Table Of ContentThe impact of a bimodal bilingual input on deaf children’s
communication and language development
Elizabeth M. Levesque
Trained Infant Teacher’s Certificate
Graduate Diploma in Special Education (Hearing Impairment)
Master of Sign Language (Linguistics)
Graduate Certificate in Deaf Studies
Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
September, 2014
Melbourne Graduate School of Education
and
School of Languages and Linguistics
The University of Melbourne
Parkville,
Victoria, 3010
Abstract
This study explores the impact of hearing parents’ bilingual English and Auslan (Australian
Sign Language) input on the communication and language development of their young deaf
children. The participants in this study were eight severe-to-profoundly deaf children and
their hearing parents living in Victoria. The families were enrolled in a state-wide Victorian
Department of Education and Training bimodal bilingual early childhood intervention
program for deaf children and their families.
Despite earlier diagnosis of infants’ deafness, access to early intervention programs and
enhanced amplification technology, communication and language outcomes for children
born with permanent deafness have been generally below those of hearing children. The
communication needs of deaf children therefore continue to present significant challenges
to parents and educators. Given the diverse language and learning needs of deaf children
and the numerous factors contributing to their language outcomes, no single mode of
communication has been found that suits all children. Amongst the various communication
approaches adopted by early childhood intervention programs for deaf children is a
bimodal bilingual approach, in which the children are exposed to spoken language and sign
language. However, although the literature reports numerous studies that focus on
language input and communication development for young deaf children, there are very
few studies devoted to bimodal bilingual communication and first language acquisition.
This study therefore aimed to measure the language outcomes of children exposed to
English and Auslan early in their development and to determine the extent to which the
parents’ interaction strategies promoted optimal language outcomes for their children.
Due to the heterogeneity of the participants in this study, it was difficult to control the
wide range of variables known to impact on the language development of young deaf
children. Therefore, a single case design was chosen as the methodology for this study
which incorporated detailed descriptions about each case and allowed each of the eight
ii
cases (i.e. parent or child) to act as their own control. Three research questions were
explored in the study and were designed to elicit a deeper understanding of the factors
contributing to the children’s language outcomes. The research questions related to three
main areas: parental language input, the parental sensitivity to their children’s
communication needs and the children’s language outcomes. Using both quantitative and
qualitative methods, data were collected from bi-monthly assessments over 20 months,
allowing for ten progression points to be analysed. Particular attention was given to
measuring the Auslan proficiency of the parents, type of language input, the children’s
emerging language skills and modality preferences and the factors influencing these
preferences. Several assessment tools were devised specifically for this study and are
described in detail in the Method Chapter of this thesis. The findings of the study reveal
that the children’s language outcomes were strongly predicted by parent sensitivity and
that the children with the strongest language skills changed their modality preferences
over the duration of the study. These findings contribute valuable insight into the nature of
effective parent-child interactions using a bilingual approach and identify the
communication strategies that promote positive language outcomes for young deaf
children.
iii
Declaration
This is to certify that:
(i) the thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD except where
indicated in the Preface,
(ii) due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used,
(iii) the thesis is fewer than 100 000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps,
bibliographies and appendices
.………………………………………………………………
Elizabeth M. Levesque
iv
Acknowledgements
This research study has provided an invaluable opportunity for me to share the experiences
of eight inspiring families who are facing the challenges of raising a deaf child. They
participated in this study in the hope that they would learn more about the communication
and language needs of their children, but also wanted other parents with deaf children to
benefit from the findings of the study. I wholeheartedly thank these families for reinforcing
the value of family-centred early intervention and the importance of developing strong
parent-professional partnerships to bring about optimal outcomes for deaf children. I could
not have completed this research without their readiness to welcome me into their homes
and their eagerness to participate in the many assessments and discussions conducted
over the 20 months of data collection. There is no doubt that it is a privilege to be able to
conduct research on young children’s language development within the context of their
own family and community environments. The pleasure of being well acquainted with the
children’s family pets, favourite toys and daily routines far outweighed the more formal
aspect of assessment and data collection.
However, this study would not have been possible without the support and
encouragement of my principal supervisor, Associate Professor P. Margaret Brown from
the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, my co-supervisor, Professor Gillian
Wigglesworth from the Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics and my Advisory
Committee chairperson, Professor Field Rickards, Dean of the Melbourne Graduate School
of Education. I have been most fortunate to have shared my PhD journey with such
eminent academics who are so highly regarded in their specific fields of teaching and
research. With the benefit of hindsight, I am now able to fully appreciate why Margaret
and Jill needed to focus their critical, analytical editing skills on every word I wrote to
ensure that my thesis reached the high standard they expected of me. I thank them both
v
for not wavering in their belief that I could reach these dizzy heights and I have no doubt
that their dedication has resulted in attaining my goal of completing my PhD. With the vast
amount of data collected for the eight in-depth case studies, it was no mean feat to get to
the ‘pointy end’ of the study and produce a coherent, well-constructed thesis that will
contribute to the field of deaf education for many years to come.
My thanks also are also extended to the Victorian Department of Education and Training
for their support and encouragement and for providing me with the opportunity to pursue
my dream of completing this study in a field of education I know so well. My gratitude also
goes to friends and colleagues in the field of deaf education and allied fields who showed
so much interest in my study and provided endless encouraging words and support over
the years.
Last, but by no means least, I thank my long-suffering husband and four wonderful sons,
three cats and lovable dog who have been waiting for the day that I finally unshackle
myself from my computer and resume my former busy role in family life. Without the
comfort of family support and encouragement, the solitary task of writing a PhD thesis
would not have been possible.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….......................................... ii
Declaration…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. iv
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………...................................... v
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………......................................... vii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………...…….………………………………………. x
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. x
List of Appendices………………………………………………………………........................................... xii
CHAPTER ONE: Rationale for the Study…………………………………………………………………….. 1
CHAPTER TWO: Childhood deafness and parental input
2.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
2.1 Terminology………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
2.1.1 Bimodal bilingualism…………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
2.1.2 Deafness………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
2.1.3 Language…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
2.2 Communication and language challenges faced by deaf children………………………… 9
2.3 Early diagnosis of deafness…………………………………………………………………………………. 11
2.4 Early intervention and family support…………………………………………………………………. 15
2.5 Acquiring a first language…………………………………………………………………………………… 20
2.5.1 Spoken and sign language acquisition: similarities and differences………………….. 22
2.5.2 Developmental milestones in spoken and sign languages……………………………….. 24
2.5.3 First words and signs………………………………………………………………………………………. 28
2.5.4 Acquiring grammar…………………………………………………………………………………………. 29
2.6 Parental influences on children’s language development…………………………………… 33
2.6.1 Parental responsiveness to children’s communication…………………………………….. 35
2.6.2 Parental interactions with deaf children………………………………………………………….. 39
2.7 Child-directed speech and child-directed sign…………………………………………………….. 42
2.8 Adults’ learning of sign language as a second language………………………………………. 46
2.9 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 49
CHAPTER THREE: The place of bilingualism in the deaf child’s world
3.0 Bilingualism…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 52
3.1 Bilingual competence………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53
3.2 Bilingual use……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 54
3.3 Relationship between languages…………………………………………………………………………. 56
3.4 A broader view of bilingual use…………………………………………………………………………… 57
vii
3.5 Bilingual first language acquisition………………………………………………………………………. 59
3.6 Quality of bilingual input……………………………………………………………………………………… 64
3.7 Bilingual environments in early childhood…………………………………………………………… 66
3.8 Bimodal Bilingualism…………………………………………………………………………………………… 69
3.8.1 Bimodal bilingualism in deaf children’s learning environments…………………………. 70
3.8.2 Use of speech and sign modalities…………………………………………………………………….. 73
3.8.3 English-based signing………………………………………………………………………………………… 76
3.8.4 Translanguaging in a bimodal bilingual context…………………………………………………. 77
3.8.5 Children’s language modality preferences…………………………………………………………. 79
3.9 Measuring bimodal bilingual competence ………………………………………………………….. 82
3.10 Parent participation in the assessment process…………………………………………………… 84
3.11 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 85
3.12 Research questions……………………………………………………………………………………………… 87
CHAPTER FOUR: Method…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 89
4.1 Ethics…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 89
4.2 Researcher role…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 89
4.3 Research design…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 90
4.4 Background to the study……………………………………………………………………………………… 91
4.5 Participants…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 91
4.6 Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 94
4.6.1 Data collection………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 94
4.6.2 Instrumentation………………………………………………………………………………………………… 95
4.6.2.1 Bilingual Rating Scale…………………………………………………………………………………….. 97
4.6.2.2 Auslan Proficiency Rating Scale (APRS)…………………………………………………………… 99
4.6.2.3 Parent-Child Communication Scale………………………………………………………………… 101
4.6.2.4 MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDI)…………………. 102
4.6.2.5 Bimodal Bilingual Development Scale……………………………………………………………. 103
4.6.2.6 Speech Intelligibility and Sign Intelligibility checklists…………………………………….. 106
4.6.2.7 Children’s auditory skills ……………………………………………………………………………….. 108
4.7 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 113
4.7.1 Videotaped data………………………………………………………………………………………………… 114
4.8 Participants’ personal profiles……………………………………………………………………………… 116
4.8.1 Peter………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 116
4.8.2 Andrew……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 118
4.8.3 Tiffany……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 119
4.8.4 Oscar…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 120
4.8.5 Sam……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 121
4.8.6 Lachlan………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 122
4.8.7 Oliver…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 123
4.8.8 Max……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 124
4.9 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 125
viii
CHAPTER FIVE: Results………………………………………………………………………………………………… 126
5.1 Bimodal bilingual approach…………………………………………………………………………………. 127
5.1.1 Parental participation in the bilingual program………………………………………………… 127
5.1.2 Parents’ Auslan Proficiency………………………………………………………………………………. 129
5.1.3 Parents’ bilingual input…………………………………………………………………………………….. 132
5.2 Parents’ responsiveness to their children’s communication………………………………… 135
5.3 Children’s outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………………. 140
5.3.1 Children’s vocabulary skills……………………………………………………………………………….. 140
5.3.2 Children’s bimodal bilingual skills……………………………………………………………………… 145
5.3.3 Children’s speech and sign intelligibility……………………………………………………………. 149
5.3.4 Children’s language modality preferences………………………………………………………… 152
5.4 Parents’ sensitivity to their children’s communication…………………………………………. 154
5.5 Relationship between parent bilingual input, parent sensitivity and children’s
language outcomes…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 160
5.6 Videotaped data………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 160
5.6.1 Quality and quantity of utterances…………………………………………………………………….. 161
5.6.2 Reciprocal utterances………………………………………………………………………………………… 164
5.7 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 167
CHAPTER SIX: Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………… 171
6.1 Nature of parental input in a bimodal bilingual intervention approach ………………. 172
6.1.1 Parental participation in the bimodal bilingual intervention program ……………….. 172
6.1.2 Parental Auslan proficiency ……………………………………………………………………………….. 174
6.1.3 Parental language input …………………………………………………………………………………….. 176
6.1.4 How the languages were used……………………………………………………………………………. 178
6.2 Children’s language outcomes…………………………………………………………………………….. 181
6.2.1 Assessing children’s language …………………………………………………………………………… 181
6.2.2 Children’s bilingual outcomes……………………………………………………………………………. 183
6.2.3 Children’s language modality preferences ………………………………………………………… 185
6.2.4 Children’s auditory skills and language outcomes …………………………………………….. 188
6.3 Children’s outcomes, quality of bimodal input and parental sensitivity……………….. 190
6.4 Videotaped data………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 192
6.5 Overview of children’s participation in the study…………………………………………………. 193
6.5.1 Peter…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 193
6.5.2 Andrew……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 194
6.5.3 Tiffany……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 195
6.5.4 Oscar…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 195
6.5.5 Sam……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 196
6.5.6 Lachlan………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 197
6.5.7 Oliver…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 198
6.5.8 Max……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 198
6.6 Implications of the study……………………………………………………………………………………… 199
6.7 Limitations of the study……………………………………………………………………………………….. 203
ix
6.8 Recommendations for practice……………………………………………………………………………… 203
6.8.1 Modality choice…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 203
6.8.2 Developing language…………………………………………………………………………………………… 205
6.8.3 Parent Auslan proficiency……………………………………………………………………………………. 206
6.8.4 Supporting parent-child interactions…………………………………………………………………… 207
6.8.5 Assessment tools…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 208
6.9 Future research……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 209
6.10 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 210
References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 212
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 245
List of tables
Table 1: Details of children participating in the study…………………………………………………. 93
Table 2: Bilingual Rating Scale…………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 8
Table 3: Summary of Auslan Proficiency Rating Scale levels……………………………………….. 100
Table 4: Parent-child communication strategies and language use…………………………….. 102
Table 5: Bimodal Bilingual Development Scale 12-18 month stage…………………………….. 105
Table 6: Speech and Sign intelligibility rating levels.…………………………………………………… 107
Table 7: Oliver’s parent’s reciprocal responses in 30 seconds of interaction………………. 115
Table 8: Summary of Oliver’s parent-child English and Auslan utterances and
parents’ reciprocal responses over 20 months……………………………………………… 116
Table 9: Correlations between parents’ use of communication strategies & time 138
Table 10: Parents’ levels of input………………………………………………………………………………… 139
Table 11: Correlations between children’s MacArthur-Bates CDI English and
Auslan scores and time………………………………………………………………………………… 142
Table 12: Correlations between children’s MacArthur-Bates CDI English and Auslan
scores and parents’ use of communication strategies…………………………………. 143
x
