Visual sign phonology: insights into human reading and language from a natural soundless phonology

Abstract

Among the most prevailing assumptions in science and society about the human reading process is that sound and sound-based phonology are critical to young readers. The child's sound-to-letter decoding is viewed as universal and vital to deriving meaning from print. We offer a different view. The crucial link for early reading success is not between segmental sounds and print. Instead the human brain's capacity to segment, categorize, and discern linguistic patterning makes possible the capacity to segment all languages. This biological process includes the segmentation of languages on the hands in signed languages. Exposure to natural sign language in early life equally affords the child's discovery of silent segmental units in visual sign phonology (VSP) that can also facilitate segmental decoding of print. We consider powerful biological evidence about the brain, how it builds sound and sign phonology, and why sound and sign phonology are equally important in language learning and reading. We offer a testable theoretical account, reading model, and predictions about how VSP can facilitate segmentation and mapping between print and meaning. We explain how VSP can be a powerful facilitator of all children's reading success (deaf and hearing)-an account with profound transformative impact on learning to read in deaf children with different language backgrounds. The existence of VSP has important implications for understanding core properties of all human language and reading, challenges assumptions about language and reading as being tied to sound, and provides novel insight into a remarkable biological equivalence in signed and spoken languages. WIREs Cogn Sci 2016, 7:366-381. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1404 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

Enhanced gaze‐following behavior in Deaf infants of Deaf parents

“…Cejas et al, 2014;Peterson & Siegal, 2000), DoD children exposed to fluent sign language from birth are reported in several studies to be fully on track for language and social cognition (including theory of mind), especially in studies that use appropriately matched controls (e.g. Hall, Eigsti, Bortfeld, & Lillo-Martin, 2018;Petitto et al, 2016;Schick, de Villiers, de Villiers, & Hoffmeister, 2007). Clearly, deaf individuals are not a homogenous group-and the use of natural sign language by Deaf parents and caregivers offers Deaf infants a visual learning ecology that supports social, cognitive, and linguistic development (Meadow-Orlans et al, 2004).…”

Assessment in deaf education: Perspectives and experiences linking it all together

“…For example, evaluating auditory phonology by requiring spoken responses reflects society's phonocentric preference for spoken language in contrast to using an assessment that allows a nonspoken response or evaluating visual phonology rather than auditory phonology. While that may be the societal preference, Petitto et al (2016) research shows that for both hearing and deaf children visual phonology has numerous benefits for reading success. They went on to state that visual sign phonology has important implications for understanding the core properties of all human languages including aspects of reading and writing.…”

Earlier and More Robust Sensorimotor Discrimination of ASL Signs in Deaf Signers During Imitation

“…There are clear similarities in the neural organization of the language production networks for spoken and signed languages (Emmorey, Mehta, McCullough, & Grabowski, 2016; MacSweeney, Capek, Campbell, & Woll, 2008). Mental representations and processing of signs share many correlates with the representation and processing of speech (Blanco-Elorrieta, Kastner, Emmorey, & Pylkkänen, 2018; Corina et al, 1999; Evans, Price, Diedrichsen, Gutierrez-Sigut, & MacSweeney, 2019; Petitto et al, 2016). For instance, deaf signers recruit the left superior temporal gyrus when seeing sign language phrases, much like hearing speakers do when listening to speech (MacSweeney et al, 2002).…”

“…For instance, deaf signers recruit the left superior temporal gyrus when seeing sign language phrases, much like hearing speakers do when listening to speech (MacSweeney et al, 2002). While sign languages and spoken languages have fundamental similarities in their neural organization due to the amodality of phonetic information (Emmorey, McCullough, Mehta, & Grabowski, 2014; Petitto et al, 2016), there are also important differences in the neurobiology of how spoken and signed languages are represented in the brain (Emmorey et al, 2014; Evans et al, 2019).…”