Early Communication in the Home

L

loml

New Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
1,645
Reaction score
0
There is not normally a communication problem with very young deaf babies; so much so that parents often don’t realise that their child is deaf. However
the pre-verbal communication during the first months of life (made up of looks, smiles, caresses, etc.) do not fulfil the needs of an older baby who needs a real language, rich, precise and full of nuances - adapted to his ever-growing needs. He must be able to make himself understood precisely, to express his desires clearly, his questions, his reasoning and his needs.
He needs this not only to communicate but also to order his thoughts and to allow his thought patterns to develop normally.

How does a child acquire the language spoken around him?

A hearing child generally does not have any problem. The child uses the language (English, French, etc) he has heard around him naturally for many months and begins to speak spontaneously. All day long the hearing child is surrounded by a huge quantity of good quality language in varied situations:

For the deaf child, it does not work the same way In 90% of cases, deaf babies are born into hearing families who communicate through speech. Some
moderately deaf, and a few severely deaf children may be able to hear all the sounds of speech with their hearing aids, and if this is the case they can
acquire language naturally in the same way as hearing children. Such children do not normally need Cued Speech.

However, for many severely deaf children and all profoundly deaf children a hearing aid will not enable them to hear all the sounds of speech. They may
hear few, occasionally no, speech sounds. Those they do hear may be heard imprecisely (e.g. they may hear a sound for M and B but not know which is
which, or they may hear only vowel sounds). Only 30 – 40 % of language can be lipread, so this is of limited help. Both the message coming through
the hearing aids AND the message being seen through lip-reading is incomplete. Often the deaf child may hear some speech in perfect listening conditions (face-to-face, no background noise) but not in normal situations. They will be unlikely to over-hear; understanding only language that is aimed directly toward them.

The result is that the deaf child perceives less language (less quantity) in fewer situations (less variety) than a hearing child and what he does perceive is incomplete (poor quality).

This incomplete access to English causes incomplete understanding and results in language which is both grammatically incorrect and delayed.

What then should parents do?

If parents want their child to be well integrated in an English-speaking society and to reach their academic potential, then English must be mastered – if only in its written form. Hearing parents of deaf babies need
to give access to language in sufficient quantity, quality and variety.

If a deaf child cannot hear the sounds of speech it does not make sense to communicate using the hearing route alone. Signing can provide a means of
communication but most hearing parents of deaf babies cannot use sign language which is of good quality – because they have not yet learnt it – and
signing will never give direct access to complete spoken English.

When used consistently by hearing parents of deaf babies and young children Cued Speech will give:

♦ a means of communication which is adapted to his needs as a deaf person

♦ easy mastery of the home and communal language without stress or ‘forcing’.

The use of Cued Speech in the home from an early age will give access to language in good quantity,quality and variety. The addition of aural/oral methods to encourage the maximum use of residual hearing will give the best environment for spoken language to flourish. With Cued Speech hearing parents can cue rhymes, stories, nonsense words, animal noises - anything you say can be cued. All spoken language and its culture is available in an easily accessible form.
Click to expand...

Cued Speech
 
This blatant advertisement is full of mistaken information.
 
Parent-Child Interaction: Impact on Langauge and Cognitive Developmentof Dear Children

Over 90% of deaf children have hearing parents who are not fluent in sign language. In toddlerhood and early childhood, these chidlren often are delayed in development of language and make-believe play. In middle childhood, many achieve poorly in school and are deficient in social skills. Yet deaf children of deaf parents escape these difficulties. Their language (use of sign) and play maturity are on par with hearing children's. After school entry, deaf chilren of deaf parents learn easily and get along well with adults and peers (Borenstein, et.al, 1999; Spencer & Lederberg, 1997).

These differences can be traced to early parent-child communication. Beginning in infancy, hearing parents of deaf children are less positive, less responsive to the child's efforts to communicate, less effective at achieving joint attention and turn-taking, less involved in play, and more directive and intrusive (Spencer, 2000; Spencer & Meadow-Orlans, 1996). In contrast, the quality of communication between deaf children and deaf parents is similar to that of hearing parents and hearing children.

Children with limited and less sensitive parental communication lag behind their age mates in achieving verbal control over their behavior--in thinking before they act and in planning. Deaf children of hearing parents often display impulse control problems (Arnold, 1999).

The impact of deafness on language and cognitive development can best be understood by considering its impact on parents and iother significant people in the child's life. Deaf children need access to language models--deaf adults and peers--to experience natural language learning. And their hearing parents benefit from support along with training in how to onteract sensitively with a nonhearing partner.

Screening techniques can identify deaf babies shortly after birth, enabling immediate enrollment in programs aimed at fostering effective parent-child interaction. When children with profound hearing loss are identified and start to receive intervention within the first year of life, they show much better language, cognitive, and social development (Yoshinaga-Itano, 2003).

Berk, L. (2007). Development through the lifespan (4th ed.). Pearson. Boston, MA.
 
Last edited:
Beautiful example of how ASL may not be the best choice for a hearing parent with a deaf child. You would not want to delay the child even more by trying to learn a new language while at the same time trying to communicate in this new language with your child.

This is great support for how other methods may need to be employed instead.

Thanks jillio :)

Also, the sharing of information does not equal spamming. There are very few threads on Cued Speech creaster by loml versus the total number of threads in any section of this site. If you do not want to see the information don't look at the thread. I think it's great that people are talking about other options.
 
owen06 said:
Beautiful example of how ASL may not be the best choice for a hearing parent with a deaf child. You would not want to delay the child even more by trying to learn a new language while at the same time trying to communicate in this new language with your child.

This is great support for how other methods may need to be employed instead.

Thanks jillio :)

Also, the sharing of information does not equal spamming. There are very few threads on Cued Speech creaster by loml versus the total number of threads in any section of this site. If you do not want to see the information don't look at the thread. I think it's great that people are talking about other options.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you read the post as it was intended by the researchers, you will see that this is in support of early sign, not oral methods. It is also supportive of Bi-Bi environments.

But, nioce try at attempting to make it say what you want it to say.
 
Actually, the only mention of sign with regards to deaf children of hearing parents, is in the first sentence of the first paragraph, stating that deaf children of hearing parents are not fluent in it. The rest talks about early intervention, it does not specify what kind of interevention. If you want to support sign as early interevention you should have posted that portion of the text you quoted. The bolded portions do nothing except to support my previous position.
 
owen06 said:
Beautiful example of how ASL may not be the best choice for a hearing parent with a deaf child. You would not want to delay the child even more by trying to learn a new language while at the same time trying to communicate in this new language with your child.

This is great support for how other methods may need to be employed instead.

Thanks jillio :)

Also, the sharing of information does not equal spamming. There are very few threads on Cued Speech creaster by loml versus the total number of threads in any section of this site. If you do not want to see the information don't look at the thread. I think it's great that people are talking about other options.
Click to expand...


I have seen what happens with parents who are willing to learn ASL for their deaf child. My 2 year old son has a deaf friend who is almost 3. Her parents are hearing and didnt knwo much about deafness nor Deaf culture before she was born. When they found out that she was deaf, immediately, they signed up for ASL classes and got themselves involved with the local deaf chapter. It has been almost 3 years and the parents can communicate with any deaf person and their daughters' language level was tested 6 months above her age level and many people mistake her as a child of deaf parents.

Really, if the parents have the motivation, they WILL learn ASL and their children will establish a strong language foundation. It is a matter of sacrifice and determination.

So..what u just said is not really true since any parent can become fluent if they really want to.
 
Last edited:
owen06 said:
Actually, the only mention of sign with regards to deaf children of hearing parents, is in the first sentence of the first paragraph, stating that deaf children of hearing parents are not fluent in it. The rest talks about early intervention, it does not specify what kind of interevention. If you want to support sign as early interevention you should have posted that portion of the text you quoted. The bolded portions do nothing except to support my previous position.
Click to expand...

Let me explain this so you will understand (maybe). The sentence to which you have referred sets the tone for the intent of the rest of the content. In particular, take note of the recommendation that deaf children of hearing parents need exposure to deaf adults and peers. The entire piece is based on research pertaining to the use of and acquisition of signed language in deaf children.

And you are quite incorrect that it supports anything other than early intervention for language acquisition in the form of sign.

In particular, you need to note regarding the less positive, etc, down to more directive, communications of hearing parents. This refers to parents communicating orally, not in sign. As CS is a mode of oral language, such would apply to that mode as well.
 
shel90 said:
I have seen what happens with parents who are willing to learn ASL for their deaf child. My 2 year old son has a deaf friend who is almost 3. Her parents are hearing and didnt knwo much about deafness nor Deaf culture before she was born. When they found out that she was deaf, immediately, they signed up for ASL classes and got themselves involved with the local deaf chapter. It has been almost 3 years and the parents can communicate with any deaf person and their daughters' language level was tested 6 months above her age level and many people mistake her has a child of deaf parents.

Really, if the parents have the motivation, they WILL learn ASL and their children will establish a strong language foundation. It is a matter of sacrifice and determination.

So..what u just said is not really true since any parent can become fluent if they really want to.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And this information is supportive of Bi-Bi environments. If one does not see it, it is only because one does not want to see it.
 
This topic is about early communication with English, not ASL.

If you wish to start a thread regarding the early aquisition of ASL, please do so in a different thread.

Stick to the topic please.

Thanks
 
No jillio, I think maybe you are the one that needs to "get it". We are talking about acquiring English. What you posted had nothing to do with acquiring English, you posted something about communication. You constantly try to de-rail all of loml's postings, even when provided with the researchto support positions. You still refuse to open your mind to other possibilities. That's sad but you don't need to try and degrade other's who have opened their minds to other ideas.

Of course if you try hard fluency can be gained. But even both you and shel90 have said (in another thread) that it has taken years to become really fluent in ASL (both receptively and expressively). This time lag can lead to delays, the very thing that is trying to be prevented.

I think it took me 5 years to get my receptive skills mastered
Click to expand...
Even after going up to ASL level 5 classes, I still wasnt fluent both expressively and receptively enough for the real world..it took my years at Gallaudet university to get fluent like I am now.
Click to expand...
Receptive skills usually come later than expressive. Its not unusual at all.
Click to expand...
 
loml said:
This topic is about early communication with English, not ASL.

If you wish to start a thread regarding the early aquisition of ASL, please do so in a different thread.

Stick to the topic please.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Actually, loml, the topic according to the title as posted is Early Communication in the Home. And even if the topic were Early Communication in English, one is entitled tp post that which is contradictory to claims made int he topic. It is called debate. If you wish to limit responses to those that agree 100% with any claims made, perhaps you would do better to restrict your postings to a website designed to promote CS.
 
owen06 said:
No jillio, I think maybe you are the one that needs to "get it". We are talking about acquiring English. What you posted had nothing to do with acquiring English, you posted something about communication. You constantly try to de-rail all of loml's postings, even when provided with the researchto support positions. You still refuse to open your mind to other possibilities. That's sad but you don't need to try and degrade other's who have opened their minds to other ideas.

Of course if you try hard fluency can be gained. But even both you and shel90 have said (in another thread) that it has taken years to become really fluent in ASL (both receptively and expressively). This time lag can lead to delays, the very thing that is trying to be prevented.
Click to expand...

Please check the title of the thread, owen06. It is "Early Communication in the Home" and is related to communication between deaf children and hearing parents. As is my reply to said post. Therefore, I am decidely on topic.

I will ask you again.... (and nbo doubt you will fail to answer again) why is it the only time you turn up on this board is to post in one of loml's thread? Are you an alter ego, or perhaps loml logging in under another name? In the past, you have claimed to be a student of psychology who was interested in learning about cognitive and liguisitc issues as related to the deaf. However, it would appear that you are not here to learn about the issues, but simply to blindly support loml's posts regarding CS.

Regarding you assessment of fluency...it also takes years to become fluent in English. Your point is moot.
 
You seem to be a little paranoid. Perhaps you don't like people who can see through all your psycho-babble and beautiful use of fallacies. You are more than free to think what you wish regarding myself. Just because I don't post in every thread on this forum does not mean that I don't read them. loml posting in another name...you make me laugh. I usually post in loml's because it is very tiring to see you always come in and try to start a battle, once again. If you don't like what she's posting, don't read it. Coming into every thread and making snide remarks is unnecessary and really lowers any credibility you wish to portray to people. Someone who claims to be a scholar would not come in and try to discredit another via ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority, they would post contradicting research.

Regarding my supposedly "moot" point, hearing parents will already be fluent in the spoken language of choice, so in choosing a method to communicate that doesn't require learning another language will be much faster and will prevent the delays.
 
owen06 said:
You seem to be a little paranoid. Perhaps you don't like people who can see through all your psycho-babble and beautiful use of fallacies. You are more than free to think what you wish regarding myself. Just because I don't post in every thread on this forum does not mean that I don't read them. loml posting in another name...you make me laugh. I usually post in loml's because it is very tiring to see you always come in and try to start a battle, once again. If you don't like what she's posting, don't read it. Coming into every thread and making snide remarks is unnecessary and really lowers any credibility you wish to portray to people. Someone who claims to be a scholar would not come in and try to discredit another via ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority, they would post contradicting research.

Regarding my supposedly "moot" point, hearing parents will already be fluent in the spoken language of choice, so in choosing a method to communicate that doesn't require learning another language will be much faster and will prevent the delays.
Click to expand...


Just too bad that not all deaf children were able to acquire English via cueing.
 
jillio said:
Actually, loml, the topic according to the title as posted is Early Communication in the Home. And even if the topic were Early Communication in English, one is entitled tp post that which is contradictory to claims made int he topic. It is called debate. If you wish to limit responses to those that agree 100% with any claims made, perhaps you would do better to restrict your postings to a website designed to promote CS.
Click to expand...

jillio - If you are wishing to debate this topic as you claim, then please provide points from the original OP with your rebuttal. Posting an article is not a debate.

Thanks.
 
owen06 said:
Of course if you try hard fluency can be gained. But even both you and shel90 have said (in another thread) that it has taken years to become really fluent in ASL (both receptively and expressively). This time lag can lead to delays, the very thing that is trying to be prevented.
Quote:
I think it took me 5 years to get my receptive skills mastered

Quote:
Even after going up to ASL level 5 classes, I still wasnt fluent both expressively and receptively enough for the real world..it took my years at Gallaudet university to get fluent like I am now.

Quote:
Receptive skills usually come later than expressive. Its not unusual at all.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Interesting.
 
loml said:
Interesting.
Click to expand...

Your game playing is irrevelant. I have seen proof of deaf children of hearing parents who learn ASL whether they are fluent like native signers or not achieving higher literacy skills than those children from families who do not sign at all. So, if CS is 100% successful, why is research not showing that?

I support CS as a teaching tool so what is your agenda?
 
owen06 said:
You seem to be a little paranoid. Perhaps you don't like people who can see through all your psycho-babble and beautiful use of fallacies. You are more than free to think what you wish regarding myself. Just because I don't post in every thread on this forum does not mean that I don't read them. loml posting in another name...you make me laugh. I usually post in loml's because it is very tiring to see you always come in and try to start a battle, once again. If you don't like what she's posting, don't read it. Coming into every thread and making snide remarks is unnecessary and really lowers any credibility you wish to portray to people. Someone who claims to be a scholar would not come in and try to discredit another via ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority, they would post contradicting research.

Regarding my supposedly "moot" point, hearing parents will already be fluent in the spoken language of choice, so in choosing a method to communicate that doesn't require learning another language will be much faster and will prevent the delays.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should check you definintion of ad hominem attacks. Attacking the credibility of the information psoted, and posting in correction of that misinformation is hardly an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is exactly what you have engaged in with the above post.

And, contrary to what you with your limited experience is able to understand (and that is not an attack, but an observation based on the naivte found in so many of your blanket defenses of CS.) I have an ethical obligation to correct that which is misleading to others when it involves the psychosocial and educational well being of deaf children. Both my status as a doctoral candidate and my membership in my professional organizations provide me with that ethical guideline.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top