Working With Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children From Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds

Abstract

An increasing number of deaf and hard-of-hearing (D/HH) children live in homes where languages other than English or American Sign Language (ASL) are used. This chapter reviews issues of culture and linguistic diversity when working with D/HH multilingual learners (DMLs) from identification and early intervention through school entry. The authors will provide two case studies to explore the issues of service delivery to DMLs and their families: 1) Ji-Hun, who appears to use several spoken languages, including Korean, Japanese, and English, and 2) Ana, who is a recent immigrant to the USA and appears to use ASL, spoken Spanish, and spoken English. The discussion of these two case studies will encompass some cultural differences, including 1) openness to engagement with providers, 2) cultural beliefs about hearing loss, 3) community systems and familiar support, 4) perceptions of systems and authorities. The case studies presented are not based on actual clients but are drawn from the clinical experiences of the authors.

Social determinants of health in non-communicable diseases prevention policies in South Africa

“…While highlighted that family involvement in the communication intervention process accounts for the greatest variance in language outcome scores of children with hearing impairment, Scarinci et al (2018) and Garrido-Nag and McCann (2020) detailed the following factors as influential in family involvement:…”

“…Another challenging factor in the choice of communication adopted within the South African context is the challenge created by linguistic and cultural issues that face communication interventionists, with language having a direct implication on service delivery from diagnosis to intervention (Estabrooks, Maclver-Lux & Rhoades 2016;Garrido-Nag & McCann 2020;). The language used in the home, based on whether one or both parents are Deaf, may influence the decision of the communication intervention approach (Scarinci et al 2018).…”

“…The authors of this chapter suggest that additional factors to be considered regarding the home language are the use of spoken language, visual (sign language), bilingual (the use of two languages) or multilingual (combination of spoken and visual). Unfortunately, a global dearth of research exists describing the caregivers' experiences from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds regarding CTAs (Chang 2017;Garrido-Nag & McCann 2020;Guiberson 2013;Hyde, Punch & Komesaroff 2010). This is a significant gap in evidence that has serious implications for contexts such as South Africa, where linguistic and cultural diversity have been argued to have a big impact on SLH therapy service provision, not only because of the diversity of the population but also because of the incongruence between the language and culture of the majority of audiologists (who are mainly Western and English-and or Afrikaans-speaking) and the majority of the patients they see (who are black African and do not speak English and or Afrikaans as their home language) (Abrahams et al , 2021Pillay 1997;.…”

Complexities with context: Cultural and linguistic diversity challenges in preventive audiology in Africa

“…Another challenging factor in the choice of communication adopted within the South African context is the challenge created by linguistic and cultural issues that face communication interventionists, with language having a direct implication on service delivery from diagnosis to intervention (Estabrooks, Maclver-Lux & Rhoades 2016;Garrido-Nag & McCann 2020;). The language used in the home, based on whether one or both parents are Deaf, may influence the decision of the communication intervention approach (Scarinci et al 2018).…”

A systematic scoping review of early interventions for parents of deaf infants

“…Language delay [ 23 – 25 ] thought to be associated with language deprivation [ 26 , 27 ] can in turn lead to delays in Theory of Mind (ToM) (empathy-related) skills [ 14 ]. For example, research has shown deaf toddlers exchanging fewer social-communicative signals and having more difficulties understanding the intentions of others [ 28 ].…”