If, as Vygotsky claimed, language underpins thought, where does that leave the deaf?

Is there any evidence for different cognitive development in deaf children?

Is there any difference where signing has not been learnt?

-- Penelope Toff (p.toff@virgin.net), August 27, 2002

Answers

A great question! I'm pretty confident that Vygotsky and other sociocultural developmentalists would regard any form of interpersonal communitcation to be sufficient for the language -> thought mediation model to work. Although deaf children may not participate in the same aural/oral world of non-deaf children, most empirical studies of the acquisition of lingustic skills via signing systems like ASL find such things as 1) "babbling" (with sounds and with signs) in deaf children under one, 2) child-directed sign patterns (a la "motherese") in parents of deaf children, as well as 3) an much larger used vocabulary among deaf children under 3 (a finding that suggests that learning to sign many words is much easier than vocalizing them.) The point seems to be that human beings, as a rule, create rich contexts for commuication regardless of the mode of transmission that enable the cultural world to enter into individual development. Check out a solid child development text or one specifically dealing with language acquisition for more information.

-- Trey Buchanan (Trey.Buchanan@wheaton.edu), August 27, 2002.

As Trey has already suggested, the issue isn't one of oral language vs. signed language since signed languages like ASL have all the linguistic and psycholoigical properties of oral languages. The issue is one of full vs. restricted symbolic input. When deaf children are born to signing parents, the evidence suggests that development proceeds much as it would with a hearing child. When a deaf child is born to hearing parents who know no sign language, however, the child's access to the "social semiotic" system that Vygotsky finds so important may be restricted unless parents place them in circumstances where they are exposed to sign language just as a hearing child would be exposed to oral language. Without such exposure to a sign environment, development in the deaf child may be delayed. One of the first people to write cogently about this was Hans Furth in his book "Thinking without language : psychological implications of deafness" published in 1966 by the Free Press. Although Furth's title tended to mislead some people by seeming to imply that deaf children had no language, his real point was that the older "oral methods" of teaching deaf children which kept them away from a sign environment were responsible for the developmental delays sometimes seen. This is still a book worth reading.

-- Rob Wozniak (rwozniak@brynmawr.edu), August 27, 2002.

[Posted for JB by cdg.] This is a question that has been raised many times, and its answer has evolved considerably over the years. The basic issue is the definition of "language." It is not necessarily constrained to spoken language. Rather it refers to a system of symbolic representation that satisfies several other criteria. The point is that sign languages satisfy the criteria to be considered as natural languages, just like other natural languages (English, French, Japanese, etc). When signed languages have been learned, they serve the child just as do spoken languages, and my research, as well as that of others, has shown these kids to be no worse off that hearing kids -- possibly even a little ahead at some points. If they have not been learned, then the child is at risk for delays in cognitive development. The key, then, is for SOME language to be acquired, and it does not matter which one. Therefore, it is critical that early identification takeplace, and that language, whether signed or otherwise, be taught as early as possible.

-- James Bebko (jbebko@YorkU.CA), September 03, 2002.

[Posted for JB by cdg.] There is a lot of work on cognitive development in the deaf. This is an old issue from the 60's pitting Piagetians against Vygotskians. Tom knows a lot about this too. On Piagetian tasks, the deaf show delays but that is probably not due to lack of language. More recent work by Spencer on symbolic play does show an advantage for deaf children of deaf parents who are more proficient in sign. In general, deaf children who have a communication system, typically because they have deaf parents, succeed much more in the educational system.

-- Joanna Blake (jblake@YorkU.CA), September 03, 2002.