Deaf and hearing children's plural noun spelling

2012 ◽  
Vol 65 (11) ◽  
pp. 2169-2192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen L. Breadmore ◽  
Andrew C. Olson ◽  
Andrea Krott
Keyword(s):  
Phonological Awareness ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Spelling Error ◽  
Plural Noun ◽  
Error Analyses ◽  
Combined Use ◽  
Limited Experience ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Phonological Mediation

The present study examines deaf and hearing children's spelling of plural nouns. Severe literacy impairments are well documented in the deaf, which are believed to be a consequence of phonological awareness limitations. Fifty deaf (mean chronological age 13;10 years, mean reading age 7;5 years) and 50 reading-age-matched hearing children produced spellings of regular, semiregular, and irregular plural nouns in Experiment 1 and nonword plurals in Experiment 2. Deaf children performed reading-age appropriately on rule-based (regular and semiregular) plurals but were significantly less accurate at spelling irregular plurals. Spelling of plural nonwords and spelling error analyses revealed clear evidence for use of morphology. Deaf children used morphological generalization to a greater degree than their reading-age-matched hearing counterparts. Also, hearing children combined use of phonology and morphology to guide spelling, whereas deaf children appeared to use morphology without phonological mediation. Therefore, use of morphology in spelling can be independent of phonology and is available to the deaf despite limited experience with spoken language. Indeed, deaf children appear to be learning about morphology from the orthography. Education on more complex morphological generalization and exceptions may be highly beneficial not only for the deaf but also for other populations with phonological awareness limitations.

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).

Design of Signed Language Tests for Deaf L1 Children

2021 ◽  
pp. 29-40
Author(s):  
Rosalind Herman ◽  
Katherine Rowley
Keyword(s):  
First Language ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Written Form ◽  
Age Appropriate ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Development Proceeds

Recent changes in the earlier diagnosis of deafness and improved amplification options have meant that deaf children increasingly have better opportunities to develop spoken language. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of children continue to use signed language as a first language (L1), including deaf and hearing children in deaf signing families and deaf children in hearing families where families use signed language in the home. For both groups, mastery of sign language as an L1 is important because it paves the way to communication and also because it provides the basis for development of spoken language, in either its oral or written form, as a second language (L2). It is crucial that signed language development proceeds in an age-appropriate manner, and assessments of signed language are therefore important to ensure that this is the case. However, the development of effective tests of signed language acquisition is not without challenges. This chapter presents these challenges and other issues and gives examples of how available tests seek to overcome them.

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 Reading skills of D/deaf students – native signers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justyna Kotowicz
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Reading Skills ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf Students ◽  
Skilled Readers ◽  
Language Problems ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Native Signers ◽  
Hearing Children

Reading skills of D/deaf students fall behind their hearing peers. The difference in reading skills between D/deaf and hearing children has not decreased for over past three decades. Low level of reading skills in D/deaf students has been associated with their language delay, which is mainly observed in D/deaf children using spoken language that is not fully accessible to “D/deaf individuals” instead of “ppl with hearing impairment”. D/deaf children immersed in sign language since their birth usually do not encounter language problems and they have a potential to become highly-skilled readers. In the present studies we have investigated reading skills of D/deaf students who are native signers of Polish Sign Language. The results have indicated that D/deaf students showed lower level of reading skills than their hearing peers. The present studies call in question Polish education system dedicated to D/deaf students who are native signers. The obtained results suggest that reading classes are probably not adapted to the needs and abilities of highly competent signers.

scholarly journals Widening the lens: what the manual modality reveals about language, learning and cognition

2014 ◽  
Vol 369 (1651) ◽  
pp. 20130295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Goldin-Meadow
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Model ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Sign Systems ◽  
Learning Contexts ◽  
Representational Format ◽  
Learning And Cognition ◽  
Hearing Children

The goal of this paper is to widen the lens on language to include the manual modality. We look first at hearing children who are acquiring language from a spoken language model and find that even before they use speech to communicate, they use gesture. Moreover, those gestures precede, and predict, the acquisition of structures in speech. We look next at deaf children whose hearing losses prevent them from using the oral modality, and whose hearing parents have not presented them with a language model in the manual modality. These children fall back on the manual modality to communicate and use gestures, which take on many of the forms and functions of natural language. These homemade gesture systems constitute the first step in the emergence of manual sign systems that are shared within deaf communities and are full-fledged languages. We end by widening the lens on sign language to include gesture and find that signers not only gesture, but they also use gesture in learning contexts just as speakers do. These findings suggest that what is key in gesture's ability to predict learning is its ability to add a second representational format to communication, rather than a second modality. Gesture can thus be language, assuming linguistic forms and functions, when other vehicles are not available; but when speech or sign is possible, gesture works along with language, providing an additional representational format that can promote learning.

Measuring Phonological Awareness in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children

2014 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mi-young L. Webb ◽  
Amy R. Lederberg
Keyword(s):  
Phonological Awareness ◽  
Early Literacy ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Standardized Tests ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
School Year ◽  
Hearing Children

PurposeThis study evaluated psychometric properties of 2 phonological awareness (PA) tests normed for hearing children when used with deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children with functional hearing. It also provides an in-depth description of these children's PA.MethodOne hundred and eight DHH children (mean age = 63.3 months) with cochlear implants or hearing aids were assessed in the fall and spring of the school year. Sixty-three percent communicated only with spoken language; 37% communicated with both sign and speech. Examiners administered PA subtests from the Phonological Awareness Test—2 and the Test of Preschool Early Literacy, along with assessments of speech perception and early literacy.ResultsItem analyses indicated that both tests showed good psychometric properties (e.g., high item discriminations and internal consistencies). DHH children scored higher on subtests and items that measured words, rhymes, and syllables than those that assessed phonemes. Although subtest difficulty influenced the factor structure in the fall, spring PA was best characterized as a single factor. PA correlated concurrently and predictively with early literacy.ConclusionsThis study suggests that these 2 standardized tests are valid for use with DHH children with functional hearing. Although delayed, these children's PA was structurally similar to that of hearing children.

Neurocognitive Functioning in Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
William G. Kronenberger ◽  
David B. Pisoni
Keyword(s):  
Executive Function ◽  
Executive Functioning ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Language Skills ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Neurocognitive Functions ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Prelingually Deaf

Cochlear implantation restores some attributes of hearing and spoken language to prelingually deaf children. However, reduced access to auditory and spoken-language experiences for children with cochlear implants can alter the development of downstream neurocognitive functions such as sequential processing and self-regulatory language skills, which are critical building blocks for executive functioning. Executive functioning is the active regulation of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional processes in the service of planned, organized, controlled, goal-driven behavior. This chapter presents findings from two primary lines of research on the development of executive functioning in prelingually deaf, early implanted children with cochlear implants. The first is identification of specific executive function domains that are at risk for delay in children with cochlear implants compared to hearing children. The second is reciprocal influences of executive function and spoken-language skills throughout development in children and adolescents with cochlear implants.

Spoken Language and Language Impairment in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgitta Sahlén ◽  
Kristina Hansson ◽  
Viveka Lyberg-Åhlander ◽  
Jonas Brännström
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Cognitive Skills ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Nonword Repetition ◽  
Communicative Development ◽  
Language Problems ◽  
Hearing Children

Despite medical, technical, and pedagogical advances, the risk for language impairment is still much higher in deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children than in hearing peers. Research on linguistic, cognitive, and communicative development in DHH children has found a range of basic spoken language deficits. Twenty percent to 50% of deaf children still meet criteria for language impairment. Tests of nonword repetition and verb inflection are markers that improve early identification of children at risk for persistent language problems. DHH children are typically mainstreamed today, and poor listening conditions in the classroom severely jeopardize learning in children with weak perceptual and cognitive skills. In this chapter we report on our own and others’ studies exploring the interaction of factors, both external and internal to the child, that influence spoken language and communication. The focus is on intervention projects aiming to improve language learning environments through teacher education.

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.

Library services and early literacy approaches in public libraries for deaf and hard of hearing children

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bobbie Bushman
Keyword(s):  
Grounded Theory ◽  
Phonological Awareness ◽  
Early Literacy ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Reading Skills ◽  
Public Libraries ◽  
Library Services ◽  
Grounded Theory Research ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Theory Research

[ACCESS RESTRICTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT AUTHOR'S REQUEST.] Children's librarians are challenged to provide inclusive programming in today's public libraries. There is a current trend in public libraries to provide special needs programming for children. This dissertation focuses on library programming for deaf and hard of hearing (D/HoH) children who visit U.S. public libraries. The American Library Association (ALA) states that hearing children need to know six pre-reading skills to be ready to read; however, some of these pre-reading skills focus on singing or rhyming which is difficult for D/HoH children. Grounded theory is "a systematic, inductive, and comparative approach for conducting inquire for the purpose of constructing theory" (Bryant and Charmaz 2007). This grounded theory research studies the programs, services, and story times that are implemented and modified for D/HoH children in U.S. public libraries. This study began with sending out a recruitment script and questionnaire found in Appendix A and B, respectively, which reached nearly 500 medium to large sized U.S. public libraries. Fifteen participants volunteered to be interviewed, and eleven were interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using open and axial coding, which is typical in grounded theory. Preliminary data and a review of literature on literacy acquisition for D/HoH children suggested that D/HoH children do not progress in four of the pre-reading skills outlined in the ALA's early literacy program, Every Child Ready to Read (ECRR), in the same way that hearing children do. Phonological awareness is largely not utilized by D/HoH children in learning to read. D/HoH children are also likely to build vocabulary, develop print motivation, and approach narrative skills differently than hearing children. This grounded theory research developed the model of successful library services and modifications to D/HoH children to explain which services, early literacy instruction, staff training and programs public libraries provide to children who are D/HoH. This research project also inquires about what kinds of modifications are made to serve D/HoH children, and what the impetus was for providing library services to deaf children. The first stage of the model highlights staff attitude as being warm and welcoming, taking initiative, and not seeing D/HoH as a disability. The second stage described the impetus for providing services as encountering a D/HoH patron in the library, knowing a disabled person in a librarian's personal life, or by encountering a nearby agency that serves D/HoH. In the third stage, librarians made accommodations by being inclusive in programming, providing ASL programming, or facilitating visual phonics instruction in place of phonological awareness instruction. In the fourth and final stage, this model reported outcomes such as educating both hearing and D/HoH individuals and building a sense of community.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document