The relation between reading ability and phonological coding and awareness (PCA) skills in individuals who are severely and profoundly deaf was investigated with a meta-analysis. From an initial set of 230 relevant publications, 57 studies were analyzed that experimentally tested PCA skills in 2,078 deaf participants. Half of the studies found statistically significant evidence for PCA skills and half did not. A subset of 25 studies also tested reading proficiency and showed a wide range of effect sizes. Overall PCA skills predicted 11% of the variance in reading proficiency in the deaf participants. Other possible modulating factors, such as task type and reading grade level, did not explain the remaining variance. In 7 studies where it was measured, language ability predicted 35% of the variance in reading proficiency. These meta-analytic results indicate that PCA skills are a low to moderate predictor of reading achievement in deaf individuals and that other factors, most notably language ability, have a greater influence on reading development, as has been found to be the case in the hearing population.

No abstract

For more than 100 years, the scientific and educational communities have thought that age is critical to the outcome of language learning, but whether the onset and type of language experienced during early life affects the ability to learn language is unknown. Here we show that deaf and hearing individuals exposed to language in infancy perform comparably well in learning a new language later in life, whereas deaf individuals with little language experience in early life perform poorly, regardless of whether the early language was signed or spoken and whether the later language was spoken or signed. These findings show that language-learning ability is determined by the onset of language experience during early brain development, independent of the specific form of the experience.

Does age constrain the outcome of all language acquisition equally regardless of whether the language is a first or second one? To test this hypothesis, the English grammatical abilities of deaf and hearing adults who either did or did not have linguistic experience (spoken or signed) during early childhood were investigated with two tasks, timed grammatical judgement and untimed sentence to picture matching. Findings showed that adults who acquired a language in early life performed at near-native levels on a second language regardless of whether they were hearing or deaf or whether the early language was spoken or signed. By contrast, deaf adults who experienced little or no accessible language in early life performed poorly. These results indicate that the onset of language acquisition in early human development dramatically alters the capacity to learn language throughout life, independent of the sensory-motor form of the early experience.

This study determined whether the long-range outcome of first-language acquisition, when the learning begins after early childhood, is similar to that of second-language acquisition. Subjects were 36 deaf adults who had contrasting histories of spoken and sign language acquisition. Twenty-seven subjects were born deaf and began to acquire American Sign Language (ASL) as a first language at ages ranging from infancy to late childhood. Nine other subjects were born with normal hearing, which they lost in late childhood; they subsequently acquired ASL as a second language (because they had acquired spoken English as a first language in early childhood). ASL sentence processing was measured by recall of long and complex sentences and short-term memory for signed digits. Subjects who acquired ASL as a second language after childhood outperformed those who acquired it as a first language at exactly the same age. In addition, the performance of the subjects who acquired ASL as a first language declined in association with increasing age of acquisition. Effects were most apparent for sentence processing skills related to lexical identification, grammatical acceptability, and memory for sentence meaning. No effects were found for skills related to fine-motor production and pattern segmentation.