A.Smalls
The main comparison to The Newport Article and Chapter 2 in the textbook to me must
be the fact that there are people in the studies that are learning about language barriers and
Chapter 2 is exclusively focused on the brain and its functions, which one important one happens
to be the way we learn. In the article, Newport was trying to understand the development and
constraints on language for deaf individuals. As well as the different ways that they could have
been introduced to how ever they signed. Just like with learning when I think of understanding a
concept or even storing what I have learned my first thought always goes to The Brain. It is a
very important part of the nervous system that has multiple yet vital jobs to perform to make a
person functional. Chapter Two informs us that that there are different developmental stages the
brain goes through with age and time that allows the brain to mature as well as there are two
different sides of the brain that are responsible for certain functions and when one is not properly
active it can affect the other. Within the research that Newport conducted she was trying to
differentiate the different ways that three separate groups learned ASL. The research is important
in my opinion because if we can find out at an early age which way is best for deaf people to
learn language without any complications then it is a great idea to be proactive instead of
reactive. Children who are born deaf can be raised and taught the same way hearing children are
without setbacks with using ASL. There would not a maturation issue if children are taught ASL
from the time they start school that way into adulthood they are fluent in the language. I am very
confused to rather the study was for ASL as it is now or if the goal was to change it and the way
it is comprehended. Although she had 3 different groups for her examples rather they were early
ASL or late they all had about 30 years of using ASL. If she was trying to prove that it is not a
good way to communicate or that it is not efficient I believe she should have gotten some
younger samples with the older as well as some induvial that are fluent in ASL but are not
practically deaf so that you could see with common group what is the change in the independent
variable. The weakness of the article was that again it was not clear and precise on what her
preference was for the outcome. Me as the audience of the article had to keep going back and