第二代聾人約佔全部聾人族群之6%，在口語為主的社會環伺下，面臨多重挑戰。本研究以質性研究設計，抽絲剝繭探討自然手語在第二代手語聾人學習中的角色。透過文獻及聾友人的穿針引線，我與而立之年的「酒窩」（第二代手語聾人，本研究的主要參與者）展開長達12個月的生命交織。酒窩，一位不向命運低頭的有為青年，雙親及兩位弟弟一家都是聾人，台灣自然手語是他們家唯一的溝通工具。透過與酒窩及其雙親、師長和同學的個別訪談，再輔以相關歷史文件及聲音影像紀錄之分析，本研究發現，在豐沛的自然手語環境中成長的酒窩，自我認同度高。酒窩歷經過自然手語、文字手語和口語三種溝通模式的教學，他認為使用自然手語最能快速進入知識殿堂，有效的學習。自然手語在酒窩學習中的角色地位是其他溝通模式所無法取代的。自然手語對酒窩而言，非但不是阻力，反而是不可缺少的工具。酒窩使用自然手語，同時也發展出不錯的寫作能力。這項事實說明了對酒窩而言，自然手語並不會妨礙寫作能力。研究結果可為聾教育該如何選用溝通模式提供參考依據。

The role of Taiwan Sign Language in a Dc/Dp’s learning life

Shian-Huei Lin
National Taiwan Normal University

Abstract

Nearly six percent of deaf children were born of deaf parents (Dc/Dp). They faced with challenges in many ways in the spoken language society. In order to know the role of Taiwan Sign Language (TSL) in the learning life of a Deaf children of Deaf parents, the qualitative research design was used to answer this question. According to the references and referral by deaf friends, I have connected with “Jiou-Wo” (Dc/Dp, the primal participant of this study) for more than twelve months. He was thirty years old and never yield to this deafness. His parents and two bothers were deaf. TSL was the only communication mode in his family. Through not only interviewing Jiou-Wo, his parents, teacher and classmate separately, but also analyzing the relevant documents, the main findings were as following: Growing up in the abundant TSL environment, Jiou-Wo superiorly identified himself with deaf community. He insisted that TSL is much more practical than Chinese Coded Sign Language or Spoken Language in getting into the knowledge world. TSL was very important for Jiou-Wo in his learning life. TSL facilitated his learning and let him become a high achiever. Jiou-Wo demonstrated very good writing ability. This fact revealed that using TSL wouldn’t impede Jiou-Wo’s writing ability. These results may have some implications for deciding communication mode for the Deaf...

參考文獻

（中文部分）

內政部（民93）。身心障礙者保護法。台北，內政部。
內政部統計處（民94.03.03）。內政統計通報九十四年第九週：93年底身心障礙者人數統計。上網日期：94.04.12，網址：http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/week/week9409.doc。
王麗雲（民89）。自傳╱傳記╱生命史在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學教育學研究所主編，質的研究方法（頁265-306）。高雄市，麗文。
朱柔若譯（民89）。Neuman, W. L. (1997)原著。社會研究方法—質化與量化取向(Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches, 3rd ed.)。台北：揚智。
行政院勞工委員會（民92）。手語翻譯技術士技能檢定規範。民92.2.17勞中二字第0920200101號公告。
邢敏華（民90）。Stokoe的手語研究對台灣啟聰教育的啟示。載於中華民國特殊教育學會主編，特殊教育品質的提升（頁145-151）。台北，中華民國特殊教育學會。
吳芝儀、廖梅花譯（民90）。Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998)原著。質性研究入門：紮根理論研究方法(Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd ed.)。嘉義：濤石。
李奉儒等譯（民90）。黃光雄主譯校閱。Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998)原著。質性教育研究：理論與方法(Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods, 3rd ed.)。嘉義：濤石。
林芝安（民91）。我對手語及口語的學習經驗及心得。特殊教育季刊，83，31-36。
胡幼慧、姚美華（民85）。一些質性方法上的思考：信度與效度？如何抽樣？如何收集資料、登錄與分析？載於胡幼慧主編，質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例（頁141-158）。台北市，巨流。
高敬文（民91）。質化研究方法論。台北，師大書苑。
張蓓莉（民83）。第八屆語言與聾問題研討會紀要。特殊教育季刊，52，29-34。
張蓓莉（民84）。出席第十八屆國際聾教育會議報告。特殊教育季刊，57，35-38。
張蓓莉（民90）。世界聾教育會議暨亞太地區聾會議。科學發展月刊，29（3），215-218。
張蓓莉（民90）。教育部訪視直轄市及縣市國民中小學啟聰類特教班計畫期末報告。教育部特殊教育工作小組委託（國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心承辦，訪視進程自89.4.1～90.3.31）。
張蓓莉（民94）。手語與聾文化（上課講義，未出版）。台北，國立台灣師範大學。
張蓓莉、Gonzales, B. R. （民76）。聽障父母之聽障子女之保留概念能力試驗性研究。特殊教育季刊，25，15-19。
張蓓莉、蘇芳柳（民86）。從口語聽障學生的表現談未來啟聰教育語言溝通方式的發展方向。發表於國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學系主辦，海峽兩岸特殊教育研討會，台北。
教育部（民93）。特殊教育法。台北，教育部。
教育部（民91）。身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定標準。台北，教育部。
熊同鑫（民90）。窺、潰、饋：我與生命史研究相遇的心靈起伏。應用心理研究，12，107-131。
劉秀丹（民93）：啟聰學校學生文法手語、自然手語及書面語故事理解能力之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系博士論文。
衛生署（民91）。身心障礙等級。台北，衛生署。

（外文部分）

Allen, B. M. (2002). ASL-English bilingual classroom: the families’ perspectives. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 149-205.
Bonvillian, J. D., & Siedlecki, T., Jr. (1996). Young children’s acquisition of the location aspect of American Sign Language signs: parental report findings. Journal of Communication Disorders, 29(1), 13-35.
Braden, J. P. (1987). An explanation of the superior performance IQs of deaf children of deaf parents. American Annals of the Deaf, 132(4), 263-266.
Drasgow, E. (1998). American sign language as a pathway to linguistic competence. Exceptional Children, 64(3), 329-342.
Erickson, F. (1984). What makes school ethnography ‘ethnographic’? Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 15(1), 51-66.
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Mayberry, R. I. (2001). How do profoundly deaf children learn to read? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 222-229.
Grosjean, F. (2001). The right of the deaf child to grow up bilingual. Sign Language Studies, 1(2), 110-114.
Hagemaster, J. N. (1992). Life history: a qualitative method of research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 1122-1128.
Heiling, K. (1998). Bilingual vs. oral education: academic achievement levels in deaf eighth-graders from two decades. In A. Weisel (Ed.), Issues unresolved: new perspectives on language and deaf education (pp.141-147). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Hickok, G., Bellugi, U., & Klima, E. S. (2001). Sign language in the brain. Scientific American, 284(6), 58-65.
Hoffmeister, R., & Wibur, R. (1980). The acquisition of sign language. In H. Lane & F. Grosjean (Eds.), Recent perspectives on American Sign Language (pp.61-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hutzler, C. R. (1989). Are deaf children “allowed” signing? In C. J. Erting, R. C. Johnson, D. L. Smith, & B. D. Snider (Eds.), The deaf way: perspectives from the international conference on deaf culture (pp.811-816). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Kourbetis, V. (1987). Deaf Children of deaf parents and deaf children of hearing parents in Greece: A comparative study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, USA.
Lujan, M. A. (1989). The early intervention program for deaf children: a bilingual experience. In C. J. Erting, R. C. Johnson, D. L. Smith, & B. D. Snider (Eds.), The deaf way: perspectives from the international conference on deaf culture (pp.568-573). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Mayberry, R., & Eichen, E. (1991). The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 486-512.
McWilliam, R. A. (2000). Reporting qualitative studies. Journal of Early Intervention, 23(2), 77-80.
Mercurio, J. F. (1989). Sign language acquisition among deaf children with deaf parents. In C. J. Erting, R. C. Johnson, D. L. Smith, & B. D. Snider (Eds.), The deaf way: perspectives from the international conference on deaf culture (pp.562-567). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Shantie, C., & Hoffmeister, R. (2000). Why school for deaf children should hire deaf teachers: a preschool issue. Journal of Education, 182(3), 37-47.
Sisco, F. H., & Anderson, R. J. (1980). Deaf children’s performance on the WISC-R relative to hearing status of parents and child-rearing experiences. American Annals of the Deaf, 125, 923-930.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1988). Understanding and conducting qualitative research. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Stone, R., & Stirling, L. O. (1989). Developing and defining an identity: deaf children of deaf and hearing parents. In C. J. Erting, R. C. Johnson, D. L. Smith, & B. D. Snider (Eds.), The deaf way: perspectives from the international conference on deaf culture (pp.49-54). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Williams, C. B., & Finnegan, M. (2003). From myth to reality: sound information for teachers about students who are deaf. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(3), 40-45.
Young, A. M. (1999). Hearing parent’s adjustment to a deaf child—the impact of a cultural-linguistic mondel of deafness. Journal of Social Work Practice, 13(2), 157-176.