Parental strategies used in communication with their deaf infants

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wille Beatrijs ◽  
Van Lierde Kristiane ◽  
Van Herreweghe Mieke
Keyword(s):  
Mother Tongue ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Deaf Parents ◽  
Children First ◽  
Language Accessibility ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
Parental Strategies

One way of increasing caregivers’ language accessibility when interacting with a deaf child is through visual communication strategies. By using both a longitudinal and cross-sectional approach, this study will reveal which strategies deaf and hearing parents prefer and implement in their daily communication with their deaf children. First, the interactions of one deaf and two hearing mothers with their deaf children were recorded over the course of 18 months starting when their children were 6 months of age. Second, interactions of 5 mothers and 5 fathers (i.e. each two deaf and three hearing) with their deaf children (24 months old) were analysed for implicit and explicit strategy-use. It indicated gender related differences and confirmed caregivers’ tendencies to rely on strategies closely related to the modality of their mother tongue. Finally, deaf parents outperformed the hearing parents in the duration of successful interaction moments with their deaf children.

Aspecten in de Gebarentaalontwikkeling van Dove Kinderen van Dove en Horende Ouders

1995 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 61-69
Author(s):  
Carola Rooijmans
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Observational Research ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Deaf Parents ◽  
School For The Deaf ◽  
Mean Length Of Utterance

Research has shown parallels in the development of linguistic aspects found in sign languages and spoken languages when acquired as a first language (Newport & Meier, 1985). Deaf children of deaf parents (DCDP) are exposed to sign language early and are able to acquire it effortlessly. However, only about 10% of deaf children have deaf parents. More commonly the deaf child is born into a hearing family. These hearing parents usually use a communication system in which spoken words are supported simultaneously with signs. Such a sign system differs considerably from a sign language as it is not a natural language. Deaf children of hearing parents (DCHP) come into contact with sign language when they go to a school for the deaf. Research indicates that DCHP do acquire sign language structures, but this acquisition is delayed (Knoors, 1992). In this study a description of the development of morpho-syntactic and lexical aspects of the Sign Language of the Netherlands is given. The sign language production of three DCDP is analysed every six months from 1;0 to 3;6. Furthermore, the sign language production of three DCHP at the age of 3;6 is compared with that of the DCDP at the same age. The study includes both general measures such as Mean Length of Utterance and Type/Token Ratio and aspects specific to sign languages such as the use of POINTS in two sign combinations. Recommendations will be made with respect to the improvement of observational research on language acquision of DCDP and DCHP.

scholarly journals The value of interaction in the acquisition of a sign language

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 769-798
Author(s):  
Elidéa Lúcia Almeida Bernardino
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Communicative Interaction ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Fields Of Study ◽  
Deaf Parents ◽  
Brazilian Sign Language ◽  
First Contact

The acquisition of a sign language as a first language is a subject that is also of interest to researchers from many fields of study. This acquisition is significant for both deaf children of deaf parents as well as those of hearing parents, who consequently have late access to a language like Brazilian Sign language (Libras). The present study describes a test conducted with a pair of deaf twins who have hearing parents and who had their first contact with Libras at 5 years of age. However, upon being tested less than three years later, the twins showed a performance in Libras that was comparable to a deaf child of deaf parents. Although inconclusive, this study seeks to show the value of a continuous interlocutor, together with a genuine communicative interaction beginning from childhood, as commonly occurs with deaf twins, in the acquisition of a sign language.

Outcomes of cochlear implantation in deaf children of deaf parents: comparative study

2012 ◽  
Vol 126 (10) ◽  
pp. 989-994 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Hassanzadeh
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Reference Group ◽  
Speech Development ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Deaf Parents ◽  
First And Second Generation

AbstractObjective:This retrospective study compared the cochlear implantation outcomes of first- and second-generation deaf children.Methods:The study group consisted of seven deaf, cochlear-implanted children with deaf parents. An equal number of deaf children with normal-hearing parents were selected by matched sampling as a reference group. Participants were matched based on onset and severity of deafness, duration of deafness, age at cochlear implantation, duration of cochlear implantation, gender, and cochlear implant model. We used the Persian Auditory Perception Test for the Hearing Impaired, the Speech Intelligibility Rating scale, and the Sentence Imitation Test, in order to measure participants' speech perception, speech production and language development, respectively.Results:Both groups of children showed auditory and speech development. However, the second-generation deaf children (i.e. deaf children of deaf parents) exceeded the cochlear implantation performance of the deaf children with hearing parents.Conclusion:This study confirms that second-generation deaf children exceed deaf children of hearing parents in terms of cochlear implantation performance. Encouraging deaf children to communicate in sign language from a very early age, before cochlear implantation, appears to improve their ability to learn spoken language after cochlear implantation.

scholarly journals Etiological factors of deafness and results of aided audiogram among below 12 years deaf children in a deaf school

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-108
Author(s):  
Mohammad Nasimul Jamal ◽  
Ali Imam Ahsan ◽  
Mohammed Sattar ◽  
Md Abul Hasnat Joarder
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Positive Family History ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Speech Development ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Etiological Factors ◽  
History Of

Introduction: Deafness is the invisible disability and the commonest human sensory defects.  It leads to difficult speech development, poor educational and employment prospects of  chilhood. Comprehensive otologic and audiological evaluations are very much essential for  etiological assessment of hearing impaired children and management efficacy.Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out with the aim to evaluate the etiological  factors, degree of hearing loss, type of hearing loss, and results of aided audiogram among  the below 12 years deaf children. The study included 100 deaf children below 12 years with  history of deafness and non-development of speech.Result: The etiology of deaf Children was diverse. Infection was the predominating etiological  factor (38%). The infections were: measles (31.5%), pneumonia (26.2%), typhoid (21.5%),  maternal rubella (5.2%), varicella (5.2%), mumps (5.2%) and meningitis (5.2%). 48% of deaf  child had a parental suspicion of deafness below the one year of age. 35% had a positive  family history and 32% had history of consanguinal marriage. The deaf children were managed  with hearing device, among them 89% with hearing aid and 11% with cochlear implant 42.7% of child used hearing aid in both ears. The results of aided audiogram reflected that, the gain  after using hearing aid within 31-60 dB were 80%. 10% in right ear, 71.10% in left year and  70.00% in both ears, so average gain after using hearing aid was 74% within 31- 60 dB. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjo.v18i2.11981 Bangladesh J Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 18(2): 103-108

Visuele communicatie in ouder-kindinteracties

1970 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 93-110
Author(s):  
Beatrijs Wille
Keyword(s):  
Role Models ◽  
Visual Communication ◽  
Communication Strategies ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Striking Difference ◽  
Visual Environment ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Deaf Parents

Previous analyses show that deaf mothers support their deaf children in order to providethe child with full access to the visual-oriented world. They do this by incorporatingVisual Communication Strategies (VCS), which facilitate the access to Flemish SignLanguage and the potential immediate acquisition of language. In contrast, hearingparents encounter more difficulties when creating a linguistically stimulating environment.The research reported on in this paper combines a longitudinal and cross-sectionalapproach, focussing on the use of visual environment created by deaf and hearing parents.Our study shows a striking difference between the visual environment created by deaf andhearing parents. With respect to the visual communication approaches chosen by the deafparents, deaf parents may act as role models for hearing parents.

Education Begins at Home

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Marschark ◽  
Harry G. Lang ◽  
John A. Albertini
Keyword(s):  
Personal Growth ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Medical Problems ◽  
Implicit Instruction ◽  
Early Access ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Mother’S Voice

Parents, siblings, and others provide young children with a context in which development occurs and supports and promotes early learning. In this chapter, we consider the roles of various individuals and early interventions in social, language, and cognitive development before children enter school. Because most deaf children are born to nonsigning, hearing parents, communication in the home is given special consideration, particularly with regard to the kinds of information and experience that contribute to those domains. We also consider the importance of implicit instruction in relation to fostering educational readiness and the potential effects on long-term academic achievement and personal growth. Parents will encounter both opportunities and challenges in raising a deaf child, and research has demonstrated a variety of ways in which they can optimize their child’s development. Therefore, we devote some space to describing the field on which early development takes place. Most important, we will see the importance of deaf children having early access to language, social interaction, and experiential diversity. Because most cases of deafness are not hereditary, many deaf children will have congenital or early-onset hearing losses that are totally unexpected (and usually unrecognized for some time) by their parents. Some of those children will be considered at risk at birth because of the maternal, fetal, or neonatal medical problems that contributed to their hearing losses. Beyond the consequences of initial medical difficulties, factors related to prenatal or postnatal hearing loss may well influence the quantity or quality of interactions the infant has with others in the environment during the first few months. These earliest influences, and their effects, can have ever-widening consequences for development over the first months and years of life. Even before birth, sounds perceived from within the womb can influence the course of development. Early in the last trimester of pregnancy, a fetus will rotate and adopt a new position with the head against the mother’s pelvis. Most fetuses already have considerable responsiveness to sound at this point and can perceive the mother’s voice and heartbeat through bone conduction (Als et al., 1979).

Comparing Motor Development of Deaf Children of Deaf Parents and Deaf Children of Hearing Parents

2004 ◽  
Vol 149 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren J. Lieberman ◽  
Lori Volding ◽  
Joseph P. Winnick
Keyword(s):  
Motor Development ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Deaf Parents

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 The impact of input quality on early sign development in native and non-native language learners

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 537-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
JENNY LU ◽  
ANNA JONES ◽  
GARY MORGAN
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Early Sign ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Language Abilities ◽  
Number Of Children ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Deaf Parents ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThere is debate about how input variation influences child language. Most deaf children are exposed to a sign language from their non-fluent hearing parents and experience a delay in exposure to accessible language. A small number of children receive language input from their deaf parents who are fluent signers. Thus it is possible to document the impact of quality of input on early sign acquisition. The current study explores the outcomes of differential input in two groups of children aged two to five years: deaf children of hearing parents (DCHP) and deaf children of deaf parents (DCDP). Analysis of child sign language revealed DCDP had a more developed vocabulary and more phonological handshape types compared with DCHP. In naturalistic conversations deaf parents used more sign tokens and more phonological types than hearing parents. Results are discussed in terms of the effects of early input on subsequent language abilities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document