The Comparison of Language Development and Lexical Awareness Indexes in Bilingual (Azeri- Persian) Hard of Hearing and Normal Children

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Linguistics, Pajuheshgah Ulum Ensani va Motaleate Farhangi, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of lingustics, Pajuheshgah Ulum ensani va Motaleate Farhangi, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Statistics, Zanjan University, Zanjan, Iran

Abstract

Purpose:
Regarding the impact of bilingualism and cochlear implantation on the language development and metalinguistic skills, examining these skills in bilingual children in different languages, especially bilingual children with normal and cochlear implantation, can lead us to a greater recognition of the language development in children and the related factors. The present study aims to investigate and compare the mean length of utterance and lexical richness with lexical awareness (content and structural aspect) between the normal and cochlear implantation children in the first grade in Persian and Azeri.
Methods: 
Six bilingual children with cochlear implantation were selected from the first grade of exceptional school in city of Zanjan in year 97-98 and six normal counterparts were selected matched for gender, age, and socio-economic conditions. Then, mean length of utterance and lexical richness were compared with metalinguistic skills tests. For studying mean length of utterance and lexical richness, continuous speech test and for studying metalinguistic skills, lexical awareness test (including content and structural aspect of word definition) were used.
Results:
Data analysis in Azeri language showed that mean lengthof utterance and lexical richness in thefirst grade of hard of hearing bilingual children with cochlear implantation in Azeri- Persian is delayed (p<0.05). But in Persian language of language development indices, only the mean lengthof utterance is delayed (p<0.05). No significant difference was found in any of content and structural aspects of lexical awareness definition in hard of hearing children with cochlear implantation (p>0.05). The low level of meta-language proficiency of subjects in metalinguistic tests in Azeri language can be attributed to the official teaching of Persian language in schools.
Conclusions:
Consistent with the results of this study, the mean continuous speech scores showed that the performance of the first grade of normal bilingual children in lexical richness and Mean length of utterance in Persian language is better than bilingual children with cochlear implantation.

Keywords

References

  1. Jessner U. A DST model of multilingualism and the role of metalinguistic awareness. The Modern Language Journal 2008; 92(2): 270-283.
  2. Soleymani Z, Mahmoodabadi N, Nouri M.  Language skills and phonological awareness in children with cochlear implants and normal hearing. International journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 2016; 83(2): 16-21. [Persian]
  3. McGuinness D. Language development and learning to read. Cambridge: the MIT Press 2005; 16 (9): 80-102.
  4. Volpato F. The acquisition of relative clauses and phi-features: Evidence from hearing and hearing impaired populations. Doctoral Thesis, Universita Ca Foscari Venezia 2009; 34 (6): 231-249.
  5. Cummins J. Bilingualism and the development of metalinguistic awareness. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 1978; 9 (2): 131-149.
  6. Schorr AE, Roth FP, Fox NA. A comparison of the speech and language skills of children with cochlear implants and children with normal hearing. Communication Disorders Quarterly 2008; 29(4): 195-210.
  7. Lederberg AR, Schick B, Spencer PE. Language and literacy development of deaf and hard-of- hearing children: Success and challenges. Educationa Psychology and Special Education, Georgia State University 2012; 49(1): 15-30.
  8. De Villiers PA. Assessing English syntax in hearing-impaired children: Elicited production in pragmatically- motivated situations. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology 1988; 21(2): 41-71.
  9. Cromdal, J. Childhood bilingualism and metalinguistic skills: Analysis and control in young Swedish-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics 1999; 20(6): 1-20.
  10. Smith CL, Tager-Flusberg H. Metalinguistic awareness and language development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 1984; 34(3): 449-468.
  11. Moller MP. Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics 2000; 106(3): 28-35.
  12. Hayes H, Geers AE, Treiman R, Moog JS. Receptive vocabulary development in deaf children with cochlear implants. Achievement in an intensive auditory-oral educational setting 1998; 30(1):128-35.
  13. Mayne AM, Yoshinaga-Itano C, Sedey AL, Carey A. Expressive vocabulary development of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing. The Volta Review 1998; 100(5): 1-28.
  14. Kirk KI, Miyamoto R, Ying EA, Perdew AE, et al. Cochlear implantation in young children: Effects of age at implantation and communication mode. Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery 2000; 102(4): 127-144.
  15. Svirsky MA, Teoh SW, Neuburger H. Development of language and speech perception in congenitally, profoundly deaf children as a function of age at cochlear implantation. Department of Otolaryngology-HNS, Indiana University School of Medicine 2004; 9(4): 224-233.
  16. Yim D. Spanish and English language performance in bilingual children with cochlear implants. Otology and Neurotology 2011; 33(3): 20-25.
  17. Barac R, Bialystok E. Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background, and education. Child Development 2012; 83(2): 413-422.
  18. Bialystok E, Craik F. Cognitive and linguistic processing in the bilingual mind. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2010; 19(1): 19-23.
  19. Thomas E, El-Kashlan H, Zwolan T. Children with cochlear implants who live in monolingual and bilingual homes. Otology and Neurology, 2008; 29(2): 230-234.

Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation
Volume 9, Issue 1
March 2020
Pages 41-51

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics