Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Evaluating stakeholders in information for parents of children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing

ORCID logo | Macquarie University
ORCID logo | Macquarie University
Parents of children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing (D/HH) need clear and complete information about early intervention options. There is a body of research on parents’ reactions to, and perceptions of, information they encountered following their child’s diagnosis, but little research examining the information itself. This paper reports on a research project examining the evaluative meanings of information on the websites of the two early intervention providers in NSW, Australia. Both providers describe their services as “family-centered” on their websites. The appraisal framework from systemic functional linguistics was used to analyze each website. Specifically, evaluations regarding the ‘capacity’ of providers and D/HH children are reported here. Providers are consistently evaluated as altruistic and expert, while D/HH children are consistently evaluated as requiring the specific kind of intervention program offered by these organizations in order to live a “normal” or “successful” life. Coupled with the lack of information about alternative approaches to early intervention, the information provided appears to be inconsistent with principles of family-centered intervention.
Keywords: appraisal, deaf or hard-of-hearing children, early intervention, healthcare communication, systemic functional linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The study
    • 2.1Objective
    • 2.2Data selection and analysis
    • 2.3Methodology
      • 2.3.1Sub-types of ‘judgement’
        • Judgement: Normality/capacity
        • Judgement: Capacity/propriety
    • 2.4Procedure
  • 3.Findings
    • 3.1Stakeholder 1: Early intervention organizations
    • 3.2Stakeholder 2: D/HH children
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Limitations
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.22036.kec
References (37)
References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2007). Year 2007 position statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. [URL]
Australian Government. (2005). Disability standards for education 2005. [URL]
Bednarek, M. (2007). Polyphony in appraisal: Typological and topological perspectives. Linguistics & the Human Sciences, 3 (2), 107–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brookes, G., & Harvey, K. (2015). Peddling a semiotics of fear: A critical examination of scare tactics and commercial strategies in public health promotion. Social Semiotics, 25 (1), 57–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Decker, K. B., & Vallotton, C. D. (2016). Early intervention for children with hearing loss: Information parents receive about supporting children’s language. Journal of Early Intervention, 38 (3), 151–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Division for Early Childhood. (2014). Recommended practices in early intervention and early childhood special education. [URL]
Djonov, E., & Knox, J. S. (2014). How to analyze webpages. In S. Norris & C. D. Maier (Eds.), Interactions, images and texts: A reader in multimodality (pp. 171–193). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ECIA (Early Childhood Intervention Australia). (2016). ECIA national guidelines on best practice in early intervention. [URL]
Ferrell, K. A., Bruce, S., & Luckner, J. L. (2014). Evidence-based practices for students with sensory impairments (Document No. IC-4). University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center. [URL]
Friedner, M., & Block, P. (2023). Recuperating the bad outcome: Reimagining optimal futures beyond Auditory Verbal Therapy and Applied Behavioral Analysis. The Senses and Society, 18 (1), 34–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuoli, M., & Hommerberg, C. (2015). Optimising transparency, reliability and replicability: Annotation principles and inter-coder agreement in the quantification of evaluative expressions. Corpora, 10 (3), 315–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gale, E. (2021). Collaborating with deaf adults in early intervention. Young Exceptional Children, 24 (4), 225–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Napoli, D. J., Padden, C., Rathmann, C., & Smith, S. R. (2012). Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal, 9 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. (2007). Year 2007 position statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics, 120 1, 898–921. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecman, E. (2017). Exploring ‘attitude’ in information for parents of newly identified deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH) children in NSW: An appraisal analysis of two early intervention websites [Unpublished Master thesis]. Macquarie University. DOI logo
(2019). Old challenges, changing contexts: Reviewing and reflecting on information provision for parents of children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Deafness and Education International, ( 1 ), 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kite, B. J. (2020). How the medical professionals impact ASL and English families’ language planning policy. Psychology in the Schools, 57 (3), 402–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knoors, H., & Marschark, M. (Eds.). (2015). Educating deaf learners: Creating a global evidence base. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lane, H. (1995). Constructions of deafness. Disability & Society, 10 (2), 171–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lane, H. L. (1992). The mask of benevolence: Disabling the deaf community. Knopf.Google Scholar
Leigh, G., & Marschark, M. (2016). Recognizing diversity in deaf education: From Paris to Athens with a diversion to Milan. In M. Marschark, V. Lampropoulou, & E. Skordilis (Eds.), Diversity in deaf education (pp. 1–20). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marschark, M., & Spencer, P. (2010). The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave/Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthijs, L., Hardonk, S., Sermijn, J., Van Puyvelde, M., Leigh, G., Van Herreweghe, M., & Loots, G. (2017). Mothers of deaf children in the 21st century. Dynamic positioning between the medical and cultural–linguistic discourses. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 22 (4), 365–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthijs, L., Loots, G., Mouvet, K., Van Herreweghe, M., Hardonk, S., Van Hove, G., & Leigh, G. (2012). First information parents receive after UNHS detection of their baby’s hearing loss. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17 (4), 387–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauldin, L. (2016). Made to hear: Cochlear implants and raising deaf children. University of Minnesota Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moeller, M. P., Carr, G., Seaver, L., Stredler-Brown, A., & Holzinger, D. (2013). Best practices in family-centered early intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing: An international consensus statement. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18 (4), 429–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (2003). The internet: Big pictures and interactors. In L. Gross, J. Katz, & R. Jay (Eds.), Image ethics in the digital age (pp. 1–25). University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Porter, A., Creed, P., Hood, M., & Ching, T. Y. (2018). Parental decision-making and deaf children: A systematic literature review. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 23 (4), 295–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snoddon, K. (2021). “It seemed like if you chose sign language you were going to be punished”: A narrative case study of participant experiences with supporting a deaf child in Ontario early childhood education and care. Deafness & Education International, 23 (4), 276–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soo-Guan Khoo, C., Nourbakhsh, A., & Na, J.-C. (2012). Sentiment analysis of online news text: A case study of appraisal theory. Online Information Review, 36 (6), 858–878. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Su, H. (2016). How products are evaluated? Evaluation in customer review texts. Language Resources and Evaluation, 50 (3), 475–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2014). Principles and guidelines for early intervention after confirmation that a child is deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19 (2), 143–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, A., Carr, G., Hunt, R., McCracken, W., Skipp, A., & Tattersall, H. (2006). Informed choice and deaf children: Underpinning concepts and enduring challenges. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11 (3), 322–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, A., Jones, D., Starmer, C., & Sutherland, H. (2005). Issues and dilemmas in the production of standard information for parents of young deaf children: Parents’ views. Deafness & Education International, 7 (2), 63–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, A., & Temple, B. (2014). Approaches to social research: The case of deaf studies. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar