Cover not available
Part of
Understanding Deafness, Language and Cognitive Development: Essays in honour of Bencie Woll
Edited by Gary Morgan
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 25] 2020
► pp. 93–113

Chapter 6
Age of acquisition effects in language development

The most accessible language for deaf children is generally a sign language, but few children have input in sign languages early in life. Late first-language acquisition of a sign language reveals age of acquisition effects that must be taken into consideration by linguistic theories of acquisition. When deaf children access spoken language through a cochlear implant, age of acquisition effects can again be seen, and the presence or absence of sign language is an important factor in language outcomes. Finally, the development of a sign language as a second language in unique contexts such as that of Christopher, a polyglot savant, can reveal more about the nature of language development and the theories of language structure that must be posited.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Language domains and critical period effects
    • 2.2Modality effects and age effects
  • 3.Late L1 acquisition of sign languages
  • 4.Deaf children with cochlear implants
  • 5.Sign language acquisition in an atypical case: What Christopher can tell us
    • The evidence: Christopher’s signed and spoken languages
  • 6.Conclusions and implications
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.25.06lil
References (63)
References
Anderson, D., & Reilly, J. (2002). The MacArthur communicative development inventory: Normative data for American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7(2), 83–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. (2008). The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In T. Biberauer (Ed.), The limits of syntactic variation (pp.351–373). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berk, S. (2003). Sensitive period effects on the acquisition of language: A study of language development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Berk, S., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2012). The two-word stage: Motivated by linguistic or cognitive constraints? Cognitive Psychology 65, 118–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. (2008). Doubling vs. omission: Insights from Afrikaans negation. In S. Barbiers, O. Koeneman, M. Lekakou, & M. van der Ham (Eds.), Microvariations in syntactic doubling (pp.103–140). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Boudreault, P., & Mayberry, R. (2006). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 21(5), 608–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruijnzeel, H., Ziylan, F., Stegeman, I., Topsakal, V., & Grolman, W. (2016). A systematic review to define the speech and language benefit of early (<12 months) pediatric cochlear implantation. Audiology and Neurotology 21, 113–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R., MacSweeney, M. & Woll, B. (2014). Cochlear implantation (CI) for prelingual deafness: The relevance of studies of brain organization and the role of first language acquisition in considering outcome success. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 834. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caselli, N., Hall, W. & Lillo-Martin, D. (2017). Operationalization and measurement of sign language. (Commentary on paper by Ann Geers et al.) Pediatrics 140(5), e20172655B. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen Pichler, D. (2012). Language acquisition. In R. Pfau, B. Woll & M. Steinbach (Eds.), Sign language: An international handbook (pp.647–686). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen Pichler, D., & Koulidobrova, E. (2015). Acquisition of sign language as a second language. In M. Marschark (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies in language: Research, policy and practice (pp.218–230). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen Pichler, D., Kuntze, M., Lillo-Martin, D., de Quadros, R. M., & Stumpf, M. (2018). Sign language acquisition by deaf and hearing children: A bilingual introduction. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Cormier, K., Schembri, A., Vinson, D., & Orfanidou, E. (2012). First language acquisition differs from second language acquisition in prelingually deaf signers: Evidence from sensitivity to grammaticality judgement in British Sign Language. Cognition 124, 50–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curtiss, S., Fromkin, V., Krashen, S., Rigler, D., & Rigler, M. (1974). The linguistic development of Genie. Language 50(3): 528–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, K., Lillo-Martin, D., & Chen Pichler, D. (2014). Spoken English language development among native signing children with cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19(2), 238–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dodd, B. (1979). Lip reading in infants: Attention to speech presented in-and out-of-synchrony. Cognitive Psychology 11, 478–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K. (Ed.). (2003). Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K., Bellugi, U., Friederici, A. & Horn, P. (1995). Effects of age of acquisition on grammatical sensitivity: Evidence from on-line and off-line tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics 16(1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferjan Ramirez, N., Lieberman, A., & Mayberry, R. (2013). The initial stages of first-language acquisition begun in adolescence: When late looks early. Journal of Child Language 40(2), 391–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flege, J., Yeni-Komshian, G., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language 41, 78–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geers, A., Mitchell, C., Warner-Czyz, A., Wang, N., & Eisenberg, L. (2017). Early sign language exposure and cochlear implantation benefits. Pediatrics 140, 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, H. (2012). Symmetry breaking in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hassanzadeh, S. (2012). Outcomes of cochlear implantation in deaf children of deaf parents: Comparative study. The Journal of Laryngology & Otology 126(10), 989–994. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research 22, 269–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiménez, M., Pino, M., & Herruzo, J. (2009). A comparative study of speech development between deaf children with cochlear implants who have been educated with spoken or spoken+sign language. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 73, 109–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology 21(1), 60–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroffke, S., & Rothweiler, M. (2006). Variation im frühen Zweitspracherwerb des Deutschen durch Kinder mit türkischer Erstsprache. In M. Vliegen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 39th Linguistics Colloquium (pp.145–153). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research 14, 359–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levine, D., Strother-Garcia, K., Golinkoff, R., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2016). Language development in the first year of life: What deaf children might be missing before Cochlear implantation. Otology & Neurotology 37(2), e56–e62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D., & Meier, R. (2011). On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics 37, 95–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyness, C., Woll, B., Campbell, R., & Cardin, V. (2013). How does visual language affect crossmodal plasticity and cochlear implant success? Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 37, 2621–2630. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massaro, D., & Simpson, J. (1987). Speech perception by ear and eye: A paradigm for psychological inquiry. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. (2010). Early language acquisition and adult language ability: What sign language reveals about the critical period for language. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education (Vol. 2; pp.281–290). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R., & Kluender, R. (2018). Rethinking the critical period for language: New insights into an old question from American Sign Language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 21, 886–905. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meier, R., & Newport, E. (1990). Out of the hands of babes: On a possible sign advantage in language acquisition. Language 66,1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meier, R., Cormier, K., & Quinto-Pozos, D. (Eds.). (2002). Modality and structure in signed language and spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meier, R., Mauk, C., Cheek, A., & Moreland, C. (2008). The form of children’s early signs: Iconic or motoric determinants? Language Learning and Development 4, 393–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R., & Karchmer, M. (2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies 4(2), 138–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moon, C., Cooper, R., & Fifer, W. (1993). Two-day-olds prefer their native language. Infant Behav. Dev. 16, 495–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morford, J. (2003). Grammatical development in adolescent first-language learners. Linguistics 41(4), 681–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morford, J., & Mayberry, R. (2000). A reexamination of “Early Exposure” and its implications for language acquisition by eye. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp.111–128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science 14(1): 11–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niparko, J., Tobey, E., Thal, D., Eisenberg, L., Wang, N.-Y., Quittner, A., & Fink, N. (2010). Spoken language development in children following cochlear implantation. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 303(15), 1498–1506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, N., & Hermelin, B. (1991). A specific linguistic ability. American Journal on Mental Retardation 95, 673–680.Google Scholar
Padden, C. (1983). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Partanen, E., Kujala, T., Näätänen, R., Liitola, A., Sambeth, A., & Huotilainen, M. (2013). Learning-induced neural plasticity of speech processing before birth. PNAS 110, 15145–15150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, N., Pisoni, D., & Miyamoto, R. (2010). Cochlear implants and spoken language processing abilities: Review and assessment of the literature. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 28, 237–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I., & Holmberg, A. (2010). Introduction. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts, & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory (pp.1–56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schick, B. (1990). The effects of morphosyntactic structure on the acquisition of classifier predicates in ASL. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues (pp.358–374). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (2009). Unraveling inflection in child L2 development. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère 1(1), 63–88.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I., Hoiting, N., Kuntze, M., Lindert, R., Weinberg, A., Pyers, J., et al. (2003). A cognitive/functional perspective on the acquisition of “classifiers”. In K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp.271–296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Smith, N. (2002). Jackdaws, sex and language acquisition. In Language, bananas and bonobos: Linguistic problems, puzzles and polemics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2005). Backlash. In Language, frogs and savants: More linguistic problems, puzzles and polemics. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, N., & Tsimpli, I. (1995). The mind of a savant: Language-learning and modularity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smith, N., Tsimpli, I., Morgan, G., & Woll, B. (2011). The signs of a savant: Language against the odds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stone, A., Petitto, L.-A., & Bosworth, R. (2017). Visual sonority modulates infants’ attraction to sign language. Language Learning and Development 14, 130–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. (2014). Early, late or very late? Timing acquisition and bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4(3), 283–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from Wh-interrogatives in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research 23, 215–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werker, J., & Tees, R. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development 7(1), 49–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woll, B., & Morgan, G. (2002). Conclusions and directions for future research. In G. Morgan & B. Woll (Eds.), Directions in sign language acquisition (pp.291–299). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2009). Universal newborn hearing screening programs and developmental outcomes. Audiological Medicine 1, 199–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, A., & Tattersall, H. (2007). Universal newborn hearing screening and early identification of deafness: Parents’ responses to knowing early and their expectations of child communication development. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 12, 209–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Göksun, Tilbe, Aslı Aktan‐Erciyes, Dilay Z. Karadöller & Ö. Ece Demir‐Lira
2024. The multifaceted nature of early vocabulary development: Connecting children's characteristics with parental input types. Child Development Perspectives DOI logo
Karabüklü, Serpil & Aslı Gürer
2024. Prosody of focus in Turkish Sign Language. Language and Cognition ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.