Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:53:01.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of language structure on linguistic strengths and weaknesses in children with cochlear implants: Evidence from Italian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2012

MARIA TERESA GUASTI ,
COSTANZA PAPAGNO ,
MIRTA VERNICE ,
CARLO CECCHETTO ,
ANNA GIULIANI  and
SANDRO BURDO
MARIA TERESA GUASTI*
Affiliation:
Università di Milano-Bicocca
COSTANZA PAPAGNO
Affiliation:
Università di Milano-Bicocca
MIRTA VERNICE
Affiliation:
Università di Milano-Bicocca
CARLO CECCHETTO
Affiliation:
Università di Milano-Bicocca
ANNA GIULIANI
Affiliation:
Ospedale di Circolo di Varese
SANDRO BURDO
Affiliation:
Ospedale di Circolo di Varese
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Maria Teresa Guasti, Università degli studi di Milano-Bicocca, Dipartimento di Psicologia, Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo, 1 20123 Milano, Italy. E-mail: mariateresa.guasti@unimib.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous studies have found that the early fitting of cochlear implants in children has beneficial effects on their expressive and receptive language. However, different ages are identified in different studies, and some studies present contradictory results. Starting from these observations, our study suggests that at least two additional factors play an important role in determining linguistic outcomes. The first is the area of language under investigation: lexicon, phonology, morphosyntax, semantics, and pragmatics. The second factor is the typological features of the child's target language. Our study, which involved 33 Italian-speaking children who received a cochlear implant and 33 age and gender matched controls, reveals that lexical, semantic, pragmatic, and phonological knowledge are not particularly vulnerable in these children. By contrast, one area of morphosyntax (production of clitic pronouns) is especially challenging. In addition, an effect of age of implantation was found only in this morphosyntactic area. This is the first study on language development in Italian-speaking children with cochlear implants.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , July 2014 , pp. 739 - 764
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, I., Weichbold, V., D'Haese, P. S., Szuchnik, J., Quevedo, M. S., Martin, J., et al. (2004). Cochlear implantation in children under the age of two—What do the outcomes show us? International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 68, 425–431.Google Scholar
Antelmi, D. (1997). La prima grammatica dell'italiano. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Arosio, F., Branchini, C., Forgiarini, M., Roncaglione, E., Carravieri, E., Tenca, E., et al. (2010). SLI children's weakness in morphosyntax and pragmatics. In Yukio, O. (Ed.), The Proceedings of the Tenth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language-learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Dale, P., & Thal, D. (1995). Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development. In Fletcher, P. & MacWhinney, B. (Eds.), Handbook of child language (pp. 96–151). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Berrettini, S., Forli, F., Genovese, E., Santarelli, R., Arslan, E., Chilosi, A. M., et al. (2008). Cochlear implantation in deaf children with associated disabilities: Challenges and outcomes. International Journal of Audiology, 47, 199–208.Google Scholar
Bortolini, U., Arfé, B., Caselli, M. C., Degasperi, L., Deevy, P., & Leonard, L. B. (2006). Clinical markers for specific language impairment in Italian: The contribution of clitics and nonword repetition. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 41, 695–712.Google Scholar
Bortolini, U., & Leonard, L. B. (2000) Phonology and children with specific language impairment: Status of structural constraints in two languages. Journal of Communication Disorders, 33, 131–150.Google Scholar
Boudreault, P., & Mayberry, R. I. (2006). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 608–635.Google Scholar
Burkholder-Juhasz, R. A., Levi, S. V., Dillon, C. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (2007). Nonword repetition with spectrally reduced speech: Some developmental and clinical findings from pediatric cochlear implantation. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12, 472–485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burkholder-Juhasz, R. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (2003). Speech timing and working memory in profoundly deaf children after cochlear implantation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 63–88.Google Scholar
Chilosi, A. M., & Cipriani, P. (1996). TCGB: Test di comprensione grammaticale per bambini. Pisa: Edizioni del Cerro.Google Scholar
Cipriani, P., Chilosi, A. M., Bottari, P., & Pfanner, L. (1993). L'acquisizione della morfosintassi in italiano: Fasi e processi. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Cleary, M., Pisoni, D. B., & Kirk, K. I. (2002). Working memory spans as predictors of spoken-word recognition and receptive vocabulary in children with cochlear implants. Volta Review, 102, 259–280.Google Scholar
Cornoldi, C., Miato, L., Molin, A., & Poli, S. (1995). PRCR2 Prove di prerequisito per la diagnosi delle difficoltà di lettura e scrittura. Firenze: Edizioni O.S.Google Scholar
Dawson, P. W., Blamey, P. J., Rowland, L. C., Dettman, S. J., Clark, G. M., & Busby, P. A. (1992). Cochlear implants in children, adolescents, and prelinguistically deafened adults: Speech perception. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 401–417.Google Scholar
Dillon, C. M., Burkholder, R. A., Cleary, M., & Pisoni, D. B. (2004). Nonword repetition by children with cochlear implants: Accuracy ratings from normal-hearing listeners. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 47, 1103–1116.Google Scholar
Dillon, C. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (2006). Nonword repetition and reading skills in children who are deaf and have cochlear implants. Volta Review, 106, 121–145.Google Scholar
Dixon, P. (2008). Models of accuracy in repeated-measures designs. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 447–456.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1999). Age of learning and second-language speech. In Birdsong, D. (Ed.), Second-language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp. 101–131). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78–104.Google Scholar
Fryauf-Bertschy, H., Tyler, R. S., Kelsay, D. M., Gantz, B. J., & Woodworth, G. G. (1997). Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened children: The influences of age at implant and length of device use. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 40, 183–199.Google Scholar
Gallon, N., Harris, J., & Van der Lely, H. (2007) Nonword repetition: An investigation of phonological complexity in children with grammatical-SLI. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 21, 435–455.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C. S., Emslie, H., & Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Phonological memory and vocabulary development during the early school years—A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 28, 887–898.Google Scholar
Geers, A. E. (2004). Speech, language, and reading skills after early cochlear implantation. Archives of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, 130, 634–638.Google Scholar
Geers, A. E., Moog, J. S., Biedenstein, J., Brenner, C., & Hayes, H. (2009). Spoken-language scores of children using cochlear implants compared to hearing age-mates at school entry. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14, 371–385.Google Scholar
Geers, A. E., Nicholas, J., & Sedey, A. (2003). Language skills of children with early cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 24, 46–58.Google Scholar
Gillis, S., & Ravid, D. (2006). Typological effects on spelling development: A cross-linguistic study of Hebrew and Dutch. Journal of Child Language, 33, 621–659.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T. (2002). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hammer, A. (2010). The acquisition of verbal morphology in cochlear-implanted children and specific language impaired children (LOT Publication). Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Harrison, R. V., Gordon, K. A., & Mount, R. J. (2005). Is there a critical period for cochlear implantation in congenitally deaf children? Analyses of hearing and speech perception performance after implantation. Developmental Psychobiology, 46, 252–261.Google Scholar
Herzberg, O., Ravid, D., Nir, B., & Gillis, S. (2010). Learning verb inflections with a cochlear implant: A cross-linguistic study of early language acquisition. Paper presented at the Child Language Seminar, City University, London.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second-language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1975). A course in phonetics. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Bortolini, U., Caselli, M. C., Mcgregor, K. K., & Sabbadini, L. (1992). Morphological deficit in children with specific language impairment: The status of features in the underlying grammar. Language Acquisition, 2, 151–180.Google Scholar
Leonini, C., & Belletti, A. (2003). Adult L2 acquisition of Italian clitic pronouns and “subject inversion”/VS structures. In Kampen, J. Van & Baauw, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of GALA 2003 (LOT Occasional Series). Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Manrique, M., Cervera-Paz, F. J., Huarte, A., & Molina, M. (2004a). Advantages of cochlear implantation in prelingual deaf children before 2 years of age when compared with later implantion. Laryngoscope, 114, 1462–1469.Google Scholar
Manrique, M., Cervera-Paz, F. J., Huarte, A., & Molina, M. (2004b). Prospective long-term auditory results of cochlear implantation in prelinguistically deafened children: The importance of early implantatione. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 124, 55–63.Google Scholar
Marshall, C., & Van der Lely, H. (2009). Effects of word position and stress on onset cluster production: Evidence from typical development, specific language impairment, and dyslexia. Language, 85, 39–57.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I. (1993). First-language acquisition after childhood differs from second-language acquisition: The case of American Sign Language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 1258–1270.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I., Lock, E., & Kazmi, H. (2002). Linguistic ability and early language exposure. Nature, 417, 38.Google Scholar
McKee, C., & Emiliani, M. (1992). Il clitico c'è ma non si vede. Natural language and linguistic theory, 10, 415–436.Google Scholar
Mehler, J., & Nespor, M. (2004). Linguistic rhythm and the development of language. In Belletti, A. (Ed.), Structures and beyond: The carthography of syntactic structures (Vol. 3, pp. 213–222). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, V., Bertram, B., & Lenarz, T. (1995). Performance comparisons in congenitally deaf children with different ages of implantation. Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 50, 129–133.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, R. T., Hay-Mccutcheon, M. J., Kirk, K. I., Houston, D. M., & Bergeson-Dana, T. (2008). Language skills of profoundly deaf children who received cochlear implants under 12 months of age: A preliminary study. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 128, 373–377.Google Scholar
Montgomery, J. W. (1995). Sentence comprehension in children with specific language impairment—The role of phonological working-memory. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 187–199.Google Scholar
Moscati, V., & Tedeschi, R. (2009). The delay of Italian past participle agreement. Unpublished manuscript, Università di Siena and Utrecht.Google Scholar
Nikolopoulos, T. P., Dyar, D., Archbold, S., & O'Donoghue, G. D. M. (2004). Development of spoken-language grammar following cochlear implantation in prelingually deaf children. Archives of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, 130, 629–633.Google Scholar
Oetting, J., & Cleveland, L. (2006). The utility of nonword repetition for southern African American and white children. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 20, 553–561.Google Scholar
Pallier, C., Bosch, L., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (1997). A limit on behavioral plasticity in vowel acquisition. Cognition, 64, B9–B17.Google Scholar
Papagno, C., Valentine, T., & Baddeley, A. D. (1991) Phonological short-term memory and foreign-language vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 331–347.Google Scholar
Perry, G. M. J., & Harris, C. L. (2001). Linguistically distinct sensitive periods for second-language acquisition. In Skarabela, B., Fish, S. A., & Do, A. H.-J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Petitto, L. A., Holowka, S., Sergio, L., & Ostry, D. (2001). Language rhythms in baby hand movements. Nature, 413, 35–36.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. B., & Remez, R. E. (Eds.). (2005). The handbook of speech perception. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pizzuto, E., & Caselli, M. C. (1993). The acquisition of Italian verb morphology in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Levy, Y. (Ed.), Other children, other languages. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Ramus, F., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (1999). Correlates of linguistic rhythm in the speech signal. Cognition, 73, 265–292.Google Scholar
Reynell, J. K. (1977). The Reynell Developmental Language Scales—Revised. Windsor: National Foundation for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Robbins, A. M. (2009). Rehabilitation after cochlear implantation. In Niparko, J. (Ed.), Cochlear implants: Principles and practices (pp. 267–312). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams.Google Scholar
Robbins, A. M., Svirsky, M., & Kirk, K. I. (1997). Children with implants can speak, but can they communicate? Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, 117, 155–160.Google Scholar
Scarborough, H. (1990) Index of productive syntax. Applied psycholinguistics, 11, 1–22.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, J. (2000). The acquisition of direct object scrambling and clitic placement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schein, J. D., & Delk, M. T. (1974). The deaf population of the United States. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.Google Scholar
Siegal, M., Iozzi, L., & Surian, L. (2009). Bilingualism and conversational understanding in young children. Cognition, 110, 115–122.Google Scholar
Stella, G., Pizzoli, C., & Tressoldi, P. E. (2000). Il Peabody Test: Test di vocabolario recettivo. Torino, Italy: Omega.Google Scholar
Stokes, S. F., Wong, A. M.-Y., Fletcher, P., & Leonard, L. B. (2006). Nonword repetition and sentence repetition as clinical markers of SLI: The case of Cantonese. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 219–236.Google Scholar
Svirsky, M. A., Stallings, L. M., Ying, E., Lento, C. L., & Leonard, L. B. (2002). Grammatical morphologic development in pediatric cochlear implant users may be affected by the perceptual prominence of the relevant markers. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, 189 (Suppl.), 109–112.Google Scholar
Szagun, G. (2000). The acquisition of grammatical and lexical structures in children with cochlear implants: A developmental psycholinguistic approach. Audiology and Neuro-Otology, 5, 39–47.Google Scholar
Szagun, G., (2004). Learning by ear: On the acquisition of case and gender marking by German-speaking children with normal hearing and with cochlear implants. Journal of Child Language, 31, 1–30.Google Scholar
Tedeschi, R. (2009). Acquisition at the interfaces: A case study on object clitics in early Italian (LOT Publication). Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Tomblin, J. B., Barker, B. A., & Hubbs, S. (2007). Developmental constraints on language development in children with cochlear implants. International Journal of Audiology, 46, 512–523.Google Scholar
Tomblin, J. B., Barker, B. A., Spencer, L. J., Zhing, X., & Gants, B. J. (2005). The effect of age at cochlear implant initial stimulation on expressive language growth in infants and toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 853–867.Google Scholar
Tomblin, J. B., Spencer, L. J., Flock, S., Tyler, R., & Gantz, B. J. (1999). A comparison of language achievement in children with cochlear implants and children using hearing aids. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 497–511.Google Scholar
Tye-Murray, N., Spencer, L., & Woodworth, G. (1995). Acquisition of speech by children who have prolonged cochlear implant experience. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 327–337.Google Scholar
Vlastarakos, P. V., Proikas, K., Papacharalampous, G., Exadaktylou, I., Mochloulis, G., & Nikolopoulos, T. P. (2010). Cochlear implantation under the first year of age—The outcomes: A critical systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 74, 127–132.Google Scholar
Wie, O. B., Falkenherg, E. S., Tvete, O., & Tomblin, B. (2007). Children with a cochlear implant: Characteristics and determinants of speech recognition, speech-recognition growth rate, and speech production. International Journal of Audiology, 46, 232–243.Google Scholar