聋童早期语言干预:究竟是口语还是手语?

Early Language Intervention for Deaf Children:Spoken Language or Signed Language

聋童早期语言干预究竟应该使用何种语言,这一问题在聋教育界一直饱受争议。口语派认为,聋童能够借助读唇、残余听力、助听器或人工耳蜗等学习口语,手语教学在语言干预中往往被排除在外。与此相反,手语派根据语言习得关键期理论及聋人语言和文化等研究成果,强调聋童早期学习手语的诸多益处。本文系统梳理了口语派和手语派的基本观点及其发展历史,并主要从语言学等角度来看待口语和手语之争。通过比较,认为适合作为聋童早期语言干预的语言形式是手语;如果盲目强调口语的重要性,而忽视手语的发展,聋童将会被置于错失语言习得关键期的风险之中,从而成为没有母语的个体,其语言与认知等一系列能力的发展,也可能受到影响。

Which language-Spoken Language（ Sp L） or signed language（ SL）-should be used as the educational language for deaf children has been a controversy for centuries. Although a variety of methods exist,it can be classified into two basic arguments based on whether SL should be involved in deaf education. In Sp L argument,SL is excluded and deaf children are required to learn Sp L using lipreading,residual hearing ability,and the supports from hearing aids and Cochlear Implants. In contrast,SL argument highlights the great advantages of learning SL at an early age according to the theory of critical period of language acquisition. This paper systematic reviews the theories and histories of the two arguments at the perspective of linguistics and then demonstrates that the most appropriate language of intervention for deaf children is SL,which is also the basis of learning Sp L for them. Besides,Sp L argument may result in a high risk of missing the critical period of language acquisition on the part of deaf children.