Unlocking the Curriculum
Johnson et al.
In regard to the day to day practical aspects of Total Communication, the concept
simply means that, in so far as possible, those persons within the child's immediate
environment should talk and sign simultaneously, and the child should be
benefiting from appropriate amplification. This, of course, is based upon the belief
that it is indeed possible to sign what one says with respect to English syntax, and
that signs and speech can be compatible. The consistent use of simultaneous speech
and signing and the consistent use of appropriate amplification provides [sic] the
child with a syntactical model for imitation which is both visual and auditory. The
highly visual and dramatic language of signs operate [sic] as the foundation of Total
Communication reinforcing, undergirding and clarifying those minimal clues
available through speechreading. Likewise, minimal auditory clues are enhanced
and reinforced by signs and speechreading. For all of us then, communication is
total or multi dimensional ... [sic] one dimension enhancing, reinforcing and
enriching the other.
But the validity of the underlying assumption that any system of signs (either natural or
invented) is capable of representing speech in a way which will allow it to serve as a model for the
natural acquisition of a spoken language has never been demonstrated. From the time that SSS was
first instituted as educational practice, linguists and some educators have argued that it is unable
to serve the purposes claimed for it (Charrow, 1975; Reich & Bick, 1977; Stevens, 1976; Quigley
& Kretschmer, 1982; Johnson & Erting, in press).
Evidence suggests that grammars of English developed by deaf children who see SSS as
their model do not conform to the grammars of English developed by hearing children who learn
English through listening and speaking. Charrow (1974) demonstrated that the broad variation in
the written English of deaf children points to the existence of highly idiosyncratic grammars of
English, which differ substantially from standard English, and result in the kind of productions
typically labelled "deaf English."
S. Supalla (1986) provides evidence that the grammars of children's "English" signing are
also characterized by significant idiosyncratic divergences from the grammars predicted by the
educational model. He studied the signed output of deaf students who had been in an "ideal" signed
English environment for several years. Although their teacher produced faithful signed renderings
of English sentences while teaching, the signing of the students did not show evidence of genuine
competence in English. He found that each child formed an idiosyncratic grammar, containing
innovations quite unlike English, but resembling in some ways the complex verb morphology of
natural sign languages. This study clearly suggests that it is unrealistic to expect that exposure to
signed English will lead naturally to the acquisition of competent English grammar, either spoken
or signed.
Research on the acquisition of spoken languages by hearing children confirms that such
results can be expected. McLaughlin (1984, pp. 188-9, p. 194) summarizes work that demonstrates
that when hearing children or adults attempt to learn a second language before adequately learning
a first language, or when one or both linguistic environments are impoverished, the resulting
grammars will be idiosyncratic with respect to the ordinary grammatical patterns of the target
language. Moreover, he contends that such results are predictable if the two languages are not
clearly differentiated (1984, p. 213). From this perspective it appears that the mixture of English
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No. 2 – Fall/Winter 2018
99