoi, 2001). While learners are active agents of learning, they need to use the language in order to know it. This reasoning led to the development of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach (Canale & Swain, 1980), that is predicated on the learners going through natural stages of acquisition of L2/Ln languages that are centered on communicative success (Andrews, 1999).
The communicative language teaching is built on the works of Hymes (1971) and Halliday (1978) that led to a communication theory of language in society. The theory proposes that individuals learn languages best through socialization and not by rote memorization of linguistic rules. Given a social context, individuals learn how to construct utterances to generate meaning through communication. In order to use a language correctly, as Hymes (1971) argued, one needs to learn not only its vocabulary and grammar but also the context in which words are used, and construct utterances that reflect the topic and context, including message form and content, setting, addressor, addressee and audience, and purposes. People are motivated to learn languages, according to Halliday (1978), when it serves their purposes and construct utterances that may be instrumental, representational, regulatory, heuristic, interactional, personal, and imaginative to satisfy their physical, emotional, and social needs. The above theories suggest that language learning consists of learning how to create utterances by interacting with others in various communication situations. Cooperative Language Learning (Johnson et al., 1994; Kagan, 1992, Rodgers, 1988) is an example of the approach used in spoken language instruction that followed the percepts of communication.
Several studies showed limitations of the communicative approach. There are no clear tasks for which the learners can generate communication, and that communication by itself does not reflect the repertoire of linguistic rules or grammatical forms of a language. Several studies found that high levels of language proficiency were achieved by L2/Ln learners who focused on specific tasks and topics acquired vocabulary, constructed and used grammar, and had dialogues through communication about tasks and topics better than L2/Ln learners who do not (Pica & Dougherty, 1985; Genessee, 1987; Duff, 1986; Long, 1996; Swain, 1985; Platt & Brooks, 2002). While the communicative approach meets the need for function in language, there is a need to focus on form. While learners may have clear intent or function to communicate, they often do not produce proper grammatical forms. Proper form in grammar is generated when feedback and re-castings of grammatical inaccuracies aided acquisition (Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993; Ellis & Takashima, 1999; Doughtery & Varela, 1998; Nicholas, Lightbrown, & Spada, 2001; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Izumi, 2002). The above studies suggest a need to develop content-based instruction in combination with task-based instruction to introduce grammar forms and enhance L2/Ln learners’ mastery of linguistic structures.
Conversationalism is a teaching approach that is comprised of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) and Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT). CBI sees language as a means of acquiring information and that language learning is organized around content, not just linguistic rules or principles (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989; Stryker & Leaver, 1993, 1997). Content refers to topics that people talk about, which may be about current events, science, math, social studies, and the arts. CBI builds on the precepts that people learn a language best when it draws on their prior knowledge and experience, addresses their needs, and is purposeful (i.e., giving and obtaining information). TBLT sees language learning as learning how to create meanings of things and activities under different types of real-world tasks, such as drawing diagrams and asking for information (Ellis, 2003; Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996). TBLT posits that learners learn languages best when they are engaged in activities that involve real communication and use the languages to complete meaningful tasks.
An approach that is gaining support among sign language linguistic and teachers is cognitive linguistics. Cognitive linguistics builds on mental and visual imagery and the cognitive organization of images of real entities, actions, and states (Langacker, 1987). Grammar is seen as a mental conceptualization of objects and their movements across time and space, and an interpretation of meaning of real entities, actions, locations, and attributes. Meaning, or function, determines the formal organizing principles of phonology and grammar. Changes in concepts of entities and its attributes, movements and locations, either actual or metaphorical, generate changes in phonological and semantic representations and in grammatical structures. Teachers who follow the cognitive linguistic approach use and modify arrangements of pictures and images for learners to generate lexicon and grammars. While generative linguistics is form driven, cognitive linguistics is meaning driven.
Particularly in Europe, one aspect of sign language teaching is the role different languages and modalities play in the teaching of grammar. There is a shift in European countries where sign language teaching is influenced by the neighboring language(s) in classes. As Holmström and Schönström (2018) found, there are distinctive bimodal parameters of adult learning of sign language as an additional language. Translanguaging is proposed as a model for the multilingual (use of different languages) and multimodal (use of different modality, e.g., the oral-aura modality of spoken languages and visual-gestural modality of sign languages) teaching approach. Under the translanguaging approach, the sign language teachers developed multimodal resources and languages in the teaching of grammar (Holmström & Schönström, 2018; Nilsson & Schönström, 2014).
As explained in the above, the pedagogical approaches that are currently used are shaped by developments in linguistic theory and the psychology of learning. Examples of sign language pedagogical approaches are provided. They are largely drawn from the ASL curricular materials that are commercially available on market in the US and Canada.
One teaching strategy is informed by the percepts of behaviorism. Teachers teach grammar by having learners be drilled, translate, and rote memorize fixed phonological, morphemic, and syntactic constructions.
Topics that are covered under behaviorism tend to consist of linguistic categories and contain lessons organized by linguistic principles, with vocabulary and sentences. They include personal pronouns and possessives; basic sentence structures with nouns; adjectives; verbs in present, past, and future tense; classifiers; numbers; quantifiers and plurals; wh- questions and rhetorical questions; modals; locational relationships; negation; time measurements; conjunctions; inflections; topicalization; and conditional sentences. Dialogues are arranged by conversational activities such as telling, requesting, giving information, describing, and giving directions, as well as by topics such as personal information, family, home, school, travel, work, activities, and future plans.
In each lesson, teachers begin with a description of a topic. Learners are first given sign vocabulary and sample sentences to study and memorize. They are next given similar sentences with questions. The teachers write language grammar on board and ask the learners to sign each word literally, without modifications of the lexical items to mark for time, person, and number. They explain linguistic structures with examples and illustrations. Teachers then ask learners to memorize and recite them when responding to questions asked by the teachers. Learners answer questions based on the information in the sentences. New phrases are then given. With these phrases, the learners are asked to create sentences using the structures they have learned. In substitution drills, learners replace a sign for another sign in a given sentence. Teachers may develop additional exercises and activities. There is no opportunity for the learners to generate their own sentences.
Examples of this teaching strategy are found in the Basic Course in American Sign Language (Humphries, Padden, & O’Rourke, 1994) and The American Sign Language Phrase Book (Fant, 1983). The learners complete memorization and substitution exercises and question-response drills. The topics and lessons largely consist of linguistic rules. Dialogues are printed in English, and the learners are asked to sign in ASL, memorize the phrases, and are given drills in which they repeat their sign production until they are proficient. In essence, learners are asked to translate English utterances into ASL grammar. There are no opportunities for the learners to create their own phrasal structures.
Another teaching strategy is based on the principles of rationalism, which posits that languages are learned by analyzing linguistic rules. Teachers teach grammar by giving learners sentences and having them analyze its linguistic constructions.
The topics that are covered under rationalism tend to include linguistic rules for sign language grammar, rules for social conversation, and a few social situations. The linguistic rules include sign formations for lexical and functional categories such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, prepositions, pronouns, phrases, classifiers, sentences, tenses, aspect, time, number, and quantities. The rules for social conversation include introductions, politeness, ensuring comprehension through interlocutor feedback, asking for help or information, giving descriptions, directions, instructions, making or declining offers, suggestions, giving advice, expressing attitudes and opinions, describing a sequence of activities, describing how things are done and stating what you need, explaining what was wrong, and commenting on someone’s competence or expertise. The topics on social situations and contexts are personal information, school, people, physical appearance, clothing, personalities, character, feelings, opinions, preferences, family, friends, time of day, food and food shopping, death and dying, personal experiences, activities, future plans, occupations, professions, recreational activities, travel and places and experiences, body, health, emergencies, current events, natural catastrophes, and measurements.
In each lesson, teachers begin with a vocabulary list and rules for creating linguistic constructions. Following this the teachers show a synopsis of a story written in dialogue form in printed English gloss, and illustrated it in ASL. A text analysis with grammatical explanations based on ASL rules is given for signs and sentences in the dialogue. In the exercises following the lesson, learners are given sentences with interchangeable phrases. They are then asked to create sentences by substituting phrases with other phrases. Teaching consists of teachers’ demonstrating and explaining the linguistic rules for sentential constructions and learners’ reciting those constructions and incorporating the linguistic rules. While examples of ASL constructions are provided, learners are not given opportunities to create their own sentences. Instead, they are asked to analyze the constructions in order to discern the linguistic rules.
Examples of the rationalist approach are found in the American Sign Language curriculum (Cokely & Baker-Shenk, 1980a, b), also known as the Green Books, The Learning American Sign Language (Levels I and II) (Humphries & Padden, 2004), and Master ASL! (Zinza, 2006). The learners analyze, learn, and memorize linguistic constructions. Dialogues are encouraged, but the learners recite signs and dialogues with each other.
Still another strategy of teaching grammar is guided by the principles of communication language teaching approach, which holds that people learn languages through conversations.
The topics that are covered under the communication approach tend to include personal information, surroundings, residences, family, school and subjects, meals, activities, directions, describing others, making requests, occupations, qualities, and routines, objects around the house; complaints, suggestions, and requests; life events; and descriptions and identification of objects. Other topics are conversations about the weekend, health and accidents, shopping, and storytelling techniques.
In each lesson teachers introduce vocabulary and sentences. They perform dialogues and tell the grammatical rules to be used in interactions. As grammatical structures are determined by the function that is covered in a unit, the teachers perform language functions such as asking for and giving information; complaining and commanding; and ways to describe, explain, express, narrate, tell, correct, evaluate, affirm, and decline. They showed different grammatical structures such as topicalization, aspect, numeral incorporation, classifiers, negation, role shifting, verb agreement, pronominalization, and nonmanual features. Then the teacher gives sentences with alternate phrases and asks the learners to substitute phrases in sentences. The teachers and learners role-play in different social activities in context. The role-play situations are constructed as daily encounters that occur under different contexts and that give meaning to the functions (Lentz, Mikos, & Smith, 1988).
Examples of the communication approach are found in the Bravo ASL! (Cassell, 1997) curriculum and the three-level Vista American Sign Language Series: Signing Naturally curriculum (Lentz, Mikos, & Smith, 1988; Smith, Lentz, & Mikos, 1989; Mikos, Smith, & Lentz, 2001). The learners learn communicative structures and interact with other learners to develop sign fluency.
There are several emergent teaching approaches that are influenced by recent studies in language learning. However, they are not used worldwide and are not commercially available. It is possible that sign language teachers worldwide will adopt the following emergent approaches in the future.
A recent strategy for teaching sign language grammar builds on the CBI and TBLT notions whereby learners learn language if they have a topical content and a task to talk about. Teachers teach grammar by giving the learners a task with topical contents for them to learn how to have conversation. In each lesson, teachers begin by introducing a topic. They ask learners to brainstorm concepts and vocabulary. The teachers ask and show the learners the sign vocabulary. They followed by asking the learners to hypothesize about the grammatical structures for narrations and dialogues. Teachers showed the accepted grammatical constructions for conversation in monologues and dialogues, partner dialogues and solo monologues. Lessons end with the learners having paired dialogues with each other or giving monologues to class. The learners may as a group present the topics using the concepts and conversation structures learned. At present, there is no commercially published sign language pedagogy that is modeled after the current CBI and TBLT approaches. Future teaching strategy in the grammar of sign language as a second language should be based on the CBI and TBLT models.
Translanguaging is a strategy for teaching grammar that is developed by teachers of European sign languages. Teachers teach grammar by using a repertoire of communication tools to carry intentions and meanings. Translanguaging in the teaching of grammar is largely employed by teachers using different techniques such as gesturing, pointing, and pictures to cross-over, move-alongside, and weave-through the different languages and its grammatical features (Holmström & Schönström, 2018). They also use different variations of a sign-supported spoken language to teach grammar (see Nilsson & Schönström, 2014). The learners talk about concepts, phrases, or sentences in the national language, and borrow words from other languages, including sign languages. However, there is no developed curriculum currently available for the teaching of grammar using the principles of translanguaging. In addition, there are variations among teachers in their knowledge of and skills in employing two or more languages to teach grammar. As Holmström and Schönström (2018) recognized, there are no evidence-based teaching practices that subscribe to the percepts of translanguaging. Sign language teachers who employ the translanguaging approach tend to follow their insights and intuitions (Holmström & Schönström, 2018). How the instructors use translanguaging to teach grammar using different languages, particularly when the different languages have different grammatical constructions, facial and bodily expressions, constructed actions, and classifier constructions, is an unresolved issue that needs further work.
A recent development that may impact on sign language teaching is the creation of a corpus of grammatical constructions in a sign language (see Leeson et al., in Chapter 24 of this volume). Conrad (2005) and Cresdee and Johnston (2014) suggest that corpus is an useful resource in teaching grammar. The use of corpus in teaching will aid L2/Ln learners learn the rules and patterns of use of linguistic units under different contexts and situations. For studies and suggestions on using sign language corpus to teach grammar, the reader is referred to Leeson et al. in Chapter 24 of this volume.
There are two areas that teachers of sign languages need to consider in the teaching of grammar. They are the role of gestures and written language in teaching, and L2/Ln learners’ acquisition of syntax.
Many sign language instructors use gestures in their teaching. Liddell (2003) argued that iconicity plays a role in learning the complexities of visual-spatial languages such as classifier constructions, verb inflections, and grammatical and lexical facial expressions. Gestures may aid in learners’ cognitive understanding of language, particularly the identification of, and relationships between entities and actions. Recent studies looked at how iconicity in sign languages contributes to the learning of sign language grammars. However, the studies on iconicity looked into the perception and processing in sign language vocabularies (Rosen et al., 2015; Ortega & Morgan, 2015). There is no formal study on the role of gestures in L2/Ln sign language instruction. One teaching strategy that incorporates gestures is visual-gestural communication (VGC), which was created in the 1990s and used with both L1 and L2/Ln learners of ASL (Carvey & Kemp, 1995). Gestures are taught and used to identify objects and describe actions. The teacher shows the learners how to lexicalize and grammaticalize the gestural constructions into lexical and syntactic forms. Carvey and Kemp (1995) claim that their experience shows the success of VGC, although they provide no empirical evidence. However, there is no commercially available VGC curriculum for review here.
Teaching sign language grammar requires transparency overheads, LED powerpoints, and a board, white board, or blackboard to write down. What is written is in a spoken language and it can be written using the syntax of the spoken language or in glosses that are frequently written in capital letters and using the syntax of the sign language, drawn with lines and markers to indicate non-manual features such as found in the SignGram Blueprint developed by Quer and colleagues (Quer et al., 2017). Studies showed that glosses aid L2/Ln hearing learners (Kaul, Griebel, & Kaufmann, 2014) and deaf education majors (Buisson, 2007) in comprehending and remembering sign language grammar. Sign language teaching with L2/Ln/M2 hearing learners may need to use a multimodal approach and make grammar more transparent to the learners to prepare them for encounters with different individuals, contexts, and topics. However, teachers would need to be cautious in relying on glosses, lest the order of glosses may correspond with the spoken language word order rather than the order of signs in sign language, and that an impression may be given to the learners that vocabulary learning is emphasized at the expense of grammar learning (e.g., McKee & McKee, 1992).
Teachers need to be mindful of the learning process of their learners when they teach grammar (Quinto-Pozos, 2011). Learners go through certain processes in order to master the syntactical structures of sign languages. Studies in spoken languages found that learners go through certain steps in their acquisition of syntax (Hawkins, 2001). Recent studies by Rosen (n.d.) on L2/Ln grammatical production by non-native learners showed certain steps in the mastery of sign language grammar. The learners produce utterances with bare signs, that is, without modifications. In the next step they link a few lexical items together to make a phrase, also without modifications of the lexemes to mark for person, time, number and gender. In the third stage, the learners produce lexical items with inflections to mark for time, gender, number, and referents. In the last stage, the learners produce utterances with not only the inflected lexical forms but also the incorporation of construction action, nonmanual features, and complex verb constructions to mark for referents. Learners vary in the rate and progress in their learning process.
In addition, L2/Ln sign language learners bring their knowledge of prior languages and their constructions of grammar to sign language classrooms. In learning sign language grammar, the learners may rely on their prior languages to guide the learning of inflected forms for lexical items, phrasal structures, and word order. Regarding L2/Ln sign language learners, in the early stages of their acquisition they may rely on the linguistic constructions of prior languages to guide their sign language constructions. They go through an interlanguage stage where they incorporate features from their prior languages and sign language into an interlanguage grammar. At the end, they are able to use and incorporate sign language principles and drop the linguistic features of prior languages in their sign language grammars.
In order for the L2/Ln learners to be able to move from their interlanguage stage to the final stage, teachers would need to ensure that the learners are exposed to the syntactical constructions in sign language, and to make grammatical principles explicit for the learners. There is the issue of explicit grammar instruction and implicit grammar instruction. If syntax is not made explicit to the learners, the learners would tend to rely on the constructions of the prior languages they are familiar with. If the language instruction is made explicit, the learners are given the opportunity to master it and rely less on their knowledge of prior languages that they learned and mastered.
Sign language teaching and research will continue to benefit from new studies and technological advancements for efficient pedagogies in sign language grammar.
Three issues require future investigation. They are the grammatical structures that are taught in L2/Ln classrooms, the multimodal approach in teaching sign language grammar, and the use of gestures to teach sign language grammar.
The first issue pertains to research studies in sign language grammar. Research is ongoing in the areas of not only syntax but also the place of certain features that are parts of the visual and gestural modality in the linguistics of sign language, in particular, gestures, constructed actions, bodily and facial expressions, classifier constructions, and the use of space. New research findings in sign language grammatical structures do affect the teaching of sign language grammar. Teachers should keep themselves up to date on new findings regarding sign language grammar, so they can be better informed about what grammatical structures to teach their learners.
The second issue is the multimodality in sign language teaching scenarios. Particularly when deaf and hearing instructors work with L2/Ln/M2 hearing learners, there may be an over reliance of one language such as a spoken language, as a template to teach another language such as a sign language. This may work for some learners because of their perceptual processing of sign language (Rosen, 2015). Teachers who utilize the learners’ L1/M1 as a resource may need to introduce the spatial-visual aspects of sign language in teaching. Research is needed to study the characteristics, process, and triggers for transitioning from L1 spoken language to L2/Ln sign language for the L2/Ln/M2 hearing learners. Multimodal approaches in sign language teaching may need to be assessed and developed.
The third issue is the use of gestures in the teaching of grammar. Liddell (2016) argued that gestures play a role in learning the complexities of visual-spatial languages such as classifier constructions, verb inflections, and grammatical and lexical facial expressions. In some teaching approaches, such as total physical response (Asher 1969), teachers need to role-play and gesture different concepts, actions, entities, and locations for the learners to see how they are expressed lexically and grammatically. Iconicity, as an aspect of gestures, has been studied in L2/Ln sign language literature. However, the studies looked at sign phonologies and vocabularies, not grammar (e.g., Rosen et al., 2015; Ortega & Morgan, 2015). There is a need to investigate whether and how gestures aid learners in their learning of sign language grammars.
Future pedagogical practices include techniques that tap on learners’ cognitive understanding of language using the principles of cognitive linguistics. Recall that cognitive linguistics holds that language is mental representation of events, including persons, entities, settings, and actions that can be visualized in a “real space.” They are visualized into entities, attributes, location, and movement. Teachers should demonstrate ways to convert “real space” to “language space,” whereby these mental representations are translated into lexicon and grammar. Teaching strategy should be able to convert entity to nouns, attribute to adjectives, movement to verbs, location to propositions, and demonstrate that grammar refers to the relationship between entity (noun) and its attribute (adjective), as well as the relationship between entity and its movement (verb), and to its location (proposition) (cf. Langacker, 2008; Tyler, 2008).
There should be an increased use of technologies that allow teachers to teach and assess, and L2/Ln learners to learn sign language grammar and receive assessment. Kose and Uluer in Chapter 23 of this volume describe different software programs with video capabilities that provide opportunities for teachers to teach sign language and give feedback to learners. In addition, teachers may want to create online teaching and learning platforms for the teaching of grammar. An example of such learning platform is eLCA, where teachers install learning units on an aspect of grammar, which is constructed action, for the learners to review lessons they learned in class (Fischer & Miller, 2014). Teachers may also want to use platforms that allow them to provide feedback to learners’ signed productions outside of classrooms. An example of a software program where learners sign on and upload videos and teachers give synchronized feedbacks is GoReact in the US (https://get.goreact.com). While these technologies do not substitute for classroom teaching, they can be used to allow the learners to review and retain their knowledge and comprehension, and be corrected in their production, of sign language grammar.
Alderson, J., Clapham, C., & Steel, D. (1997). Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude, and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 1, 93–121.
Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China? Pros and cons. System, 21 (4), 471–80.
Andrews, S. (1999). Why do L2/Ln teachers need to “know about language”?: Teacher metalinguistic awareness and input for learning. Language and Education, 13 (3), 161–77.
Asher, J. (1969). The total physical response approach to second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 53 (1), 3–17.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Brinton, D.M., Snow, M.A., & Wesche, M.B. (1989). Content-based Second Language Instruction. New York: Newbury.
Brooks, N. (1964). Language and Language Learning: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace.
Brooks, P.J., & Kempe, V. (2013). Individual differences in adult foreign language learning: The mediating effect of metalinguistic awareness. Memory & Cognition, 41 (2), 281–96.
Brown, H.D. (2006). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Buisson, G.J. (2007). Using online glossing lessons for accelerated instruction in ASL for preservice Deaf education majors. American Annals of the Deaf, 152, 331–43.
Caccamise, F., Garretson, M., & Bellugi, U. (eds.) (1981). Teaching American Sign Language as a Second/Foreign Language. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Carvey, R.J., & Kemp, M. (1995). Visual Gestural Communication: Enhancing Early Communication and Literacy in Young Deaf and Hard-of-hearing Children. Paper presented at the Eighteenth International Congress on Education of the Deaf, Tel Aviv, Israel, July 16–20, 1995.
Cassell, J. (1997). Bravo! ASL Curriculum. Salem, OR: Sign Enhancers.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cokely, D., & Baker-Shenk. C. (1980a). American Sign Language: A Teacher’s Resource Text on Curriculum, Methods, and Evaluation. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.
Cokely, D., & Baker-Shenk, C. (1980b). American Sign Language: A Teacher’s Resource Text on Grammar and Culture. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.
Conrad, S. (2005). Corpus linguistics and L2/Ln teaching. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 393–409). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cresdee, D., & Johnston, T. (2014). Using corpus-based research to inform the teaching of Auslan (Australian Sign Language) as a second language. In D. McKee, R.S. Rosen, & R. McKee (eds.), Teaching and Learning Signed Languages: International Perspectives and Practices (pp. 85–110). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25–58.
Dougherty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Dougherty & J. Williams, (eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 114–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 147–81). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Ellis, R. (2002a). The place of grammar instruction in second/foreign language curriculum. In E. Hinkel, & S. Fotos (eds.), New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (pp. 17–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ellis, R. (2002b). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223–36.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Takashima, H. (1999). Output enhancement and the acquisition of the past tense. In R. Ellis (ed.), Learning a Second Language through Interaction. (pp. 173–88). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fant, L. (1983). The American Sign Language Phrase Book. Lincolnwood, IL.: Contemporary Books.
Fischer, R., & Müller, A. (2014). eLCA – An E-learning unit for acquiring constructed action. In D. McKee, R.S. Rosen, & R. McKee (eds.), Teaching and Learning Signed Languages: International Perspectives and Practices. (pp. 111–28). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fotos, S. (2001). Cognitive approaches to grammar instruction. In M. Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed.). (pp. 276–85). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Fries, C.C. (1945). Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gattegno, C. (1972). Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: The Silent Way (2nd ed.). New York: Educational Solutions.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning Two Languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Gleitman, H., Reisberg, D., & J. Cross, J. (2007). Psychology (7th ed.). New York: Norton.
Gorsuch, G. (1998). Yakudoku EFL instruction in two Japanese high school classrooms: An exploratory study. JALT Journal, 20 (1), 6–32.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331–59.
Harris, Z.S. (1951). Structural Linguistics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second Language Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Holmström, I., & Schönström, K. (2018). Deaf lecturers’ translanguaging in a higher education setting. A multimodal multilingual perspective. Applied Linguistics Review, 9 (1), 90–111.
Humphries, T., & Padden, C. (2004). Learning American Sign Language, Levels I and II (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Humphries, T., Padden, C., & O’Rourke, T. (1994). A Basic Course in American Sign Language (2nd ed.). Silver Spring, MD.: Linstok.
Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley, & E. Ingram (eds.), Language Acquisition: Models and Methods (pp. 3–28). London: Academic Press.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the Noticing Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–77.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1994). Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative Learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
Kaul, T., Griebel, R., & Kaufmann, E. (2014). Transcription as a tool for increasing metalinguistic awareness in learners of German Sign Language as a second language. In D. McKee, R.S. Rosen, & R. McKee (eds.), Teaching and Learning Signed Languages: International Perspectives and Practices (pp. 129–42). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical Perspectives. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.W. (2008). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In P. Robinson, & N.C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 66–88). New York: Routledge.
Lentz, E.M., Mikos, K., & Smith, C. (1988). Signing Naturally: Teacher’s Curriculum Guide, Level 1. Berkeley, CA: DawnSignPress.
Liddell, S. (2003). Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to Instructed Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Long, M. (1996). The Role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–68). San Diego: Academic Press.
Lyster, R. (1994). The role of functional-analytic language teaching on aspects of French immersion learners’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–87.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
McKee, R., & McKee, D. (1992). What’s so hard about learning ASL?: Learners’ and teachers’ perceptions. Sign Language Studies, 75 (1), 129–57.
McKee, D., Rosen, R.S., & McKee, R. (eds.). (2014). Teaching and Learning Signed Languages: International Perspectives and Practices. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mikos, K., Smith, C. & Lentz, E.M. (2001). Signing Naturally: Teacher’s Curriculum Guide. Level 3. San Diego: DawnSignPress.
Murunoi, H. (2001). Focus on form through interaction enhancement. Language Learning, 50, 617–73.
Nicholas, H., Lightbrown, P. & Spada. N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–58.
Nilsson, A.-L., & Schönström, K. (2014). Swedish Sign Language as a second language: Historical and contemporary perspectives. In D. McKee, R.S. Rosen, & R. McKee (eds.), op cit. (pp. 11–34). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks. English Language Teaching Journal, 47 (2), 203–10.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2001). Effectiveness of L2/Ln instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
O’Grady, W., Aranoff, M., Archibald, J., & Rees-Miller, J. (eds.) (2004). Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction (5th ed.). New York: Bedford, St. Martin’s.
Ortega, G., & Morgan, G. (2015). Phonological development in hearing learners of a sign language: The influence of phonological parameters, sign complexity, and iconicity. Language Learning, 65 (3), 660–88.
Padden C. (ed.) (1986). Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching. Las Vegas, Nevada. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.
Palmer, H.E. (1917). The Scientific Study and Teaching of Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pica, T, & Dougherty, C. (1985). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233–48.
Pica, T., Young, R., & Dougherty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–57.
Platt, E., & Brooks, E. (2002). Task engagement: A turning point in foreign language development. Language Learning, 52, 365–400.
Quer, J., Cecchetto, C., Donati, C., Geraci, C., Kelepir, M., Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2017). SignGram Blueprint, A Guide to Sign Language Grammar Writing. Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
Quinto-Pozos, D. (2011). Teaching American Sign Language to hearing adult learners. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 137–58.
Radford, A. (1997). Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C., & Swan. M. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rigg, P. (1991). Whole language in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 25 (3), 521–42.
Rodgers, T. (1988). Cooperative language learning: What’s new? PASAA: A Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 18 (2), 12–23.
Rosen, R. (2010). American Sign Language curricula: A review. Sign Language Studies, 10 (3), 348–81.
Rosen, R. (2015). Learning American Sign Language in High School: Motivation, Strategies, and Achievement. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Rosen, R. (n.d.). Second Language Acquisition of American Sign Language Verb Morphosyntax: A Pilot Study. Unpublished manuscript, The City University of New York College of Staten Island.
Rosen, R., Turtletaub, M., DeLouise, M., & Drake, S. (2015). Teacher-as-researcher paradigm for sign language teachers: Towards evidence-based pedagogies for improved learner outcomes. Sign Language Studies, 16 (1), 86–116.
Savignon, S.J. (1997). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Shih, M. (1999). More than practicing language: Communicative reading and writing for Asian settings. TESOL Journal, 8, 20–5.
Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis, & D. Willis (eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 17–30). Oxford: Heinemann.
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Smith, C., Lentz, E.M., & Mikos, K. (1989). Signing Naturally: Teacher’s Curriculum Guide. Level 2. Berkeley, CA: DawnSignPress.
Stryker, S.B., & Leaver, B.L. (1993). Content-based Instruction in Foreign Language Education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Stryker, S.B., & Leaver, B.L. (eds.) (1997). Content-based Instruction in Foreign Language Education: Models and Methods. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. MaddenInput (eds.), Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235–53). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Titone, R. (1968). Teaching Foreign Languages: A Historical Sketch. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Tyler, A. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In P. Robinson, & N.C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 456–88). New York: Routledge.
Watson, J.B. (1930). Behaviorism (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wilcox, S., & Wilcox. P.P. (1997). Learning to See: Teaching American Sign Language as a Second Language (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In In J. Willis, & D. Willis (eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 235–56). Oxford: Heinemann.
Zinza, J.E. (2006). Master ASL! Level One. Burtonsville, MD: Sign Media, Inc.