Dialogue in Deaf and Hearing Preschoolers

1982 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura S. McKirdy ◽  
Marion Blank
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Age ◽  
The Other ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Communication Framework ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Pattern Of Performance

The language interactions of pairs of preschool-age deaf and preschool-age hearing children were recorded in play sessions and analyzed according to a system for assessing dialogue that has been developed by the second author, In the system, each person over the course of a dialogue is seen its playing two roles: one as speaker-initiator (who puts forth ideas) the other as speaker-responder (who responds to the ideas that have been put forth by the partner in the dialogue). The results indicated that both roles were used by the deaf and the hearing dyads, but their pattern of performance was different. As speaker-initiators, the deaf children displayed it narrower range of complexity in their utterances. As speaker-responders, they were less likely to respond to utterances of their partners, particularly those utterances in the form of comments, and they more readily showed difficulties in responding appropriately its their partner's initiations increased in complexity. The discussion focuses on the implications of viewing language performance within a communication framework.

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).

Code-Mixing in Moeder-Kind Interactie in Dove Families

2002 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. 49-63
Author(s):  
Anne Baker ◽  
Beppie van den Bogaerde
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
The Other ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Mixed Form ◽  
Code Mixing ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Language Data ◽  
Language Input ◽  
Hearing Children

In this article, we discuss the mixed input offered by four profoundly deaf mothers and the mixed output of their deaf and hearing children. Muysken (2000) distinguishes different forms of code-mixing: insertion, alternation and congruent lexicalisation. We applied these definitions to these language data and found that the mothers used mainly the last type of code-mixing, namely congruent lexicalisation. This results in a mixed form of NGT (Nederlandse Gebarentaal, 'Dutch Sign Language') and Dutch, in which the structure of the utterance is grammatical in both NGT and Dutch. Lexical insertion also occurs, both in the basically NGT utterances and in the Dutch utterances. The deaf children (up to age three) are just beginning to become bilingual and hardly produce any mixed utterances. The hearing children, on the other hand, clearly show that they code-mix, under the influence of the language input.

Gesture, speech, and sign. Lynn Messing and Ruth Campbell (Eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. 227.

2001 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-647
Author(s):  
Meredith L. Rowe
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Cognitive Psychology ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Communication Disorders ◽  
The Other ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
Sign Systems ◽  
Hearing Children

The study of gesture, especially its relationship to spoken and signed languages, has become a broadly studied topic for researchers from various fields, including neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, evolutionary psychology, human development, and communication disorders. One possible reason for the wide interest in gesture is its universality. People of all ages and cultures use gestures for various purposes. Young language-learning, hearing children often use gestures alone or in combination with speech to help express themselves to their interlocutors, for example, pointing to a desired object while saying “mine.” As a more striking example, deaf children in Nicaragua who had previously been unexposed to any conventional sign language, used gestures to develop home-sign systems that eventually developed into Nicaraguan Sign Language (Kegl, Senghas, & Coppola, 1999). On the other hand, gestures are often used in situations where the underlying purpose of the gesture is less clear. For example, people who are blind from birth are nonetheless found to gesture in conversation (Iverson & Goldin-Meadow, 1997), and adults gesture frequently, and often subconsciously, during conversations with one another. Despite their omnipresence, we know relatively little about gestures' origins, their relationship to language, and, in some instances, the purposes they serve.

Categorization Behavior and Achievement in Deaf and Hearing Children

1967 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 241-250
Author(s):  
Toby Roslyn Silverman
Keyword(s):  
Reading Achievement ◽  
Special Class ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Achievement Test ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Triple Mode ◽  
Achievement Levels

The Triple Mode Test of Categorization, developed to measure three major modes of categorization postulated by Vygotsky, and the Stanford Reading Achievement Test, were administered to 313 hearing children, 225 typically deaf children, and 21 special class deaf children. Modes of categorization were studied at different age and achievement levels. For the deaf children, superordinate and associate responding decreased with increasing age, while functional responding increased. For hearing children, increasing age was accompanied by increased superordinate responding, decreased associative responding, and stable functional responding. Other results are also discussed. The conclusions suggest that deficiencies in categorization behavior may contribute to deficient language performance in the deaf child.

Immediate and Delayed Story Recall by Hearing and Deaf Children

1981 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 463-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosslyn Gaines ◽  
Jean M. Mandler ◽  
Peter Bryant
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Story Recall ◽  
Deaf Readers ◽  
Lip Reading ◽  
Hearing Children

Comprehension and retention of stories read by hearing children and by orally trained, congenitally, profoundly deaf children were studied. One normal and two experimentally confused stories were read by both groups, and recall was tested immediately after reading and following a week's delay. One experimentally confused story contained nonphonetic misspellings and was expected to cause difficulty for hearing readers; the other contained confused anaphoric references and was expected to cause difficulty for deaf readers. Amount recalled did not differ between the hearing and deaf groups on the normal story, but the deaf children were superior in amount recalled for both confused stories. However, the deaf children made significantly more distortions in their recall than did the hearing children. Orally trained deaf children may transfer the broad reconstructive strategies used for lip-reading purposes to reading style and thus engage in more guessing and reconstructive activity during reading than do hearing readers.

Linguistic Environment of the Deaf Child

1985 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 336-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie Newton
Keyword(s):  
Oral Language ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
The Other ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Total Communication ◽  
Teachers Of The Deaf ◽  
Nonliteral Language ◽  
Indirect Requests ◽  
Hearing Children

Teachers' communication with deaf and hearing children was compared to identify differences in the teachers' use of two types of nonliteral language: idiomatic language and indirect requests. Two groups of teachers of the deaf were observed, one using oral language only and the other using Total Communication. A third group consisted of teachers of normally hearing children. No differences were found in teachers' use of nonliteral language when talking to hearing children as compared to teachers talking to oral deaf children. Reduced use of idiomatic language occurred, in both the oral and signed portions of communication, only when Total Communication was used. No differences were observed in the oral portion of the three groups' use of indirect requests. However, only 55% of these requests were encoded nonliterally in the signed portion of utterances.

Psychosocial Development of Hard-of-Hearing Preschool Children

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Jakhelln Laugen
Keyword(s):  
Early Intervention ◽  
Psychosocial Development ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Child Research ◽  
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Hearing Children

In some respects, hard-of-hearing children experience the same difficulties as deaf children, whereas other challenges might be easier or more difficult to handle for the hard-of-hearing child than it would be for the deaf child. Research has revealed great variability in the language, academic, and psychosocial outcomes of hard-of-hearing children. Universal newborn hearing screening enables early identification and intervention for this group, which traditionally has been diagnosed rather late; however, best practices regarding the scope and content of early intervention have not yet been sufficiently described for hard-of-hearing children. This chapter summarizes the current knowledge concerning psychosocial development in hard-of-hearing children. Risk and protective factors, and their implications for early intervention, are discussed with a special emphasis on preschoolers.

GSR conditioning with preschool-age deaf children.

1961 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. W. Grings ◽  
E. L. Lowell ◽  
R. R. Honnard
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Age ◽  
Deaf Children

scholarly journals Talker Discrimination by Prelingually Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants: Preliminary Results

2002 ◽  
Vol 111 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 113-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miranda Cleary ◽  
David B. Pisoni
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
Sentence Condition ◽  
Language Outcome ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Proportion Correct ◽  
Linguistic Content

Forty-four school-age children who had used a multichannel cochlear implant (CI) for at least 4 years were tested to assess their ability to discriminate differences between recorded pairs of female voices uttering sentences. Children were asked to respond “same voice” or “different voice” on each trial. Two conditions were examined. In one condition, the linguistic content of the sentence was always held constant and only the talker's voice varied from trial to trial. In another condition, the linguistic content of the utterance also varied so that to correctly respond “same voice,” the child needed to recognize that Two different sentences were spoken by the same talker. Data from normal-hearing children were used to establish that these tasks were well within the capabilities of children without hearing impairment. For the children with CIs, in the “fixed sentence condition” the mean proportion correct was 68%, which, although significantly different from the 50% score expected by chance, suggests that the children with CIs found this discrimination task rather difficult. In the “varied sentence condition,” however, the mean proportion correct was only 57%, indicating that the children were essentially unable to recognize an unfamiliar talker's voice when the linguistic content of the paired sentences differed. Correlations with other speech and language outcome measures are also reported.

scholarly journals Well-being, Opportunity, and Selecting for Disability

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Schroeder
Keyword(s):  
Well Being ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Alternative Analysis ◽  
Opportunity Sets ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

In this paper I look at the much-discussed case of disabled parents seeking to conceive (or “selecting for”) disabled children.  I argue that the permissibility of selecting for disability does not depend on the precise impact the disability will have on the child’s wellbeing.  I then turn to an alternative analysis, which argues that the permissibility of selecting for disability depends on the impact that disability will have on the child’s future opportunities.  Nearly all bioethicists who have approached the issue in this way have argued that disabilities like deafness unacceptably constrain a child’s opportunities.  I argue, however, that this conclusion is premature for several reasons.  Most importantly, we don’t have a good way of comparing opportunity sets.  Thus, we can’t conclude that deaf children will grow up to have a constrained set of opportunities relative to hearing children.  I conclude by suggesting that bioethicists and philosophers of disability need to spend more time thinking carefully about the relationship between disability and opportunity.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document