BENEFITS OF AN APRAXIC SIGN & SAY SIGN LANGUAGE PROGRAM & INSTRUCTOR
The deaf and non-verbal community constitutes a large enough community that materials and trainers are available.
Signs are free from environmental (mechanical) support, like speech.
Sign language constitutes a topography-based language making it conceptually similar to speech, especially the Sign n’ Say program developed for Apraxic individuals.
Sign language can improve speech.
There is a single stimulus and single response relation, like speech, and that can be paired with speech.
Verbal development with sign language appears to closely parallel verbal development with speech, while this is not the case with other response forms.
Importance of establishing a signing verbal community:
A study by Poulton and Algozzine (1980) pointed out that the children that were not using their signs outside of the training session, was a problem of generalization training, and failed to establish an effective verbal community, either through an interpreter (EA) or signing community. Their research studies showed that teachers, instructors and the training programs were also inadequate in the procedures and methods of instruction and many teachers failed to acquire a sizable and useful verbal signing repertoire. Both of these elements are essential to the development of a sign (and Sign & say) language training program. If the training does not include procedures to bring the signs under the control of different stimuli, then it is likely that the repertoire will be of less functional value to the child. In addition, the study stated, if attempts are not made to establish a signing community or interpreter for communication, then opportunities to engage in signing will not be reinforced and models of more complex signing and social interaction involving signing will not be available. If these variables were not present with speech training, it would be certainly expected to see language delays, yet there is often no attempt to establish generalization or a verbal community or interpreter for signers. When signs do not develop in a pattern similar to speech, the blame is typically placed on the use of signs or the limitations of the child.
In conclusion the study pointed out (along with other studies on apraxia and sign language) that sign language has several advantages that make it an appealing complimentary response form when paired verbally and with verbal prompts. It concluded that sign programs often fail because of a wide variety of instructor errors. Sign language training also requires that instructors learn how to sign. These barriers along is often why sign language is not tried or successful, thus children who could make substantial linguistic gains with sign language may remain non-verbal or inarticulate, or may use a less efficient system.
The research cited by Poluton and Algozzine (1980) used training procedures that taught object and action naming, and receptive identification. May sign language training programs fail not only because of teaching under multiple controls, but also because they do not establish all the different types of language. It is common to teach only receptive and tact repertories while neglecting request (mand), intraverbal, and RFFC training.
In addition, literature review by Sisson and Barrett (1983) showed that most programs and research projects failed to teach a complete repertoire (all the verbal skills). For example, when the child could produce a sign (unprompted) that corresponded to a specific object of action he was given credit for “knowing the meaning of the word.” Thus, when a particular object was a strong form of reinforcement the child was expected to: use his memory to recall the sign” Failure to do so was attributed to the child’s “defective cognitive system” rather than the inadequacies of the training program. Even most of the procedures described in the behavioral literature on sign training (e.g., Carr, Binkoff, Kologinsky & Eddy, 1978; Kahn, 1981; Kotkin, Simpson & Desanto, 1978) do not include steps to, for example, teach a person to ask for something when it is absent or missing (manding), or emit a response solely under the control of verbal stimuli (intraverbal). Lovaas (e.g., 1977) has frequently pointed that Sign training three times a week for 30 minutes will not result in the acquisition of an effective sign language repertoire and retention of signs. He also points out the need for a large number of daily trials in early language training, including the requirement of careful prompting, shaping, and differential reinforcement procedures in order to establish the different response forms. Inadequate training procedures can lead to failure.
Sign language is also facilitated by the fact that many of the signed responses closely resemble the objects that they represent. The sign “pencil” for example, is made by moving the index finger of one hand across the open palm of the other (as if writing on paper). This iconic relation between the object and the response may make sign acquisition easier than the initial vocal acquition, because there is a built in prompt for the sign. Strong pairing of both sign and vocal prompts gives incentive and encouragement in gaining verbalization of the word. Spoken English has only a few of these iconic, or onomatopoetic relations (e.g. “woof, woof,” “vum vum”), and they are of little help in early language acquisition, but it is often the case that these are some of the first types of identifiable communication that some children acquire.
Sign language, like speech, constitutes what has been identified as topography-based language (Michael, 1985; Potter & Brown 1997; Shafer, 1993; Sundberg & Sundberg, 1990; Wraikat, Michael, & Sundberg, 1991). In a topography-based language there is a different response topography (i.e., a different word or sign) for each referent, in common sense terms there is a different word for each object, action, etc. This type of language system can be contrasted with a stimuli-selection based language system (Michael, 1985) where the response topography is the same (e.g., a pointing response), but the stimulus identified is different (e.g., as in a picture communication board). While both types of language can be effective as types of augmentative communication, there are several linguistic advantages of a topography-based system.
These studies stated and showed that there are several ways in which sign language may facilitate the establishment of vocal responses and improve language acquisition in general. First, sign language may solve the immediate problem of not being able to verbally interact with others. Signs allow the listeners (e.g., parents, teachers, peers) or interpreter to relay immediate understanding of what the person might be trying to say, thereby permitting the delivery of the desired reinforcer. In addition, it has been shown that this successful verbal interaction (Sign & Say) provides an excellent opportunity to shape articulation. These points could be made for all types of Augmentive communication, but sign language, as a topography-based system is free from environmental support (i.e., no auxiliary equipment is necessary), has some unique features that may result in substantial vocal improvement.
If trainers speak as they sign, and require and reinforce approximations to spoken words, specific words can become associated with specific signs and successful verbal interactions (e.g., reinforced manding). Therefore, not only might specific speech sounds become paired with specific signs, but specific sounds may also become conditioned reinforcers, and even automatic reinforcers as well. These new forms of reinforcement can strengthen vocal behavior in many ways (e.g., Skinner, 1957; Sundberg et al., 1996). For example, in mand training if the spoken word “eat” is consistently paired with the sign eat and the delivery of food, the spoken word “eat” may acquire new evocative effects (i.e., the spoken word “eat” may come to, for example, evoke looking at food without any direct training) and reinforcing effects (Michael, 1983). As a result, the spoken word “eat” may make it more likely that the child will “sign eat” and attempt to vocalize the word and go to where food is normally served (this behavioral effect has been identified as “functional equivalence”’ see for example Dougher, 1994; Hall & Chase, 1991). Also, the establishment of echoic stimulus control, and other types of language involving vocal behavior, may now be easier, especially if vocal behavior already occurs to some degree (Clarke, Remington, & Light, 1988).
Sign language may improve articulation for a number of other reasons as well. If signs begin to evoke specific vocalizations then signs can be used as a new type of prompt to evoke those specific vocalizations. This type of prompting may be more effective than typical echoic prompts that give away the response form (i.e. model for the child the correct word) making it harder to transfer control to the other types of referents. Also, children learn to sequence motor movements that are often easier to sequence than vocal movements. Once the motor movements are learned, specific vocalizations can be matched with the signs. This sign-vocalization prompt can help in other ways as well. A child can use signs to prompt his own vocalizations. That is, if a non-verbal stimulus (i.e., a specific object) can evoke a sign and a child is able to emit a vocalization under the control of a sign, then he can self-prompt his own vocalizations. For example, when a signing child wants a cup but there is not one present, when he make the sign for cup the sign may prompt articulation of the word “cup”. This self-prompting may result in more successful vocal-verbal interactions and more reinforcement for attempts to speak.
The primary failure of a sign and say Apraxic program is that parents and teachers must learn and use the sign language. Also, a signing environment must be established where signs are consistently reinforced, and models of signing are frequently provided and paired with verbal cues and articulation as well as other forms of reinforcement. The establishment of this is essential for verbal development (Skinner, 1957; Sundberg, Milani, & Partington, 1977); the lack of training makes these barriers difficult. However, it must be pointed out that if a child has a trained establishment of parents, teachers and interpreters, and community of sign, even a small signing repertoire for those that he may interact with on a non-consistent basis is sufficient to begin communication. Signing can also be faded with Apraxic children as they articulate and acquire vocal spoken words and still reincorporated for sequencing of language when needed later. Sign language paired in a Sign & Say prompt instruction may be more effective as an immediate form of communication to assist in getting a child to speak clearly.
The mand repertoire: Signs can be equally effective for manding as speech, provided that the people in the child’s environment use and reinforce sign language.
The intraverbal repertoire: The establishment of sophisticated intraverbal behavior primarily depends on contact with a signing verbal community. Limited exposure to signing models and audiences will make it difficult to establish complex intraverbal behavior. However, with a signing verbal community the development of signed intraverbal behavior will parallel that of spoken intraverbal behavior.
The receptive repertoire: Responding to a signed verbal stimulus does not differ conceptually from responding to a spoken verbal stimulus. Therefore, all forms of receptive behavior (including RFFC) are possible with sign language, given a reinforcing verbal community.
The advantages of sign language are substantial, and thus they may mitigate any disadvantages of sign language verbal instruction.
