Gestures Expressed by Children who are Congenitally Deaf-Blind: Topography, Rate, and Function

Bruce, Susan; Mann, Allison; Jones, Chelsea Temple; Gavin, Mary

doi:10.1177/0145482x0710101010

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some individuals with congenital deafblindness are able to develop symbolic communication and language; however, in most cases, communication abilities remain at a pre-symbolic/lingual level [8][9][10].…”

Section: Heterogeneity Of Language and Communication Usementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Delay of communicative development among children and adults with congenital deafblindness is generally characterized as severe [7,8]. Some individuals with congenital deafblindness are able to develop symbolic communication and language; however, in most cases, communication abilities remain at a pre-symbolic/lingual level [8][9][10].…”

Section: Heterogeneity Of Language and Communication Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deafblindness: A review of the literature

Dammeyer

2014

Scand J Public Health

106

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Heterogeneity Of Language and Communication Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Heterogeneity Of Language and Communication Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Deafblindness: A review of the literature

Dammeyer

2014

Scand J Public Health

106

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Deictic gestures are culturally universal (e.g. Blake et al 2005, Liszkowski 2005; Liszkowski et al 2012; Salomo and Liszkowski 2013) and appear in both deaf children who have no language input from signing parents (Goldin-Meadow and Feldman 1977, 1975; Caselli 1983; Acredolo and Goodwyn 1990; Goldin-Meadow 1993, 2002, 2005; Spencer 1993; Iverson et al 1994; Pien 1984; Robinshaw 1996; Lederberg and Everhart 1998; Volterra et al 2006) and blind children who do not get visual input (Moore and McConachie 1994; Preisler 1995; Iverson and Goldin-Meadow 1997; Iverson et al 2000; Bruce et al 2007). The use of deictic gestures predicts language onset and vocabulary in later development, cementing the link between prelinguisitc gesture and language (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A gestural repertoire of 1- to 2-year-old human children: in search of the ape gestures

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When we compare human gestures to those of other apes, it looks at first like there is nothing much to compare at all. In adult humans, gestures are thought to be a window into the thought processes accompanying language, and sign languages are equal to spoken language with all of its features. Some research firmly emphasises the differences between human gestures and those of other apes; however, the question about whether there are any commonalities is rarely investigated, and has mostly been confined to pointing gestures. The gestural repertoires of nonhuman ape species have been carefully studied and described with regard to their form and function-but similar approaches are much rarer in the study of human gestures. This paper applies the methodology commonly used in the study of nonhuman ape gestures to the gestural communication of human children in their second year of life. We recorded (n = 13) children's gestures in a natural setting with peers and caregivers in Germany and Uganda. Children employed 52 distinct gestures, 46 (89%) of which are present in the chimpanzee repertoire. Like chimpanzees, they used them both singly, and in sequences, and employed individual gestures flexibly towards different goals.

show abstract

“…This can be explained by the fact that communication partners' own natural communicative behavior barely contains tactile communication. In addition, the expressive vocabulary of a person with CDB has a personal nature, as has been exemplified by Bruce et al (2007). Gregersen (2018) argues that particularly tactile contact gives a person with CDB sufficient information to share experiences.…”

Section: Critical Reflectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…People with severe vision and hearing loss of congenital origin have very few opportunities to learn cultural language in an informal way. Typical means of communication are not attuned to the (often idiosyncratic) communication of a person with CDB (Bruce et al, 2007). Furthermore, their personal expressions are often not recognized by others (Hart, 2006;Vervloed et al, 2006;Dalby et al, 2009;Nafstad and Rødbroe, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiparty Conversations With People With Congenital Deafblindness: Operationalization, Significance, and Requirements

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Typically developing children are exposed to multiparty communication on a daily basis from birth. This facilitates both group belonging and observational learning. However, involvement in multiparty conversations is not self-evident for people with congenital deafblindness due to their dual sensory impairment. This study explored the added value of multiparty conversations for people with congenital deafblindness by analyzing communication partners' narrations of their experiences. Three focus group sessions were conducted with professionals and relatives (n = 24) of people with congenital deafblindness. These sessions were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using thematic analysis. Participants described the following defining characteristics of multiparty conversations in relation to congenital deafblindness: a minimum of three people involved, with at least one who has congenital deafblindness; awareness of the presence of the other communication partners; attention for the communicative setting; and the use of communication means that are familiar to all communication partners. In their experience, multiparty conversations supported social, emotional, and communication development. Furthermore, focus group participants indicated that spontaneous multiparty conversations with people with congenital deafblindness were scarce and, therefore, needed to be encouraged by communication partners. The participants considered positive beliefs, preparation of the multiparty conversation, repetitions, and a low communication speed as important partner competencies to support the involvement of individuals with congenital deafblindness in multiparty conversations. Accordingly, we recommend the development of an intervention protocol for communication partners to initiate and foster multiparty conversations with people with congenital deafblindness. Another recommendation is to test the effects of MPC on the observational learning of people with congenital deafblindness.

show abstract

Gestures Expressed by Children who are Congenitally Deaf-Blind: Topography, Rate, and Function

Cited by 16 publications

References 19 publications

Deafblindness: A review of the literature

Deafblindness: A review of the literature

A gestural repertoire of 1- to 2-year-old human children: in search of the ape gestures

Multiparty Conversations With People With Congenital Deafblindness: Operationalization, Significance, and Requirements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About