Bilingual skills of deaf/hard of hearing children from Spain Mark Guiberson Division of Communication Disorders, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA Background/aims: This study described the first language (L1) and second language (L2) skills of a group of Spanish deaf/hard of hearing (DHH) children who were bilingual. Methods: Participants included parents of 51 DHH children from Spain. Parents completed an electronic survey that included questions on background, details on child’s hearing loss, and bilingual status and L2 exposure. Parents also completed the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix, a rating scale that describes language skills. Results: DHH bilingual children demonstrated L1 skills that were stronger than their monolingual DHH peers. Bilingual children demonstrated a wide range of L2 proficiency, and most were exposed to an L2 through parents and/or schooling. The majority of parents reported that their children demonstrated L2 skills that were either better than or at the level they had expected. Conclusion: These results correspond with earlier studies that indicate the DHH children are capable of becoming bilingual. Implications for clinical practice are discussed. Keywords: Bilingualism, Deaf/hard of hearing children, Language acquisition

Introduction Two hundred fifty million people in the word have disabling hearing impairment (moderate or worse, World Health Organization, 2013). At the same time it is estimated that approximately 50–67% of the world population is bilingual (Baker and Prys Jones, 1998). It should be expected then that a great number of deaf/ hard of hearing (DHH) individuals are from communities where more than one language is used. There is a growing body of evidence that children who are DHH have the capacity to become bilingual (for the remainder of this paper, bilingualism will be used to refer to oral language bilingualism/spoken language bilingualism). Several case studies have documented that children with cochlear implants have been able to obtain two (Guiberson, 2005) or even three languages (Francis and Wai Lam Ho, 2003). Small sample and retrospective studies have also demonstrated that children with cochlear implants exposed to two languages demonstrated favorable linguistic outcomes (McConkey Robbins et al., 2004; Mueller et al., 2004; Thomas et al., 2008; Waltzman et al., 2003; Yim, 2011). For example, a retrospective study of 56 German children with cochlear implants demonstrated that children raised bilingually had speech development comparable to monolingual peers with Correspondence to: Mark Guiberson, Division of Communication Disorders, University of Wyoming, Dept. 3311, 1000 E. University Ave., Laramie, WY 82071-2000, USA. Email: [email protected]

© W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2014 DOI 10.1179/1754762813Y.0000000058

cochlear implants (Teschendorf et al., 2010). Despite this numerous studies have documented that families are frequently advised by professionals that children who are DHH either should not or cannot become bilingual (Francis and Wai Lam Ho, 2003; Guiberson, 2005; McConkey Robbins et al., 2004; Waltzman, et al., 2003; Stienberg et al., 2003; Yim, 2011). A one-language only approach, which limits children’s abilities to communicate across contexts and with language communities they may encounter in daily life, is consequently prescribed. Professionals and others may recommend a one-language approach because they fear that bilingualism may splinter linguistic resources or result in linguistic confusion (for a review, see Guiberson, 2013). Despite the advances in research of DHH children who are bilingual, a gap persists in research-based finings with this population. Most studies completed to date only describe the first language skills of DHH children who are bilingual. Also, many studies that have described bilingualism in DHH children have been case studies, cohort studies, or retrospective studies, which limits the ability to make inferences that may apply to other DHH samples. In addition, many of these studies were completed in contexts where bilingualism is not common or not a characteristic of the country or region. More research is needed that describes both the first language (L1) and second language (L2) outcomes of DHH children who are

Cochlear Implants International

2014

VOL.

15

NO.

2

87

Guiberson

Bilingual skills of deaf/hard of hearing children from Spain

bilingual. Additional research is needed from contexts where bilingualism is commonplace. Furthermore, research to date has not included information about parents’ overall appraisal of their DHH children’s L2 development. This is important because parents of DHH children are faced with difficult decisions about mode of communication. In some contexts, being bilingual can reflect group membership and identity. Parents of DHH children are faced with the difficult decision of deciding if their child should learn a second language. As stated earlier, well-intentioned professionals frequently inform parents that DHH children cannot become bilingual. It is important to know how parents who decide to raise DHH children bilingually rate their children’s overall L2 development, because it will provide a parental perspective that other parents and professionals will find useful as they make important decision about a child’s communication. Spain is a country where bilingualism is explicitly valued; the Spanish constitution itself states that ‘the wealth of the different language variations in Spain is a cultural heritage that shall be the object of special respect and protection’ (Glos, 1979, p. 89). Spain is a multilingual country, where Castilian Spanish is spoken in addition to several languages specific to autonomous communities of Spain (e.g. Galician, Catalan, and Basque). Over a quarter of the Spanish population speaks one of these autonomous community languages as their L1. Furthermore, 53% of Spanish adults are bilingual or multilingual, speaking both Castilian Spanish and a Spanish autonomous community language or a foreign language (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, 2012). Available educational data reveal that between 68 and 100% of elementary school-age children are enrolled in bilingual education programs in regions of Spain where autonomous community languages are spoken (Baker and Prys Jones, 1998; Cenoz, 1998; Pérez-Vidal et al., 2008). This study was conducted with parents of Spanish children who are DHH. Spain was selected for multiple reasons, including the numerous autonomous community languages spoken, the high percentage of bilinguals in Spain, and the generally positive view of bilingualism. This study will make a unique contribution to the knowledge base by describing the bilingual development of DHH children in a bilingually supportive context. The purpose of this study was to describe the L1 and L2 skills of bilingual children. In addition, this study aimed to described sources of L2 exposure and parental expectations with their children’s bilingual L2 development. This study was conducted to answer the following questions:

88

Cochlear Implants International

2014

VOL.

15

NO.

2

(1)

(2) (3) (4)

How do the L1 skills of DHH children who are bilingual compare to the L1 skills of monolingual DHH peers? What level of L2 proficiency is achieved by DHH children who are bilingual? What are the main sources of L2 exposure for DHH bilingual children in Spain? How do parents of bilingual DHH children rate the L2 progress of their children?

Methods Subjects Parents of DHH children from Spain were invited to participate in this study through online DHH parent group websites, schools, and intervention programs that served DHH children. Only parents of children between 3 and 18 years of age with no other identifiable disabilities were included in this study. A total of 51 parents of DHH children from Spain were included in this study. Fifty-six percent of the children were male.

Survey Once informed consent was obtained, parents completed the survey electronically through a secure website. The survey instrument included basic family background information, child’s age, hearing loss, use of assistive devices, and other details. In addition, the survey tool included specific questions about L2 language exposure (including usage with parents, siblings/cousins, other children, usage in school settings, and usage in speech-language therapy). The survey tool also included the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM, Echevarria and Graves, 2011), a language rating scale that can be used with teachers and parents. There is a large body of research documenting that parent report measures provide valid and accurate developmental information when used with English- and Spanish-speaking parents of children who are DHH or children with other disabilities (Fenson et al., 2007; Guiberson and Rodríguez, 2010; Jackson-Maldonado et al., 1993; Restrepo, 1998; Nathani et al., 2007; Yoder and Warren, 2003). The SOLOM was designed to rate the language proficiency skills of typically developing children developing a second language. It is based upon knowledge of normal language development, which assumes that children acquire language in stages, and may acquire some linguistic skills such as comprehension in advance of other skills such as expression. The SOLOM consists of five communication domains (comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar), all of which are based on a five-point scale, with higher scores representing high skills in the subscale. The scores from the communication domains are tallied to obtain a total

Guiberson

SOLOM score. Total SOLOM scores correspond with the following five proficiency levels, these include preproduction, early production, speech emergence, intermediate, and advanced. The SOLOM has been used in earlier studies of bilingual DHH children, and has been found to demonstrate adequate concurrent validity when compared with conversational language samples and to be adequate in capturing developmental growth of LI and L2 skills over time (Teschendorf et al., 2010; Waltzman et al., 2003; McConkey Robbins et al., 2004). For this study, parents were asked to complete the SOLOM for each language that their children used. Finally, the survey included a question that required parents to rate their L2 progress.

Results As a first step group characteristics (including means and standard deviations or percentages) were visually inspected in order to better understand how similar the groups were in terms of demographics, hearing loss characteristics, mode of communication, and SOLOM subscale scores (see Table 1). The groups were very similar in age and age that hearing loss was confirmed. The groups also appeared similar in degree of hearing loss with similar appearing distributions. There seemed to be variation in mode of communication. While over 50% of the children in both groups had an oral only mode of communication, the bilingual group had a higher percentage of oral + sign mode, and the monolingual group had a higher cued speech mode. Finally, SOLOM subscale scores were visually inspected, and the bilingual group had higher mean scores across subscales than

Table 1 Group characteristics

Age variables Age of child Age hearing loss confirmed Extent of hearing loss % Profound ( ≥ 91 dB) % Severe (71–90 dB) % Moderately severe (56–70 dB) to moderate (41–55 dB) Mode of communication % oral only % oral and sign % cued speech L1 SOLOM subscale scores Comprehension Fluency Vocabulary Pronunciation Grammar

Bilingual group (n = 25)

Monolingual group (n = 26)

M (SD) 7.68 (4.26) 1.54 (1.04)

M (SD) 8.00 (5.73) 1.27 (.991)

% 68 20 12

% 52 28 20 M (SD) 4.16 (0.69) 4.08 (1.22) 4.52 (0.77) 4.44 (0.92) 4.28 (1.06)

Bilingual skills of deaf/hard of hearing children from Spain

the monolingual group’s scores. Comparisons between the monolingual and bilingual groups were made to determine whether there were differences in age, degree of hearing loss, cochlear implant status, and mode of communication. No significant differences were detected. Total SOLOM scores were then compared. A t-test was completed in order to determine whether there were differences in the total SOLOM scores of the monolingual and bilingual groups. A significant difference was revealed (t(49) = −2.7, P = 0.01); the bilingual group (M = 21.32, SD = 4.02) had significantly higher L1 total SOLOM scores than the monolingual group (M = 17.50, SD = 5.74), with a medium effect size observed (d = 0.77). A variety of L2s were spoken by children, and a range of L2 proficiency was observed. In addition to Castilian Spanish, 48% of the bilingual children spoke a Spanish autonomous community languages (Gallego, Catalan, or Basque) and 52% spoke a foreign language (English, German, Italian, or Dutch). Table 2 presents SOLOM subscale scores for the bilingual children. In order to describe the levels of L2 proficiency achieved by bilingual DHH children, L2 SOLOM total scores were calculated and levels of proficiency were obtained. L2 SOLOM scores ranged from 5 to 23 (M = 10.88, SD = 6.79). Levels of L2 proficiency are reported in Table 2, with L2 proficiency levels ranging from preproduction to advanced. Data were collected on exposure variables related to L2 proficiency. Parents indicated whether children received exposure to an L2 through language usage with parents, siblings/cousins, other children, usage in school settings, and usage in speech-language therapy. Most of the bilingual children were exposed to an L2 through a parent and through school. A smaller proportion of the children received L2 exposure through siblings/cousins, peers, and

Table 2 L2 SOLOM subscale scores and proficiency levels for bilingual children SOLOM subscale scores

M (SD)

% 65 23 12

Comprehension Fluency Vocabulary Pronunciation Grammar

2.08 (1.22) 1.96 (1.27) 2.16 (1.43) 2.48 (1.71) 2.24 (1.59)

% 54 15 31 M (SD) 3.35 (1.06) 3.12 (1.47) 3.62 (1.47) 3.92 (1.29) 3.50 (1.39)

SOLOM proficiency levels Proficiency level Preproduction Early Production Speech Emergence Intermediate Advanced

n

Percentage of sample (%)

11 4 2 5 3

44 16 8 20 12

Note: N = 25.

Cochlear Implants International

2014

VOL.

15

NO.

2

89

Guiberson

Bilingual skills of deaf/hard of hearing children from Spain

speech-language services (Table 3). An aggregate L2 exposure variable was created by combining all of the exposure variables together. A nonparametric correlation was completed in order to establish whether the aggregate L2 exposure variable was related to L2 SOLOM scores. A non-significant association was found (r = 0.14, P = 0.49). Finally, parents were asked to rate the overall progress of their child’s L2 development. This question provides a broad measure of how parents appraised their children’s L2 development. Fifty-two percent of the parents indicated that their child’s L2 abilities were better than they had expected. Twenty-eight percent of families indicated that their child’s L2 abilities were at the level they had expected. Twelve percent indicated that their child’s L2 skills were lower than they had expected and 8% were not sure.

Limitations The methods of data collection applied in this study allowed for a broad sampling of participants across Spain. This method permitted a preliminary view of bilingual language development in DHH children in a context where bilingualism is common. However, there are several methodological limitations that accompanied this method. First, no direct behavioral measures were collected from children to confirm parents’ report of linguistic skills. Although behavioral measures may have provided a fuller picture of children’s linguistic skills across languages, the goal of this research was to describe parents’ rating of language skills (L1 and L2) and to compare the parents’ rating of L1 skills of a monolingual and bilingual group. Furthermore, there is a large body of research indicating that parent surveys yield accurate developmental information when used with parents of DHH children (Crowe and McLeod, 2013; Crowe et al., 2012 Teschendorf et al., 2010; Waltzman et al., 2003; McConkey Robbins et al., 2004). Another limitation is that this study did not include information about how long children had been bilingual (years of bilingual exposure). This may have Table 3 Central tendency coefficients for L2 exposure variables

Parents used L2 with child (0–2) Siblings/cousins used L2 with child (0–1) Other children used L2 with child (0–1) Amount of L2 usage in school settings (0–2) L2 was used in Speech-therapy (0–1) Aggregate L2 exposure (0–7)

Mean

Median

Mode

0.96 0.16

1 0

0 0

0.12

0

0

1.68

2

2

0.28

0

0

3.20

3

2

Note: N = 25.

90

Cochlear Implants International

2014

VOL.

15

NO.

2

been helpful, especially in interpreting L2 development in bilingual children. Also this study included a wide age range; in future research it may be useful to study narrower age ranges of children.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to (1) compare the language skills of DHH children who are bilingual to the language skills of monolingual DHH peers, and (2) describe the L2 proficiency achieved by DHH children who are raised bilingual, (3) describe sources of L2 exposure of DHH bilingual children in Spain, and (4) describe parents’ overall rating of children’s L2 progress DHH children who were bilingual demonstrated significantly stronger L1 skills than their monolingual peers. This finding is consistent with a growing body of literature that documents that children who are DHH are capable of becoming bilingual (Francis and Wai Lam Ho, 2003; Guiberson, 2005; McConkey Robbins et al., 2004; Mueller et al., 2004; Waltzman, et al., 2003; Stienberg et al., 2003; Yim, 2011; Teschendorf, et al., 2010; Thomas, et al., 2008; Yim, 2011). The finding that parents rated the L1 skills of bilingual children higher than parents of monolingual children indicates that bilingual children may even have a bilingual benefit in their L1 outcomes. In other words, bilingual children may demonstrate cross-linguistic transfer, this occurs when bilinguals have access to and use linguistic resources from their L1 to support their L2 or vise versa (Guiberson, 2013). Cross-linguistic transfer is important in the current conversation because it indicates that DHH bilingual children are capable of not only adequately separating and organizing two languages, but also coordinating the transfer or knowledge from one language to the to the other. However, this idea needs to be further explored in future studies that include direct behavioral measures. Given these results and others that have demonstrated that DHH children are capable of becoming bilingual, it is unclear why practitioners would recommend restricting linguistic input to these children. It may be that adults fear that DHH children will experience language confusion, or the inability to handle two languages. However, to date there is no empirical evidence that suggests that children with disabilities experience language confusion when learning two languages (Guiberson, 2013). Parents’ ratings of their children’s proficiency in L2 varied. According to the SOLOM scores, 60% of the children were in the pre-production or early production stage of second language development. At the same time 32% of the children had SOLOM scores in the intermediate-advanced stages of L2 development. Most of the bilingual children were

Guiberson

exposed to an L2 through a parent and or through school. These findings may be a reflection of the fact that Spain is a multilingual country, where Castilian Spanish is spoken in addition to several languages specific to autonomous communities of Spain (e.g. Galician, Catalan, Basque) are spoken by large segments of autonomous communities of Spain. The percentage of bilingual DHH children in the current sample was similar to the national average of adult bilinguals (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, 2012). The findings that the L2 SOLOM scores were not related to the aggregate L2 exposure variable is perplexing, but likely is a result of the limited variability seen in both of these variables. In future studies it may be beneficial to gather more detailed information about the quantity of L2 exposure and compare this information to behavioral measures of L2 proficiency. Eighty percent of the parents indicated that their child’s L2 abilities were better than they expected or at the level that they had expected. This finding is important because it reflects that parents were satisfied at some level with their decision to raise their DHH children bilingual. Children with disabilities who are from bilingual communities need two languages to be successful communicators in their environments and communities (Kohnert, 2008). Children with disabilities who are from linguistic minority groups are at risk for losing their family or home culture language (Guiberson, 2013). When children are denied the ability to learn a language that is used by their family a number of problems may arise, including disconnect in communication between care providers and children, decreased child-directed speech from care providers, difficulty in family cohesion and parenting, and disabling families from passing on their culture and values (Baker, 2000; Luo and Wiseman, 2000; Sridhar, 1988; Tabors, 2008; Wong Fillmore, 1991).

Conclusions Results from this study indicate that 1. DHH children can acquire an L2, and that it is not at the expense of the child’s L1 development. In fact, L1 development was stronger in the bilingual children than the monolingual children who participated in this study. 2. Variability will be observed in the L2 development of DHH children, as will L2 exposure variables. 3. Families who participated in this study reported that they are generally satisfied with L2 development that they observe in their DHH children.

References Baker C. 2000. A parent’s and teachers’ guide to bilingualism. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Bilingual skills of deaf/hard of hearing children from Spain

Baker C., Prys Jones S. 1998. Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz J. 1998. Multilingual education in the Basque Country. In: Cenoz J., Genesee F., (eds.) Beyond bilingualism: multilingualism and multilingual education. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters, pp. 175–191. Crowe K., McLeod S. 2013. A systematic review of cross-linguistic and multilingual speech and language outcomes for children with hearing loss. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, (online first), 1–23 Crowe K., McLeod S., Ching T.Y. 2012. The cultural and linguistic diversity of 3-year-old children with hearing loss. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(4): 421–438. Echevarria J., Graves A.W. 2011. Sheltered content instruction: teaching English-language learners with diverse abilities. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Fenson L., Marchman V.A., Thal D., Dale P.S., Reznick J.S., Bates E. 2007. MacArthur-bates communicative development inventories: users guide and technical manual. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Francis A.L., Wai Lam Ho D. 2003. Case report: acquisition of three spoken languages by a child with a cochlear implant. Cochlear Implants International, 4: 31–44. Glos G.E. 1979. New Spanish constitution, comments and full text. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 7: 47–127. Guiberson M. 2005. Children with cochlear implants from bilingual families: considerations for intervention and a case study. The Volta Review, 105: 29–39. Guiberson M. 2013. Bilingual myth-busters series: language confusion in bilinguals. Perspectives on Communication Disorders in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations, 20: 4–11. Guiberson M., Rodriguez B. 2010. Measurement properties and classification accuracy of two Spanish parent surveys of language development for preschool age children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19: 225–237. Instituto Nacional de Estadística 2012. Survey on adult population involvement in learning activities. Madrid, Spain. Jackson-Maldonado D., Thal D., Marchman V., Bates E., Gutierrez-Clellen V. 1993. Early lexical development in Spanish-speaking infants and toddlers. Journal of Child Language, 20: 523–549. Kohnert K. 2008. Language disorders in bilingual children and adults. San Diego, CA: Plural. Luo S.H., Wiseman R.L. 2000. Ethnic language maintenance among Chinese immigrant children in the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24: 307–324. McConky Robbins A., Green J.E., Waltzman S.B. 2004. Bilingual oral language proficiency in children with cochlear implants. Archives Otolaryngology Head Neck Surgery, 130: 644–647. Mueller M., Chiong C., Martinez N., Santos R. 2004. Bilingual auditory and oral/verbal performance of Filipino children with cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants International, 5: 103–105. Nathani S., Oller D.K., Neal A.R. 2007. On the robustness of vocal development: an examination of infants with moderate-to-severe hearing loss and additional risk factors. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50: 1425–1444. Pérez-Vidal C., Juan Garau M., Bel A. 2008. A portrait of the young in the new multilingual Spain. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. Restrepo M.A. 1998. Identifiers of predominantly Spanish- speaking children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41: 1398–1411. Sridhar K.K. 1988. Language maintenance and language shift among Asian-Indians: Kannadigas in the New York area. International Journal of Social Language, 69: 73–87. Steinberg A., Delgado G., Bain L., Ruperto V., Yuelin L. 2003. Decisions Hispanic families make after the identification of deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8: 291–314. Tabors P.O. 2008. One child, two languages: a guide for preschool educators of children learning English as a second language. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Teschendorf M., Areweiler-Harbeck D., Bagus H. 2010. Speech development after cochlear implantation in children with bilingual parents. Cochlear Implants International, 11: 386–389.

Cochlear Implants International

2014

VOL.

15

NO.

2

91

Guiberson

Bilingual skills of deaf/hard of hearing children from Spain

Thomas E., El-Kashlan H., Zwolan T.A. 2008. Children with cochlear implants who live in monolingual and bilingual homes. Otology & Neurotology, 29: 230–234. Waltzman S.B., McConkey Robbins A., Green J.E., Cohen N.L. 2003. Second oral language capabilities in children with cochlear implants. Otology & Neurotology, 24: 757–763. Wong Fillmore L. 1991. When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6: 323–346.

92

Cochlear Implants International

2014

VOL.

15

NO.

2

World Health Organization 2013. Prevention of blindness and deafness: facts about deafness. Geneva, Switzerland. Yim D, 2011. Spanish and English language performance in bilingual children with cochlear implants. Otology & Neurotology, 33: 20–25. Yoder P., Warren S.F. 2003. Early predictors of language in children with and without Down syndrome. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 109: 285–300.

hard of hearing children from Spain.

This study described the first language (L1) and second language (L2) skills of a group of Spanish deaf/hard of hearing (DHH) children who were biling...
142KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views