Language Deprivation

Caselli, N. K., Hall, W. C., & Henner, J. (2020). American Sign Language interpreters in public schools: An illusion of inclusion that perpetuates language deprivation. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 24(11), 1323-1329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-020- 02975-7

This article examines the use of sign language interpreters in deaf education through the lens of an emerging understanding of deaf children that separates hearing status from language deprivation. There has been a recent shift to consider deafness and language deprivation as separate but related conditions. As such, educational plans should differentiate between services related to deafness and services related to language deprivation. 

Many deaf children have limited access to language, spoken or signed, during early childhood – which has damaging effects on many aspects of development. Many of these children attend mainstream public schools and the primary service offered to students who use American Sign Language (ASL) is generally a sign language interpreter. Although interpreters are widely used in deaf education, the empirical record on the efficacy of interpreted education is sparse. 

The authors argue while sign language interpreters can be an effective accommodation for deafness (i.e., students who are deaf and not language-deprived), there is no reason to believe they are an effective accommodation for language deprivation (i.e., students who are deaf and language-deprived). Interpreters can give administrators and parents an “illusion of inclusion” leaving deaf children without the support they need to mitigate the consequences of language deprivation, and in some cases putting them at further risk by prolonging the period of time spent without a complete first language. 

Using interpreters instead of appropriate educational supports may exacerbate symptoms of language deprivation by prolonging the period of time a child goes with limited access to language. These deaf children need interventions tailored to language deprivation, not just interpreters. As such, interpreters should not be used as an intervention for language deprivation. The authors emphasize that with an emerging understanding that deafness and language deprivation are separate but related conditions, it is incumbent upon educational teams to 1) evaluate deaf children for language deprivation, 2) identify the needs that arise as a result of language deprivation, and 3) provide services or environments that meet those needs.

Holcomb, L., Dostal, H., & Wolbers, K. (2023). Characteristics of deaf emergent writers who experienced language deprivation. Bilingual Research Journal. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2023.2169412

This study explores the intertwined phenomena of language deprivation, emergent writing, and translanguaging in deaf students* without additional disabilities in grades 3–6. A case study was conducted using deductive and inductive approaches to analyze 42 writing samples. There were four areas of focus: (1) stages of emergent writing development, (2) writing change over time, (3) emerging writing and translanguaging features, and (4) writing features unique to the context of language deprivation. First, pre-writing samples add to evidence that older deaf students undergo similar developmental processes with their emergent writing patterns. Second, an analysis of pre- and post-writing samples indicated that movement between stages occurred for most students. Third, students incorporated emergent writing and translanguaging features that reflected the application of their linguistic resources in writing. Finally, existing theories were extended by uncovering writing characteristics unique to the context of language deprivation. Incomplete ideation and restricted translanguaging practices were identified as attributions of language deprivation impacting cognitive and linguistic resources. This study provides evidence that deaf students as old as thirteen years old are developing emergent writing skills not because of their deafness but likely because they were in environments that produced chronic inadequate language access. 
* Translanguaging is the practice of using multiple languages to communicate. It can be a powerful tool for learning and can help deaf people understand new concepts by connecting what they already know with what they’re trying to learn. For example, in one study, deaf readers were asked to use translanguaging while reading English text and explaining it in American Sign Language (ASL). The researchers found a strong link between the readers’ comprehension of English text and their skills in ASL, including vocabulary, language structure, and meaning. In this study, it is argued that the ways disabled, and deaf people use language(s) are not defective nor should their language practices be compared to monolingual, abled norms. Rather, a broad view of language is taken that honors all linguistic repertoires, variations, and expressions as viable. Historically, Deaf students’ writing has not been historically evaluated through a translanguaging view with a crip linguistics lens that also takes into account the effects of language deprivation. That is what the authors strive to do in this study.

Holcomb, L., Dostal, H., & Wolbers, K. (2023). Supporting deaf students who experience language deprivation. Odyssey, Vol. 23, pp. 29-33. Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center at Gallaudet University.

Published in Odyssey, an educational magazine published by the Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center at Gallaudet, this article addresses strategies and considerations for supporting deaf students with print literacy. Those deaf children who experience language deprivation and communication neglect during have missed opportunities to access information throughout critical times in their young lives. They have difficulty with receptive and expressive language and in learning to read and write. Often, these challenges exist throughout their education.

 The article reports a study involving two deaf students– just emerging as writers, although they were already in upper elementary school—were immersed in Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI) which offered tailored language support. Both students, who had no additional disabilities, had faced language deprivation since their early years and struggled with expressing themselves in both signed and spoken languages. However, within a single academic year of receiving SIWI, both students showed growth. One student, aged 10 years and 8 months, went from responding by drawing when asked to write at the beginning of the academic year to writing words and letter strings at the end of the year. The second student, aged 10 years and 11 months and from the same class, progressed from labeling a drawing with the initial letter during the fall to writing words and phrases as school drew to a close in spring.The authors argue that educators must begin teaching students where they currently stand, regardless of age, language skills, or literacy abilities. By using effective strategies—such as language play and signed compositions—a strong foundation in signed language can be cultivated. These strategies can enhance expressive and receptive skills, foster awareness of language (metalinguistic awareness), and support children’s journey toward becoming effective communicators.