A First Language: Whose Choice Is It?

For example, some of the children in a longitudinal study through Stockholm University's Department of Psychology were described by the investigator as follows:

Some of the hard of hearing preschoolers used primarily Sign Language with their peers and deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing teachers in preschools, and had enough command of spoken Swedish to use with their parents, siblings, and with hearing peers in their neighborhood. They modified their way of communicating depending on the partner's prerequisites, i.e., they signed with signing peers and used spoken language with those who used speech (M. Ahlström, 1994).

Although these children were diagnosed with fairly mild hearing losses, it is important to note that their parents, who agreed to be part of the study, began learning and using Sign Language very soon after the childrens' hearing loss was discovered.

Other paths to bilingualism include those children that have sufficient auditory perception to acquire spoken Swedish/Danish as a first language who may be placed in a preschool with hearing children or other hard of hearing children. Some of these children also become bilingual because of their parents' efforts to see that they interact with Deaf playmates and adults who use Sign Language.

Reference here to the choice of a first language simply means that we closely observe and evaluate each child to see how he or she functions in both academic and social settings with each language. Or, as one preschool teacher at Kendall Demonstration Elementary School in Washington, D.C. put it:

When it comes to language, kids will eventually show you where their strengths and weaknesses lie. If you're really watching them, they're going to let you know what they need and what they can and can't do (L. Erting, personal communication, July 22, 1994).

In those instances where the child's hearing loss is mild enough that both languages can be learned through natural processes of interaction (rather than training), the effects of this early bilingualism are not considered a threat to the child's development of spoken or signed language but rather a positive factor in the child's overall development (Preisler, 1983, 1990). Cummins and Swain (1986) cite numerous studies conducted since the early 1960s reporting that bilingual children function at a significantly higher level than monolingual children on various measures of cognitive abilities. In a similar vein, Daniels (1993) found that hearing children whose first language was Sign Language had English skills superior to their monolingual peers. In other words, exposing a hard of hearing child to Sign Language early is not considered to be risky or detrimental (Ahlström, in press; Preisler, 1983, 1990). Rather, for those hard of hearing children who do have enough access to the spoken signal to acquire speech naturally, the benefits of early bilingualism in the spoken language of the home and the signed language of the Deaf community are considered to be an asset for the child.

The Whole Child

Some of the hard of hearing children may be getting 60, 70, 80% here [points to her ears], but we know they can get 100% here [points to her eyes]; that's another reason we turn off our voices. It takes a while for them to become visual, but once they get it, then they learn that they can choose to give attention to different kinds of auditory and visual stimuli....

Sharpening children's visual skills seems to help their attention to both spoken and signed language. The children have to be very tuned in to visual information in comprehending speech. [Texts about speechreading stress the need to develop visual attention.]

She went on to talk about children in their parent-infant and preschool programs, and how she incorporates spoken English into their day:

Parents were at first concerned that their hard of hearing children would lose what speech they had when they entered a preschool where Sign Language is used primarily. But their speech seems to be coming along really well. Often I go in when they are playing at centers and spend time talking (no signs) with a child about what he or she is doing. With some children we talk a lot; with others, I play with the words and they like to imitate me (while we are pouring sand, for example, I'll make my voice go from high to low). Some children like what we're doing, but don't vocalize much. Others lose interest and go play in another part of the room and that's OK, too. Another teacher may precede or follow me, or join us in playing, talking about the same kinds of things, using signs without voice. We don't have teachers switching from one mode to another within an activity; we have certain people, certain times, or certain places when we use speech with individual children in natural, interactive ways (Graney, 1994).

Graney had also made observations similar to teachers in the preschool research classes at Kendall School who noticed what appeared to be an initial cessation of vocalization in the more vocal children as they were starting to tune in to visual language, then a return to using speech in some contexts (see Graney, in press).

The Opportunity to See for Themselves

When parents have early contact with Deaf professionals, as well as with speech and hearing professionals who are strong advocates for the child's right to a natural, visual language, the picture takes on a new complexion. Hearing parents who have truly had opportunities to learn Sign Language early and observe their deaf child's communication with Deaf peers and professionals are often extremely perceptive in their observation of what their childneeds. In fact, the parents I have met who had such opportunities, whether in the U.S., Sweden, or Denmark, are sometimes the most adamant in advocating that their child's day include less emphasis on developing the spoken form and more emphasis on information, socialization, and visual input in Sign Language.

One speech researcher from Gallaudet, after observing preschool speech "play" (in a primarily ASL preschool at Fremont, California School for the Deaf), commented to me that when speech and Sign Language are kept separate, it becomes more clear which children have natural predispositions toward speaking. When adults in their environment do not talk and sign at the same time, it becomes much easier for the speech therapist (and the parents) to observe which children's speech is most intelligible, which children are more attentive to sound and spoken language input, and which benefit in interactive settings from wearing hearing aids. (J. Mahshie, personal communication, April 2, 1993). This observation helped explain to me the clarity I saw in Sweden and Denmark about children who were referred to quite young as "deaf" or "hard of hearing." When I asked how interviewees were able to make such distinctions (since early audiograms are not reliably predictive of later aptitudes), teachers, psychologists, and social workers said they based them on observations of the children's behavior in different settings.

Speech professionals, teachers, and parents in everyday interactions with Deaf children use language in the way in which the children will find it in the `real world:' either the Sign Language of the Deaf community, or the spoken language of the home or the majority—without supplementation of signs or cues. When this happens, parents and professionals seem able to get a better reading on whether or not individual time spent is resulting in speech the child can really utilize for interactions with hearing people.

A variety of tools used in the U.S. for clarifying ambiguities in lipreading, such as visual phonics or cued speech, may prove to be helpful when the children are a little older in the actual teaching of speech within a bilingual setting. However, the ultimate goal of speech teaching, which is to communicate with individuals in the mainstream who do not know or use such aids to speechreading, must be clearly kept in mind so that the child's learning time is not used acquiring a skill that can only be used with a few individuals in a training context. Some educators, therefore, are beginning to re-assess the value of such teaching tools within the context of an educational environment which utilizes Sign Language for primary, everyday interaction.

Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency

While spoken English may have been their first language, it does not necessarily remain the primary or dominant language for many hard of hearing children who are given the choice, in part because they may not be able to assimilate complex information or academic instruction through this language. When both languages are available, a Deaf child may initially attend more to one linguistic modality than the other. Nevertheless, understanding and evaluating these early preferences and their potential role in the child's education can be complex. As one audiologist in the U.S. recently observed:

And, we have to remember, even if the child can hear some sounds doesn't mean that child can learn auditorily. Many seem to do much better visually, even though they have quite a bit of hearing. The school's primary concern is educating the child. So, despite the fact that some hard of hearing children can get by with spoken English for basic communication, many of these same children do not have the ability to process and really utilize complex auditory information. This is a consideration we can't ignore (K. Caputo, personal communication, August 9, 1994).

Cummins (1980) has identified a very important distinction in levels of language competence in bilingual speakers: basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). BICS is the level of language performance which is sufficient for face-to-face interaction, where the speaker can rely heavily on context, and the content is often somewhat predictable. CALP is the level of language competence needed for critical or abstract thinking, problem solving, and assimilating new information, and is absolutely crucial to academic success. Barnum (1984) refers to the distinction between BICS and CALP in discussing the common misconception that speech skills in deaf or hard of hearing children equal solid language competence.

While it can be informative for parents and teachers to observe a child's performance or surface level competence in both languages, it is very important to be aware of issues related to the deeper linguistic competence needed for high level thought processing, dialogue, and academic work. These issues are not always apparent (nor do they seem important) during early childhood—a time when most communication is heavily reinforced by context and/or is focused on activity and play—and therefore require focused observation and evaluation.