Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T01:24:01.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Longitudinal effects of manual English instruction on deaf children’s morphological skills

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Martha Gonter Gaustad
Martha Gonter Gaustad*
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University, Ohio
*
Martha A. Gaustad, Department of Special Education. Bowling Green State University. Bowling Green. OH 43403
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the imitation, comprehension, and production of twelve morphological features by groups of deaf subjects who were instructed through manually coded English. Their performances were compared with those of hearing subjects and also with their own follow-up scores from three years later. Results showed early deficits in the English skills of deaf subjects but steady improvement of scores on all tasks over time. Initially, subjects’ age predicted only imitation performance while time in an MCE program predicted production performance in addition to imitation. But neither age nor time in program was a significant predictor of any performance at the time of follow-up. Implications for intervention with manual English codes are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 101 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Allen, T. (in press). Patterns of achievement among hearing-impaired students: 1973–1983. In Karchmer, M. & Schildroth, A. (Eds.), Deaf Children in America. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.Google Scholar
Anthony, D. (Ed.). (1971). Seeing essential English. Anaheim, CA: Anaheim Union High School District.Google Scholar
Baird, R. (1972). On the role of chance in imitation-comprehension-production test results. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 474–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battison, R. (1974). Phonological deletion in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 5, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellugi, U., & Fischer, S. (1972). A comparison of sign language and spoken language. International Journal of Cognition, 1, 173–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, H. (1982). Toward a theory of use for Signed English from birth through adulthood. American Annals of the Deaf, 127, 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, H., Kannapell, B., Saulnier, K., Hamilton, L., & Roy, H. (1973). Signed English Pre-School Dictionary. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.Google Scholar
Brasel, K., & Quigley, S. (1977). Influence of certain language and communication environments in early childhood on the development of language in deaf individuals. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 20, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charrow, V. (08 1975). A linguist’s view of manual English. Paper presented at the World Conference on the Deaf, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Chasen, B., & Zuckerman, W. (1976). The effects of Total Communication and oralism on deaf third-grade “rubella” students. American Annals of the Deaf, 121, 394–402.Google ScholarPubMed
Cokely, D. (1979). Pre-college programs: Guidelines for manual communication. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. (1967). The ability of deaf and hearing children to apply morphological rules. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 10, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crandall, K. (1978). Inflectional morphemes in the manual English of young hearing-impaired children and their mothers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 372–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finn, J. D. (1974). A general model for multivariate analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart.Google Scholar
Fraser, C., Bellugi, U., & Brown, R. (1963). Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension and production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustason, G., Pfetzing, D., & Zawolkow, E. (1972). Signing exact English. Silver Springs, MD: Modern Signs Press.Google Scholar
Helwig, J., & Council, K. (Eds.). (1979). SAS users guide. Cary. NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Jordan, I., Gustason, G., & Rosen, R. (1976). Current trends at programs for the deaf. In Caccamise, F. & Gustason, G. (Eds.), Manual/simultaneous communication: Instructional programs in the educational setting. Washington. DC: Gallaudet College Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Ling, D., & Ling, A. (1977). Basic vocabulary and language thesaurus for hearing-impaired children. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association.Google Scholar
Lovell, K., & Dixon, E. (1967). The growth of control of grammar in imitation, comprehension and production. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 8, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadow, K. (1969). Self-image, family climate, and deafness. Social Forces, 47, 428–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadow, K. (1980). Deafness and child development. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moores, D. (1970). Psycholinguistics and deafness. American Annals of the Deaf. 115, 37–48.Google ScholarPubMed
Moores, D., Weiss, K., & Goodwin, M. (1978). Early education programs for hearing-impaired children: Major findings. American Annals of the Deaf, 123, 925–936.Google ScholarPubMed
Nie, N., Hull, C., Jenkins, J., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. (1970). Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Nurss, J., & Day, D. (1971). Imitation, comprehension and production of grammatical structures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior, 10, 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, D. (1973). Language development in deaf children: The use of manual supplements in oral education. Australian Teacher of the Deaf, 14, 15–29.Google Scholar
Quigley, S., & King, C. (1980). Syntactic performance of hearing impaired and normal hearing individuate. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 329–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffin, M., Davis, J., & Gilman, L. (1978). Comprehension of inflectional morphemes by deaf children exposed to a visual English sign system. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 387–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, K., McIntyre, C., Goodwin, M., & Moores, D. (1975). Characteristics of young deaf children and intervention programs (Research Report #91). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Research, Development and Demonstration Center in Education of Handicapped Children.Google Scholar
Zorfass, J. (1981). Metalinguistic awareness in young deaf children: A preliminary study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar