<b>Language acquisition by eye.</b> Ed. By Charlene Chamberlain, Jill P. Morford, and Rachel I. Mayberry. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000. Pp. xvii, 276.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Language acquisition by eye ed. by Charlene Chamberlain, Jill P. Morford, Rachel I. Mayberry Zeina Maalouf Jeries Language acquisition by eye. Ed. By Charlene Chamberlain, Jill P. Morford, and Rachel I. Mayberry. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000. Pp. xvii, 276. This is a unique collection of articles on language acquisition through the visual-manual system of signing. The intended audience may seem to be professionals working with nonhearing children, but any academic interested in language acquisition will find this text valuable. The editors succeed in achieving their three main goals: (1) bringing research and theory concerning acquisition by eye up to date, (2) highlighting the positive link between early acquisition of a signed language and subsequent reading development, and (3) explaining ‘how the child can learn more than one system of linguistic representation by eye’ (xii). This volume comprises twelve articles, four of which were originally presented at the fifth International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (Montreal, PQ, September 1996). The editors have grouped the articles into two sections. The seven studies in the first section explore the early acquisition of signed language by native learners. The five chapters in the second section investigate the relationship between sign language and reading development. The first part consists of recent cross-linguistic research that explores how native learners acquire a signed language. The unifying theme is the relationship between early exposure to sign language and performance. Some of the most noteworthy findings in this section are: (1) Motherese is as much a phenomenon of signed language as it is of spoken language and plays a similar role of assisting the child in identifying the units making up the system of the signed language. (2) Language acquisition is not dependent on a specific modality. (3) Motor articulators play a major role in the early production of signs. (4) Children using sign language acquire language-specific features such as pronoun copying at an early age based on the data in their input. (5) Early exposure is a strong determinant of the rate and route of acquisition of signed language. Section 2 includes four groundbreaking studies that examine how signing children acquire reading comprehension skills. The unifying theme of the second section is the strong correlation between early exposure and skill in sign language on one hand and literacy skills on the other. These studies advocate a bilingual model for deaf children due to a positive correlation between knowledge of ASL and learning to read English. They also identify the various factors that contribute to reading ability in signing children. One study that this reviewer found particularly interesting is Susan Mather and Andre Thibeault’s research (191–220) stressing the differences between storytelling using a visual vs. an auditory mode. The editors make excellent use of the last chapter to review past literature, summarize the findings of the studies, and suggest areas for further research. One important recommendation is the need to trace the development of both reading comprehension and decoding skills in deaf children. The significance of this excellent resource for professionals in language acquisition and literacy among nonhearing children is profound. Parents will also find it profitable and enlightening, especially because the studies stress the parents’ crucial role in promoting early acquisition. [End Page 872] Zeina Maalouf Jeries University of Georgia Copyright © 2001 Linguistic Society of America
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,099 | 0,088 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».