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.

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.

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.

Theory-of-Mind Development in Young Deaf Children With Early Hearing Provisions

2020 ◽  
pp. 095679762096038
Author(s):  
Chi-Lin Yu ◽  
Christopher M. Stanzione ◽  
Henry M. Wellman ◽  
Amy R. Lederberg
Keyword(s):  
Theory Of Mind ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Older Children ◽  
Language Abilities ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Developmental Relationship

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children born to hearing parents have profound theory-of-mind (ToM) delays, yet little is known about how providing hearing assistance early in life, through cochlear implants and hearing aids, influences their ToM development. We thus addressed (a) whether young DHH children with early hearing provision developed ToM differently than older children did in previous research and (b) what ToM understandings characterize this understudied population. Findings from 84 three- to six-year-old DHH children primarily acquiring spoken language demonstrated that accumulated hearing experience influenced their ToM, as measured by a five-step ToM scale. Moreover, language abilities mediated this developmental relationship: Children with more advanced language abilities, because of more time using cochlear implants and hearing aids, had better ToM growth. These findings demonstrate the crucial relationships among hearing, language, and ToM for DHH children acquiring spoken language, thereby addressing theoretical and practical questions about ToM development.

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).

The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Learning and Cognition

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Development ◽  
Developmental Psychology ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf Studies ◽  
Social Emotional ◽  
Art Research ◽  
Learning And Cognition ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
International Experts

In recent years, the intersection of cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and neuroscience regarding deaf individuals has received increasing attention from a variety of academic and educational audiences. Both research and pedagogy have addressed questions about whether deaf children learn in the same ways that hearing children learn, how signed languages and spoken languages might affect different aspects of cognition and cognitive development, and the ways in which hearing loss influences how the brain processes and retains information. There are now several preliminary answers to these questions, but there has been no single forum in which research into learning and cognition is brought together. The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Learning and Cognition aims to provide this shared forum, focusing exclusively on learning, cognition, and cognitive development from theoretical, psychological, biological, linguistic, social-emotional, and educational perspectives. Each chapter includes state-of-the-art research conducted and reviewed by international experts in the area. Drawing the research together, this volume allows synergy among ideas that possess the potential to move research, theory, and practice forward.

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 Implicit learning of non-verbal regularities by deaf children with cochlear implants: An investigation with a dynamic temporal prediction task

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. e0251050
Author(s):  
Ambra Fastelli ◽  
Giovanni Mento ◽  
Chloë Ruth Marshall ◽  
Barbara Arfé
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Implicit Learning ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Learning Deficits ◽  
Learning Skills ◽  
Temporal Prediction ◽  
Visual Motor ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
The Relationship

Some deaf children continue to show difficulties in spoken language learning after cochlear implantation. Part of this variability has been attributed to poor implicit learning skills. However, the involvement of other processes (e.g. verbal rehearsal) has been underestimated in studies that show implicit learning deficits in the deaf population. In this study, we investigated the relationship between auditory deprivation and implicit learning of temporal regularities with a novel task specifically designed to limit the load on working memory, the amount of information processing, and the visual-motor integration skills required. Seventeen deaf children with cochlear implants and eighteen typically hearing children aged 5 to 11 years participated. Our results revealed comparable implicit learning skills between the two groups, suggesting that implicit learning might be resilient to a lack of early auditory stimulation. No significant correlation was found between implicit learning and language tasks. However, deaf children’s performance suggests some weaknesses in inhibitory control.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document