Post-CI Language Change: “Child-driven”?
It’s summer and I’m trying to catch up on my Journal reading. I just read an article in the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (which I like better than some of the other Journals, such as the American Annals of the Deaf because it’s a bit more Deaf-centered) titled “Parents’ views on changing communication after cochlear implantation” (V. 13 no. 1, Winter 2008, p. 104-116). It is a survey of parent’s views about the language their children use now that they have been implanted. It seems most used sign language before implantation, but now after implantation, most use primarily spoken language with their children. One interesting thing thing the authors said is that the change was “child-driven”. However, when the article is examined a little more closely, it seems to me that this is not truly the case. I explain why here and discuss the implications of this study.
Shelley said,
July 10, 2008 @ 6:08 am
DonG,
I agree with your analysis of that article. The parents’ choice to practice subtractive bilingualism isn’t child-driven. It is the parent’s choice of environment in which to place their child that influences the type of communication this child develops.
Let me put it another way. If I were to place my child in a French immersion program, and my child comes home speaking French. The next day he goes to an English-speaking school. He comes home speaking English. The English language is the language of the majority. If I did not have all the information re: benefits of bilingualism, I’d go hmmm. If he is able to do both, I would prefer that this child learn ENGLISH.
However, knowing how beneficial maintenance bilingualism can be for any one (Look at the Europeans!), I would keep that child in both language environments.
But,m of course, many parents want their child to ‘FIT” into their families, so any sign they see that this child can speak THEIR language, they would place this child in the environment that offers the most exposure to THAT language. This decision is influenced by emotion, and by lack of understanding of true bilingualism, and how language acquisition actually works.
Ultimately, it is the parental decision, led by emotion and the “path of least resistance” for them. By that I mean it is EASIER for them to get their children to FIT into THEIR communication and language mode than it is for THEM to adopt ASL as a language for the purpose of communication.
Well-analyzed, Don!
Shel
ASL Deaf parent with CI child said,
July 10, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Yes, it is almost always parent driven.
Signing is easier on the deaf individual. No question about that! It requires more work for a CI child to speak and listen than sign and see sign. My kid prefers to sign as its easier.
He prefers to use his life jacket as its easier than swimming without one.
But I am not going to let him get his own way all the time.
I make him work. Work for success. He has ASL to fall back on. He has his lifejacket in between trying to stay afloat without one.
He is in total immersion at an oral school and is speaking up a storm. He does have difficulty understanding spoken language in the multi purpose room even with a FM. Well, he does miss out a lot! He does much better in his small classroom of 6 other CI-oral kids as he is not missing out information so much. He is one of the top performing kids at that oral school. I am one helluva proud parent.
Okay, when he was immersed in an ASL educational environment (I was going through uncertainity as of which educational programming fits him better), he came out signing more than talking. His speech and listening skills went downhill. He had the ability and it just zoomed downhill.
As a parent, I believe in a balance of the two. He will be transferred shortly to a public school (school has some oral and signing deaf peers spread out in different classes/grades) and he WILL have an interpreter as I am NOT going to let him miss information and keep filling in the blanks with his own assumptions of what’s going on. He will and does talk for himself. He will and does participate in small groups on his own.
If I let him take his own lead, he would naturally gravitate towards sign language if in a signing environment and come back signing up a storm. I am not going to deny that. BUT it is my responsibility as a mother to make him work as it is his future. I want him to be successful in both worlds and much more options given to him than it would to a deaf-mute. You may disagree with me, but it is my own child and I know what is best for him.
The Deaf schools are not a good placement for my son as they are signing environments. He has the ability, intelligence, and skill to be an oral/aural child and I am going to lead him the way I believe what is best for him. Granted, there are some CI kids whose parents should let them take the lead as they would do better academically, socially, and emotionally in a Deaf school.
NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
Good vlog, DonG.
Joseph Pietro Riolo said,
August 12, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
I just got past issues of Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education after I paid the subscription. Reading through the long list of names inside the front cover, I saw your name in the list of members of the editorial board. Unless there is another individual by the same name “Donald Grushkin”, why didn’t you disclose that you are a member of the editorial board?
Perhaps, it is totally irrelevant and I am willing to give you the full benefit of the doubt. But at least, you should mention your relationship with the journal especially when you expressed your preference toward it than other journals.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
DrDonG said,
August 12, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Hi Joseph –
Yes, I am a Peer Reviewer for JDSDE. I didn’t even think about my association with them in that role when I said I have a preference for it — it was just my personal preference based on the types of articles that they have in there compared to AAD. But you’re right, in all fairness, I probably should have disclosed that, although on the other hand, I wasn’t really trying to “sell” JDSDE in the post, so it isn’t too relevant in how I said it, I think. Also, my role as a Peer Reviewer didn’t come into play in this article, since I did not review the article myself and had read it as a subscriber like you.
Joseph Pietro Riolo said,
August 13, 2008 @ 1:55 am
Thanks for clarification, especially that you had no role on the article. I am not going to dwell on it but the thought of nondisclosure did occur to me.
It is an excellent journal, I believe.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.