scholarly journals Sign language and spoken language development in young children: Measuring vocabulary by means of the CDI

2013 ◽  
pp. 15-34 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Spoken Language

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).

Language development in a bimodal bilingual child with cochlear implant: A longitudinal study

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 798-809 ◽  
Author(s):  
PASQUALE RINALDI ◽  
MARIA CRISTINA CASELLI
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Early Age ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Vocabulary Growth ◽  
The Relationship

To address the negative effects of deafness on spoken language acquisition, many clinicians suggest using cochlear implant (CI) and oral education and advise against sign language, even when combined with spoken language (i.e., bilingualism), believing that it may slow down spoken language development. In a deaf child with CI who was exposed at an early age to Italian Sign Language and spoken Italian, we evaluated language development and the relationship between the two languages. The number of words/signs produced by the child consistently increased with age, and the vocabulary growth rate in spoken Italian was equivalent to that of hearing peers. Before CI, the child relied almost exclusively on sign language; after CI, he gradually shifted to spoken Italian yet still used sign language when unable to retrieve words in spoken Italian. We conclude that bimodal bilingualism may scaffold the development of spoken language also in deaf children with CI.

Use of code-mixing by young hearing children of Deaf parents

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 947-964 ◽  
Author(s):  
LAURA KANTO ◽  
MARJA-LEENA LAAKSO ◽  
KERTTU HUTTUNEN
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Pragmatic Development ◽  
Simultaneous Production ◽  
Code Mixing ◽  
Deaf Parents ◽  
Hearing Children

In this study we followed the characteristics and use of code-mixing by eight KODAs – hearing children of Deaf parents – from the age of 12 to 36 months. The children's interaction was video-recorded twice a year during three different play sessions: with their Deaf parent, with the Deaf parent and a hearing adult, and with the hearing adult alone. Additionally, data were collected on the children's overall language development in both sign language and spoken language. Our results showed that the children preferred to produce code-blends – simultaneous production of semantically congruent signs and words – in a way that was in accordance with the morphosyntactic structure of both languages being acquired. A Deaf parent as the interlocutor increased the number of and affected the type of code-blended utterances. These findings suggest that code-mixing in young bimodal bilingual KODA children can be highly systematic and synchronised in nature and can indicate pragmatic development.

The literacy-enhancing potential of singing versus spoken language in public library storytimes: A text analytics approach

2021 ◽  
pp. 146879842110466
Author(s):  
Soohyung Joo ◽  
Maria Cahill ◽  
Erin Ingram ◽  
Hayley Hoffman ◽  
Amy Olson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Informal Learning ◽  
Textual Analysis ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Public Library ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Learning Activities ◽  
Text Analytics ◽  
Practical Implications

Through analysis of the language, this study aimed to investigate the current practice of using songs in public library storytimes. Language interactions in 68 storytime programs involving 652 child participants were observed and transcribed. Then, textual analysis was conducted to examine the language of singing songs, focusing on how language used in singing songs differs from spoken language in storytime programs. Specifically, the study compared sentence and grammar structure between singing and non-singing language and explored how topics and themes covered in singing language compare with those of spoken language. In addition, the study examined singing accompanied by use of props and movements. The findings of this study indicate that the language of singing in storytime programs is rich; thereby, signaling the power of singing with young children as means to advance language development. Practical implications and strategies for maximizing integration of singing in storytimes and other informal learning activities for young children are discussed.

Red Flags: Cochlear Implant Programming

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-21
Author(s):  
Douglas P. Sladen
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Time Use ◽  
Language Skills ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Red Flags ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Consistent, full-time use of a well programmed cochlear implant (CI) is key for auditory and spoken language development. Young children with hearing loss often lack the requisite language skills to alert parents and clinicians when the CI needs to be re-programmed. The article within describes red flags used to indicate the levels of the device need to be reset.

Family ASL: An Early Start to Equitable Education for Deaf Children

2021 ◽  
pp. 027112142110313
Author(s):  
Diane C. Lillo-Martin ◽  
Elaine Gale ◽  
Deborah Chen Pichler
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Early Exposure ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Early Adoption ◽  
Language Deprivation ◽  
Equitable Education

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children experience systematic barriers to equitable education due to intentional or unintentional ableist views that can lead to a general lack of awareness about the value of natural sign languages and insufficient resources supporting sign language development. Furthermore, an imbalance of information in favor of spoken languages often stems from a phonocentric perspective that views signing as an inferior form of communication that also hinders the development of spoken language. On the contrary, research demonstrates that early adoption of a natural sign language confers critical protection from the risks of language deprivation without endangering spoken language development. In this position paper, we draw attention to deep societal biases about language in the information presented to parents of DHH children, against early exposure to a natural sign language. We outline actions that parents and professionals can adopt to maximize DHH children’s chances for on-time language development.

scholarly journals Morphological Accuracy in the Speech of Bimodal Bilingual Children with CIs

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 435-447
Author(s):  
Corina Goodwin ◽  
Diane Lillo-Martin
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Perceptual Salience ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Language Exposure

AbstractSign language use in the (re)habilitation of children with cochlear implants (CIs) remains a controversial issue. Concerns that signing impedes spoken language development are based on research comparing children exposed to spoken and signed language (bilinguals) to children exposed only to speech (monolinguals), although abundant research demonstrates that bilinguals and monolinguals differ in language development. We control for bilingualism effects by comparing bimodal bilingual (signing-speaking) children with CIs (BB-CI) to those with typical hearing (BB-TH). Each child had at least one Deaf parent and was exposed to ASL from birth. The BB-THs were exposed to English from birth by hearing family members, while the BB-CIs began English exposure after cochlear implantation around 22-months-of-age. Elicited speech samples were analyzed for accuracy of English grammatical morpheme production. Although there was a trend toward lower overall accuracy in the BB-CIs, this seemed driven by increased omission of the plural -s, suggesting an exaggerated role of perceptual salience in this group. Errors of commission were rare in both groups. Because both groups were bimodal bilinguals, trends toward group differences were likely caused by delayed exposure to spoken language or hearing through a CI, rather than sign language exposure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document