Polygraph Testing
Lizor et al.
this notion is too simplistic and can cause a number of misunderstandings. The fact that ASL is a
signed language (whereas English is not) must not be overlooked. Not only does ASL possess its
own structure (e.g., phonological, morphological, and syntactic) in comparison to English or any
spoken language, this language is tuned to the visual/gestural modality. This results in young deaf
children acquiring and mastering ASL with ease. The ease of communication through ASL also
occurs among deaf children and adults. English is a different matter as it operates in a far less
accessible spoken language modality. Deaf people may manage to learn to read and write in
English as their second language, but ASL remains their language of choice (Supalla & Cripps,
2008; see Cripps & Supalla, 2012 for further discussion on the linguistic accessibility issues for
deaf people).
What seems to be critically important for taking a polygraph test is the recognition of ASL
as deaf people’s language. This means that if at any time hearing people engage in oral language
discourse by speaking and hearing English as found during the polygraph testing procedure, deaf
people need to do the same through signing and watching, with ASL for effective participation.
The fact that a polygraph examiner is most likely a non-signer should not be seen as a barrier for
deaf people in taking the exam. The employment of a certified legal interpreter to sign what the
polygraph examiner has to say can serve as an effective compensation for the deaf examinee.
Unfortunately, the needs of deaf people are not widely understood in the context of hearing
society. Hearing people are prone to take for granted the language and communication issues that
affect the administration of the polygraph test with deaf people. A typical question posed to a deaf
individual upon encountering a hearing person for the first time is: “Can you read my lips?” with
exaggerated mouth movements. While the deaf individual may be able to understand the question,
they are inclined to shake their head to say ‘no’ for reasons of linguistic accessibility. The hearing
person may be perplexed at the deaf person’s negative answer or over what to do next. This
communication breakdown has roots in the hearing person’s naive presumptions and outlook on
what language means for deaf people. This includes the thought that making English visual through
speech reading (also referred to as lipreading) is all that is required for achieving effective
communication. Speech reading is when a person with a hearing loss is expected to understand
communication that is made on the lips, to read the lip movements of the speaker. McAleer (2006)
found that even highly skilled lip-readers can only capture approximately 30 to 40% of the message
(this percentage does not assume they understand the meaning of the words), while the majority
rely on either guesswork or pretending to understand what is being said to them.
What may be surprising for readers of this paper is how the level of academic
understanding about the polygraph examination and deaf people is not where it should be. The
case for linguistic accessibility may be strong, but the research literature is not clear on ASL. It is
necessary to review the literature and understand how ambiguity prevails in regard to deaf people’s
language and communication needs. It will be seen that addressing the best platform for
performing the polygraph examination with deaf people is not necessarily a priority. This explains,
in part, why a new research study has been undertaken for this paper.
Literature Review
Polygraph testing occurs in various settings and among various populations, and deaf
people are included. Polygraph tests are conducted during law enforcement investigations,
probation and parole, pre-employment screening, and in the private sector. Pre-employment
polygraph testing involves exploring the candidates’ prior job history, substance abuse, and
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No.1 – Spring/Summer 2018
5