Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 29

I S I T D E A F N E S S O R L A N G U A G E D E P R I V AT I O N ?

W YA T T E C . H A L L , P H . D .
N A T I O N A L C E N T E R F O R D E A F H E A LT H R E S E A R C H
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER
JON HENNER, M.S., DOCTORAL CANDIDATE
B O S T O N U N I V E R S I T Y A N D H O LY C R O S S C O L L E G E

The single greatest risk faced by deaf people is


inadequate exposure to a usable first language.
D R . S A N J AY G U L AT I

LANGUAGE INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY - BILINGUAL BIMODALS

Written
English

ASL
Ausbrooks, Gentry, & Martin, 2014; Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000; Cummins (1991; 2006); Fish, Hoffmeister, & Trasher, 2005; Hoffmeister, 2000; Hoffmeister, de
Villiers, Engen, & Topol, 1997; Hoffmeister, Fish, Henner, Benedict, Rosenburg, & Conlin-Luippold, 2014; Kuntze, 1994; Lichenstein, 1998; Mayberry, 1992; Padden
& Ramsey (1996; 2000); Mounty, Pucci, & Harmon, 2013; Prinz & Strong, 1998; Singleton, Supalla, Litchfield, & Schley (1998); Strong & Prinz, 2000

ASL DOES MORE THAN BUILD A


F O U N D AT I O N F O R E N G L I S H ,
IT HELPS BUILD ENGLISH.

Why does it matter if Deaf children have good ASL vocabulary skills?

TA S K

SIGNING ABILITIES

PREDICTIVE SCORE ON
T H E S AT- 1 0 R E A D I N G
COMPREHENSION TEST

ASLAI: ANTONYMS

N AT I V E

54%

ASLAI: ANTONYMS

N O N - N AT I V E

48%

ASLAI: SYNONYMS

N AT I V E

50%

ASLAI: SYNONYMS

N O N - N AT I V E

48%

What about most kids who dont have signing parents?

Bilingual Bimodal schools for the Deaf are the best place for them

The longer they are in Bilingual Bimodal schools, the better their ASL
becomes and consequentially, the better their language scores are

Henner, Fish, & Hoffmeister, 2015

Effective schools for the Deaf can approximate good language


environments at home

(Pollard, n.d.)

(Pollard, n.d.)

L A N G U A G E D E L AY S
Neurolinguistic structures
Grammar and second-language

acquisition

Less grey matter


CI research
Highly variable
No focus on first-language acquisition
Implant language access

Duchesne, Sutton, & Bergeron (2009); Humphries et al. (2014c)

Mental
Health

Trauma

Deaf

Socialization

Addiction

Anderson & Leigh (2011); Fellinger, Holzinger, & Pollard (2012); Glickman (2009); Kvam, Loebs, & Tambs (2007)

Mental
Health

Trauma

Language
Deprivation

Socialization

Addiction

Anderson & Leigh (2011); Fellinger, Holzinger, & Pollard (2012); Glickman (2009); Kvam, Loebs, & Tambs (2007)

Addiction

Deaf Youth
Earlier age
Greater severity
Greater rates of dependence
Depression
Traumatic stress
Conduct problems
ADHD-type behaviors
T i t u s , S c h i l l e r, & G u t h m a n n ( 2 0 0 8 )

ADDICTION
Language
Difficulty
Deprivation expressing
self

Increase
in Distress

Difficulty
with
Coping Skills
Drugs and
Alcohol Use

D E A F A N D H E A R I N G I N PAT I E N T S
100

Deaf

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Psychotic Disorders

Black & Glickman (2006)

Language Dysfluent

Hearing

L A N G U A G E D E P R I V AT I O N D I S O R D E R ?
Criterion A: Language Deprivation
Criterion B: Language Dysfluency
Criterion C: Fund of Information Deficits
Criterion D: Disruptions in Thinking, Mood, and/or Behavior
Criterion E: Clinical Significance
Criterion F: Exclusion
Adapted from Glickman (2009)

S Y S T E M AT I C C A U S E S
defective hearing people paradigm
Medical school curriculum does not address language development
Community sources (teachers, ministers, etc.) not knowledgeable about language,

cognitive, and brain development


Parents misinformed about potential and probable implications of not giving fully

accessible language exposure early


High expectations for CI, its the only option
Misinterpretation of brain imaging research (auditory cortex)
Bailes, Erting, Erting, & Thumann-Prezioso (2009); Humphries et al. (2014b; 2014c); Hyde, Punch, & Komesaroff (2010); Lyness, Woll, Campbell, & Cardin (2013)

English-only
Ideology

English-only
Testing Policies

Subtractive
Bilingualism

Westerlund (2015)

Children dont
have Access
to Education
in their L1

School Disengagement,
Loss of Identity

IMPLANTED CHILDREN VS HEARING CHILDREN


Hearing children

Delayed sign
language exposure
Davidson, Lillo-Martin, & Pichler (2013)

IMPLANTED CHILDREN VS HEARING CHILDREN


Native sign
language exposure

Hearing children

without a period of language deprivation before


the implantation of the CI, children with CIs can
develop spoken language skills appropriate for
[their age] sign language input does no harm
to a deaf childs spoken language development
after h/she receives an implant
Davidson, Lillo-Martin, & Pichler (2013)

W H AT C A N W E , A S A C O M M U N I T Y, D O ?

Keep our children in schools for the Deaf


Demand higher accountability and signing skills

from teachers of the Deaf

Understand the IEP process and know how to use

it to create bilingual environments for our children

V A L U E A S L A N D W R I T T E N E N G L I S H E Q U A L LY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Data on slides 7 and 8 were collected through the Center for


the Study of Communication and the Deaf at Boston University,
and by the work of Dr. Robert Hoffmeister

Оценить