scholarly journals Assessment of Sign Language Development: The Case of Deaf Children in the Netherlands

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Hermans ◽  
H. Knoors ◽  
L. Verhoeven
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Deaf Children

Tweetaligheid en Alfabetisering Van Doven

1998 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
pp. 9-18
Author(s):  
Bob Kolsters
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Language Of Instruction ◽  
Educational Method ◽  
Notation System ◽  
Schools For The Deaf ◽  
Metalinguistic Knowledge

Schools for the deaf in the Netherlands are currently looking for ways of converting their current education into bilingual education. The first language of prelingual deaf children in the Netherlands is Sign Language of the Netherlands (SLN); their second language is Dutch. In the first part of the thesis, the bilingual situation of prelingual deaf children is examined with the help of a theoretical framework designed by J. Cummins and a model designed by J. Kurvers. Cummins' theoretical framework takes a thorough look at language development in different bilingual situations. Kurvers' model examines the different ways for bilingual people to obtain literacy. Both theories support the view that in order to stimulate development of the first and the second language, sign language should be the language of instruction in schools for the deaf as well as the language in which prelingual deaf children obtain literacy. Since this implies the use of a notation system for sign language in deaf education, the second part of the thesis deals with the design of a prototype of an educational method that stimulates metalinguistic knowledge with the help of such a notation system.

Het Gebruik Van Gebaren In Het Onderwijs Aan Doven

1986 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 90-99
Author(s):  
H. Knoors
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Bilingual Education ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Empirical Results ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Way

From a psycholinguistic point of view, asking for the reasons for using signs in the education of the deaf has become superfluous, for the answers are by now obvious. There remains however another question to be answered, a question concerning the way in which signs should be used. It is possible to use signs in the form of Signed Dutch; the signs support the spoken Dutch, consequently the order of the signs will be same as the wordorder in Dutch. Another possibility is to use Dutch Sign Language. This leads to bilingual education of deaf children. At this moment a choice between both methods is, as far as the Netherlands are concerned, merely a theoretical matter. Although there are some problems involved in combining speech with support-ing signs and although there is reason to consider the bilingual option seriously, a real choice cannot be made. We first have to wait for empirical results with respect to the use of Signed Dutch in the educational process. We also need more information about the structure of Dutch Sign Language and about the acquisition of aspects of this language. Then, i.e. in the future, a choice can be made if necessary. Meanwhile we have to realise that deaf children are in fact in a bilingual situation and that they have to acquire a sign language without appropriate models. A situation which calls for a solution.

Language Development and Deaf Children

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Marschark ◽  
Harry G. Lang ◽  
John A. Albertini
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Academic Success ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
University Center ◽  
Language Modality ◽  
Hearing Children

To understand the complex relations between language and learning, we have to look at both how children learn language and what it is that they learn that allows them to communicate with others. To accomplish this, we need to distinguish between apparent differences in language that are related to the modality of communication and actual differences in language fluencies observed among deaf children. It also will help to examine some relevant differences between deaf children and hearing children. We have already pointed out that the distinction between spoken language and sign language, while a theoretically important one for researchers, is an oversimplification for most practical purposes. It is rare that deaf children are exposed only to spoken language or sign language, even if that is the intention of their parents or teachers. According to 1999 data, approximately 55 percent of deaf children in the United States are formally educated in programs that report either using sign language exclusively (just over 5 percent) or signed and spoken language together (just over 49 percent) (Gallaudet University, Center for Applied Demographic Statistics). Because almost half of all deaf children in the United States are missed in such surveys, however, these numbers only should be taken as approximate. Comparisons of the language abilities of deaf children who primarily use sign language with those who primarily use spoken language represent one of the most popular and potentially informative areas in research relating to language development and academic success. Unfortunately, this area is also one of the most complex. Educational programs emphasizing spoken or sign language often have different educational philosophies and curricula as well as different communication philosophies. Programs may only admit children with particular histories of early intervention, and parents will be drawn to different programs for a variety of reasons. Differences observed between children from any two programs thus might be the result of a number of variables rather than, or in addition to, language modality per se. Even when deaf children are educated in spoken language environments, they often develop systems of gestural communication with their parents (Greenberg et al., 1984).

Language development in a bimodal bilingual child with cochlear implant: A longitudinal study

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 798-809 ◽  
Author(s):  
PASQUALE RINALDI ◽  
MARIA CRISTINA CASELLI
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Early Age ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Vocabulary Growth ◽  
The Relationship

To address the negative effects of deafness on spoken language acquisition, many clinicians suggest using cochlear implant (CI) and oral education and advise against sign language, even when combined with spoken language (i.e., bilingualism), believing that it may slow down spoken language development. In a deaf child with CI who was exposed at an early age to Italian Sign Language and spoken Italian, we evaluated language development and the relationship between the two languages. The number of words/signs produced by the child consistently increased with age, and the vocabulary growth rate in spoken Italian was equivalent to that of hearing peers. Before CI, the child relied almost exclusively on sign language; after CI, he gradually shifted to spoken Italian yet still used sign language when unable to retrieve words in spoken Italian. We conclude that bimodal bilingualism may scaffold the development of spoken language also in deaf children with CI.

scholarly journals Abnormal Use of Personal Pronouns in Sign Language of Autistic Deaf Children

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yangyang Li
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Personal Pronoun ◽  
Autistic Children ◽  
Personal Pronouns ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Oral Development

<p>Abnormal use of personal pronouns is an important feature of autistic children's oral development. After comparing autistic deaf children with autistic children and deaf children respectively, it is found that pronoun avoidance also exists in the sign language development of autistic deaf children, but pronoun reversal rarely occurs. In pronoun avoidance, the sign language performance of autistic deaf children is more similar to that of autistic children than deaf children, which is more likely to be due to autistic children's own disorders than differences in language forms.  Different from autistic children and deaf children, autistic deaf children have their own unique performance in pronoun reversal: palm reversal. The reason may be that the disorder of personal pronoun reversal in autistic children may have different performance due to differences in language forms.</p>

scholarly journals Early language intervention in deaf children of hearing parents

Per Linguam ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-27
Author(s):  
Annemarie Le Roux ◽  
Marga Stander
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
School Readiness ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Language Intervention ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Language Exposure ◽  
Early Language Intervention

Language development is often hampered by the fact that 90 per cent of deaf children are born into hearing families who do not know Sign language (SL) or haven't had any previous contact with the deaf world. Such parents often use only spoken language to communicate with the child, which results in no or very little language exposure. Many deaf children only start to learn a language, signed or spoken, when they start attending school, usually between the ages of three and seven. As a result, the deaf child has a delay in cognitive and language development and finds it hard to learn a SL, like South African Sign Language (SASL), as well as a written language (e.g., English). This late exposure to SL proves to be a serious cognitive problem for deaf children when compared to those children who acquired language from birth. This problem led to the research question namely, whether deaf children’s language and cognition can still develop to the required level for school readiness if early language intervention (ELI) takes place within the critical period of language acquisition. To answer the question, a case study was done at a school for the deaf and blind with a small group of deaf learners in the foundation phase. The results show that the little language exposure these children received in only one year of school already made a huge difference to their language and cognitive development. This article also makes recommendations to the various stakeholders in deaf education.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document