THE COMMUNICATIVE PATTERNS OF PRESCHOOL HEARING-IMPAIRED CHILDREN A PILOT STUDY by TERRY PARSON-TYLKA U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF' MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of S p e c i a l Education) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard B.Hec., THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J u l y , 1980 | ^ Terry Parson-Tylka, 1980 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T.1W5 ABSTRACT A system f o r examining t h e f u n c t i o n s of language and modes of communication used by p r e s c h o o l h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers was d e v e l o p e d and p i l o t t e s t e d . T r a n s c r i p t i o n and c o d i n g of v i d e o - t a p e i n t e r a c t i o n s r e v e a l t h e u s e f u l n e s s of t h e system. A f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s determined t h a t m o t h e r - c h i l d dyads c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y i n t h e i r use of f u n c t i o n s , but not i n t h e i r use of modes. S i x minute time samples c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y w i t h 15 minute time samples. L i m i t a t i o n s and i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s r e s e a r c h a r e d i s c u s s e d . TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i Page LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES v i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 I I LITERATURE REVIEW 9 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 9 PRAGMATICS IN CHILD STUDY 11 RECENT RESEARCH 20 A MODEL FOR APPRAISAL OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN'S USE OF LANGUAGE 25 PRAGMATICS AND HEARING IMPAIRED CHILDREN 30 RELATED RESEARCH • • • 3 5 ' I I I THE STUDY 40 DEFINITION OF TERMS 40 THE POPULATION 41 THE INSTRUMENT 43 , FUNCTIONS 43 MODES 52, PROCEDURE . , 55 Page CHAPTER IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 58 SUITABILITY OF THE CODING SYSTEM 59 FUNCTIONS 60 QUESTIONS 70 MODES . 74 SUITABILITY OF USING A SIX-MINUTE SAMPLE 84 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 95 APPENDIX A. LIST OF TOYS 104 B. CODER'S TRAINING MANUAL 105 C. STUDY CORRESPONDENCE 125 LIST OF TABLES Table Page I . COMPARISON OF FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE FROM VARIOUS SOURCES 21 I I . HISTORICAL SURVEY OF PRAGMATICS IN EDUCATION OF THE HEARING IMPAIRED 31 I I I . DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 42 IV. FREQUENCY OF COMMUNICATIVE AND UNCODABLE ACTS AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF INTER-CODER AGREEMENTS ACROSS MOTHER-CHILD DYADS 59 V. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - 15 MINUTE SAMPLES 61 VI. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MOTHERS AND CHILDREN FOR USE OF FUNCTIONS 70 V I I . FREQUENCY OF USE OF QUESTION TYPES 72 V I I I . FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF MODES 75 IX. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MOTHERS AND CHILDREN FOR USE OF MODES 83 X. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - 6 MINUTE SAMPLES 86 XI. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN 6 AND 15 MINUTE SAMPLES FOR USE OF FUNCTIONS . . • 88 v i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. CODING SYMBOLS 54 2. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - DYAD 1 . . . 63 3. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - DYAD 2 . . . 64 4. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - DYAD 3 . . . 65 5. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - DYAD 4 . . . 66 6. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - DYAD 5 . . . 67 7. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF MODES ^ DYAD 1 76 8. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF MODES - ".DYAD 2 77 9. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF MODES - DYAD 3 78 10. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF MODES - DYAD 4 79 11. FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF MODES - DYAD 5 80 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Dr. Truman Cpggins f o r p l a n t i n g t h e seeds o f t h i s s tudy; to t h e S t a f f of the C o u n s e l l i n g and Home T r a i n i n g Program f o r Deaf " C h i l d r e n for. a l l o w i n g i t t o ta k e r o o t ; to Dr. Edgar L o w e l l , Dr. Susan C u r t i s s , Robin B o l i n and Sandy Meyers f o r s t i m u l t i n g i t s - g r o w t h ; to my committee, Dr. Da v i d K e n d a l l and Dr. P e r r y L e s l i e f o r g u i d i n g i t s development; to Dr. Mark Greenberg, f o r n u r t u r i n g the p r o j e c t and enc o u r a g i n g me t o grow as w e l l ; to my dear f r i e n d and r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t , Lana Ruddick f o r i n v o l v i n g h e r s e l f t o t a l l y i n t h i s study and f o r the l e a r n i n g we shared; to my a d v i s o r , Dr. Bryan C l a r k e f o r h i s d e d i c a t e d s u pport i n s e e i n g t h i s p r o j e c t t o i t s c o m p l e t i o n and f o r a l l t h a t he taught me; to t h e p a r e n t s and c h i l d r e n who so k i n d l y p r o v i d e d t h e d a t a f o r a n a l y s i s ; to a l l my f a m i l y and f r i e n d s who l o v i n g l y s u p p o r t e d me through t h i s e n t i r e e f f o r t ; and to my husband Tom, f o r always b e i n g t h e r e , my s i n c e r e thanks. 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The most important f u n c t i o n of language i s communication. For the ma j o r i t y of c h i l d r e n , the a b i l i t y to acquire language and use i t as a t o o l f o r communication i s a r e l a t i v e l y e f f o r t l e s s though prodigious task. For c h i l d r e n who have a hearing impairment from b i r t h or p r i o r to the c r i t i c a l language l e a r n i n g p e r i o d , estimated to be p r i o r to the age of two (Lenneberg, 1965), the a c q u i s i t i o n of language becomes a Herculean task. How one goes about a c q u i r i n g language when the major channel f o r language l e a r n i n g , i . e . a u d i t i o n , i s impaired, has been the subject of much research (Streng, Kretschmer, Kretschmer, 1978). The f a c t that some i n d i v i d u a l s do acquire a considerable l e v e l of mastery of the E n g l i s h language, d e s p i t e a c o n g e n i t a l profound hearing l o s s , increases the confusion surrounding language development i n the hearing-impaired. The major goal of most edu c a t i o n a l programs f o r hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s i s the a c q u i s i t i o n of language and communication s k i l l s , r e g a r d l e s s of methodological philosophy. Educators are con s t a n t l y s t r i v i n g to improve language assessment t o o l s and teaching techniques but the " s t a t e of the a r t " at t h i s time i s f a r from s a t i s -f a c t o r y (Moores, 1978). Rodgon, Jankowski and Alenskas (1977) view language as a m u l t i -d i s c i p l i n a r y e n t i t y i n v o l v i n g symbolic and c o g n i t i v e , communicative, and s t r u c t u r a l - l i n g u i s t i c aspects. Although each f a c e t of language i s 2 important, i t i s the i n t e g r a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l components which i s e s s e n t i a l f o r language competence. A s i m i l a r view i s taken by Bloom and Lahey (1978) who propose that the i n t e r s e c t i o n of form, content and use i s language competence. Language competence has been defined as the knowledge of language (Chomsky, 1968). Many language t h e o r i s t s equate language competence w i t h l i n g u i s t i c competence. The d i s t i n c t i o n between the two terms, however, i s not unimportant. L i n g u i s t i c competence may be regarded as i n t u i t i v e knowledge about grammar (Hopper and Naremore, 1978), that i s , the r u l e s of form (syntax) and content (semantics). Language competence, on the other hand, i n v o l v e s not only syntax and semantics, but a l s o the no t i o n of when and when not to speak, what to t a l k about and w i t h whom (Hymes, 1968), that i s , the s o c i a l use of language or pragmatics. This a b i l i t y to use syntax and semantics a p p r o p r i a t e l y i n conversation has a l s o been termed communicative competence (Cazden and Hymes, 1972) and i s seen as the framework i n which l i n g u i s t i c competence occurs. There-f o r e , w h i l e language competence and communicative competence may be used interchangeably, l i n g u i s t i c competence i s l i m i t e d to the communicator's knowledge of grammar. Because the term communicative competence captures the essence of language, i t w i l l be used throughout t h i s paper. Communicative performance i s communicative behavior used by an i n d i v i d u a l i n speaking or l i s t e n i n g which i s subject to e v a l u a t i o n by others (Cazden and Hymes, 1972). Communicative performance does not n e c e s s a r i l y r e v e a l the t o t a l scope of a c h i l d ' s communication competency, but i t does, a l l o w a degree of competence to be i n f e r r e d . The most commonly used mode of communicative behavior i s speech. Non-verbal modes are a l s o important however, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the young 3 language-learning c h i l d . The c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s e a r l y grammars and l i n g u i s t i c behaviors could gain considerably from the study of motor-gestural phenomena that accompany language during the e a r l y phases of a c q u i s i t i o n and are e v e n t u a l l y replaced by i t (Mehrabian and W i l l i a m s , 1971). G e s t u r a l behavior has been found to be important i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of communicative competence (Parker, 1976) and remains important at l e a s t during the preschool years. I t appears that the process of l e a r n i n g to t a l k w i t h others i n v o l v e s the a c q u i s i t i o n of a complex interweaving of non-verbal and v e r b a l behavior (Melson, 1977). The i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s phenomenon i n r e l a t i o n to hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n , i s that any attempt to evaluate communicative performance should i n v o l v e a l l behavior which i s communicative. R e s t r i c t i n g one's observations to "speech" w i l l p a r t i c u l a r l y l i m i t Information from the hearing-impaired communicator. Most hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n are l i m i t e d i n t h e i r communication to some degree by t h e i r i n a b i l i t y to hear speech c l e a r l y , even w i t h the a m p l i f i c a t i o n of sounds provided by the use of c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d hearing aids or F.M. a u d i t o r y t r a i n i n g equipment. V i s u a l cues a f f o r d e d by speech reading are an i n e f f i c i e n t s u b s t i t u t e f o r a u d i t i o n ( L i n g , 1976). Hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n may a l s o have d i f f i c u l t y i n producing phonemes i n connected speech w i t h s u f f i c i e n t i n t e n s i t y , d u r a t i o n and p i t c h to be c l e a r l y i n t e l l i g i b l e to t h e i r l i s t e n e r s . For these reasons, many hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n tend to r e l y more h e a v i l y on non-verbal communicative behaviors during the communication process than hearing c h i l d r e n do. A system f o r observing the modes of communication used by school aged hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n proposed by C o l l i n s (1970), i n c l u d e s eleven modes. I t may be p o s s i b l e to propose a l e s s extensive l i s t of modes f o r observing communication i n preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n , 4 which w i l l cover the continuum from speech through gesture and a c t i o n to s i g n language. There are many problems inherent i n observing the communicative performance of preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . As w i t h any young c h i l d , speech may be immature and not e a s i l y understood, and t h i s problem i s compounded when a hearing l o s s i s present. I f a s i g n system i s being used by the hearing-impaired c h i l d , the observer must be f a m i l i a r w i t h that system (Pfuderer, 1968). The l a r g e v a r i e t y of s i g n systems c u r r e n t l y used i n North America from Signed E n g l i s h to American Sign Language to "home-invented" signs makes t h i s a d i f f i c u l t task. Another problem r e l a t e d to s i g n language and young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n i s that immature fine-motor c o n t r o l may r e s u l t i n u n i n t e l l i g i b l e or ambiguous signs . Researchers are often r e l u c t a n t , t h e r e f o r e , to study language development i n very young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . The task becomes l e s s formidable i f a co n t e x t u a l approach to languages i s taken whereby context i s viewed as the most important f a c t o r i n i n t e r p r e t i n g communicative behavior (Bates, 1976; Bloom, 1970; Byers and Byers, 1972; Melson and H u l l s , 1977). I t has o f t e n been observed that what young c h i l d r e n say i s u s u a l l y r e l a t e d to what they see and do (Bloom, 1970). Taken to the extreme, A u s t i n (1962) says an utterance (communicative behavior) cannot be analyzed out of the context of i t s use, which i n c l u d e s both s i t u a t i o n a l and l i n g u i s t i c context, i . e . people present, t o p i c , the message given before, the goal of the com-munication, place and time (Hopper and Naremore, 1978). An optimal account of language development must i n c l u d e a d i s c u s s i o n of c o g n i t i o n and i t s r e l a t i o n to language growth. Most i n v e s t i g a t o r s are convinced there i s a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o g n i t i o n and language, but there i s disagreement as to the p r e c i s e nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . 5 The most w i d e l y a c c e p t e d t h e o r y i s based on the work of P i a g e t . H i s t h e o r y p o s t u l a t e s t h a t language development i s i n p a r t based on t h e e a r l y c o g n i t i v e development of c h i l d r e n d u r i n g the s e n s o r i - m o t o r p e r i o d between 18 months and 2 y e a r s of age ( P i a g e t , 1 9 6 2 ) . The view t h a t e a r l y language development i s i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h , i f not dependent on, c o g n i t i v e or i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g i n c h i l d r e n i s s u p p o r t e d i n th e l i t e r a t u r e (Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 1 9 7 9 ) . P s y c h o l o g i s t s agree t h a t t h e r e a r e forms of thought which a r e non-v e r b a l , but t h a t w i t h o u t language, t h i n k i n g i s l i m i t e d (Lawton, 1 9 6 8 ) . C o g n i t i v e development f o r most a d u l t s has been i n f l u e n c e d by language, b o t h i n communication and p r i v a t e l y , w i t h i n o u r s e l v e s (Lewis, 1 9 6 9 ) . I t appears t h a t language becomes e s s e n t i a l f o r t h i n k i n g to d e v e l o p beyond an e l ementary l e v e l ( W i l k i n s o n , 1 9 7 0 ) . That i s , w h i l e language a c q u i s i t i o n i s based on e a r l y c o g n i t i v e development, l a t e r e l a b o r a t i o n of c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s i s dependent on a c q u i r e d language a b i l i t i e s . As i n a l l human development, i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the p r o c e s s of language a c q u i s i t i o n must be c o n s i d e r e d (Bloom, 1 9 7 0 ) . I t appears t h a t some c h i l d r e n use c o g n i t i o n more, w h i l e o t h e r s tend to use l i n g u i s t i c i n p u t more i n a c q u i r i n g language, depending on the d i s t i n c -t i o n l e a r n e d , the language a c q u i r e d and t h e i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d ( S c h l e s i n g e r , 1 9 7 7 ) . That h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n demonstrate a c a p a c i t y f o r i n t e l -l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g ( F u r t h , 1 9 6 6 ; L e w i s , 1 9 6 8 ) s u p p o r t s the v iew t h a t i n t e l l e c t u a l development i s p o s s i b l e " w ithout language" ( S i n c l a i r , 1 9 7 5 ) . I t would be expected t h a t h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n s h o u l d d e v e l o p the p r e - v e r b a l c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s of the s e n s o r i - m o t o r p e r i o d . However, the importance of language i n the development of more e l a b o r a t e c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s , s u g g e s t s t h a t h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n may be l i m i t e d i n 6 these c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s , as w e l l as communicative a b i l i t i e s , due mainly to t h e i r r e s t r i c t e d language. In a d d i t i o n to c o g n i t i v e development, s e v e r a l other f a c t o r s have been found to be r e l a t e d to language a c q u i s i t i o n , though cause and e f f e c t cannot be determined. The i n f l u e n c e of p a r e n t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n i s a major c o n s i d e r a t i o n , o f t e n r e l a t e d to the socio-economic s t a t u s of the parents (Clezy, 1979; Greenstein, 1975; Hess and Shipman, 1965; Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 1979). The s o c i a l development of the c h i l d , as w e l l as m o t i v a t i o n i n a c q u i r i n g and using language i n communication are a l s o important. Much of the t h e o r e t i c a l base i n education of the hearing-impaired i s adapted from normal c h i l d language research. H i s t o r i c a l l y , c h i l d language study and i t s r e l a t i o n to hearing-impairment have focused on one aspect of language to the e x c l u s i o n of the other components. Research over the past decade has been p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned w i t h the development of syntax both i n normal c h i l d r e n (Chomsky, 1965), and c h i l d r e n w i t h hearing-impairments ( B l a c k w e l l , 1978; Quigley, 1976; Streng, 1972). The r e s u l t s of such research have c o n t r i b u t e d much needed i n f o r m a t i o n on t h i s aspect of language development. More r e c e n t l y , semantics has become prominent as a subject f o r research w i t h the hea r i n g -impaired (Scroggs, 1977). The t h i r d major component of language proposed by Bloom and Lahey (1978), i . e . the use of language i n a s o c i a l context or pragmatics, has, however, received very l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n i n research i n v o l v i n g hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . This i s not s u r p r i s i n g i n l i g h t of the recent research on pragmatics i n normal c h i l d language, which has served to make the study of language even more complex ( O i l e r , 1978). For educators of the hearing-impaired, the challenge now i s to 7 i n t e g r a t e knowledge of form, content and use i n order to be b e t t e r prepared to a s s i s t students i n becoming competent communicators. The u l t i m a t e success of the attempt to i n c l u d e pragmatics or use i n language development programs f o r hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n w i l l depend on the extent to which frameworks can be c l e a r l y d e f i n e d , d e l i m i t e d and brought under i n t e r p r e t i v e c o n t r o l ( O i l e r , 1978). The essence of pragmatics i s that language i s used f u n c t i o n a l l y (Hopper and Naremore, 1978; Moerk, 1977). Various researchers have proposed taxonomies of uses or f u n c t i o n s which attempt to r e f l e c t the i n t e n t i o n s of a communicator. Kretschmer and Kretschmer (.1979) make a d i s t i n c t i o n between pragmatic f u n c t i o n s which are s o c i a l l y o r i e n t e d , and mathetic f u n c t i o n s which are r e l a t e d to l e a r n i n g and do not r e q u i r e a response from a l i s t e n e r . Other researchers, however, f a i l to make t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n w i t h the r e s u l t s that the term pragmatics i s g e n e r a l l y used to r e f e r to a l l f u n c t i o n s . The research of H a l l i d a y (.1973) , Dore (.1974) , and Bates (1976) have been most prominent i n the r o l e of d e s c r i b i n g f u n c t i o n s or use i n normal c h i l d language. A p i l o t e f f o r t w i t h hearing-impaired preschool c h i l d r e n has demonstrated that these c h i l d r e n use the same f u n c t i o n s i n t h e i r communication as do very young hearing c h i l d r e n ( C u r t i s s , P r u t t i n g and L o w e l l , 1979). This research w i l l be discussed i n more d e t a i l i n the f o l l o w i n g chapter. An attempt to a s s i s t teachers i n a p p r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n ' s use of language has been made by Tough (1977) based on an extensive l o n g i t u d i n a l study w i t h preschoolers. Tough proposes a l i s t of 7 f u n c t i o n s of language which are used by preschool c h i l d r e n and necessary f o r s u c c e s s f u l l a t e r school l e a r n i n g . A more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of her work w i l l a l s o be provided i n the next chapter. 8 The focus, of t h i s p i l o t study w i l l be to determine the usefulness of adapting Tough's system f o r a p p r a i s i n g the use of language by preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . The in f o r m a t i o n provided may serve to suggest a means of assessing pragmatics, which when i n t e g r a t e d w i t h assessment of semantics and syntax, would s p e c i f y a c h i l d ' s communicative competence. In a d d i t i o n to d i s c u s s i n g Tough's (1977) model f o r a p p r a i s i n g pre-schoolers' language use, and C u r t i s s et a l . ' s (1977) d e s c r i p t i o n of pragmatics i n hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n , the succeeding chapter w i l l t r a c e the h i s t o r i c a l development of pragmatic study and examine research i n these areas. 9 CHAPTER I I LITERATURE REVIEW The study of the use of language i n i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h others i s a branch of pragmatics. This chapter w i l l review the h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e of t h i s area of language study, and d i s c u s s the recent research of Dore (1974), C u r t i s s , P r u t t i n g and L o w e l l (1977), and Tough (1977), which provides the t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r the ensuing work. H i s t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e The word "pragmatics" i s derived from the Greek r o o t , "pragma", meaning deed or behavior. P e i r c e (1932) coined the term "Pragmatism" to r e f e r to the p h i l o s o p h i c a l movement he founded. His d o c t r i n e s included the f o l l o w i n g : The meaning of conceptions i s to be sought i n t h e i r p r a c t i c a l bearings. The f u n c t i o n of thought i s to guide a c t i o n . Truth i s preeminently to be t e s t e d by the p r a c t i c a l consequences of b e l i e f . ( P e i r c e , 1932). A more popular d e f i n i t i o n of pragmatics stemmed from M o r r i s (1946) who described i t as the r e l a t i o n between signs and t h e i r human users. Signs r e f e r to the symbols used f o r communication. Others, however, f e e l that M o r r i s l o s t s i g h t of the important p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d by P e i r c e (Bates, 1976b). Bates proposes that pragmatics be defined as the study of l i n g u i s t i c i n d i c e s which are signs that are i n t e r p r e t a b l e only w i t h i n the context of t h e i r use. C e n t r a l to the pragmatic study of language, then, must be a u n i t of a n a l y s i s of l i n g u i s t i c i n d i c e s . This i s s u e has been approached through the n o t i o n of Speech A c t s , a theory f i r s t introduced by A u s t i n (1962). A u s t i n described Speech Acts as utterances. The i s s u i n g of an utterance he termed a Performative, because i t i s the performing of an a c t i o n . A u s t i n s p e c i f i e d three types of Speech Acts: Locutionary - a l l acts required f o r the making of speech, i . e . the a c t u a l production of the a c t . I l l o c u t i o n a r y - the conventional s o c i a l a c t , i . e . the use or f u n c t i o n of the speech a c t . P e r l o c u t i o n a r y - the e f f e c t of the speech act on the l i s t e n e r . S earle (1969) elaborated on A u s t i n ' s n o t i o n of Speech A c t s , p a r t i c -u l a r l y the i l l o c u t i o n a r y act. For S e a r l e , the Speech Act was the b a s i c u n i t of communication. He f e l t that the a n a l y s i s of i l l o c u t i o n a r y acts must capture both the i n t e n t i o n a l and conventional f u n c t i o n s and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between them. To t h i s end, he determined that four types of c o n d i t i o n s must be f u l f i l l e d f o r an i l l o c u t i o n a r y act to be performed s u c c e s s f u l l y : p r o p o s i t i o n a l , preparatory, s i n c e r i t y and e s s e n t i a l . Thes co n d i t i o n s recognize the p r o p o s i t i o n and the i n t e r n a l s t a t e s of the speaker that operate r e l a t i v e to the p r o p o s i t i o n . Searle (.1969) proposed the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses about i l l o c u t i o n a r y a c t s and these four c o n d i t i o n s : Whenever there i s a p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t a t e s p e c i f i e d i n the s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n , the performance of the act counts as an expression of that p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t a t e . In the performance of any i l l o c u t i o n a r y a c t , the speaker i m p l i e s that the preparatory c o n d i t i o n s are s a t i s f i e d . There need not be an e x p l i c i t i l l o c u t i o n a r y f o r c e -i n d i c a t i n g device to perform the a c t : i f the other c o n d i t i o n s are f u l f i l l e d , i m p l i c i t devices can perform the act. 11 The same utterance may c o n s t i t u t e the performance of s e v e r a l i l l o c u t i o n a r y a c t s . ( S e a r l e , 1969) Pragmatics i n C h i l d Study The Speech Act has a l s o been used as the u n i t f o r a n a l y s i s i n c h i l d language study by s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s (Bates, 1976b; Dore, 1973). The d e f i n i t i o n of terms o r i g i n a l l y proposed by M o r r i s (1946), A u s t i n (1962) , and Searle (1969) have been modified to account f o r e a r l y c h i l d language, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e l a t i o n to the communicative i n t e n t i o n s expressed by young language l e a r n i n g c h i l d r e n . Bates (1976) r e l a t e d c h i l d language study to Speech Acts and Pragmatics. Bates, Camaioni and V o l t e r r a (1975) examined the onset of i n t e n t i o n a l communication p r i o r to the onset of speech and traced i t s development up to the beginning of f u n c t i o n s expressed through speech. They view every act that i s in v o l v e d i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of meaning as a pragmatic act i n i t s e l f . Bates (.1976) f u r t h e r proposes that " l o g i c a l l y and o n t o g e n e t i c a l l y , a l l of semantics and s y n t a c t i c s are derived u l t i m a t e l y from pragmatics." Bates, et a l . (.1975) and Bates (1976a, 1976b) describe four prag-matic s t r u c t u r e s or r u l e s of use. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , they have chosen to use Speech Act terminology i n reference to pre-speech behavior, which r e s u l t s i n confusion f o r the reader who i s attempting to conceptualize the model. The reader must bear i n mind Bates' o r i e n t a t i o n to e a r l y pre-speech communicative behaviors. Bates' four pragmatic s t r u c t u r e s are: Performatives - These are developed p r i o r to the onset of speech and are the i n t e n t i o n s i n using communicative behaviors. Bates, et a l . (1975) determined the f o l l o w i n g sequence i n the development of performatives: p e r l o c u t i o n a r y phase - (from b i r t h to 10 months) i n which acts are o f t e n u n i n t e n t i o n a l but serve to have an e f f e c t on t h e i r l i s t e n e r ; f o r example, the c r i e s of a hungry baby. i l l o c u t i o n a r y phase - (from 10 months to 12-15 months) i n which conventional s o c i a l acts take place which c a l l on others to a f f e c t the agent; f o r example, showing-off, showing o b j e c t s , p o i n t i n g - f o r - o t h e r s . l o c u t i o n a r y phase - (from 12-15 months on) i n which performative s t r u c t u r e s are used to c a r r y p r o p o s i t i o n s w i t h r e f e r e n t i a l v a l u e , i . e . word or w o r d - l i k e s i g n a l s w i t h no r e f e r e n t i a l v a l u e , f o r example, " h i " or "bye-bye"; r e s t r i c t e d usage of r e f e r e n t i a l speech, f o r example, "doggie" i n reference to a l l animals; or t r u e r e f e r e n t i a l speech, which d e p i c t s an object or event i n a v a r i e t y of contexts. P r o p o s i t i o n s - This r e f e r s to the i n t e r n a l a c t i v i t y of speakers. O r i g i n a l l y p r o p o s i t i o n s are a c t i o n schemes. Any pragmatic use of language can be turned i n t o a p r o p o s i t i o n a l object. At the e a r l y stages, p r o p o s i t i o n s d e s c r i b e things to be communicated. P r o p o s i t i o n s are marked by the emergence of t r u e words or r e f e r e n t i a l speech. Pre s u p p o s i t i o n s - Presupposing i s a very e a r l y a c t i v i t y which makes assumptions about the context that are necessary to make an utterance v e r i f i a b l e , a ppropriate or both. Bates defines three types of p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s : semantic presuppositions - are c o n d i t i o n s deducible from the meaning of a sentence and which must be t r u e f o r an u t t e r a n c e t o be a t r u e or f a l s e p r o p o s i t i o n . F o r example, "John has a s i s t e r " presupposes "John e x i s t s " . Semantic, p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s a r e n e c e s s a r y t o make an u t t e r a n c e v e r i -f i a b l e . p r a g m a t i c p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s - a r e assumptions about t h e c o n t e x t , which a r e n e c e s s a r y t o make the u t t e r a n c e a p p r o p r i a t e . P r a g m a t i c p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s v a r y a c c o r d i n g t o the c o n t e x t and b e l i e f s of t h e communicators. F o r example, "Do you want t o go bye-bye?" presupposes t h a t the l i s t e n e r i s a s m a l l c h i l d . The prag m a t i c d e f i n i t i o n of p r e s u p p o s i t i o n subsumes t h e semantic d e f i n i t i o n . p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s - a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n can be p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y p r e s e n t as l o n g as b o t h the speaker and the l i s t e n e r s h a re t h e a c t of p r e s u p p o s i n g , o r as l o n g as t h e speaker t h i n k s t h e a c t i s shared. Young c h i l d r e n may presuppose i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t they a r e u n a b l e t o s i g n a l i n the s u r f a c e form of t h e i r u t t e r a n c e s . There i s some ev i d e n c e t h a t t h e "new" i n f o r m a t i o n i n one-word u t t e r a n c e s u s u a l l y presupposes " o l d " i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e c o n t e x t i n which i t o c c u r s ( G r e e n f i e l d and Smith, 1976). The element of t h e s i t u a t i o n t h e c h i l d chooses t o encode (say) i s almost i n v a r i a b l y the element undergoing g r e a t e s t change or emphasis. F o r example, w h i l e p u t t i n g o b j e c t s i n t o a bucket a c h i l d w i l l say the names of t h e o b j e c t s r a t h e r than "bucket". The new-old o r d e r a t the two-word l e v e l can be seen as a c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h i s new-only r u l e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n subsumes semantic and pragm a t i c p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . Presupposing i s an i n t e g r a l part of every act of speech. C h i l d r e n seem to f i n d i t easy to assume i n f o r m a t i o n , and i n the course of pragmatic development, they must l e a r n what not to presuppose. This i s r e l a t e d to the d e c l i n e of ego-centrism i n the c h i l d , as he le a r n s to d i s t i n g u i s h between h i s own and others' p o i n t s of view. Bates uses p r e s u p p o s i t i o n i n the same way as performatives, i . e . to d e s c r i b e the speakers.'ilintentoon i n using a sentence. Presupposing, then, i s a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y . C onversational P o s t u l a t e s - These c o n d i t i o n s are a p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s of presuppositions about the nature of human dialogue i n general. They were introduced by G r i c e (1968) and r e f e r .to the p r i n c i p l e of cooperation i n communication, i . e . t r u t h , relevance, e t c . The a b i l i t y to p r e d i c t whether or not a given assumption i s shared by the l i s t e n e r , and to plan one's utterances a c c o r d i n g l y i s one of the highest achievements i n pragmatic development. Research has concluded that c h i l d r e n as young as 2 years of age can recognize a command that i s i m p l i c i t i n s u b t l e requests or statements of need made by mothers. For example, they respond a p p r o p r i a t e l y to a command to "Eat :lunch" even when stat e d i m p l i c i t l y as "Do you want your lunch now?" However, production of these v a r i o u s kinds of d i r e c t i v e s does not appear u n t i l 3*5-4 years of age. In a l l four pragmatic c o n d i t i o n s , Bates (1976b) views context as an i n t e g r a l part of the s t r u c t u r e of language. Meanings are conveyed through, a c r e a t i v e combination of utterances and s o c i a l s e t t i n g s , that i s , l e a r n i n g how to do things i n context through the use of words and s i g n a l s . Bates (1976b) suggests that M o r r i s ' popular d e f i n i t i o n i s l i m i t i n g because human users are a f f e c t e d i n t h e i r use of the signs of language by the context and the f u n c t i o n of the message on the speaker, i n r e l a t i o n to the context. H a l l i d a y (1973, 1975) has a l s o been concerned w i t h a f u n c t i o n a l approach to the study of language. He s t a t e s that language development i s more than the a c q u i s i t i o n of s t r u c t u r e . H a l l i d a y chooses to r e l a t e f u n c t i o n to the development of meaning, which, according to Bloom and Lahey (1978), i s synonomous w i t h content or semantics, r a t h e r than w i t h i n a pragmatic framework. H a l l i d a y takes the view that language f o r the c h i l d i s a f l e x i b l e , almost l i m i t l e s s t o o l f o r the r e a l i z a t i o n of h i s i n t e n t i o n s . He s t a t e s two reasons f o r studying the f u n c t i o n s of language; to e s t a b l i s h general p r i n c i p l e s r e l a t i n g to the uses.of language, and to e s t a b l i s h the r e l a t i o n between f u n c t i o n s of language and language i t s e l f . From the f u n c t i o n a l point of view, as soon as there are meaningful expressions, there i s language. The c h i l d has a l i n g u i s t i c system before he has any words or s t r u c t u r e s at a l l . The question becomes to discover "what has the c h i l d learned to do by means of language?" ( H a l l i d a y , 1975). H a l l i d a y (1975) proposes a t e n t a t i v e framework f o r the f u n c t i o n a l account of e a r l y language development, based on observations of young c h i l d r e n and t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s about l i n g u i s t i c f u n c t i o n i n g , i n c l u d i n g e s s e n t i a l l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r i e s and e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r i e s regarding c u l t u r a l t r a n s m i s s i o n and the s o c i a l i z a t i o n process (notably the work of B e r n s t e i n , 1971). The three phases of h i s framework are: Phase 1 - The I n i t i a l System - In phase 1 t h e c h i l d l e a r n s language as a system of meanings i n f u n c t i o n a l c o n t e x t s . There i s no form, o n l y c o n t e n t and e x p r e s s i o n through i n t o n a t i o n and a r t i -c u l a t i o n . The b e g i n n i n g o f t h e use of f u n c t i o n s o f language o c c u r s i n t h i s v e r y e a r l y phase. Each u t t e r a n c e s e r v e s one f u n c t i o n . Phase 2 - T r a n s i t i o n a l System - V o c a l i z a t i o n , s t r u c t u r e and d i a l o g u e a r e p r e s e n t i n the b e g i n n i n g of phase 2. By t h e end of t h i s phase the c h i l d can use two f u n c t i o n s a t a time and has mastered the l i n g u i s t i c system of the a d u l t language. Language can now s e r v e t o e f f e c t i v e l y t r a n s m i t c u l t u r a l knowledge t o th e c h i l d . F u n c t i o n s a r e combined i n u t t e r a n c e s and a r e e i t h e r p r a g m a t i c or m a t h e t i c . Phase 3 - The A d u l t System - In t h i s phase, f u n c t i o n s a r e no l o n g e r e q u i v a l e n t t o use but r a t h e r a r e ways of meaning. Content, form, and e x p r e s s i o n a r e a l l p r e s e n t . Each u t t e r a n c e i s m u l t i -f u n c t i o n a l and used i n a s p e c i f i c s o c i a l c o n t e x t . In Phase 1 the c h i l d i s c a p a b l e of seven f u n c t i o n s of language. These f u n c t i o n s a r e : I n s t r u m e n t a l - t h e " I want" f u n c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e f u n c t i o n , language s e r v e s of s a t i s f y i n g t h e c h i l d ' s m a t e r i a l needs; of e n a b l i n g him t o o b t a i n the goods and s e r v i c e s he wants. The c h i l d has become aware t h a t language i s used as a means of g e t t i n g t h i n g s done. The c h i l d ' s i n t e n t i o n i s s a t i s f i e d by the p r o v i s i o n of the o b j e c t o r s e r v i c e d e s i r e d . R e g u l a t o r y - t h e "do as I t e l l you" f u n c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e use of language t o r e g u l a t e , c o n t r o l o r m a n i p u l a t e t h e b e h a v i o r of o t h e r s . I t i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l f u n c t i o n but i s d i r e c t e d towards a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l i n a demand f o r company. I t i n v o l v e s the language of r u l e s and i n s t r u c -t i o n s . I n t e r a c t i o n a l - t h e "me and you" f u n c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e use of language i n i n t e r a c t i o n s between the s e l f and o t h e r s , i n c l u d i n g g r e e t i n g s and r e s p o n s e s t o c a l l s . P e r s o n a l - t h e "here I am/come" f u n c t i o n . T h i s i s the use of langua; t o e x p r e s s the c h i l d ' s own u n i q u e n e s s . Language f i r s t a l l o w s t h e c h i l d t o become aware of h i m s e l f , and i s then used t o mold t h a t s e l f ; t h a t i s , f o r t h e e x p r e s s i o n of f e e l i n g s , of p a r t i -c i p a t i o n and w i t h d r a w a l , i n t e r e s t , p l e a s u r e , e t c . H e u r i s t i c - t h e " t e l l me why" f u n c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e use of language to i n v e s t i g a t e r e a l i t y and l e a r n about t h i n g s . I t a l l o w s t h e c h i l d h i m s e l f t o e x p l o r e h i s environment and c a t e g o r i z e o b j e c t s of t h e p h y s i c a l w o r l d . I m a g i n a t i v e - the " l e t ' s p r e t e n d " f u n c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e use of language t o c r e a t e one's own environment. I t l a t e r i n c l u d e s poems, r i d d l e s , e t c . R e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l or I n f o r m a t i v e - the " I ' v e got something t o t e l l you" f u n c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e use of language to communicate about something. T h i s f u n c t i o n emerges l a t e r than the o t h e r s and r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e c h i l d has grasped the p r i n c i p l e s of d i a l o g u e and communication. The f i r s t f o u r f u n c t i o n s d e v e l o p p r i o r t o t h e o t h e r s i n Phase 1 and a l l of t h e o t h e r s precede the i n f o r m a t i v e f u n c t i o n . H a l l i d a y does not i n c l u d e p r a c t i s e forms of language such as i m i t a t i o n , c h a n t i n g o r r e p e t i t i o n , because he says they a r e models of language a c q u i s i t i o n r a t h e r than instances of language i n use. This i s i n co n t r a s t to Rees, (1975) who f e e l s that i m i t a t i o n may i n i t s e l f be a communication f u n c t i o n which teaches a c h i l d to " e s t a b l i s h or maintain communication." In the T r a n s i t i o n a l Phase 2, H a l l i d a y proposes that the c h i l d begins to combine f u n c t i o n s and there are two major cate g o r i e s of f u n c t i o n s : Pragmatic f u n c t i o n s - which a r i s e from the instrumental and regu-l a t o r y f u n c t i o n s i n Phase 1. These f u n c t i o n s are s i g n a l l e d by r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n . Mathetic f u n c t i o n s - which a r i s e from a combination of the personal and h e u r i s t i c f u n c t i o n s i n phase 1. Mathetic f u n c t i o n s become most important f o r l e a r n i n g p o t e n t i a l i n school,, and are the.major impetus f o r the i d e a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n of the t h i r d phase. Mathetic f u n c t i o n s are s i g n a l l e d by f a l l i n g i n t o n a t i o n . In Phase 3 a l l c a t e g o r i e s and terminologies combine to form three d i s t i n c t f u n c t i o n s : I d e a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s - ( r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , r e f e r e n t i a l and c o g n i t i v e ) The i d e a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n becomes c r u c i a l to the use of language as . e a r l y a l l utterances come to have an i d e a t i o n a l component, ( i . e . language i s used f o r l e a r n i n g ) . I n t e r p e r s o n a l f u n c t i o n s - (exp r e s s i v e - c o n a t i v e , s o c i a l , and evocative) Textual f u n c t i o n s - which p r o v i d e . c o n d i t i o n s whereby other f u n c t i o n s can be e f f e c t i v e l y served. H a l l i d a y ' s f u n c t i o n a l account of language development has been widely quoted i n the l i t e r a t u r e , and has made an important c o n t r i b u t i o n to the f i e l d of pragmatics. Dore (1974) has a l s o c o n t r i b u t e d g r e a t l y to the study of language f u n c t i o n s i n the p r e v e r h a l c h i l d . L i k e Bates, he has r e l a t e d c h i l d language study to Speech Act theory. U n l i k e Bates however, Dore has chosen to describe a c h i l d ' s communication at the one-word stage i n terms of P r i m i t i v e Speech Acts. Dore's theory of P r i m i t i v e Speech. Acts assumes that the c h i l d possesses systematic knowledge about the prag-matics of h i s language before he has acquired s e n t e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e s , and a l s o that the c h i l d can l i n g u i s t i c a l l y represent a s i n g l e concept and communicate the p r i m i t i v e f o r c e of h i s utterances (Dore, 1974). A P r i m i t i v e Speech Act (PSA) i s ; an utterance c o n s i s t i n g f o r m a l l y of a s i n g l e word or a s i n g l e prosodic p a t t e r n which conveys the c h i l d ' s i n t e n t i o n . S i n g l e words: may be e i t h e r a rudimentary r e f e r r i n g expression ( I . e . names), or s p e c i f i c expression words (e.g. h i , bye-bye). A s i n g l e prosodic p a t t e r n counts as a PSA I f i t contains a c o n s i s t e n t prosodic f e a t u r e produced without segmental phonemes of a word and communicates the c h i l d ' s i n t e n t i o n . Dore (1974) enumerates four types of b e h a v i o r a l evidence to charac-t e r i z e a PSA: the c h i l d ' s utterance; n o n - l i n g u i s t i c behavior such as gestures and f a c i a l expressions; the a d u l t ' s v e r b a l and non-verbal response; and the r e l e v a n t , s a l i e n t aspects of the context of the utterances. He suggests that a l l the l i n g u i s t i c utterances of the c h i l d at the one-word stage can be c l a s s i f i e d i n t o e i g h t , l a t e r r e v i s e d to nine (Dore, 1975), d i s t i n c t P r i m i t i v e Speech Acts. These are: c a l l i n g , p r a c t i s i n g , l a b e l l i n g , r e p e a t i n g , p r o t e s t i n g , g r e e t i n g , answering, requesting a c t i o n and requesting an answer. P r i m i t i v e Speech. Acts as formulated by Dore, do not possess a l l of the f e a t u r e s of f u l l Speech Acts. For example, PSA's do not c o n t a i n a predicating expression and do not develop i n t o Speech Acts u n t i l the c h i l d has acquired most of the grammatical s t r u c t u r e s of h i s language. 20 Dore (1974) has s c h e m a t i c a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d t h i s development at t h e one-word and two-word s t a g e s and beyond. In t h i s Speech A c t model, l i n g u i s t i c i n t e n t i o n i s a c o g n i t i v e -p r a g m a t i c s t r u c t u r e , d i s t i n c t from grammatical s t r u c t u r e s which e x p r e s s the i n t e n t i o n . The speaker's i n t e n t i o n s ( t o d e s c r i b e , a c q u i r e i n f o r m a -t i o n and so on) a r e t h e f u n c t i o n s of h i s u t t e r a n c e s which a r e e x p r e s s e d through the s p e a k e r ' s use of grammar. The i n t e n t i o n t o communicate pre c e d e s the p r o d u c t i o n of speech, hence t h e need f o r t h e concept of t h e P r i m i t i v e Speech A c t . A l t h o u g h t h e t e r m i n o l o g y and t h e models f o r examining t h e i n t e n t i o n s of t h e communication of young c h i l d r e n a r e d i f f e r e n t , B a t e s , H a l l i d a y and Dore agree t h a t t h e young c h i l d i s c a p a b l e of communicating h i s i n t e n t i o n s b e f o r e he has a c q u i r e d t h e v e r b a l a b i l i t y t o do so. Obser-v a t i o n of l i n g u i s t i c and n o n - l i n g u i s t i c components p r o v i d e s c l u e s t o t h e c h i l d ' s i n t e n t i o n s , arid .context p l a y s a major r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p r a g m a t i c f u n c t i o n s which t h e c h i l d i s c h o o s i n g t o e x p r e s s . A comparison of t h e f u n c t i o n s proposed by Dore, H a l l i d a y and o t h e r s i s g i v e n i n T a b l e I . The d i s c u s s i o n w i l l now t u r n t o more r e c e n t r e s e a r c h i n p r a g m a t i c s and c h i l d language s t u d y . Recent R e s e a r c h The a r e a of p r a g m a t i c s i s c u r r e n t l y the major f o c u s i n language st u d y . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , i t seems t o be a Pandora's box t h a t , when opened i n an attempt t o s o l v e c e r t a i n semantic and g e n e r a l i t y problems, -has i n t r o d u c e d many new problems of d e f i n i t i o n and t h e o r e t i c a l c l a r i t y ( O i l e r , 1978). The essence of p r a g m a t i c s i s t h a t language i s used f u n c t i o n a l l y 21 TABLE I COMPARISON OF FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE FROM VARIOUS SOURCES (parents) Greenberg (1976) Bartsch (1979) Bloom and Lahey (1979) Hopper and Naremore ;(1978) Moerk (1977) request a t t e n -t i o n or ob j e c t , d i r e c t behavior request d i r e c t / request c o n t r o l / persuade d i r e c t i v e d i s c u s s non-present events d i s c u s s object d i s c u s s behavior o p i n i o n statement comment report inform r e f e r e n t i a l r epeating approving beh. disapproving beh. wish, promise warn, judge question imagining question imagining expressing f e e l i n g s express f e e l i n g s expressive r i t u a l s r i t u a l i z i n g TABLE I — C o n t i n u e d Coggins (1978) Tough (1977) Dore et a l . (1978) C u r t i s s et a l . (1977) Lewis (1969) request show object .comment give object show-off p r o t e s t greet answer d i r e c t r eport s e l f - m a i n t . imagine question reason p r e d i c t p r o j e c t r e q u e s t i v e r e g u l a t i v e s a s s e r t i v e performative expressive responsive command/ demand request con-f i r m a t i o n summons i m i t a t i o n l a b e l l i n g d e s c r i p t i o n r e p e t i t i o n request f o r approval p r o t e s t i n g question r i t u a l response to command response to question response to summons acknowledgment manipulative d e c l a r a t i v e r e f e r e n t i a l o r e t i c c o g n i t i v e emotive 23 .TABLE I — C o n t i n u e d Bloom E r v i n - T r i p p H a l l i d a y Dore Hymes (1970) (1973) (1973) (1974) (1974) d i r e c t request r e g u l a t o r y requesting d i r e c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n action/answer request i n t e r a c t i o n a l c a l l i n g contact s o c i a l metaling p r a c t i s i n g metaling c o n t e x t u a l p o e t i c comment o f f e r inform- i n f o r m a t i v e l a b e l l i n g r e f e r e n t i a l r e p o r t a t i o n repeating metacomm. avoidance personal p r o t e s t i n g instrumental imaginative question h e u r i s t i c expressive expressive mono. r o u t i n e s g r e e t i n g answering (Hopper and Naremore, 1978). One recent d e f i n i t i o n i n the l i t e r a t u r e s u c c i n c t l y captures t h i s r o l e of pragmatics, and at the same time accounts f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n component s t r e s s e d by Bates and the meaning component suggested by H a l l i d a y . "Pragmatics i s a branch of the theory of meaning that describes the use that i s made of expressions and e s p e c i a l l y t h e i r use i n i n t e r a c t i o n s " (Bartsch, 1979). Use, according to Bloom and Lahey (1978), r e f e r s to the contexts i n which language can be used and the f u n c t i o n s f o r which i t can be used. Context i s the key to determining language f u n c t i o n (Cazden and Hymes, 1972).and has been conceived as the stage set f o r an act of communication. L i n g u i s t i c pragmatics i s concerned w i t h the d e s c r i p t i o n of t h i s stage (Markova, 1978). Context determines the v e r b a l and non-verbal m o d a l i t i e s which are appropriate behaviors f o r r e a l i z i n g the communicators' i n t e n t i o n s i n face-t o - f a c e communication (Byers and Byers, 1972). The f u n c t i o n of language as communication i s i n t i m a t e l y bound up w i t h mental a c t i v i t y ( C l a r k and C l a r k , 1977). Cognition determines the s e l e c t i o n of behaviors i n the use of language. Kretschmer and Kretschmer (1978) and Leonard (1972) are two of the few c h i l d language t h e o r i s t s to maintain H a l l i d a y ' s d i s t i n c t i o n between pragmatic, .or s o c i a l l y o r i e n t e d , f u n c t i o n s and mathetic, or l e a r n i n g , f u n c t i o n s . Kretschmer and Kretschmer argue that the a c q u i s i t i o n of a v a r i e t y of uses i s the i n c e n t i v e f o r the development of language forms. This becomes the crux of the matter f o r hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . Do hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n acquire a v a r i e t y of uses of language? Nelson (1978) f e e l s that as long as the c h i l d i s s a t i s f i e d with, communi-c a t i n g p r a g m a t i c a l l y , there i s l i t t l e need to l e a r n a conventional language system. Since pragmatic f u n c t i o n s develop n a t u r a l l y i n a l l c h i l d r e n p r i o r to speech, hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n should not be handi-capped i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to acquire these f u n c t i o n s . The mathetic f u n c t i o n s a r i s e out of these prespeech f u n c t i o n s . This suggests that i f h e a r i n g -impaired c h i l d r e n are s a t i s f i e d w i t h communicating p r a g m a t i c a l l y , then t h i s may r e s u l t i n the delayed use of mathetic f u n c t i o n s and the l i m i t e d or deviant language systems c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of many hearing-impaired i n d i v i d u a l s . The next s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter w i l l explore the r e l e v a n t research which a s s i s t e d i n for m u l a t i n g the research questions of t h i s study. A Model f o r A p p r a i s a l of Preschool C h i l d r e n ' s Use of Language Tough (1977) has developed a guide f o r a p p r a i s i n g preschool c h i l -dren's use of language which can serve as a u s e f u l t o o l f o r teachers of young c h i l d r e n . Tough based her model on s e v e r a l t h e o r i e s of language f u n c t i o n ( H a l l i d a y , 1973; Inhelder and P i a g e t , 1964; Vygotsky, 1962; L u r i a , 1961; Lewis, 1951, 1957, 1968; B e r n s t e i n , 1971), as w e l l as observation of young c h i l d r e n ' s use of language. In her Language and Environment P r o j e c t , Tough recorded the language of s i x t y - f o u r 3-3% year o l d c h i l d r e n engaged i n conversation w i t h a chosen f r i e n d . One-half of the c h i l d r e n i n the p r o j e c t were considered "disadvantaged" i n school l e a r n i n g because of the home environment provided them by t h e i r parents, who were u n s k i l l e d or s e m i - s k i l l e d workers. The "advantaged" c h i l d r e n were from homes where one or both of the parents were i n pr o f e s s i o n s reached through higher l e a r n i n g . To examine the e f f e c t s of nursery education on language development, h a l f of the "disadvantaged" and h a l f of the "advantaged" groups were e n r o l l e d i n nursery groups w h i l e the other h a l f of each group had no nursery experience. Other f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g age, sex, IQ, f a m i l y s i z e , c h i l d ' s p e r s o n a l i t y and mother's, . f i r s t language were c o n t r o l l e d . The c h i l d ' s t a l k and h i s responses to t a l k were observed and tape recorded. The hour-long language sample obtained f o r each c h i l d was analyzed i n s e v e r a l ways, to determine what i f any d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between the groups i n t h e i r use of language. A s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s revealed that the advantaged group tended to use longer utterances and more complex forms of s t r u c t u r e s . There were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups i n mean score of a l l noun phrases, reference ( i . e . use of pronouns), and verb complexity. I n t e r -p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s confirmed the l i n k between s o c i a l c l a s s and the c h i l d ' s development of language, although the r e l a t i o n s h i p cannot be termed causal. Tough f e l t , however, that the problem was not that the c h i l d r e n i n the disadvantaged groups were not able to use complex language, because many demonstrated that they could. Other explanations were pursued to e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n c e s shown to e x i s t between the groups. Tough then turned to an examination of the uses of language made by the c h i l d r e n i n the study, as a way of co n s i d e r i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n meaning. Meaning was seen to r e s i d e w i t h i n the c h i l d i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h a s i t u -a t i o n and to be r e f l e c t e d In the c h i l d ' s response to the s i t u a t i o n through h i s general behavior and use of language (Tough, 1977). In order to analyze the c h i l d r e n ' s use of language i n t h i s way Tough proposed a model f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of uses of language. She f i r s t d i s t i n g u i s h e d between the f o l l o w i n g four f u n c t i o n s of language, which she defined as the means by which a purpose i s achieved: D i r e c t i v e Function - which i s concerned w i t h d i r e c t i n g operations and a c t i o n s of the s e l f and others I n t e r p r e t i v e Function - which i s concerned w i t h communicating the meaning of events and s i t u a t i o n s that the c h i l d witnesses or has witnessed i n the past • P r o j e c t i v e Function - which depends on drawing upon the imagination and using elements of known experience to p r o j e c t and explore s i t u a t i o n s R e l a t i o n a l Function - i n which language i s used to convey the p o s i -t i o n the i n d i v i d u a l assumes towards others. W i t h i n each f u n c t i o n are uses of language which serve to r e a l i z e the f u n c t i o n . Tough o r i g i n a l l y proposed nine uses of language but l a t e r modified these to i n c l u d e the seven uses which f o l l o w (Tough, 1976). S e l f - m a i n t a i n i n g - the use of language to make others aware of the speaker as a person and to gain a t t e n t i o n and r e c o g n i t i o n ; a means of making needs e x p l i c i t through language. D i r e c t i n g - the use of language t o d i r e c t the s e l f (through a running commentary w h i l e performing a c t i o n s ) , or d i r e c t i n g the a c t i o n s of ot h e r s , or f o r d i r e c t i n g the s e l f i n conjunction w i t h others. This use of language can be r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i e d i n the t a l k of 3 year o l d s . Reporting - the use of language t o i d e n t i f y o bjects and events i n present or past s i t u a t i o n s . Much of 3 year old's t a l k seems to serve t h i s use. Reasoning - the use of language to make a reasoned i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of experiences. This use seems to develop from r e p o r t i n g and i s not used very much by 3 year o l d s . P r e d i c t i n g - the use of language to p r o j e c t beyond the present experience and a n t i c i p a t e events i n the f u t u r e . Three year o l d s do demonstrate c a p a c i t y t o use language f o r p r e d i c t i n g , but do so r a r e l y . P r o j e c t i n g - ( o r i g i n a l l y c a l l e d the empathetic use of language) t h e use of language concerned w i t h i m a g i n i n g and e x p r e s s i n g f e e l i n g s and r e a c t i o n s of o t h e r p e o p l e t o t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s . Three y e a r o l d s a r e c a p a b l e of t h i s use, a l t h o u g h i t does not appear o f t e n . Imagining - t h e use of language t o b u i l d a scene or i n c i d e n t t hrough i m a g i n a t i o n . Three y e a r o l d s f r e q u e n t l y use language i n t h i s way. A number of s t r a t e g i e s were found t o s e r v e t h e s e uses of language. The r e s u l t s of Tough's a n a l y s i s of the use of language by the groups c h i l d r e n i n the Language and Environment P r o j e c t a r e summarized below. - T h e d i s a d v a n t a g e d groups used language 2% times more o f t e n than the advantaged groups t o s e c u r e a t t e n t i o n and m a i n t a i n t h e i r own s t a t u s . - T h e advantaged groups used language 5 times more o f t e n t h a n t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e d groups f o r d i r e c t i n g or c o n t r o l l i n g o t h e r s w h i l e the d i s a d v a n t a g e d groups used language more o f t e n f o r s e l f -d i r e c t i n g . - T h e advantaged groups used language almost 8 times more o f t e n t o r e f e r t o p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s and more than t w i c e as o f t e n t o contem-p l a t e the f u t u r e . - The advantaged groups used language more than 9 times as o f t e n f o r r e a s o n i n g , more than t w i c e as o f t e n t o p r o j e c t , and 5 times as much t o imagine. - The d i s a d v a n t a g e d groups exceeded t h e advantaged groups i n t o t a l number of q u e s t i o n s asked. 29 - Very few p r e d i c t i n g , reasoning or p r o j e c t i n g questions were asked, but those that were were asked by the advantaged c h i l d r e n . - The most f r e q u e n t l y used type of question f o r a l l the groups was the r e p o r t i n g question. Thus, the disadvantaged c h i l d r e n used language more f o r monitoring an on-going s i t u a t i o n i n order to maintain t h e i r s t a tus i n that s i t u a t i o n , whereas, the advantaged c h i l d r e n used language more f o r reasoning, pro-j e c t i n g , p r e d i c t i n g and imagining. " I t would seem from t h i s that there Is j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r s t a t i n g that these 3 year o l d c h i l d r e n , coming from d i f f e r e n t home environments, had e s t a b l i s h e d d i f f e r e n t p r i o r i t i e s f o r expressing meaning and d i f f e r e n t o r i e n t a t i o n s towards the use of language'.' (Tough, 1977). These same c h i l d r e n were i n v o l v e d i n two follow-up s t u d i e s at 5 and 7 years of age, which i n v e s t i g a t e d more c l o s e l y the ways the c h i l d r e n used language f o r p a r t i c u l a r purposes. Clear d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups emerged i n the kinds of s t r a t e g i e s used. The c h i l d r e n i n the advantaged groups tended to elaborate a wider range of meaning on the tasks given. I t seemed the c h i l d r e n i n the disadvantaged groups were capable of using a l l of the f u n c t i o n s , but were l a c k i n g i n m o t i v a t i o n , awareness and experience i n t h i n k i n g i n d i f f e r e n t ways. As r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i r lower IQ scores and reading t e s t . s c o r e s , the disadvantaged groups were d i s -advantaged i n l a t e r school l e a r n i n g . Tough's framework appears to be a u s e f u l t o o l f o r d i s c e r n i n g d i f -f e r e n t uses made of language by young c h i l d r e n . I t i d e n t i f i e s the uses a c h i l d may be l a c k i n g or not disposed to u s i n g , which may put him at a disadvantage i n l a t e r school l e a r n i n g . When a c h i l d does not demonstrate performance of c e r t a i n e s s e n t i a l uses of language, the teacher should 30 f o s t e r such language growth i n the c h i l d through c u r i o s i t y - a r o u s i n g , c h a l l e n g i n g a c t i v i t i e s . The c h i l d may thus be motivated to adopt ways of t h i n k i n g and uses of language which w i l l a s s i s t him i n h i s l e a r n i n g and communication w i t h others. The disadvantaged c h i l d r e n d i d not tend to use those f u n c t i o n s which H a l l i d a y would term mathetic. Given the delayed performance of hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n i n l a t e r academic achievements, do young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n a l s o show t h i s tendency to not use mathetic f u n c t i o n s of language? Could Tough's guide be used to determine the language f u n c t i o n i n g of hearing-impaired preschool c h i l d r e n ? These s p e c i f i c research questions helped to shape the design of t h i s study. Pragmatics and Hearing-Impaired C h i l d r e n Pragmatics as a primary component of language programs f o r hea r i n g -impaired c h i l d r e n i s not a new development. As e a r l y as the 1600's, many educators have encouraged the p r a c t i c a l uses of language i n d i r e c t experiences i n sentences and discourse (see Table I I , adapted from Truax and Edwards, Language Workshop, Vancouver, 1980). As more i n s i g h t i n t o the development of pragmatics i n "normal" c h i l d r e n i s acquired, the p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of pragmatics i n education of the hearing-impaired can become more e f f e c t i v e . The t e n t a t i v e i m p l i -c a t i o n s have been to encourage communication and use of language w i t h i n meaningful context at a l e v e l appropriate to the c h i l d . Dore (1974), H a l l i d a y (1975) and Tough (1977) have shed some l i g h t on the s p e c i f i c f u n c t i o n s used by young hearing c h i l d r e n . The research by C u r t i s s , P r u t t i n g and L o w e l l (1977) stands alone as an attempt to discover the f u n c t i o n s of language used by hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n and i s based on Dore's a n a l y s i s of P r i m i t i v e Speech Acts. 31 TABLE I I HISTORICAL SURVEY OF PRAGMATICS IN EDUCATION OF THE HEARING-IMPAIRED When Who/Where Pr imary Component Ba s i c Unit Method/Ins t r u c t i o n a l D e s c r i p t i o n 1600's George Delgarno Pragmatic, Discourse ...believed the deaf had England Semantic the p o t e n t i a l to l e a r n language "normally" 1700*s Jacob P e r e i r e Pragmatic, Discourse ...encouraged c h i l d r e n France Semantic to produce connected language that grew out of a c t i o n work, 1700-*s- Joseph Watson Semantic, Sentences . . . p r a c t i c a l use of con-1800's England Pragmatic nected language i n meaningful s i t u a t i o n s 1800's G u i l i o Tarra Pragmatic, Discourse . . . c h i l d r e n exposed to I t a l y Semantic and helped to use o r a l communication i n pr a c -t i c a l e x p e r i e n t i a l ways 1800's F r i e d r i c h Pragmatic, Discourse ... c h i l d r e n were to Monitz H i l l Semantics l e a r n language as Germany. normally hearing c h i l -dren do by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n o r a l conversations 1800's- David Greenberg Pragmatic, Discourse ...language p r a c t i s e d i n 1900's U.S.A. Semantic r e a l i s t i c n a t u r a l s e t t i n context h e l d important 1800's- A.G. B e l l Pragmatic Discourse ...toys and play s i t u a -1900's U.S.A. t i o n s to help c h i l d r e n l e a r n language 1900's Mil d r e d Groht Pragmatic, Discourse . . . c h i l d r e n can l e a r n U.S .A. Semantic language n a t u r a l l y i f i t i s acquired by repe-t i o n i n meaningful s i t u a t i o n s C u r t i s s et a l . examined the v e r b a l and non-verbal communication of twelve, 2-5 year o l d hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n i n an attempt to determine the semantic and pragmatic content of t h e i r communication. The subjects were a l l summer students at the John Tracy C l i n i c , an o r a l program which emphasizes the development of speech-reading and r e s i d u a l hearing. Hearing losses ranged from m i l d to profound. The c h i l d r e n had no known a d d i t i o n a l handicaps. The c h i l d r e n ' s communicative behavior i n three d i f f e r e n t s e t t i n g s during the school day was video-taped and l a t e r t r a n s c r i b e d and coded, i n order to o b t a i n the data f o r a n a l y s i s . Communication " a c t s " i n v o l v i n g an u t t e r a n c e , gesture, body movement, f a c i a l expression or v o c a l i z a t i o n were described according to 16 pragmatic f u n c t i o n s : 1. Demand - a request f o r an a c t i o n or an object (e.g. I want glue.) 2. Command - an imperative (e.g. Look at me.). 3. Q u e s t i o n - a r e q u e s t f o r i n f o r m a t i o n or e l a b o r a t i o n (e.g. Who? Huh?) 4. L a b e l l i n g - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a person, object or a c t i o n (e.g. That's a c h a i r . ) 5. Response to a question - an act d i r e c t l y f o l l o w i n g a question posed to a c h i l d (e.g. head shake, change of t o p i c , an answer) 6. Response to a summons - an act d i r e c t l y f o l l o w i n g a summons f o r the c h i l d ' s a t t e n t i o n (e.g. head t u r n , eye contact) 7. Response to a command - an act d i r e c t l y f o l l o w i n g an imperative or request issued to the c h i l d (e.g. c h i l d f o l l o w s d i r e c t i o n s , c h i l d changes t o p i c ) 8. I m i t a t i o n (general) - an i m i t a t i o n of an act or an utterance performed by someone e l s e 9. I m i t a t i o n ( r e p e t i t i o n ) - an i m i t a t i o n of a c h i l d ' s own act or utterance 10. D e s c r i p t i o n - an act d e s c r i b i n g an event, a person or an object (e.g. He's t a l l . ) 11. Summons - a request or demand f o r a t t e n t i o n (e.g. a wave, tap, c a l l i n g ) 12. P r o t e s t i n g - an act expressing r e s i s t a n c e (e.g. No, head shake) 13. R i t u a l - a g r e e t i n g or other s o c i a l r i t u a l 14. Request f o r approval - an act requesting approval from another person (e.g. I s i t O.K. f o r me to do t h i s ? ) 15. Request f o r co n f i r m a t i o n or acknowledgement - an act requesting another person to confirm or acknowledge the c h i l d ' s behavior (e.g. Do you understand?) 16. Acknowledgement - an act evidencing comprehension of a s i t u a t i o n , event or message. These f u n c t i o n s were e i t h e r taken d i r e c t l y or modified from Dore (1974), or added. As such, they are "lower l e v e l " f u n c t i o n s and except f o r questions, are a l l pragmatic. Therefore, i t i s not p o s s i b l e from the r e s u l t s of t h i s study to determine i f hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n show evidence that they are capable of "higher l e v e l " f u n c t i o n s . However, the study done by C u r t i s s et a l . d i d r e v e a l some i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g s about the pragmatic f u n c t i o n s used by hearing-impaired preschool c h i l d r e n : - The number of communicative acts per minute which a c h i l d pro-duced increased w i t h age. - Hearing-impaired subjects i n the study progressed more according to the norm f o r pragmatic f u n c t i o n s than f o r semantic f u n c t i o n s . 34 - A l l of the c h i l d r e n used between 8 and 16 f u n c t i o n s , and most used 10 or more f u n c t i o n s . - P r o t e s t i n g was used approximately the same amount across age. - I m i t a t i o n decreased w i t h age. - Two year olds produced more requests f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n or acknowledgment. - D e s c r i p t i o n s and l a b e l l i n g tended to increase w i t h age. - Responses to questions increased w i t h age, but few questions were posed to younger c h i l d r e n . - Requests f o r approval were used i n f r e q u e n t l y , but increased w i t h age. - R i t u a l s were used r a r e l y and t h i s appears to r e f l e c t l i m i t e d s o c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n . C u r t i s s et a l . made s e v e r a l conclusions on the b a s i s of t h e i r study: I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s a f f e c t the study of trends i n a c q u i s i t i o n of communication. Degree of hearing-impairment appears to be one major f a c t o r . C h i l d r e n who are s e v e r e l y or profoundly deaf tend to begin using v e r b a l communication l a t e r than those whose hearing impairments are l e s s severe. Hearing l o s s i n general r e t a r d s the development of o r a l communication (up to 3 years f o r severe or profoundly impaired). I t appears that e a r l y enrollment i n an i n t e r v e n t i o n program r e s u l t s i n more adequate communication i n hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . Mean Length of Utterance (M.L.U.) i s an inadequate measure of l i n g u i s t i c development i n hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . The o lder c h i l d r e n had M.L.U.'s approximately equal to the younger c h i l d r e n , but the older c h i l d r e n were more f l u e n t and used more semantic and pragmatic f u n c t i o n s . Non-verbal communication i n hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n can be adequately assessed by determining the semantic and pragmatic content of these communicative behaviors. V e r b a l communication can a l s o be assessed i n t h i s way and i s a more adequate index of language performance than M.L.U. Perhaps the communicative performance of hearing-impaired preschool c h i l d r e n could be more adequately assessed by a combination of the models proposed by Tough (1977) and C u r t i s s et a l . (1977) and t h i s t o o l could be used to assess the communicative f u n c t i o n s of young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n who are using a formal s i g n system i n t h e i r communication at home. Various f a c t o r s might i n f l u e n c e the development of language func-t i o n s i n these c h i l d r e n . The l a s t s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter w i l l explore some re l e v a n t research i n r e l a t e d areas of language development. Related Research The main premise concerning language development i s that formal language emerges from p r e - l i n g u i s t i c s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e - p e r c e p t u a l i n t e r -a c t i o n w i t h a d u l t s and peers (Moerk, 1975). Information regarding the most c r u c i a l v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s i n c o n c l u s i v e at t h i s time (Clark and C l a r k , 1977). Some attempts have been made, however, to i s o l a t e the most c r i t i c a l f a c t o r s . P a r e n t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n appears to be one of the most i n f l u e n t i a l aspects of c h i l d language a c q u i s i t i o n , the assessment of which may u l t i m a t e l y guide the i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s of e a r l y i n t e r v e n t i o n programs (Lowell and L o w e l l , 1979). The most s i g n i f i c a n t f i g u r e i n a young c h i l d ' s l i f e i s g e n e r a l l y the mother.(though other a d u l t s are o f t e n c a l l e d upon to provide the caretaking r o l e ) . This " s i g n i f i c a n t other" provides i n t e r a c t i o n p r a c t i c e from the c h i l d ' s e a r l i e s t days, i n a pro-cess which i n c l u d e s modelling, i m i t a t i o n and r e p e t i t i o n . The mother-child dyad i s a s e l f - r e g u l a t i n g and r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e d system, i n which the amount, type and timing of the observed teaching/ l e a r n i n g processes are s u f f i c i e n t to e x p l a i n f i r s t language l e a r n i n g (Moerk, 1975). The mother's input to the c h i l d i s termed "Motherese" and i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by: hi g h p i t c h w i t h exaggerated i n t o n a t i o n ; c l e a r e n u nciation; slower r a t e of speaking w i t h d i s t i n c t pauses between the utterances; s i m p l i f i e d speech sounds; repeated s y l l a b l e s ; s h o r t , simple sentences and l i m i t e d vocabulary (Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 1979). Motherese appears t o be a n a t u r a l i n c l i n a t i o n of those who speak to young c h i l d r e n . The e f f e c t of Motherese on c h i l d language a c q u i s i t i o n i s questionable however (Nelson, 1978). We can only surmise that s i n c e language l e a r n i n g i s a r e l a t i v e l y e f f o r t l e s s process f o r most c h i l d r e n , the s p e c i a l input by mothers t o t h e i r language l e a r n i n g i n f a n t s provides an environment s u i t a b l e f o r language development. Several s t u d i e s have been done i n an attempt to determine i f the communication environment provided by mothers of hearing-impaired c h i l -dren i s s i m i l a r to that provided by mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n . Using Bales' I n t e r a c t i o n Process A n a l y s i s Categories, Kenady and P r o c t o r (1968) found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the language used by mothers of deaf and mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n . They found that the mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n asked f o r more informa t i o n and opinions and t a l k e d l e s s than the mothers of deaf c h i l d r e n . The mothers of deaf c h i l d r e n d i d not give p r a i s e or show agreement as much as mothers of normally hearing c h i l d r e n and used more antagonism and suggestions. Goss (1970) found s i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e s between the mothers of deaf and mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n . In h i s study, the mothers of deaf c h i l d r e n used more suggestions and negative s o c i a l - e m o t i o n a l language, w h i l e mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n used more questions and opinions and p o s i t i v e s o c i a l - e m o t i o n a l language. Greenstein (1975) examined the d i f f e r e n c e s between the language used by mothers of deaf c h i l d r e n w i t h b e t t e r language s k i l l s , and mothers of deaf c h i l d r e n w i t h poorer language a b i l i t i e s . The mothers of the more competent language users were l e s s c o e r c i v e and more s e n s i t i v e and accepting. The mother':s a b i l i t y to motivate the c h i l d without coercion provided one of the best p r e d i c t o r s of the c h i l d ' s language competence. The use of questions, r e p e t i t i o n s , d i r e c t i o n s , the c h i l d ' s name, and p r a i s e were unr e l a t e d to the c h i l d ' s a c q u i s i t i o n of language. I t appears that the major i n f l u e n c e s on language a b i l i t i e s of the c h i l d are the ease, warmth and closeness of the mother-infant communication. However, i t was suggested that the warmth, and s e n s i t i v i t y of the mother are p o s s i b l y f a c i l i t a t e d and r e i n f o r c e d by the c h i l d ' s a t t e n t i v e n e s s and responsiveness to the mother. That i s , cause and e f f e c t cannot be determined. Kretschmer and Kretschmer (.1979) suggest that both the v e r b a l and non-verbal behaviors of mothers i n f l u e n c e the r a t e of c h i l d r e n ' s language development. I f t h i s i s t r u e , than the d i f f e r e n c e s shown to e x i s t between mothers of deaf and mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n may be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the hearing-impaired c h i l d ' s delay i n language performance. H i s t o r i c a l l y , hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n have of t e n been discouraged from u t i l i z i n g non-verbal behaviors w i t h the assumption that v e r b a l behavior would be i n h i b i t e d . However, research by Moores (1971) and Moores, Weiss and Goodwin (1973) i n the area of non-verbal communication by hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n has demonstrated a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between non-verbal and v e r b a l modes of language performance. Kretschmer and Kretschmer (1979) suggest that hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n should be encouraged to use n a t u r a l gestures i n communication, because such behavior i s a normal p r e - r e q u i s i t e to the development of spoken language. The r o l e of f o r m a l i z e d s i g n language i n t h i s regard has not been thoroughly explored. The importance of the c h i l d ' s c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s f o r the development of language cannot be overlooked. P i a g e t i a n theory p o s t u l a t e s that language development i s i n part based on the e a r l y c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s of c h i l d r e n (Best, 1975). The sensori-motor period of development, from 18 months to 2 years of age, i s the b a s i s f o r the c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s upon which language i s b u i l t . Best (1975) has found that hearing-impaired c h i l -dren progress normally through t h i s sensori-motor period and so approach the task of language a c q u i s i t i o n during the p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l stage w i t h the same p r e - r e q u i s i t e s as the normally hearing c h i l d . F u rth (.1966) proposes that thought i s p o s s i b l e without language, and bases t h i s hypothesis on h i s work w i t h hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . Other research has concluded that w h i l e hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n are capable of non-verbal c o g n i t i v e t a s k s , t h e i r performance on these tasks shows r e t a r d a t i o n i n comparison to hearing i n d i v i d u a l s (Oleron, 1 9 5 7 ; C h u l l i a t and Oleron, 1955; Vincent, 1957; B o r e l l i , 1951; Heider and Heider, 1941). This c o n f l i c t i n g evidence makes i t d i f f i c u l t to a s c e r t a i n to what extent hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n are impaired i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to t h i n k . F u r t h (1973) has a s c r i b e d the d e f i c i t of hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n on c e r -t a i n c o g n i t i v e tasks to impoverished language experiences, r a t h e r than to l i m i t e d language a b i l i t i e s . At t h e e a r l y s t a g e s of t h e p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l p e r i o d (2-4 y e a r s ) i t would appear t h a t h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n s h o u l d be c a p a b l e of u s i n g t h e f u n c t i o n s of language proposed by Tough, g i v e n they p o s s e s s "normal" i n t e l l i g e n c e and a b i l i t y t o t h i n k . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t w h i l e h e a r i n g -i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n a r e c a p a b l e of u s i n g h i g h e r l e v e l f u n c t i o n s as w e l l as the lower l e v e l f u n c t i o n s found by C u r t i s s e t a l . , they w i l l not demon-s t r a t e t h i s a b i l i t y due to l a c k of awareness, m o t i v a t i o n and e x p e r i e n c e i n u s i n g t h e s e f u n c t i o n s as was suggested by F u r t h . The e n s u i n g c h a p t e r s w i l l d e s c r i b e t h i s s t u d y i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l . 40 CHAPTER I I I THE STUDY D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Throughout t h i s study, various terms w i l l be used as defined below: b i l a t e r a l hearing l o s s - hearing l o s s i n both ears communicative a c t - the i s s u i n g of communicative behaviors to convey a complete thought communicative behavior - any v e r b a l or non-verbal behavior that i s expres-s i v e l y communicated to oneself or to another person i n the i n t e r a c t i o n process, i n c l u d i n g speech, v o c a l i z a t i o n , gestures, a c t i o n s , or signs communicator - mother or hearing-impaired c h i l d who demonstrates commun-i c a t i v e behavior during the i n t e r a c t i o n process degree of hearing l o s s - discussed i n terms of average hearing threshholds expressed i n d e c i b e l s (dB) and equal to the a r i t h m e t i c mean of the pure tone averages obtained at .5, 1, and 2 kHz f o r the b e t t e r ear using the American N a t i o n a l Standards I n s t i t u t e (ANSI) c r i t e r i a . The term profound r e f e r s to a hearing l o s s greater than 90 dB (ANSI) f u n c t i o n s - the i n t e n t i o n s of the communicator i n using communicative a c t s , as determined by a t r a i n e d coder he ar ing-imp a i rment - a generic term encompassing a l l degrees of hearing l o s s , i n c l u d i n g the con d i t i o n s known as hard-of-hearing and deaf mode - the form of the communicative behavior used by the communicator, i n c l u d i n g v e r b a l and non-verbal behaviors 41 p r e - l i n g u a l l y hearing impaired - hearing-impairment e x i s t i n g at b i r t h or acquired p r i o r to the age of two preschool c h i l d r e n - c h i l d r e n between the ages of 0 to 5 years s e n s o r i - n e u r a l h e a r i n g l o s s - hearing-impairment due to abnormality of the cochlea, the auditory nerve, or both. The P o p u l a t i o n The 5 su b j e c t s f o r t h i s study were s e l e c t e d from a B r i t i s h Columbian pop u l a t i o n which met the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : - 3.7-4.7 years of age at the time of the study - p r e l i n g u a l , profound, b i l a t e r a l , s e n s o r i - n e u r a l hearing impairment - no known a d d i t i o n a l handicapping c o n d i t i o n s , as determined by the assessment team at the Vancouver Children's H o s p i t a l D i a g n o s t i c Center - parents and s i b l i n g s who have no diagnosed hearing-impairment - a system of s i g n language being used i n the home - at l e a s t one parent who has completed a formal course i n i n t r o d u c t o r y s i g n language - involvement i n a l a r g e r e v a l u a t i o n p r o j e c t of preschool s e r v i c e s i n B.C. P a r e n t a l i n t e r v i e w s and a u d i o l o g i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l data revealed the f o l l o w i n g demographic i n f o r m a t i o n about the f i v e subjects: TABLE I I I DEMOGRAPHIC DATA age at age aids mothers fathers subj ect age e t i o l o g y diagnosis 1st obtained age age s i b l i n g s 1 4.6 r u b e l l a 6 months 8.5 months 32 34 1 female -younger 2 4.7 h e r e d i t a r y 13 months 16 months 34 37 2 females -older 3 3.9 p o s s i b l y 11 months 12 months 35 45 1 male -h e r e d i t a r y o l d e r 4 4.8 unknown 22 months 28 months 28 28 1 male -(adopted) younger (adopted) 5 4.6 premature 7 months 18 months 31 28 2 males -canomysin younger at b i r t h f a m i l y highest l e v e l of education subject income mother f a t h e r 1 <15,000 grade 12 grade 11 2 10,000 12 11 3 29,000 11 12 4 14,000 12 12 5 24,000 12 B.A. The Instrument Functions The main focus of t h i s study was to develop an instrument which would be u s e f u l i n determining communicative func t i o n s used by h e a r i n g -impaired preschool c h i l d r e n . The process of the e v o l u t i o n of and the instrument which f i n a l l y emerged are discussed h e r e i n . Tough's (1977) model, which was described i n Chapter I I of t h i s t h e s i s , was i n i t i a l l y s e l e c t e d as the instrument f o r t h i s study. I t was considered p o t e n t i a l l y s u i t a b l e f o r t h i s research f o r s e v e r a l reasons: I t has been found to be u s e f u l f o r determining d i f f e r e n c e s i n the use of language f u n c t i o n s by preschool hearing c h i l d r e n . I t was developed on the b a s i s of sound t h e o r e t i c a l models. I t would be e a s i l y a p p l i e d by the classroom teacher, due to i t s r e l a t i v e ease of use; only seven f u n c t i o n s are i n v o l v e d and c l a s s -room observations are suggested as the source of the data. I t encompasses pragmatic as w e l l as "higher l e v e l " mathetic f u n c t i o n s . I t has been suggested as an appropriate t o o l f o r use by educators of the hearing-impaired (Tate, 1979). In a p i l o t e f f o r t u t i l i z i n g Tough's system as the research instrument, i t became apparent that i t was inadequate to assess the functions used by preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . About 41% of the communicative acts used by the p i l o t subjects and 47% of the communicative acts of the s u b j e c t s ' mothers could not be coded w i t h her system. Other models were ther e f o r e explored which could supplement Tough's seven f u n c t i o n s . F i v e a d d i t i o n a l categories suggested by C u r t i s s et a l . (1977), namely i m i t a t i n g , r e p e a t i n g , acknowledging, r i t u a l , and compliance, were s e l e c t e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s study. These categories were con-s i d e r e d appropriate f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: They had been shown to be u s e f u l i n examining the pragmatic f u n c t i o n s used by preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . They are based on a strong t h e o r e t i c a l model (Dore, 1974). They were fu n c t i o n s found to be missing from Tough's system that were c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of many of the communicative acts of young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . Although the o r i g i n a l C u r t i s s system i s r e l a t i v e l y cumbersome w i t h i t s 16 c a t e g o r i e s , i t would seem that the system proposed here, which combines Tough and C u r t i s s , and c o l l a p s e s some of C u r t i s s ' categories would be e a s i e r f o r classroom teachers to use (personal communication, B o l i n , 1980; C u r t i s s , 1980). Thus, the new instrument emerged w i t h 13 f u n c t i o n s and d e t a i l e d o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s were formulated to increase i n t e r - c o d e r r e l i -a b i l i t y . The f i n a l f u n c t i o n a l categories and t h e i r b e h a v i o r a l d e f i n i t i o n s are described below: 1. I m i t a t i n g - (from C u r t i s s et a l . ) - an act i m i t a t i n g a communicative behavior performed by someone e l s e e.g. mother says " c h a i r " c h i l d : i m i t a t e s " c h a i r " - expansion of another's communicative act, e.g. c h i l d says " s l e e p " mother i m i t a t e s "the boy i s s l e e p i n g " - r e d u c t i o n of another's communicative act e.g. mother says "that's a l a d d e r " c h i l d i m i t a t e s "ladder" For a communicative act to f u n c t i o n as an i m i t a t i o n , i t does not have to be immediate but must occur w i t h i n f i v e communicative behaviors e.g. mother says "there are two beds" mother p o i n t s to the beds c h i l d p o i n t s t o the d o l l s c h i l d i m i t a t e s "two beds" R i t u a l s are excluded from t h i s f u n c t i o n e.g. mother says " h i " c h i l d says " h i " Repeating - (from C u r t i s s et a l . ) - an act i m i t a t i n g one's own communicative behavior. An act:.is a r e p e t i t i o n i f the o r i g i n a l i n t e n t i o n i s r e t a i n e d , even though the mode of communicative behavior may be changed. e.g. c h i l d says " t r u c k " c h i l d repeats " t r u c k " e.g. c h i l d says "phone" c h i l d repeats by p o i n t i n g to phone - expansion of one's own act e.g. mother says " t a b l e " mother repeats "that's a t a b l e " - r e d u c t i o n of one's own act e.g. mother says "what a long nose" mother repeats "long nose" R i t u a l - (from C u r t i s s et a l . ) - a spontaneous g r e e t i n g or other s o c i a l r i t u a l e.g. please, thank-you, bye-bye, s o r r y , oops - i f a communicator has been d i r e c t e d to use the behavior, i t i s 46 not a r i t u a l e.g. mother says "say bye-bye" c h i l d c o m p l i e s "bye-bye" Acknowledging - (from C u r t i s s et a l . ) - an a c t e v i d e n c i n g comprehension of a s i t u a t i o n o r communicative a c t i f the a c t i s d u a l - f u n c t i o n , the o t h e r f u n c t i o n t akes precedence e.g. y e s , no, wrong, r i g h t , oh, mhm, nod Complying - (adapted from C u r t i s s e t a l . - a type of acknowledging) - an a c t which i s a r e s p o n s e i n accordance w i t h the i n t e n t of a d i r e c t i o n e.g. mother d i r e c t s "put the d o l l i n the house" c h i l d c o m p l i e s w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n e.g. mother d i r e c t s "say l o n g nose" c h i l d c o m p l i e s " l o n g nose" (spoken) M a i n t a i n i n g - (from C u r t i s s et a l . and Tough) - an a c t r e f e r r i n g to p h y s i c a l o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l needs and wants e.g. c h i l d says " I want a d r i n k " e.g. c h i l d seeks a p p r o v a l by l o o k i n g a t mother b e f o r e p e r f o r m i n g and a c t i o n - an a c t r e i n f o r c i n g , a p p r o v i n g o r d i s a p p r o v i n g a n o t h e r ' s b e h a v i o r e.g. good, bad, you're s i l l y , t h a t ' s rude, good g i r l , f a n t a s t i c , b e a u t i f u l , good i d e a , oh a l r i g h t , no ( c r i t i c i z i n g ) - an a c t p r o t e c t i n g the s e l f o r s e l f i n t e r e s t s e.g. mother d i r e c t s c h i l d t o p i c k up phone c h i l d m a i n t a i n s by s a y i n g "no", " w a i t " or " l a t e r " I g n o r i n g - ( a d d i t i o n ) - a s p e c i a l t y p e of m a i n t a i n i n g b e h a v i o r i n r e s p o n s e to a d i r e c t i o n 47 whereby the communicator p r o t e c t s h i s s e l f i n t e r e s t s by not r e s p o n d i n g t o the i n t e n t i o n of the d i r e c t i o n ; i n s t e a d t h e communicator responds by g i v i n g a r e p o r t or d i r e c t i o n . The communicator must have s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e and be aware t h a t a d i r e c t i o n has been g i v e n b e f o r e i t can be determined t h a t he has chosen t o i g n o r e the d i r e c t i o n . C a u t i o n i s a d v i s e d i n t h a t a communicator may appear t o have i g n o r e d t h e o r i g i n a l d i r e c t i o n , but h i s response i s a c t u a l l y due t o the f a c t t h a t the d i r e c t i o n has been mi s u n d e r s t o o d , e.g. mother d i r e c t s "you phone mommy" c h i l d i g n o r e s c h i l d d i r e c t s mother by p o i n t i n g t o a book e.g. mother d i r e c t s "put the T.V. i n the house" c h i l d p o i n t s to r e a l T.V. i n the l i v i n g room In t h i s i n s t a n c e the c h i l d d i d not i g n o r e , he m i s u n d e r s t o o d t h e d i r e c t i o n , and h i s "non-response" would n o t be coded. 8. D i r e c t i n g - (from C u r t i s s et a l . and Tough) - an a c t d i r e c t i n g t h e b e h a v i o r ( a c t i o n or a t t e n t i o n ) of t h e s e l f o r o t h e r s i n c l u d i n g t h e d i r e c t i o n "no"meaning "don't do t h a t " - d i r e c t i o n s may be g i v e n e x p l i c i t l y e.g. mother d i r e c t s " g i v e me the bed" - d i r e c t i o n s may be g i v e n i m p l i c i t l y e.g. mother d i r e c t s c h i l d t o rub o f f the b l a c k b o a r d by s a y i n g "here i s the b r u s h " e.g. c h i l d says " g i r l " as he s e a r c h e s f o r d o l l 9. R e p o r t i n g - (from C u r t i s s e t a l . and Tough) - an a c t r e p o r t i n g on p r e s e n t o r p a s t events 48 - i n c l u d e s l a b e l l i n g e.g. c h i l d r e p o r t s "bed" r e f e r r i n g t o bed - r e f e r r i n g t o d e t a i l e.g. c h i l d r e p o r t s " y e l l o w " r e f e r r i n g t o bed - making comparisons e.g. c h i l d r e p o r t s "same" r e f e r r i n g t o two beds - r e f e r r i n g t o i n c i d e n t s e.g. mother r e p o r t s "we went t o gramma's" - r e f e r r i n g t o sequences of events e.g. mother r e p o r t s " f i r s t we p l a n t e d the seed and then i t grew" 1 0 . Imagining - (from Tough) - an a c t d e v e l o p i n g an i m a g i n a r y s i t u a t i o n based on r e a l l i f e or f a n t a s y e.g. c h i l d says " b i r d s l e e p " r e f e r r i n g t o a toy b i r d e.g. c h i l d says " t r e e " r e f e r r i n g t o i m a g i n a r y Christmas t r e e - d e v e l o p i n g an o r i g i n a l s t o r y e.g. mother says "we went t o the moon" 1 1 . Reasoning - (from Tough): - an a c t e x p l a i n i n g a p r o c e s s e.g. mother says "we put the l e t t e r h e r e , then a mailman t a k e s i t away" - an a c t r e c o g n i z i n g cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s e.g. mother s a y s " i f you do t h a t i t might b r e a k " - an a c t r e c o g n i z i n g problems and t h e i r s o l u t i o n s e.g. mother asks c h i l d "how does i t open" c h i l d examines t h e case, f l i p s t h e h a n d l e over and opens i t , i . e . the c h i l d reasoned how to open i t 49 - j u s t i f y i n g judgments e.g. c h i l d reasons " b i g " when mother t e l l s him to put an o v e r s i z e toy i n t o a s m a l l house, and demonstrates t h a t the toy w i l l not f i t - drawing conclusions e.g. mother reasons " I t h i n k the p l a n t s need more water. I t ' s so hot i n here." 12. P r o j e c t i n g - (from Tough) - an act which p r o j e c t s i n t o the f e e l i n g s or r e a c t i o n s of the s e l f or others i n experiences f a m i l i a r to the communicator, or i n s i t u a t i o n s never before experienced. e.g. mother p r o j e c t s "now the boy i s happy" "the dog w i l l be sad" "I'd be a f r a i d of a l i o n " e.g. c h i l d p r o j e c t s "mommy mad" 13. P r e d i c t i n g - (from Tough) - an act a n t i c i p a t i n g or f o r e c a s t i n g events or problems and t h e i r s o l u t i o n e.g. c h i l d p r e d i c t s "play there l a t e r " - an act a n t i c i p a t i n g d e t a i l s and sequence of events e.g. mother p r e d i c t s "maybe i t w i l l f i t t h e r e " - p r e d i c t i n g the consequences of a c t i o n s and behaviors e.g. mother p r e d i c t s " i f you do that you w i l l have to go to your room" 14. Uncodable - ( a d d i t i o n ) - an act which cannot be coded according to one of the other func t i o n s because i t i s u n i n t e l l i g i b l e , i n t e r r u p t e d , or serves a f u n c t i o n not considered by t h i s instrument. Question forms are considered s e p a r a t e l y i n terms of s t r u c t u r e or i n t o n a t i o n and are coded according t o the 13 categories j u s t discussed on the b a s i s of the type of response they a n t i c i p a t e . Each question form i s , t h e r e f o r e , coded f i r s t as a question and then a l s o coded as one of the 13 f u n c t i o n s . The method of coding question forms, adapted from suggestions made by both C u r t i s s et a l . and Tough r e t a i n s v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n about a speaker's i n t e n t . Following are examples of the various question f u n c t i o n s : 1. I m i t a t i n g - i m i t a t i o n of another's communicative a c t , but w i t h q u e s t i o n i n g i n t o n a t i o n or s t r u c t u r e e.g. c h i l d says " t a b l e " while, h o l d i n g a c h a i r mother i m i t a t e s " t a b l e ? " - i m i t a t i o n of a question e.g. mother says " i s that a lad d e r ? " c h i l d i m i t a t e s "ladder?" 2. Repeating - r e p e t i t i o n of one's own communicative act w i t h questioning i n t o n a t i o n e.g. mother says "that's a t a b l e " mother repeat "that's a t a b l e ? " - r e p e t i t i o n of a question e.g. c h i l d says. "what?" c h i l d repeats "what?" 3. R i t u a l - a communicative act that i s a common r i t u a l i n the form of a question e.g. how are you? e.g. what do you say? 51 4. Acknowledging - a yes-no question which a n t i c i p a t e s a "yes" response e.g. mother asks "do you want some candy?" e.g. mother asks " i s that a bed?" w h i l e p o i n t i n g to a bed 5. M a i n t a i n i n g - an act which seeks approval e.g. c h i l d begins to put a c h a i r beside the t a b l e , stops and looks at mother f o r approval before proceeding w i t h the a c t i o n - an act which c r i t i c i z e s e.g. mother asks "are you being s i l l y ? " - an act which shows approval or d i s a p p r o v a l e.g. mother says "do you want a spanking? e.g. mother says "how come you're so smart?" 6. D i r e c t i n g - an act which seeks to d i r e c t the s e l f or others, e i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y e.g. mother asks "do you want to phone mom?" e.g. mother asks "can you make a 'B'?" - a "where" question which a n t i c i p a t e s a b e h a v i o r a l response of showing or p o i n t i n g e.g. c h i l d searches f o r truck and asks "where?" e.g. mother asks c h i l d "where i s your nose?" 7. Reporting - acts which seek a report e.g."who?'"Iwhat?" lhow many?'"'what c o l o r ? " - where questions that seek, a report e.g. "Where i s daddy today?" - yes/no q u e s t i o n s which seek a "no" response e.g. mother p o i n t s t o c h a i r and asks " i s t h a t a t a b l e ? " 8. I m a g i n i n g - a c t s which seek t o develop an i m a g i n a r y s i t u a t i o n e.g. mother asks "Is c o o k i e monster g o i n g s h o p p i n g ? " - q u e s t i o n s asked on b e h a l f of i m a g i n a r y c h a r a c t e r s e.g. c h i l d p l a y a c t s one d o l l a s k i n g a n o t h e r " e a t ? " 9. Reasoning - a c t s which seek r e a s o n i n g responses e.g. "how?", "why?", "what would happen i f . . .?", "what goes t o g e t h e r ? " , "what e l s e can you t h i n k o f ? " 10. P r o j e c t i n g - a c t s which seek r e s p o n s e s t h a t p r o j e c t i n t o f e e l i n g s e.g. "how does he f e e l ? " "how would he f e e l i f . . . ? " 11. P r e d i c t i n g - a c t s which seek responses about the f u t u r e e.g. "what w i l l happen n e x t ? " " w i l l something happen?" "when Modes B e s i d e s the f u n c t i o n , t h e i n s t r u m e n t d e v e l o p e d f o r t h i s s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o r e c o r d t h e mode i n which t h e communicative b e h a v i o r o c c u r e d . F i v e modes were observed to be common i n t h e communicative b e h a v i o r of young h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers: 1. Speech - comprehensible u t t e r a n c e s r e c o g n i z a b l e as spoken language by a n a i v e l i s t e n e r , i . e . i n t e l l i g i b l e words, phrases or s e n t e n c e s . 2 . V o c a l i z a t i o n - sound p r o d u c t i o n of a phoneme a l o n e o r i n s y l l a b l e s but not i n t h e form o f , o r r e c o g n i z a b l e as s p e e c h . 53 Examples: aaaaaaa; mmhmm; l a u g h i n g ; c r y i n g . 3. G e s t u r e - a movement of the body or body p a r t s t h a t s y m b o l i z e s o r emphasizes an i d e a o r f e e l i n g and conveys t h i s meaning t o another p e r s o n . The g e s t u r e may supplement, r e p l a c e , or c o n t r a -d i c t v e r b a l b e h a v i o r s . Examples: s h r u g g i n g the s h o u l d e r s ; waving; p o i n t i n g ; frowning; s m i l e ; pantomime; mouthing the words w i t h o u t u s i n g v o i c e . 4. S i g n - a g e s t u r e made by one o r b o t h hands t h a t i s a s y m b o l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n : a. a c o n v e n t i o n a l s i g n language system f o r the h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d , f o r example, S i g n i n g E x a c t E n g l i s h ( S . E . E . ) , Ameslan ( A . S . L . ) , o r S i g n e d E n g l i s h . The g e s t u r e must be r e c o g n i z e d t o be a s i g n by a p e r s o n f a m i l i a r w i t h s i g n systems. b . a system devised and used by the c h i l d and/or h i s family and recognized to be such a sign by.Lthe mother. c. t h e manual a l p h a b e t , i . e . , f i n g e r s p e l l i n g . 5. A c t i o n - one or a s e r i e s o f p u r p o s e f u l p h y s i c a l a c t s of t h e body or body p a r t s which a c t upon another p e r s o n or o b j e c t so t h a t p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t i s made. An a c t i o n i s determined t o be com-m u n i c a t i v e i n the c o n t e x t o f the communicative b e h a v i o r which precedes o r f o l l o w s i t . For example, p u t t i n g a d o l l i n t o t h e d o l l house i s communicative when i t f o l l o w s a d i r e c t i v e , such as "put t h e d o l l i n t h e house"; o r when i t pr e c e d e s a d i r e c t i v e , f o r example, t h e c h i l d p u t s one d o l l i n t h e house and then d i r e c t s the mother t o "do the same". The modes may be used i n d e p e n d e n t l y , at t h e same time o r i n a sequence. When two o r more modes communicate e x a c t l y t h e same message and a r e used a t e x a c t l y the same time, they a r e s a i d t o be si m u l t a n e o u s and a r e denoted by round b r a c k e t s . F o r example, the mother says and s i g n s the'boy i s s l e e p i n g . When two or..more modes a r e used a t t h e same time the boy i s s l e e p i n g but do not convey p r e c i s e l y the same messages, they a r e termed o v e r l a p p i n g modes and a r e denoted by square b r a c k e t s . F o r example the boy i s s l e e p i n g boy s l e e p would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e mother s a i d " t h e boy i s sleeping',', but s i g n e d "boy s l e e p " as she s a i d i t . When two or more modes a r e used one a f t e r t h e o t h e r to convey one communicative a c t , they a r e c a l l e d s e q u e n t i a l and a r e denoted by l a r g e s l a s h e s . F o r example, i f t h e c h i l d s i g n e d r e d , then p o i n t e d t o the phone, i t would be shown as / r e d i / p o i n t s t o phone/ In o r d e r to s i m p l i f y the c o d i n g of t h e modes and t h e f u n c t i o n s , a system of a b b r e v i a t i o n s was used (see F i g u r e 1 ) . Codes Speech — S p V o c a l i z a t i o n -•—V Ge s t u r e G S i g n - S i A c t i o n A Simultaneous ( ) O v e r l a p p i n g [ 0 S e q u e n t i a l / / I m i t a t i n g 1 R e p e a t i n g r r R i t u a l u Acknowledging a Complying c M a i n t a i n i n g m I g n o r i n g g D i r e c t i n g d R e p o r t i n g r Imagining i Reasoning e P r o j e c t i n g j P r e d i c t i n g p Q u e s t i o n 0 Uncodable - due to t h e communicator-U - due to t h e c o d i n g system-UU FIGURE 1: Coding Symbols 55 The instrument thus described was used to examine the communication modes and f u n c t i o n s of the s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study. Procedure This study forms p a r t of a l a r g e r e v a l u a t i o n p r o j e c t , which i s c u r r e n t l y i n v e s t i g a t i n g e a r l y i n t e r v e n t i o n s e r v i c e s to preschool h e a r i n g -impaired c h i l d r e n and t h e i r f a m i l i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The author has been i n v o l v e d i n the e v a l u a t i o n p r o j e c t as the o n - s i t e research a s s i s t a n t , and i s d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n a l l aspects of data c o l l e c t i o n . Permission to use video-tape recordings of mother-child i n t e r a c t i o n and i n f o r m a t i o n r e : f a m i l y background gathered f o r the l a r g e r study, was obtained f o r the present research from the p r o j e c t evaluator i n S e a t t l e , Washington and from the f a m i l i e s i n v o l v e d . The video-tapes consisted of 15 minutes of i n t e r a c t i o n between mother and c h i l d , i n which the mothers had been i n s t r u c t e d to play w i t h t h e i r c h i l d r e n as they normally would during the course of a day. The play m a t e r i a l s were provided by the evaluator and so were h e l d constant across s u b j e c t s (see Appendix A). P a r e n t a l i n t e r v i e w s provided the family background i n f o r m a t i o n . A l l data were c o l l e c t e d i n the s u b j e c t s ' homes. The mothers and c h i l d r e n had the opportunity of being exposed to the i n t e r v i e w e r and the equipment p r i o r to the a c t u a l v i d e o - t a p i n g s e s s i o n s , and so i n t e r a c t e d n a t u r a l l y and tended t o ignore the set-up and the research a s s i s t a n t during the data c o l l e c t i o n . Black and white video-tapes were obtained u s i n g a Sony Beta-Max Portapac video-tape recorder. A time d i s p l a y i n minutes and seconds was superimposed on the upper l e f t hand corner of each tape by t e c h -n i c i a n s at the U n i v e r s i t y of S e a t t l e . The tapes were t r a n s f e r r e d to 3/4 i n c h v i d e o c a s s e t t e s , to accommodate playback equipment at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Code numbers were then assigned to each c h i l d and mother. The procedure f o r examining the pragmatic and higher l e v e l mathetic functions used by the preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study i n v o l v e d two steps: 1. f o r m u l a t i n g the coding system described i n the previous s e c t i o n 2. t r a n s c r i b i n g and coding the video-tape recordings of the f i v e mother-child dyads. Two tapes were used as a p i l o t f o r Tough's coding system. The tapes were viewed and t r a n s c r i b e d by the present i n v e s t i g a t o r . The task of simultaneously c o n t r o l l i n g the play-back machine, viewing the tapes and t r a n s c r i b i n g the communicative behaviors proved to be extremely i n e f f i -c i e n t f o r one person to do alone. An attempt was made to increase the speed of the procedure by using an audio-cassette tape recorder to record v e r b a l l y what was seen and heard on the video-tape. The cassette was l a t e r played back and the i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s c r i b e d and coded. This was s a t i s f a c t o r y i n the p i l o t e f f o r t to determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of Tough's system. However, i t would not s u f f i c e f o r a d e t a i l e d t r a n s -c r i p t i o n as i t was s t i l l time consuming and i n f o r m a t i o n was l o s t by not viewing the video-tape at the exact time of the coding. I t was decided that a second person was needed to a s s i s t i n coding the data. This s t r a t e g y a l s o would permit examination of i n t e r - c o d e r r e l i a b i l i t y . P r i o r to r e c r u i t i n g a research a s s i s t a n t , the categories of prag-matic f u n c t i o n s suggested by C u r t i s s et a l . were incorp o r a t e d i n t o Tough's system and the new coding system devised, as p r e v i o u s l y discussed. Following a 5 hour t r a i n i n g p e r i o d i n the use of the new instrument, t r a n s c r i p t i o n and coding of the i n t e r a c t i o n s were done by the researcher and a s s i s t a n t t o g e t h e r . Conventions f o r t r a n s c r i p t i o n were adapted from Bloom and Lahey (1978) f o r use i n t h i s s t u d y (see Coder's T r a i n i n g Manual Appendix B ) . One coder was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r o p e r a t i n g the v i d e o p l a y - b a c k e q u i p -ment and v e r b a l i z i n g the communicative b e h a v i o r observed, w h i l e the o t h e r coder was f r e e t o w r i t e t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n s on p r e p a r e d c o d i n g s h e e t s . The mode and f u n c t i o n were then coded i n d e p e n d e n t l y by b o t h c o d e r s . Agreements and disagreements were t a b u l a t e d and d i f f e r e n c e s were r e s o l v e d by d i s c u s s i o n and mutual consent. There were no d i s a g r e e -ments t h a t c o u l d not be s e t t l e d by t h i s p r o c e d u r e . The t o t a l time r e q u i r e d t o t r a n s c r i b e and code each tape was a l s o n o t e d . The o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s of the f u n c t i o n s were r e v i s e d and expanded as the need a r o s e f o r t h e f i r s t t h r e e dyads. A f t e r t h e t h i r d t r a n s c r i p t i o n was completed, the f i r s t t h r e e tapes were recoded t o ensure t h a t a l l communicative a c t s were coded u s i n g t h e same c r i t e r i a . The f i n a l two t a p e s were t r a n s c r i b e d , coded and checked w i t h no f u r t h e r r e v i s i o n s of the c o d i n g system. The c o d i n g manual was then r e w r i t t e n f o r use o u t s i d e o f t h i s s t u d y . F i n a l l y , l e t t e r s of a p p r e c i a t i o n were se n t t o a l l the f a m i l i e s who so k i n d l y agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . The r e s u l t s of t h e st u d y a r e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e next c h a p t e r o f t h i s t h e s i s . 58 CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Frequency and percent frequency scores of language f u n c t i o n s and modes of communication used by mother-child dyads i n t h i s study provided the data f o r a n a l y s i s . Most s t a t i s t i c a l procedures were i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r examining the data due t o the s m a l l sample s i z e and because normality of the sample could not be assumed. Future p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n by classroom teachers was al s o considered i n s e l e c t i n g the procedures f o r data a n a l y s i s . The r e s u l t s h e r e i n reported provide a concrete b a s i s f o r the ensuing d i s c u s s i o n , but any g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s are h i g h l y t e n t a t i v e . The r e s u l t s may be i n t e r p r e t e d i n various ways depending on the p h i l o s o p h i c a l o r i e n -t a t i o n of the reader. This author acknowledges the f a c t that i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n based on f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the subjects provides the most u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n about the language f u n c t i o n i n g of a hearing-impaired c h i l d . Readers are i n v i t e d to draw t h e i r own conclusions from the data, and use the inf o r m a t i o n i n a way most s u i t a b l e to t h e i r needs. Observed aspects of the mother-child i n t e r a c t i o n may be the consequences or ante-cedents of the c h i l d ' s language a c q u i s i t i o n (Greenstein, 1975). Thus although c o r r e l a t i o n s are discussed, cause and e f f e c t cannot be deter-mined . 59 S u i t a b i l i t y of the Coding System A t o t a l of 1500 communicative acts were examined during the f i v e 15 minute videotapes. Mothers,generally used more communicative acts than t h e i r c h i l d r e n , although one mother used s l i g h t l y fewer acts than her c h i l d . The more communicative acts a mother used, the more her c h i l d tended to use, except i n the case of the one mother using fewer acts than her c h i l d . Some acts were uncodable as to mode or f u n c t i o n , but the m a j o r i t y of these were due to the communicator r a t h e r than the coding system. The only acts which were uncodable because the system d i d not accommodate f o r them, were 7 non-responses by c h i l d r e n when d i r e c t i o n s went unnoticed. No mother's acts were uncodable due to the system. Inter-coder agreements f o r both mode and f u n c t i o n were very h i g h , and as mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , a l l disagreements were subsequently mutually r e s o l v e d . These r e s u l t s are summarized i n Table IV. TABLE IV FREQUENCY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTS AND UNCODABLE ACTS, AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF INTER-CODER AGREEMENTS ACROSS MOTHER-CHILD DYADS C h i l d Mother T o t a l acts/dyads % agreements T o t a l Uncodable Acts due to system T o t a l Uncodable Acts due to system T o t a l Uncodable due to system Mode Function 1. 122 2 2. 170 1 3. 100 2 4. 107 2 5. 146 0 180 0 205 0 163 0 105 0 202. 0 302 2 375 1 263 2 212 2 348 0 99.34 91.39 99.97 92.80 100.00 91.64 100.00 93.87 99.71 89.94 645 7 855 0 1500 7 99.73 91.80 The data suggest that the coding instrument designed f o r t h i s study i s appropriate f o r examining the fu n c t i o n s and modes used by h e a r i n g -impaired preschool c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers. Functions The communicator's i n t e n t i o n i n usi n g a communicative act was c l a s -s i f i e d u s i n g the coding instrument. Each act was assigned one communicative f u n c t i o n . At times, m u l t i - f u n c t i o n a l acts were used. In order to s i m p l i f y coding, these acts were separated where p o s s i b l e i n t o s i n g l e f u n c t i o n u n i t s , or coded according t o the dominant f u n c t i o n as described i n Chapter I I I . Frequency and percent frequency of each f u n c t i o n used were computed for each mother and c h i l d . (See Table V and Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.) Children's Use of Functions As hypothesized, a l l c h i l d r e n used the lower pragmatic f u n c t i o n s of i m i t a t i n g , r e p e a t i n g , r i t u a l , acknowledging, complying, m a i n t a i n i n g , d i r e c t i n g , r e p o r t i n g , and imagining, and 4 of the 5 c h i l d r e n used i g n o r i n g , whereas the higher l e v e l mathetic func t i o n s were used much l e s s f r e q u e n t l y or not at a l l . Only one c h i l d used reasoning, one used p r o j e c t i n g and two used p r e d i c t i n g , and these f u n c t i o n s were l e s s than 2% of the t o t a l acts used by each of these c h i l d r e n . Mothers' Use of Functions Again, as hypothesized, almost a l l of the lower l e v e l pragmatic fu n c t i o n s were used by the mothers, w h i l e the higher l e v e l mathetic functions were used much l e s s often and only by one or two mothers. Two mothers used p r o j e c t i n g , one used reasoning and none used p r e d i c t i n g . No mothers used i g n o r i n g i n response to any of t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s d i r e c t i o n s . Since almost a l l of the c h i l d r e n demonstrated i g n o r i n g TABLE V FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - 15 MINUTE SAMPLES N=122 N=180 N=170 N=205 N=100 N=163 N=107 N=105 N=146 N=202 Subj . Mother Subj . Mother Subj . Mother Subj . Mother Subj . Mother 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 I m i t a t i n g (3) (21) (21) (30) (4) (16) (3) (19) (15) (16) 2.46% 11.67% 12.35% 14.63% 4.0% 9.82% 2.80% 18.10% 10.27% 7.92% Repeating (5) (14) (18) (31) (2) (23) (14) (19) (9) (30) 4.10% 7.78% 10.59% 15.12% 2.0% 14.11% 13.08% 18.10% 6.16% 14.85% R i t u a l (1) (8) (4) (13) (1) (1) (1) (0) (3) (0) .82% 4.44% 2.35% 6.34% 1.0% .61% .93% 0.0% 2.05% 0.0% Acknowledging (7) (15) (.25) (45) (25) (28) (15) (15) (13) (20) 5.74% 8.33% 14.71% 21.95% 25% 17.18% 14.02% 14.29% 8.90% 9.90% Complying (12) (11) (14) (0) (18) C6) (10) (2) (33) (14) 9.84% 6.11% 8.24% 0.0% 18% 3.68% 9.35% 1.90% 22.60% 6.93% Ma i n t a i n i n g (19) (3) (4) (4) (7) (8) (2) (2) (6) (10) 15.57% 1.67% 2.35% 1.95% 7.0% 4.91% 1.87% 1.90% 4.11% 4.95% Ignoring (7) (0) (0) (0) (2) (0) (3) (0) (7) (0) 5.74% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.80% 0.0% 4.79% 0.0% D i r e c t i n g (27) (59) (28) (23) (12) (51) (14) (21) (23) (62) 22.13% 32.78% 16.47% 11.22% 12% 31.29% 13.08% 20% 15.75% 30.69% Reporting (36) (31) (37) (42) (17) (24) (25) (18) (30) (44) 29.51% 17.22% 21.76% 20.49% 17% 14.72% 23.36% 17.14% 20.55% 21.78% Imagining (2) (2) (5) (5) (8) (2) (10) (3) (2) (2) 1.64% 1.11% 2.94% 2.44% 8.0% 1.23% 9.35% 2.86% 1.37% .99% TABLE V—Continued N=122 Subj . 1 N=180 Mother 1 N=170 Subj . 2 N=205 Mother 2 N=100 Subj . 3 N=163 Mother 3 N=107 Subj . 4 N=105 Mother 4 N=146 Subj . 5 N=202 Mother 5 Reasoning (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (3) 1.76% (7) 3.41% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% Proj e c t i n g (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (3) 1.46% (1) 1.0% (1) .61% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% P r e d i c t i n g (0) 0.0% CO) 0.0% (1) .59% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% CO) 0.0% (2) 1.87% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% Uncodable (3) 2.46% (16) 8.89% (10) 5.88% (2) .98% (3) 3.0% (.3) 1.84% (8) 7.48% (6) 5.71% (4) 2.74% (4) 1.98% Questions (2) 1.64% (33) 18.33% (14) 8.24% (54) 26.34% (4) 4.0% (38) 23.31% (2) 1.87% (36) 34.29% (6) 4.11% (52) 25.7 % CJ) c CI O. « — cn c cn CO "O CJ> — cn CO cn cn c . c (A 0> c c cn c c c c — — X I C — — — c — •- — — — — (0 o — J to — — — c c u o a> ra o — — u — o a — TJ 3 c a c o 01 o cn cn . O J£ E — c a a to o a> o a> — o o to cn — t>" E u i _ ». c 3 10 o E — T3 »• — - a a 3 cr F u n d i o n F i g u r e 2 =Percent Frequency of F u n c t i o n s - Dyad 1 P e r c e n t F r e q u e n c y c CO n o o 3 .Q c (0 3 o •< -n c 3 O o 3 U) I O •< CD a. IS) i m i t a t i n g r e p e a t i n g r i t u a l a c k n o w l e d g i n g c o m p I y i n g m a i n t a i n i n g i g n o r i n g d i r e c t i n g •n c 3 *» r e p o r t i n g o = i m a g i n i n g r e a s o n i n g p r o ] e c t i n g p r e d i c t i n g u n c o d e a b l e q u e s t i o n s 40 :nf \ d "=107 mo t h e r " = 105 n 66 c a Ul c O) •o o 5 o c J£ u a c £ o Ol c o c Ul c a> c o a a> at c E a « o a c •a a X) o o c 3 F u n c t i o n F i g u r e 5 : P e r c e n t Frequency of F u n c t i o n s - Dyad 4 chi I d n=l4fc> 4 0 3 5 3 0 2 5 2 0 1 5 1 0 n 4 0 3 5 3 0 25 2 0 1 5 1 0 mot he r n=202 cn c — 0) Cf) c Cn 13 Ol c c > to to 10 to o — — — 3 c a c — a — E E 0 — o o to a u E cn .cn o> cn a o> co c c tn c c c c ._ ._ X) c c — — — — — — to o — — — c c u u a> , _ *- o A. 0 ._ T3 o o CO (0 —. T> O tn c *- a to to o 01 U 0) cn — 01 E C 3 U — a a 3 cr F u n d i o n F i g u r e 6 ^ P e r c e n t F r e q u e n c y o f F u n c t i o n s - D y a d 5 b e h a v i o r , i t seems u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e mothers never use i g n o r i n g arid the r e s u l t s a r e an a r t i f a c t of t h e v i d e o - t a p i n g s i t u a t i o n , i . e . mothers were aware t h a t t h e y were b e i n g o b s e r v e d and tended t o m a i n t a i n a p o s i t i v e communicative environment. Two mothers d i d not use r i t u a l s , b u t t h e s e two m o t h e r - c h i l d dyads d i d n o t use the p l a y t e l e p h o n e s i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s , t h e r e b y l i m i t i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r r i t u a l a c t s . One mother d i d not show any compliance on t h e b a s i s of the f i n a l t a b u l a t i o n s . However,, h e r ..child always used d i r e c t i o n s f o r a t t e n t i o n and compliance to t h i s type of d i r e c t i o n was n o t coded. Though a l l t h e mothers used i m a g i n i n g , they used i t l e s s o f t e n than t h e i r c h i l d r e n . T h i s may be a r e s u l t of the i n h i b i t e d c r e a t i v i t y o f many a d u l t s . The use of t h i s f u n c t i o n by mothers may need t o be s p e c i f i c a l l y encouraged. M o t h e r s 1 communicative a c t s were uncodable l e s s o f t e n than t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s , and were most o f t e n uncodable because the communication was i n t e r r u p t e d . A l l of the mothers used r e p e a t i n g more than t h e i r c h i l d r e n d i d . R e p e t i t i o n i s a g e n e r a l component of Motherese d i r e c t e d t o language l e a r n i n g c h i l d r e n , and would appear t o be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r use by mothers of p r e s c h o o l h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n . Four o f t h e f i v e mothers used i m i t a t i o n s more than t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Mothers of h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l -d r e n are encouraged to p r o v i d e a p p r o p r i a t e speech and language m o d e l s / f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n and t o expand on t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s u t t e r a n c e s , hence i t would seem t h e f r e q u e n c y of mothers' i m i t a t i o n s c o u l d be the r e s u l t o f e a r l y i n t e r v e n t i o n and p a r e n t c o u n s e l l i n g . Whereas p a r e n t i m i t a t i o n s have been found to s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n c r e a s e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of i m i t a t i o n by c h i l d r e n ( F o l g e r and Chapman, 1978), t h e s e d a t a do not s u p p o r t t h a t f i n d i n g . Dyads' Use o f F u n c t i o n s A l l of the c h i l d r e n used compliance more o f t e n than t h e i r mothers, which i s perhaps r e l a t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t a l l o f the mothers ex c e p t one were more d i r e c t i n g than t h e i r c h i l d r e n . The most d i r e c t i n g c h i l d had the most d i r e c t i n g mother who was a l s o the most compliant mother, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between c h i l d and mother i n t h e use of t h i s f u n c t i o n i n communication, and t h a t a complying mother may r e i n f o r c e d i r e c t i n g i n h e r c h i l d . The c h i l d w i t h t h e l e a s t d i r e c t i n g mother at no time used i g n o r i n g i n r e s p o n s e t o h i s mother, w h i l e the c h i l d who i g n o r e d the most had th e most d i r e c t i n g mother. I t appears mothers s h o u l d be encouraged t o d i r e c t l e s s o f t e n and to r e l a t e t h e i r communication to t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t s and d e s i r e s i n o r d e r to p r o v i d e a p o s i t i v e communicative environment i n which the c h i l d i s m o t i v a t e d t o a t t e n d t o h i s mother or o t h e r commun-i c a t i o n p a r t n e r . Only one m o t h e r - c h i l d dyad used r e a s o n i n g , and o n l y one m o t h e r - c h i l d dyad used p r o j e c t i n g . One o t h e r mother used p r o j e c t i n g but h e r c h i l d d i d n o t . Though no mothers used p r e d i c t i n g , two c h i l d r e n d i d . I t i s s u s p e c t e d t h a t i n o r d e r f o r a c h i l d t o use t h e s e h i g h e r l e v e l f u n c t i o n s , , mothers s h o u l d p r o v i d e the model. However t h i s i s not t h o r o u g h l y sub-s t a n t i a t e d by the d a t a . T a b l e V I shows the r e s u l t s of Spearman's Rank C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s between the m o t h e r - c h i l d p a i r s f o r use o f f u n c t i o n s , which r e v e a l t h a t a h i g h p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t s between c h i l d r e n ' s and mother's use of language f u n c t i o n s . 70 TABLE VI CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MOTHERS AND CHILDREN FOR USE OF FUNCTION Child-Mother Dyad Spearman's y (rho) 1 0.6477 2 0.7235 3 0.7783 4 0.7816 5 0.8241 Questions Speech acts were coded as questions i f they were d i r e c t questions determined by s t r u c t u r e or i n t o n a t i o n , which a n t i c i p a t e d c e r t a i n responses, or when they were i n d i r e c t speech acts which d i d not a n t i c i p a t e the responses suggested by the surface form. While i n d i r e c t question forms are f r e q u e n t l y used by a d u l t s , young c h i l d r e n do not begin to comprehend these c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p o s t u l a t e s u n t i l about 3 years of age and i t i s not u n t i l seven or eigh t years that they are able to manipulate surface form and content to achieve communication goals ( M i l l e r , 1978). A d u l t s ' questions which seek responses d i r e c t l y i n t h e i r surface forms are u s u a l l y " a r t i f i c i a l " i n the p a r e n t - c h i l d or t e a c h e r - c h i l d communication s i t u a t i o n i n that the parent or teacher i s seeking a response that i s known. On the other hand, the young c h i l d w i l l use a question form t o seek unknown i n f o r m a t i o n . While i t has been suggested that the use of questions by mothers i s u n r e l a t e d to a c h i l d ' s a c q u i s i t i o n of language (Greenstein, 1975), i t s r e l a t i o n t o a c h i l d ' s use of questions has not been explored. I t i s known that mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n are more l i k e l y t o use questions than are mothers of hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n (Goss, 1970). An a n a l y s i s of the use of questions may provide v a l u a b l e 71 c l u e s about the language f u n c t i o n s of h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers. The f r e q u e n c y of mothers 1'and c h i l d r e n ' s use o f q u e s t i o n types a r e summarized i n T a b l e V I I . C h i l d r e n ' s Use o f Q u e s t i o n s A l l o f the c h i l d r e n used much fewer q u e s t i o n forms than t h e i r mothers. Four o f the f i v e c h i l d r e n used q u e s t i o n s f o r d i r e c t i n g , but a l l of t h e s e q u e s t i o n s were "where" q u e s t i o n s and a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e mothers would respond by f i n d i n g t h e s e a r c h e d f o r o b j e c t , so t h a t w h i l e i t appears t h a t the c h i l d r e n were u s i n g i m p l i c i t q u e s t i o n s as d i r e c t i o n s , they l i k e l y do not r e c o g n i z e them as such, but use the q u e s t i o n form because t h e y l a c k the language o f the e x p l i c i t d i r e c t i o n . Only t h r e e of the f i v e c h i l d r e n used q u e s t i o n s t h a t a n t i c i p a t e d r e p o r t i n g r e s p o n s e s . T h i s i s somewhat s u r p r i s i n g i n l i g h t of t h e f a c t t h a t the' t o y s p r o v i d e d were u n f a m i l i a r t o the c h i l d r e n and many items were l i k e l y to be new t o them, f o r example the soda f o u n t a i n , news s t a n d and b i r d ' s n e s t . T h i s may suggest t h a t the c h i l d r e n a r e not used t o a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s of t h e i r mothers t o a c q u i r e new information.. Two t e n t a t i v e reasons are s u g g e s t e d : Young h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n a r e not accustomed t o a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s of t h e i r mothers i n o r d e r t o a c q u i r e new i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s would seem t o be i n c o n t r a s t t o young h e a r i n g c h i l d r e n who c o n s t a n t l y seek i n f o r m a t i o n from a d u l t s i n t h e i r environment. The h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n have n o t found t h e i r mothers t o be good s o u r c e s f o r r e p o r t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s would seem l i k e l y i n view of th e f a c t t h a t a l t h o u g h a l l of the f a m i l i e s were a t t e m p t i n g to use s i g n language i n a d d i t i o n t o speech, they TABLE VII FREQUENCY OF USE OF QUESTION TYPES c h i l d mother c h i l d mother c h i l d mother c h i l d mother c h i l d mother T o t a l 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 i m i t a t i n g 5 3 9 1 7 4 7 36 repe a t i n g 4 5 8 5 7 6 35 r i t u a l 1 2 3 acknowledging 1 2 4 3 10 complying 0 mai n t a i n i n g 1 1 2 i g n o r i n g 0 d i r e c t i n g 1 2 1 4 11 2 3 5 8 37 r e p o r t i n g 1 21 3 26 12 15 1 27 106 imagining 3 1 1 8 reasoning 4 3 4 p r o j e c t i n g 0 p r e d i c t i n g 0 uncodable 0 T o t a l 2 33 14 54 4 38 2 36 6 52 241 g e n e r a l l y reported t h e i r knowledge of signs to be " f a i r " . When mothers l a c k the necessary s i g n vocabulary, and the c h i l d r e n are unable to process auditory input alone, the communication process tends to breakdown. These young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n appear to have l i m i t e d t h e i r use of the f u n c t i o n of r e p o r t i n g questions, i n adapting to the communication i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h which they are f a m i l i a r . No c h i l d r e n used questions f o r acknowledging or f o r the higher l e v e l mathetic f u n c t i o n s of reasoning, p r o j e c t i n g or p r e d i c t i n g , and only one c h i l d used question forms f o r imagining. Mothers' Use of Questions Mothers used question forms of t e n i n t h e i r communication, w i t h the frequency ranging from 18.33%-34.29% of t h e i r t o t a l communicative a c t s . A l l mothers used questions f o r r e p o r t i n g , d i r e c t i n g , repeating and i m i t a t i n g and four of the f i v e used question, forms i n acknowledging. I t appears that mothers use i n d i r e c t speech acts w i t h t h e i r young h e a r i n impaired c h i l d r e n as they would n a t u r a l l y do i f t h e i r c h i l d r e n were hearing, although perhaps w i t h l e s s frequency. Reporting questions were used most f r e q u e n t l y by a l l of the mothers p o s s i b l y as a means of encouraging expressive language and checking comprehension. Asking a c h i l d to give a report i s an oft e n used t e c h -nique f o r demonstrating or "showing-off" a c h i l d ' s language s k i l l s and the high frequency of r e p o r t i n g questions may have been due to the mothers' d e s i r e to demonstrate the c h i l d r e n ' s comprehension f o r the researcher. Such q u e s t i o n i n g , however, i s encouraged and used by many parents and teachers i n l i e u of r e a l two way communication w i t h a c h i l d who has l i m i t e d language s k i l l s , and i t i s l i k e l y that the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that use of t h i s f u n c t i o n i n i n t e r a c t i o n s between young h e a r i n g -impaired c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers i s more common t h n would be normally expected i n normally hearing mother-child dyads. I m i t a t i o n s and r e p e t i t i o n s i n question forms were used f a i r l y f r e -quently, to r e i n f o r c e language or to check comprehension, p a r t i c u l a r l y when a c h i l d gave an i n c o r r e c t r e p o r t . Of the lower l e v e l pragmatic f u n c t i o n s , only r i t u a l and maintaining questions were used very i n f r e q u e n t l y . None of the higher l e v e l mathetic f u n c t i o n s were used i n question forms, except by one mother who asked s e v e r a l reasoning questions. I t appears mothers do not a n t i c i p a t e higher l e v e l responses from t h e i r c h i l -dren and do not provide o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r encouraging such uses of language. Dyads'Use of Questions The mother who used the most question forms and the greatest v a r i e t y of question f u n c t i o n s had the c h i l d who used the most question forms and the gr e a t e s t v a r i e t y of question f u n c t i o n s . The c h i l d w i t h the l e a s t number of questions and only two d i f f e r e n t question f u n c t i o n s had the mother who used the l e a s t number of question forms and f u n c t i o n s . Only one mother used any higher l e v e l mathetic f u n c t i o n s (reasoning) and i t was her c h i l d alone who used reasoning responses. Cause and e f f e c t are not i m p l i e d but the r e l a t i o n s h i p , e x i s t i n g i n t h i s sample, warrants f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n . Modes Table V I I I and Figures 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, give the frequency and percent frequency of mode use f o r the mother and c h i l d dyads. The use of modes appears to be a more h i g h l y i n d i v i d u a l matter than the use of TABLE V I I I FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF MODES C h i l d 1 Mother 1 C h i l d 2 Mother 2 C h i l d 3 Mother 3 C h i l d 4 Mother 4 C h i l d 5 Mother 5 Speech CO) 0.0% (6) 3.33% (44) 25.88% (64) 31.22% (0) 0.0% (41) 25.15% (0) 0.0% (2) 1.91% (0) 0.0% (58) 28.71% V o c a l i z a t i o n (3) 2.46% CD .56% (6) 3.53% (7) 3.42% (1) 1.0% (1) .61% (1) .94% (0) 0.0% (9) 6.16% (0) 0.0% Gesture (17) 13.93% (10) 5.56% (5) 2.94% (5) 2.44% (21) 21.0% (1) .61% (19) 17.76% (7) 6.67% (10) 6.85% (5) 2.48% Sign (8) 6.56% (2) 1.11% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (8) 8.0% (0) 0.0% (16) 14.95% (9) 8.57% (23) 15.75% (0) 0.0% A c t i o n (16) 13.11% (31) 17.22% (10) 5.88% CO) 0.0% (17) 17.0% (8) 4.91% (13) 12.15% (5) 4.76% (28) 19.18% (23) 11.39% Simultaneous (3) 2.46% (38) 21.11% (21) 12.35% (43) 20.98% CD 1.0% (16) 9.82% (0) 0.0% (33) 31.43% (10) 6.85% (24) 11.88% Overlapping (38) 31.15% (36) 20.0% (52) 30.59% (.71) 34.64% (14) 14.0% (88) 53.99% (6) 5.61% (30) 28.57% (35) 23.97% (69) 34.16% Sequential (27) 22.13% (40) 22.22% (22) 12.94% (13) 6.34% (33) 33.0% (5) 3.07% (41) 38.32% (13) 12.38% (19) 13.01% (19) 9.41% Uncodable (10) 8.20% (15) 8.33% (10) 5.88% (2) .98% (5) 5.0% (3).; 1.84% (11) 10.28% (6) 5.71% (12) 8.22% (4) 1.98% c h i l d "=IZZ F i g u r e 7 P e r c e n t F r e q u e n c y of Modes- Dyad 1 c h i l d n = 170 mot he r "= 105 o CP CO a in to o o o> 3 cn C to 3 E CD c a a a CB 3 cr a> t» O O c 3 F i g u r e 8 P e r c e n t F r e q u e n c y of M o d e s - Dyad 2 c h i l d n ~ 100 F i g u r e 9 P e r c e n t F r e q u e n c y of Modes- Dyad 3 c h i l d n s 101 5 0 4 5 4 0 3 5 3 0 2 5 20 c CO o 3 O) — o c — 4> — 01 — 0) c m > O) in (0 {A o in 3 M o d e F i g u r e l O ^ P e r c e n t F r e q u e n c y of Modes- Dyad 4 c h i l d mot he r n= 202 1 I c tn o 3 CO . — O c — to e — ro — to c a Si N «i to a • to c — c *- m c IS u — o — — tn •o to ro c — 3 3 o a o tn cn — E 0) cr o Q. o 0) — o — > tv c tn > D> tn a tn o tn 3 M o d e F i g u r e 11 ; P e r c e n t F r e q u e n c y of Modes- Dyad 5 f u n c t i o n s , as few p a t t e r n s emerged between dyads or a c r o s s c h i l d r e n o r mothers. However t h e s m a l l sample s i z e c a u t i o n s a g a i n s t g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s from t h e r e s u l t s , which seem t o r e f l e c t the p e r s o n a l communicative s t y l e s of t h e s u b j e c t s i n t h i s s t u d y . C h i l d r e n ' s Use o f Modes A l l of the c h i l d r e n used e i t h e r o v e r l a p p i n g or s e q u e n t i a l modes most f r e q u e n t l y i n t h e i r communication. S i n c e t h e c h i l d r e n were i n v o l v e d i n n o n - t h r e a t e n i n g , n a t u r a l communicative i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r mothers, i t appears they found u s i n g a c o m b i n a t i o n of modes more c o m f o r t a b l e and e f f e c t i v e than t h e use of any s i n g l e mode a l o n e . Simultaneous mode use was much l e s s f r e q u e n t . By i t s d e f i n i t i o n , s i m u l t a n e o u s use of modes g e n e r a l l y n e c e s s i t a t e s i n t e l l i g i b l e s peech. Given t h a t f o u r o f t h e f i v e c h i l d r e n demonstrated l i m i t e d u se o f speech, and i n no case used speech a l o n e , i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t s i m u l t a n e o u s modes were not used v e r y f r e q u e n t l y . The same f o u r c h i l d r e n who d i d n o t use speech a l o n e , seldom used v o c a l i z a t i o n a l o n e , but used g e s t u r e s , s i g n s o r a c t i o n s a l o n e q u i t e f r e q u e n t l y . These s u b j e c t s seem o r i e n t e d t o n o n - v o c a l modes of communi-c a t i v e b e h a v i o r . Only one c h i l d used speech a l o n e i n h i s communication and used i t f a i r l y o f t e n . T h i s same c h i l d d i d n o t use s i g n s a l o n e and used g e s t u r e s and a c t i o n s a l o n e v e r y i n f r e q u e n t l y . The two coders c o n s i d e r e d h i s speech t o be i n t e l l i g i b l e w i t h good rhythm and i n t o n a t i on. T h i s c h i l d appears o r i e n t e d t o a v o c a l mode of communicative b e h a v i o r . Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , t h i s same c h i l d used s i m u l t a n e o u s modes more o f t e n than d i d t h e o t h e r c h i l d r e n . 82 Mothers' Use of Modes A l l mothers used a combination of modes more f r e q u e n t l y than any s i n g l e mode alone. The most f r e q u e n t l y used combinations of modes were simultaneous by one mother, s e q u e n t i a l modes by another and overlapping by the other three. This i l l u s t r a t e s the f a c t that most of the mothers d i d not use exact E n g l i s h syntax i n t h e i r s i g n i n g , but d i d attempt to combine speech and si g n i n communicating w i t h i t h e i r young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . Three mothers used speech alone as t h e i r second most frequent mode of communication but d i d not use signs alone. These r e s u l t s must be i n t e r p r e t e d i n r e l a t i o n to the d i f f e r i n g m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e d each mother's use of modes. Mother 2 used speech alone very n a t u r a l l y and spontaneously to great advantage. Her c h i l d responded f r e q u e n t l y and a p p r o p r i a t e l y to speech alone and the f a m i l y placed strong emphasis on maximizing t h i s c h i l d ' s o r a l - a u r a l s k i l l s during normal com-municative i n t e r a c t i o n . This mother's use of speech and non-use of s i g n alone appears to r e f l e c t her c h i l d ' s a b i l i t i e s and her d e s i r e to continue the normal flow of communication between h e r s e l f and her c h i l d . Mother 5 emphasized a u r a l - o r a l s k i l l s i n a d e l i b e r a t e way so as to encourage development of these s k i l l s i n her c h i l d . This mother's use of speech and non-use of s i g n alone appears to r e f l e c t her d e s i r e to use t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n together as an opportunity to teach her c h i l d these communication s k i l l s . Mother 3 d i d not place p a r t i c u l a r emphasis on o r a l - a u r a l s k i l l development, nor d i d her c h i l d demonstrate good comprehension of spoken language. However, t h i s mother chose to use speech alone o f t e n w i t h her c h i l d and not to use s i g n alone. Her speech was often more complex i n length and s t r u c t u r e than her signs and the r e s u l t s seem to r e f l e c t a l i m i t e d s i g n language vocabulary which d i d not, however, i n t e r r u p t the mother's normal tendency to communicate o r a l l y . On the other hand, mothers 1 and 4 used both speech alone and s i g n alone i n f r e q u e n t l y and appeared to p r e f e r combined modes of communication. This may r e f l e c t that these mothers have found speech alone to be a non-productive means of communication f o r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r c h i l d r e n , yet are cognizant of using speech w i t h t h e i r hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n and so use both together to enhance the communication process. Mother 4 was the most co n s i s t e n t at u s i n g speech and s i g n simultaneously, r e f l e c t i n g her d e s i r e to provide o r a l and non-oral modes of communication f o r her c h i l d . Dyads' Use of Modes Only one h i g h l y p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s seen to e x i s t between mother-child dyads as r e f l e c t e d i n Table IX. TABLE IX CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MOTHERS AND CHILDREN FOR USE OF MODES Child-Mother Dyad Spearman's y (rho) 1 .5439 2 .8193 3 - .1891 4 .1590 5 .1513 In dyad 2 the c h i l d ' s high frequency of i n t e l l i g i b l e speech and a b i l i t y to respond a u d i t o r a l l y l i k e l y c o n t r i b u t e d to the h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n . How-ever, both mother and c h i l d gave the impression of being h i g h l y attuned 84 t o each o t h e r ' s communicative s t y l e and used c e r t a i n modes a c c o r d i n g l y i n t h e i r communicative i n t e r a c t i o n . Three s e p a r a t e s t u d i e s ( C r a n d a l l , 1978; R a f f i n , D a v i s and Gilman, 1978; B o r n s t e i n , S a u l n i e r and H a m i l t o n , 1980) have determined t h a t t h e b e s t p r e d i c t o r of a c h i l d ' s use o f s y n t a c t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s i n s i g n language, i s t h e mother's use o f t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s . T h i s i s s u p p o r t e d by the r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y i n t h a t no mothers used s u f f i x e s or v e r b t e n s e markers i n t h e i r s i g n i n g and n e i t h e r d i d t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Perhaps a l a r g e r sample would demonstrate a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c h i l d ' s and mother's use of modes. These d a t a , however, suggest t h a t c h i l d r e n appear to have a c e r t a i n p r o p e n s i t y to use v o c a l or n o n - v o c a l modes a l o n e or i n com-b i n a t i o n , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r mothers' use of t h e s e modes. F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed to support or d i s p r o v e t h e s e a l t e r n a t e h y p o t h e s e s . S u i t a b i l i t y o f U s i n g a S i x - M i n u t e Sample The t a s k of t r a n s c r i b i n g and c o d i n g the f i f t e e n minute samples f o r each m o t h e r - c h i l d dyad r e q u i r e d an average of one hour per minute of v i d e o t a p e i n t e r a c t i o n . The amount of time d e c r e a s e d as t h e coders became more f a m i l i a r w i t h and adept a t u s i n g the c o d i n g i n s t r u m e n t . However, such a time-consuming p r o c e s s would p r o v e i n e x p e d i e n t f o r a t e a c h e r s t r i v i n g t o meet t h e needs of 5 or more p r e s c h o o l h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n . The p o s s i b i l i t y of u s i n g a s h o r t e r time span was t e s t e d by c a l c u l a t i n g the f r e q u e n c y and p e r c e n t f r e q u e n c y o f f u n c t i o n s used by each c h i l d and mother o v e r a 6-minute sample. Three 2-minute segments were s e l e c t e d from t h e b e g i n n i n g , m i d d l e and end of each 15-minute v i d e o t a p e . T h i s a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d a t o t a l of 596 communicative a c t s w i t h an average of 50 a c t s per c h i l d and 69 ac t s per mother. The frequencies f o r each f u n c t i o n are given i n Table X. Spearman's rank c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between the 6- and 15-minute samples f o r each c h i l d and mother were computed, using the MIDAS program (see Table X I ) . These r e s u l t s show a very high p o s i t i v e c o r r e -l a t i o n between the time samples i n d i c a t i n g that a 6-minute sample w i l l a f f o r d r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n about the f u n c t i o n s of language used by hearing-impaired preschool c h i l d r e n , and would be s u i t a b l e f o r use by teachers who do not have the time f o r a more lengthy a n a l y s i s . TABLE X /FREQUENCY AND PERCENT FREQUENCY OF FUNCTIONS - 6 MINUTE SAMPLES Subj e c t 1 Mother 1 S u b j e c t 2 Mother 2 Subj e c t 3 Mother 3 S u b j e c t 4 Mother 4 S u b j e c t 5 Mother 5 I m i t a t i n g (3) 6.12% (6) 7.79% (ID 18.03% (8) 11.43% (2) 5.41% (2) 3.85% (3) 7.89% (7) 15.22% (7) 10.61% (12) 12.0% R e p e a t i n g (2) 4.08% (5) 6.49% (5), 8.20% (ID 15.71% (D 2.70% (9) 17.31% (5) 13.16% (9) 19.57% (5) 7.58% (15) 15% R i t u a l (1) 2.04% (3) 3.90% CO) 0.0% (5) 7.14% (0) 0.0% (D 1.92% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (D 1.52% (0) 0.0% Acknowledging (4) 8.16% (8) 10.39% C10) 12.99% (14) 20.0% (9) 24.32% (9) 17.31% (6) 15.79% (8) 17.39% (8) 12.12% (10) 10.0% Complying (4) 8.16% (4) 5.19% (5) 8.20% (0) 0.0% (ID 29.73% (0) 0.0% (5) 13.16% (D 2.17% (10) 15.15% (9) 9.0% M a i n t a i n i n g (10) 20.41% CD 1.30% (2) 3.28% (2) 2.86% (3) 8.11% (3) 5.77% (0) 0.0% (2) 4.35% (3) 4.55% (4) 4.0% I g n o r i n g (5) 10.20% (0) 0.0% CO) 0.0% (0) 0.0% CO) 0.0% (0) 0.0% CD 2.63% (0) 0.0% (2) 3.03% (0) 0.0% D i r e c t i n g (9) 18.37% (30) 38.96% (9) 14.75% (.9) 12.86% CD 2.70% (19) 36.54% (6) 15.79% (10) 21.74% (9) 13.64% (23) 23.0% R e p o r t i n g (11) 22.45% (ID 14.29% (ID 18.03% (14) 20.0% (5) 13.51% (7) 13.46% (7) 18.42% (9) 19.57% (19) 28.79% (26) 26.0% Imagining CO) 0.0% CD 1.30% (2) 3.28% (2) 2.86% (4) 10.81% CD 1.92% (2) 5.26% (0) 0.0% CD 1.52% CO) 0.0% CO O N TABLE X—Continued Subj ect 1 Mother 1 Subj ect 2 Mother 2 Subject 3 Mother 3 Subject 4 Mother 4 Subject 5 Mother 5 Reasoning (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (2) 3.28% (3) 4.29% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% P r o j e c t i n g (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (1) 1.43% (1) 2.70% (1) 1.92% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% P r e d i c t i n g (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (1) 2.63% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% Uncodable (0) 0.0% (8) 10.39% (4) 6.56% (1) 1.43% (0) 0.0% CO) 0.0% (2) 5.26% (0) 0.0% (1) 1.52% (1) 1.0% Questions (0) 0.0% (9) 11.69% (9). 14.75% (21) 30.0% (1) 2.70% (7.) 13.46% (1) 2.63% (16) 34.78% (1) 1.52% (30) 30.0% N, 49 77 61 70 37 52 38 46 66 100 TABLE XI CORRELATIONS BETWEEN 6 AND 15-MINUTE SAMPLES FOR USE OF FUNCTIONS Subj ect Spearman's y (rho) Absolute Std. C o e f f i c i e n t Mean D i f f . dev. C h i l d 1 .9350 2.3729 2.1622 2 .9463 1.5493 1.6131 3 .8816 2.7807 3.4748 4 .9170 2.0314 1.8431 5 .9141 1.9200 2.6865 Mother 1 .9786 1.4186 1.8214 2 .9892 .8143 .9076 3 .9712 1.8214 1.9646 4 .9662 1.6364 1.7179 5 .9556 1.5164 2.2964 89 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This research was concerned w i t h the design and p i l o t t e s t i n g of a system appropriate f o r examining the funct i o n s of communicative acts used by preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers. Modes of communication were a l s o considered. Five mother-child dyads i n v o l v e d i n communicative i n t e r a c t i o n i n a f r e e - p l a y s i t u a t i o n provided the video-tape data. The c h i l d r e n ranged from 3.7-4.7 years of age, were p r e l i n g -u a l l y profoundly hearing-impaired, and used a system of s i g n language as a component of t h e i r communication. A l l mothers were hearing and had completed at l e a s t one formal course i n a s i g n language system. Design of the coding instrument was based on r e l e v a n t research from the areas of c h i l d language and communication of the hearing-impaired. A system emerged which combined the pragmatic fun c t i o n s used by preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n ( C u r t i s s , P r u t t i n g and L o w e l l , 1977) w i t h the higher l e v e l mathetic f u n c t i o n s used by preschool hearing c h i l d r e n and considered necessary f o r l a t e r school l e a r n i n g (Tough, 1977) . The f i n a l coding system i n c l u d e d the f o l l o w i n g 13 f u n c t i o n s : i m i t a t i n g , r e p e a t i n g , r i t u a l , acknowledging, complying, m a i n t a i n i n g , i g n o r i n g , d i r e c t i n g , r e p o r t i n g , imagining, reasoning, p r o j e c t i n g and p r e d i c t i n g . The few utterances which f a i l e d to f i t the system, were u n i n t e l l i g i b l e or i n t e r -rupted, were coded as "uncodable" . Questions were considered separately based on s y n t a c t i c form or r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n , and were coded according to the f u n c t i o n a l response a n t i c i p a t e d . The 15-minute videotapes were t r a n s c r i b e d and independently coded by the primary i n v e s t i g a t o r and a research a s s i s t a n t , both of whom were experienced teachers of the hearing-impaired f a m i l i a r w i t h the communi-c a t i o n of young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n . Frequency and percent frequency of funct i o n s and modes used by each c h i l d and mother during the 15 minute segments were obtained. The f r e -quency of f u n c t i o n s used over 6-minute samples from the o r i g i n a l tapes were a l s o t a b u l a t e d . Spearman rank c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed between mothers' and c h i l d r e n ' s use of f u n c t i o n s and modes and between each c h i l d ' s and mother's use of f u n c t i o n s f o r the 15 and 6 minute v i d e o -tapes, u s i n g the MIDAS computor program. The r e s u l t s suggest that the coding system devised f o r t h i s study i s s u i t a b l e f o r examining the communicative f u n c t i o n s of language used by hearing-impaired preschool c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers. Furt h e r , i t appears that there i s a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between c h i l d r e n ' s and mothers' use of these f u n c t i o n s , whereas no d i s t i n c t c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t s f o r use of modes. As hypothesized, c h i l d r e n and mothers g e n e r a l l y used lower l e v e l pragmatic f u n c t i o n s , whereas higher l e v e l mathetic functions were used r a r e l y i f at a l l . C o r r e l a t i o n s between subjects f o r use of fun c t i o n s during the 15 and 6 minute tapes y i e l d e d high p o s i t i v e c o r -r e l a t i o n s , suggesting that the s h o r t e r samples would provide s u f f i c i e n t data f o r a n a l y s i s . The i m p l i c a t i o n s of these r e s u l t s are a f f e c t e d by s e v e r a l l i m i t a t i o n s inherent i n t h i s study and i n c h i l d language research i n general. The s m a l l sample s i z e cautions against o v e r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of the r e s u l t s regarding use of fu n c t i o n s and modes by hearing-impaired pre-school c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers. Although r e s u l t s demonstrate c e r t a i n p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s , no cause and e f f e c t statements can be made. F u n c t i o n a l language development may be r e l a t e d t o f a c t o r s not e x p l o r e d i n t h i s s t u d y . The i n s t r u m e n t i t s e l f may be i n s u f f i c i e n t o r too e x t e n s i v e f o r optimum e x a m i n a t i o n o f the use of f u n c t i o n s . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h w i l l be n e c e s s a r y to determine which p r a g m a t i c and m a t h e t i c f u n c t i o n s a r e most r e l e v a n t i n t h i s type of language a n a l y s i s . The t r a n s c r i p t i o n and c o d i n g p r o c e d u r e s u g g e s t e d f o r d a t a c o l l e c t i o n may not be f e a s i b l e i f v i d e o -tape equipment or s u f f i c i e n t time a r e u n a v a i l a b l e . L e a r n i n g t o use the i n s t r u m e n t i s an ongoing p r o c e s s b e s t r e a l i z e d when c o d i n g i s a team e f f o r t . Such an approach accommodates d i s c u s s i o n s u r r o u n d i n g c r e a t i o n o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the b e h a v i o r a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f f u n c t i o n s , and r e s o l u t i o n of disagreements o r m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s . T h i s o p t i m a l l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n may not be p o s s i b l e i n c e r t a i n e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . Consequently, i n d i v i d u a l s i n t e r e s t e d i n u t i l i z i n g the system may a t f i r s t f e e l confused or i n a d e q u a t e l y p r e p a r e d . C o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s i n s t r u m e n t by t e a c h e r s , prompted attempts t o m a i n t a i n a s i m p l e d e s i g n . Perhaps v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n about the f u n c t i o n s of language used by h e a r i n g -i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers i s l o s t as a r e s u l t . I t i s o n l y through f u t u r e use of t h e system t h a t such a l i m i t a t i o n can be c o n f i r m e d or d i s p r o v e d . S p e c i f i c s t r a t e g i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each f u n c t i o n and used by the c h i l d r e n and mothers were n o t a n a l y z e d i n depth. I n t r a - f u n c t i o n d i f -f e r e n c e s may e x i s t which c o u l d p r o v i d e g r e a t e r i n s i g h t and u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n t o the use of f u n c t i o n . These d i f f e r e n c e s would be o f co n c e r n t o p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s . D e s p i t e t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s , t h e r e are s e v e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s from t h i s p i l o t s t u d y i n p r a g m a t i c - m a t h e t i c f u n c t i o n i n g of p r e s c h o o l h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers. The system has been so d e s i g n e d t h a t i t i s easy t o a p p l y a f t e r an i n i t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n (5 hours i n t h i s s t u d y ) . S i n c e t r a n s c r i p t i o n and c o d i n g are a time-consuming p r o c e s s r e q u i r i n g one hour per minute of v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r a c t i o n , 6-minute time samples i n s t e a d of t h e f u l l 15-minute ones would be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t e a c h e r s w i s h i n g to u t i l i z e t h i s i n s t r u m e n t but n o t h a v i n g t h e time r e q u i r e d f o r a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s . The format proposed f o r t r a n s c r i p t i o n and' c o d i n g a l l o w s t h e t e a c h e r to use t h e s e same d a t a f o r o t h e r types of a n a l y s i s , making i t an even more u s e f u l p r o c e d u r e . For example, phonology, s y n t a x , s e m a n t i c s , c o m p l e x i t y , and l e n g t h of u t t e r a n c e s , as w e l l as o t h e r p r a g m a t i c a s p e c t s of language such as t u r n t a k i n g , c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p o s t u l a t e s , and so on, can be a s s e s s e d . V i d e o t a p i n g as a means of o b t a i n i n g the d a t a e n a b l e s the t e a c h e r to do the a n a l y s i s a t any con-v e n i e n t time or p l a c e and a tape can be r e t a i n e d as a permanent r e c o r d of a c h i l d ' s p r o g r e s s , o r can be e r a s e d and made a v a i l a b l e f o r f u r t h e r d a t a c o l l e c t i o n . Because i t appears t h e r e i s a c o r r e l a t i o n between c h i l d r e n ' s and mothers' use of language f u n c t i o n s , a f i r s t s t e p i n d e v e l o p i n g t h e f u n c t i o n s i n c h i l d r e n would be to make t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s aware of the v a r i o u s f u n c t i o n s so t h a t they may c o n s c i o u s l y p r o v i d e the models needed. The system proposed i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i s a v a l u a b l e g u i d e f o r t h o s e i n t e r e s t e d i n e x p l o r i n g t h i s f a c e t o f communication or i n a l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d y of language development. C h i l d r e n who do not demonstrate e f f e c t i v e use o f p r a g m a t i c f u n c t i o n s would appear to be f u n c t i o n i n g at a v e r y low l e v e l and t h e language s t r a t e g i e s they r e q u i r e would need to be programmed a c c o r d i n g l y . These c h i l d r e n w i l l r e q u i r e c o n c e n t r a t e d e f f o r t s t o encourage, s t i m u l a t e and r e i n f o r c e such communicative i n t e n t i n t h e i r spontaneous i n t e r a c t i o n s . The u s e f u l n e s s of m a t h e t i c f u n c t i o n s a p p l i e s t o i n t e r a c t i o n i n everyday l i f e and s h o u l d not be t h e e x c l u s i v e domain of s c h o o l r e l a t e d l e a r n i n g . As l o n g as c h i l d r e n a r e s a t i s f i e d w i t h communicating a t lower l e v e l p r a g m a t i c f u n c t i o n s , they w i l l not see the need f o r h i g h e r l e v e l m a t h e t i c f u n c t i o n s which s e r v e t o p r o v i d e f o o d f o r c u r i o s i t y and r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s beyond the immediate b o u n d a r i e s of space and time, i n t o p a s t and f u t u r e events and even f a n t a s y . For t h e s e r e a s o n s , h i g h e r l e v e l m a t h e t i c f u n c t i o n s are c r u c i a l t o o l s of communication, which must be s t i m u l a t e d and encouraged. Because h i g h e r l e v e l m a t h e t i c f u n c t i o n s were v e r y r a r e l y used by t h e c h i l d r e n and mothers i n t h i s s t u d y , awareness of t h e s e h i g h e r l e v e l f u n c t i o n s need t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y e x p l a i n e d and encouraged i n p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s so t h a t h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n have o p p o r t u n i t i e s to l e a r n and use t h e s e f u n c t i o n s . F u t u r e r e s e a r c h i n t h i s v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g and c h a l l e n g i n g a r e a of language i n h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n s h o u l d t a k e s e v e r a l d i r e c t i o n s . The development o f the most p r a c t i c a l and r e l e v a n t c o d i n g system must be s t u d i e d . I n t e r a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g b o t h o l d e r and younger c h i l d r e n and w i t h v a r i o u s communication p a r t n e r s , such as s i b l i n g s , p e e r s , f a t h e r s and t e a c h e r s , may w e l l prove w o r t h w h i l e areas of i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I n d i v i d u a l s t r a t e g i e s employed i n the use of v a r i o u s f u n c t i o n s and t h e use o f modes and i t s r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r f a c t o r s a l s o warrant f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . F i n a l l y , a l e s s time-consuming but r e l i a b l e method f o r s c r e e n i n g the use of t h e s e f u n c t i o n s would b r i n g such an a n a l y s i s i n t o g r e a t e r usage. The l a r g e r t h e body o f knowledge t h a t i s g e n e r a t e d by such p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n , the more u n d e r s t a n d i n g w i l l r e s u l t . H e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n can o n l y p r o f i t from such determined e f f o r t s t o improve t h e i r language l e a r n i n g and communicative competence. 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY A n t i n u c c i , F., P a r i s i , D. " E a r l y semantic development i n c h i l d language." In E. Lenneberg and E. Lenneberg (eds.), Foundations of Language Development: A M u l t i - D i s c i p l i n a r y Approach ( V o l . 1 ) . P a r i s : UNESCO Press, 1975. A u s t i n , J . How to do Things w i t h Words. Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1962. Bart s c h , Renate. "Semantical and pragmatical correctness as b a s i c notions of the theory of meaning." J o u r n a l of Pragmatics, 1979, _3, 1-43. Bates, E. "Pragmatics and s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s i n c h i l d language." In D. Morehead and A. Morehead (eds.), D i r e c t i o n s i n Normal and D e f i c i e n t C h i l d Language. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1976(a). Bates, E l i z a b e t h . Language and Context: The A c q u i s i t i o n of Pragmatics. New York: Academic P r e s s , 1976 (b). Bates, E., Camaioni, L., V o l t e r r a , V. "The a c q u i s i t i o n of performatives p r i o r to speech." M e r r i l l Palmer Q u a r t e r l y , 1975, ZL, 205-226. B e r n s t e i n , B. (ed;.) C l a s s , Codes and C o n t r o l (Vo l . 1 ) . London: Routledge and Kegan P a u l , 1971. Best, B., Roberts, G. C o g n i t i v e Development i n Young Deaf C h i l d r e n . Research Report, No.92. Bureau of Education f o r the Handicapped, 1975. B l a c k w e l l , P., Engen, E., Fischgrund, J . , Zarcadoolas, C. Sentences and Other Systems. Washington: The Alexander Graham B e l l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1978. Bloom, L. Language Development: Form and Function i n Emerging Grammars. Massachusetts: The Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology, 1970. Bloom, L., Hood, L., Lightbown, P. " I m i t a t i o n i n language development: i f , when and why." In L. Bloom (ed.), Readings i n Language Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978. Bloom, L., Lahey, M. Language Development and Language D i s o r d e r s . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978. Bloom, L., Rocissano, L., Hood, L. " A d u l t - c h i l d d i s c o u r s e : develop-mental i n t e r a c t i o n between inform a t i o n processing and l i n g u i s t i c knowledge." C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 1976, 8, 521-552. 96 B o r e l l i , M. "The performance of deaf and hearing c h i l d r e n on s e r i a l o r d ering t a s k s . " Enfance, 1951, 4_. B o r n s t e i n , H., S a u l n i e r , K., Hamilton, L. "Signed E n g l i s h : a f i r s t e v a l u a t i o n . " American Annals of the Deaf, 1980, 125 ( 4 ) , 467-481. Bowerman, M. "Words and sentences: u n i f o r m i t y , i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n and s h i f t s over time." In F. M i n i f i e and L. L l o y d (eds.), Communicative and C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s - E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1978. B r i t t o n , J . Language and Learning. London: Penguin, 1970. Bruner, J.S. "The r o l e of dialogue i n language a c q u i s i t i o n . " In A. S i n c l a i r , R. J a r v e l l a , and W. L e v e l t (eds.), The C h i l d ' s Con- ce p t i o n of Language. New York: S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g , 1978. Byers, P., Byers, H. "Nonverbal communication and the education of c h i l d r e n . " In C. Cazden, V. John and D. Hymes (eds.), Functions of Language i n the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, 1972. Cazden, C. "The question of i n t e n t . " In L. Rosenblum and M. Lewis (eds.), I n t e r a c t i o n , Conversation and the development of Language. New York: Wiley, 1976. Cazden, C , John, V., and Hymes, D. (eds.). Functions of Language i n the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, 1972. Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1965. Chomsky, N. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1968. C h u l l i a t , R.,01eron, P. "The r o l e of language i n t r a n s p o s i t i o n t a s k s . " Enfance, 1955, 8_. C l a r k , H., C l a r k , E. Psychology and Language - an I n t r o d u c t i o n to P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s . New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1977. C l a r k , R. "What's the use of i m i t a t i o n ? " J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language, 1977, 4, 341-358. Clezy, G. M o d i f i c a t i o n of the Mother-Child Interchange i n Language, Speech and Hearing. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1979. Coggins, T., Branson, C. A System f o r Coding Communicative Functions i n P r e v e r b a l C h i l d r e n . Paper presented at the Language Awareness Conference of the American Organization of Educators of the Hearing Impaired, Washington, October, 1978. 97 C r a i g , W., C o l l i n s , J . " A n a l y s i s of communication i n t e r a c t i o n i n c l a s s e s f o r deaf c h i l d r e n . " American Annals of the Deaf, 1970, 115, 79-85. C r a n d a l l , K. " I n f l e c t i o n a l morphemes i n the manual e n g l i s h of young hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n and t h e i r mothers." J o u r n a l of Speech and Hearing Research, 1978, 21, 372-86. Creber, J.W.P. Lost f o r Words - Language and Education F a i l u r e . England: Penguin Education, 1972. Cromer, R.F. "The c o g n i t i v e hypothesis of language a c q u i s i t i o n and i t s i m p l i c a t i o n f o r c h i l d language d e f i c i e n c y . " In D. Morehead and A. Morehead (eds.), Normal and D e f i c i e n t C h i l d Language. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1976. C u r t i s s , S., P r u t t i n g , C , L o w e l l , E. "Pragmatic and semantic development i n young c h i l d r e n w i t h impaired hearing." J o u r n a l of Speech and Hearing Research, 1979, 22, 534-552. C u r t i s s , S., P r u t t i n g , C. L o w e l l , E. A Search f o r Performatives i n Young Deaf C h i l d r e n , F i n a l Report. Los Angeles: John Tracy C l i n i c , A p r i l , 1977. de V i l l i e r s , J . , de V i l l i e r s , P. Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Massachusetts: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1978. de V i l l i e r s , J . , de V i l l i e r s , P. "Semantics and syntax i n the f i r s t two years: the output of form and f u n c t i o n and the form and f u n c t i o n of the in p u t . " .In F. M i n i f i e and L. Llo y d (eds.), Communicative and C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s - E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1978. Dore, J . "A pragmatic d e s c r i p t i o n of e a r l y language development." J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Research, 1974, _3, 343-350. Dore, J . "Conditions f o r the a c q u i s i t i o n of speech a c t s . " In I . Markova (ed.), The S o c i a l Context of Language. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978. Dore, J . "Holophrases, speech acts and language u n i v e r s a l s . " J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language, 1975, 2, 21-40. Dore, J . The Development of Speech Acts. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r -t a t i o n , C i t y U n i v e r s i t y of New York, 1973. Dore, J . , Gearhart, M., Newman, D. "The s t r u c t u r e of nursery school conversation." In K. Nelson (ed.), C h i l d r e n ' s Language (V o l . 1 ) . New York: Gardner Press, 1978. Doughty, P., Pearce, J . , Thornton, G. Language i n Use. London: Edward Arnold, 1971. 98 E r v i n - T r i p p , S. Language A c q u i s i t i o n and Communicative Choice. Stanford: U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1973. E r v i n - T r i p p , S. "Language development." I n M.L. Hoffman and L.W. Hoffman (eds.), Review of C h i l d Development Research (V o l . 2 ) . H a r t f o r d : R u s s e l l Sage Foundations, 1964. Feldman, H., Goldin-Meadow, S., Gleitman, L. "Beyond Herodotus: the c r e a t i o n of language by l i n g u i s t i c a l l y deprived deaf c h i l d r e n . " In A. Lock (ed.), A c t i o n , Gesture and Symbol. London: Academic Press, 1978. Fol g e r , J . , Chapman, R. "A pragmatic a n a l y s i s of spontaneous i m i t a t i o n s . " J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language, 1978, j>, 25-38. Freedle, R., Lewis, M. " P r e l i n g u i s t i c conversations." In L. Rosenblum and M. Lewis (eds.), I n t e r a c t i o n , Conversation and the Develop- ment of Language. New York: Wiley, 1976. Fur t h , H. Deafness and Learning, A P s y c h o l o g i c a l Approach. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1973. Furth , H. Deafness and Learning: A Social-Developmental Psychology. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1972. Fur t h , H.G. Thinking Without Language: P s y c h o l o g i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s of Deafness. New York: The Free Press, 1966. Glass, G.V., Stanley, J.C. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods i n Education and Psychology. Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1970. Goss, R. "Language used by mothers of deaf c h i l d r e n and mothers of hearing c h i l d r e n . " American Annals of the Deaf, 1970, 115, 93-96. Greenberg, M.T. Attachment Behavior, Communicative Competence and P a r e n t a l A t t i t u d e s i n Preschool Deaf C h i l d r e n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of V i r g i n i a , 1978. G r e e n f i e l d , P., Smith, J . The St r u c t u r e of Communication i n E a r l y Language Development. New York: Academic P r e s s , 1976. Greenstein, J . Methods of F o s t e r i n g Language Development i n Deaf I n f a n t s , F i n a l r e p o r t . New York: Lexington School f o r the Deaf, June, 1975. G r i c e , H.P. The Logic of Conversation. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1968. (Mimeographed). H a l l i d a y , M.A.K. E x p l o r a t i o n s i n the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold L t d . , 1973. H a l l i d a y , M.A.K. Learning How to Mean. London: Edward Arnold L t d . , 1975. 99 H e i d e r , F.W., H e i d e r , G.M. " S t u d i e s i n p s y c h o l o g y of t h e d e a f . " Psycho- l o g i c a l Monograph, 1941, 53 (Whole No. 242). Hess, R.D., Shipman, V.C. " E a r l y e x p e r i e n c e and t h e s o c i a l i z a t i o n of t h e c o g n i t i v e modes i n c h i l d r e n . " C h i l d Development, 1965, _3 ( 4 ) , 881-883. Hopper, R., Naremore, R. C h i l d r e n ' s Speech: A P r a c t i c a l I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Communication Development. New York: Harper and Row, 1978. Hymes, D. F o u n d a t i o n s i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : An E t h n o g r a p h i c Approach. P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a P r e s s , 1974. I n h e l d e r , B., P i a g e t , J . The E a r l y Growth o f L o g i c i n the C h i l d . London: R o u t l e d g e and Kegan P a u l , 1964. Jones, A., M u l f o r d , J . C h i l d r e n U s i n g Language. O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1972. Kenady, K.E., P r o c t o r , C.L. A Comparison of t h e Language Used by Mothers of Deaf C h i l d r e n and Mothers of H e a r i n g C h i l d r e n . U n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r ' s T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1968. Kretschmer, R., Kretschmer, L. Language Development and I n t e r v e n t i o n w i t h the H e a r i n g - I m p a i r e d . B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y P a r k P r e s s , 1978. Kretschmer, R., Kretschmer, L. "The a c q u i s i t i o n of l i n g u i s t i c and commun-i c a t i v e competence: p a r e n t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n s . " I n A. Murphy ( e d . ) , The V o l t a Review, 1979, 81, 306-321. Lawton, D. S o c i a l C l a s s , Language and E d u c a t i o n . London: R o u t l e d g e and Kegan P a u l , 1968. Lenneberg, E. The B i o l o g i c a l B a s i s of Language. M a s s a c h u s e t t s : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1965. (Mimeographed). Leonard, L. Meaning i n C h i l d Language. New York: Grune and S t r a t t o n , 1976. Lewis, M.M. How C h i l d r e n L e a r n t o Speak. London: Harrap, 1968. Lewis, M.M. I n f a n t Speech. London: R o u t l e d g e and Kegan P a u l , 1951. Lewis, M.M. Language and P e r s o n a l i t y i n Deaf C h i l d r e n . E n g l a n d : N a t i o n a l F o u n d a t i o n f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1968. Lewis, M.M. Language and the C h i l d . E ngland: N a t i o n a l F o u n d a t i o n f o r E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1969. Limber, J . " U n r a v e l l i n g competence, performance and p r a g m a t i c s i n t h e speech of young c h i l d r e n . " J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language, 1976, _3, 309-318. 100 L i n g , D. Speech and t h e H e a r i n g - I m p a i r e d C h i l d : Theory and P r a c t i s e . Washington: The A l e x a n d e r Graham B e l l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r t h e Deaf, I n c . , 1976. Lock, A. "The emergence of l a n g u a g e . " I n A. Lock ( e d . ) , A c t i o n , G e sture and Symbol: The Emergence of Language. London: Academic P r e s s , 1978. L o w e l l , E., L o w e l l , M. " I n t e r a c t i o n of assessment and i n t e r v e n t i o n -h e a r i n g impairment." In F. M i n i f i e and L. L l o y d ( e d s . ) , Communicative and C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s - E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s , 1978. L u r i a , A.R. The Role of Speech i n the R e g u l a t i o n of B e h a v i o r . Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1961. Markova, I . (ed.) The S o c i a l Context of Language. New York: John W i l e y and Sons, 1978. McNamara, J . " C o g n i t i v e b a s i s of language l e a r n i n g i n . i n f a n t s . " P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1972, 79., 1-13. Mehrabian, A., W i l l i a m s , M. " P i a g e t i a n measures of c o g n i t i v e development f o r c h i l d r e n up t o age 2." J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Research, 1971, 1, 113-124. Melson, G., H u l l s , M.J. The I n t e r p l a y of V e r b a l and Non-Verbal Communi- c a t i o n i n Young C h i l d r e n . Paper p r e s e n t e d at t h e Annual N a t i o n a l Conference on Language A r t s i n the Elementary S c h o o l , Phoenix, A p r i l , 1977. M i l l e r , L i n d a . "Pragmatics and e a r l y c h i l d h o o d language d i s o r d e r s : communicative i n t e r a c t i o n s i n a h a l f - h o u r sample." J o u r n a l o f Speech and H e a r i n g D i s o r d e r s , 1978, 43, 419-436. M i l l e r , S., S h e l t o n , J . , F l a v e l l , J . "A t e s t of L u r i a ' s hypotheses c o n c e r n i n g t h e development of v e r b a l s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n . " C h i l d Development, 1970, 4JD, 651-665. Moerk, E. P r a g m a t i c and Semantic A s p e c t s o f E a r l y Language Development. B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s , 1977. Moerk, E. P r o c e s s e s of Language T e a c h i n g and Language L e a r n i n g i n the I n t e r a c t i o n s o f M o t h e r - C h i l d Dyads. Paper p r e s e n t e d at t h e B i e n n i a l M e e t i n g of t h e S o c i e t y f o r Research i n C h i l d D e v e l o p -ment, A p r i l , 1975. Moores, D. E d u c a t i n g t h e Deaf - P s y c h o l o g y , P r i n c i p l e s , and P r a c t i c e s . B o s ton: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1978. Moores, D. Recent Research i n Manual Communication, O c c a s i o n a l Paper No.7. U n i v e r s i t y of M i n n e s o t a Research, Development and D e m o n s t r a t i o n Center i n E d u c a t i o n of Handicapped C h i l d r e n , 1971. Moores, D., Weiss, K., Goodwin, M. "Receptive a b i l i t i e s of deaf c h i l d r e n across f i v e modes of communication." E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n , 1973, 3_9, 22-28. M o r r i s , Charles.. Signs, Language and Behavior. Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1946. Nelson, K. " E a r l y speech i n i t s communicative context." In F. M i n i f i e and L. Lloyd (eds.), Communicative and Cognitive A b i l i t i e s : E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1978. Oleron, P. Recherches sur l e Developpement Mental des Sourd-Muets. P a r i s Centre N a t i o n a l de l a Recherche S c i e n t i f i q u e , 1957. O i l e r , D.K. "Discussion summary: the r o l e of pragmatics i n c h i l d langua r e s e a r c h . " In F. M i n i f i e and L. Lloyd (eds.), Communicative and Cognitive A b i l i t i e s : E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1978. Parker, E l l e n . Function of Ge s t u r a l Behavior i n I n t e r a c t i o n Between Mothers and t h e i r Language Learning C h i l d r e n . Paper presented at the Boston U n i v e r s i t y Conference on Language, Boston, 1976. P e i r c e , C.S. C o l l e c t e d Papers of Charles Sanders P e i r c e . V o l . V. Pragmatism and Pragmaticism. (C. Hartshore and P. Weiss [e d s . ] ) . Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1934. Pfuderer, C. "Language a c q u i s i t i o n i n the deaf: some suggestions f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the f i e l d manual." In Rainey, M., Pfuderer, C., Mehan, S., Sher, A., Fallman, J . , S e i t e l , S., Hubbell, L., Studies of I n t e r a c t i o n , Language Behavior Research Laboratory Working Paper, No. 16. Berkeley: C a l i f o r n i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1968. Pia g e t , Jean. The Moral Judgement of the C h i l d . New York: C o l l i e r Books, 1962. Quigley, S., R u s s e l l , K. Power, D. L i n g u i s t i c s and Deaf C h i l d r e n : Transformational Syntax and I t s A p p l i c a t i o n . Washington: A.G. B e l l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1976. R a f f i n , M., Davis, J . , Gilman, L. "Comprehension of i n f l e c t i o n a l morphemes by deaf c h i l d r e n exposed to a v i s u a l e n g l i s h s i g n system." J o u r n a l of Speech and Hearing Research, 1978, 21, 387-400. Ralmeyi C , Farran, D., Campbell, F., F i n k e l s t e i n , N. "Observations of mother-infant i n t e r a c t i o n s : i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r development." In F. M i n i f i e and L. Lloyd (eds.), Communicative and Cognitive A b i l i t i e s : E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1978. 102 Rees, N.S. " I m i t a t i o n and language development: issues and c l i n i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . " J o u r n a l of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1975, 40, 339-50. Rodgon, M.M., Jankowski, W., Alenskas, L. "A m u l t i - f u n c t i o n a l approach to s i n g l e word usage." J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language, 1977, j4, 23-43. Ryan, J . "Early language development: towards a communicational a n a l y s i s . " In M.P.M. Richards (ed.), The I n t e g r a t i o n of a C h i l d i n t o a S o c i a l World. London: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1974. Schlesinger, I.M. "The r o l e of c o g n i t i v e development and l i n g u i s t i c input i n language a c q u i s i t i o n . " J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language, 1977, 4, 153-169. Schmidt, W., Hore, T. "Some non-verbal aspects of communication between mother and preschool c h i l d . " C h i l d Development, 1970, 4_1 (2), 889-896. Scroggs, C.L. "Analyzing the language of hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n w i t h severe language a c q u i s i t o n problems." American Annals of the Deaf, 1977, 122 (4), 403-406. Se a r l e , J . "Chomsky's r e v o l u t i o n i n l i n g u i s t i c s . " In G. Harman (ed.), On Noam Chomsky: C r i t i c a l Essays. New York: Anchor Press, 1974. S e a r l e , J . Speech A c t s . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1976. S i n c l a i r , H. "The r o l e of c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s i n language a c q u i s i t i o n . " In E. Lenneberg and E. Lenneberg (eds.), Foundations of Language Development: A M u l t i - D i s c i p l i n a r y Approach ( V o l . 1 ) . P a r i s : UNESCO Press, 1975. Ska r a k i s , E.A., P r u t t i n g , C. "Early communication: semantic f u n c t i o n s and communicative i n t e n t i o n s i n the communication of the preschool c h i l d w i t h impaired h e a r i n g . " American Annals of the Deaf, 1977, 122 (4), 382-391. S l o b i n , D. "Cognitive p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r the development of grammar." In L. Bloom (ed.), Readings i n Language Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978. S l o b i n , D. "On the nature of t a l k to c h i l d r e n . " In E. Lenneberg and E. Lenneberg (eds.), Foundations of Language Development: A M u l t i - D i s c i p l i n a r y Approach ( V o l . 1 ) . P a r i s : UNESCO Press, 1975. Snyder, L.S. Pragmatics i n Language-Disabled C h i l d r e n : Their P r e l i n g u i s t i c and E a r l y Verbal Performatives and P r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Colorado, 1973. 103 Stoel-Gammon, C., Cabral, L. Learning How to T e l l I t L i k e I t I s : The Development of the Reportative Function i n Children's Speech. Papers and Reports i n C h i l d Language Development, No.13. March, 1977. Streng, A.H. Syntax, Speech and Hearing. New York: Grune and S t r a t t o n , ' 1972. Streng, A., Kretschmer, R., Kretschmer, L. Language, Learning, and Deafness. New York: Grune and S t r a t t o n , 1978. Sugarman-Bell, S. "Some organization.iaspects of p r e v e r b a l communication." In I . Markova (ed.), The S o c i a l Context of Language. New York: John Wiley arid Sons, 1978. Tate, M. "Comparative study of language development i n hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n and normally hearing i n f a n t s . " J o u r n a l of the B r i t i s h A s s o c i a t i o n of Teachers of the Deaf, 1979, 3, (1), 153-159. Tough, J . Focus on Meaning. London: George A l l e n and Unwin, L t d . , 1974. Tough, J . L i s t e n i n g to C h i l d r e n T a l k i n g : A Guide to the A p p r a i s a l of Chil d r e n ' s Use of Language. London: Ward Lock E d u c a t i o n a l , 1976. Tough, J . The Development of Meaning: A Study of Children's Use of Language. London: George A l l e n and Unwin, L t d . , 1977. Vincent, M. "The performance of deaf and hearing c h i l d r e n on a c l a s s i f y i n g t a s k . " Enfance, 1957, 10. Vygotsky, L.S. Thought and Language. Massachusetts: The Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology, 1962. Wardhaugh, R. The Contexts of Language. Massachusetts: Newbury House P u b l i s h e r s , Inc., 1976. W e l l s , G. "The context of c h i l d r e n ' s e a r l y language experience." E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 1973, 27 ( 2 ) , 114-125. Widdowson, H.G. Teaching Language as Communication. London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1978. Wilbur, R.B. "The l i n g u i s t i c s of manual language and manual systems." In L. Lloyd (ed.), Communication Assessment and I n t e r v e n t i o n S t r a t e g i e s . Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1976. W i l k i n s o n , A. The Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r ess, 1971. 104 APPENDIX A Toys Provided f o r the Home V i s i t Video-Tape Sessions I . 2 red telephones w i t h moveable d i a l s I I . 2 Richard Scary Golden Look-Look books 1. About Animals 2. Nicky Goes to the Doctor I I I . F i s h e r P r i c e P l a y Family Sesame Str e e t which i n c l u d e s : a p l a s t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n r e p l i c a of Sesame Str e e t which f u n c t i o n s as a c a r r y i n g case w i t h handle when closed and opens to r e v e a l 4 rooms and a blackboard i n between - the rooms are designed as: 1) a s t o r e , 2) a l i v i n g r o o m / k i t c h e n , 3) a bedroom, and 4) a li v i n g r o o m . 8 Sesame S t r e e t characters - B e r t , E r n i e , Cookie Monster, B i g B i r d , Mr. Hooper, Gordon, Susan, and Oscar i n h i s garbage can. Sesame Str e e t lamppost w i t h s t r e e t s i g n a garbage truck a m a i l box a 2-story ladder a soda-fountain with 2 seats a newsstand a 2-seater couch a T.V. a d i n i n g t a b l e a coffee t a b l e 2 monogrammed beds 2 c h a i r s B i g B i r d ' s nest a f i r e hydrant chalk and a chalk brush 105 APPENDIX B A System f o r Coding Pragmatic Functions Used by Hearing-Impaired C h i l d r e n Terry Parson-Tylka A p r i l , 1980 S p e c i a l Education Department, F a c u l t y of Education The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia The research reported h e r e i n i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements f o r the Degree of Master of A r t s at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia INDEX INTRODUCTION GENERAL OVERVIEW OBSERVATIONS OF INTERACTIONS TRANSCRIBING THE TAPES CODING THE MODE CODING THE FUNCTIONS REFERENCES APPENDIX: SAMPLE TRANSCRIPTION 107 INTRODUCTION Language has been defined as "a code whereby ideas of the world (content) are represented through a conventional system of a r b i t r a r y s i g n a l s (form) f o r communication (u s e ) " (Bloom and Lahey, 1978). A c h i l d becomes an e f f e c t i v e language user and a t t a i n s communicative com-petence when he i s able to i n t e g r a t e content, form and use i n h i s s o c i a l interchange w i t h others. Communicative competence i s c r i t i c a l f o r the language l e a r n i n g c h i l d to f u n c t i o n e f f e c t i v e l y i n a s o c i a l environment (Parker, 1976). Communication i s "the p o t e n t i a l a b i l i t y to i n f l u e n c e another" (Melson and H u l l s , 1977). From i n f a n c y , the c h i l d i s able to communi-cate h i s needs and i n f l u e n c e others ( u s u a l l y h i s parents) to attend to those needs. As the c h i l d develops, h i s need to be understood and to understand others remains a powerful f o r c e . Communicating h i s needs and d e s i r e s becomes more complex as the v a r i e t y of people, places and s i t u a t i o n s i n c r e a s e i n the c h i l d ' s ever-broadening environment. The c h i l d must l e a r n "who can say what, to whom, i n what manner, by what means, and f o r what purposes" (Hymes, 1974). This knowledge, a v i t a l element i n l i n g u i s t i c competence, i s the c e n t r a l subject matter of prag-matics, the branch of language study which r e l a t e s the language to the speaker (Nelson, 1978) . Pragmatics can be defined as the f u n c t i o n of language use i n a s o c i a l context (Bates, 1976). Language s t r u c t u r e i s considered subordinate to f u n c t i o n by many l i n g u i s t s (Hymes, 1974; Se a r l e , 1974) . Bates s t r o n g l y supports t h i s view. She says "We have j u s t proposed that l o g i c a l l y and o n t o g e n e t i c a l l y , a l l of semantics and s y n t a c t i c s are derived u l t i m a t e l y from pragmatics, from language games that c o n s i s t i n the use of s i g n a l s i n contexts to c a r r y out some f u n c t i o n . " (Bates, 1976). L i t t l e i s c u r r e n t l y known about pragmatic knowledge. At present, pragmatics seems to be a "Pandora's Box". Ultimate success of the approach w i l l depend on the extent to which pragmatic frameworks can be c l e a r l y d e f i n e d , d e l i m i t e d and thus brought under c o n t r o l ( O i l e r , 1978) . The purpose of t h i s manual i s to propose a framework f o r coding the pragmatic f u n c t i o n s of language used by preschool hearing-impaired c h i l -dren. This system i s based on r e l e v a n t research i n the areas of psycho-l i n g u i s t i c s and c h i l d language use. Although the sample on which the system i s being researched c o n s i s t s only of four year o l d profoundly hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n , i t i s hoped tha t the usefulness of t h i s system w i l l extend beyond t h i s l i m i t e d age range. The sample data were c o l l e c t e d i n the home, but the researcher suggests t h i s should not exclude the use of t h i s system i n classroom i n t e r a c t i o n s . While t h i s coding system was s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to be used with a hearing-impaired p o p u l a t i o n , i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n determining appropriate programming and teaching s t r a t e g i e s f o r t h i s p o p u l a t i o n can only be t e n t a t i v e l y i m p l i e d from t h i s p i l o t e f f o r t . 109 GENERAL OVERVIEW The framework proposed f o r examining the pr a g m a t i c f u n c t i o n s of p r e -s c h o o l h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n i n v o l v e s f o u r components: 1) o b s e r v a t i o n of i n t e r a c t i o n s 2) t r a n s c r i p t i o n s o f communicative b e h a v i o r s 3) c o d i n g of mode use 4) c o d i n g o f pr a g m a t i c f u n c t i o n s For t h e purpose o f t h i s r e s e a r c h , communicative b e h a v i o r i s o p e r a -t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as any v e r b a l or n o n - v e r b a l b e h a v i o r t h a t i s e x p r e s s i v e l y communicated t o another p e r s o n i n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n p r o c e s s . The communi-c a t o r may use any one of f i v e modes a l o n e or i n co m b i n a t i o n . The communicative b e h a v i o r s of bo t h the c h i l d and h i s communication p a r t n e r w i l l be t r a n s c r i b e d and coded, s i n c e d e t e r m i n i n g f u n c t i o n i s o f t e n dependent upon the c o n t e x t of the s i t u a t i o n and t h e re s p o n s e of the p a r t n e r . The proposed system i n c l u d e s t h i r t e e n uses o f language t h a t have been found t o be important f o r l a t e r s c h o o l l e a r n i n g or a r e common i n the e a r l y communication of young h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n . A s e p a r a t e c l a s s i f i -c a t i o n system f o r q u e s t i o n s i s sug g e s t e d . The t o t a l p r o c e s s i s i n i t i a l l y time consuming and t e d i o u s . I t i s sugge s t e d t h a t o b s e r v a t i o n , t r a n s c r i p t i o n and c o d i n g be done i n teams o f a minimum of two and maximum of t h r e e p e o p l e who a r e f a m i l i a r w i t h the speech and language o f h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n . A knowledge of s i g n systems would be n e c e s s a r y i f t h e c h i l d r e n b e i n g o b s e r v e d a r e u s i n g a s i g n system i n t h e i r communication. As e x p e r i e n c e i s g a i n e d i n u s i n g the system, t h e speed and a c c u r a c y o f t r a n s c r i p t i o n and c o d i n g w i l l i n c r e a s e . Such e f f i c i e n c y w i l l make i t a much more u s e f u l t o o l f o r the c l a s s r o o m or h o m e - v i s i t i n g t e a c h e r . I l l OBSERVATIONS OF INTERACTIONS V i d e o t a p i n g has been found to be the most s u c c e s s f u l means of cap-t u r i n g the essence of i n t e r a c t i o n i n o r d e r t o most e f f e c t i v e l y t r a n s c r i b e and code the communicative b e h a v i o r s . V i d e o t a p e p l a y b a c k a l l o w s f o r more d e t a i l e d and p r e c i s e a n a l y s i s o f a l l the d a t a s i n c e none i s l o s t i n t h e c o m p l e x i t y and speed of t h e normal communication p r o c e s s . V i d e o t a p e a l s o a l l o w s f l e x i b i l i t y i n s c h e d u l i n g time f o r t r a n s c r i p t i o n and c o d i n g . The v i d e o t a p i n g s h o u l d be done as u n o b t r u s i v e l y as p o s s i b l e t o p r e s e r v e t h e s p o n t a n e i t y o f the n a t u r a l i n t e r a c t i o n . The p e r s o n d o i n g t h e v i d e o t a p i n g s h o u l d not be a s t r a n g e r t o the c h i l d o r the s e t t i n g . T h i s r e s e a r c h e r has found t h a t young h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n a r e i n i -t i a l l y v e r y c u r i o u s about the v i d e o t a p e equipment but q u i c k l y choose t o i g n o r e i t and c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e a c t i v i t i e s and i n t e r a c t i o n s t a k i n g p l a c e . A minimum of 15 minutes of spontaneous i n t e r a c t i o n has been r e c o r d e d f o r each c h i l d . A f r e e p l a y s i t u a t i o n w i t h t o y s p r o v i d e d by the r e s e a r c h e r was s e t up i n the home. Depending on the purposes f o r the a n a l y s i s , a more s t r u c t u r e d o r s h o r t e r o r l o n g e r v i d e o t a p e s e s s i o n may be more appro-p r i a t e f o r t h e c l a s s r o o m or h o m e - v i s i t i n g t e a c h e r . 112 TRANSCRIBING THE TAPES A l l communicative b e h a v i o r s s h o u l d be t r a n s c r i b e d a l o n g w i t h t h e c o n t e x t of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n . One member of t h e team s h o u l d o p e r a t e the v i d e o t a p e p l a y b a c k and v e r b a l i z e what i s o b s e r v e d . The second p e r s o n i s then f r e e to w r i t e t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n s onto p r e l i n e d graph p a p e r . I t i s o f t e n n e c e s s a r y to p l a y b a c k t h e same segment of tape s e v e r a l times u n t i l a l l o f the communicative b e h a v i o r s a r e t r a n s c r i b e d . A break p e r i o d i s n e c e s s a r y and 3 hours appears to be the maximum l e n g t h o f time t h a t a t r a n s c r i b i n g / c o d i n g s e s s i o n can c o n t i n u e . A v e r y s i m p l e format has been found to be t h e most u s e f u l way of t r a n s c r i b i n g t h e v i d e o t a p e s . A sample t r a n s c r i p t i o n i s i n c l u d e d i n the appendix. I t i s important to n o t e t h a t at times communicative b e h a v i o r w i l l be o c c u r i n g i n two modes at the same ti m e . When t h e communicative message i s e x a c t l y t h e same, the b e h a v i o r s are termed s i m u l t a n e o u s and are e n c l o s e d i n round b r a c k e t s . When t h e b e h a v i o r s o c c u r at t h e same time but t h e messages are n o t p r e c i s e l y the same, they are termed o v e r -l a p p i n g and a r e e n c l o s e d i n s q u a r e b r a c k e t s . I f mother says " g i v e me t h e bed p l e a s e " and a t t h e same time s i g n s "me bed p l e a s e " - the b e h a v i o r s are termed o v e r l a p p i n g ; i f mother says and s i g n s " g i v e me t h e bed p l e a s e " t h e b e h a v i o r s a r e termed s i m u l t a n e o u s . I f the b e h a v i o r s occur one a f t e r t h e o t h e r t o communicate the message, they a r e termed s e q u e n t i a l and e n c l o s e d i n s l a s h e s . C o n t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s not d i r e c t l y communicative i s e n c l o s e d i n s q u i g g l y b r a c k e t s . 113 Space i s a l l o t t e d on the l e f t f o r coding the f u n c t i o n s and modes used by the c h i l d and space on the r i g h t of the t r a n s c r i p t i o n i s a l l o t t e d f o r coding the modes and f u n c t i o n s used by the partner ( i n t h i s case .the mother) . Conventions f o r T r a n s c r i p t i o n (adapted from Bloom and Lahey, 1978) General I n s t r u c t i o n s 1. Pages should be numbered f r o n t and back w i t h the number i n the upper r i g h t corner. 2. A s m a l l diagram of the room and the s u b j e c t s ' p o s i t i o n s r e l a t i v e to one another i s drawn on the top of the f i r s t page of the t r a n s c r i p t i o n . 3. In order to make i t e a s i e r to l o c a t e m a t e r i a l on the tape, a number should be placed i n the l e f t margin approximately every time the counter on the recorder r e g i s t e r s a m u l t i p l e of 10. 4. A l l communicative behaviors ( v e r b a l and non-verbal), are f u l l y t r a n s -c r i b e d . The communicator i s i d e n t i f i e d by an i n i t i a l . Information about the s i t u a t i o n a l context i s enclosed i n squiggly b r a c k e t s . 5. When communicative behavior occurs i n two modes at the same time and the communicative message i s e x a c t l y the same i n both modes, the behaviors are termed simultaneous. The communicative behaviors are w r i t t e n on separate l i n e s and enclosed i n round p a r e n t h e s i s . 6. When communicative behavior occurs i n two modes at the same time but the messages are not p r e c i s e l y the same, they are termed over l a p p i n g . The communicative behaviors are w r i t t e n on separate l i n e s and enclosed by square p a r e n t h e s i s . When communicative behaviors occur i n two or more modes one a f t e r the other to convey one message, they are termed s e q u e n t i a l and are w r i t t e n on separate l i n e s and enclosed i n l a r g e s l a s h e s . 7. D i f f e r e n t i a l use i s made of verb tense i n d e s c r i b i n g the s i t u a t i o n : - p rogressive tense i s used to d e s c r i b e communicative behaviors which are overlapping or simultaneous - simple present tense i s used to describe behaviors that precede or f o l l o w other communicative behaviors. 8. An arrow i s drawn from one l i n e to the next when a communicative behavior i s too long f o r the space provided, e.g. do you wanfr-> go to the-} 9zoo?/ 9. When a communicator suddenly i n t e r r u p t s h i s own behavior, apparently l e a v i n g the communication u n f i n i s h e d , a l i n e i n d i c a t e s the abrupt stop, e.g. put the man i n the / 10. When a communicator i n t e r r u p t s h i s own behavior apparently to change or c o r r e c t i t , a " s e l f - c o r r e c t " symbol (s/c) i s used, e.g. those are your s/c my toys/ Abbreviations 11. An X i s used to show complete and exact r e p e t i t i o n s or i m i t a t i o n s . Any change must be i n d i c a t e d i n c l u d i n g changes i n i n t o n a t i o n , e.g. open/ 12. # i s used to i n d i c a t e that there i s m a t e r i a l on the tape that i s not t r a n s c r i b e d , i . e . i n t e r r u p t i o n s C a p i t a l i z a t i o n and Punctuation 13. Names are c a p i t a l i z e d . I n i t i a l l e t t e r of the communicative behavior i s not. 14. The s i g n of a communication boundary i s a s l a s h , (/). 15. An exclamation mark may be used when appropriate, but should be followed by a s l a s h . 16. Questions are i n d i c a t e d by a question mark or a r i s i n g arrow (+) i f i t seems to be a question due to r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n , and followed by a s l a s h . 17. A pause w i t h i n a communicative behavior i s i n d i c a t e d by a dot, e.g. oh . good/ 18. A long pause between communicative behaviors w i t h i n the same general s i t u a t i o n i s i n d i c a t e d by 3 h o r i z o n t a l dots across the l i n e , e.g. i t ' s a ... c h a i r / 19. A long pause between behaviors where there i s a change i n the general s i t u a t i o n i s marked by 3 v e r t i c a l dots on the l i n e , e.g. the boy. .' Recording U n i n t e l l i g i b l e Communicative Behaviors 20. An u n i n t e l l i g i b l e communicative behavior i s i n d i c a t e d by 3 dashes ( ). I f p o s s i b l e , a phonetic t r a n s c r i p t i o n i s used i n s t e a d . 21. Guesses about the form of u n i n t e l l i g i b l e communicative behaviors are X x: 115 e n c l o s e d i n p a r e n t h e s i s above the b e h a v i o r and f o l l o w e d by a q u e s t i o n mark, e.g. {read book?} / 22. An a d u l t ' s m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a c h i l d ' s communicative b e h a v i o r i s i n d i c a t e d w i t h a check, e.g. want mine// 116 CODING THE MODE Mode i s defined as the form of the communicative behavior used by the communicator. F i v e modes commonly used by hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n are i n c l u d e d : Speech, V o c a l i z a t i o n , Sign, Gesture, A c t i o n . This approach i s supported i n the l i t e r a t u r e . I t has o f t e n been observed that what young c h i l d r e n say i s u s u a l l y r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to what they do and see (Bloom, 1970). Melson and H u l l s (1977) b e l i e v e that a l l s o c i a l communication i s c o n t e x t u a l and suggests that a more accurate and e d u c a t i o n a l l y u s e f u l means of understanding c h i l d r e n ' s language develop-ment i n v o l v e s a scheme p o r t r a y i n g v e r b a l behavior, non-verbal behavior and s i t u a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as a communicative whole. This view i s a l s o h e l d by Mehrabian and W i l l i a m s (1971) who imply that c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s e a r l y grammars and l i n g u i s t i c behavior could gain considerably from the study of motor g e s t u r a l phenomena that accompany language during the e a r l y phases and e v e n t u a l l y are replaced by i t . The f o l l o w i n g o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s are used f o r the f i v e d i f f e r e n t modes: Speech - comprehensible utterances recognizable as spoken language by a naive l i s t e n e r , i . e . i n t e l l i g i b l e words, phrases or sentences V o c a l i z a t i o n - sound production of a phoneme alone or i n s y l l a b l e s but not i n the form of or r e c o g n i z a b l e as speech, e.g. aaaaa, i i i i , mmhmm, laughing and c r y i n g are included Gesture - a movement of the body or body p a r t s that symbolizes or emphasizes an i d e a or f e e l i n g and conveys t h i s meaning to another person. The 117 gesture may supplement, re p l a c e , or c o n t r a d i c t v e r b a l behaviors, e.g. shrugging the shoulders, p o i n t i n g , waving, frowning. Sign - a gesture made by one or both hands that i s a symbolic representa-t i o n i n a) a conventional s i g n language system f o r the deaf, e.g. S.E.E., A.S.L., Signed E n g l i s h . The gesture must be recognized to be a Sign by a person f a m i l i a r w i t h such systems. b) a system devised and used by the c h i l d and/or f a m i l y and i s recognized as such by the mother c) the manual alphabet of the deaf, i . e . f i n g e r s p e l l i n g A c t i o n - one or a s e r i e s of purposeful p h y s i c a l movements of the body or body parts which act upon another person or object such that p h y s i c a l contact i s made. An a c t i o n i s determined to be oommunicative i n the context of the communicative behavior which precedes or fo l l o w s i t . For example, p u t t i n g a d o l l i n the d o l l house i s a communicative a c t i o n when i t f o l l o w s a d i r e c t i v e "put the d o l l i n the house", or when i t precedes a d i r e c t i v e "do the same". The modes may be used independent of each other or may be used s i m u l -taneously (denoted by round brackets) or i n an overlapping manner (denoted by square b r a c k e t s ) . When two or more modes communicate e x a c t l y the same message at the same time they are s a i d to be simultaneous. When two or more modes are used at the same time but communicate supplementary or r e i n -f o r c i n g messages they are termed over l a p p i n g . Modes may a l s o be s e q u e n t i a l . In order to s i m p l i f y the coding of the modes, the f o l l o w i n g a b b r e v i -a t i o n s are suggested: 1) Speech - Sp 2) V o c a l i z a t i o n - V 3) S i g n - S i 4) G e s t u r e - G 5) A c t i o n - A 6) Simultaneous 7) O v e r l a p p i n g 8) S e q u e n t i a l -119. CODING THE FUNCTIONS The most comprehensive reference to functions used by preschool c h i l d r e n found i n the l i t e r a t u r e comes from the work of Tough (1977). Tough developed a framework of seven uses of language which are somewhat developmental and are considered r e l e v a n t f o r l a t e r s c h o o l l e a r n i n g . I t i s w e l l documented that hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n are o f t e n delayed i n t h e i r a c q u i s i t i o n and use of language s t r u c t u r e s . In the s i n g l e study that has looked at the pragmatic func t i o n s used by preschool hearing-impaired c h i l d r e n , the func t i o n s were based on Dore's categories which he developed f o r c h i l d r e n at the one-word utterance stage ( C u r t i s s , P r u t t i n g and L o w e l l , 1979). The researchers found that the h e a r i n g -impaired c h i l d r e n were comparable to hearing c h i l d r e n at the same stage of language development i n terms of the pragmatic func t i o n s used. Most of the s i x t e e n f u n c t i o n s described by C u r t i s s et a l . are at a lower developmental l e v e l than the f u n c t i o n s proposed by Tough. The system proposed i n t h i s research i s a combination of the f u n c t i o n s deemed necessary by Tough, and the func t i o n s found to be used by the hearing-impaired preschool c h i l d r e n i n C u r t i s s et a l . ' s study. In t h i s way i t i s hoped that a p r o f i l e can be made f o r each hearing-impaired c h i l d , demonstrating which f u n c t i o n s the c h i l d i s using and which need to be developed and encouraged by teachers and parents. I n o r d e r to e x p e d i t e the c o d i n g p r o c e s s , l e t t e r a b b r e v i a t i o n s a r e s u g g e s t e d f o r each f u n c t i o n . O p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s and l e t t e r codes f o l l o w : I m i t a t i n g - t - i m i t a t i n g a communicative b e h a v i o r performed by someone e l s e R e p e a t i n g - r r - i m i t a t i n g one's own communicative b e h a v i o r R i t u a l - u - g r e e t i n g or o t h e r s o c i a l r i t u a l , i n c l u d i n g p l e a s e , thank-you h i Acknowledging - a - e v i d e n c i n g comprehension Complying - c - r e s p o n d i n g i n accordance w i t h t h e i n t e n t o f a d i r e c t i o n e.g. c h i l d p u t s d o l l i n house when mother s a y s , "put t h e d o l l i n the house" M a i n t a i n i n g - m - r e f e r r i n g to p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l needs and wants p r o t e c t i n g t h e s e l f and s e l f - i n t e r e s t I g n o r i n g - g - not r e s p o n d i n g t o the i n t e n t of a d i r e c t i o n D i r e c t i n g - d - d i r e c t i n g the a c t i o n s of t h e s e l f o r o t h e r s R e p o r t i n g - r - r e p o r t i n g on e v e n t s , i n c l u d i n g l a b e l l i n g , r e f e r r i n g t o d e t a i l , making comparisons, r e f e r r i n g t o i n c i d e n t s or sequences of e v e n t s Reasoning - e - e x p l a i n i n g a p r o c e s s , r e c o g n i z i n g cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s , r e c o g n i z i n g problems and t h e i r s o l u t i o n s , j u s t i f y i n g judgments, and drawing c o n c l u s i o n s P r e d i c t i n g - p - a n t i c i p a t i n g and f o r e c a s t i n g e v e n t s , problems and t h e i r s o l u t i o n s , a n t i c i p a t i n g d e t a i l s and sequences of e v e n t s , p r e d i c t i n g t h e consequences of a c t i o n s and events P r o j e c t i n g - j - p r o j e c t i n g i n t o e x p e r i e n c e s , f e e l i n g s , and r e a c t i o n s of o t h e r s and i n t o s i t u a t i o n s n e v e r e x p e r i e n c e d 121 Imagining - i - d e v e l o p i n g i m a g i n a r y s i t u a t i o n s based on r e a l l i f e o r on f a n t a s y , d e v e l o p i n g an o r i g i n a l s t o r y Q u e s t i o n s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d s e p a r a t e l y . Q u e s t i o n s - Q u e s t i o n s w i l l be coded a c c o r d i n g to t h e t h i r t e e n f u n c t i o n s p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , on the b a s i s of t h e t y p e of responses they a n t i c i p a t e . F o r example, "Who i s t h a t ? " i s a q u e s t i o n form a n t i -c i p a t i n g a r e p o r t i n g response and would be coded as r e p o r t i n g . "Who w i l l you p r e t e n d to b e ? " i s a q u e s t i o n form t h a t a n t i c i p a t e s an i m a g i n i n g response and would be coded i m a g i n i n g . I t appears t h a t u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e a c t of q u e s t i o n i n g would be l o s t i n t h i s c o d i n g system. In o r d e r t o r e t a i n t h i s v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n , a l l communicative b e h a v i o r s i n the form of q u e s t i o n s , or w i t h q u e s t i o n i n g i n t o n a t i o n , w i l l be coded as t o f u n c t i o n and then d e s i g n a t e d as q u e s t i o n s by the use of a c i r c l e around the code l e t t e r . The importance of c o d i n g q u e s t i o n forms a c c o r d i n g t o response a n t i c i p a t e d by the communicator becomes more obvious i n t h e case of q u e s t i o n s such as "Do you want t o put the t o y s away?" where the i n t e n t i o n i s c l e a r l y a d i r e c t i v e t o "Put the t o y s away." I f such a communication was merely coded as a q u e s t i o n , the i n t e n t of t h e communicator would be l o s t . By c o d i n g b o t h the f u n c t i o n and t h e form of q u e s t i o n s , i t i s hoped no v a l u a b l e d a t a i s l o s t . Codes Mode F u n c t i o n Speech Sp I m i t a t i n g V o c a l i z a t i o n V R e p e a t i n g G e s t u r e G R i t u a l S i g n S i Acknowledging A c t i o n A Complying Simultaneous ( ) M a i n t a i n i n g O v e r l a p p i n g [ ] I g n o r i n g S e q u e n t i a l / / D i r e c t i n g R e p o r t i n g I m a g i n i n g Reasoning P r o j e c t i n g P r e d i c t i n g t Q u e s t i ons - 0 r r m 3 P Uncodable - due t o t h e communication - U - due t o t h e c o d i n g system - UU H-1 ho NO 123 REFERENCES Bates, E. Language and Context: The A c q u i s i t i o n of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 1976. Bloom, L. Language Development: Form and Function i n Emerging Grammars. Massachusetts: The Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology, 1970. Bloom, L., Lahey, M. Language Development and Language Di s o r d e r s . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978. C u r t i s s , S., P r u t t i n g , C , L o w e l l , E. "Pragmatic and semantic development i n young c h i l d r e n w i t h impaired hearing." J o u r n a l of Speech and Hearing Research, 1979, 22, 534-552. Hymes, D. Foundations i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : An Ethnographic Approach. P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of Pennsylvania P r e s s , 1974. Mehrabian, A., W i l l i a m s , M. " P i a g e t i a n measures of c o g n i t i v e development f o r c h i l d r e n up to age 2." J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Research, 1971, 1, 113-124. Melson, G., H u l l s , M.J. The I n t e r p l a y of V e r b a l and Non-Verbal Communi- c a t i o n i n Young C h i l d r e n . Paper presented at the Annual N a t i o n a l Conference on Language A r t s i n the Elementary School, Phoenix, A p r i l , 1977. Nelson, K. " E a r l y speech i n i t s communicative context." In F. M i n i f i e and L. L l o y d (eds.), Communicative and C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s : E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1978. O i l e r , D.K. " D i s c u s s i o n summary: the r o l e of pragmatics i n c h i l d language research." In F. M i n i f i e and L. Lloyd (eds.), Communicative and C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s : E a r l y B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s , 1978. Parker, E. Function of G e s t u r a l Behavior i n I n t e r a c t i o n Between Mothers and t h e i r Language Learning C h i l d r e n . Paper presented at the Boston U n i v e r s i t y Conference on Language, Boston, 1976. S e a r l e , J . "Chomsky's r e v o l u t i o n i n l i n g u i s t i c s . " In G. Harman (Ed.), On Noam Chomsky: C r i t i c a l Essays. New York: Anchor Press, 1974. Tough, J . L i s t e n i n g to C h i l d r e n T a l k i n g : A Guide to the A p p r a i s a l of C h i l d r e n ' s Use of Language. London: Ward Lock E d u c a t i o n a l , 1976. Tough, J . The Development of Meaning: A Study of C h i l d r e n ' s Use of Language. London: George A l l e n and Unwin, L t d . , 1977. APPENDIX SAMPLE TRANSCRIPTION NAME: AGE: A.8. 4.2 DATE OF INTERACTION: 03/09/79 C h i l d ^Contexts and Communicative B e h a v i o r Mother St {Sp} A" G a E.C. potnti to the. laddeJiE, Oh the. laddun \jglcki> up the. ladd&si/J okay wu'lt-put tt thifit [putA laddo.fi agatnAt houAn/_ &ay& AomeXhtng unlnt2Zttgtbi.2./ E.C. takeA dolt down ladd^fiE, dolZ [nodi yoJ>/ J Sp A_ A_ 1/ U 126 P e r m i s s i o n i s g i v e n f o r T e r r y P a r s o n - T y l k a to use t h e v i d e o - t a p e and i n t e r v i e w i n f o r m a t i o n o f ' ' ( c h i l d ' s name) as p a r t of h e r Master's T h e s i s on Communicative F u n c t i o n s o f H e a r i n g -Impaired C h i l d r e n i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s a t th e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . F u r t h e r , my p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s v o l u n t a r y and I may withdraw from t h i s p r o j e c t at any t i m e . Signed:__ ( P a r e n t s or G u a r d i a n s ) We do n o t w i s h to g i v e our p e r m i s s i o n at t h i s time. S i g n e d : ( P a r e n t s or G u a r d i a n s )