Language Choices for Deaf Infants

Humphries, Tom; Kushalnagar, Poorna; Mathur, Gaurav; Napoli, Donna Jo; Padden, Carol; Rathmann, Christian; Smith, Scott

doi:10.1177/0009922815616891

Cited by 44 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But for the vast majority of deaf infants born in a hearing family, a delay in language exposure occurs, which is due to an incompatibility between the perceptual abilities of the child and the surrounding language. Even with early intervention through hearing aids or cochlear implants, language access is delayed if not provided from birth in a fully accessible way, which is the visual modality (see Hall et al 2019or Humphries et al 2016.…”

Section: Age Of First Exposure To a Sign Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Asymmetries in relative clause comprehension in three European sign languages

Hauser

Zorzi

Aristodemo

et al. 2021

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relativization is a robust subordinating type across languages, displaying important typological variability concerning the position of the nominal head that the relative clause modifies, and sign languages are no exception. It has been widely assumed since Keenan & Comrie (1977) that the subject position is more accessible to relativization than object and oblique positions. The main aim of this paper is to investigate the extension of this famous generalization both across modalities (sign as opposed to spoken languages) and across relativization typologies (internally as opposed to externally headed relatives), and to verify how it interacts with age of first language exposure. We here report the results of a sentence-to-picture matching task assessing the comprehension of subject and object relative clauses (RCs) in three sign languages: French Sign Language (LSF), Catalan Sign Language (LSC), and Italian Sign Language (LIS). The results are that object RCs are never easier to comprehend than subject RCs. Remarkably, this is independent from the type of relative clause (internally or externally headed). As for the impact of age of exposure, we found that native signers outperform non-native signers and that a delay in language exposure emphasizes the subject/object asymmetry. Our results introduce a new potential diagnostic for LF movement: the existence of a Subject Advantage in comprehension can be used as a reliable and measurable cue for the existence of long-distance dependencies, including covert ones.

show abstract

Section: Age Of First Exposure To a Sign Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Asymmetries in relative clause comprehension in three European sign languages

Hauser

Zorzi

Aristodemo

et al. 2021

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, bilinguals are associated with better cognitive outcomes when compared with monolinguals (Adesope, Lavin, Thompson, & Ungerleider, 2010), especially at earlier ages of active bilingualism (Luk, De Sa, & Bialystok, 2011). This belief of sign language-interference has endured despite a long-standing lack of empirical evidence that spoken language-only approaches are more effective (Henner, Caldwell-Harris, Novogrodsky, & Hoffmeister, 2016; Humphries et al, 2016). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: The Risk of Language Deprivation by Impairing Sign Language Development in Deaf Children

Hall

2017

Matern Child Health J

202

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A long-standing belief is that sign language interferes with spoken language development in deaf children. Brain changes associated with language deprivation may be misrepresented as sign language interfering with spoken language outcomes of cochlear implants, which leads to professionals and organizations advocating for preventing sign language exposure before implantation and spreading misinformation. The existence of one – time-sensitive – language acquisition window means a strong possibility of permanent brain changes when spoken language is not fully accessible to the deaf child and sign language exposure is delayed, as is often standard practice. There is no empirical evidence for the harm of sign language exposure but there is some evidence for its benefits, and there is growing evidence that lack of language access has negative implications. This includes cognitive delays, mental health difficulties, lower quality of life, higher trauma, and limited health literacy. Claims of cochlear implant- and spoken language-only approaches being more effective than sign language-inclusive approaches are not empirically supported. Cochlear implants are an unreliable standalone first-language intervention for deaf children. Priorities of deaf child development should focus on healthy growth of all developmental domains through a fully-accessible first language foundation such as sign language, rather than auditory deprivation and speech skills.

show abstract

“…One research team of specialists in education, linguistics, pediatric medicine, and psychology has joined forces in the past few years in a concerted effort to make sure that parents of deaf children are informed about critical issues that affect language and learning, including current understandings of how the brain's plasticity changes with age and what we know about the connection between language and cognition. The group has published in journals of medicine [112][113][114][115][116], linguistics [59], social services [117], speech language pathology [118], law [59], and ethics [119] and they work together on lobbying and legislative efforts, at all times arguing for the following set of recommendations:…”

Section: Ought Every Deaf Child Learn To Sign?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deaf Children as ‘English Learners’: The Psycholinguistic Turn in Deaf Education

Howerton-Fox

Falk²

2019

Education Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this literature review is to present the arguments in support of conceptualizing deaf children as ‘English Learners’, to explore the educational implications of such conceptualizations, and to suggest directions for future inquiry. Three ways of interpreting the label ‘English Learner’ in relationship to deaf children are explored: (1) as applied to deaf children whose native language is American Sign Language; (2) as applied to deaf children whose parents speak a language other than English; and (3) as applied to deaf children who have limited access to the spoken English used by their parents. Recent research from the fields of linguistics and neuroscience on the effects of language deprivation is presented and conceptualized within a framework that we refer to as the psycholinguistic turn in deaf education. The implications for developing the literacy skills of signing deaf children are explored, particularly around the theoretical construct of a ‘bridge’ between sign language proficiency and print-based literacy. Finally, promising directions for future inquiry are presented.

show abstract

Language Choices for Deaf Infants

Cited by 44 publications

References 42 publications

Asymmetries in relative clause comprehension in three European sign languages

Asymmetries in relative clause comprehension in three European sign languages

What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: The Risk of Language Deprivation by Impairing Sign Language Development in Deaf Children

Deaf Children as ‘English Learners’: The Psycholinguistic Turn in Deaf Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About