Does Sign Language Provide Deaf Children With an
Abstraction Advantage? Evidence From a Categorization Task
Cyril Courtin
Universite Paris V
The effects of sign language use on cognitive processes of
second-generation deaf children were investigated through
an intensional categorization task. A forced-choice paradigm
was used to examine children's selections of schematic and
categorical alternatives as associations to targets that differed
in their related sign language characteristics. The results obtained from 48 deaf and hearing 6-year-olds suggest some
differences in the categorization abilities and cognitive flexibility between the two groups of children. These differences
appear to be explainable in terms of linguistic variables underlying French Sign Language.
Categorization is a fundamental adaptive behavior
through which a cognitive system divides physical and
social reality. For example, it enables children to distinguish vegetables from vehicles at a superordinate (taxonomic) level, or, at a lower level, to distinguish trees
from flowers in the taxonomic category "vegetables."
Categorization has been studied first by investigators
like Piaget and Inhelder (1959) from an extensional
point of view (i.e., whether something belongs to a
given class). However, another point of view of categorization is important when determining the logical
achievement of a child, the comprehensional one. The
comprehension, or intension, of a concept refers to the
features that define this concept (e.g., the concept
"tree" could be defined, in intension, as having a trunk,
branches, leaves, etc).
I thank Geraldine Bibelot for her enormous help in conducting the d»u
analyses, S. Courtel for testing the hearing children, and the anonymous
reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft. Correspondence should
be sent to Cyril Courtin, Laboratoire de psychologic du developpement
et de 1'educabon de l'enfant, 46, rue Saint-Jacques, 75005 Paris, France.
Copyright O 1997 Oxford University Press. CCC 1081-4159
Many authors have noted that sign languages, like
other languages, are fully developed languages made up
of sublexical, morphological structures that are, for
signs, the hand configuration, place of articulation, and
movement, (e.g., Klima & Bellugi, 1979; Stokoe, 1960).
Sign languages also have rules that specify the ways
in which signs are bound to each other (grammar) in
the three-dimensional space so as to express wellorganized sentences. For this study, two specific properties of sign languages are considered: individual sign
structure and sign language syntax.
In French Sign Language (FSL) there is a great
use of so-called "generic signs," which are general labels of a given class (e.g., tree). Because signs below the
basic level often do not exist (e.g., poplar, willow), at
least in FSL, the generic signs will be signed each time
the signer wants to talk about an element of the categories to which they refer. For example, for the word
"rose" in the category "flowers," the signer will have
first to sign FLOWER, ROSE (color), THORN, etc
These generic signs, like other signs, can be iconic,
metonymic, or abstract. Iconic signs bear a close formal
relation to their semantic content, for example, TREE
(identical in FSL and American Sign Language [ASL]
with the forearm representing the trunk and the fingers
the branches). Metonymic signs are those in which
"the more salient reference part stands for the whole
object" (Cuxac, 1993, pp. 49-50), be that part concrete,
such as for CAR, referring to the wheel shape, or quite
abstract (FLOWERS, referring to their smell). Abstract signs do not bear any visible relationship to what
they signify.
162 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:3 Summer 1997
Because sign language is a visual language, it requires the signer to generate an image in mental space
(the visual buffer, according to Kosslyn, 1980) and then
to "show" the mental image in the material space. This
material space normally is divided into subspaces, each
referring to a single item (subject or object) that will be
part of the signed scene. The connections made among
these subspaces correspond to the sign language syntax
(cf. Poizner, Klima, & Bellugi, 1987).
Sign Languages and Categorization
It is noteworthy that generic signs, when iconic or metonymic, can be considered to stand at the intersection
of prototypical, or basic level (Rosch, Mervis, Gray,
Johnson, & Boynes-Braem, 1976) categories and intensional categories. The generic sign TREE, for example,
sometimes refers to the prototypical element of the category in that it seems to be the most representative
shape of this category. But it also refers to the intensional properties of the category in that it encompasses
some of its characteristic properties (e.g., the trunk and
branches) that cannot be taken away from the sign, the
category, without "destroying" it. For these two reasons, categorization may be easier for a deaf child who
is a native FSL signer than it would be for a hearing
one. This general idea was initially proposed by Petitto
and Bellugi (1988, pp. 305-306): "If, for instance, the
mapping between meaning and form is more direct
than in spoken language, then this might allow the
child a more direct route into the language at all levels."
The aim of this experiment was to determine
whether the formational properties of some signs of
FSL would influence deaf preschoolers' categorization
behavior. That is, will preschool deaf signers consider
three items sharing a common generic sign as part of
the same category more frequently than three other
items in the same category that lack such a common
generic sign? To make this determination, it seemed
preferable to work with second-generation deaf children. Some authors, studying the consequences of
deafness for various psychological abilities, have contested the usefulness of such a population for investigations because there are relatively few secondgeneration deaf children. In that view, the results
obtained from this population would be quite "artificial" (e.g., Oleron, 1986). Nevertheless, when working
on deafness, many variables need to be taken into account (see Courtin, in press; Marschark, 1993), and
testing "average" deaf children prevents control of many
of these variables. Thus, it often is impossible to determine which of the results obtained are due to variables
such as educational setting (mainstreamed or residential school), communication mode (speech or FSL),
linguistic competencies, or degree of hearing losses
(and potential hearing aids). The sum of these variables
prevents the formation of any homogeneous "deaf population," be it at a neurological (Knobloch-Gala, 1991;
Wolff" & Thatcher, 1990), attentional (Kelly, Kelly,
Jones, Moulton, Verhulst, & Bell, 1993), or a behavioral level. The restriction of subject selection from a
specific group induces not only a high internal validity
but also, from the point of view of possible detractors,
a low external validity. However, far from producing
purely ideal results, this method seems the most valid
for achieving a fine-grained understanding of the roles
of different variables in the present context.
In order to test the "linguistic categorization"
hypothesis, I have adapted the material and procedure
designed by Houde (1992, forced-choice task 2),
contrasting two choice alternatives: categorical (the
"slot-filler" level, as conceptualized by Nelson, 1988)
versus schematic. A categorical organization is a cognitive structure based on class membership and similarity relationships among class members. On the other
hand, schematic organization has been defined by
Mandler (1977, p. 263) as a "spatially and/or temporally organized structure in which the parts are connected on the basis of contiguities that have been experienced in space or time. A schema is formed on the
basis of past experience with objects, scenes, or events
and consists of a set of expectations about what things
look like and/or the order in which they occur." Mandler distinguishes two kinds of schemata: the scene
schema, which is "a cognitive representation of what
one expects to see when viewing a scene" (p. 264) (e.g.,
in the "bedroom schema," one may expect to see a bed)
and the event schema, or script, which is a "temporally
organized representation of common sequences of
events" (p. 265) (e.g., in a "restaurant script," one expects to enter a restaurant, read the menu, decide what
to eat).
The material was adapted in order to maximize the
hypothesized cognitive behavioral differences not only
Sign Language and Categorization
between hearing and deaf children, but also within the
deaf group, according to the nature of the categorical
alternative (in favor of or against linguistic categorization). If categorical choices are only, or mostly, observed in the deaf group relative to the hearing group,
and only in the linguistic, or favorable slot-filler condition, that is, when a common underlying generic sign
links the target item to items of the category versus
those of the schema, then we will be able to assume the
existence of a categorization ability specific to deaf
children (or, at least, to native signers). We also would
be able to conclude that sign language provides signers
with an advantage in their abilities for abstraction.
The hypotheses for this experiment are threefold.
First, under the experimental condition, consistent
with the notion of linguistic categorization because of
the presence of an underlying common generic sign relating the categorical items to the target, we should observe slot-filler categorical rather than schematic
choices by the deaf children. Hearing children, in contrast, should opt for schematic choices more often than
categorical ones, as they will not have access to the advantage bestowed by the generic sign. Second, under
the condition unfavorable to linguistic categorization
because of the absence of such a common sign, we
should not observe differences between hearing and
deaf subjects' preferred choices. These should be schematic (this would be an implicit verification that deaf
children do not have a higher overall categorization
ability than hearing ones). Third, the hearing children's preferred choices should not differ from one
condition to the other, whereas those of deaf children
should differ according to the material condition (schematic preferred choices in the unfavorable condition
and categorical choices in the favorable one).
Method
Subjects. The subjects were 24 second-generation deaf
children, with profound, congenital deafness as defined
by the International Bureau of Audiophonology (Bureau International d'Audiophonologie, 1968, p. 328):
losses of pure tone receptivity of more than 90 dB in
the better ear. The children ranged in age from 5.5 to
6.5 years (mean = 5.11). The control group was composed of 24 hearing children matched for age with the
deaf children.
163
Materials. Five superordinate categories were used: vehicles, food, plants, furniture, and animals. For each of
these categories, seven drawings were made on four
boards. On a first board was the target item, a charlotte
cake for the superordinate category "food." On a second board was the schematic pair of items, that is, two
items that belonged to the same schema but not to the
same superordinate category as the target item. For example, for the charlotte cake target, a plate and a dessert spoon would be depicted because the plate and the
spoon are parts of a possible event schema "eating a
dessert," but are not parts of the general category
"food." On the third and fourth boards were the two
categorical slot-filler pairs, that is, drawings of objects
belonging to the same "slot" of the schema and the
same superordinate category as the target. For the
above example of the charlotte cake, the superordinate
category is "food," the slot of the event schema is "dessert." These two categorical pairs correspond to two
conditions: the experimental condition (henceforth the
"linguistic condition") in which the two items of the
pair shared the same generic sign as the target item
(e.g., cakes, trees, cars) and the control condition in
which the categorical and target items did not share a
common sign. The categorical items belonged to the
same "slot" of a given schema in both conditions. For
example, the categorical pairs of the superordinate category "food" were (1) a strawberry tart and a fruit cake
in the linguistic condition, slot-filler "dessert," with
the generic sign CAKE, (2) an apple and an ice cream
in the control condition, both belonging to the same
"slot" as the target, "dessert," but which cannot be labeled using the generic sign CAKE.
Finally, the colors used in the drawings of each pair
(schematic versus linguistic or control categorical)
were the same in order to avoid any bias resulting from
a potentially more attractive item. The target and pairs
of items were presented on hardback boards: for each
category, four 15 cm X 21 cm boards. The material also
included an stuffed toy with orange and yellow hair and
a red nose.
Procedure. I tested the deaf children individually, since
I am deaf, the hearing children being tested by an experienced hearing researcher. Each child was asked
to associate a target item to one of two pairs of items
(schematic or categorical), for each one of the five su-
164
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:3 Summer 1997
Table 1 Distribution of the 480 individual responses (12 subjects X 2 groups X 2 material
versions X 2 presentation order X 5 categories), with C = categorical choice, S = schematic
choice, and — = refusal of a second choice
Choice
Presentation order 1 : linguistic-control
Presentation order 2 : control-linguistic
Deaf children
Deaf children
CS C -
Linguistic version
1
Food
10
1
Vehicles
7
Animals
8
1
Plants
6
Furniture 6
3
Total
37
Control version
Food
3
Vehicles
5
Animals
3
Plants
4
Furniture 7
Total
22
SC
Hearing children
s-
1
3
4
5
5
18
1
2
8
6
8
7
4
33
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
CS C -
SC S -
3
4
3
3
1
14
3
2
2
5
2
14
2
2
5
1
3
2
5
2
2
3
2
3
12
4
5
16
11
4
6
2
5
2 2
2 7
8 24
7
2
7
1
4
21
CS
C - SC
8
4
10
5
10
37
1
3
4
2
4
6
19
perordinate categories. Each child was tested under the
two conditions (linguistic and control): in each subject
group (deaf and hearing children) one half was tested
first on the linguistic condition and then on the control
one; the reverse order was used for the second half of
the subject group.
The task was introduced as follows (in French or in
FSL): "We are going to play a game with my friend
named Zic Look at Zic! Zic lives in a very faraway
country, and he does not know the objects from our
country. We are going to help him, to teach him what
some of our objects are. OK? For example, this object
[pointing to the first target item, e.g., a cake], you are
going to search among these objects [pointing to the
two pairs: schematic and categorical] those which best
match with this [pointing to the target item] and you
will show them to Zic Have you understood? Go
ahead!" When children had made their first choices,
they were asked: "And do you think we could tell Zic
that it [pointing to the target item] also matches with
these [pointing to the remaining pair]?"
When the first condition (linguistic or control) had
been completed, the second one was introduced with
the following statement: "Now we are going to try
again, but with some slightly different drawings: it will
help Zic to fully understand what these objects
are. . . ." Note that the names (signs, generic labels) of
the objects were implicit; they were never explicitly
1
2
8
2
6
1
19
8
6
7
6
6
33
Hearing children
s-
CS
c-
1
2
2
1
1
3
9
1
3
1
5
5
15
7
7
3 7
1 5
1 3
7 29
3
3
1
4
7
18
9
1
1
3
1
2
3
2
8
1
1
3
5
SC S 2
8
9
7
2
2 35
2
mentioned by the experimenter. During the testing
phase, the position (above or below) of the boards of
item pairs was randomized, as was presentation order.
Results
Table 1 presents the distribution of the 480 individual
responses (12 subjects X 2 groups [hearing versus deaf
children] X 2 material versions ["linguistic" versus
control] X 2 presentation orders [linguistic or control
condition first] X 5 categories). For each subject group
in each material version of each order of presentation
and for each of the five general categories, categorical
choices are represented by a "C," schematic choices by
an "S," refusals by a "—." For example, it can be seen
from Table 1 that, in the first order of presentation (linguistic version presented first), 10 deaf children chose
the categorical alternative first and accepted the schematic items as a second choice for the category "food"
in the linguistic version. However, only three such patterns were observed in the control condition of the
same presentation order. It can also be seen that, out of
a total of 60 responses (12 subjects X 5 categories),
deaf children in this linguistic condition in presentation order 1 chose categorical alternatives first on 40
trials and refused the second possible choice on only
five occasions (three refusals of schematic alternative,
two refusals of categorical alternatives).
Sign Language and Categorization
165
B Deaf Categorical
n Deaf Schematic
D Hearing Categorical
• Hearing schematic
V2
Figure 1 Total of categorical and schematic first choices according to material version (linguistic—VI—or control—V2—) and to hearing-status.
120
100
80
DDaaf
60
IB Hearing
40
20
0
O1
02
presentation order
Figure 2 Flexibility according to presentation order: total
of second choices according to presentation order (Ol —
linguistic version presented first; O2—control version first)
and hearing-status.
For the purposes of the global analysis, we performed two analyses of variance (ANOVAs): the first
one with the total number of first categorical choices,
and the second with the whole second choices accepted. With regard to the number of first categorical
choices, a 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA was performed with
hearing status and presentation order as betweensubjects factors and material version as a withinsubjects factor. There is a significant main effect of the
material version [/T(l,44) = 20.58,/> < .0001] and a significant hearing status X material version interaction
effect [/1[1,44) = 16.57,/) < .0005].
In absence of any significant effect of presentation
order on total first categorical choices [/1(1,44) = 0.03,
not significant (NS)], results have been combined ac-
cording to presentation order. Then, it appears that the
total number of categorical choices differs between
subject groups only in the linguistic condition, that is,
when an underlying common generic label links the
target item to items of the categorical pair [F{ 1,44) =
7.65,/><.01] but not in absence of this label [/T(l,44) =
1.13, NS). This reflects the fact that the material version has an effect on the first choices for deaf children
[F(l,22) = 48.42,/) < .0001]: they generally choose the
categorical alternative in the presence of an underlying
generic label and the schematic alternative in the absence of this label. In contrast, hearing children choose
the schematic alternative whatever the material version
[F\l,22) = 0.09, NS; see Figure 1].
With regard to the total number of second choices
accepted, all second choices were taken into account for
this analysis. A 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA was performed with
hearing status group and presentation order as between-subjects factors and material version as a withinsubjects factor. There was a significant main effect of
hearing-status [7^1,44) = 90.80, p < .0001] and a significant presentation order X version interaction effect
[/1(1,44) = 4.04, p = .05]. Post hoc analyses of deaf
children's results indicates a lack of significant effect of
material version [F\\,22) = 0.79, NS] or presentation
order [F\\,22) = 0.06, NS] on total second choices.
The same analysis conducted on hearing children results revealed no effect of material version [F\\,22) =
0.13, NS] but an effect due to presentation order
[F\\,22) = 4.38, p < .05; see Figure 2].
For the purposes of analyzing interitem stability
166
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:3 Summer 1997
m
I
12~
10
=
3
a
E
8
="
4-
Q Deaf categorical
• Deaf schematic
• Hearing categorical
6
2
0
I
H
HU
H
• Hearing schematic
Li JI
V1
V2
Figure 3 Categorical and schematic stable pattern distribution for each hearing
status group, according to material version (linguistic—VI; control—V2).
a Deaf Flexible
• Deaf BcdusKre
• Hearing Flexible
• Hearing Exclusive
Linguistic
Control
Figure 4 Cognitiveflexibility:flexibleand exclusive stable pattern distribution for each subject group, according to material version (linguistic versus
control).
among the individual response patterns, a stable response pattern refers to a type of response occurring
four out of five times for an individual child with each
material version. This analysis was conducted on typeof-choice (categorical versus schematic first choice)
and number of second choices. With regard to the
type-of-choice, the analysis revealed that, in the linguistic condition, deaf children were more likely to
choose the categorical alternative, whereas hearing
children were more likely to choose the schematic alternative [x2(l) = 8.97,/> < .005]. In the control condition, deaf and hearing children's choices are in the same
direction (that is, schematic), and although there is a
trend for more schematic choices in the deaf group
than the hearing group, the results of the two groups
are not significatively different from each other
[X2(l) = 1.54, NS; see Figure 3].
With regard to the total of second choices, deaf and
hearing children were found to differ significantly from
each other according to the number of their second
choices in linguistic condition [x^l) = 25.42, p <
.0001] as well as in control condition [x2(l) = 25.26,
p< .0001, see Figure 4].
Further analyses, using t tests, were conducted on
Sign Language and Categorization
each individual category in order to determine whether
the findings observed over all of the categories were
due to some of them or are observable in all. A first
group of analyses was conducted on the total number
of categorical choices in the linguistic material version.
Those analyses revealed significant differences in the
number of categorical versus schematic choices in the
deaf group, with more categorical choices than schematic choices for two individual categories: animals
[7(23) = 2.76,p< .01]and food [/(23) = 4.29,p< .001,
see Table 1]. There was also a trend for more categorical choices for the category furniture [/(23) = 1.70, p =
.05]. The same analysis conducted for the hearing
group revealed a significant difference in type of choice
in the animals category, with more schematic versus
categorical choices [/(23) = 2.20, p < .05]. In all other
categories the schematic choices were more numerous
than the categorical ones, but those differences failed
to reach significance.
A second group of analyses was conducted on the
total number of categorical choices for each category,
contrasting the two material versions. They revealed
that the linguistic versus control contrast led to more
categorical choices in the deaf group for three individual categories: animals [/(23) = 3.82, p < .001], food
[/(23) = 5.67, p < .0001], and plants [/(23) = 1.74,
p < .05. For the two other categories, although there
were more categorical choices in the linguistic version
than the control version, the differences failed to reach
significance. In the hearing group, the same analyses
yielded significant differences in three categories.
There were more categorical choices in the linguistic
than control versions in two categories: food [/(23) =
1.81, p < .05] and animals [/(23) = 2.14, p < .05].
Note, however, that for these two categories, the number of categorical choices exceeded schematic choices.
In the third category, furniture, there were more categorical choices in the control than in the linguistic condition [/(23) = 2.14,/>< .05].
Since there was no reliable difference in the total
number of categorical choices in the linguistic versus
control conditions in the hearing children group for
the category plants, it seems that the effect observed in
the deaf group is due to the presence of the generic
sign. However, in the two other categories (food and
animals), the material itself may be causing the differ-
167
ences observed in the number of categorical choices in
the hearing group (these differences could not be due
to the presence of generic signs). This effect of material
is present in the deaf group, too. In order to maintain,
for the deaf group, an effect of both material and generic sign, further analyses were required to test the
hypothesis of an interaction between hearing status and
material version on the total number of categorical
choices for each of the two categories.
A 2 X 2 ANOVA therefore was conducted for the
food category, with hearing status as between-subjects
factor and material version as a within-subjects factor.
This analysis yielded a significant hearing status X material version interaction effect [7^1,46) = 8.02, p <
.01]. The same analysis for the animals category also
yielded a significant hearing status X material version
interaction effect [F(\,¥>) = 4.87, p < .05]. Thus, it
seems we can conclude that, for these two categories,
the effects observed in the deaf group are due to both
materials and the availability of generic signs.
A related group of analyses was conducted to test
the differences in flexibility between deaf and hearing
children. It appears that significant differences are observable for each individual category, with deaf children being always more flexible than hearing children
(e.g., for the vehicles category, which is the one that
entails the least differences between deaf and hearing
children [/(23) = 6.06, p< .0001]).
Qualitative analyses of the categorical choice justifications included all justified categorical choices (i.e.,
excluding nonjustified choices). The justifications were
classified into six categories: generic when the child explicitly specified the label (e.g., for "car," category "vehicle"), perceptual (e.g., "are of the same color"), functional (e.g., "it enables you to move from one place to
another"), schematic (e.g., "it is in the living-room,"
category "furniture"), taxonomic (e.g., "food"), and
relational (e.g., "they are friends," category "animals").
The distribution of these choices (n = 317) according
to subject group and material version is presented in
Table 2.
In the linguistic material version, there were significant differences in the number of generic justifications versus other types of justifications for deaf children (82 generic justifications out of 110, binomial test
p < .0001) as well as for hearing ones (42 generic justi-
168
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:3 Summer 1997
Table 2 Categorical choice justifications: distribution of the 317 categorical
choices according to the material version, subject group, and order of presentation
(order 1: linguistic version presented first, order 2: control condition presented first)
Generic Perceptual Functional Schematic Taxonomic
Linguistic
Order 1
Deaf
Hearing
Order 2
Deaf
Hearing
Relational
Total
version
45
24
1
6
5
2
2
3
1
1
1
0
55
36
37
18
0
2
11
4
4
3
2
1
1
2
55
30
0
9
20
4
17
6
6
6
2
3
1
47
28
1
5
3
4
17
4
14
10
2
1
5
0
42
24
Control version
Order 1
Deaf
1
Hearing
Order 2
Deaf
Hearing
fications out of 66, binomial test/) < .05). There is no
difference between subject groups according to this
type of justification [X2(l) = 2.36, NS]. In the control
material version, deaf children justified their categorical choices with schematic and functional arguments:
these two categories totaled 68 out of 99 justifications
(that is, 76.26 %, binomial test/) < .0001). There was
no such specific pattern in hearing children, the number of schematic and functional justifications being
fewer than those of deaf children [ x W = 13.25, p <
.0005]. It is also important to note here that deaf children did not justify their second choices (categorical or
schematic) in 23 trials (responses such as "I don't
know"), that is, in 10.55 % of the trials. This never occurred with hearing children.
Discussion
The results obtained on the global level support our
hypotheses: in the linguistic version, we observe "slotfiller" categorical (versus schematic) choices by the
deaf children, whereas hearing children opt for schematic choices more frequently than categorical choices.
In the control condition, hearing and deaf children's
preferred choices are roughly the same: schematic Finally, hearing children tend to choose the schematic alternative at an equal rate under both linguistic and
control conditions, whereas deaf children choose the
categorical alternative under the linguistic condition
and the schematic alternative under the control condition. The results obtained at the level of individual categories tend to moderate these conclusions, as the
different hypothesis were only partially confirmed (but
this likely is the result, for a most part, of small
samples).
The results in the control condition show that deaf
children do not have a higher, overall, categorization
ability than hearing children. In addition, a study by
Friedman (1985) revealed that 6-year-old oral deaf
children (unaccustomed to sign language and lacking
the signed generic label) have the same categorical behavior as their hearing peers on prototypical categories
(thus corresponding to the linguistic material version).
It thus could be concluded that the presence and
knowledge of the generic sign enable deaf children to
choose the categorical alternative. This idea is supported by the number of choices justified with the corresponding generic label.
However, perhaps the most important point supporting the idea of a specific categorization aptitude in
native signing deaf children, due to the formational
properties of the generic sign, is that hearing children
also identify the generic label in the linguistic condition. Despite this ability to identify the label, they generally choose the schematic alternative first, sometimes
accepting the categorical one as a second possibility.
The important point is not the generic label, but the
formational properties of the label. In this experiment,
Sign Language and Categorization
the sign (in the linguistic condition) refers more or less
directly to its meaning: it is at the intersection between
prototypical level and intensional category, so that the
association signifier-signified may be easier. For hearing children, the spoken language term does not enable
the child to make such an association. Deaf children
therefore seem to categorize owing to this linguistic label, and we conclude that deaf and hearing children
differ on the basis of their cognitive skills. According to
Nelson (1985), at the "slot-filler" level, (hearing) children categorize on a functional basis: the items can
substitute for each other when they share the same
function in the script. From these results, it can be seen
that for deaf children, this functional matching postulated by Nelson is unnecessary. For deaf children, the
Linguistic matching estabhshed by the generic sign enables a more direct route toward the element's substitutability (in support of the Petitto & Bellugi, 1988, hypothesis), considering several elements as belonging to
the same category. In order to save working mental energy, there would be a short-circuiting of the functional
processes. This process actually constitutes a linguistic
categorization skill. The idea is also supported by the
fact that, when the generic label of some of the Linguistic condition items is removed by introducing novel labels, deaf children then choose the schematic alternative (cf. Courtin, 1994). The child reasons on the
linguistic label and not (or not only) on a spatial (nonLinguistic) criterion.
A specific, primary categorization aptitude among
deaf children is thus probable, and a second one seems
to exist, also influenced by the linguistic level. Let us
consider the categorical choice justifications in the
control condition: it is clear that these justifications are
mainly distributed, among the deaf children, into two
classes: schematic and functional, representing 76% of
the total justifications, versus 46% for hearing children. We suggest relating these types of justifications
to the syntactic structure of sign languages. In these
languages, or at least in FSL and ASL, the signer has
to generate a mental image, a scene in which items are
functionally related to each other (cf. Emmorey, Kosslyn, & Bellugi, 1993). In the absence of a generic label
shared by the three items, deaf children would tend to
generate a scene in which the items appear (hence the
schematic justifications), establishing functional rela-
169
tions between these items (hence the functional ones).
Deaf and hearing children would thus have diverging
categorical processes, though they show the same total
number of categorical choices, in the control condition.
Further, it is important to note here that the functional
matching between elements of the category, unnecessary in the Linguistic condition, is actually achieved by
deaf children.
The second important finding of this experiment is
the significant differences in cognitive flexibility observed between deaf and hearing children: deaf children accept the second choices almost three times more
than do hearing children at the level of total individual
responses (218 versus 73 second choices respectively,
see Table 1) and five times more at the level of stable
patterns (44 versus 8flexiblepatterns respectively, see
Table 2). It is difficult to say which is the more surprising: the high flexibility of the deaf children or the high
exclusivity of the hearing children. However, I will discuss only the first case, because it would be seen as an
unexpected behavior for these children who are generally considered to be rigid (but, see Marschark, 1993).
The cognitive flexibility noted in this experiment
could easily be explained if we accept the arguments
already discussed in the context of the categorization
abilities of deaf children. Let us consider the characteristics of each alternative in both conditions: in the
Linguistic condition, the categorical alternative is acceptable because of the presence of the generic label
assembling the three items into the same category. In
this same condition, the schematic alternative is considered to be the "natural" one for a 6-year-old child
(cf. Houde, 1992). In the control condition, the categorical alternative is acceptable because of the child's
ability to generate mental images. In conclusion, both
alternatives (categorical and schematic) in both conditions (linguistic and control) are "natural" for deaf
children, owing eidier to sign languages' properties
(individual signs in linguistic condition, syntax in control condition) or to the "usual" behavior.
Note that thisflexibilitycould be explained another
way. For example, it could be due to a passive behavior,
or a greater suggestibility dian hearing children (cf.
10.5% of nonjustified second choices in deaf children).
However, this idea of suggestibility has emerged from
work such as that of Wood and colleagues (Wood, 1991;
170 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:3 Summer 1997
Wood & Wood, 1991) concerning deaf children born to
hearing parents and generally exposed only to spoken
language. According to Wood, in such an environment,
deaf children are often the object of adult "repairs," of
a "high control resulting] in low child initiative," and
of differences in communication quality, compared to
hearing children of hearing parents, resulting in "little
space to develop flexibility" (Wood, 1991, p. 249). Because of the impossibility of fully expressing their own
thoughts, to contrast them with those of other people,
deaf children in oral environments may fail to develop
full cognitive mastery (which enables someone to weigh
the pros and cons of a proposition), cognitive independence and, hence, that they could become more "suggestible." However, deaf children in our sample were all
born of deaf parents communicating in FSL. In this
case, deaf children acquire sign language naturally (as
opposed to under some constraints when acquiring
spoken language) from their parents who do not have
to exert high control. These deaf children can express
freely their thoughts, and deaf parents provide feedback in a communication mode wholly accessible to
their children who will, eventually, contrast this feedback piece of information to their previous reasoning.
In this way, children progressively acquire cognitive
mastery. In short, deaf parents should not differ, when
interacting with their deaf children, from the way hearing parents interact with their hearing children. Except
for the communication mode, deaf children of deaf
parents grow up in a similar way to their hearing counterparts. Thus, the flexibility of the children of our
sample does not seem (or not only, that is to say no
more than it is the case for hearing children) to be due
to a passive attitude.
The results here clearly support the notion of an
abstraction advantage for native deaf signers, at least
on an intensional categorization task, using a forcedchoice paradigm. The categorical behavior of deaf children always seems to be more or less oriented by lexical
and syntactic structures of the signed linguistic variable. This tends to support, at the psychological level,
the linguistic analysis of sign languages conducted by
authors already cited. However, this research has been
conducted using onlyfivesuperordinate categories and
24 children in each group; a more extensive experiment
is needed in order to confirm these results.
References
Bureau international d'audiophonologie (1990). Recommandation 02/1 BIAP classification des deficiences auditives (2804-1968). In J-P. Bouillon (Ed.), La surdite de Venfant en
France, annexe 3, 323—332.
Courtin, C (1994). Categorisation et surdite. Memoire de maitrise
de psychologie genetique, Universite Paris V.
Courtin, C. (in press). Oleron et les enfants sourds, Lecture critique h lumiere de donnees recentes. Bulletin de Psychologie,
1996, numero special.
Cuxac, C. (1993). Iconicite des langues des signes. Fain de
Langue, 1, 47-56.
Emmorey, K., Kosslyn, S. M.,& Bellugi U. (1993). Visual imagery and visuo-spatial language: enhanced imagery abilities in
deaf and hearing ASL signers. Cognition, 46, 139-181.
Friedman, J. (1985). Classification skills in normally hearing and
oral deaf preschoolers: a study in language and conceptual
thought. In D. S. Martin (Ed.), Cognition, education, and
deafness. Directions for research and instruction (pp. 70—72).
Washington, D.C: Gallaudet University Press.
Houde, O. (1992). Categorisation et developpement cognitif. Paris:
Presses Universitaircs de France.
Kelly, D. P., Kelly, B. J., Jones, M. L., Moulton, M. J., Verhulst,
S. J., & Bell, S. A. (1993). Attention deficits in children and
adolescents with hearing loss. A survey. American Journal of
Diseases of Children, 147, 737-741.
Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
KnoMoch-Gala, A. (1991). Cortical integration of hemispherical
processes vs. cognitive processes in deaf children. In D. S.
Martin (Ed.), Advances in cognition, education and Deafness
(pp. 237-242). Washington, D.C: Gallaudet University
Press.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Image and mind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Mandler, J. M. (1977). Categorical and schematic organization
in memory. In C. R. Puff (Ed.), Memory organization and
structure (pp. 259-299), New York: Academic Press.
Marschark, M. (1993). Psychological development of deaf children.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, K, (1985). Le developpement de la representation semantique chez l'enfant. Psychologie Francaise, 30, 261—268.
Nelson, K. (1988). Where do taxonomic categories come from?
Human Development, 31, 3—10.
Oleron, P. (1986). Preface Van Uden, A., Sign languages of deaf
people and psycholinguisttcs. A critical evaluation, (pp. 1—10).
Lisse, Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.
Petitto, L. A., & Bellugi, U. (1988). Spatial cognition and brain
organization: Clues from the acquisition of a language in
space. In J. Stiles-Davis, M. Kritchevsky, U. Bellugi (Eds.),
Spatial cognition: brain bases and development, (pp. 299-326).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Piaget, J., & InheldeT, B. (1959). La genese des structures logiques
elementaires. Neuchatel, Delachaux & Niestle.
Poizner, H., Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U (1987). What the hands
reveal about the bram, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C, Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boynes-
Sign Language and Categorization
Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
Stokoe, W. (1960). Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication system of the American Deaf. Studies in
Linguistics, University of Buffalo, Occasional Papers no. 8.
Wolff, A. B., & Thatcher, R. W. (1990). Cortical reorganization
in deaf children. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 12, 209-221.
Wood, D. (1991). Communication and cognition. How the communication styles of hearing adults may hinder—rather
than help—deaf learners. American Annals of the Deaf,
136(2,), 247-251.
171
Wood, D., & Wood, H. (1991). Signed English in the classroom,
I. Teaching style and child participation. First Language,
II. 189-217.
Wood, D., & Wood, H. (1992). Signed English in the classroom,
III. What gets signed? First Language, 12, 1-15.
Wood, H., & Wood, D. (1992). Signed English in the classroom,
IV. Aspects of children's speech and sign. First Language,
12, 125-145.
Wood, H., Wood, D., & Kingsmill, M. (1991). Signed English in
the classroom, II. Structural and pragmatic aspects of teachers' speech and sign. First Language, 11, 301—325.