Jezik in slovstvo

Kodni sistem
Slovenska knjizevnost
Avtorji
Urednistvo <-> bralci

Jezik in slovstvo
Povzetki

Nicole Kuplenik

O jezikovnih napakah pri pisnem izrazanju gluhih srednjesolcev
Language Errors in Written Texts of Deaf Secondary-school Students

Slovenski sinopsis
English synopsis
English summary

Slovenski sinopsis

V clanku predstavljam empiricno analizo povrsinske strukture jezika, kot se kaze v pisnem izrazanju, pri gluhih srednjesolcih (v izrazu gluhi upostevam tudi tezje naglusne, pri nekaterih se namrec pojavljajo podobne jezikovne tezave kot pri prelingvalno gluhih). Ne razpravljam o vzrokih za pomanjkljivo jezikovno strukturo, to je namrec stvar globinske (psiholingvisticne) analize. Poudariti je treba tudi, da gre za razclembo pisnega jezika srednjesolcev na Zavodu za gluhe in naglusne Ljubljana, ne pa gluhih dijakov rednih srednjih sol, kajti ti so jezikovno strukturo jezika vecinoma uspesno usvojili.

English synopsis

The article presents an empirical analysis of the surface language structure of deaf secondary-school students of the Institute for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing of Ljubljana, as manifested in their written texts. Reasons for the poor linguistic structure of their writing, which are a matter of deep (psycholinguistic) analysis, are not discussed here. Only the written language of deaf secondary-school students of the Institute is analysed, while the language of deaf students of regular secondary schools, who have successfully overcome the language barrier, is not included.

English summary

The article presents an empirical analysis of the surface language structure of deaf secondary-school students of the Institute for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing of Ljubljana, as manifested in their written texts. Reasons for the poor linguistic structure of their writing, which are a matter of deep (psycholinguistic) analysis, are not discussed here. Only the written language of deaf secondary-school students of the Institute is analysed, while the language of deaf students of regular secondary schools, who have successfully overcome the language barrier, is not included.

Written texts of deaf students create the impression that their written language is relatively independent of speech and rather a self-contained skilled of written expression: some hard-of-hearing students with a relatively good hearing and good/ correct speech perform rather poorly in written text production; and, vice versa, some deaf students who reduce or leave out language elements in speech, are quite successful in written discourse. Obvious is the impact of a supportive (or passive) home environment and of what is usually called 'the language talent'. It might also be relevant to study the correlation between the level of sign language (higher/ less developed) and written language skill in Slovene.

The quality of deaf students' writing oscillates a great deal. A possible explanation may be their failure to have mastered the structure of language.

The article surveys types of their errors in written texts that have to be dealt with in the classroom on a daily basis. No clear correlation between the level of hearing loss and the development of written language appears. In general, more systemic problems seem to be experienced by prelingually deaf students, while others deviate from standards only at some levels of the surface language structure.

Deviations are found on all linguistic levels: in spelling, word structure and word formation, morphology, syntax and registers. Register or genre awareness is almost non-existent, even copying texts is one of the more demanding chapters and has to be constantly monitored and controlled by the teacher. This analysis by linguistic levels should be helpful in designing methods of teaching. However, it should not be forgotten that there is a single reason for all these errors: a poor language structure.