In stage 1 classroom conversations between sixteen teachers and their pre-lingually deaf children were videotaped and analysed to examine both the styles used by teachers in controlling conversation and the functions pursued in dialogue. In stage 2 a sub-sample of four teachers with twenty children of known hearing losses and non-verbal intelligence was analysed in greater detail to examine relationships between these factors, teaching styles and the child's performance in dialogue. The analyses show that deaf children respond in a similar fashion to young hearing children in the way they react to different styles of teacher talk; that teachers differ in the functions they pursue in conversation; and that functions change as a consequence of the child's hearing loss but not mental age. The implications of the findings for linguistic development in pre-lingually deaf children are explored.

The reading test performances of 60 hearing and 60 hearing-impaired children of similar measured reading ages on the Southgate reading test were analysed. As in an earlier study using the Brimer Wide-span test it was shown that the performances of the two groups were quite different. Deaf children tackled significantly more test items than the hearing and made significantly more errors in achieving similar reading scores.A detailed examination of both correct and incorrect answers showed that the deaf children were not simply providing answers to questions at random. Even where they produced incorrect responses they tended, as a group, to select the same answer. Unlike the hearing group, who did not converge on the same incorrect solution to difficult test items, the deaf were systematic in their choices, indicating that they were using a consistent strategy.A post hoc examination of individual test items indicated that the deaf children were selecting answers on the basis of word associations in each test item. On some items these produced a correct response, on others the same (incorrect) response. The implications of these findings are discussed to argue that reading tests based on hearing norms are of little value in the assessment of reading abilities and reading problems in hearing-impaired children. RESUMEDu retard en lecture ou dkficit linguistique? 11: les stratkgies employkes par des kldves sourds et des kMves d'ouie normale pour rkpondre aux tests Cette etude prttsente une analyse detaillee des performances sur les tests de lecture de soixante enfants d'oui'e normale et soixante enfants sourds, d'aprb le Southgate Reading Test. Les deux groupes d'enfants avaient atteint les mCmes 2ges de lecture sur ce test. Semblable A une etude antkrieure appliquke aux enfants plus iiges, et marquee selon le Brimer Wide-span Test, on a trouvt que les performances des enfants sourds Ctaient tout A fait differentes de celles des enfants d'ouie (c) Journal of Research in Reading (UKRA) 148 Wood, Griffiths and Websrer: Reading retardation or linguistic deficit? II normale. Dans chaque enquete, les enfants sourds ont tent6 beaucoup plus de questions que leurs contr6les et ils ont fait beaucoup plus d'erreurs en accomplissant des rksultats pareils. Les rksultats d'une analyse factorielle de toutes les quarante-deux questions ont montrk qu'un grand nombre et d'enfants sourds et d'enfants d'ouie normale avaient tendance A essayer les questions les plus simples. Mais ces derniers essayaient beaucoup moins souvent que les enfants sourds de complkter les questions plus difficiles et, par consequent, ils ont fait moins d'erreurs.Un examen des questions qui attiraient de bonnes et de mauvaises rkponses par les deux kchantillons a indiquk que ce n'ktait pas tout simplement au hasard que les enfants sourds faisaient de mauvaises rkponses aux questions. En groupe, leurs rkponses ont convergk sur toutes les questions sauf trois. Sur onze des questions, la reponse choisie n'etait pas correcte. Pareillement, un examen des rkponses deux...

SUMMARY. This paper reports a comparative study of the reading lessons of deaf and hearing children. Deaf and hearing children were video-taped reading texts in the classroom in normal reading lessons. These recordings were analysed to identify the reasons why children stopped or were stopped in reading, the time spent in the lesson and reading rates. The study shows that the reading lesson of deaf children tends to be used for a variety of purposes and shows marked differences from that of hearing children learning from the same books. However, it also shows that deaf children develop faster reading speeds as they come to tackle more difficult texts in a manner similar to the hearing. The study also indicates differences in reading development in the deaf associated with teaching methods, but this latter result demands further investigation. These results are discussed in relation to reading retardation in the deaf.

The performances of 120 children -60 hearing and 60 hearing-impairedon the Brimer Wide-span Reading Test were compared. These children fell into three groups of 40 (20 hearing-impaired, 20 hearing) and were matched for reading ages at 7:O-7:10, 8:O-8:lO and 9:O-9:lO years respectively.Their reading test performances were analysed in detail to reveal marked differences both in frequency of errors and error types between the deaf and hearing children at all reading ages. The hearing-impaired children attempted significantly more test items than the hearing children of matched reading age. They made more errors and significantly more of their errors were classified as 'non-linguistic' in nature. The implications of these results both for the nature of reading processes in the hearingimpaired and the value of tests in measuring their reading abilities are discussed. RESUMEDu retard en lecture ou dkficit linguistique? I: Interprktation des rksultats sur des tests de lecture des adolescents sourds On a decouvert dans plusieurs etudes et en Amerique et recemment en Angleterre que les adolescents sourds sont retardes de sept ou huit ans dans la lecture. Le procede de lire chez les enfants sourds et chez les enfants d'ou'ie fine peut diffkrer a plusieurs kgards importants mais les diffkrences ne sont pas reflechis dans les ages de lecture moyens, calcules par des tests formels. Cette etude compare les resultats de 120 enfants -soixante ayant l'ou'ie fine et soixante etant sourds -sur le Brirner Wide-span Reading Test.Les enfants se divisaient en trois groupes de quarante eleves (vingt enfants sourds, vingt d'ou'ie normale) oii les ages de lecture ttaient pareils, c'est-a-dire 7-7: 10 ans, 8-8:lO ans, et 9-9:lO ans respectivement. Les groupes ttaient representatifs aussi des points marques sur le test de matrices progressives de Raven et comprenaient dix filles et dix garcons. Leurs competences en lecture ttaient analysees en detail par moyen d'un systeme qui analyse les fautes et qui produit de renseignements sur les 0 Journal of Research in Reading (UKRA) 136 Webster, Wood and Griffiths: Reading retardation or linguistic deficit? 1 strategies qu'utilisent des lecteurs et qui permet le classement des reponses selon des niveaux divers de crithres 'linguistiques' et 'non-linguistiques' . Par exemple, en accomplissant les tkhes donnkes, un enfant peut choisir des mots qui se conforment aux contraintes syntactiques et skmantiques de la question, bien qu'ils ne soient pas corrects. Par contre, un enfant peut choisir un mot en suivant une stratkgie dkterminke uniquement par la space ou la position. Des diffkrences marqukes se manifestaient et dans la frkquence et dans la qualitk des fautes commises par des enfants sourds et des enfants d'oufe normale. Les enfants sourds ont hasardk beaucoup plus de tiiches que leurs contr6les. 11s ont commis plus de fautes, dont un grand nombre etaient considkrees d'une nature 'non-linguistique'. L'importance de ces rksultats pour la nature des mkthodes de la lecture chez les enfants sourds ...

SUMMARY Two studies of the communication skills of orally educated deaf primary school children are repotted. In the first, a referential communication task with very limited linguistic demands, severely and profoundly deaf children performed as well us a hearing control group. In the second task with a richer linguistic domain. differences m performance were found between deaf children from three schools with different linguistic philosophies, children from the school performing com‐parably to hearing children, those from the other two schools slightly worse. It is concluded that deaf children are more able communicators than their grammatical competence suggests.