










































English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90  

         10.12928/eltej.v5i1.5131                             http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index           eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id 

“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL among 

hearing/speaking-impaired netizens  

 Venus R. Parmisanaa,1* and Cristine Grace Badillab,2 
a,b Department of English, Mindanao State University- Iligan Institute of Technology, Philippines 
1venus.parmisana@g.msuiit.edu.ph*  
* Corresponding author 

 

A R T I C L E  I N F O 

 

ABST RACT   

 

 

Article history 

Received 13 November 2021 

Revised 3 January 2022 

Accepted 16 February 2022 

 Negotiating meaning can be difficult for the deaf-mute people when 
being in the hearing and speaking world. Social media offers a platform 
where the deaf and the mute can engage in meaningful conversations 
among themselves and between people with hearing and speaking 
abilities. This paper determined the paralinguistic signals that the deaf-
mute students employed in their Facebook posts. Using descriptive-
qualitative research design, the study analyzed the lexico-semantic 
features of their language and how both paralinguistic and linguistic 
aspects contribute to the negotiation of conceptual meaning. The results 
revealed that paralinguistic signals are found in emojis, punctuation 
mark repeats, onomatopoeic spelling, accent stylization, intensification, 
hashtag and combinations. These signals function to give emphasis or 
intensify intonation. An emoji is the predominant paralinguistic signal 
used to compensate the lack of words to express feelings. In addition, 
distinct lexico-semantic features observed in the data include the 
incorrect position of words, incorrect lexical choice, redundancy, and 
insertion of prepositions or the lack thereof. These features do not carry 
a specific function in negotiating meaning because understanding the 
semantic content of a message is possible either with or without 
comprehension of the syntax. Semantic comprehension is not expected 
to help in the acquisition of the syntactic system because it may be 
accomplished through the recognition of isolated lexical items and 
interpretation of non-linguistic cues. Finally, paralinguistic signals and 
computer-mediated communication for the deaf-mute across generation 
and race can be considered for future directions of the study and 
appropriate technological tools may be designed to automate errors 
found in the social media posts of the deaf-mute. 
 

This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 

    

 

 

Keywords 

Deaf-mute 

Paralinguistic Signals 

Negotiation of Meaning 

Lexico-Semantic Features 

English as a Second Language 

Computer-Mediated Communication  

 

 

How to Cite: Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (2022). “Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL 
among hearing/speaking-impaired netizens. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 5(1), 75-90. 

1. Introduction  

A deaf and mute person communicating with another person of the same disability, either schooled 
or trained, has no problem expressing his thoughts as they can understand each other. Research shows 
that when a person without a hearing or speaking disability tries to communicate with a deaf-mute, he 
or she faces communication issues that either one or both can try to use many ways to express intended 
meaning; otherwise, negotiate meaning. Brice and Strauss (2016) postulated that the deaf are often 
faced with the additional challenge of managing these adaptations in a hearing world, where 
communication and access to information, especially about their social world, are incomplete at best 
and nonexistent at worst. 

https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v5i1.5131
http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0203-2949
about:blank
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.12928/eltej.v5i1.5131&domain=pdf


76 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

     The deaf uses strategies to reach his or her communication goals or targets. These strategies can 
be observed in the use of sign language, body language and facial expressions. All over the world, a 
widely used type of sign language is the American Sign Language (ASL). The National Institute on 
Deafness and other Communication Disorder (NIDCD) of the United States espoused that American 
Sign Language is a complete, natural language that has the same linguistic properties as 
spoken languages, with grammar that differs from English (NIDCD, 2019). ASL is expressed by 
movements of the hands and face. It is the primary language of many North Americans who are deaf 
and hard of hearing and is used by many hearing people as well.  

     In recent years, studies have shown that deaf-mute people have wanted to integrate fully into 
the larger society (Marschark, M., & Knoors, H., 2012) by communicating, for example, to 
accommodate an audience (Pizer, Walters, & Meier, 2012). Cabalfin, et al (2012) reported that “the 
Deaf community remains widely marginalized from the mainstream of society, lagging behind 
recognized disadvantaged groups such as peasants, urban poor, fisher folk and indigenous peoples”. 
For many years, deaf-mute people have struggled to find their place in a hearing world. One of these 
struggles is that deaf people cannot easily be discerned from the hearing majority so they can choose 
to assimilate and try to blend in with the speaking and hearing community.    

     In trying to assimilate, they would use platforms that can make them blend with the mainstream 
and where they can communicate like people without disabilities. One of the platforms is the internet, 
specifically the social media.  Saunders (2016) posited that scholars in Deaf studies also took notice 
of how the Internet and social media interacted with the lives of Deaf people in society, academic 
environments, the workplace, and at home. Moreover, communication recently has evolved from 
personal to virtual interaction and which interest many researchers especially in the field of language 
(Quindala & Omongos, 2018). Communication can be done through social media.  There were 
numerous channels that Deaf-mute used to express or convey their messages. Deaf-mute individuals 
might lack the ability to hear and speak, but these disabilities could not hinder them from learning 
how to communicate in social media where most of the individuals nowadays are inclined to. 

     This study sees the need to explore the mainstream media, that is Facebook, used by majority 
of the people to communicate including the deaf and the mute. The relevance of the study lies in 
understanding the paralinguistic and linguistic aspects of how the deaf-mute communicate as they try 
to negotiate meaning when communicating within their peers in their community. This study, 
therefore aimed to contribute to the existing literature in the field of language strategies and language 
negotiation of the deaf-mute. The result of the study shall serve as basis of information as well as 
motivation for creating instructional materials for the students with special needs, especially in line 
with UNESCO’s “Education for All” campaign (UNESCO, 2015) 

 

1.1.Research Questions: 

          The study sought to identify the paralinguistic signals found in the Facebook status of the 
Deaf-mute individuals. Also, it sought to recognize the peculiarity of their language through 
examining its lexico-semantic features and analyzed how these paralinguistic and linguistic features 
function as to how meaning is negotiated in the Filipino Deaf-mute community on Facebook. 
Specifically, these questions guided the study:  

1. What paralinguistic signals are found in the Facebook status of the Deaf-mute individuals?  

2. What are the lexico-semantic features of the Deaf-mute language? 

3. How does each paralinguistic and linguistic feature function in the negotiation of meaning 
among the Deaf-mute speech community? 

 

1.2.Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 

This study employed Grice’s Theory of Conversation which was deliberated in Thurlow and Poff’s 
(2013), the Three Key Pragmatic Maxims of Text Message Style. From these theory and maxims, the 
categories for the patterns of paralinguistic signals were based on the related studies of Elizondo’s 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 77 
 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

(2011):  Not 2 Cryptic 2DCode: Paralinguistic Restitution, Deletion, and Non-standard Orthography 
in Text Messages and Balgoa and Embradura’s (2014): Restitution in Computer-mediated 
Communication: Encoding Paralinguistic Signals in Facebook Posts. These studies postulated that 
like in text messaging, Facebook users apply paralinguistic restitutions in their posts to compensate 
for the loss of paralinguistic signals such as facial expressions, gestures, and pitch, among others. 
These paralinguistic signals can be classified into the use of (1) emoticons, (2) punctuation mark 
repeats, (3) non-conventional spelling, (4) Onomatopoeic Spelling, (5) Markers, and (6) Combinations 
(Elizondo, 2011). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 1. Venn Diagram showing the Theories Grounded for the Paralinguistic Restitution of Deaf-mute FB 

Users 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 2.  Schematic Diagram showing the categories of the Paralinguistic Signals 

The following paralinguistic signals are conceptualized and defined in the said previous studies 
and were employed in the present study.  



78 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

1. Emoticons are facial expressions represented by a combination of punctuation mark, letters or 
other characters, that when viewed resembles a facial expression or, more rarely, gestures 
(Amaghlobeli, 2012). 

2. Punctuation Mark Repeats which are used as markers on when to stop, to pause, and to 
emphasize, among others. Aside from facial expressions and gestures, people speak with sound 
level variations; both tone of voice and rate change; while punctuation repeats are used to 
achieve similar effect 

3. Non-conventional Spelling deals with accent stylization, euphemization, and intensification.  
Elizondo (2011) argued that non-conventional spelling as a paralinguistic cue is used largely 
because people wanted to embed their accent in written discourse, for accent stylization. (A) 
Accent stylization refers to words that are spelled in accordance with informal regional speech; 
e.g.  "wanna/want", "gonna/going to" and "dat/that" (Crystal, 2008 cited in Balgoa & 
Embradura, 2014); (B) Euphemization uses non-standard spelling to weaken or neutralize a 
somewhat strong and harsh word; (C) Intensification intensifies normal text by (a) 
Vowel/Consonant Extension or (b) Capslocking.  

4. Onomatopoeic Spelling endeavors to reproduce sounds by means of written language;  

5. Markers comprising (A) The Asterisk (*) which functions to signal an action being done or 
present a character in a post; (B) The hashtag (#), used to prefix names of channels and groups 
for convenient searching and to group related subjects and Facebook later adapted its use; (C) 
Parentheses ( ) are used to include material to de-emphasize something or include otherwise 
that which does not normally fit into the flow of your text; and,  

6. Combinations occur when two or more paralinguistic cues are employed simultaneously. 
Under the use of combinations, we have (1) Capslocking and Onomatopoeic Spelling, (2) 
Capslocking and Vowel/Consonant Extension, (3) Capslocking and Punctuation Marks, (4) 
Capslocking and Accent Stylization, (5) Onomatopoeic Spelling and Punctuation Marks, and 
(6) Vowel/Consonant Extension and Accent Stylization, among others. 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 3.      Fig. 3. Conceptual Framework in Analyzing the Negotiation of Meaning of the Deaf-mute FB Users 

1.3. Filipino Deaf-Mute and their Language use in Computer-Mediated Communication 

     There are only several recent milestone studies on the visual-spatial language of the Filipino 
Deaf community (i.e., Filipino Sign Language or FSL) initiated by Filipinos themselves.  In the 
seventies and eighties, publications by North American writers, drew largely from American Sign 
Language (ASL, n.d.) and artificial sign systems to publish highly prescriptive material.  The earliest 
descriptive works are comprised by the pioneering research of Liza Martinez on the sociolinguistics 
and structure of FSL beginning in the early nineties. To date, the most comprehensive linguistics 
reference was initiated by Martinez herself (Martinez, 2012). Past studies in De La Salle University, 
for example, with potential contributions to sign language recognition and its applications are strongly 
motivated by the presence of a large tertiary level program for Deaf students in its academic system.  



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 79 
 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

     Sign linguistics research in the country is at a young state that Filipino Sign Language (FSL) 
has only recently begun to be documented. The Philippine government is yet to officially recognize 
FSL in the language domains of schools, courtrooms, the workplace, hospitals, and mass media.  In 
the community, both deaf and hearing Filipinos may still disregard FSL as an authentic linguistic 
entity and that despite the considerable research efforts for nearly two decades, the language and its 
users remain at the periphery of Filipino society.  The Philippine Deaf Resource Center espoused that 
language policy is virtually non-existent for sign language use (PDRC, n.d.). Thus, this study also 
showed their use of language specifically in written communication and computer-mediated 
communication.  

Hearing loss or deafness does not affect a person’s intellectual capacity or ability to learn. 
However, as quoted in the study entitled Deafness and Hearing Loss: A publication of NICHCY 
disability (2010), “children who are hard of hearing or deaf generally require some form of special 
education services to receive an adequate education”. In addition, people who are hard of hearing will 
find it much more difficult than those who have normal hearing to learn vocabulary, grammar, word 
order, idiomatic expressions, and other aspects of verbal communication. Laugen, Jacobsen, Rieffe, 
and Wichstrøm (2017) claimed that children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) are at greater risk 
for developmental delays and difficulties than their peers with typical hearing (TH) For children who 
are deaf or have severe hearing losses, early, consistent, and conscious use of visible communication 
modes (such as sign language, fingerspelling, and Cued Speech) and/or amplification and aural/oral 
training can help reduce this language delay. By age four or five, most children who are deaf are 
enrolled in school on a full-day basis and do special work on communication and language 
development. It is suggested therefore that teachers and audiologists to work together to teach the 
child to use his or her residual hearing to the maximum extent possible, even if the preferred means 
of communication is manual. People with hearing loss use oral or manual means of communication 
or a combination of the two. Oral communication includes speech, lip-reading, and the use of residual 
hearing while manual communication involves signs and fingerspelling.  

     One focus of researchers has been the syntactical structure of sentences written by D/HH 
students. Regardless of students’ educational placements, researchers have reported positive changes 
in measures of syntactical structure with increasing age; however, deaf students or sign-only children 
make slower progress than hearing children (Yoshinaga-Itano & Snyder, 1985, in Bornstein 2018; 
Antia, 2020), and the frequency of production of several syntactical structures differs significantly 
from that of the hearing comparison group (Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 1996, as cited in Bronstein, 2018). 
In addition to the syntax of written language, authors have found that Deaf students exhibit difficulty 
with the cohesion of ideas in writing. Yoshinaga- Itano and her colleagues (Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 
1996, in Bornstein 2018) analyzed the written essays of Deaf children and reported that they were 
able to communicate main ideas but did not elaborate or provide details in their writing. The text they 
produced had few redundancies and a few cohesive devices to tie text together. Maxwell and Falick 
(in Hartman, Nickolarakis & Wang, 2019), examining written essays of Deaf-mute students between 
grades four and eight in special schools, found that although both Deaf-mute and hearing students 
increased their use of cohesion as grade level increased, the Deaf-mute students’ lexical cohesions 
consisted mainly of word repetition. These authors also found that the deaf students’ compositions 
were less frequently conceptually linked than those of hearing students. Therefore, it is important to 
consider where we have been, what progress we have made in these domains, and how they fit with 
the reality of deaf children today most especially that some of these individuals are also engaging 
themselves in communicating into social media and other online activities, also known as Computer-
Mediated Communication (CMC). The Internet becomes a platform for communication and exchange 
of ideas, social and cultural values, political beliefs, expressing opinions and attitudes, and promoting 
civil activism (Kostic & Vilic, 2016). The Internet is indeed an interactive and dynamic world that it 
has enormously and significantly changed our behavior in communication (Balgoa & Embradura 
2014).  

 

1.4.Negotiation of Meaning 

     Ellis (2008) regarded negotiation as a kind of discourse management strategy that can be 
exploited to address both communication and linguistic issues. Accordingly, he distinguished between 
negotiation of meaning and negotiation of form and described the different objects these two strategies 



80 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

were targeted at: while negotiation of form attempted to resolve the linguistic problem in the speech 
of a learner, negotiation of meaning was “the collaborative work which speakers undertake to achieve 
mutual understanding when there is some kind of communication problem” (p. 224). More recent 
accounts for negotiation of meaning, on the other hand, have clearly included the grammatical aspect 
of the target language and affirmed its positive role in promoting learners’ L2 development. For 
example, Long (1996, in Cook 2015) defined negotiation of meaning as a process in which learners 
made adjustments to linguistic form, conversational structure, message content, or all three until an 
acceptable level of understanding was achieved. Swain (1995, 1998, in Loewen & Sato, 2018) 
attributed the positive role that negotiation of meaning played in promoting incidental acquisition of 
certain features of L2 to the condition in which learners attended to both the form of L2 features and 
the meaning they convey.  

 

1.5. Paralinguistic Restitution 

     Numerous studies of deaf students’ attainments in the acquisition of English language and 
literacy skills have been conducted over the past century and showed that most prelingually deaf 
children enter adolescence and young adulthood without having achieved proficiency in English. 
Balgoa and Embradura’s (2014) argued the non-verbal or paralinguistic cues complement oral 
communication. There are many possible ways a certain message could mean depending on the 
varieties of non-verbal cues that accompany it. Areas such as syntax, phonetics, among others have 
already been widely studied for some decades that they have been considered as “central” in verbal 
linguistics, and there has not been much focus on non-linguistic forms of communicative behavior, 
posited by Crystal  (cited in Schuller, 2013). Crystal adds that paralanguage serves to be a bridge of 
these aspects that are considered before as mutually exclusive. 

     Paralinguistics is the part of communication outside of the words themselves – the volume, 
speed, intonation of a voice along with gestures and other non-verbal cues. According to Elizondo 
(2011), “paralinguistic restitution consists of ways of ways of writing that compensate for the lost 
prosodic and visual cues found in face-to-face interaction”. It may be considered as a non-standard or 
informal way of written language but it does the job of communicating significant social information 
to be decoded the way the encoder intended it to be because these are “socially shared meanings” (Lea 
& Spears, 1992 in Elizondo, 2011). In the world of deaf-mute individuals, they needed to be 
understood specifically their language, much more their paralinguistic restitution in today’s 
technological world because that is where they are heard and given attention for. Considering recent 
research and fully recognizing the historical background of the language of these individuals, the 
researcher sought to describe their language through analyzing its and paralinguistic and linguistic 
aspects—identifying the paralinguistic signals and the lexico-semantic features of their language. 

 

1.6. Lexico-Semantic Analysis of Sign Language 

     In the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics (n.d.), lexical semantics is defined as the 
study of word meaning. Descriptively speaking, the main topics studied within lexical semantics 
involve either the internal semantic structure of words or the semantic relations that occur within the 
vocabulary. 

2. Method 

     This study used a descriptive qualitative research design as Facebook posts are qualitative in 
nature. Anchored upon two previous studies of Elizondo (2011), Balgoa and Embradura (2014), and 
the theoretical lens of Thurlow and Poff (2013), the study used these frameworks in qualitatively 
analyzing the paralinguistic signals and linguistic features of status and comments of the deaf-mute. 
Conducted in the Special Education (SPED) program of Maranding Elementary Central School in the 
province of Lanao del Norte, Northern Mindanao, Philippines, the researchers verified and validated 
the informants’ identities by conducting an interview with the grade level adviser. Since personal 
information were confidential, the researchers sought permission from the informants’ parents. Then 
the researchers visited their classroom and explained the purpose of the research.   



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 81 
 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

     The collected materials are screenshots of the students’ Facebook statuses (n= 45) and 74 
screenshots (n=74) of comments or a total of 119 screenshots.  No consideration was given for a 
specific theme or discussion in these statuses or comments for the collection of the corpus. The FB 
statuses were written in English only and a few Sinugbuanong Bisaya (the Mother Tongue). However, 
considerations about matters of privacy and free access on their posts were disregarded as Facebook 
allows its users to choose who can see their posts based on their personal preferences.  Moreover, to 
protect the subjects of the study, their names were not revealed. 

     Following Balgoa and Embradura’s (2014) criteria consideration, a status should have 1) 
presence of unusual typography not seen in formal texts; 2) use of either English and Binisaya 
languages in such posts; 3) Facebook post must be seen with a significant amount of unusual 
typography at an initial glance, and 4) post must be recent. Each FB post was thoroughly analyzed 
according to categories from the given existing study. A frequency count was applied to count the 
percentage of the patterns found in the posts. The researchers categorized the patterns or the 
paralinguistic cues from that of Elizondo’s (2011) and Balgoa and Embradura’s (2014) studies. 
Additionally, the researchers analyzed and observed how the Filipino Deaf-mute Facebook users 
negotiated meaning through examining the lexico-semantic features present in their FB posts and 
comments. 

     Finally, to stylize the presentation and analysis of the corpus, this example coding is used:  

                  [P1S4] means Person 1, Status 4. 

                  [P1CS4] means Person 1 Comment to Status 4. 

     Each referent for a particular post or comment was given a specific code for easy understanding.  

3.  Findings and Discussion 

3.1. Paralinguistic Signals used by Filipino deaf-mute Facebook Users 

3.1.1. Emoticons/Emoji 

During the analysis of the corpus, a significant number of occurrences of the use of 
Emoticons/Emoji have been observed. It has a total of 133 occurrences against the total of 263. 

Table 1.  Emojis/Emoticons found in the data 

Reference Example Posts Emojis/Emoticons Texts 

 

[P1S4] 

   

I’m very over seriously sun 

[P1S9]   I’m I can’t laugh stop very 

my classmates. Happy 

fool’s day…haha still 
seriously not don’t hurt idk 

[P3CS6]   Kulit block messenage blue 

alway…ugly 

Me idk accept bad you not 

good 

    

  In the examples shown in Table 1, P1S4 used emojis like sun, broken heart, and hearts to describe 
his/her situation and feeling. Also, still P1S4 used the heart emoji to express and represent his/her 
feeling in a certain situation. On the other hand, P3CS6 used a lot of angry emojis to restitute and 
express his/her anger. This shows that aside from representing facial expressions, Filipino Deaf-mutes 



82 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

normally use emoticons/emojis in representing objects, feelings, people, color, among others. The role 
of emoji in the first, second and third example, is to add a feeling or emotion toward the 
communicative act as a whole (feeling or emotion in parallel to the communicative act). This is in 
corroboration to Yus’s study (2014) on the 8-function economy of emojis.  

 

3.1.2. Punctuation Mark Repeats 

     In Computer-mediated Communication (CMC), researchers noted Punctuation Mark Repeats 
as one of the many paralinguistic cues used by the majority of people. In the case of the Filipino Deaf-
mute Facebook users, from the analysis of the corpus, it has the second most number with a total of 
35 occurrences observed. 

Table 2.  Punctuation Mark Repeats found in the data 

Reference Example Posts PMR Text 

[P4S3]  

 

!!!!!! Hi everyone Please 

May I help at do 
chat to sadness me 

[P3CS6]  ????? Igat [a flirt] 

     

 In the examples shown in Table 2, P4S3 repeatedly used exclamatory points. An exclamation 
point is a punctuation mark that expresses a strong emotion. In the second example from P3CS6, 
repetition of the question mark is observable which entails that something about the comment is 
uncertain or not understandable by the owner of the status/post. Corroborating the study of Balgoa 
and Embradura (2014), the data revealed that just like how the speaking and hearing persons speak, 
the deaf-mute students also speak with varying degrees of emotions using repeated punctuation marks. 
In addition, Balgoa and Embradura (2014) posited that aside from facial expressions and gestures, 
people speak with sound level variations, the tone of voice changes, and the rate changes. For us to 
deliver these orally, we need punctuation marks to serve as our “markers” on when to stop, to pause, 
and to emphasize, among others. But Computer-mediated Communication (CMC), in its very nature, 
is written discourse. Since then, these typographical symbols have been used differently. However, 
there are instances that punctuation marks are just used as figurative expressions or markers but have 
no semantic role in their language. 

     The study shows a recurring pattern in the use of punctuation marks as a paralinguistic cue used 
by the Filipino Deaf-mute Facebook user observed below.  

 

3.1.3. Onomatopoeic Spelling 

     Onomatopoeic Spelling ranked third with a total of 34 occurrences in the paralinguistic cues 
used by Filipino deaf-mute students. It endeavors to reproduce sounds by means of written language. 
The examples below show from Person 1 (Status 9) as well as its comment (also from another Deaf-
mute Facebook user) that the word “haha” is also used by a significant number of Filipino Deaf-mute 
Facebook users to restitute the sound of laughter. 

Data in Table 3 show the deaf-mute students’ use of ‘haha’ and ‘mwaaa’ to express laughter and 
restitute the act of smooching or kissing. Balgoa and Embradura (2014) emphasized that either we are 
happy, frustrated, or angry---these can be expressed through sounds. In the case of the Filipino Deaf-
mute netizens, they use their knowledge of sounds, because according to the Deaf and native ASL 
speaker, Michele Westfall, “Deaf people are not mentally blind to the concept of sound. Most of us 
can hear something, provided it is loud enough. There are other ways to listen, to collect information, 
to communicate and to learn, most of them do not require sound”. This is what happens in the use of 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 83 
 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

onomatopoeic spelling as a paralinguistic cue; a successful attempt to express sound features in a 
solely textual environment. 

Table 3.  Onomatopoeic found in the data 

Reference Example Posts Onomatopoeic Spelling Text 

[P1S9]  

 
 

haha I’m I can’t laugh stop very my 

classmates. Happy fool’s 
day…haha still seriously not 

don’t hurt idk 

  hahaha Why laugh you 

  mwaaa Thankyou mwaaaa nah, no 
more than ya 

 

 

 

 

     3.1.4. Accent Stylization (subcategory: stylized words) 

     Next to Onomatopoeic Spelling is Accent Stylization, with a total of 24 occurrences observed 
in the paralinguistic restitution of the Filipino deaf-mute netizens. It is a subcategory of non-
conventional spelling as discussed in the Theoretical Framework of this study. It refers to words that 
are spelled in accordance with informal regional speech, for example, “wanna/want to”, “gonna/going 
to”, and “dat/that” (Crystal, 2008 cited in Balgoa & Embradura, 2014), shown in Table 4. 

Table 4.  Accent Stylization found in the data 

Reference Example 

Posts 

Accent 

Stylization 

Text 

[P1CS6]  
 

 

sissy 
bro 

 

I look like it 
so Pretty my 

sissy 

Thank you my 

bro 

[P2S7]  wanna 
didn’t 

don’t 

It’s okay I 
don’t really 

mind! I didn’t 

wanna see you 

anymore 

 

From the data, it is noticeable that the words “sissy” and “bro” are stylized from the words “sister” 
and “brother”. In addition, the use of ‘wanna’, ‘didn’t, ‘don’t’ in the second example from Person 2 
(Status 7), shows a characteristic of non-conventional spelled words of want to, did not, and do not. 
This is seen as in corroboration to Elizondo’s (2011) finding that the use of non-conventional spelling 
like accent stylization as a paralinguistic cue is largely due to people wanting to inject their accent in 
written discourse. In this study, accent stylization is found as a discursive strategy that entails 
informality during a conversation with friends. 

 

 

 

 



84 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

3.1.5. Intensification 

     Being the fifth most used paralinguistic cue in this study, with a total of 23 occurrences, 
intensification functions to intensify normal text by (a) repeated vowel/consonant or (b) caps-locking. 
The data showed a significant number of occurrences shown in Table 5. 

Table 5.  Intensification found in the data 

Reference Example Posts Intensification Text 
[P1CS1]  

 
 

 

Caps-locked 

Wow nice please 

profile react love 
comments 

[P3CS1]  Repeated vowel Thankyouuuuuuu 

mwasss! Ha, no 

more than ya 

 

     In the first example, we noticed that all the words are written in capital letters (caps-locking). 
This gives an impression of loudness, emphasis, and importance to the text (Balgoa & Embradura, 
2014). While in the second example, we notice that the phrase “thank you” is prolonged by repeating 
the vowel “u”. There is lengthening of the /U/ sound if we read it aloud because it was spelled to be 
pronounced in the same manner. In this sense, the phrase “thank you” is intensified using an informal 
spelling to compensate for the loss of sound in Computer-mediated Communication. The use of 
repeated vowels or consonants and caps-locking function to highlight important points that the deaf-
mute wanted to emphasize. 

 

3.1.6. Hashtag and Combinations 

      Hashtag, with 9 occurrences during the analysis, is a kind of marker used by the Filipino Deaf-
mute Facebook users to help the readers to further understand what the writer is talking about. The 
occurrence of hashtag also aims to add intensity to the post. While Combinations are two or more 
paralinguistic cues used simultaneously. The occurrence of such is reminiscent of the co-temporality 
and simultaneous use of verbal and non-verbal cues (Kalman & Gergle, 2014). The example from 
P3S1 in Table 6 shows combination of Emoticons/Emojis and Intensification which implies that for a 
deaf-mute student to create a more expressive post, he or she tends to use more than one paralinguistic 
cue. 

 

3.2. Lexico-semantic Features of the Deaf-mute Language 

     Filipino Deaf-mute language has its distinct features as discussed in the previous section of this 
paper. However, there is also a need to analyze these features in a different level of analysis especially 
in the lexico-semantic aspect of their language specifically in terms of the grammatical errors—
syntactical and lexical found. In this study, the researcher observed the occurrences of lexical semantic 
features that are common in the Facebook posts of the Deaf-mute individuals who participated in this 
study. The features include: 

3.2.1 Syntactic Errors.  

     The English language follows a standard position of words in a sentence such as noun/subject 
followed by a verb and followed by an object or a compliment. In normal communication, the 
utterance “I can’t stop laughing” follows the order subject-verb-gerund which acts as a compliment. 
However, the sample excerpt “I’m can’t laugh stop” [P1S9] is an illustration that deaf-mute follows 
this order: subject-initial verb-complement-main verb. 

 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 85 
 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

Table 6.  Hashtag and Combinations 

Reference Example Posts Hastag & 

Combinations 

         Text 

[P4S5]  

 

# and emoticons I’m be happy so proud to 
smile your thank God of 

Blessed 

[P2S6] 

 

# and emoticons I’m alone” I’ve never 

celebrated a Vaelntine’s Day 

[P2S9]   # and emoticons I wish, I just think so 

seriously! I not have to let go! 
And I can’t I just can’t do it. 

And I want to continue to 

stay in this house..I’m never 

gonna see him again. And I 
can’t believe it has to be him. 

I don’t want to talk to her but 

I don’t know, how he was 

going to feel or react to it.  

[P3S1] 

 

Emoticons combined 
with words 

Kind just to place simple 

 

3.2.2. Redundancy  

Redundancy is a common feature in the language of the Deaf-mute from the data.  Redundancy, 
generally refers to any feature of a language that is not necessary in order to identify a linguistic unit. 
Basically, it is the repetition of the same idea or item of information within a phrase, clause, or 
sentence as in the example “Don’t never no”. The word ‘don’t’, ‘never’ and ‘no’ are examples of 
negations, which is put together in a clause that makes them redundant. Findings corroborated 
Maxwell & Falick’s (1992) study showing that repetition happens in the language of those hard in 
hearing. It also corroborated the study of Yoshinaga- Itano and her colleagues (Bornstein 2018) that 
a few redundancies are found in dead-mute language.  

 

 

     Another example is the use of “I’m I” which is redundant if read or written by normal speakers 
but for the dead-mute this may sound a normal way of saying something one would want to emphasize 

 



86 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

or make sure that he is understood. This corroborates to the point Ellis (2008) said on negotiation of 
meaning which is “the collaborative work which speakers undertake to achieve mutual 
understanding”. For the dead-mute, this is their way of securing they are understood or that their points 
are “heard well”; thus, compensating the loss of prosodic cues and repeating the word with a slight 
modification is a way of “carry over a message: or what Elizondo (2011) calls as “to compensate for 
the lost prosodic cues”.  

3.2.3. Incorrect lexical Choice 

     It was observed that the Deaf-mute exhibit more incorrect lexical choice. The performance 
of the deaf students is significantly below that of their hearing peers in terms of lexical and syntactic 
development at the sentence level. The example below shows the wrong use of adjective, confidence 
for confident, and the use of beautifully instead of beautiful.  

 

 

Prepositions form a small but very important word class. In this study, the researcher found the 
deaf-mute students’ use of preposition, either lacking or inserted, is observable in their posts. For 
instance, the preposition ‘in’ should not be inserted in “You have heart in very strong”, instead, the 
sentence should be written like this: “You have a very strong heart”.  Table 7 shows extracted samples 
from the data.  

 

 

 

3.3. Functions of the Paralinguistic Signals and Lexico-semantic Features in the Negotiation 

of Meaning  

By way of using paralinguistic signals in the FB posts, the Filipino deaf-mute netizens have shown 
that they are also capable of communicating the way hearing people do as evidenced in emojis, 
punctuation marks, stylized words, onomatopoeic spelling, intensification, hashtag, and the 
combinations of these signals. These paralinguistic signals contribute to extending the level of 
understanding in terms of how the deaf-mute negotiate meaning in Facebook. Some posts were 
difficult to comprehend but with the help of these paralinguistic signals, interpretations can be made 
easier, and comprehension can be facilitated. In this study, they function as facilitators of meaning 
through giving emphasis, intensifying intonations, among others. 

Table 7.  Grammatical Errors on Deaf-Mute People’s FB Posts 

Incorrect Position of 

Words 

Redundancy Incorrect Lexical Choice Insertions of/lacking 

Prepositions 
“Please profile react love 

comments” 

“I’m very over” “You don’t ugly’ “…don’t love of you” 

“why me send” “I’m I” “You are so beautifully” “God of blessed” 

“face cute” “….seriously not don’t” “seriously confidence” “You have a heart in very 
strong” 

“jacket blue” “see not don’t never no” “Yes, I’m are”  

“sunlight brighter” “never not feeling” “I am seriously”  

“style simple” “you can’t never”   

“good very” “not don’t understand”   
“style nice”    

“very you’re so pretty”    

“face gay”    

“I know yes”    

 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 87 
 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

Moreover, in the linguistic aspect of the Deaf-mutes’ negotiation of meaning, the characteristics 
of the posts revealed lexico-semantic features such as grammatical errors at the syntactical and lexical 
level. The posts were understandable despite that, either constructed in sentences or in fragments, they 
do not follow the standard rules of grammar but were recognizable by the help of lexical items 
perceived to be common among their population. The lexico-semantic features, which are the deficit 
in grammar---incorrect positioning   present in their posts do not have a specific function in the 
negotiation of meaning for a reason that, according to Teng (2010), understanding of the semantic 
content of a message can be accomplished either with or without any comprehension of the syntax 
because it may be accomplished through the recognition of isolated lexical items and interpretation of 
non-linguistic cues or paralinguistic signals. 

It is remarkable in the analysis of this study that Deaf-mute Facebook users exhibit paralinguistic 
signals which are also present in the computer-mediated communication used by hearing people. But 
one integral thing that is observable in this study was the deficiency in grammatical knowledge 
employed by the Deaf-mute Facebook users when it comes to written discourse. Writing is one of the 
most complex and difficult tasks for the challenged people like Deaf-mute. Several authors (Robinson 
& Henner, 2017; Yunbao & Huayin, 2008) corroborate to the difficulty that Deaf people have in 
writing English. The texts they produce have deficiency in cohesive devices to tie text together. 
Because of difficulty accessing and learning English on its syntactical and morphological structures, 
either auditorily or visually, they make numerous errors at the sentence level. In addition, because 
many Deaf have difficulty with reading, their exposure to models of good writing may be limited. 
This has to do with the study that typicality in the sign modality shows many of the same 
characteristics as linguistic deficits in hearing people. Deaf people often struggle with complex 
morphology; their lexical processing is less efficient (Pozos, et al., 2017) and that deaf people make 
slower progress than hearing people; however, there is little evidence that sign language interferes 
with the development of spoken language and, in fact, it may support spoken language development 
according to Yoshinag-Itano (in Sass-Lehrer, 2014). 

Moreover, meaning is still negotiated and being responded by fellow Deaf-mute Facebook users 
as observed in the data gathered and despite that their syntactic skills employed in their comments did 
not conform to the standard rules of grammar. Evidently, commenters also committed syntactical 
errors in writing their comments but were still able to negotiate and being responded by fellow Deaf-
mute. Interestingly, it demonstrated that this group of Deaf-mute who belong to a similar and familiar 
community, have understood each other. According to Teng (2010), comprehension represents the 
hypothesis that understanding of the semantic content of a message can be accomplished either with 
or without any comprehension of the syntax. Semantic comprehension is not expected to help in the 
acquisition of the syntactic system because it may be accomplished through the recognition of isolated 
lexical items and interpretation of non-linguistic cues. When comprehension takes place through a 
combination of semantic and syntactic processing, the linguistic characteristics of the input can 
become an intake, that is, comprehended language that holds the potential for developing the students’ 
linguistic system.  

To summarize, the written language of Deaf-mutes differs from their hearing peers on several 
dimensions. Their writing continues to improve with age. However, students with severe and profound 
hearing losses, like the informants of this study, remain considerably delayed when compared with 
their hearing peers and their use of the social media is a great equalizer as they tried to assimilate in 
communicating with anyone. It is then a common observation of the Deaf-mute Facebook users to 
have grammar which does not conform to the standard rule but is still negotiated because 
comprehension of meaning can function between this group of challenged individuals with or without 
the comprehension of syntax, which also means that paralinguistic cues and other features in their 
written discourse are essential in the negotiation of meaning.  

4.  Conclusion 

The study sought to determine the paralinguistic and linguistic signals that deaf-mute students used 
in their Facebook posts as they negotiate meaning. The Study found that most predominantly used 
paralinguistic restitution of signals include Emoticons/Emoji, Punctuation Mark Repeats, 
Onomatopoeic Spelling, Accent Stylization, Intensification, Hashtag and Combination. These 
linguistic units have distinctive functions as the Deaf-mute tried to understand and to be understood. 



88 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

Just like normal hearing people, they also restituted facial expressions through emoticons or emojis. 
As Balgoa and Embradura (2014) stated, this explains why emoticons seemed to complete the message 
of a text: the person encoding an emoticon/emoji is or would be expressing the same facial expression 
in Face-to-Face interaction for a certain situation because emojis represent the feelings, place, object, 
etc. It either complements or supplements what the text cannot supply. 

In addition, Yoshinaga-Itano (in Bornstein, 2008) argues that Deaf-mute Facebook users make 
slower progress than hearing people and the texts they produce have a deficiency in cohesive devices 
to tie text together. In relation to this, there are recurring patterns of lexico-semantic features in terms 
of grammatical errors which were found in the language of the Deaf-mute in Facebook. These include 
(1) incorrect position of words, (2) redundancy, (3) incorrect lexical choice, and (4) insertion of 
prepositions/lacking prepositions. However, meanings were still negotiated and being responded by 
fellow Deaf-mute Facebook users as observed in the data. In addition, the study has shown their 
deficiency in grammatical knowledge, that is, not conforming to the standard rules of grammar; 
however, this does not hinder comprehension since the understanding of the semantic content of a 
message is possible with or without any comprehension of the syntax. Semantic comprehension is not 
expected to help in acquiring the syntactic system because comprehension may be accomplished 
through recognizing isolated lexical items and interpreting non-linguistic cues.  

In recommendation, the study hopes that future researchers can generate more categories or themes 
on the functions of paralinguistic and linguistic features in the negotiation of meaning by and between 
Deaf-mute individuals. For future directions of the study and for researchers who would want to 
replicate this study, the following may be considered: (1) Paralinguistic signals and computer-
mediated communication for the deaf-mute across generations and races can be considered for further 
study; and, (2) Collaborators or researchers from other fields can design appropriate technological 
tools that can automate found errors in the posts of the deaf-mute in social media in order to 
mainstream people with special needs.  

Acknowledgment 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the panel members of this thesis, Assistant 
Professor Helen Betonio-Abucay and retired Professor Rosemarie B. Purganan whose efforts in 
thoroughly examining the manuscript is commendable.  

Declarations 

Author contribution    : Cristine Grace was responsible for the entire research project. The second 
author is mainly responsible in re-shaping and rewriting the manuscript for 
publication purposes. Both authors approved the final manuscript. 

Funding statement : This research did not receive any funding. 

Conflict of interest : Both authors declare that they have no competing interests. 

Additional information: Venus Parmisana, Ph.D., is currently the Chairperson of the Department of 
English of the College of Arts and Social Sciences of the Mindanao State 
University-Iligan Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT), Iligan City, 
Philippines. while Cristine Grace Badilla is currently working as an 
administrative services assistant in a government-owned corporation in 
Lanao Del Norte, Philippines. 

REFERENCES  

American Sign Language. (n.d.) National Institute of Deafness and Communication Disorder. Retrieved from 

https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/american-sign-language 

Amaghlobeli, Natia (2012). Linguistic Features of Typographic Emoticons in SMS Discourse. Theory and 

Practice in Language Studies 2(2) DOI:  10.4304/tpls.2.2.348-354 

Antia, S. D., Lederberg, A. R., Easterbrooks, S., Schick, B., Branum-Martin, L., Connor, C. M., & Webb, M. 

Y. (2020). Language and reading progress of young deaf and hard-of-hearing children. The Journal of 

Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 25(3), 334-350. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enz050 

https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/american-sign-language
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Natia-Amaghlobeli-2074043533?_sg%5B0%5D=zlL_S135Q0idXM1UBpF9b_QM8Y66PBOZj5roSjnEB9U58p8nqeZZjqYro4ttrc14osCoYTY.gUK2K_y-DRJaBUDQaQ1qOFj4Uqdyz2Qbt9y87aRq6cLgs9pAj5BOuvkjFt63VJPfumSKnLqFTj7HLMd2wTjueg.YPcqEByhQgyk613JJOFtVONqV99PUbMJMORd6-oJcKGNFKw_fiSJw35yyrBu93Dq5CtJSmpLoHBL2BYZprH_Ug&_sg%5B1%5D=yzyafgWHCZVIj0W4etQtktvJV_3wKAo7JetIKVyBr7Fi_tfIXJaPRXMjFoOolwSCvKyvvRU.UNSOd93eyEWGS4dgQgyofodfVohvpbr2PrUiCAqy5_2783Mthh1k5V1-kaZESWSGH-72rZz3aPgOowC6jRWNRA
http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.2.348-354
https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enz050


ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 89 
 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

Balgoa, P.N. & Embradura, I. (2014). Restitution in Computer-mediated Communication: Encoding 

Paralinguistic Signals in Facebook Posts. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. MSU-Iligan Institute of 

Technology. 

Bornstein, S. (2018). The Importance of Early Identification and Intervention for Children with Hearing Loss. 

Journal of Healthcare Communications ISSN 2472-1654. www.imedpub.com 

Brice, P. J., & Strauss, G. (2016). Deaf adolescents in a hearing world: a review of factors affecting 

psychosocial adaptation. Adolescent health, medicine and therapeutics, 7, 67. 

doi: 10.2147/AHMT.S60261 

Cabalfin. E., Martinez, L., Guevara, R.C., Naval, Jr, P. (2012). Filipino Sign Language Recognition using 

Manifold Projection Learning. https://doi.org/10.1109/TENCON.2012.6412231 

Cook, J. (2015). Negotiation for Meaning and Feedback among Language Learners. Journal of Language 

Teaching and Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 250-257, March 2015 https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0602.02 

Deafness and Hearing Loss. (2010). National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. Retrieved 

from deaf-hearing.p65 (parentcenterhub.org) 

Elizondo, J. (2011). Not 2 Cryptic 2 DCode: Paralinguistic restitution, deletion, and non-standard orthography 

in text messages. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10066/6804 

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 

Hartman, Maria C., Onudeah D. Nicolarakis, and Ye Wang. (2019). "Language and Literacy: Issues and 

Considerations" Education Sciences 9, no. 3: 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030180 

Kalman, Y. and Gergle, D. (2014). Letter repetitions in computer-mediated communication: A unique link 

between spoken and online language. Computers in Human Behavior. Volume 34, 187-193. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.047  

Kostic, M and Vilic, V. (2016). Hate Speech on The Internet. Law and Politics Vol. 14, No 1, 2016, pp. 31 – 

40. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324721041_HATE_SPEECH_ 

ON_THE_INTERNET  

Laugen, N. J., Jacobsen, K. H., Rieffe, C., & Wichstrøm, L. (2017). Social skills in preschool children with 

unilateral and mild bilateral hearing loss. Deafness & Education International, 19(2), 54-62. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/14643154.2017.1344366 

Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language 

Teaching, 51(3), 285-329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000125 

Marschark, M., & Knoors, H. (2012). Educating deaf children: Language, cognition, and learning. Deafness & 

education international, 14(3), 136-160. https://doi.org/10.1179/1557069X12Y.0000000010 

Martinez, L. (2012). Primer on Filipino Sign Language. Available at: Primer on Filipino Sign Language | 

Inquirer Opinion 

National Institute for Deafness and Other Communication Disorder (NIDCD) (n.d.) (2019).  NIDCD (nih.gov) 

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics (2017). Retrieved from Oxford Research Encyclopedia of 

Linguistics. 

Philippine Deaf Resource Center (PDRC). (n.d.)  Preliminary Sectoral Position Papers for an Initiative in 

Language Planning for Sign Language Policy for the Republic of the Philippines: A Compilation. 

Philippine Deaf Resource Center -www.phildeafres.org | Human Rights Online Philippines 

(hronlineph.com) 

Pizer, G., Walters, K., Meier, R. (2012). “We Communicated That Way for a Reason”: Language Practices and 

Language Ideologies Among Hearing Adults Whose Parents Are Deaf, Oxford University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ens031 

Pozos, D. Q., Singleton, J., & Hauser, P (2017). A Case of Specific Language Impairment in a Deaf Signer of 

American Sign Language, The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 

204–218, https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw074 

http://www.imedpub.com/
https://doi.org/10.2147%2FAHMT.S60261
https://doi.org/10.1109/TENCON.2012.6412231
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0602.02
https://www.parentcenterhub.org/wp-content/uploads/repo_items/fs3.pdf
http://hdl.handle.net/10066/6804
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030180
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07475632
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07475632/34/supp/C
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.047
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324721041_HATE_SPEECH_%20ON_THE_INTERNET
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324721041_HATE_SPEECH_%20ON_THE_INTERNET
https://doi.org/10.1080/14643154.2017.1344366
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000125
https://doi.org/10.1179/1557069X12Y.0000000010
https://opinion.inquirer.net/41909/primer-on-filipino-sign-language
https://opinion.inquirer.net/41909/primer-on-filipino-sign-language
https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/
https://oxfordre.com/linguistics?url=%2Fview%2F10.1093%2Foxfordhb%2F9780195324907.001.0001%2Foxfordhb-9780195324907-e-019
https://oxfordre.com/linguistics?url=%2Fview%2F10.1093%2Foxfordhb%2F9780195324907.001.0001%2Foxfordhb-9780195324907-e-019
https://hronlineph.com/2013/01/03/featured-site-philippine-deaf-resource-center-www-phildeafres-org/
https://hronlineph.com/2013/01/03/featured-site-philippine-deaf-resource-center-www-phildeafres-org/
https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ens031
https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw074


90 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 5, No. 1, 2022, pp. 75-90 

 Parmisana, V. R., and Badilla, C.G., (“Don’t, never no”: Negotiating meaning in ESL …..) 

Quindala, J and J. Omongos (2018). The Digital Natives: A Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis of Filipino 

Millennials’ Language on Facebook. An Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. MSU-Iligan Institute of 

Technology, Philippines. 

Robinson, O. E., & Henner, J. (2017). The personal is political in The Deaf Mute Howls: deaf epistemology 

seeks disability justice. Disability & Society, 32(9), 1416-1436. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1313723 

Sass-Lehrer, M. (2014). Early beginnings for children who are deaf or hard of hearing: Guidelines for effective 

services. Retrieved from Early Beginnings for Families with Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children: 

(gallaudet.edu) 

Saunders, K. C. (2016). A Double-Edged Sword: Social Media as a Tool of Online Disinhibition Regarding 

American Sign Language and Deaf Cultural Experience Marginalization, and as a Tool of Cultural and 

Linguistic Exposure. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115624529 

Schuller, B., et al. (2013) Paralinguistics in speech and language—State-of-the-art and the challenge. Computer 

Speech and Language 27. 4-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2012.02.005 

Teng, Xuan (2010). "Negotiation of meaning in synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC): The 

role of online chat in second language vocabulary development". Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 

11518. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/11518 

Thurlow, C. and Poff, M. (2013). Text Messaging. In S.C. Herring, D. Stein, & T. Vertanen, (eds.) The 

Handbook of Pragmatics of CMC. Berlin. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468 

UNESCO. (2015). Education for all 2015 national review report: Philippines. Incheon: World Education 

Forum. guidelinesnationalefa2015reviewsenglish19062013.pdf (unesco.org) 

Yunbao, Y., & Huaying, Z. (2008). What" Crazy English" Can Tell Us? Inspiration and Motivation from Li 

Yang. International Education Studies, 1(2), 18-21. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v1n2p18 

Yus, F. (2014). Not all emoticons are created equal. Linguagem em (Dis) curso, 14 (3) 511-529. 
https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-140304-0414 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1313723
https://www.gallaudet.edu/Documents/Clerc/Early%20Beginnings.pdf
https://www.gallaudet.edu/Documents/Clerc/Early%20Beginnings.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115624529
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2012.02.005
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/11518
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Santiago/pdf/guidelinesnationalefa2015reviewsenglish19062013.pdf
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v1n2p18
https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-140304-0414

