October 30, 2004
Sign
Language: Getting the Message in a
American Sign Language, used
primarily by the deaf in
Language learning is a process that begins within a child’s first twelve months of life and is relayed by continuous exposure of the source. Communicating with babies by using sign language serves to enhance the child’s ability and intelligence long before the child is able to speak their first word. They learn to associate a simple sign as a means to indicate their wants and needs. Since visual ability is much more advanced than oral language skills, infants’ emotional needs are also being met through the use of sign language as they are able to make visual association in response to the sign that signals their need. Being exposed to sign language during a child’s first year builds a foundation for later verbal development (Needlman 1). As these babies grow, their dependency on signing lessens and their ability to verbally communicate increases.
Cochlear implants are surgically inserted technology tools designed to transmit electrical impulses to the brain which provides sound information in children who have a profound sensironeural hearing loss. When hearing aids fail to provide amplification of sounds and assistance to developing oral language, a cochlear implant is usually suggested (Hootman 2). While hearing aids make sounds louder and clearer, cochlear implants provide useful sound by directly stimulating undamaged nerve fibers in the inner ear. There are three components of the implant, the receiver, which is surgically implanted, the headpiece, and the speech processor. The speech processor converts the sound into a special signal that is sent to the implanted receiver. The receiver sends the signal to the brain, where it is interpreted as sound. As hearing improves, the speech processor of the implant system is adjusted and the time involved in these adjustments varies among users. Most children make frequent visits to the implant center during the first few months of use, with fewer visits required after that. Yearly adjustments of the speech processor are then necessary. For children, rehabilitation and education are very important and are more intense because they need vocabulary and language development and must learn to associate meaning with unfamiliar sounds.
The first reason to encourage the use of sign language is to promote language development through a deaf child’s strong sense of vision. There is an incredible amount of language learning that occurs during a child’s first year of life. From the time a child is born, parents should be “giving a child everything they can towards language development” (Stern 6). Since vision develops sooner, the information received is stored in the right hemisphere of the brain. All languages are stored in the left brain but when sign language is used, both the right brain and the left are used. This creates synapses through the use of both brains, and results in greater recognition of the sound which is received by the processor and sent to the brain. The impact of depending on vision as a sensory support system is so convincing with research proving that babies who learn to express their needs through the use of sign language are found to be more intelligent with IQ scores of 12 to 25 points higher than those who were not exposed to sign language (Arboscello 1). In theory, persons who support the use of sign language in the lives of implanted children believe that language acquisition is established and language delays may be minimized or delayed. For a child with a cochlear implant not exposed to sign language, there are delays prior to receiving the implant as well as after. The use of sign language would serve “to provide a language foundation to facilitate a child’s ability to understand and utilize auditory information” (Nussbaum 4). It is not necessary to exclude spoken language while signing, since the two can be used to support each other in the learning process.
Some parents feel that the use of sign language labels their child as different and decreases the child’s chances of being accepted in the hearing world. The growing numbers of deaf children who are implanted are more than likely being mainstreamed in public schools in lieu of a self contained classroom for deaf and hard of hearing children. Some of these students will have sign language interpreters for themselves, and some may not. Interpreters are also commonly seen in many public settings and there are a number of new technology means for providing information. In many restaurants where televisions are a part of the environment, viewing is made accessible to all through the use of closed captioning. When the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law in 1990, society was required to include and provide accessibility for all handicaps, among these being services for the deaf and hard of hearing. What many parents don’t understand is that their deaf child can and will be accepted by society regardless of their ability to hear. With the help of interpreters, closed captioning, and a variety of other means, deaf people today are making outstanding advancements in society as individuals who just happen to be hearing challenged. Actress Marlee Matlin is one example of such ability. There is no reason for a deaf child not to “speak and always need someone with them in public because they are unable to function on their own” (Hootman 5). With American Sign Language now offered as a foreign language credit course in many universities, parents should not be concerned about sign language having a negative impact on their child’s ability be a part of society. Many deaf and hard of hearing people, with and without implants, are high-achieving professionals, and talented in every imaginable career. Deaf people, regardless of whether they have cochlear implants, are people first, deaf second.
A second reason is to understand that adopting the use of sign language will enhance cognitive development of spoken language. Sign language often serves to clarify information when full recognition of the spoken language is not perceived. The English language has many words known as homophones, which are words that sound the same yet are spelled differently. In American Sign Language this does not exist; words having many meanings are signed differently. It is “important to recognize that a newly implanted child is unable to understand spoken language through listening alone” (NAD Position Statement 4). Sign language should therefore be encouraged and implemented as a means of clarifying and distinguishing to enhance cognitive understanding of information being auditorily processed. Further, the use of sign language can “support communication in different environments” (Nussbaum and Scott 4). Some children with implants may be efficient in communicating in social situations, however, sign language becomes a necessary support for critical or abstract thinking, problem solving, and assimilating information in an academic environment.
There are those who feel the use of sign language will promote dependency on visual cues. Research has proven that infants who are exposed to sign language before acquiring oral language skills eventually replace a sign with the spoken equivalent (Nussbaum and Scott 2). Parents and professionals argue that the use of sign language reduces the amount and consistency of spoken language stimulation for a child and promotes dependency on visual cues (Nussbaum and Scott 2). What these people fail to understand is the need for sign language to fill in the gaps of missing information as the child becomes accustomed to the ability to process sounds through use of the cochlear implant. In addition, each child is unique in respect to his/her ability to process and produce sounds in an oral manner. Some may show preference to learning in a visual manner, as opposed to auditorily, due to inabilities to process sound through the cochlear implant. This is especially true in the young child who has grown accustomed to depending on his/her most reliable source of information, vision. With extensive therapy however, some children may utilize a combination of sign and spoken language. Some may focus on spoken language, using sign language as a support system of making themselves understood or in understanding others. Since each child is unique in respect to his/her characteristics, each child deserves to be able to use sign language as needed in order to encourage psychological, social, cognitive, and language development.
A third reason sign language should be encouraged is because some children who are implanted will be tremendously successful while others may not. Cochlear implants do not provide instant hearing. It takes extensive “educational, psychological, audiological assessment, auditory and speech training, and language support services for a long period of time” (NAD Position Statement 5). To be effective, cochlear implants must be worn every day, and the success rate of the implant may vary “dramatically between individuals, based on his or her brain’s ability to process sound” (Stern 6). Along the way, some parents may have to accept shortcomings in the original goal that the implant would provide access to sounds and in turn enable their child to speak fluently in the family’s preferred language mode. Not all children will benefit, and even in those who do, there will be times when the child will not be able to depend on the implant to deliver sounds, such as during swimming or in rare instances when irritation from the magnetic chip requires that the affected area of the skin be given a “rest” to heal.
Many people also put too much emphasis on teaching spoken English while little or no time is spent on language learning. Language must be learned through experience and no amount of speech training can substitute the benefits of having sounds visually explained through use of sign language. So for those children who struggle with identification of sounds, sign language still remains as the primary source of learning about the world around them.
There are some parents who choose cochlear implants with full expectations for their child to emerge as a hearing individual. It is imperative to acknowledge that having a cochlear implant is only a fancified hearing aid at best and a child will never gain status as a hearing individual. Many parents make major medical decisions on behalf of their deaf children on the basis of information that is controlled by persons who have very little to do with and/or understanding of identity development in deaf children. Rosy pictures are often painted for parents who have a natural desire to see their deaf children being able to hear and speak like themselves. They are often in a state of denial of having a “flawed” child, seeking out professionals who elaborate on the effectiveness of the cochlear implant to increase sound awareness and in turn, promote oral language skills. They want their children to be like themselves, to understand sound, to speak and hear in the same way as they do. They do “not use sign language” with their child, “fighting hard for them to learn to communicate normally” (Hootman 2) Because of these attitudes, they fail to consider the more important question of who the implant will benefit and the consequences that might arise should their expectations not be met. With this in mind, these parents need to face reality. By including counseling services throughout the child’s developmental years, the child will be better able to handle issues revolving around his/her identity as a deaf child with a cochlear implant. Parents need to face the truth about their child; behind every child with a cochlear implant is a deaf child. The deaf child “should receive education in deaf studies, including deaf heritage, history of deafness and deaf people, particularly stories and accounts of deaf people who have succeeded in many areas of life” (NAD Position Statement 5). Direct family involvement, and total acceptance and commitment to their child’s overall development and well-being as a deaf child first should be top priority between the parents.
A final reason why sign language should be encouraged is that these children, having been exposed to manual communication along with the aid of their cochlear implant will be able to interact with the Deaf community. These children, when involved with members of the Deaf community are able “to promote their identity as Deaf individuals” and have opportunity to join in both educational and social activities within an environment that stimulates them both visually and auditorily (Nussbaum 3). There are many deaf implant users who actively participate in the deaf community and enjoy its rich culture and heritage. As citizens, deaf people “have demonstrated psychological strength and social skills” as part of the public mainstream (NAD Position Statement 2). Many deaf individuals have successfully completed studies in psychology, education, medicine and technology and are highly recognized as spokespersons for members of the deaf and hearing community in issues that revolve around deafness.
What parents fail to realize is that their child, regardless of the outcome of extensive rehabilitation with a cochlear implant, will always be deaf. During rehabilitation, children are subject to numerous trials and tribulations. Many children become “overwhelmed while first trying to add meaning to new sounds” (Stern 3). In instances where the child may not be able to wear the implant or when the child does not want to wear it, the mode from “auditory able” shifts to a need for visual aids in order to be able to hear. Frustration, headaches and fatigue are common when going through auditory training. Along the way, some children may refuse wearing the implant altogether, much to the disappointment of their parents. Because research is largely centered on the success of children receiving cochlear implants, there is little evidence documented that details a child who does not benefit from a cochlear implant. Many children have confessed to having relied more on lip reading than the actual hearing process to understand conversations with others. Some children even go as far as accepting the implant even though they are more comfortable with sign language simply to please their parents. Parents who do not put their child’s identity first fail to include assimilation with members of the deaf community, an important element in the development of social, self-esteem and peer communication. There are implant wearers who aspire to become teachers of the deaf, may have deaf children of their own, or choose to maintain close contact with the deaf community for social reasons. If the parents aim is to “cure” the deafness without consideration for the child’s identity regardless of the implants outcome, how can they accept their child’s eventual decision to become a part of the deaf community?
Sign language should be initiated immediately upon knowing that a child is deaf. Whether or not a parent chooses a cochlear implant for the child should have no bearing on the inclusion of sign language use. As research continues to develop, more professionals are in agreement that the sooner a child is implanted and through the use of sign language, the less complex the training will be. In the long yet difficult road that lies ahead for a child with a cochlear implant, knowing that their needs are understood and met by the parents who gave them language experience through sign language, children share a common language bond with their parents. Life experiences can be encoded quickly through the mature system of vision by signing and later be transferred to the auditory system. This is a critical element in establishing an effective, trusting, and nurturing relationship while learning to associate sound with meaning and eventually processing this input to oral language skills. Just as one visualizes fetal heart beat movement on a sonogram, the gift of hearing can be acquired first through the use of sign language even before a child’s ability to hear is established. For deaf children, the gift of sound is seeing, and “Welcome to our Signing Home” should be the featured door mat of families of deaf children. There may come a time when a hug gets replaced by the words, “I love you Mom and Dad”, words that however they are received, are always understood.
Works Cited
Arboscello,
Christy. “Look Who’s Signing?” Online.
Sept. 2004.
23 Sept. 2004. Available: http://www.freep.com 14 October 2004.
Hootman, Barbara. “Two Local Girls Receive the Gift of Sound Through Cochlear
Implants.” 7 July, 2004. Online.
http://www.deaftoday.com 3 Oct. 2004.
NAD Position Statement. 6 October 2000. Online. National Association of the Deaf.
Available: http://www.nad.org 9 Oct. 2004.
Nussbaum, Debra M.A., CCA-A, Susanne Scott M.S. CCA-A. “Children with Cochlear
Implants: Where
Does Sign Language Fit In?”. Online.
Nussbaum, Debra M.A., CCA-A,
“Cochlear Implants: Navigating a
Information…One Tree at a Time.” Online. Laurent Clerc Deaf Education
Center. March 2004. Available: http://clerccenter2.gallaudet.edu 12 Oct. 2004.
Stern, John Michael. “The Cochlear Implant – Rejection of a Culture, or Aid to Improve
Hearing?” Jan. 2004. Online. Reporter Magazine On-line.
http://www.deaftoday.com 29 Sept. 2004.