Perspectives of Hearing Parents of Deaf Children on Learning Kenyan Sign Language

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Rosemary Ogada Luchivya ◽  
Tom Mboya Omolo ◽  
Sharon Anyango Onditi
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Hearing 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.

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.

De Ontwikkeling Van Het Gebarentaal-Onderzoek

1986 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 118-126
Author(s):  
Bernard T. Tervoort
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
First Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Local Varieties ◽  
Research And Teaching ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Language Research ◽  
History Of ◽  
Initial Interaction

In the recent history of scientific endeavour with signing deaf people and the attitudes towards it of society at large, four periods can be distinguished, (1) until about 1950: signing is either a primitive, sublinguistic system or a derivation of spoken language, or a combination of the two; (2) until about 1965: it could be a language provided it shows enough parallels with the structure of languages based on speech; (3) until about 1980: no matter how one looks at it, it shows striking parallels with these real languages; (4) until now: forget the criteria for spoken languages and the parallellism; sign languages have a structure and a function sui generis and ought to be investiga-ted in their own true linguistic value. Of all the disciplins that have gone through this development in the periods mentioned, the following are the most important ones and are dealt with in some detail (1) linguistics, specifically phonology, syntax and lexicology; (2) psycholinguistics, including first language acquisition of deaf children of both deaf and hearing parents; (3) sociolinguistics, with some accent on the relation to creóle studies, the discourse analysis, and the bilingual situation of the deaf as a minority of a unique kind; (4) other disciplins, very shortly, like otology, audiology, neurology, neuropsychology and psychiatry. Finally, the following four speakers in the section on sign language research are introduced with some information on their backgrounds and interests (1) Trude Schermer, with lexicography, syntax and sociolinguistic comparison of local varieties as main interest; (2) Filip Loncke as the main representant of sign language research in Flemish Belgium whose specialty is sign phonology; (3) Rita Harder who has specialized in both hand shape phonology and initial interaction and communication between young deaf children and their hearing mothers; (4) Harry Knoors who as a psycholinguist and a teacher of the deaf combines research and teaching.

Taalontwikkeling Door Middel Van Gebaren En Gebarentaal

1986 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 81-89
Author(s):  
Rita Harder
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Visual Modality ◽  
Linguistic Development ◽  
Syntactic Structures ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Deaf Parents ◽  
Total Communication ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
The Way

In the last few years many different studies have shed light on the cognitive and linguistic development of deaf children of deaf parents, using sign language. Since hearing loss does not influence a visual modality, the assumption was made that the linguistic development of deaf children of deaf parents, in the acquisition of sign language, should be normal. Research has shown that the way deaf children of deaf parents acquire sign language is similar to the way hearing children acquire their language. Both groups use the same semantic relations first in the same syntactic structures, the vocabulary and length of utterance expand in the same manner, and they show the same sort of overgeneralizations. As a result of studies concerning the language development of deaf children of deaf parents hometraining-programs for deaf children of hearing parents have reconsidered their approach concerning the use of signs in their programs, that is in the Total Communication philosophy they consider signs as an important part of the communication between hearing parents and their deaf children.

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.

scholarly journals Deaf and hearing children’s picture naming

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin L. Thompson ◽  
Rachel England ◽  
Bencie Woll ◽  
Jenny Lu ◽  
Katherine Mumford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Naming Task ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Spoken English ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
British Sign Language ◽  
Deaf Parents ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Representational Gestures

Abstract Stefanini, Bello, Caselli, Iverson, & Volterra (2009) reported that Italian 24–36 month old children use a high proportion of representational gestures to accompany their spoken responses when labelling pictures. The two studies reported here used the same naming task with (1) typically developing 24–46-month-old hearing children acquiring English and (2) 24–63-month-old deaf children of deaf and hearing parents acquiring British Sign Language (BSL) and spoken English. In Study 1 children scored within the range of correct spoken responses previously reported, but produced very few representational gestures. However, when they did gesture, they expressed the same action meanings as reported in previous research. The action bias was also observed in deaf children of hearing parents in Study 2, who labelled pictures with signs, spoken words and gestures. The deaf group with deaf parents used BSL almost exclusively with few additional gestures. The function of representational gestures in spoken and signed vocabulary development is considered in relation to differences between native and non-native sign language acquisition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document