Deborah Chen Pichler, PhD

This slideshow presentation is designed to support
the Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center’s
webcast, Language Learning through the Eye andEye, as presented by Dr. Deborah Chen Pichler. Thisslideshow is the exclusive property of Dr. Chen
Pichler. All images and graphics contained within areused with permission. Reproduction of any of thiscontent is prohibited.

For both spoken and signed languages
Successful acquisition = Efficient pattern finding
Natural human languages
are organized in complex
patterns that infant brains
recognize.

Linguistic patterns in bilingual input
is complex, yet babies are equipped
to manage them, as long as their
input is good.

Even a modest delay in L1
exposure has a serious
effect on how efficiently adeaf person can process
linguistic patterns.
Deborah Chen Pichler 2017

It’s possible to enrichquality of sign language
input, even for deaf
children whose parents
are new signers.
2

GENERAL OBSERVATION 1

Natural human languages areorganized in complex patterns
that infant brains recognize,
long before they are speaking
or signing.
Deborah Chen Pichler 20173

Different levels of language (simplified)
Discourse
SyntaxMorphology

LexiconPhonology
Linguists often talk about language at different
levels. These are the five we will deal with today.
Deborah Chen Pichler 20174

Rough Milestones for L1 Acquisition
Strikingly similar for signed and spoken languages

birth~1–3mo ~4–8mo~12mo
Deborah Chen Pichler 2017

~24mo
5

Babies as pattern seekers
Example: Segmenting the speech stream
Hearing babies use various linguistic cues to break the
speech stream into smaller chunks.

Don’t break my glasses, Lea!
English does not start words
Child’s name orwith clusters t+b or k+m.
other familiar(phonotactic cues)
words (lexical cues)
Intonation drop and pause atend of phrase (prosodic cues)
Deborah Chen Pichler 2017

6

What do babies know about visual prosody?
Brentari et al. (2010)
Familiarization phrase: Hearing 9-montholds watched repeated video of a woman
signing a string of words produced aseither:a) a single prosodic phrase[GREEN VEGETABLES RABBITS EAT THEM] orb) two separate prosodic phrases
GREEN VEGETABLES] [RABBITS EAT THEM

Deborah Chen Pichler 2017

7

What do babies know about visual prosody?
Brentari et al. (2010)
Experimental phrase:
Baby sees a two signed statements. Both include the familiar
string of words, but only one groups the words together inthe same prosodic pattern as the Familiarization phase.
FOOD WITH COLOR MANYANIMALS PREFER. [GREEN
VEGETABLES RABBITS EAT THEM].
TASTE-SO-GOOD. WOW!

FATHER’S GARDEN HAVE MANYGREEN VEGETABLES] [RABBITSEAT THEM TASTE-SO-GOOD.
WOW!

Deborah Chen Pichler 20178

What do babies know about visual prosody?
Brentari et al. (2010)“…sensitivity to the cues relevant tosign language …is not languagespecific [and] may persist until infants
are 9 months old when infants are notin a signing environment.”

Diane Brentari

Deborah Chen Pichler 20179

GENERAL OBSERVATION 2

Even a modest delay in first
language exposure has aserious effect on how
efficiently a deaf person canprocess linguistic patterns.

Late exposure affects both L1 ASL and L2 English
Mayberry et al. (2002); Mayberry (1993); Mayberry & Lock (1998)
ASL recall test English grammar test

a. Late-deafened adults performed
better repeating complex ASL
sentences than late-exposed (L2)
Deaf (all 20+ years of ASL
experience)b. Both native Deaf and hearing
immigrant L2 scored higher thanlate-exposed Deaf on
grammaticality judgment ofcomplex English (12+ years
experience)
 Early L1 (signed or spoken) is crucial
for successful L2 learning.

Deborah Chen Pichler 201711

Late exposure slows down sign processing
Mayberry & Eichen 1991; Mayberry 1993

Accuracy in ASL shadowing task
Signers watched another signer on video and tried to immediately copy
signer as quickly and accurately as possible. Everyone made errors, but:
• Early/native signers had fewer omissions and substitutions overall• Late learners substituted based on phonological similarities (AND vs. SLEEP) rather
than grammatical or semantic appropriateness (OLD vs. NEW)

• Error patterns suggest that when understress, late-exposed signers get “stuck”
processing at superficial phonological level.
Target: AND

Deborah Chen Pichler 2017

Error: SLEEP

12What’s at the source of these performancedifferences?
Morford and Mayberry (2000) suggest that the critical period
effects observed for late-exposed Deaf signers reveal a
weak or incomplete phonological foundation.
Infant language discrimination
Cooing noises (nonlinguistic)
Babbling: playing with sublexical units
Early phonological developmentbirth~1–3mo ~4–8mo~12mo
Deborah Chen Pichler 201713

Domino effect of weak phonological development
A weak and/or incomplete phonological foundation has cascading
effects on other levels of language processing.
Less effective processingof complex structures

Increase in working
memory load

Delay in decoding
and sign recognition

Phonological processing
requires extra effort

Deborah Chen Pichler 201714

Countering a pervasive myth: Early exposureis critical for acquisition of ANY language.
For spoken language, it’s very
important to train and give the child
exposure to language as soon as
possible; but, for sign languages, wehave a lot more time, we can afford
a delay.

Deborah Chen Pichler 2017

NOT TRUE. Babies
need early exposure
to an accessible L1,
no matter what themodality.

15

Early language exposure supports normal
cognitive development also.
• The False Belief component of Theory of Mind (ToM)• Refers to the ability of a person to understand that others may
have beliefs and perspectives that differ from his/her own.
• Typically develops by around 4 years of age.

• Many studies report delays in ToM development for deaf
children. But these studies tested deaf of children fromhearing families.
• Woolfe et al. (2002) tested both native and late-exposed BSL
children (2-4 years old).

Testing Theory of Mind in sign language
Fisherman test (Woolfe et al. 2002)
Step 1. “Describe picture (A)”A man is fishing.

Deborah Chen Pichler 201717

Testing Theory of Mind in sign language
Fisherman test (Woolfe et al. 2002)
Step 2. “Cover the fisherman’s eyeswith your hand. Now remove theobject blocking the end of the fishingline. What has the man caught?”

He has caught
an old boot.

Deborah Chen Pichler 201718

Testing Theory of Mind in sign language
Fisherman test (Woolfe et al. 2002)
Step 3. “Which of these items does theman think he has caught?”
A fish.
(child has ToM)

A boot.
(child lacks ToM)
Deborah Chen Pichler 201719

Optimizing child’s development of ToM
Morgan, Meristo and Hjelmquist (to appear); Morgan et al. (2014)• ToM development is tied to language development, triggeredby exposure to:• talk about other people’s mental states, what people think and know
• talk about past events, removed from here & now• Deaf children need rich conversations to support ToM
development.
• Morgan et al. (2014) hearing controls received 2-5% exposure tocognitive mental states in parent sample. Deaf children received
less. But even a small increase could make a big difference!
Deborah Chen Pichler 201720

GENERAL OBSERVATION 3

Linguistic patterns in bilingual
input is complex, yet babies
are equipped to manage them,as long as their input is good.

Another dangerous myth: Sign language does
NOT obstruct CI effectiveness“…children who solely utilize
listening and spoken language,
rather than a combination of thiswith ASL, demonstrate better
listening and spoken language
skills…”

NOT TRUE. Babies
need early exposure
to an accessible L1,
no matter what themodality.

-- Meredith Sugar

D. Chen Pichler 201722

Bimodal Bilingual Grant Project
Lillo-Martin, Chen Pichler & Quadros(bibibi.uconn.edu)

Kodas

Deaf with CI

all from Deaf parents

from hearing parents(DDCI & DHCI)

D. Chen Pichler 201723

What constitutes “sign” exposure in the traditional
cochlear implant studies? (Fitzpatrick et al. 2017)
Study

Type of “sign” exposure

Miyamoto et al. (1999)

Total Communication

Robins et al. (1999)

Total Communication

Osberger et al. (1999)

Total Communication

Kirk et al. (2000)

Total Communication

Kirk et al. (2002)

Total Communication

Janjua et al. (2002)

Optional weekly BSL activities

Nicholas & Geers (2003)

Simultaneous Communication

Connor & Zwolan (2004)

Total Communication

Jiménez et al. (2009)“bilingual spoken + sign language,” but no description

Nittrouer (2010)

Baby signs from SEE and ASL

Percy-Smith et al. (2010)“spoken + sign”, no description
D. Chen Pichler 2017

Where are the children withtrue bilingual input in two
natural languages?

24Davidson et al. (2014) participantsParticipant

Age of first
Englishtesting

Age at first
implant

Years since
CI

Mother’s
Education(level)

PAM

4;00

2;11

1;01

College

NIK

5;05

1;04

4;01

College

GIA

5;07

1;06

4;01

College+

FIN

5;08

1;07

4;01

College+

MAX

6;04

1;08

4;08

College

Hearing native
signers (“kodas”)
n=20

Mean

6;00

N/A

N/A

CollegeRange

4;09-8;02

N/A

N/A

12-21 yrs

Non-signers
with CIs

As reported in previous literature

Native signers
with CIs

D. Chen Pichler 201725

ASL Receptive Skills: Results
Davidson et al. (2014); Palmer (2015); Enns & Herman (2009, 2011)• All the DDCI and most Kodas scored near or above
the published (normed) means for Deaf children.
Label 1• Comprehend ASL at or above
the level of native Deaf
children without CI• Bilingualism with English
does not prevent ASL
development.
Label 1

Brand 1

Brand 2

Brand 3

D. Chen Pichler 201726

Preschool Language Scales:
Predicted standard scores by age of implantation
Participant

Age atimplant(months)

Predicted
Score

ActualScore

Predicted
Score

Actual
Score

EC

EC

AC

AC

PAM

35

60

92

68

101

NIK

16

89

94

93

98

GIA

18

83

105

88

102

FIN

19

80

87

86

75

MAX

20

77

93

85

97

Predicted scores based off combination of children’s age ofimpantation and years of language use, data from 188 participants(Nicolas and Geers 2008)
D. Chen Pichler 201727

Expressive Vocabulary (EVT)EVT Age Equivalence8765Davidson et al. (2014)

4

CI
Koda

Both Kodas and DDCI scoredsimilarly to monolingualEnglish peers, at or above
scores published for oral
deaf children with CIs (Geren& Snedeker 2009; Geers etal. 2009)  early ASL does
NOT impede English
vocabulary development.

4

5

6
Age

7

8
D. Chen Pichler 2017

28

4

DIBELS score6
8 10 12

CI
Koda

2

• Measures early literacy
and early reading skills;
short tests on key skills(phonemic awareness,reading comp, vocabulary)• Kodas and DDCI very
similar on this test.

14

16

Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS):
Phonological awareness Davidson et al. (2014)4
D. Chen Pichler 2017

5

6
Age

7

8
29

Articulation: Goldman Fristoe
Davidson et al. (2014)• Tests ability to produce various sounds of English; most widely used test for speech
pathology• Previous studies of children with CI showed fairly poor scores for both children inoral and TC school programs (Spencer & Guo 2013): only 50-65% in normal range.
Participant Age

GFTA Standard
Score

NIK

5;05

109

GIA

5;07

112

FIN

5;08

100

MAX

6;04

102

All four DDCI that we tested
scored in the normal range,
and were 1 standard
deviation above or below the
Koda mean
D. Chen Pichler 201730

Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn)Davidson et al. (2014)• Measures syntactic complexity based on asample of child’s natural speech• Previous reports of deaf children with CI(Geers 2004)• Implanted <2;0: 53% scored above 75• Implanted <3;0: 48% scored above 75• All 4 DDCI that we tested scored above 75

D. Chen Pichler 2017

Participant Age

IPSyn
Score

PAM

4;00

93

NIK

5;04

83

GIA

5;07

83

FIN

5;08

76

31

Important take-home messages
Davidson et al. (2015)
1

On all of the English measures, DDCI performed within the typicalrange for hearing children

2

DDCI English is developing normally. there is no evidence that ASL
is hindering that development.

3

DDCI consistently score higher on these English tests thanpreviously reported oral Deaf children with CI

4

No evidence that ASL exposure obstructed English development
for these CI users.
D. Chen Pichler 201732

Other recent studies reporting successful spoken
language development for DDCI
• Rinaldi & Caselli (2009; Italy)• Rinaldi & Casello (2014; Italy)• Hassanzadeh (2012; Iran)• Giezen (2011; Netherlands)• Giezen, Baker & Escudero (2014; Netherlands)• Mouvet (2012; Flanders/Belgium)• Quadros, Cruz & Pizzio (2012; Brazil)

D. Chen Pichler 2017

Early exposure tonatural sign language
can help avoid
dangerous effects oflanguage deprivation,
supporting L1
acquisition before
cochlear implantation.
33

Deaf children with cochlear implants:
Challenge to the traditional view“….[Signed] input should not be withheld from children with a CI, especiallygiven its importance in stimulating early social and cognitive development,in the case of implant malfunctioning and in facilitating interactions with
deaf peers without a CI. In fact, this speaks for bilingualism in a spoken anda signed language as the ultimate goal in the rehabilitation and educationof children with a CI.” (Marcel Giezen, 2011)

D. Chen Pichler 2017

GENERAL OBSERVATION 4

It’s possible to enrich thequality of sign language
input, even for deaf
children whose parents
are new signers.
D. Chen Pichler 201735

Child-directed speech/sign (CDS)• CDS is a modified style of speaking or signing that tells baby,“This talk is for you.”• Use of CDS varies according to language, culture, social classor personal preference.
• It is not required for successful L1 acquisition, but it makes
language more attractive and accessible to infants, whichclearly facilitates L1 acquisition.

D. Chen Pichler 201736

Structure of child-directed sign (CDS)
Masataka (2000); Holzrichter & Meier (2000)• Child-directed signing by Deaf mothers preferred by infants
over adult-directed signing from as early as 2 days old• emphasizes prosodic patterns of the language• wide angles of articulation (proximalization)• slow and repetitive signing• Exaggerated nonmanuals• Includes signing modifications that• increase perceptual salience (increased cycles; displacing signs into
child’s sight line, often at face)• Regularize input (favored signs with clear path movement for DOG
and MOTHER).
D. Chen Pichler 201737

Child-directed sign for social development• CDS also facilitates infant’s development of social
aspects of language:• actively involve babies in “dialogues,” even before baby
can produce or understand much• lays foundation for turn-taking behavior• focuses on joint-attention

D. Chen Pichler 201738

Joint attention

Joint attention involves following theeye gaze or pointing gestures ofinterlocutor.

• Joint-attention is a state in which
parent and child share the same
object as focus of attention, which
is important for word learning.
• Hearing child can look at object
while parent provides label
verbally, but deaf child must shiftfocus between parent and object.
If timing is off, deaf child will notsee signed label.
D. Chen Pichler 201739

Importance of timing of joint attention for adeaf child• In ASL, as in spoken language, periods of joint attention areprime moments for children to learn new vocabulary (Pizer et
al. 2008)• During joint attention periods, parents sign more, and make more
CDS modifications to their signing• Older studies report that hearing parents are less effective inusing joint attention with deaf children (Kyle, Ackerman and Woll
1987; Waxman & Spencer 1997) but those parents likely were notvery proficient in a natural sign language.
D. Chen Pichler 201740

Quality input is key for successful acquisition• Quality input is:• EARLY; as soon as possible. Even a year of
language deprivation is already too long!
• NATURAL LANGUAGE; displaying theorganization patterns of human language.
• OPTIMIZED; making effective use of joint
attention and child-directed language, with
opportunities for rich conversation.

• Research on optimized sign practices andL2 sign acquisition must inform hearing
parents as they learn ASL to provide
quality input for their deaf children.
D. Chen Pichler 201741

Quick summary• All natural human languages, signed or spoken, are full of complex but
systematic patterns.
• Babies’ brains automatically seek out linguistic patterns, then form rules
based on them.
• Babies can extract prosodic and phonological patterns very early in infancy,
but they need good language input to do this.
• A weak phonological foundation impairs pattern-finding at higher levels of
language, leading to less efficient language processing overall.
• Linguistic patterns in bilingual input may seem complex, but babies’ brains
are up to the task.
• Optimal language input is crucial for successful language acquisition!
Deborah Chen Pichler 201742

Deborah.Pichler@Gallaudet.edu
Deborah Chen Pichler

43Selected references
L1 sign language acquisition
Chen Pichler, D. (2012) Language acquisition. In R. Pfau, B. Woll and M. Steinbach (eds.) Handbook of
Linguistics and Communication Science: Sign Language. Berlin: de Gruyter. Download at:
http://www.gallaudet.edu/Faculty-Staff/Linguistics/Chen_Pichler_Deborah.html

Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2000). How babies talk: The magic and mystery of language in thefirst three years of life. Penguin. [Not sign acquisition, but excellent overview in general]
Ortega, G. (2016). Language acquisition and development. In The SAGE Deaf Studies Encyclopedia.
Vol. 3 (pp. 547-551). SAGE Publications Inc. Download at:
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2260211/component/escidoc:2260210/Ortega_2016.pdf

Lillo-Martin (1999) Modality effects and modularity in language acquisition: The acquisition ofAmerican Sign Language. In Bhatia and Ritchie (eds.) Handbook of Child Language Acquisition. New
York: Academic Press. pp. 531-567.
Morford and Mayberry (2000) Language Acquisition by Eye. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso.
Mayberry, R. I. (2002). Cognitive development in deaf children: The interface of language andperception in neuropsychology. Handbook of neuropsychology, 8(Part II), 71-107.
Newport & Meier (1985) The acquisition of American Sign Language. In Slobin (ed.) The crosslinguistic
study of language acquisition.Volume 1: The data, 881-938. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schick, Marschark, and Spencer (2006) Advances in the Development of Sign Language by Deaf
Children, Oxford University Press.
Deborah Chen Pichler
44

Selected references
Critical period effects for deaf children
Boudreault & Mayberry (2006). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language
acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 608-635. Download
at: http://grammar.ucsd.edu/mayberrylab/papers/Boudreault&Mayberry06.pdf
Emmorey (2002) Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Chapter 5:
Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Henner, Caldwell-Harris, Novogrodsky, & Hoffmeister (2016). American Sign Language Syntax and Analogical
Reasoning Skills Are Influenced by Early Acquisition and Age of Entry to Signing Schools for the Deaf. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7, 1982.
Hrastinski & Wilbur (2016). Academic Achievement of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in an ASL/English
Bilingual Program. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, env072.
Lu, Jones & Morgan (2016). The impact of input quality on early sign development in native and non-native
language learners. Journal of child language, 43(03), 537-552.
Mayberry (1993). First-language acquisition after childhood differs from second-language acquisition: The case of
American Sign Language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 1258-1270. Download at:
http://grammar.ucsd.edu/mayberrylab/papers/Mayberry_JSHR93.pdf
Morgan, Meristo and Helmquist (to appear). Environment and language experience in deaf children’s theory ofmind development. In de Rosnay and Slaughter (eds.) Environmental Influences on Theory of Mind
Development, Psychology Press.
Morford &Mayberry (2000) A re-examination of “early exposure” and its implications for language acquisition byeye. In Chamberlain, Morford and Mayberry (eds.) Language Acquisition by Eye. Erlbaum. pp. 111-127.
Deborah Chen Pichler

45

Selected references
Bimodal bilingualism and cochlear implants
Davidson, Kathryn; Lillo-Martin, Diane & Chen Pichler, Deborah. (2014). Spoken English Language Development
in Native Signing Children with Cochlear Implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:2, 238-250.
(PMCID: PMC3952677)
Giezen, M. (2011). Speech and sign perception in deaf children with cochlear implants. Netherlands Graduate
School of Linguistics.
Giezen, M. R., Baker, A. E., & Escudero, P. (2014). Relationships between spoken word and sign processing inchildren with cochlear implants. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 19(1), 107-125.
Hassanzadeh, S. (2012). Outcomes of cochlear implantation in deaf children of deaf parents: comparative
study. The Journal of Laryngology & Otology,126(10), 989-994.
Rinaldi, P., & Caselli, C. (2009). Lexical and grammatical abilities in deaf Italian preschoolers: The role ofduration of formal language experience.Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(1), 63-75.
Rinaldi, P., & Caselli, M. C. (2014). Language development in a bimodal bilingual child with cochlear implant: A
longitudinal study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(04), 798-809.

D. Chen Pichler 201746

Selected references
Bimodal bilingualism
Chen Pichler, Quadros & Lillo-Martin (2010). Effects of bimodal production on multi-cyclicity in early ASL and LSB.
Proceedings, Boston University Conference on Language Development, online supplement.
Chen Pichler, Lee & Lillo-Martin (2014). Language Development in ASL-English Bimodal Bilinguals. In David Quinto-Pozos (Ed.),
Multilingual Aspects of Signed Language Communication and Disorder, 235-260. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Chen Pichler, Kuntze, Lillo-Martin, Quadros and Stumpf (2017) Sign language acquisition by Deaf and hearing children: Abilingual introductory digital course [textbook in full video format]. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Cruz, Kozak, Pizzio, Quadros & Chen Pichler (2014). Phonological Memory and Phonological Acquisition in Bimodal Bilingual
Children. BUCLD 38 Proceedings, Cascadilla Press.
Davidson, Lillo-Martin & Chen Pichler (2014). Spoken English Language Development in Native Signing Children with Cochlear
Implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19:2, 238-250. (PMCID: PMC3952677)
De Houwer, A. (2009) An introduction to bilingual development. Multilingual Matters.
Emmorey, Petrich, & Gollan (2012). Bilingual processing of ASL-English code-blends: The consequence of accessing two lexical
representations simultaneously. Journal of Memory and Language.
Emmorey, Luk, Pyers, & Bialystok (2008). The source of enhanced cognitive control in bilinguals. Psychological Science,
19(12), 1201-1206.
Emmorey, Borinstein, Thompson & Gollan (2008). Bimodal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(1), 43-61.
Lillo-Martin, Quadros, Chen Pichler, Fieldsteel (2014) Language choice in bimodal bilingual development. Frontiers in
Psychology.
Lillo-Martin, Koulidobrova, Quadros & Chen Pichler (2012). Bilingual Language Synthesis: Evidence from WH-Questions in
Bimodal Bilinguals. In Biller et al. (eds.), Proceedings of BUCLD 38 , 302-314. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
D. Chen Pichler 201747

Selected references
Bimodal bilingualism
Lillo-Martin, D., R. Quadros, D. Chen Pichler and Z. Fieldsteel (2014) Language choice in bimodal bilingual development.
Frontiers in Psychology 5, 1163.
Morford, Wilkinson, Villwock, Piñar & Kroll (2011). When deaf signers read English: Do written words activate theirsign translations? Cognition, 118, 286–92
Palmer (2015) ASL Word Order Development in Bimodal Bilingual Children: Early syntax of hearing and cochlear-implanted
Deaf children from signing families (Doctoral dissertation, Gallaudet University).
Petitto et al. (2001) Bilingual signed and spoken language acquisition from birth: Implications for the mechanisms underlying
early bilingual language acquisition. J. Child Lang, 8, 453-496.
Petitto & Holowka (2002). Evaluating attributions of delay and confusion in young bilinguals: Special insights from infants
acquiring a signed and spoken language. Sign Language Studies, 3(1), 4-33.
Petroj, Vanessa, Guerrera, Katelyn & Davidson, Kathryn. (2014). ASL Dominant CodeBlending in the Whispering of Bimodal
Bilingual Children. BUCLD 38 Proceedings, Cascadilla Press
Quadros, Ronice Müller de, Lillo-Martin, Diane & Chen Pichler, Deborah. (2013). Early Effects of Bilingualism on WH-Question
Structures: Insight from Sign-Speech Bilingualism. In Stavroula Stavrakaki, Marina Lalioti & Polyxeni Konstantinopoulou(Eds.), Proceedings of GALA 2011, 300-308. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Reynolds (2016) Early bimodal bilingual development of ASL narrative referent cohesion: In a heritage language
framework. (Doctoral dissertation, Gallaudet University).
van den Bogaerde & Baker (2005) Code mixing in mother-child interaction in deaf families. Sign Language and Linguistics, Vol.
8, 1/2: 155-178.

Download additional publications and presentations from our project at bibibi.conn.edu
D. Chen Pichler 201748

Selected references
Joint attention, Theory of Mind, parental signing
Henner J, Caldwell-Harris CL, Novogrodsky R and Hoffmeister R (2016) American Sign Language Syntax andAnalogical Reasoning Skills Are Influenced by Early Acquisition and Age of Entry to Signing Schools for theDeaf. Front. Psychol. 7:1982. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01982
Hoiting, N., & Slobin, D. I. (2002). What a deaf child needs to see: Advantages of a natural sign language over asign system. Manuscript.
Holzrichter, A. S., & Meier, R. P. (2000). Child-directed signing in American sign language. Language acquisitionby eye, 25-40.
Hrastinski, I., & Wilbur, R. B. (2016). Academic Achievement of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in an
ASL/English Bilingual Program. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, env072.
Masataka, N. (2000). The role of modality and input in the earliest stage of language acquisition: Studies ofJapanese Sign Language. Language acquisition by eye, 3-24.
Morgan, G. Meristo, M., Mann, W., Hjelmquist, E., Surian, L., & Siegal, M. (2014). Mental state language andquality of conversational experience in deaf and hearing children. Cognitive Development, 29, 41–49
Pizer, G., & Meier, R. P. (2006). Child-directed signing in ASL and children’s development of joint attention. In
Proceedings of the 9th international conference on theoretical issues in sign language research, Editora
Arara Azul (download at http://www.editora-arara-azul.com.br/ebooks/catalogo/35.pdf)
D. Chen Pichler 201749