Language development in a bimodal bilingual child with cochlear implant: A longitudinal study

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 798-809 ◽  
Author(s):  
PASQUALE RINALDI ◽  
MARIA CRISTINA CASELLI
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Early Age ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Vocabulary Growth ◽  
The Relationship

To address the negative effects of deafness on spoken language acquisition, many clinicians suggest using cochlear implant (CI) and oral education and advise against sign language, even when combined with spoken language (i.e., bilingualism), believing that it may slow down spoken language development. In a deaf child with CI who was exposed at an early age to Italian Sign Language and spoken Italian, we evaluated language development and the relationship between the two languages. The number of words/signs produced by the child consistently increased with age, and the vocabulary growth rate in spoken Italian was equivalent to that of hearing peers. Before CI, the child relied almost exclusively on sign language; after CI, he gradually shifted to spoken Italian yet still used sign language when unable to retrieve words in spoken Italian. We conclude that bimodal bilingualism may scaffold the development of spoken language also in deaf children with CI.

Language Development and Deaf Children

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Marschark ◽  
Harry G. Lang ◽  
John A. Albertini
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Academic Success ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
University Center ◽  
Language Modality ◽  
Hearing Children

To understand the complex relations between language and learning, we have to look at both how children learn language and what it is that they learn that allows them to communicate with others. To accomplish this, we need to distinguish between apparent differences in language that are related to the modality of communication and actual differences in language fluencies observed among deaf children. It also will help to examine some relevant differences between deaf children and hearing children. We have already pointed out that the distinction between spoken language and sign language, while a theoretically important one for researchers, is an oversimplification for most practical purposes. It is rare that deaf children are exposed only to spoken language or sign language, even if that is the intention of their parents or teachers. According to 1999 data, approximately 55 percent of deaf children in the United States are formally educated in programs that report either using sign language exclusively (just over 5 percent) or signed and spoken language together (just over 49 percent) (Gallaudet University, Center for Applied Demographic Statistics). Because almost half of all deaf children in the United States are missed in such surveys, however, these numbers only should be taken as approximate. Comparisons of the language abilities of deaf children who primarily use sign language with those who primarily use spoken language represent one of the most popular and potentially informative areas in research relating to language development and academic success. Unfortunately, this area is also one of the most complex. Educational programs emphasizing spoken or sign language often have different educational philosophies and curricula as well as different communication philosophies. Programs may only admit children with particular histories of early intervention, and parents will be drawn to different programs for a variety of reasons. Differences observed between children from any two programs thus might be the result of a number of variables rather than, or in addition to, language modality per se. Even when deaf children are educated in spoken language environments, they often develop systems of gestural communication with their parents (Greenberg et al., 1984).

scholarly journals Early language intervention in deaf children of hearing parents

Per Linguam ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-27
Author(s):  
Annemarie Le Roux ◽  
Marga Stander
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
School Readiness ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Language Intervention ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Language Exposure ◽  
Early Language Intervention

Language development is often hampered by the fact that 90 per cent of deaf children are born into hearing families who do not know Sign language (SL) or haven't had any previous contact with the deaf world. Such parents often use only spoken language to communicate with the child, which results in no or very little language exposure. Many deaf children only start to learn a language, signed or spoken, when they start attending school, usually between the ages of three and seven. As a result, the deaf child has a delay in cognitive and language development and finds it hard to learn a SL, like South African Sign Language (SASL), as well as a written language (e.g., English). This late exposure to SL proves to be a serious cognitive problem for deaf children when compared to those children who acquired language from birth. This problem led to the research question namely, whether deaf children’s language and cognition can still develop to the required level for school readiness if early language intervention (ELI) takes place within the critical period of language acquisition. To answer the question, a case study was done at a school for the deaf and blind with a small group of deaf learners in the foundation phase. The results show that the little language exposure these children received in only one year of school already made a huge difference to their language and cognitive development. This article also makes recommendations to the various stakeholders in deaf education.

Family ASL: An Early Start to Equitable Education for Deaf Children

2021 ◽  
pp. 027112142110313
Author(s):  
Diane C. Lillo-Martin ◽  
Elaine Gale ◽  
Deborah Chen Pichler
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Early Exposure ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Early Adoption ◽  
Language Deprivation ◽  
Equitable Education

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children experience systematic barriers to equitable education due to intentional or unintentional ableist views that can lead to a general lack of awareness about the value of natural sign languages and insufficient resources supporting sign language development. Furthermore, an imbalance of information in favor of spoken languages often stems from a phonocentric perspective that views signing as an inferior form of communication that also hinders the development of spoken language. On the contrary, research demonstrates that early adoption of a natural sign language confers critical protection from the risks of language deprivation without endangering spoken language development. In this position paper, we draw attention to deep societal biases about language in the information presented to parents of DHH children, against early exposure to a natural sign language. We outline actions that parents and professionals can adopt to maximize DHH children’s chances for on-time language development.

The Medium and the Message

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy Sandler
Keyword(s):  
Facial Expression ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Prosodic Word ◽  
Special Stress ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Phonological Phrase ◽  
The Relationship

In natural communication, the medium through which language is transmitted plays an important and systematic role. Sentences are broken up rhythmically into chunks; certain elements receive special stress; and, in spoken language, intonational tunes are superimposed onto these chunks in particular ways — all resulting in an intricate system of prosody. Investigations of prosody in Israeli Sign Language demonstrate that sign languages have comparable prosodic systems to those of spoken languages, although the phonetic medium is completely different. Evidence for the prosodic word and for the phonological phrase in ISL is examined here within the context of the relationship between the medium and the message. New evidence is offered to support the claim that facial expression in sign languages corresponds to intonation in spoken languages, and the term “superarticulation” is coined to describe this system in sign languages. Interesting formaldiffer ences between the intonationaltunes of spoken language and the “superarticulatory arrays” of sign language are shown to offer a new perspective on the relation between the phonetic basis of language, its phonological organization, and its communicative content.

scholarly journals Deaf children need language, not (just) speech

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Hall ◽  
Wyatte C. Hall ◽  
Naomi K. Caselli
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Language Deprivation ◽  
Language Exposure ◽  
Harmful Effects

Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) children need to master at least one language (spoken or signed) to reach their full potential. Providing access to a natural sign language supports this goal. Despite evidence that natural sign languages are beneficial to DHH children, many researchers and practitioners advise families to focus exclusively on spoken language. We critique the Pediatrics article ‘Early Sign Language Exposure and Cochlear Implants’ (Geers et al., 2017) as an example of research that makes unsupported claims against the inclusion of natural sign languages. We refute claims that (1) there are harmful effects of sign language and (2) that listening and spoken language are necessary for optimal development of deaf children. While practical challenges remain (and are discussed) for providing a sign language-rich environment, research evidence suggests that such challenges are worth tackling in light of natural sign languages providing a host of benefits for DHH children – especially in the prevention and reduction of language deprivation.

What We Can Learn From Hearing Parents of Deaf Children

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Flaherty
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Deaf Education ◽  
Phenomenological Approach ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf Community ◽  
Life Stages ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Language Technologies ◽  
Depth Interviews

Hearing parents of deaf children face stresses and demands related to parenting a deaf child, including difficult choices about language, technologies, education and identity for their children (Marschark, 1997). To date, few researchers have discussed the unique challenges faced by this group. Through a series of semistructured, in-depth interviews with 18 parents, this study investigated the experiences of hearing parents of deaf children spanning various life stages. A phenomenological approach identified 5 themes most pertinent to understanding their experiences. Each theme offers insight, particularly for professionals, into the distinctive issues that might arise at the time of diagnosis of deafness and reveals the challenges hearing parents face when confronted with a barrage of decisions, including choice of oral or sign language, mainstream or special deaf education, and identity with the hearing or Deaf community. The central message from this work is to inform hearing parents of deaf children and professionals working with these parents of the likely challenges that they may face.

scholarly journals Adoption of the sign language with deaf and hard of hearing preschool children

Bastina ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 513-535
Author(s):  
Tamara Kovačević ◽  
Ljubica Isaković
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Children ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Preschool Age ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
The Family ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
Hearing Children

This study analyses the process of adopting of the sign language with deaf and hard of hearing preschool children in the context of the result of linguistic and psycholinguistic research. The importance of the sign language is emphasized and its historical development is analyzed. It is pointed to the significance of the critical period for the adoption and the learning of the sign and spoken language with deaf and hard of hearing preschool children. The sign language is natural and primary linguistic expression of deaf children. Deaf and hard of hearing children are exposed to the sign and spoken language, they have better understanding and linguistic production than the children who are only exposed to the spoken language. Bilingualism involves the knowledge and the regular use of the sign language, which is used by the deaf community, and of the spoken language, which is used by the hearing majority. Children at the preschool age should be enabled to continue to adopt the language they started to adopt within the family (the sign language or the spoken language). Children will adopt the best both linguistic modalities through the interaction with other fluent speakers (the adults and children).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document