The language development of a deaf child with a cochlear implant

Abstract

Hearing parents of deaf or partially deaf infants are confronted with the complex question of communication with their child. This question is complicated further by conflicting advice on how to address the child: in spoken language only, in spoken language supported by signs, or in signed language. This paper studies the linguistic environment created by one such mother (language input and parental behaviour) and her child's language production longitudinally during the first two years of life of the infant to discover possible relationships. The mother-child dyad was observed when the child was seven, nine, twelve, eighteen, and twenty-four months old. Changes in the mother's approach to communication with her child and their consequent effects on the child's language development will be highlighted. The infant concerned has a hearing loss of more than 90dB on both ears, which qualified her for cochlear implantation. At the age of ten months she was implanted on her left side (30/04/2010). Five months later she received a second implant (24/09/2010). By means of several assessments instruments the created linguistic environment, the language development of the infant in question and possible causal relationships were investigated before and after implantation. These instruments include: Pragmatics Profile of Everyday Communication; Profile of Actual Linguistic Skills; video-images of interaction analysed in ELAN; MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory for spoken Dutch and Flemish Sign Language (from nine months onwards). Results for each individual assessment moment are given as well as an overarching interpretation of evolution in the language development. The child seems to be profiting from a bimodal/bilingual approach to communication up to nine months of age. She is progressing considerably in both spoken Dutch and Flemish Sign Language, with a possible onset of functional code-switch. However, a setback is evidenced in the child's language development, mirrored in a setback in the mother's sensitive behaviour as she moves to a more monolingual approach after cochlear implantation. Highlights: This paper presents a study of communication between hearing mother and deaf child.  This will be done longitudinally before and after cochlear implantation (CI).  Benefit from bimodal/bilingual approach is apparent up to 0;9 before CI.  After CI (0;10) there seems to be a setback in linguistic behaviour of the dyad.

Attitudes of Children with Hearing Loss towards Public Inclusive Education

“…The reality of children with hearing assistive devices places families in situations of restlessness and discouragement [43]. Mouvet, Matthijs, Loots, Taverniers, and Van Herreweghe [44] suggest that a child benefits from the bilingual approach until nine months of age. After implantation, tendencies towards a monolingual approach appear.…”

Big Things Often Have Small Beginnings: A Review on the Development, Use and Value of Small and Big Corpora for Flemish Sign Language Linguistic Research

“…In the context of several doctoral projects, two small corpora have been developed over the years focusing on other aspects of Flemish Sign Language. The first corpus is based on early dyadic parent-child interactions ( Loots, 1999 ; Mouvet, 2013 ) and a second one, the multifocal eye-tracking corpus, combines the use of static cameras with mobile eye-tracking devices to study the role of eye gaze in triadic VGT interactions ( Beukeleers, 2020 ).…”

Pragmatic and Conversational Features of Arabic-Speaking Adolescents With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Examining Performance and Caregivers' Perceptions

“…This study also used a modified and translated version of the PPECS developed by Dewart and Summers (1996). This profile has been used in a number of publications to investigate communication and pragmatic abilities in a wide range of individuals including children with Down's syndrome (Johnston & Stansfield, 1997), children with autism and epilepsy (Parkinson, 2006), children with William Syndrome (Stojanovik & James, 2006) and deaf children (Mouvet et al, 2013).…”