Wikipedia

Language deprivation in children with hearing loss

Language deprivation in deaf and hard-of-hearing children is a delay in language development that occurs when sufficient exposure to language, spoken or signed, is not provided in the first few years of a deaf or hard of hearing child's life, often called the critical or sensitive period. Early intervention, parental involvement, and other resources all work to prevent language deprivation. Children who experience limited access to language—spoken or signed—may not develop the necessary skills to successfully assimilate into the academic learning environment.[1] There are various educational approaches for teaching deaf and hard of hearing individuals. Decisions about language instruction is dependent upon a number of factors including extent of hearing loss, availability of programs, and family dynamics.

Access to language

edit

Typical language development for deaf and hard of hearing children

edit

Similar linguistic milestones are found in both signed and spoken languages.[2][3] Reduced access to language may result in behavior problems as the child does not have a way to express his wants or needs.[4][5][6] Language deprivation may also affect their neurological development.[4][7] The timing and quality of language exposure are more important than hearing status for developing age-appropriate skills.[7]

Technology and interventions

edit

With currently available technology and interventions, children are likely to successfully achieve age-expected spoken language skills. Technology such as cochlear implants, hearing aids, and bone-anchored hearing aids can potentially help provide access to spoken language. This access can vary greatly from person to person due to factors such as cause and severity of deafness, the age of when hearing technology is introduced, and time of language exposure. Speech therapy, audiology, and other services have the potential to help maximize the access provided through hearing technology. Even for children using hearing technology, the age they were exposed to language (whether visual or spoken) will have a role in how much they can benefit from the technology. Speaking, though, is not the only option for communication for deaf and hard of hearing children. Language exposure, either signed or spoken, from birth builds and strengthens brain tissue that can be used in a variety of language contexts in the future. For example, if in the future the person undergoes surgery to receive a cochlear implant, their language exposure from birth can be an important factor in regards to acquisition of spoken language aided by the implant.[8]

All too often, though, deaf and hard of hearing children do not follow the typical language development timeline. When a child is deprived of language from the beginning, they can be dramatically behind their peers in terms of hitting milestones. This can impact learning for the rest of their lives.[9]

Age and quality of language exposure

edit

The first five years of a child's life is a critical time for cognitive development and the establishment of their native language.[10] This critical period deems the first few years of life as the period during which the brain is most primed for language development. The critical period is also referred to as the sensitive period for language development, or the language acquisition window. Studies on stroke in infancy and typical language development unveiled a critical period for language acquisition.[11] After this critical period of language acquisition, it remains exceedingly laborious and strenuous to master a native language.[12] Language development is not impossible after the five year mark, but will likely bear the cognitive and linguistic characteristics of language deprivation.

Timing and quality of language exposure, not language used or how many languages used, are the factors that matter most when determining language and literacy outcomes.[13][14][15] When deaf and hard of hearing children are fully exposed to natural language along a timeline equivalent to their hearing peers, they will acquire language along equivalent milestones. This timeline includes babbling around 10 months and first sign around one year.[16][17] The full timeline of children who use sign was published by Gallaudet University Press and is a resource that parents of deaf children can use to track their child's language development which includes milestones like following eye gaze, pointing, and imitating handshapes.[17] This resource is unique because it is normed for deaf and hard-of-hearing children, and can be used to establish parent expectations for their child's language progress.[18]

Critical period

edit

The critical stage in language development is important in deaf individuals.[19] Deaf individuals who lack exposure to sign language at a young age fail to achieve full language proficiency as they develop.[19] Inconsistencies in exposure to a natural language during this critical period of language acquisition could result in persistent symptoms, known as language deprivation syndrome.[20] Symptoms of language deprivation syndrome include language dysfluency (e.g., lack of fluency in native language), knowledge gaps about the world around them, abnormal thinking, mood and/or behavior disorders, academic, and literacy delays.[21] It was found that deaf individuals who acquired sign language after five years of age were not nearly as proficient as deaf individuals who were exposed to sign language from birth.[19]

Misconceptions of critical period

edit

One misconception is that deaf children will be at a disadvantage since they lack access to auditory input and, therefore, deafness results in delayed development.[22][23] Because of this, a focus on auditory language exposure for deaf children is usually recommended. However, deafness, or the lack of auditory input, is not a cause of delayed development, language deprivation is. Profoundly deaf children who had early exposure to a visual signed language possess high levels of language organization.[22] If development of spoken language is desired, listening technology (hearing aids or cochlear implants) can help, but the overall process is enhanced when paired with sign language. These devices vary greatly in benefit to different hard of hearing and deaf individuals and do not guarantee better auditory understanding or speaking ability.[22]

Other studies address the neurological differences between individuals who have experienced language deprivation and those who did not. The first five years of life are foundational for many skills as the brain develops the neural connections and processes that will be built upon for years to come. Without full access and exposure to natural language during the critical period, the brain does not have the tools it needs to build the typical framework for processing and producing language.[10][24][25][26] In turn, language deprivation can cause abnormalities in other areas of cognitive functioning, particularly the establishment of concepts, processing things in a set order, and executive function.[27] Similar results were seen in deaf individuals. Language deprivation influenced altered neural activation patterns in deaf individuals that were exposed to sign language later, as compared to deaf individuals who received typical language development.[26]

Language acquisition in deaf children

edit

Most children naturally learn their native language at a young age.[28] Although spoken language is ubiquitous for children who hear normally, congenitally deaf children do not have access to it from birth. Less than 10% of the children with hearing loss are born into deaf families who use sign language as their main communication method.[29] Signed languages are natural languages with linguistic features similar to spoken languages, and the developmental milestones are similar to those of spoken languages.[30][31][32][33][34][35] Deaf and hard of hearing children with deaf parents who sign with them thus experience language from birth, like typically developing children with normal hearing.[36] To succeed, children must acquire at least one language (spoken or signed).[5] Some researchers and practitioners encourage families to focus exclusively on spoken language.[37] There is also evidence that suggests that natural sign languages are beneficial to deaf and hard of hearing children.[38]

Incidental learning and access to knowledge

edit

When hearing individuals share information with each other in a way that is not accessible to deaf individuals, the deaf individuals are not privy to incidental learning experiences. Incidental learning refers to any unprompted, unplanned, or unintended learning.[39] Hearing children typically learn incidentally when they overhear conversations between other family members in the home. This type of learning occurs in everyday communication including emotional expression, navigating arguments, and managing triggers. Language deprivation syndrome coupled with the lack of these every day incidental learning experiences may impact mental health, physical health, and academic advancements.[20][40] A lack of incidental learning can also limit an individual's general wealth of knowledge and comprehension skills used to learn about and understand the world around them.[24] Without the wealth of knowledge and language skills hearing children typically demonstrate, deaf and hard of hearing children can arrive at school already behind their peers. This trend can continue as they spend school years working to learn the things their hearing peers picked up effortlessly in the home before starting school. Incidental learning is possible for deaf and hard-of-hearing children when the family uses language that is fully accessible to all family members and includes the child with atypical hearing in family communications directly and indirectly.

Early accessible communication

edit

The importance of early accessible communication with family and peers can be seen in "dinner table syndrome"—the experience of observing spoken conversations between other family members and not understanding these conversations.[41] As statistics show, 90–95% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, thus, they may often experience this phenomenon if their family does not incorporate sign language into their communication.[42][43] These parents may be unfamiliar with Deaf culture and are often unaware of the best communication methods to assist their children with developing into contributing members of society.[44][45] A famous Deaf artist, Susan Dupor, painted an art piece called "Family Dog" to represent this experience. Her artwork represents the feeling of isolation being deaf in an all-hearing family.[46] This painting was designed to emphasize deaf family members' perspectives with the blurred faces of the family metaphorically representing the difficulties of lip reading. Only 30–45% of the English language can be understood solely through lip reading.[47] In these situations, deaf children are unable to participate in the conversations without using a commonly accessible language.[48] Similarly, these experiences occur during social engagements where deaf individuals cannot communicate with other individuals through a spoken language.

Prevention

edit

Language

edit

Modality

edit

When it comes to language deprivation prevention, modality, which in this case means using either spoken or signed language, does not matter to the brain as long as it is fully accessible. Studies from Dr. Laura-Ann Petitto reveal that brain tissue used for language accepts both auditory and visual input to develop language pathways. This is because the brain focuses on patterns in language, whether it is a pattern of sounds or a pattern of hand movements.[49] Access to the full range of patterns embedded in a language is key for developing strong language pathways in the brain.[50] The brain connections developed in response to linguistic input can then be utilized if/when the child is exposed to a second language. Even in cases where the brain receives absolutely no auditory input, the brain is still able to develop typical language skills when exposed to high-quality visual language. Hearing technologies can also be used to grant spoken language access, though the quality of this access varies from person to person.

Methods

edit

Communication methods used with deaf children may include spoken language, signed language, systems or philosophies such as cued speech, Signing Exact English, and other forms of manually coded language, as well as philosophies and techniques like simultaneous communication or total communication. Signed languages can provide the child with full language access, but they pose challenges to the family as they work to learn a new language. Manually coded language systems as well as philosophies like simultaneous communication or total communication are more closely linked to the spoken language used in the area and therefore are usually easier for acquisition by people whose native language is the spoken language of the area. However, these methods may not have the same linguistic characteristics as natural languages, such as morphology, phonology, syntax, and semantics.[51][52]

Children whose parents opt for spoken language may use hearing technology to receive spoken language input and are encouraged to go to speech therapy to work on expressive language skills, leading them to speak and listen to language. Medical professionals could perform cochlear implant surgery on these individuals if elected, or audiologists could test residual hearing and order hearing aids. This method is often used by families who utilize spoken language at home and cannot or will not learn sign language. Modern research reveals that there is a wide range of results from this method as there are many background factors that impact the success of this method, such as family socioeconomic status, location, parental employment, quality of the language model at home, and the child's residual hearing.[53][54][55]

Code switching

edit

By prioritizing the child's visual and auditory language equally from birth, children are given every opportunity and tool to develop language. As children grow and become adults, they may naturally prefer one modality over the other, but will have developed useful skills in both. Code-switching allows bilingual individuals to experience all the benefits of each language they know. For deaf and hard of hearing children especially, a strong language foundation in a signed language paired with a spoken language (or written) sets the stage for literacy later on. In a study conducted with Deaf and hearing individuals, psychologists found that deaf children born to deaf parents were the most proficient at code-switching. In turn, deaf children born to hearing parents struggled more with the ability to code-switch and communicate in various conditions. Parents' hearing status and age that the child is exposed to language affect deaf children's ability to code-switch.[56] Deaf children may lack proficiency or fluency in either language during early language-learning development, they still engage in code switching activities, in which they go back and forth between signing and English to communicate.[57] Code switching from oral speech is difficult for Deaf children. Lexical borrowing and code switching do occur between sign and oral languages.[58] Lexicon is similar to borrowing and oral speech to code switching.[clarification needed]

Conflict and controversies

edit

There has been much conflict and controversy regarding language modality for deaf and hard of hearing children. When it is discovered that a child is deaf or hard of hearing, this assessment is usually made via a hearing test in a medical setting. The first people the parents interact with after their child's hearing status is identified can be very influential.[59] The Joint Commission on Infant Hearing recommends that professionals working with families of deaf infants should provide parents with unbiased, well-rounded information to help guide decisions they will need to make.[60] Systemic bias towards deafness, known as audism, can impact what information and guidance parents receive. If a deaf child does not meet appropriate early benchmarks for the first chosen communication method or modality, it is important to consider additional or different methods, in order to prevent language delay, or in extreme cases, language deprivation.[61]

Early intervention

edit

Early intervention is one of the main methods of preventing language deprivation. A main focus of early intervention programs and services for deaf and hard of hearing children is language development. Early interventionists are able to work with the family during the early, critical years for language acquisition.[62] Early intervention can take many forms and usually depends on where the family lives. In the United States, the School for the Deaf in the state the family lives in likely provides programs and resources. Other services can come from the state itself, national programs, and educational centers. These services may be paid for through state and federal funds. Independent organizations like the National Association of the Deaf and the American Society for Deaf Children in the United States and the National Deaf Children's Society in London can provide additional resources and support.[63]

Deaf mentor

edit

Children whose parents select the signed language route can benefit from signed language models, such as a Deaf mentor.[64] Deaf mentors provide a role model for the child that they may not see anywhere else, as well as providing a language model for the whole family. Deaf mentors can help parents understand what their deaf child is capable of and establish high expectations for the child to fulfill their potential.[65] When working with a Deaf mentor, the family typically takes signing classes and engages in Deaf community events in addition to working with the mentor.[citation needed] Everyone, including the child, learns to sign together and use their skills to communicate with one another with the mentor helping to facilitate mastery by being a native-level language model.[66]

Success of early intervention

edit

A team must be cooperative for the success of early intervention. Members of the early intervention team can include education and medical professionals, therapists (speech, occupational, physical, psychological), specialists (vision, hearing/deafness, family dynamics, and kinesthetic), the audiologist, a social worker, the interventionist, and the family.[67] A Deaf mentor can also be included as a key member of the team. Early interventionists can also work with the family in the home through game play, language and communication instruction and activities, providing strategies, helping establish routines and discipline methods, and more.[68] Home visits are one way early intervention can take place, but it is not limited to the home given the broad range of services provided. Geographic location of the family influences available services and resources due to distance, but virtual intervention measures have helped address this challenge.

Early intervention has also helped prevent language deprivation through newborn hearing screening.[69] Before universal hearing screening was established in hospitals shortly after birth, many deaf children's hearing status was not identified until years after birth, when language milestones were not being met. At the time of identification, the child was already behind. Newborn hearing screening supports early identification and allows professionals to help keep the child's language development on track.[70]

Legislation

edit

Another way language deprivation can be prevented is through legislation providing standards for language access in deaf education. Globally, there are a number of laws and policies that relate to the topic of language deprivation.[clarification needed] Other related laws in the United States focusing on special education including deaf education include national legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.[70]

LEAD-K

edit

One current[when?] example of state legislation in the United States is LEAD-K, Language Equality & Acquisition for Deaf Kids. LEAD-K varies from state to state because each state is responsible for drafting its version of the bill. The main focus of LEAD-K is full language development in English, ASL, or both, for school readiness and the prevention of language deprivation.[51] Twelve states have passed LEAD-K legislation as of August 5, 2019.[needs update] The model bill for LEAD-K calls for five actions:

  1. Create a resource for informal parental use to chart their deaf or hard of hearing children's language growth—this resource-based on milestones for specific language and English literacy development.
  2. Provide a similar resource for educators that, instead of being created through LEAD-K, is chosen from current methods.
  3. Distribute the parent and educator resources to relevant individuals and organizations and equip these recipients for its use.
  4. Hold Individualized Education Program (IEP) and Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) teams accountable for the child's language development progress.
  5. Establish an advisory committee outline the model bills and the requirements for the composition to ensure the creation of a balanced, knowledgeable, and diverse team.[52]
Controversies
edit

LEAD-K has faced opposition from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and American Cochlear Implant Alliance (ACIA). Both groups released statements regarding their concerns about the parental choice of modality for their child.[71][72] They argued that such legislation could negatively impact the services the child receives under IDEA. ACIA also argued that there was a lack of evidence suggesting that ASL benefits all children with a hearing loss.[73] ASHA expressed its concern that parents might not receive information regarding all possible options and that the policy elevated one modality over all others.[74] LEAD-K responded to these concerns by reiterating their commitment to deaf and hard of hearing children achieving age appropriate language milestones regardless of the language chosen by the parents and that they were not advocating for one modality over another.[75][76]

One notable revision came via a collaboration between LEAD-K and the Alexander Graham Bell Association, a historically spoken-language-only group. These two traditionally opposed groups were able to reach an agreement by focusing on the shared desire to provide equal language acquisition opportunities for deaf and hard of hearing children as are received by their hearing peers and promote the spread of accurate and balanced information.[68]

Educational considerations

edit

General education

edit

One education placement for students who are deaf or hard of hearing is general education, also called mainstreaming. This method integrates students requiring special education services into a general education classroom based on their skills. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates the specificities of this integration.[77] IDEA protects students who are typically a part of the special education classroom by granting the right to access the same education setting as their peers.[78] The student also has a right to the school-provided accommodations and services necessary for them to be able to participate in the general education classroom. The student's needs, services, and goals are detailed in their Individualized Education Plan (IEP). All deaf and hard of hearing students have a right to access general education instruction at their local school with their peers, but it depends on the individual if this option will be the best fit.

Classroom accommodations

edit

In terms of deaf students, deafness is considered a low-incidence disability. This translates to the possibility of one deaf child belonging to a classroom of all "hearing" children[79] and can result in unique barriers. For example, teachers and students within the general education setting may not know sign language, causing significant communication and cultural barriers to social interaction, friendship, and learning. Accommodations such as sign language interpreters, communication access real-time translation (CART), or an FM system can help with some of these issues, but they will always be present. These accommodations work to increase access, but for students using sign language in general education settings, communication will be indirect since it is through the interpreter. There is always a risk of interpreting miscommunication and even with these accommodations, the learning and social interactions will be an obstacle.[80]

Students who use hearing technology and spoken language can be supported by reducing classroom background noise, seating close to the instructor, and speakers who face the class while talking one at a time.[81] Learning can be difficult when these conditions are not provided.

Bilingual–bicultural education

edit

Deaf children without early access to signed language remain at risk for starting school unprepared for the rigors of academic learning.[80] These different challenges of the deaf children for educational progress are not limited to those with their language exposure.[82] That is where an educational philosophy known as the Bilingual-bicultural (Bi-Bi) method can benefit deaf students.

This approach began to emerge in schools during the late 1980s in the United States, Denmark, and Sweden.[82][83] In the United States, the ASL/English Bi-Bi is designed to facilitate academic success and provide education to deaf students by teaching sign language as a first language, followed by a written or spoken language (such as English) as their second language.[82][84][85] Furthermore, state schools specifically for the deaf offer exposure to Deaf culture—a unique facet not provided by general education. Through the Bi-Bi approach, deaf students may develop multiple cultural identities: one based on their hearing status and others based on that of their family or local majority culture.

This method aims to provide deaf and hard of hearing students with instruction in both signed and written languages and exposes students to both Deaf culture and other cultural contexts, i.e. the wider culture of the area or country. Bi-Bi emphasizes that deaf children learn visually and education should be provided through a visual language. Bi-Bi supporters argue because of the variability in cochlear implant and hearing aid outcomes, sign language access is crucial for preventing deaf and hard-of-hearing children from experiencing inequalities in education. However, since it is a method with a bilingual focus, the written form of the majority spoken language is given equal value. Deaf and hard of hearing students have a right to the same academic content as their peers and to literacy.[citation needed]

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ Marschark, Marc; Hauser, Peter C (2008-07-10). Deaf Cognition. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195368673.003.0012. ISBN 978-0-19-536867-3.
  2. ^ "ASL Stages of Development (CSD)". NYSD. Retrieved 2022-11-13.
  3. ^ "Age-Appropriate Speech and Language Milestones - Stanford Medicine Children's Health". www.stanfordchildrens.org. Retrieved 2022-11-13.
  4. ^ a b Hall, Matthew L.; Eigsti, Inge-Marie; Bortfeld, Heather; Lillo-Martin, Diane (January 2017). "Auditory Deprivation Does Not Impair Executive Function, But Language Deprivation Might: Evidence From a Parent-Report Measure in Deaf Native Signing Children". Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 22 (1): 9–21. doi:10.1093/deafed/enw054. PMC 5189172. PMID 27624307.
  5. ^ a b Humphries, Tom; Kushalnagar, Poorna; Mathur, Gaurav; Napoli, Donna Jo; Padden, Carol; Pollard, Robert; Rathmann, Christian; Smith, Scott (2014-12-01). "What Medical Education can do to Ensure Robust Language Development in Deaf Children". Medical Science Educator. 24 (4): 409–419. doi:10.1007/s40670-014-0073-7. ISSN 2156-8650. S2CID 73150101.
  6. ^ Stevenson, Jim; Kreppner, Jana; Pimperton, Hannah; Worsfold, Sarah; Kennedy, Colin (May 2015). "Emotional and behavioural difficulties in children and adolescents with hearing impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis". European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 24 (5): 477–496. doi:10.1007/s00787-015-0697-1. ISSN 1018-8827. PMC 4419186. PMID 25758233.
  7. ^ a b Language_Deprivation_in_Deaf_Children_EHDI_Poster_2019
  8. ^ BL2: What the Eyes Reveal About the Brain, 2 May 2014, retrieved 2021-04-20
  9. ^ Hall, Wyatte C. (May 2017). "What You Don't Know Can Hurt You: The Risk of Language Deprivation by Impairing Sign Language Development in Deaf Children". Maternal and Child Health Journal. 21 (5): 961–965. doi:10.1007/s10995-017-2287-y. PMC 5392137. PMID 28185206.
  10. ^ a b Skotara, Nils; Salden, Uta; Kügow, Monique; Hänel-Faulhaber, Barbara; Röder, Brigitte (December 2012). "The influence of language deprivation in early childhood on L2 processing: An ERP comparison of deaf native signers and deaf signers with a delayed language acquisition". BMC Neuroscience. 13 (1): 44. doi:10.1186/1471-2202-13-44. PMC 3404011. PMID 22554360.
  11. ^ Lenneberg, Eric H.; Chomsky, Noam; Marx, Otto (15 January 1967). Biological Foundations of Language. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-52626-1.[page needed]
  12. ^ Siegler, Robert S (2006). How children develop. Worth Pub. ISBN 978-0-7167-6113-6. OCLC 946919425.[page needed]
  13. ^ Petitto, Laura-Ann; Dunbar, KN (December 2009). "New Discoveries From the Bilingual Brain and Mind Across the Life Span: Implications for Education". Mind, Brain, and Education. 3 (4): 185–197. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01069.x. PMC 3338206. PMID 22545067.
  14. ^ Kovelman, Ioulia; Baker, Stephanie A.; Petitto, Laura-Ann (July 2008). "Age of first bilingual language exposure as a new window into bilingual reading development". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 11 (2): 203–223. doi:10.1017/S1366728908003386. PMC 2759761. PMID 19823598.
  15. ^ Genesee, Fred (April 2009). "Early childhood bilingualism: Perils and possibilities" (PDF). Journal of Applied Research on Learning.
  16. ^ Pichler, Deborah (2012). Sign Language - An international handbook. pp. 647–686.
  17. ^ a b "Setting Language in Motion: Family Supports and Early Intervention for Babies Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing" (PDF). Gallaudet University. 2015.
  18. ^ Simms, Laurene; Baker, Sharon; Clark, M. Diane (2013). "The Standardized Visual Communication and Sign Language Checklist for Signing Children". Sign Language Studies. 14 (1): 101–124. doi:10.1353/sls.2013.0029. S2CID 144795083. Project MUSE 523171.
  19. ^ a b c Newport, Elissa L. (January 1990). "Maturational Constraints on Language Learning". Cognitive Science. 14 (1): 11–28. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2. S2CID 207056257.
  20. ^ a b Hall, Wyatte C.; Levin, Leonard L.; Anderson, Melissa L. (June 2017). "Language deprivation syndrome: a possible neurodevelopmental disorder with sociocultural origins". Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 52 (6): 761–776. doi:10.1007/s00127-017-1351-7. PMC 5469702. PMID 28204923.
  21. ^ Gulati, Sanjay (3 September 2018). Language Deprivation and Deaf Mental Health. Routledge/Taylor & Francis. pp. 24–53. ISBN 978-1-315-16672-8.
  22. ^ a b c "National Association of the Deaf - NAD". www.nad.org. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  23. ^ Humphries, Tom; Kushalnagar, Poorna; Mathur, Gaurav; Napoli, Donna Jo; Rathmann, Christian; Smith, Scott (March 2019). "Support for parents of deaf children: Common questions and informed, evidence-based answers". International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 118: 134–142. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.12.036. PMID 30623850. S2CID 58621632.
  24. ^ a b Cheng, Qi; Roth, Austin; Halgren, Eric; Mayberry, Rachel I. (19 September 2019). "Effects of Early Language Deprivation on Brain Connectivity: Language Pathways in Deaf Native and Late First-Language Learners of American Sign Language". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 13: 320. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00320. PMC 6761297. PMID 31607879.
  25. ^ Leybaert, Jacqueline; D'hondt, Murielle (January 2003). "Neurolinguistic development in deaf children: the effect of early language experience" (PDF). International Journal of Audiology. 42 (sup1): 34–40. doi:10.3109/14992020309074622. PMID 12918608. S2CID 39122614.
  26. ^ a b Mayberry, Rachel I.; Chen, Jen-Kai; Witcher, Pamela; Klein, Denise (October 2011). "Age of acquisition effects on the functional organization of language in the adult brain". Brain and Language. 119 (1): 16–29. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.05.007. PMID 21705060. S2CID 18930728.
  27. ^ Kral, Andrej; Kronenberger, William G; Pisoni, David B; O'Donoghue, Gerard M (May 2016). "Neurocognitive factors in sensory restoration of early deafness: a connectome model". The Lancet Neurology. 15 (6): 610–621. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(16)00034-x. PMC 6260790. PMID 26976647.
  28. ^ RAMÍREZ, NAJA FERJAN; LIEBERMAN, AMY M.; MAYBERRY, RACHEL I. (2012-01-20). "The initial stages of first-language acquisition begun in adolescence: when late looks early". Journal of Child Language. 40 (2): 391–414. doi:10.1017/s0305000911000535. ISSN 0305-0009. PMC 3645343. PMID 22261245.
  29. ^ "Quick Statistics About Hearing". NIDCD. Retrieved 2022-10-29.
  30. ^ Stokoe, William C. (1978). Sign language structure : the first linguistic analysis of American sign language (Newly rev ed.). Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. ISBN 0-932130-03-8. OCLC 4606225.
  31. ^ Klima, Edward S. (1979). The signs of language. Ursula Bellugi. Cambridge, Mass. ISBN 0-674-80795-2. OCLC 4569939.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  32. ^ Reilly, Judy Snitzer; Mcintire, Marina; Bellugi, Ursula (December 1990). "The acquisition of conditionals in American Sign Language: Grammaticized facial expressions". Applied Psycholinguistics. 11 (4): 369–392. doi:10.1017/S0142716400009632. ISSN 1469-1817. S2CID 146327328.
  33. ^ Anderson, D. (2002-06-01). "The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory: Normative Data for American Sign Language". Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 7 (2): 83–106. doi:10.1093/deafed/7.2.83. PMID 15451878.
  34. ^ Pichler, Deborah Chen (2002-01-01). "Word order variation and acquisition in American Sign Language". Sign Language & Linguistics. 5 (1): 89–97. doi:10.1075/sll.5.1.10pic. ISSN 1387-9316.
  35. ^ Mayberry, R.I.; Squires, B. (2006), "Sign Language: Acquisition", Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Elsevier, pp. 291–296, doi:10.1016/b0-08-044854-2/00854-3, ISBN 978-0-08-044854-1, retrieved 2022-11-16
  36. ^ Mayberry, R.I.; Squires, B. (2006), "Sign Language: Acquisition", Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Elsevier, pp. 291–296, doi:10.1016/b0-08-044854-2/00854-3, ISBN 9780080448541, retrieved 2022-05-10
  37. ^ Lim, S. Y. C.; Simser, J. (May 2005). "Auditory-verbal therapy for children with hearing impairment". Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore. 34 (4): 307–312. doi:10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.V34N4p307. ISSN 0304-4602. PMID 15937571.
  38. ^ Hall, Matthew L.; Hall, Wyatte C.; Caselli, Naomi K. (2019-03-13). "Deaf children need language, not (just) speech". First Language. 39 (4): 367–395. doi:10.1177/0142723719834102. ISSN 0142-7237. S2CID 140083091.
  39. ^ Kelly, Steve W. (2012). "Incidental Learning". Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. pp. 1517–1518. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_366. ISBN 978-1-4419-1427-9.
  40. ^ Traxler, C. B. (1 September 2000). "The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition: National Norming and Performance Standards for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students". Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 5 (4): 337–348. doi:10.1093/deafed/5.4.337. PMID 15454499.
  41. ^ Fellinger, Johannes; Holzinger, Daniel; Pollard, Robert (March 2012). "Mental health of deaf people". The Lancet. 379 (9820): 1037–1044. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61143-4. PMID 22423884. S2CID 20731408.
  42. ^ Mitchell, Ross E; Karchmer, Michael A (2004). "Chasing the Mythical Ten Percent: Parental Hearing Status of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in the United States". Sign Language Studies. 4 (2): 138–163. doi:10.1353/sls.2004.0005. S2CID 145578065. Project MUSE 51652.
  43. ^ Mitchell, Ross E; Karchmer, Michael A (2005). "Parental Hearing Status and Signing among Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students". Sign Language Studies. 5 (2): 231–244. doi:10.1353/sls.2005.0004. S2CID 143689745. Project MUSE 176936.
  44. ^ Moores, D (2001). Educating the Deaf: Psychology, Principles, and Practices (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.[page needed]
  45. ^ Stacey, Lim (4 May 2017). "Children with hearing loss: developing listening and talking, birth to six, 3rd edition". International Journal of Audiology. 56 (5): 358–359. doi:10.1080/14992027.2016.1270470.
  46. ^ Culture, Deaf (2015-07-14). "Deaf Culture: Family Dog". Deaf Culture. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  47. ^ Callis, Lydia (2016-03-23). "Lip Reading Is No Simple Task". HuffPost. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  48. ^ Hauser, Peter C.; O'Hearn, Amanda; McKee, Michael; Steider, Anne; Thew, Denise (2010). "Deaf Epistemology: Deafhood and Deafness". American Annals of the Deaf. 154 (5): 486–492. doi:10.1353/aad.0.0120. PMID 20415284. S2CID 41199044. Project MUSE 377925.
  49. ^ "Language is more than speaking: How the brain processes sign language | Max Planck Neuroscience". 16 February 2021. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  50. ^ Vries, Ellen de (2017-07-17). "Patterns in language and language in patterns". Medium. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  51. ^ a b "Language In Brief". American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
  52. ^ a b CMPASL (April 21, 2016). "ASL as a Foreign Language". Critical Studies in Education.
  53. ^ Glennon, Erin; Svirsky, Mario A; Froemke, Robert C (February 2020). "Auditory cortical plasticity in cochlear implant users". Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 60: 108–114. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2019.11.003. PMC 7002179. PMID 31864104.
  54. ^ "6 Pre-Implant Factors That Can Influence Success With Your Device". The MED-EL Blog. 2017-11-02.
  55. ^ Geers, Ann E. (2006). "Factors Influencing Spoken Language Outcomes in Children following Early Cochlear Implantation". Cochlear and Brainstem Implants. Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. Vol. 64. pp. 50–65. doi:10.1159/000094644. ISBN 978-3-8055-8157-8. PMID 16891836.
  56. ^ Hoffmeister, Robert; Moores, Donald F. (1987). "Code Switching in Deaf Adults". American Annals of the Deaf. 132 (1): 31–34. doi:10.1353/aad.2012.0770. ISSN 1543-0375. PMID 3630869. S2CID 27972463.
  57. ^ Andrews, Jean F.; Rusher, Melissa (2010). "Codeswitching Techniques: Evidence-Based Instructional Practices for the ASL/English Bilingual Classroom". American Annals of the Deaf. 155 (4): 407–424. doi:10.1353/aad.2010.0036. ISSN 1543-0375. PMID 21305977. S2CID 23734679.
  58. ^ Berent, Gerald P. (December 1993). "Language contact in the American deaf community. Ceil Lucas and Clayton Valli. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1992. Pp. xviii + 161. $32.50". Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 15 (4): 531–532. doi:10.1017/s0272263100012493. ISSN 0272-2631. S2CID 146406644.
  59. ^ Easson, Anne; Walter, Simone (December 2017). "Hearing-impaired young people – a physician's guide". Clinical Medicine. 17 (6): 521–524. doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.17-6-521. ISSN 1470-2118. PMC 6297701. PMID 29196352.
  60. ^ The Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (2019). "Year 2019 Position Statement: Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs". Journal of Early Hearing Detection and Intervention. 4 (2): 21. Retrieved 2023-03-27. It is often the audiologist who provides the first information to the family for an identified child following diagnosis. The audiologist has the responsibility for communicating the information to the family in an empathetic, non-biased, open-ended fashion, and in a language (spoken or signed) that is accessible to the parents, using interpreters/translators as necessary
  61. ^ Glickman, Neil S. (2018-09-03). Language Deprivation and Deaf Mental Health. doi:10.4324/9781315166728. ISBN 9781315166728. S2CID 149837579.
  62. ^ CDC (2018-04-11). "What is "Early Intervention" and is my child eligible?". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  63. ^ "National Association of the Deaf - NAD". www.nad.org. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  64. ^ "Deaf Mentor Program – Outreach Services for the Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Deafblind". Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  65. ^ "Hands & Voices :: Communication Considerations". www.handsandvoices.org. Retrieved 2023-02-12.
  66. ^ "Ski Hi Deaf Mentor Program". deaf-mentor.skihi.org. Retrieved 2022-10-13.
  67. ^ "National Association of the Deaf - NAD". www.nad.org. Retrieved 2021-04-20.
  68. ^ a b "Deaf Mentor Program – Outreach Services for the Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Deafblind". Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  69. ^ Neumann, Katrin; Mathmann, Philipp; Chadha, Shelly; Euler, Harald A.; White, Karl R. (2022-01-05). "Newborn Hearing Screening Benefits Children, but Global Disparities Persist". Journal of Clinical Medicine. 11 (1): 271. doi:10.3390/jcm11010271. ISSN 2077-0383. PMC 8746089. PMID 35012010.
  70. ^ a b "Universal Newborn Hearing Screening". www.nationwidechildrens.org. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  71. ^ CDC (2018-04-11). "What is "Early Intervention" and is my child eligible?". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  72. ^ "National Association of the Deaf - NAD". www.nad.org. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  73. ^ "Position Paper: Supporting Parent Choice for Children who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing".
  74. ^ "Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Kids (LEAD-K)". American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Retrieved 2022-11-11.
  75. ^ "OPEN LETTER to American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)". Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Kids. 2019-02-28. Retrieved 2022-11-30.
  76. ^ "OPEN LETTER TO American Cochlear Implant Alliance (ACIA)". Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Kids. 2019-02-21. Retrieved 2022-11-30.
  77. ^ "[USC02] 20 USC Ch. 33: EDUCATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  78. ^ "About IDEA". Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  79. ^ Stinson, M; Antia, S (1 September 1999). "Considerations in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students in inclusive settings". Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 4 (3): 163–175. doi:10.1093/deafed/4.3.163. PMID 15579885.
  80. ^ a b Paatsch, Louise; Toe, Dianne (November 2020). "The Impact of Pragmatic Delays for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in Mainstream Classrooms". Pediatrics. 146 (Supplement 3): S292–S297. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-0242I. PMID 33139443.
  81. ^ "Tips for Working with Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing". diversity.utexas.edu. Retrieved 2021-04-20.
  82. ^ a b c Dammeyer, Jesper; Marschark, Marc (October 2016). "Level of Educational Attainment Among Deaf Adults Who Attended Bilingual–Bicultural Programs". Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 21 (4): 394–402. doi:10.1093/deafed/enw036. PMID 27235699.
  83. ^ Davies, Shawn Neal (1991). "The Transition toward Bilingual Education of Deaf Children in Sweden & Denmark: Perspectives on Language". Sign Language Studies. 1071 (1): 169–195. doi:10.1353/sls.1991.0023. S2CID 143879785.
  84. ^ Hoffmeister, Robert J.; Caldwell-Harris, Catherine L. (August 2014). "Acquiring English as a second language via print: The task for deaf children". Cognition. 132 (2): 229–242. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.014. PMID 24813574. S2CID 37573361.
  85. ^ Marschark, Marc; Albertini, John Anthony; Lang, Harry G. (2002). Educating Deaf Students: From Research to Practice. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-531070-2.[page needed]
edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Language_deprivation_in_children_with_hearing_loss&oldid=1258891852"