How monks helped invent sign language

For millennia people with hearing impairments encountered marginalization because it was believed that language could only be learned by hearing the spoken word. Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, for example, asserted that “Men that are deaf are in all cases also dumb.” Under Roman law people who were born deaf were denied the right to sign a will as they were “presumed to understand nothing; because it is not possible that they have been able to learn to read or write.”

Pushback against such ideas began in the 16th-century, with the creation of the first formal sign language for the hearing impaired, by Pedro Ponce de León, a Spanish Benedictine monk. His idea to use sign language was not a completely new one. Native Americans used hand gestures to communicate with other tribes and to facilitate trade with Europeans. Benedictine monks had used them to convey messages during their daily periods of silence. Inspired by the latter practice, Ponce de León adapted the gestures used in his monastery to create a method for teaching the deaf to communicate, paving the way for systems now used all over the world.

Building on Ponce de León’s work, another Spanish cleric and linguist, Juan Pablo Bonet, proposed that deaf people learn to pronounce words and progressively construct meaningful phrases. Bonet’s approach combined oralism – using sounds to communicate – with sign language. The system had its challenges, especially when learning the words for abstract terms, or intangible forms such as conjunctions like “for, ” “nor, ” or “yet.”

In 1755 the French Catholic priest Charles-Michel de l’Épée established a more comprehensive method for educating the deaf, which culminated in the founding of the first public school for deaf children, in Paris. Students came to the institute from all over France, bringing signs they had used to communicate with at home. Insistent that sign language needed to be a complete language, his system was complex enough to express prepositions, conjunctions, and other grammatical elements.

Épée’s standardized sign language quickly spread across Europe and to the United States. In 1814 Thomas Gallaudet went to France to learn Épée’s language system. Three years later, Gallaudet established the American School for the Deaf in his hometown in Connecticut. Students from across the United States attended, and they brought signs they used to communicate with at home.American Sign Language became a combination of these signs and those from French Sign Language.

Thanks to the development of formal sign languages, people with hearing impairment can access spoken language in all its variety. The world’s many modern signing systems have different rules for pronunciation, word order, and grammar. New visual languages can even express regional accents to reflect the complexity and richness of local speech.

(Ines Anton Rayas. www.nationalgeographic.com.28.05.2019. Adaptado)

Leia o texto e responda à questão.

For years attention has been paid to so-called communicative tests – usually implying tests dealing with speaking. More recently, efforts have been made to design truly communicative tests of other language skills as well, such as reading comprehension.

Canale (1984) points out that a good test is not just one which is valid, reliable, and practical in terms of test administration and scoring, but rather one that is accepted as fair, important and interesting by test takers (the teachers) and test users (the students). Also, a good test has feedback potential, rewarding both teachers and students with clear, rich, relevant, and generalizable information. Canale suggests that acceptability and feedback potential have often been accorded low priority, thus explaining the curious phenomenon of multiple-choice tests claiming to assess oral interaction skills.

One example of a communicative test has been referred to as a “storyline” test. In such a test, a common theme runs throughout in order to assess the effects of context. The basis for such an approach is that the respondents learn as they read on, that they check previous content, and that the ability to use language in conversation or writing depends in large measure on the skill of picking up information from past discussion and using it in formulating new strategies.

Swain (1984), for example, developed a storyline test of French as a foreign language for high school French immersion students. The test consisted of six tasks around a common theme, “finding summer employment”. There were four writing tasks (a letter, a note, a composition, a technical exercise) and two speaking tasks (a group discussion and a job interview). The test was designed so that the topic would be motivating to the students and so that there would be enough information provided in order to give the tasks credibility. There was access to dictionaries and reference material, and opportunity for students to review and revise their work. Swain’s main concern was to “bias for best” in the construction of the test – to make every effort to support the respondent in doing their best on the test.

(Andrew D.Cohen. Second Language Assessment. IN: Marianne Celce-Murcia(ed). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston, Massachusstes: Heinle&Heinle.2nd edition.2001. Adaptado)

Leia o texto para responder a questão.

English as a Lingua Franca

A number of researchers have studied conversations in English as a Lingua Franca and have noted a number of somewhat surprising characteristics, including:

•  Non-use of third person present simple tense -s (She look very sad).

•  Interchangeable use of the relative pronouns who and which (a book who, a boy which).

•  Omission of articles where they are mandatory in native-speaker English.

•  Increasing of redundancy by adding “inexistent” prepositions (We have to study about…, The article treats of…).

•  Pluralisation of nouns which are considered uncountable in native-speaker English (informations, staffs).

The evidence suggests that non-native speakers are not conforming to a native English standard. Indeed they seem to get along perfectly well despite the fact that they miss things out and put things in which they ‘should not do’. Not only this, but they are actually better at ‘accommodating’ - that is, negotiating shared meaning through helping each other in a more cooperative way - than, it is suggested, native speakers are when talking to second language speakers (Jenkins 2004). In other words, non-native speakers seem to be better at ELF communication than native speakers are.

(Jeremy Harmer, The practice of English language teaching. Adaptado)