Tutor HuntResources English Resources

There Is A Big Debate About What Deaf Children Should Be Taught To Speak. Do You Think They Should Be Taught Auditory Language Or Sign Language? Should They Be Given Cochlear Implants?

Linguistics Journal - Undergraduate

Date : 02/11/2021

Author Information

Annabel

Uploaded by : Annabel
Uploaded on : 02/11/2021
Subject : English

Whether deaf children should be taught auditory language over sign language is a great area of contention. With the advancement of cochlear implants, this debate is as pertinent as ever.


If deaf children are taught to respond to auditory language by such methods as lip-reading, the benefits they might gain seem to be outweighed by the limitations it puts on them fully acquiring native level signing abilities. As it is harder for deaf children to focus on central than peripheral targets, their lip-reading focus, thus auditory language ability, is impaired. It seems as though teaching a deaf child auditory over sign language will alienate them from ever being fully communicative with either the deaf or hearing community.


Deaf children are better at detecting visual stimuli in their peripheral vision than hearing children, so there is an argument for teaching them sign language over auditory language. Neville and Lawson (1987) demonstrated that deaf individuals have more activity in the areas of the brain that respond to visual motion than hearing speakers do. This is especially the case for the prelingual deaf, whose temporal lobes (secondary auditory cortex) would normally respond to sound, but due to an alteration in the stimulation they get, instead respond to visual input.


There are reasons for and against giving deaf children cochlear implants (CI). Although many CI users report an improvement in comprehending speech, if implantation is carried out after cortical reorganisation is complete, a normal neural response to auditory stimulation is not possible without some prior auditory function it is not possible to start understanding speech.


Moreover, a CI is less sensitive than a cochlea, so it will not allow the child full participation in auditory language. Additionally, a lack of auditory stimulation in deaf children makes their auditory cortex A2 respond to signs as a hearing person would respond to complex sounds, like speech. Therefore, making A2 respond to sound rather than visual input would impede deaf children s ability to comprehend sign language.


Due to a reorganisation in the brain if deaf children acquire sign language over auditory language, it can be concluded that CI is beneficial for postlingually deaf children or those who have not already learnt sign language. However, CI seems less beneficial for congenitally deaf children with an already existing fluency in sign language.


References:

Neville, H.J., Lawson, D. (1987). Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement direction task: An event-related potential and behavioural study. II: Congenitally deaf adults. Brain Research, 105, 268-283

This resource was uploaded by: Annabel

Other articles by this author