Rachel Sutton-Spence
Sign language literature in its various forms is increasingly recognized as a cultural language phenomenon, both within deaf communities and within the academy. Research on the topic is developing and this research is feeding into the classroom at all levels to support teaching deaf people’s literature in a range of academic subject areas. As Ryan, an eminent American Sign Language storyteller, argued, storytelling in sign language “provides the audience with listening skills … and … practice in visualization, creativity and imagination skills … and exposes [them] to cultural values and value systems” (Ryan, 1993: 145). Informally, teachers report using signed narratives as a tool in the L2/Ln language classroom but there has been little published research on any pedagogical use of sign language literature. For instance, Arenson and Kretschmer (2010) in their study on deaf children’s responses to ASL poetry found no past studies that are related to teaching sign language poetry. Where it has been acknowledged, we lack evaluation of the effectiveness of the pedagogical approaches. However, research that has been reported in the area suggests that it has the potential to be a highly effective pedagogical tool to teach language, culture, linguistics, and literature within the sign language field. Most of the existent published works are in northern European languages.
The existing research shows a clear role for using literature (including stories and poems) in teaching any language, whether as L1 or as foreign, second, or new languages (referred to here as L2/Ln), which is the focus of this chapter. Although teachers should introduce learners to as wide a range of genres and registers of sign language as possible, the literary genre is especially useful as a rich “authentic source of language” (Paran, 2008: 10). Some language pedagogy theorists such as Edmondson (1997, cited in Paran, 2008), have warned that literature is intrinsically no better than other resources, and we should not use it as a language learning tool without careful consideration, a point that is echoed by Humphries in Sutton-Spence and Ramsey (2010). Paran (2008) notes, however:
If we take as our starting point an understanding of the role of literature in daily life, the way in which narratives function in learning, the role of literature and narratives in education, and the language-literature link – all these are important in understanding that literature may have a place in L2 teaching.
ibid.: 14
Research on teaching sign language literature that has been published in English has focused predominantly on American Sign Language (ASL). The findings can be extended to other sign languages, but readers should note that not all studies are necessarily applicable to every country’s cultural and educational practices.
To appreciate theoretical perspectives in this area, it is first necessary to explore what is understood by the term “sign language literature,” including what it encompasses in terms of form, content, and function, and how it relates to concepts such as deaf culture and deaf folklore. Following from this, in view of the scarcity of available existing publications on the pedagogy of sign language literature in L2/Ln classrooms, this chapter will consider research studies on teaching and learning written literature in other L2 classrooms, and studies on the pedagogy of using written literature in L2 languages, extending these to sign languages.
The term “sign language literature” encompasses sign language works that deaf communities view as having cultural and artistic merit. Linguistically, sign language literature frequently prioritizes the visual image, playing with sign language and exploring its aesthetic and creative potential. Culturally, it shows deaf people’s views of their place in the world. Importantly, and especially relevant for its role in pedagogy, sign language literature is usually highly enjoyable (Ryan, 1993; Nathan Lerner & Feigel, 2009; Sutton-Spence & Shepherd, 2010). With its roots firmly in Deaf folklore, sign language literature has traditionally been a social, face-to-face activity, but increasingly is recorded, enabling L2/Ln learners to study it.
Rose (1992) described sign language literature as “a union of language and gesture that results in linguistically organized aesthetic movement” (ibid.: 157). It is a “literature of the body” and a “literature of performance” (Rose 2006). Thus, while sign language literature may be an important artifact of deaf culture, we can understand it also as an active process. It is a social exchange, in which performers and audiences do sign language literature as they participate in it. Teachers of sign language as L2/Ln will find literature is most useful as a resource when learners actively participate in it as audiences and performers.
One definition of the word “literature” in the Oxford English Dictionary is that it is work that is considered of superior or lasting artistic merit. However, judgment of any artistic merit is a complex process, and Robertson (2017) notes that judging literary merit is “both personal and social – a distillation of such factors as experience, education, intuition, ideology, sensitivity, intellect and feeling” (ibid.: 5). Deaf community members and especially sign language teachers bring all these factors to their appreciation of sign language literature and, ideally, language learners will also learn to understand them. Judgments about the merit of pieces of sign language literature change as deaf cultural and community norms change. This creates an extra challenge to teachers and learners in L2/Ln classrooms, who need to understand how a literary piece is currently viewed. For example, some signed literary pieces that were highly valued in the 1980s now appear dated, especially if they adhere closely to the linguistic or poetic structures of spoken languages (Sutton-Spence, 2005).
There are many genres and types of sign language literature, depending on the aims and structure of the works, and each one may have a different use in sign language teaching. Signing the Body Poetic (Bauman, Nelson, & Rose, 2006) is an important edited collection of written essays focusing on American Sign Language literature that covers a broad range of genres, and may guide teachers using literature with L2/Ln learners. Nathan Lerner and Feigel’s (2009) video documentary The Heart of the Hydrogen Jukebox comprehensively reviews the history of American Sign Language poetry, and includes widely diverse poems with interviews and commentary in sign language, that should be of great assistance in planning teaching. Additionally, Peters (2000), Bahan (2006), and Sutton-Spence and Kaneko (2016) review and summarize some categories or types of sign language literature, all acknowledging that the categories are not watertight. Ryan (1993) warned simply that “Deaf storytellers often cross over into other forms” (ibid.: 145). The strong theatrical element in sign language literature, either in its dramatic elements during storytelling, or its production by more than one performer in plays and skits, can show learners the potential for language and performance structures and encourage L2/Ln learners to produce creative language in a less formal learning environment.
While a great deal of sign language literature is fiction (or near-fiction), signed nonfiction literature includes signed speeches, political pieces, historical or religious productions, and autobiography or narratives of personal experience. Such nonfiction pieces, especially narratives of personal experience, use culturally valued forms of sign language, even if they are not considered artistic. They are frequently less influenced by linguistic structures of the surrounding spoken language, and sign language teachers report using them because of this.
Other rich language models of artistic merit, so useful for L2/Ln learners, can be seen in sign language folklore, which includes traditional narratives, jokes, skits and language games (or a mixture of all of them) and in original works by known authors that are rooted in folklore. Sign language poetry is a highly polished and original signed performance art that presents new ideas in creative forms of language. Additionally, literature in sign language encompasses signed translations and retellings of other cultural works, including translations of children’s stories, fables and religious texts (see for example, Karnopp, 2010; Sutton-Spence & Kaneko, 2016). Visual and performative sign language literature is often multi-textual (Kincheloe, 2015), and we see that original works and translations draw on film, photographic and painted images and other visual sources such as video games and comic books.
In summary, a rich sign language resource that may be called “literature” exists in the culture of many sign languages, ideal for teaching to learners learning those sign languages as L2/Ln, although the availability of this resource in a format suitable for teaching (such as video recordings of culturally valorized pieces) varies in different countries. Students can watch examples of sign language literature simply for enjoyment, and study it as a culturally rich linguistic art-form to develop an awareness and love of their new language and its culture, and an understanding of the language form.
Theoretical perspectives and conceptual approaches to teaching sign language literature in L2/Ln contexts are rarely articulated in the published research, which is usually descriptive rather than theoretical. The study by Arenson and Kretschmer (2010), which evaluated the impact of introducing ASL poetry to deaf adolescents as part of teaching English-language poetry, is theory-neutral and deliberately descriptive, as they emphasize the lack of existing theory and previously published research in their study. Newell’s (1995) survey of American Sign Language teachers’ practices and perceptions showed that, while teachers rated the ability to tell stories as very important, they rated theories of second language teaching/learning as only “moderately important,” and knowledge of philosophies of education as of “little importance.”
Although some publications on the use of sign language literature for language learners (whether L1 or L2/Ln) relate their research to conceptual frameworks, there is currently no clear over-arching theoretical perspective of pedagogy used to understand or explain it, or to predict outcomes of its use. As one sign language teacher reported while describing his work with stories in the classroom, “Nobody taught me the right rules. I just know and feel” (Sutton-Spence & Ramsey, 2010: 150). Acknowledging the cultural importance of statements such as this, research on sign language literature in language teaching (whether L1 or L2/Ln) has been set within frameworks of deaf folk knowledge (for example, Sutton-Spence & Ramsey, 2010) and deaf culture (Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996; Andrews, 2006; Karnopp, 2010). It has also been described as one part of multi-textuality and developing multiple literacies (Kincheloe, 2015; Kuntze, Golos, & Enns, 2014).
L2/Ln studies on teaching literature in non-sign-languages have used a range of theories, including discourse analysis and reader response theory to understand how learners use their target language to interact with literary texts and with each other when discussing these texts. Communicative language teaching approaches, such as the theory of input, interaction, and output (Gass & Mackey, 2007), and reader response theory (Kim, 2004) both highlight the need for learners of L2/Ln to discuss the literature they read in their target language to develop their comprehension and production skills. We can extend these theoretical perspectives to using literature in the sign language classroom.
As philologists have long known, there is a tight inter-relationship between literature, language, language learning, and the language learner. Paran’s (2008) comprehensive review of the effectiveness of literature in foreign language teaching and learning shows how literature may be studied in classes with focus on learning the language, and on learning the literature of that foreign language. It can play a vital part in motivating the learning experience of any learner, encompassing the human element of the new language, moving beyond mere measured competence in production of the L2/Ln. Paran notes that “language is learned by human beings, and the interest and love of literature for its various qualities is a human characteristic” (2008: 14). A focus on language while studying sign language literature can result in increased and more enjoyable language learning. With a more literary focus, the themes and meaning contained within the signed pieces can also help learners understand deaf culture in more depth, including the very concept of sign language literacy, as it compares to literacy in written languages. Paran outlines the intersection of literature and language teaching (recreated here as Table 16.1), noting that the division is simplified and does not include culture, which is widely understood to be an essential part of sign language teaching.
Table 16.1 The intersection of literature and language teaching
|
Language learning focus |
No language learning focus | |
|
Literary focus |
(1) Literary knowledge and skills are focused on, but there is also a conscious focus on the lexis, grammar etc. |
(3) Literature is discussed only as literature; any focus on language is on its literary effects |
|
No literary focus |
(2) Literature is used just as a text with no focus on literary values, literary knowledge, or literary skills |
(4) Extensive reading |
Source: recreated from Paran (2008).
Paran highlights the importance of the roles of the teacher, the text, and the reader in any teaching situation, as he reports on the effect of different techniques and pedagogies, interactions between teachers and learners, and the effect of engaging with literature on learner output. The studies mentioned that they provide a useful survey of existing theoretical perspectives on the role of literature in learning English as L2/Ln, which researchers and practitioners can extend (with caution) to sign languages.
Sutton-Spence and Kaneko (2016) set out the topics that can be used for study within courses on sign language literature. The list is not exhaustive, but provides a starting point, perhaps, for discussion of a sign language literature curriculum. Depending on the level of study, learners may also be encouraged to read chapters, articles or other research publications on the following topics.
1.Notions of “literature,” sign language literature, and spoken language literature.
2.Sign language literature in its cultural role and social context.
3.Characteristics of oral literature and performance.
4.Characteristics of folklore and “deaflore.”
5.Story types: narratives of deaf experience, traditional deaf stories, cinematic stories, constraint stories, deaf humor, and sign language humor.
6.Storytelling techniques in “tell it, show it, become it” stories. Includes techniques for creating anthropomorphism, metaphors, neologisms, and ambiguity.
7.Techniques in signing stories. Includes aesthetic and symbolic uses of handshapes, use of signing space, and nonmanual features. Also includes repetition and rhythm of various sign parameters, particularly in poetry.
8.Story structure, including beginnings, endings, plots, protagonists, subjects, and themes. Also includes thematic, temporal, and spatial balance and symmetry.
9.Distinguishing prose and poetry in length, lines, purpose, function, flexibility, vocabulary, plot, and rules.
10.Style in signed art form, and differences in artists’ performances that may arise from their age, education and linguistic background and individual outlook.
11.What sign language literature may look like in the future.
For each topic, the lesson can be divided into instruction and activities to ensure learners develop their knowledge and understanding of the topic. The lesson may begin with exposition by the teacher to present the necessary knowledge. Videos showing relevant pieces by sign language artists can be used to contextualize the topics and provide examples used in sign language literature. Teachers skilled in sign language storytelling or poetry can provide their own topics and examples, or draw them from other sign language artists. This may be followed by participation by the learners in activities where they apply what they learned to describe and analyze pieces of sign literature. They also include activities where learners create and produce their own piece of sign language literature. While the learners generally can apply their understanding in the activities, teachers would need to ensure that their production tasks are appropriate to their language production skills. Examples of lessons in sign language literature teaching and learning in L1 classrooms that are given by Rosen in Chapter 7 in this volume may be used in the L2/Ln classrooms.
In the different pedagogical contexts outlined above, the way that sign language literature is used varies according to the learning objectives. Whether teachers use literature primarily for focus on the language form, its cultural content, its linguistic structure or its literary features, we see that it can be applied to different aspects of L2/Ln learners’ learning at different levels. It enables learners to see high-quality, culturally approved language, often in informal and relaxed contexts. It encourages learner discussion, debate, and language production, increasing learners’ receptive and expressive sign language skills and encouraging analytical approaches to sign language. Teaching sign language literature to L2/Ln learners shows them the beauty of sign language, allowing them to enjoy the best models of language available. It helps learners look at the language in a new way, beyond something that is merely for daily communication or as a means of access to information. It shows learners the potential of sign language, both for their potential future abilities and for what other signers are capable of. Sign language literature’s role in the classroom goes well beyond teaching language, culture, and linguistics. It teaches respect for sign language and shows the almost limitless possibilities of expression in visual spatial language.
The following are descriptions of five main contexts where sign language literature is used as part of pedagogical practice, with different emphasis for L2/Ln learners depending on whether the teaching is more language-focused or more literary-focused and depending on the aim of the teaching, whether it is teaching sign language, teaching Deaf culture, teaching sign language linguistics, interpreter training, and teaching sign language literature. Although the practices are not explicitly related to specific pedagogical theories, this review covers some of the principal published work, and makes suggestions how they could be used, based on personal experience of over 25 years as a sign language researcher and teacher of sign language literature and linguistics to a range of learners, including sign language learners, sign language teachers, and interpreters.
It is fully understood that L2/Ln learners need to be competent in basic communication and should have clear control of the commonly used forms of their new language. Teachers are responsible for introducing their learners to a range of socially determined sign language registers and culturally determined sign language genres. Signed narratives, and how they are used to teach and what they teach, form a part of cultural deaf learning environments. Sutton-Spence and Ramsey (2010) quote a deaf teacher saying, “you just can’t teach without stories” (ibid.: 175).
Many sign language curricula include sign language literature for the L2/Ln learners in spite of the lack of formal research on methods and a lack of comprehensive evaluation of its use in educational institutions. Rosa (2018) documented its inclusion in the curricula at 12 federal universities in Brazil. An internet search conducted by the author found that sign language literature included in many colleges and universities in Europe and North America. One key document, Standards for Learning American Sign Language (Ashton et al., 2012), devised by the American Sign Language Teachers Association (ASLTA), included standards for teaching and learning American Sign Language (ASL) poems, plays, jokes, and narratives, in which learners learn how to communicate in ASL and learn about Deaf culture and communities in comparison to other cultures and communities. The ASLTA also recommend its inclusion as a subject matter in K-16 ASL classrooms.
A few countries have widespread sign language teaching programs in schools and universities (Sweden, the USA and Brazil are some positive examples of countries where this is more widespread and established than in many others). Even in those countries that do offer it, institutions with fewer resources may focus purely on teaching more communicative forms of sign language, so that literature is less likely to be taught to L2/Ln learners. College teachers are often left to devise their own curricula and teaching materials. The inclusion of literature in the classrooms depends on the availability of resources and the teachers’ personal interests, experience, and professional networks. Mann and colleagues (2014) reported on the lack of training for sign language teachers around the world, observing that:
Frequently, signed language instructors design teaching methods based on their own experience as a language user and member of the community. This is, in part, due to lack of any formal training in teaching language since the vast majority of instructors have not completed academic preparation in language instruction.
ibid., 2014: 2
With respect to teaching Auslan, for example, Willoughby et al. (2015) noted that, “Teachers are … constrained by the curricula and resources available to them, which in the Australian context often focus on the teaching of word lists and basic grammatical structures relevant to a theme” (ibid.: 330). It is this focus on the teaching of word lists in many places that Mann et al. (2014: 3) claimed “may result in neglecting to highlight important features that represent the complexities of visual-spatial languages such as classifier constructions, verbs that use the signing space for inflection, and grammatical and lexical facial expressions,” a point that is also shared by Quinto-Pozos (2011).
When teachers use literature to focus on the language used, they focus primarily on the features identified in the second quadrant of Table 16.1 (“Literature is used just as a text with no focus on literary values, literary knowledge, or literary skills”), as learners develop language skills. The form of creative sign language can be seen at every linguistic level, drawing attention to the rules of non-literary sign language by bending or breaking those rules. Stephen Ryan (1993) noted that good sign language storytelling (which we may extend to any good signed literature, including poetry) may include signs with repeated handshapes, locations, movements, or spatial arrangements of symmetry, creative classifier signs, role shift (or characterization), specific use of space, eye-gaze, facial expression, and other non-manual features, repetition, rhythm, and timing. Personification is very common, as are other creative uses of metaphor and metonyms. Sign language literary artists make new signs, use new and unexpected handshapes, leave the standard signing space, and produce signs that are too fast or too slow for normal signing. All of this is essential for L2/Ln learners to understand, and can be presented in interesting, fun ways.
Repetition is a crucial part of L2/Ln learning and sign language literature’s aesthetic dimensions rewards repeated viewing. Additionally, within many stories and poems, specific linguistic features or individual signs are repeated. Although L2/Ln learners may see short signed narratives in their study, these simple vignettes do not have the repetition of elements seen in “high art forms.” Sutton-Spence and Shepherd (2010) report a learner comment in relation to Brazilian Flag, a poem in Brazilian Sign Language by Nelson Pimenta that they had studied. The learner noted that information was not repeated in the narratives they were given as teaching materials so, “if you missed it, you missed it, whereas in Brazilian Flag the stars folded up again and again, and he repeated it. So – aesthetically pleasing, yes, but also you had the opportunity to see it more than once” (ibid.: 54).
When teachers focus on both the literary and the language elements of texts, their activities are more in keeping with those in the first quadrant of Table 16.1 (“Literary knowledge and skills are focused on, but there is also a conscious focus on the lexis, grammar, etc.”), as teachers also consider themes and meaning as they teach. In this case, teachers use the content of sign language literature to discuss the culture, experiences, and language art forms of deaf communities with their learners. Deaf literature can celebrate what is good about deaf life, such as the joys of sign language, deaf success, and feelings of belonging within the deaf community (Sutton-Spence & Quadros, 2005). Many pieces have thematic threads of Deaf community resistance to oppression and Deaf liberation, in topics such as Deaf education and the struggles to use sign language (Christie & Wilkins, 2007; Bahan, 2006). Davidson (2017) has drawn attention to narratives that show “the typical experiences of a Deaf person as they function in the mainstream world that is oriented by sound” (ibid.: 4), as the events and experiences would not happen to a hearing person. However, Deaf literature also encompasses broad themes such as identity and the self, mortality, nationality, religion, nature, and love, as well as topics on familiar daily matters such as the family cat, a fish in a tank, jam, or watching laundry in the washing machine. All the content, shown from a Deaf, visual perspective and through sign language, provides an additional learning level for all L2/Ln learners when it is explicitly taught to them.
Sign language teachers may naturally turn to the use of sign language literature to teach culture to hearing L2/Ln learners, because they see it as a device already used among the Deaf community (Carter, Scott, & Sutton-Spence, 2013). Quinto-Pozos (2011) and Mann et al. (2014) observe that sign language teachers often teach about deaf culture and community life in their language classes. As Sutton-Spence and Ramsey (2010) reported, deaf educators valued the teaching of literature for their learners, such as Scott who said that “storytelling is always deaf culture. Always. I am always telling stories,” and Weiniger asked rhetorically, “How do you explain anything without a story? Straight, boring: ‘Here’s the list. The end,’ No, you can’t do it” (ibid.: 155).
As long ago as 1998, Sharon Allen noted that literature was usually not taught until later years of ASL study (we have seen that this is still often the case), but in this early study, she outlined the benefits of introducing beginning language learners to ASL literature, even though it might contain language at a level currently beyond their comprehension. She argued that early exposure to the literature could be achieved through translations or descriptions and explanations in their L1 where necessary. With support from their ASL teachers the literary exposure would make learners familiar with different ASL genres and improve their cultural knowledge.
Sign language literature can be used to teach about the language in sign linguistics classes. The focus here can fall into Paran’s first and second quadrants in Table 16 .1, as language is always the key focus. Linguistics is a science that aims to observe, describe and explain the structure of languages. In its applied form, it can help second language learners understand their new language more clearly by explicitly talking about it. Haug, Leeson, & Monikowski (2017) found that most sign language training organizations use sign language linguistics as part of their language and interpreting curricula. Thus, it is worth thinking how sign language literature can play a part in L2/Ln learning by considering its role in the pedagogy of sign linguistics (another area that has received little attention from pedagogical researchers, despite its extensive use in sign language teaching). Spoken language stories are increasingly used in corpus-based linguistic studies, having been chosen to support a theoretical point. Linguistic constructions in sign language literature have currently not been annotated together into a corpus.
The need to observe, describe, and explain the language and meaning in literary analysis is similar to that for linguistic analysis (Kincheloe, 2015). A learner analyzing a sign language poem or narrative in the linguistics classroom will focus intently on the language used (Wolter, 2006). Clearly, literary language is an unusual, marked form of the language, but breaking language rules gives a clearer idea of those rules to challenge linguistic theory. Additionally, the grammatical or structural rules are only broken as far as audiences will accept it, so sign language literature can explore the potential for sign languages as well as their more daily use as may be seen in other non-literary elicited pieces.
Learning is more effective when learners find it enjoyable (Bork & Gunnarsdottir, 2001; Paran, 2008) and the aesthetic language used signed poems, jokes, and stories that are analyzed in linguistics courses may relax some learners who are initially challenged by, and resistant to, the more abstract, scientific elements of linguistics.
Many L2/Ln sign language linguistics learners could learn about sign language literature. Over 25 years of the author’s personal experience of teaching sign language linguistics to undergraduate and postgraduate learners learning sign language (in Britain, the USA, and Brazil) and to professionals who work with sign language has led to insights into ways to draw upon signed literature to illustrate concepts such as phonology, morphology (derivational and inflectional), syntax, non-manual features, and pragmatic and discourse features such as use of space, classifiers, and constructed action. For example, when linguistics classes introduce ideas of phonetics, phonology and sign parameters, with a focus on hand configuration, location, movement, and orientation, a teacher can use signed poems that have deliberate rhyme schemes with strong repetition of sub-sign elements. They are perfect vehicles for demonstrating and problematizing the concept of the essential building blocks of a language, being entertaining as well as practical and imaginative.
Derivational morphology, where linguistics would address creating new signs, is important in practical applied linguistics because learners need to understand how classifier signs and constructed action are used in sign language (Johnston & Schembri, 2007; Smith & Cormier, 2014). As these productive signs are created ad hoc, L2/Ln learners cannot learn them by rote and need to learn how to create them. Creative sign language uses productive signs extensively, and some stories, particularly those told as “visual vernacular” pieces (Nathan Lerner & Feigel, 2009), use almost no conventional vocabulary at all, giving learners the opportunity to study and understand the process behind these signs, as they reproduce the novel and highly pleasurable signs, before creating their own.
Non-manual elements can be differently described from different linguistic theoretical frameworks, even though their linguistic status is unclear (Dachkovsky & Sandler, 2009; de Vos, van der Kooij, & Crasborn, 2009). Non-manual features are often foregrounded in stories or poems that include personified inanimate objects that communicate their feelings and desires entirely via the torso, face, head, mouth, and eyes (because the inanimate objects do not have hands). By studying such pieces, learners can focus on ways the non-manual features contribute to the message. Wolter (2006) observed that teaching ASL literature encouraged her learners to analyze their productions and discern rules for sign order and the role of eye gaze in creating topic-comment structures that determined the order of components in their work.
Sign language literature is essential for training interpreters to work within the specialist field of literary translation and interpretation, as interpreters need to be familiar with a large range of works and to know and understand deaf literary norms before they can successfully translate between deaf and hearing literary norms. Cohn (1986: 276) wrote, “interpreters need knowledge and skill, and the performance-art interpreter of poetry must also be a translator; i.e. have knowledge of poetry itself, style, traditions, voice …” The demand for interpreters and translators of sign language literature is still relatively small but it is growing, and there are increasing opportunities for interpreters and translators working in performance fields such as theater and concert interpreting, working from spoken languages into sign languages. As Barros (2015) found, an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the structure of signed literature is essential for translating written literature into sign language.
Additionally, personal experience of teaching sign language literature to qualified interpreters who are not specifically planning to work as literary translators has shown that it still benefits them greatly, for a range of reasons. Many interpreters’ daily contact with deaf signers does not include highly articulate, creatively fluent sign masters of either gender who could bring fresh language ideas to their work. Studying the highly visual imagery produced in sign language literature using techniques beyond mere vocabulary, especially in the use of non-manual expression, use of space and constructed action, can help interpreters devise new strategies for their work. They also genuinely relish the opportunity to delight in studying the language and discussing it with their peers, without needing to interpret it.
Teaching sign language literature with a literary focus falls within the third quadrant of Table 16.1 of Paran’s division of literary and language focus of teaching. It follows that “literature is discussed only as literature; any focus on language is on its literary effects.” Nevertheless, it can have a marked effect on the language skills of learners. Paran noted that explicit teaching of language may not be necessary by the stage learners study literature in this way, but incidental language learning occurs for L2/Ln learners when exposed to sign language literature even without discussion of the language. As learners learn about deaf literary norms and develop skills in analyzing sign language literature, few can avoid learning about language structure and deaf culture, and the creative potential of both.
Increasingly at university level, sign language literature is taught as a separate subject, rather than as a component of language learning. For example, a survey by Rosa (2018) found that of the 12 Brazilian Federal universities that teach Letras-Libras (Libras Letters, or Brazilian Sign Language Studies) all have at least one module on literature, named variously Deaf Literature, Sign Language Literature or Visual Literature, often including a practical component for learners training to be teachers that include teaching sign language literature to L1 and L2/Ln learners. Although the focus of this chapter is teaching literature in the L2/Ln classroom, teaching sign language literature as a separate academic subject to L1 learners is crucial if they are training to be sign language teachers who will go on to use it in their classes. Teachers need to have the skills to provide analytical and systematic descriptions of a wide range of sign language literature and folklore, including its content, form and origins, and the linguistic, social, and literary ways to approach the subject.
Paran (2008) conducted a survey of studies on literature and L2 learning and reported that learners viewed literary and semi-literary texts as the most enjoyable. This reaction of enjoyment by L2/Ln learners can affect their confidence. Confidence is a crucial element in language learning and one that frequently suffers among hearing learners after a period of learning sign language. Quinto-Pozos (2011) reports that many hearing learners embark upon ASL courses with unrealistic expectations of how much they will be able to learn in the time available and notes other related difficulties that may hamper such L2/Ln learners. Sutton-Spence and Shepherd’s (2010) interviews with L2/Ln British Sign Language learners in higher education found that active engagement with creative BSL had a positive impact on their confidence and BSL skills and increased their enjoyment of the language and understanding of other areas of Deaf Studies.
They quote a learner who approached the end of her degree course with considerable lack of confidence in her signing skills and low motivation to continue, until she was introduced to sign language literature:
It was like the light had been switched back on. I remembered what had originally brought me to BSL and my hunger for knowledge grew again. I found because I was enjoying it once more, my confidence grew and my overall signing began to improve.
ibid.:52
Because sign language literature in this context is not to be learned but to be learned from, learners who lack confidence in their sign production skills feel less anxious while watching it. The learners know that they are seeing an art form that they are not expected to be able to produce, so they can relax and delight in it, simply working to understand how the artists create the effect.
It is increasingly understood that language learning requires learners to produce language. Studying literature is a way to stimulate learners to talk (or in the case of sign languages, to sign). Gass and Mackey (2007) emphasize the benefits of input, interaction, and output for L2 learning, and Kim (2004), in a study based on Reader Response Theory, found that learners who were guided to discuss literature using their L2 interacted more easily with each other, were stimulated to discuss issues that arose from the literature and showed increased emotional engagement with the texts, the L2 language and each other.
For less advanced learners, literature may be discussed in the learners’ L1. This may not always occur in the context of deaf studies classrooms, where mixed classes of deaf and hearing learners, or language policies of the institution mean that the subject is taught in sign language. However, whatever language the subject is taught in, learners are inspired by the language forms they see, and this increases their love for sign language, and can incidentally improve their learning of the L2/Ln. Sutton-Spence and Shepherd noted responses from learners, such as: “I think [the class on sign language literature is] the only lecture I have managed to get my confidence to actually sign something, as you say, a question or answer or something” and “Lit and poetry have helped me to enjoy the language again and widen my experience” (ibid.: 52).
As the argument for sign language literature in the L2/Ln classroom is so strong, we need to act to increase its use. Most sign language teachers are simply not trained to teach using literature, which is a common problem for language teachers of non-signed languages as well (Paran, 2008). Providing training in sign language literature for teachers requires courses and publications that explain it in ways that teachers can understand. Additionally, teaching anthologies of good, easily available, wide-ranging literature resources need to be provided because it is not currently easy for sign language teachers to find examples of sign language literature for their learners. However, if teachers use sign language literature that is recognized within their Deaf communities as a language art-form, the learners will be learning from the language forms that are valued in the communities.
We have reached a stage in teaching sign language literature to L2/Ln learners where we are starting to know what we need to know. We know that sign language teachers use literature and that learners appear to respond well to it. Research on teaching literature to learners learning sign languages as L1, most of whom are deaf children, needs to be extended to learners of L2/Ln. Research findings that indicate good practice in L2/Ln pedagogy in non-sign-languages need to be tested in sign language classrooms. Future research should focus on evaluation tests and procedures that will ascertain the effectiveness of the teaching of literature to L2/Ln learners. They would need to account for the unique learning process of L2/Ln learners, who are largely hearing. Although literature does not lend itself easily to quantitative study, controlled interventions need to be conducted to present evidence for (or against) its use as a tool in language teaching. This research could be usefully undertaken by teacher-researchers (Rosen et al., 2015) who are in an ideal position to test and modify teaching plans in their professional activities. The development of good quality, accessible, and age appropriate literary teaching anthologies in different national sign languages is also essential so that teachers can draw on the resources with confidence (Sutton-Spence & Machado, 2018). These anthologies should also include new and minority group sign language literature.
The studies reviewed above indicate that good pedagogical practices by L2/Ln teachers will use a broad range of sign language literary materials, encouraging learners to understand the language and cultural context in which they are used. Time must be provided in class for literature if it is not on a curriculum. Teachers must always have a clear objective in using the literature and build on the characteristics of the fourth quadrant in Table 16.1, that of merely “Extensive reading,” according to Paran’s (2008) suggestions. The objective should include increasing the learners’ comprehension skills, production skills, and desire to independently explore the language and literature. For this reason, it is imperative that sign language teachers have the knowledge of the specific literary norms in their languages and cultures.
There is no consensus on the content of a sign language literature course, but the structure suggested in Sutton-Spence and Kaneko (2016), and outlined above, gives an indication of the potential topics that can be covered, all of which can contribute to a greater understanding and appreciation of sign languages. Teachers can show examples of signed stories, poems, and jokes from their own sign languages, appropriate to their learner groups, illustrate the key points, and encourage learners to explore further and experiment. Perhaps most importantly, we need to promote sign language literature as an integral tool in the teaching of L2/Ln sign languages.
Allen, S. (1998). Reading the Unwritten: Involving Beginning Learners of American Sign Language in its Literature. Masters Thesis, The University of California, San Diego.
Andrews, J. (2006). Deaf culture values through children’s fiction. Multicultural Review, 15 (1), 25–36.
Arenson, R., & Kretschmer, R. (2010). Teaching poetry: a descriptive case study of a poetry unit in a classroom of urban deaf adolescents. American Annals of the Deaf, 155 (2), 110–17.
Ashton, G., Cagle, K., Brown Kurz, K., Newell, W., Peterson, R., and Zinza, J. (2012). Standards for Learning American Sign Language: A Project of the American Sign Language Teachers Association. Accessed on September 2017 from https://aslta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/National_ASL_Standards.pdf
Bahan, B. (2006). “Face-to-face tradition in the American Deaf community”. In H-D. Bauman, J. Nelson, & H. Rose (eds.), Signing the Body Poetic (pp. 21–50). California: University of California Press.
Barros, T.P. (2015). Experiência de tradução poética de Português/Libras: três poemas de Drummond. Masters thesis. Translation Studies, UNB: Brasília/DF.
Bauman, H-D., Nelson, J., & Rose, H. (eds.) (2006). Signing the Body Poetic. California: University of California Press.
Bork, A., & Gunnarsdottir, S. (2001). Tutorial Distance Learning: Rebuilding Our Education System. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Carter, R., Scott, P., & Sutton-Spence, R. (2013). Teaching language and identity through signed stories. NATECLA Language Issues: the ESOL Journal, 24 (1), 41–50.
Christie, K., & Wilkins, D. (2007). Themes and symbols in ASL Poetry: Resistance affirmation and liberation. Deaf Worlds, 22, 1–49.
Cohn, J. (1986). The new deaf poetics: Visible poetry. Sign Language Studies, 52, 263–277.
Dachkovsky, S., & Sandler, W. (2009). Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech, 52 (2/3), 287–314.
Davidson, L. (2017). Personal Experience Narratives in the Deaf Community: Identifying Deaf-World Typicality. Masters dissertation. University of Central Lancashire, UK.
De Vos, C., van der Kooij, E., & Crasborn, O. (2009). Mixed signals: Combining linguistic and affective functions of eyebrows in questions in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Language and Speech, 52 (2/3), 315–39.
Gass, S.M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. Vanpatten, & J. Williams (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 175–200). London: LEA.
González, M. (2017). Being and Becoming a Deaf Educator: The Construction of Deaf Educators’ Roles and Pedagogies in Chilean Deaf Schools. Doctoral Thesis, University of Bristol, UK.
Haug, T., Leeson, L., & Monikowski C. (2017). Linguistic courses in sign language interpreter education programs: A survey of selected educators. Paper presented at the 2017 Symposium on Signed Language Interpretation and Translation Research, Gallaudet University, March 31‒April 2, 2017.
Johnston, T., & Schembri, A. (2007). Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An introduction to Sign Language Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karnopp, L. (2010). Produções culturais de surdos- análise de literatura surda. Cadernos de Educação 19, 36, Educação de Surdos (pp. 155–74). Retrieved from http://periodicos.ufpel.edu.br/ojs2/index.php/caduc/article/viewFile/1605/1488
Kim, M. (2004). Literature discussions in adult L2 learning. Language and Education, 18 (2), 145–66.
Kincheloe, P. (2015). Bridges to understanding: What happens when a Bakhtinian critical lens is applied to an American Sign Language poem. Sign Language Studies, 16, 117–38.
Kuntze, M., Golos D., & Enns, C. (2014). Rethinking literacy: Broadening opportunities for visual learners. Sign Language Studies, 14 (2), 203–24.
Lane, H., Hoff meister, R., & Bahan, B. (1996). A Journey into the DEAF-WORLD. San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press.
Mann, W., Haug, T., Kollien, S., & Quinto-Pozos, D. (2014). Teaching signed languages. In C. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–8). London: Wiley.
Nathan Lerner, M., & Feigel, D. (2009). The Heart of the Hydrogen Jukebox (DVD) New York: Rochester Institute of Technology.
Newell, W. (1995). American Sign Language teachers: Practices & perceptions. Sign Language Studies, 87, 141–65.
Paran, A. (2008). The role of literature in instructed foreign language learning and teaching: An evidence-based survey. Language Teaching, 41 (4), 465–96.
Peters, C. (2000). Deaf American Literature: From Carnival to the Canon. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Quinto-Pozos, D. (2011). Teaching American Sign Language to hearing adult learners. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 137–58.
Robertson, T. (2017). Introduction and Commentary on Literature in Britain Today. London: The Royal Society of Literature.
Rosa, F. (2018) O que o currículo de Letras Libras ensina sobre literatura surda: produção de sentidos na formação de professores de Libras. Doctoral dissertation. Federal University of Pelotas.
Rose, H. (1992). A Critical Methodology for Analyzing American Sign Language Literature, Doctoral dissertation. Arizona State University.
Rose, H. (2006). The poet in the poem in the performance: the relation of body, self, and text in ASL literature. In H-D. Bauman, J. Nelson, & H. Rose (eds.), Signing the Body Poetic (pp. 130–46). California: University of California Press.
Rosen, R., Turtletaub, M., Delouise, M., & Drake, S. (2015). Teacher-as-researcher paradigm for sign language teachers: Toward evidence-based pedagogies for improved learner outcomes. Sign Language Studies, 16 (1), 86–116.
Ryan, S. (1993). “Let’s tell an ASL story.” In Gallaudet University College for Continuing Education (ed.), Conference Proceedings (pp. 144–51). April 22–25, 1993. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Smith, S., & Cormier, K. (2014). In or out? Spatial scale and enactment in narratives of native and nonnative signing deaf children acquiring British Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 14 (3), 275–301.
Sutton-Spence, R. (2005). Analysing Sign Language Poetry. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sutton-Spence, R., & Kaneko, M. (2016). Introducing Sign Language Literature: Creativity and Folklore. Basingstoke: Palgrave Press.
Sutton-Spence, R. & Machado, F. de A. (2018) Considerations for creating anthologies of Sign Language poetry. Sign Language Studies, 19 (2), 267‒94.
Sutton-Spence, R., & Quadros, R.M. (2005). Sign language poetry and Deaf identity Sign Language & Linguistics, 8, 175–210.
Sutton-Spence, R., & Ramsey, C. (2010). What we should teach deaf children: Deaf teachers’ folk models in Britain, the U.S. and Mexico’ Deafness and Education International, 12 (3), 149–76.
Sutton-Spence, R., & Shepherd, E. (2010). Creative sign language for second language British Sign Language learners. In M Mertzani (ed.), Sign Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 49–56). Bristol, UK: Bristol University.
Willoughby, L., Linder, S., Ellis, K., & Fisher, J. (2015). Errors and feedback in the beginner Auslan classroom. Sign Language Studies, 15 (3), 322–47.
Wolter, E. (2006). ASL Literature comes of age: Creative “writing” in the classroom. In H-D. Bauman, J. Nelson, & H. Rose (eds.), Signing the Body Poetic (pp. 147–65). California: University of California Press.