Spoken Language Development of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives

Copious evidence indicates that, even in the first year of life, children’s language development is beginning and is impacted by a wide array of cognitive and social processes. The extent to which these processes are dependent on early language input is a critical concern for most deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children, who, unlike hearing children, are usually not immersed in a language-rich environment until effective interventions, such as hearing aids or cochlear implants, are implemented. Importantly, some cognitive and social processes are not dependent on the early availability of language input and begin to develop before children are fitted for hearing aids or cochlear implants. Interventions involving parent training may be helpful for enhancing social underpinnings of language and for maximizing DHH children’s language learning once effective hearing devices are in place. Similarly, cognitive training for DHH children may also provide benefit to bolster language development.

Download Full-text

Discussion of Issues Related to Assessment of Signed or Spoken Language Development in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

10.1093/oso/9780190885052.003.0013 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 145-152

Author(s):

Amy Kissel Frisbie ◽

Aaron Shield ◽

Deborah Mood ◽

Nicole Salamy ◽

Jonathan Henner

Keyword(s):

Language Development ◽

Developmental Disorders ◽

Language Assessment ◽

Spoken Language ◽

Autism Spectrum ◽

Pragmatic Language ◽

Signed Language ◽

Pragmatic Language Skills ◽

Language Assessments ◽

Hearing Children

This chapter is a joint discussion of key items presented in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 related to the assessment of deaf and hearing children on the autism spectrum . From these chapters it becomes apparent that a number of aspects associated with signed language assessment are relevant to spoken language assessment. For example, there are several precautions to bear in mind about language assessments obtained via an interpreter. Some of these precautions apply solely to D/HH children, while others are applicable to assessments with hearing children in multilingual contexts. Equally, there are some aspects of spoken language assessment that can be applied to signed language assessment. These include the importance of assessing pragmatic language skills, assessing multiple areas of language development, differentiating between ASD and other developmental disorders, and completing the language evaluation within a developmental framework. The authors conclude with suggestions for both spoken and signed language assessment.

Download Full-text

Establishing a Bimodal Bilingual Co-Enrollment Program in Germany: Preconditions, Policy, and Preliminary Data

Co-Enrollment in Deaf Education ◽

10.1093/oso/9780190912994.003.0008 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 149-164

Author(s):

Johannes Hennies ◽

Kristin Hennies

Keyword(s):

Sign Language ◽

Hard Of Hearing ◽

Preliminary Data ◽

Spoken Language ◽

The Political ◽

Bilingual Programs ◽

Regular School ◽

Schools For The Deaf ◽

Hearing Children

In 2016, the first German bimodal bilingual co-enrollment program for deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students, CODAs, and other hearing children was established in Erfurt, Thuringia. There is a tradition of different models of co-enrollment for DHH children in a spoken language setting in Germany, but there has been no permanent program for co-enrollment of DHH children who use sign language so far. This program draws from the experience of an existing model in Austria to enroll a group of DHH children using sign language in a regular school and from two well-documented bimodal bilingual programs in German schools for the deaf. The chapter describes the preconditions for the project, the political circumstances of the establishment of bimodal bilingual co-enrollment, and the factors that seem crucial for successful realization.

Download Full-text

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

Bastina ◽

10.5937/bastina30-267 ◽

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).

Download Full-text

The Effect of Syntactic Impairment on Errors in Reading Aloud: Text Reading and Comprehension of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children

Brain Sciences ◽

10.3390/brainsci10110896 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (11) ◽

pp. 896

Author(s):

Ronit Szterman ◽

Naama Friedmann

Keyword(s):

Hard Of Hearing ◽

Reading Aloud ◽

Spoken Language ◽

Single Word ◽

Syntactic Movement ◽

Word Level ◽

Reading Errors ◽

Text Reading ◽

Hearing Children ◽

Parallel Texts

Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) children show difficulties in reading aloud and comprehension of texts. Here, we examined the hypothesis that these reading difficulties are tightly related to the syntactic deficit displayed by DHH children. We first assessed the syntactic abilities of 32 DHH children communicating in spoken language (Hebrew) aged 9;1–12;2. We classified them into two groups of DHH children—with and without a syntactic deficit according to their performance in six syntactic tests assessing their comprehension and production of sentences with syntactic movement. We also assessed their reading at the single word level using a reading aloud test of words, nonwords, and word pairs, designed to detect the various types of dyslexia, and established, for each participant, whether they had dyslexia and of what type. Following this procedure, 14 of the children were identified with a syntactic deficit, and 15 with typical syntax (3 marginally impaired); 22 of the children had typical reading at the word level, and 4 had dyslexia (3 demonstrated sublexical reading). The main experiment examined reading aloud and comprehension of 6 texts with syntactic movement (which contained, e.g., relative clauses and topicalized sentences), in comparison to 6 parallel texts without movement. The results indicated a close connection between syntactic difficulties and errors in reading aloud and in comprehension of texts. The DHH children with syntactic deficit made significantly more errors in reading aloud and more comprehension errors than the DHH children with intact syntax (and than the hearing controls), even though most of them did not have dyslexia at the word level. The DHH children with syntactic deficit made significantly more reading errors when they read texts with syntactic movement than on matched texts without movement. These results indicate that difficulties in text reading, manifesting both in errors in reading aloud and in impaired comprehension, may stem from a syntactic deficit and may occur even when reading at the word level is completely intact.

Download Full-text

Language Development and Deaf Children

Educating Deaf Students ◽

10.1093/oso/9780195310702.003.0010 ◽

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).

Download Full-text

What’s That You Say? Communication Breakdowns and Their Repairs in Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education ◽

10.1093/deafed/enaa010 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 25 (4) ◽

pp. 490-504

Author(s):

Erin Fitzpatrick ◽

Bonita Squires ◽

Elizabeth Kay-Raining Bird

Keyword(s):

Young Children ◽

Language Development ◽

Hard Of Hearing ◽

Chronological Age ◽

Pragmatic Language ◽

The People ◽

Hearing Children ◽

Meaningful Connections ◽

Communication Breakdowns ◽

Conversational Fluency

Abstract Conversational fluency is important to form meaningful connections and relationships with the people around us but is understudied in children who are deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH). Communication breakdowns reduce conversational fluency. They occur when a speaker says something that interrupts the flow of conversation requiring a request for clarification or confirmation from their listener to repair the misunderstanding. Young children who are D/HH are at risk of more frequent communication breakdowns and fewer successful repairs than children with typical hearing (The missing link in language development of deaf and hard of hearing children: Pragmatic language development. Seminars in Speech and Language, 33 (04), 297–309). About 14 children who were D/HH aged 7–12 year and 15 children with typical hearing were matched on chronological age. Comparisons of the number and duration of communication breakdowns, requests for repair, and responses to requests used by children in a 10-min conversation with an adult were completed. Results showed that while children who were D/HH demonstrated some differences, they were more similar to their typically hearing peers in communication breakdowns and repairs than previously reported in the literature.

Download Full-text