Language Acquisition, Food for Thought

[Bottesini]

Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches

Children acquire language without instruction as long as they are regularly and meaningfully engaged with an accessible human language. Today, 80% of children born deaf in the developed world are implanted with cochlear devices that allow some of them access to sound in their early years, which helps them to develop speech.

However, through early childhood, brain plasticity changes and children who have not acquired a first language in the early years might never be completely fluent in any language. If they miss this critical period for exposure to a natural language, their subsequent development of the cognitive activities that rely on a solid first language might be underdeveloped, such as literacy, memory organization, and number manipulation.

An alternative to speech-exclusive approaches to language acquisition exists in the use of sign languages such as American Sign Language (ASL), where acquiring a sign language is subject to the same time constraints of spoken language development. Unfortunately, so far, these alternatives are caught up in an "either - or"dilemma, leading to a highly polarized conflict about which system families should choose for their children, with little tolerance for alternatives by either side of the debate and widespread misinformation about the evidence and implications for or against either approach.

The success rate with cochlear implants is highly variable. This issue is still debated, and as far as we know, there are no reliable predictors for success with implants.

Yet families are often advised not to expose their child to sign language. Here absolute positions based on ideology create pressures for parents that might jeopardize the real developmental needs of deaf children.

What we do know is that cochlear implants do not offer accessible language to many deaf children. By the time it is clear that the deaf child is not acquiring spoken language with cochlear devices, it might already be past the critical period, and the child runs the risk of becoming linguistically deprived.

Linguistic deprivation constitutes multiple personal harms as well as harms to society (in terms of costs to our medical systems and in loss of potential productive societal participation).

Author: Tom HumphriesPoorna KushalnagarGaurav MathurDonna Jo NapoliCarol PaddenChristian RathmannScott R Smith
Credits/Source: Harm Reduction Journal 2012, 9:16

 

[CSign]

I think the "either/or" dilemma gets in the way of families signing with their deaf children. If people didn't perceive the two to be mutually exclusive, I think the families that don't sign would be more inclined to.

 

[lencho]

I think the "either/or" dilemma gets in the way of families signing with their deaf children. If people didn't perceive the two to be mutually exclusive, I think the families that don't sign would be more inclined to.

I don't understand why they are considered mutually exclusive. I am not aware of that tabu in the teaching of more than one oral language to kids.

I recall that many parents of Latino kids back about 30 years, avoided teaching their kids Spanish because of the fear that they wouldn't acquire the language of the dominant culture (English) which they needed to succeed there, but I don't know if there was any concrete evidence that Spanish would somehow "shut out" their English acquisition. To the contrary, the kids I have known who were lucky enough to have parents truly fluent in both languages (usually bicultural marriages) and who were conscientiously exposed to both, had a major advantage...

 

[kellycat]

Kids can grow up truly bilingual, although there can be some occasional crossover as the brain subconsciously sorts out the languages and builds the synapses needed for processing all that language. No lasting ill effects, they do get sorted out.

Current resarch shows that Acquiring a language (knowing it subconsciously, like a native language, no matter what age it happens at) requires one thing: repetitive comprehensible input just above the level of linguistic mastery.

In normal words: you need to hear/see language that you understand over and over again until it just soaks in. That language needs to be something you understand, but haven't already mastered, because if you have that language mastered, you obviously won't learn anything new, and if you don't understand the message you will get noting from it. Anyone with kids knows you can't just tell them something once.

BTW, the only advantage kids have in learning a language compared to adults is they can typically develop a more "native" accent. Motivated adults who already have a language schema in their brain can actually learn faster than kids.

 

[Grayma]

I don't understand why they are considered mutually exclusive. I am not aware of that tabu in the teaching of more than one oral language to kids.
...

I'm not aware of a tabu, but it is fairly well known in bilingual research that if you introduce a child to two languages from birth, that generally, the child will begin talking at a slightly later age than other kids. That's not a bad thing, it's just what happens when they have two oral languages to process. They work it out and catch up later (and surpass their monolinguistic peers).

Maybe one small part of the problem is that somebody in the oral world misunderstood or misapplied that research.

 

[MissLady]

Current resarch shows that Acquiring a language (knowing it subconsciously, like a native language, no matter what age it happens at) requires one thing: repetitive comprehensible input just above the level of linguistic mastery.

In normal words: you need to hear/see language that you understand over and over again until it just soaks in. That language needs to be something you understand, but haven't already mastered, because if you have that language mastered, you obviously won't learn anything new, and if you don't understand the message you will get noting from it. Anyone with kids knows you can't just tell them something once.

BTW, the only advantage kids have in learning a language compared to adults is they can typically develop a more "native" accent. Motivated adults who already have a language schema in their brain can actually learn faster than kids.

This is absolutely fascinating. The second paragraph just goes to reinforce the idea that hearing people who really want to become fluent ASL users MUST go to Deaf events and become immersed. I would say that some of the best terps are those that really had a great grasp of English structure and usage and were able to learn ASL quicker due to that understanding. They know how language works and how it fits into a scheme because they already have a language base to draw from.


I also don't why it's a total dichotomy; kids can EITHER learn to Sign OR go to oral training. I don't see the taboo there. I would think that since kids are primarily visual as babies/toddlers, ASL would make perfect sense anyway. Just my two cents.

 

[Nicolette730]

I do not agree with this at all! I have been signing with babies since 2008 as well as speaking to them out loud in english when I use the sign I say the word associated with the sign all of the babies I have worked with have used their first sign by 6 months and have spoken true words before the developmental time line there is no reason that babies/ children can't learn to speak as well as sign

 

[Bottesini]

I do not agree with this at all! I have been signing with babies since 2008 as well as speaking to them out loud in english when I use the sign I say the word associated with the sign all of the babies I have worked with have used their first sign by 6 months and have spoken true words before the developmental time line there is no reason that babies/ children can't learn to speak as well as sign

Unless they are deaf of course....

But why would that be of interest on a site called Alldeaf?

 

[Smithtr]

hard to say, I find out figure out images, think so myself!

 

[Nicolette730]

My point was that babies can do both I know deaf babies that have also been able to learn both with neither hindering the other the use of sign language allows babies hearing or deaf to be able to for conversations. By using sighs children children become better at connecting words to objects. Signing may also have a lasting effect on childrens intellectual development." - Jane Jarvis

 

[Bottesini]

My point was that babies can do both I know deaf babies that have also been able to learn both with neither hindering the other the use of sign language allows babies hearing or deaf to be able to for conversations. By using sighs children children become better at connecting words to objects. Signing may also have a lasting effect on childrens intellectual development." - Jane Jarvis

You have missed the whole point of the article.

Please go study more before opining on such an important matter here.

 

[CreatedNat]

this is, at least part of the reason why I am signing with my children. I want my daughters to have a language, not just a random string of words or mouth movements. I want them to be able to converse easily, and I can already see that happening with my daughters... Ally recently learned no, and that is her favorite thing to tell her sister. Amaya obviously knows what it means, because each time Ally signs no to her (when she is looking anyways) Amaya will start crying... its so interesting to see, because I do not think this could have happened with speech alone (even if Ally was hearing). My girls at 6 months old are able to tell me more, milk, no, all done, mom, dad, hurt, potty, sleep. This is not something that could have been done with speech. I am truly thankful for ASL in both my life, and my children's lives. I know I would not have been able to finish high school without the use of my interpreters, and I am happy that I can be a wonderful example of a bilingual adult for my children.