scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Book ChapterDOI

Language Development of Deaf Children with Hearing Parents

01 Jan 2006-pp 361-368
TL;DR: Deaf children with hearing parents are born into a world without language. as discussed by the authors found that deaf children and adolescents have delayed and slow vocabulary development and poor syntactic knowledge, especially in the areas of morphosyntax and complex sentences.
Abstract: Deaf children with hearing parents are born into a world without language. This nonverbal environment is sufficient for the development of the cognitive basis of language (joint attention and nonlinguistic communication dialogues), but not language itself. Even after hearing loss is identified and there is improved access to language, deaf children show multiple linguistic deficits. Although there are wide individual differences, deaf children and adolescents have delayed and slow vocabulary development and poor syntactic knowledge, especially in the areas of morphosyntax and complex sentences. Such problems result from restricted linguistic input and early language deprivation. Recent advances such as universal newborn hearing screening, cochlear implants, and improved intervention programs hold promise for improving the linguistic sequelae of deafness.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is suggested that language is key to EF performance rather than vice versa, and hearing children performed significantly less well on EF tasks, even controlling for nonverbal intelligence and speed of processing.
Abstract: Studies have suggested that language and executive function (EF) are strongly associated. Indeed, the two are difficult to separate, and it is particularly difficult to determine whether one skill is more dependent on the other. Deafness provides a unique opportunity to disentangle these skills because in this case, language difficulties have a sensory not cognitive basis. In this study, deaf (n = 108) and hearing (n = 125) children (age 8 years) were assessed on language and a wide range of nonverbal EF tasks. Deaf children performed significantly less well on EF tasks, even controlling for nonverbal intelligence and speed of processing. Language mediated EF skill, but the reverse pattern was not evident. Findings suggest that language is key to EF performance rather than vice versa.

81 citations


Cites background from "Language Development of Deaf Childr..."

  • ...The hearing status of the parents is also sometimes not included despite affecting performance on language tasks, with children of deaf parents scoring better (e.g., Lederberg, 2006)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article explored how variations in the timing, quality, and quantity of language input during the earliest stages of development are related to variations in WM, especially phonological WM (PWM), and in turn language learning outcomes.
Abstract: In order to build complex language from perceptual input, children must have access to a powerful information processing system that can analyze, store, and use regularities in the signal to which the child is exposed. In this article, we propose that one of the most important parts of this underlying machinery is the linked set of cognitive and language processing components that comprise the child's developing working memory (WM). To examine this hypothesis, we explore how variations in the timing, quality, and quantity of language input during the earliest stages of development are related to variations in WM, especially phonological WM (PWM), and in turn language learning outcomes. In order to tease apart the relationships between early language experience, WM, and language development, we review research findings from studies of groups of language learners who clearly differ with respect to these aspects of input. Specifically, we consider the development of PWM in children with delayed exposure to language, that is, children born profoundly deaf and exposed to oral language following cochlear implantation and internationally adopted children who have delayed exposed to the adoption language; children who experience impoverished language input, that is, children who experience early bouts of otitis media and signing deaf children born to nonsigning hearing parents; and children with enriched early language input, that is, simultaneous bilinguals and second language learners.

58 citations


Cites background from "Language Development of Deaf Childr..."

  • ...Critically, it is not the case that parents of deaf children speak less or change the quality of their spoken language input to their infants (Lederberg, 2006)....

    [...]

  • ..., Lederberg, A. R., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (2013). Phonological awareness: Explicit...

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Research on working memory and short-term memory abilities of deaf individuals, delineating strengths and weaknesses is reviewed, and remedial and compensatory classroom applications are suggested.
Abstract: The Author reviews research on working memory and short-term memory abilities of deaf individuals, delineating strengths and weaknesses. Among the areas of weakness that are reviewed are sequential recall, processing speed, attention, and memory load. Areas of strengths include free recall, visuospatial recall, imagery, and dual encoding. Phonological encoding and rehearsal appear to be strengths when these strategies are employed. The implications of the strengths and weaknesses for language learning and educational achievement are discussed. Research questions are posed, and remedial and compensatory classroom applications are suggested.

50 citations


Cites background from "Language Development of Deaf Childr..."

  • ...An environment in which the child is surrounded by fluent signers is often not available to most deaf children, however (Goldin-Meadow & Mylander; 1990, Goldin-Meadow,1999; Gallaudet Research Institute, 2008; Lederberg, 2006)....

    [...]

  • ...An environment in which the child is surrounded by fluent signers is often not available to most deaf children, however (Goldin-Meadow & Mylander; 1990, Goldin-Meadow,1999; Gallaudet Research Institute, 2008; Lederberg, 2006)....

    [...]

  • ...Not only are they deprived of language interaction (Goldin-Meadow & Mylander, 1990; Goldin-Meadow,1999; Gallaudet Research Institute, 2008; Lederberg, 2006) that fosters communicative and academic growth (and most likely WM capacity for language), they are attempting to process the relatively few…...

    [...]

  • ...Not only are they deprived of language interaction (Goldin-Meadow & Mylander, 1990; Goldin-Meadow,1999; Gallaudet Research Institute, 2008; Lederberg, 2006) that fosters communicative and academic growth (and most likely WM capacity for language), they are attempting to process the relatively few accessible linguistic interactions they are privy to with WM abilities that are sub-par compared to hearing children who receive a wealth of linguistic input and interaction....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Analysis of child sign language revealed DCDP had a more developed vocabulary and more phonological handshape types compared with DCHP and deaf children of deaf parents (DCDP), and deaf parents using sign tokens and phonological types more than hearing parents.
Abstract: There 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.

41 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Results of a Study are presented that suggest the grammatical structures of English some deaf and hard of hearing students struggle to acquire, exploring particular lexical and morphosyntactic areas in which deaf andhard of hearing children have traditionally exhibited difficulty.
Abstract: Results of a study are presented that suggest the grammatical structures of English some deaf and hard of hearing students struggle to acquire. A review of the literature from the past 40 years is presented, exploring particular lexical and morphosyntactic areas in which deaf and hard of hearing children have traditionally exhibited difficulty. Twenty-six participants from an urban day school for the deaf used the LanguageLinks software, produced by Laureate Learning Systems, for 10 minutes daily for 9 weeks. The descriptive analysis of the results expands on findings reported by Cannon, Easterbrooks, Gagne, and Beal-Alvarez (2011). The results indicated that many participants struggled with regular noun singular/plural; accusative first- and second-person singular; noun/verb agreement copular "be"; accusative third-person number/ gender; locative pronominals; auxiliary "be"/regular past "-ed;" and prenominal determiners plural.

24 citations


Cites background from "Language Development of Deaf Childr..."

  • ...…of language instruction (Musselman & Szanto, 1998; Nicholas & Geers, 2003; Wolbers, Dostal, & Bowers, 2012), use of technology such as hearing aids or cochlear implants (Lederberg, 2006; Marschark, 2001; Schorr et al., 2008), and others (see Spencer & Marschark, 2010, for a useful summary)....

    [...]

  • ...Compared to those of hearing students, deaf and hard of hearing students’ English vocabularies have sometimes been described as smaller and less sophisticated, including with respect to these students’ knowledge of fine semantic details (Bochner, 1982; Lederberg, 2006; Schorr et al., 2008)....

    [...]

  • ...In fact, many researchers have noted that deaf and hard of hearing children master the morphosyntax of English in ways that appear largely similar to, if relatively slower than, those of hearing children who are acquiring English (e.g., Berent, 1996; Lederberg, 2006; Quigley & King, 1980; Schorr et al., 2008; Schirmer, 1985)....

    [...]

  • ...; Mayer, 2009), modality of language instruction (Musselman & Szanto, 1998; Nicholas & Geers, 2003; Wolbers, Dostal, & Bowers, 2012), use of technology such as hearing aids or cochlear implants (Lederberg, 2006; Marschark, 2001; Schorr et al., 2008), and others (see Spencer & Marschark, 2010, for a useful summary)....

    [...]

  • ...…noted that deaf and hard of hearing children master the morphosyntax of English in ways that appear largely similar to, if relatively slower than, those of hearing children who are acquiring English (e.g., Berent, 1996; Lederberg, 2006; Quigley & King, 1980; Schorr et al., 2008; Schirmer, 1985)....

    [...]

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Mary Pat Moeller1
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the relationship between age of enrollment in intervention and language outcomes at 5 years of age in a group of deaf and hard-of-hearing children.
Abstract: Objective. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between age of enrollment in intervention and language outcomes at 5 years of age in a group of deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Method. Vocabulary skills at 5 years of age were examined in a group of 112 children with hearing loss who were enrolled at various ages in a comprehensive intervention program. Verbal reasoning skills were explored in a subgroup of 80 of these children. Participants were evaluated using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and a criterion-referenced measure, the Preschool Language Assessment Instrument, administered individually by professionals skilled in assessing children with hearing loss. A rating scale was developed to characterize the level of family involvement in the intervention program for children in the study. Results. A statistically significant negative correlation was found between age of enrollment and language outcomes at 5 years of age. Children who were enrolled earliest (eg, by 11 months of age) demonstrated significantly better vocabulary and verbal reasoning skills at 5 years of age than did later-enrolled children. Regardless of degree of hearing loss, early-enrolled children achieved scores on these measures that approximated those of their hearing peers. In an attempt to understand the relationships among performance and factors, such as age of enrollment, family involvement, degree of hearing loss, and nonverbal intelligence, multiple regression models were applied to the data. The analyses revealed that only 2 of these factors explained a significant amount of the variance in language scores obtained at 5 years of age: family involvement and age of enrollment. Surprisingly, family involvement explained the most variance after controlling for the influence of the other factors ( r = .615; F change = 58.70), underscoring the importance of this variable. Age of enrollment also contributed significantly to explained variance after accounting for the other variables in the regression ( r = −.452; F change = 19.24). Importantly, there were interactions between the factors of family involvement and age of enrollment that influenced outcomes. Early enrollment was of benefit to children across all levels of family involvement. However, the most successful children in this study were those with high levels of family involvement who were enrolled early in intervention services. Late-identified children whose families were described as limited or average in involvement scored >2 standard deviations below their hearing peers at 5 years of age. Even in the best of circumstances (eg, early enrollment paired with high levels of family involvement), the children in this study scored within the low average range in abstract verbal reasoning compared with hearing peers, reflecting qualitative language differences in these groups of children. Conclusions. Consistent with the findings of Yoshinaga-Itano et al, 1 significantly better language scores were associated with early enrollment in intervention. High levels of family involvement correlated with positive language outcomes, and, conversely, limited family involvement was associated with significant child language delays at 5 years of age, especially when enrollment in intervention was late. The results suggest that success is achieved when early identification is paired with early interventions that actively involve families.

1,302 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a more extensive comparison of vocal development in deaf and hearing infants indicates that the traditional belief that audition plays only a minor role in infant vocal development depends upon evidence that deaf infants produce the same kinds of babbling sounds as hearing infants.
Abstract: The traditional belief that audition plays only a minor role in infant vocal development depends upon evidence that deaf infants produce the same kinds of babbling sounds as hearing infants. Evidence in support of this position has been very limited. A more extensive comparison of vocal development in deaf and hearing infants indicates that the traditional belief is in error. Well-formed syllable production is established in the first 10 months of life by hearing infants but not by deaf infants, indicating that audition plays an important role in vocal development. The difference between babbling in the deaf and hearing is apparent if infant vocal sounds are observed from a metaphonological perspective, a view that takes account of the articulatory/acoustic patterns of speech sounds in all mature spoken languages.

461 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Qualitative analyses indicated higher child language achievement associated with parents' reports of lengthy, in-depth processes to decide about cochlear implantation may indicate high levels of ongoing parent involvement with child and programming.
Abstract: Language skills were investigated in a multicultural sample of 13 prelingually deaf children (11 profoundly deaf from birth) who received cochlear implants between 14 and 38 months of age; average duration of implant use was 49 months. Individual postimplant language skills ranged from extremely delayed to age appropriate. On average, skills varied across domains: on vocabulary, several children functioned in the average range compared with hearing peers, but all were below that range on a test emphasizing syntax (CELF-P). Children with preimplant hearing experience had the highest scores on all language measures. Excluding these children, age of implantation (range 14 to 27 months) associated inversely and significantly with CELF-P scores, even when nonverbal IQ was controlled. Qualitative analyses indicated higher child language achievement associated with parents' reports of lengthy, in-depth processes to decide about cochlear implantation. Such reports may indicate high levels of ongoing parent involvement with child and programming.

209 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is suggested that the population of children with mild-to-moderate hearing loss may contain two distinct groups: a group of normally developing children who have a hearing loss and a groupOf children with language impairment who haveA hearing loss, the implications of this categorization will be discussed.
Abstract: This study examined novel word-learning abilities in young school-age children with mild-to-moderate hearing losses. We questioned whether degree of hearing loss or measures of language and phonolo...

142 citations

Trending Questions (1)
Are deaf people slower to develop?

Deaf children generally show delayed language development compared to hearing children, particularly in vocabulary and syntax. However, the paper does not specifically address whether deaf people are slower to develop overall.