Sign Language Studies

SCPI : 344 AUTHORS' RESPONSE We thank the editor for providing this forum to discuss application of the LPI to the assessment of sign communication, and David Knight and Dennis Cokely for their comments. Relative to assessment concerns, when there is an intermingling of two languages, Haugen (1977) stressed that the concept of "language norm" is "highly ambiguous and slippery," especially in bilingual communities. Does one choose as the norm the formal, stylized norm of the rhetorician or the communicative norm found in the everyday conversations of skilled communicators? The answer, as is usual for such questions, is that it depends on your purpose or goal. Given that our emphasis is on communicative competence, we have chosen the communicative norm which "... is more like a spectrum embracing the wide variation of situations in which a bilingual finds himself" (op. cit., 93). Further, "We have to recognize that the communicative norm which grows up in bilingual communities is more elastic and less predictable than that of a monolingual community" (op. cit., 98). Given the above, we believe a flexible approach to sign assessment that incorporates local, regional variations that are important for effective sign communication is appropriate. (This is true whether one is assessing ASL or PSE/sign English communicative competence.) As suggested in the original paper -- and in a subsequent application at the Louisiana School for the Deaf, described by Caccamise, Newell, & Mitchell-Caccamise (in press); who can better decide what is important for sign communication than sign communicators within the locales or programs where assessments are conducted? Further, the issue of language norm and variance was addressed at the meeting organized by Mary Mosleh at the Education Testing Service, and is reflected in the name change from Sign Language Proficiency Interview to Sign Communication Proficiency Interview: ASL and General (See Note 1, p. 329). Relative to the information available from SCPI ratings, it is important that these ratings be viewed as global communicative competence or performance ratings. Although language form and function are integrally related (especially at the highest levels of communication proficiency), our major purpose in applying the LPI to signing skills is not to judge the form of a person's signing (a diagnostic concern), but Winter 83 SLS 41 SLS 41 SCPI : 345 Winter 83 rather to assist in assessing the competence of individuals to function as sign communicators in the various situations in which they want and need to function. Like Knight and Cokely, we recognize the importance of diagnostic testing, and have addressed the use of videotaped SCPIs for diagnostic purposes (Caccamise, Newell, & Mitchell-Caccamise, in press). In using the SCPI for diagnostic purposes, lists of sign grammatical features (such as those in Appendix B of our paper) can be used as guides to specify the strengths of each signer and those sign communication skills that may need development or refinement. We say may because we recognize that in any assessment or test a person may not have either the opportunity or need to use certain language skills they possess. If there are sign skills that are considered essential, and which are not evident in an SCPI, a second interview and/or use of discrete point tests may be appropriate. Relative to formal communication needs (such as teaching, lecturing, and professional meetings), SCPI "situations" may be used to assess communicative competence in a variety of simulated settings. Further, we recognize the complexity and range of skills required of many jobs, and we encourage on-the-job observations as a critical part of a total appraisal process. We agree with Knight and Cokely that the SCPI cannot be used to judge whether a person can "hypothesize" and perform other cognitive functions. Rather, the SCPI is designed to assess how well a person can "communicate" hypotheses and other ideas and feelings to a skilled signer. Further, the functions listed in Appendix A are not intended to be comprehensive, but only guideposts for making rating judgments. Improvements in these "guideposts" are expected (and welcome) as we learn how to better assess sign communicative competence. Regarding the issue of "native Signer" versus "skilled user of PSE/sign English," we agree that presently only ASL signers could be awarded a...