JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS DISORDERS 12 ( Y979), 2 17 - 228
217
SOCIAL CLASS, DEFECTIVE HEARING, AND LAhGUAGE A. P. J. M. VAN DEN HORST* Westelijk Halfrond 449, Amstelveen, Holland
0. W. M. KAMSTRA Pedagogical-Didactic Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Holland
Linguistic behavior of lower class normal-hearing children is less developed than that of higher class children. This study tests the hypothesis that the same applies to hearing defective (h.d.) children. Ninety-six h.d. children were tested with a linguistic ability test. The h.d. children scored lower than normal-hearing children. The lower class h.d. children scored lower than the higher class h.d. children. Within their own class the difference between the higher class h.d. and normal-hearing children was larger than that between lower class h .d. and normal-hearing children.
Introduction Over the past 10 to 15 years much research has been conducted with normaihearing children on the relationship between social class and language. In numerous publications, also in Holland, (e.g., Van Calcar, Kohnstamm, Reesink, De Vries) it emerges that the linguistic behavior of lower class children (l.c. children) is at a disadvantage with respect to higher class children (hc. children). These studies claim that I .c. children can express themselves in a less adequate way compared to h.c. children of the same tge and that 1.c. children can understand many, more subtle and abstract linguis ‘c forms with more difficulty. As a result of this l.c. children are also said to be deficient in the field of “linguistic thinking. ’ ’ This different linguistic ability is considered to be one of the main causes of their lower school achievement in primary education. This would lead to their being hardly considered for higher forms of education, which in turn would result in various social disadvantages (a.o. Williams (1970); Vervoort (1966)). Some investigators, e .g . , Beieiter and Engelmann (1966), considered the language of 1.c. children to be “deprived” or “deficient, ” taking in this case the language of h.c. children or the sc11001requirements as a standard. These two investigators are the exponents of the so-called “deficiency theov. ” The cause
*Address correspondence to: Dr. A. P. J. M. Van Den Horst, Westelijk Halfrond 449, Amstelveen, Holland.
@Elsevier North Holland, Inc., 1979
002 l-9924/79/032 17- 12$0 1.75
A. P. J. M. VAN DEN HORST and 0. W. M KAMSTRA
of the linguistic deficiency, according to these theoreticians, is to be found in r investigators, such as Stewart (1970) and Baratz (1970), who are reto be among the representatives of the “difference theory, ” are of the inion that the language of l.c. children, compared to that of the h .c. children, dejkitwt but different. ccarding to Bernstein ( 1961) the linguistic ability of 1.c. children is potenual to that of h.c. children. In fact they could say the same things, but say it in a different way, appropriate to the linguistic usage of their class. In or class the so-called “restricted code” prevails (Bernstein, 1970). In this code language is used more for direct communications in the interactions, such as commands, cr5mp&nce with a wish and the like, rather than, for ine. for explanation, information, exchange of ideas, etc. In the same line of argument are the opinions of V.d. Geest et al. (1973) who among other things that 1.c. language is in the first instance more like a to achieve a certain effect on the hearer; the developed linguistic habits are diff~~t. That is why certain structural linguistic characteristics are used less softenby I .c. children, though they do know them (c .f. Houston, 1970). Little research has been conducted on the relationship between social class and luggage on children with defective hearing. The question arises whether this relationship also plays a part with them and, if so, which direction do the effects *nt? Is it true that socia! class compensates for, or, on the contrary, reinforces linguistic deficiency in auditory defectives? Could it be possible that the l.c. Language,for instance, can be acquired more easily by children who are seriously tive in their hearing? Or, reflecting about all this a priori-should one arrive opposit,e presumption, that h.c. language is very fruitful for every auditory tive because it offers the opportunity to acquire “more ” language? information on the relationship between social class and language of ive-hearing children are contained in “Defective ‘hearing, school achieveand school choice” (Van den Horst , 197 1). is publication contains a report of a study on defective-hearing kindergarten Wren. somewhat resembling Reesink’s study on normal-hearing children ~~~~D. Reesink investigated a group of normal-hearing l.c. kindergarten chilp of normal-hearing h.c. kindergarten children, to determine in nguistically, their stories, after having seen a short, silent movie, e analogy of Reesink”s study two groups of 5-yr-old defective-hearing
were-matched
in pairs according to sex. age, S.O.NJ-I.Q.,
F.1.”
Oomen Non Verbal Intelligence scale x. The F-1. refers to the mean hearing loss at frequencies 500, 1090 and2000 hing we started from the F.I. on the better ex.
SOCIAL CLASS, DEFECTIVE HEARING, AND LANGUAGE
219
and the period in which their hearing defects became apparent (viz. prehngual). They differed in social class (l.c. vs. h.c.). AS to hearing loss, care was als(J taken that when a child from one group had a hearing aid, his partner from the other group also had one. The length of time they used their hearing aid was also considered. All children were invited to tell a story about a series of pictures. These stories were always recorded on tape. AS .opposed to Reesink’s findings that h.c. children used more complex sentences than l.c. children, Van den Horst’s material produced nothing to support this phenomenon. Almost aI! defective-hearing kindergacen children (M .-F.1 . : 65 dl3>3 from both social class groups were functioning at a low linguistic level. Only two children used a few complex sentences. Of these children one came from the h.c. group and the other came from the l.c. group. Further analysis showed that with each of the two children the hearing loss of the better ear turned out to be relatively moderate (FL: 35 dB) and the nonverbal achievement on the S.O.N. proved to be high. Moreover, it appeared that the parents were interested in linguistic development (they were often reading to them). Reesink aiso found that the rules for various categories of the verbs (person. number, tense, aspect) were observed less closely by l.c. children than by h.J=. children. Also, this finding was not confirmed in Van den Horst’s study. Both investigated groups of defective hearers were poor at this, though h.c. children tend to perform slightly better. A comparative study (Van den Worst, 197 1’ on slight to moderate defective hearers from both social class groups, who h 1 been matched according to age. sex, FL, period in which the defective heari q became apparent (all prelingual) and S.O.N. I.Q. (M*-S.O.N.: 98; IM.-F.I.. 28 dB) however, showed clear tendencies towards the direction of Reesink’s findings. Yet all these “separate” findings do not give a clear answer to the question on the relationships between the three variables; hearing, social class and language. In order to make some progress in the study of their relationship. the study. described below, has been conducted.
Starting Point and Problem The starting point was the linguistic study, conducted by Kohnstamm and his staff in Utrecht on 841 children ranging in age from 4 yr to 7 yr. The purpose of that study was to find out whether children whose parents had the least education showed more linguistic deficiency than children whose parents had higher educa“M. -FI = mean Fletcher Index on the better ear: M -S.O.N.
= mean S.O.N. --I .Q.
A. P. I. M. VAN DEN HORST and 0. W’. M. KAMSTRA
PZO
tion. ‘fie class division on the basis of the educational level of the parents was as
g;,r1ows. only finished primary education. Class II: finished technical school (on an elementary level), school of domestic Class
I:
onomy or a similar vocational training. Class 111:finished secondary modem school or a comparable schooling. Class IV: finished grammar school and all that can follow on this. in this study the material was taken from a number of linguistic exercises, which were later pubiished in the form of the UTANT (Utrecht linguistic level test). This test consists of four subtests: 1. vocabulary 2. analogies and antonyms 3. morphology 4. vocal encoding. * For further information on the UTANT, see manual of this test f Kohnstamm et al., 197 I). The results of this study Kohnstamm c .s. among other things said: “Among these four sociai classes the differences in the scores of the children in the successive age groups from 4 yr, 5 mo up to 7 yr, 5 mo were always about 34 standard deviation. This difference led to the statement that 6-yr-old children from the classof the Iowest educated parents (class I) are 1% yr behind in their ’ ic development, compared to the children1of the same age from class IV ” es, 1970). ifferences in scores were found among the four class groups; in other words T seemed to be sensitive to class influences with ‘normal-hearing kindergarten children, as described by Kohnstam m c .s. hkw the problem can be formulated on two levels viz., &SLY-~~~VC and [email protected]?y
I . Descriptive
Here the problem can be approached in two ways. a Comparison of the social classes with subjec:ts with defective hearing on the
baGsof our data. Will we find the same differences as Kohnstamm C.S. found -&h subjects with normal hearing? b. Comparison of UTANT achievements of subjects with defective hearing with those of normal-hearing subjects. We cannot base this comparison directly on our own data, but we can compare them to Kohnstamm’s standardization. To this end we transpose our raw scores into Kuhnstamm ‘s standard scores.
se subtests are adapted versions of subtests from ttue P.M.I. of Thurstone (Vocabulary) and
1.T.B.A. of Kirk (Am4ogies. Vocal ercoding, a.s.o.1
SOCIAL CLASS, DEFECTIVE HEARING, AND LANGUAGE
221
2. Explanatory If in the comparison mentioned under question 1 .a the same differences are found as in Kohnstamm c.s., then the question arises whether the differences can be ascribed to the social class factor or whether they also can be accounted for by other factors such as intelligence, hearing loss, etc. Measurement Instruments Ne used: 1. The UTANT for linguistic investigation; 2. The S.O.N. to investigate nonverbal intelligence; 3. The tone audiogram: the results are expressed in the Fletcher Index on the better ear.
Subjects The study relates to 96 perceptively auditory defective subjects ages 4 yr up to 6 yr. The subjects with slight hearing defects were recruited from the Municipal Audiological Centre in Amsterdam, the rest from the population of the infants’ departments of the two schools for children with defective hearing in Amsterdam. In order to arrive at this number of subjects, the study had to be extended over a period of a few years. Multiple-handicapped hildren (e.g., defective hearing plus motor disturbances; children of parents Jith severe defective hearing and linguistic peculiarities; and children of recent Imigrants). All subjects were examined especially for this study. Because of the few cases in class group IV (5 children) the four class groups were reduced to three: Class I (26 children), Class II (42 children), Class III and IV, subsequently referred to as Class III (28 children). The hearing loss varies between 20 and 85 dB (on the better ear). The mean age of the children per class group is 5.7 yr.
Results
Problem I a: Differences among social class groups with auditory defectives. Table I shows a survey of the differences among the mean raw UTANT scores of the three social groups. From this it is apparent that similar differences as
222
A. P. J. M. VAN DEN HORST and 0. W. M. KAMSTRA TABLE 1 Mean UTANT Scares of the Three Social Class Groups -_ ._Class I1 Class I 33.7 19.0 8.6 4.0 Il.4
28.9 16.5 7.2 2.6 10.6
Class III 36.3 18.9 9.2 4.5 11.9
found by Kshnstamm C.S. with subjects with normal hearing on the total score and on each of the four subtests, also occur with subjects with auditory defects. Pr6?bler?l I h:
.
Differences between normal-hearing and defective-hearing children. Table 2 gives a survey of the mean UTANT - Z-scores of auditory defective subjects (estimated from the tables in the manual). This applies both to the total scores and to each of the four subtest scores. This survey shows, as could be expected, that the mean Z-score of subjects with defective h/earing is always negative, so, lower than that of subjects with normal hearing (mean = 0). This finding confirms IJsseldijk’s data (1974, pp. 202,203) with relation to children with conductive hearing loss. lMoreover Table II shows that (with the one exception of the subtest ‘morphology”) the mean deviates the more in a negative way as ial class becomes higher.
To what extent can the differences found in UTANT-scores with auditory defective subjects (which turned out to be the same with the differences in the class factor) be accounted for by other factors? What is the relative share of each
it
tor? An initial indication can be found in the correlation matrix (Table 3). From this is apparent that the correlation between UTANT and social class nearly reaches
significance level, Ivhich has been kept low for this exploration (viz. p = and that F.I. correlates more strongly with UTANT scores. This strong latisn between UTANT and F.I. can be interpreted as a direct influence, se the F-1. turns out to show very low nonsignificant correlations with ~-CM- -1-Q. and social class. The correlations between UTANT on the one LQ. and social class on the other hand cannot be interpreted
the
SOCIAL CLASS, DEFECTIVE HEARING, AND LANGUAGE
TABLE 2 Mean UTANT-2 Score of Children with Defective Hearing _--_-__I_Class I Class II UTANT total score Vocabulary Analogies and antonyms Morphology Vocal encoding
- 1.23 -0.37 -- 1.02 -1.20 -0.91
223
Class 111 ---
-1.28 -0.67 - 1.47 - 1.46 - 1.27
-1.73 -1.16 - 1.88 -1.41 -1.39
that easily because of the high mutual correlation with S.03. -1.Q. and social class. In order to get a clear picture it is important to find ou; how strong the correlation between UTANT and S.O.N.4.Q. is, when the “influence” of social class is eliminated. The same is true for the strength of the association between UTANT and social class, in which S.O.N. -1.Q. must be eliminated. One way to for:tn this picture is to calculate the partial correlation. The
coefficients are me&oned in Table 4. Table 4 shows, as could be expected, that the partialing out (holding “constant * ‘) of S .O.N.-I .Q. and social class does not cause any changes in the association between F.I. and UTANT. The F.I. indeed has an independent direct influence on UTANT. Moreover the partialing out of class turns out to have some effect on the association between S.O.N.4.Q. and UTANT, it is true, but this effect does not prove to be significant. This is even more true when this effect is compared with the drastic reduction
TABLE Correlation Coefficient and Their Significa,lce Relatin o the Variables: UTANT. F.I., S.O.N. -1.0. and Social Class x -____UTANT-total
score
F.I. * S.O.N. --IQ. Class -_-
St, dev.
32
17
randP UTANT _--___-_-96 --
147 106
69 13
96 96
0.001 0.038
0.32
0.10 -
96
0.111
0.755
0.003
2 ^~
0.75
N
Class
F.I.
S.O.N.
-0.56
0.21
0.16 -0.03 0.31 --
-
*The F.1.k were multiplied by a factor 3 in order to avoid always being confronted with l/3 or ;S in the calculations, So, F.I. = 147 means a hearing loss of 49 dB . Legend: In the right-hand top triangle the T’S are represented; in the left-hand bottom triangle there are the tail probabilities. Underlined means significant, dotted means “almost” significant; p 6 0.10 we call significant.
A. I’. J. M. VAN DEN HORST and 0. W. M. KAMSTRA
224
TABLE 4 Coefficients of Partial Correlations and Tail Probabilities F-1. “conslant” UTANT x S.O.N. = UTANT x Class = S.0.N. “constant” UTANT x F.I. = LTANT x Class =
0.33 0, = 0.002) 0.17 @ = 0.089) -0.59 @ = 0.001 ) 0.11 (p = 0.309)
ass ’‘constant. LTAW’ x F.I. = UTAh”T x S.O.N. =
-0.56@ = 0.001 0.17 (p = 0.095)
Class _‘constant k”TANT 2: S.O.N. =
0.29 (p = 0.005)
l
F.I.
l l
F-1. and S.O.N. **constant_* CTANT
x Class =
0.08 (p = 0.436)
S.O.N. and Class “constant”
‘e”TANTii F.I. =
-0.59 (p = 0.001)
Significance level is p d 0.10.
on the association between social class and UTANT, caused by the partialing out of S.0.N .-I .Q. Attention should be paid to the tail probabilities. So S .O .N .1-Q. does have an indqendent influence on UTANT, but social class seems to impinge on l”iEANT both via S.O.N.-I-Q. and an own influence. This can be visualizee as in Figure 1.
=,
S.O.N.4.Q.
;
Fig - 1.
The correlation matrix and the coefficients of the partial correlations. Each graph indicates a signkxnt cnrreration between the variables mentioned at the beginning and at the end of the graph, and the direction of the infiuence. It is rather precarious to aim the graphs and in doing this certain presuppositions have been made. First, we have chosen the UTANT as Qrntinus, i.e., as dependent variable. Second, we do accept an influence of social class on S-O-N--1-Q.,but thatwe do not accept the reverse, because of the age of the subjects. As to designing such models, cf. Blalock 197 1.
SOCIAL CLASS, DEFECTIVE HEARING, AND LANGUAGE
0.31
Class
225
=+ S.O.N.-I.Q.
0.11
V UTANT c: Fig. 2.
-0.56
F.I.
F.I. has by far the greatest influence on UTANT, and social class has the smallest, direct, influence via S.O.N.4 .Q. Apart from that, these three variables together account for only 37% of the UTANT variance (The multiple correlation coefficient between UTANT and the independent variables is 0.61; addition of the age variable brings the percentage of variance accounted for to 62%).
The next step, apart from the direction of the influence, is to indicate also its strength by means of path-coefficients. As to F.I. and UTANT these can be calculated from the correlation coefficients and the same is true for social class and SON-I.Q. but as to the other influences, this cannot be done, because of the mutual association between social class and S.O.N.-I.Q. For these coefficients we are dependent on the betas from the multiple regression of UTANT on S .O.N .-I .Q. and social class. These betas indicate the extent in which social class and S.O.N.-I.Q. contribute to the prediction of UTANT scores. In Figure 2 the path-coefficients have been completed. The influence of F.I., S.O.N.-I.Q. ar social class on the UTANT scores is also visualized in Table 5. In this table tl 1 F.I. ‘s have been divided into 3 classes viz, I: F.I. < 40dB (mean 33 dB; S.D. = 16); III: F.I. > 55 dB (mean 74 dI3; S.D. = 22); II: 40 > F.I. < 55 dB. The S.O.N.-I.Q.‘s have also been divided into 3 classes viz. I: S.O.N.-I.Q. < 100; III: S.O.N.-I.Q. > 111 and II: 100 > S.O.N.-I.Q. < 111. The three values of social class have already been introduced earlier in this article. In this table in which the UTANT scores are mentioned, the F.I.-I category is compared with the FL111 category. The F.I.-II category is left out because of the small number of subjects (N = 15). Table 5 shows that F.I. has a very strong influence on the UTANT score. Moreover the influence of social class seems to be stronger in F.I.-I than in FLIII, whereas in both cases the influence of S.0.NJ.Q. seer is to be more or less the same. As a final conclusion it can be ascertained that the UTANT scores of young children with perceptively defective hearing are determined to a large extent by the degree of defective hearing (F.I.) and age, whereas social class and nonverbal intelligence only exert a small influence.
_--m_---
33 32 41
33
I II III
Mean per class category
47
48 33 54
44
42 52 43
40 37 48
gory
Mean per ciass category
I II III
S.O.N. -1.Q.
20
18 34 -
Class I
22
19 20 24
Class II
26
24 20 30
Class III
19 22 26
MeaIl per S.O.N. category
Subject with moderate to severe auditory perception defective (N = 38) V-W--
-I--“---
Subjects with slight to m(~d~ratc auditory pt’rcepno;~ defect (N .-.-4.1) -._-._._____-____ ---m.- ---..P_--S.O.N. -1.Q. Class CliISS Class Mean per I II III S.O.N. cate-
_-_-
TABLE 3 -I .Q., Social C’lassand LJI’ANT ‘l’otulScares of Slightly to Moderately Auditory Defective Subjects to that of Moderately to Scvercly Auditory Defective Subjects
I___. l_--l-_--_-_D_.-
Between SUN.
F.I. -ill (dB = 34)
w .----_I--...-
ofthe Rclutimship
F.I. -I (dB = 33)
Comparison
SOCIAL CLASS, DEFECTIVE HEARING, AND LANGUAGE
227
Discussion 1. On superficial inspection the WANT scores of auditory defectve subjects seem to show similar associations with social class as the on,., found by
Kohnstamm C.S. with subjects with normal hearing. At first sight this does not confirm the results of Van den Horst’s study in 1971 (defective hearing, school achievements and school choice). 2. However, when in the total of the associations examined, we consider the strength of the correlations, social class turns out to have a considerably less strong effect than the other variables. That age plays a significant part may be taken for granted. More important is the strong influence of the differences in defective hearing within the group of defective hearers, which seems to dominate the social class difference. Also the difference in nonverbal intelligence has a stronger effect on the achievements in the UTANT than the social class difference. The modest association, which social class, after elimination of differences in hearing, still proves to have with linguistic achievement, is accounted for the greater part by the fact that the difference in social class goes together with the difference in intelligence. Through this there is a connection with Van den Horst ‘s study ( 197 1) after all, for in this study the subjects were matched in pairs according to S.O.N.-I.Q. (see introduction). 3. The negative influence of hearing loss seems to be so predominant on the acquisition and learning of spoken language, that the well-known “linguistic advantages ” of the higher classes (social classes II-IV versus social class 1) cannot be materialized. Table 2 shows t7 rt higher class hearing-defective children are r-within their own class relative y more handicapped than lower class hearing-defective children. References Baratz, J. C. ( 1970). Teaching reading, in an urban negro school system. In Williams, F. Language and Poverty, Univ. Chicago Press: Chicago, pp. 11-29. Bereiter, C., and S. Engelmann ( 1966). Teaching Disadvantaged Children i’n the Preschool. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Bernstein, B. (1961). Social class and linguistic development. In: Halsey, A. H., Education, Economy und Society. New York, 288-3 14. Bernstein, B. (1970). A sociolinguistic approach to socialization, In F. Williams, Language and Poverty, Chicago, 23-6 1. Blalock, H .M .( 197 1) .Causal Models in the Social Sciences (Hfdstuk 2). New York: Aldine Press. Cools, A. (1970). De relatie tussen kindertaal, milieu en schoolprestaties. Pedag. Stud&n 47:456462.
Geest, T. v. d., R. Gerstel, R. Appel en B. Tervoort. ( 1973). Communicative Competence. Een onderzoek naar de taalvaardigheid van drie sociaal onderscheiden groepen van drie-tot vierjarige kinderen. Ned. T. v. d. Psychologie 28:91- 154.
217
SOCIAL CLASS, DEFECTIVE HEARING, AND LAhGUAGE A. P. J. M. VAN DEN HORST* Westelijk Halfrond 449, Amstelveen, Holland
0. W. M. KAMSTRA Pedagogical-Didactic Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Holland
Linguistic behavior of lower class normal-hearing children is less developed than that of higher class children. This study tests the hypothesis that the same applies to hearing defective (h.d.) children. Ninety-six h.d. children were tested with a linguistic ability test. The h.d. children scored lower than normal-hearing children. The lower class h.d. children scored lower than the higher class h.d. children. Within their own class the difference between the higher class h.d. and normal-hearing children was larger than that between lower class h .d. and normal-hearing children.
Introduction Over the past 10 to 15 years much research has been conducted with normaihearing children on the relationship between social class and language. In numerous publications, also in Holland, (e.g., Van Calcar, Kohnstamm, Reesink, De Vries) it emerges that the linguistic behavior of lower class children (l.c. children) is at a disadvantage with respect to higher class children (hc. children). These studies claim that I .c. children can express themselves in a less adequate way compared to h.c. children of the same tge and that 1.c. children can understand many, more subtle and abstract linguis ‘c forms with more difficulty. As a result of this l.c. children are also said to be deficient in the field of “linguistic thinking. ’ ’ This different linguistic ability is considered to be one of the main causes of their lower school achievement in primary education. This would lead to their being hardly considered for higher forms of education, which in turn would result in various social disadvantages (a.o. Williams (1970); Vervoort (1966)). Some investigators, e .g . , Beieiter and Engelmann (1966), considered the language of 1.c. children to be “deprived” or “deficient, ” taking in this case the language of h.c. children or the sc11001requirements as a standard. These two investigators are the exponents of the so-called “deficiency theov. ” The cause
*Address correspondence to: Dr. A. P. J. M. Van Den Horst, Westelijk Halfrond 449, Amstelveen, Holland.
@Elsevier North Holland, Inc., 1979
002 l-9924/79/032 17- 12$0 1.75
A. P. J. M. VAN DEN HORST and 0. W. M KAMSTRA
of the linguistic deficiency, according to these theoreticians, is to be found in r investigators, such as Stewart (1970) and Baratz (1970), who are reto be among the representatives of the “difference theory, ” are of the inion that the language of l.c. children, compared to that of the h .c. children, dejkitwt but different. ccarding to Bernstein ( 1961) the linguistic ability of 1.c. children is potenual to that of h.c. children. In fact they could say the same things, but say it in a different way, appropriate to the linguistic usage of their class. In or class the so-called “restricted code” prevails (Bernstein, 1970). In this code language is used more for direct communications in the interactions, such as commands, cr5mp&nce with a wish and the like, rather than, for ine. for explanation, information, exchange of ideas, etc. In the same line of argument are the opinions of V.d. Geest et al. (1973) who among other things that 1.c. language is in the first instance more like a to achieve a certain effect on the hearer; the developed linguistic habits are diff~~t. That is why certain structural linguistic characteristics are used less softenby I .c. children, though they do know them (c .f. Houston, 1970). Little research has been conducted on the relationship between social class and luggage on children with defective hearing. The question arises whether this relationship also plays a part with them and, if so, which direction do the effects *nt? Is it true that socia! class compensates for, or, on the contrary, reinforces linguistic deficiency in auditory defectives? Could it be possible that the l.c. Language,for instance, can be acquired more easily by children who are seriously tive in their hearing? Or, reflecting about all this a priori-should one arrive opposit,e presumption, that h.c. language is very fruitful for every auditory tive because it offers the opportunity to acquire “more ” language? information on the relationship between social class and language of ive-hearing children are contained in “Defective ‘hearing, school achieveand school choice” (Van den Horst , 197 1). is publication contains a report of a study on defective-hearing kindergarten Wren. somewhat resembling Reesink’s study on normal-hearing children ~~~~D. Reesink investigated a group of normal-hearing l.c. kindergarten chilp of normal-hearing h.c. kindergarten children, to determine in nguistically, their stories, after having seen a short, silent movie, e analogy of Reesink”s study two groups of 5-yr-old defective-hearing
were-matched
in pairs according to sex. age, S.O.NJ-I.Q.,
F.1.”
Oomen Non Verbal Intelligence scale x. The F-1. refers to the mean hearing loss at frequencies 500, 1090 and2000 hing we started from the F.I. on the better ex.
SOCIAL CLASS, DEFECTIVE HEARING, AND LANGUAGE
219
and the period in which their hearing defects became apparent (viz. prehngual). They differed in social class (l.c. vs. h.c.). AS to hearing loss, care was als(J taken that when a child from one group had a hearing aid, his partner from the other group also had one. The length of time they used their hearing aid was also considered. All children were invited to tell a story about a series of pictures. These stories were always recorded on tape. AS .opposed to Reesink’s findings that h.c. children used more complex sentences than l.c. children, Van den Horst’s material produced nothing to support this phenomenon. Almost aI! defective-hearing kindergacen children (M .-F.1 . : 65 dl3>3 from both social class groups were functioning at a low linguistic level. Only two children used a few complex sentences. Of these children one came from the h.c. group and the other came from the l.c. group. Further analysis showed that with each of the two children the hearing loss of the better ear turned out to be relatively moderate (FL: 35 dB) and the nonverbal achievement on the S.O.N. proved to be high. Moreover, it appeared that the parents were interested in linguistic development (they were often reading to them). Reesink aiso found that the rules for various categories of the verbs (person. number, tense, aspect) were observed less closely by l.c. children than by h.J=. children. Also, this finding was not confirmed in Van den Horst’s study. Both investigated groups of defective hearers were poor at this, though h.c. children tend to perform slightly better. A comparative study (Van den Worst, 197 1’ on slight to moderate defective hearers from both social class groups, who h 1 been matched according to age. sex, FL, period in which the defective heari q became apparent (all prelingual) and S.O.N. I.Q. (M*-S.O.N.: 98; IM.-F.I.. 28 dB) however, showed clear tendencies towards the direction of Reesink’s findings. Yet all these “separate” findings do not give a clear answer to the question on the relationships between the three variables; hearing, social class and language. In order to make some progress in the study of their relationship. the study. described below, has been conducted.
Starting Point and Problem The starting point was the linguistic study, conducted by Kohnstamm and his staff in Utrecht on 841 children ranging in age from 4 yr to 7 yr. The purpose of that study was to find out whether children whose parents had the least education showed more linguistic deficiency than children whose parents had higher educa“M. -FI = mean Fletcher Index on the better ear: M -S.O.N.
= mean S.O.N. --I .Q.
A. P. I. M. VAN DEN HORST and 0. W’. M. KAMSTRA
PZO
tion. ‘fie class division on the basis of the educational level of the parents was as
g;,r1ows. only finished primary education. Class II: finished technical school (on an elementary level), school of domestic Class
I:
onomy or a similar vocational training. Class 111:finished secondary modem school or a comparable schooling. Class IV: finished grammar school and all that can follow on this. in this study the material was taken from a number of linguistic exercises, which were later pubiished in the form of the UTANT (Utrecht linguistic level test). This test consists of four subtests: 1. vocabulary 2. analogies and antonyms 3. morphology 4. vocal encoding. * For further information on the UTANT, see manual of this test f Kohnstamm et al., 197 I). The results of this study Kohnstamm c .s. among other things said: “Among these four sociai classes the differences in the scores of the children in the successive age groups from 4 yr, 5 mo up to 7 yr, 5 mo were always about 34 standard deviation. This difference led to the statement that 6-yr-old children from the classof the Iowest educated parents (class I) are 1% yr behind in their ’ ic development, compared to the children1of the same age from class IV ” es, 1970). ifferences in scores were found among the four class groups; in other words T seemed to be sensitive to class influences with ‘normal-hearing kindergarten children, as described by Kohnstam m c .s. hkw the problem can be formulated on two levels viz., &SLY-~~~VC and [email protected]?y
I . Descriptive
Here the problem can be approached in two ways. a Comparison of the social classes with subjec:ts with defective hearing on the
baGsof our data. Will we find the same differences as Kohnstamm C.S. found -&h subjects with normal hearing? b. Comparison of UTANT achievements of subjects with defective hearing with those of normal-hearing subjects. We cannot base this comparison directly on our own data, but we can compare them to Kohnstamm’s standardization. To this end we transpose our raw scores into Kuhnstamm ‘s standard scores.
se subtests are adapted versions of subtests from ttue P.M.I. of Thurstone (Vocabulary) and
1.T.B.A. of Kirk (Am4ogies. Vocal ercoding, a.s.o.1
SOCIAL CLASS, DEFECTIVE HEARING, AND LANGUAGE
221
2. Explanatory If in the comparison mentioned under question 1 .a the same differences are found as in Kohnstamm c.s., then the question arises whether the differences can be ascribed to the social class factor or whether they also can be accounted for by other factors such as intelligence, hearing loss, etc. Measurement Instruments Ne used: 1. The UTANT for linguistic investigation; 2. The S.O.N. to investigate nonverbal intelligence; 3. The tone audiogram: the results are expressed in the Fletcher Index on the better ear.
Subjects The study relates to 96 perceptively auditory defective subjects ages 4 yr up to 6 yr. The subjects with slight hearing defects were recruited from the Municipal Audiological Centre in Amsterdam, the rest from the population of the infants’ departments of the two schools for children with defective hearing in Amsterdam. In order to arrive at this number of subjects, the study had to be extended over a period of a few years. Multiple-handicapped hildren (e.g., defective hearing plus motor disturbances; children of parents Jith severe defective hearing and linguistic peculiarities; and children of recent Imigrants). All subjects were examined especially for this study. Because of the few cases in class group IV (5 children) the four class groups were reduced to three: Class I (26 children), Class II (42 children), Class III and IV, subsequently referred to as Class III (28 children). The hearing loss varies between 20 and 85 dB (on the better ear). The mean age of the children per class group is 5.7 yr.
Results
Problem I a: Differences among social class groups with auditory defectives. Table I shows a survey of the differences among the mean raw UTANT scores of the three social groups. From this it is apparent that similar differences as
222
A. P. J. M. VAN DEN HORST and 0. W. M. KAMSTRA TABLE 1 Mean UTANT Scares of the Three Social Class Groups -_ ._Class I1 Class I 33.7 19.0 8.6 4.0 Il.4
28.9 16.5 7.2 2.6 10.6
Class III 36.3 18.9 9.2 4.5 11.9
found by Kshnstamm C.S. with subjects with normal hearing on the total score and on each of the four subtests, also occur with subjects with auditory defects. Pr6?bler?l I h:
.
Differences between normal-hearing and defective-hearing children. Table 2 gives a survey of the mean UTANT - Z-scores of auditory defective subjects (estimated from the tables in the manual). This applies both to the total scores and to each of the four subtest scores. This survey shows, as could be expected, that the mean Z-score of subjects with defective h/earing is always negative, so, lower than that of subjects with normal hearing (mean = 0). This finding confirms IJsseldijk’s data (1974, pp. 202,203) with relation to children with conductive hearing loss. lMoreover Table II shows that (with the one exception of the subtest ‘morphology”) the mean deviates the more in a negative way as ial class becomes higher.
To what extent can the differences found in UTANT-scores with auditory defective subjects (which turned out to be the same with the differences in the class factor) be accounted for by other factors? What is the relative share of each
it
tor? An initial indication can be found in the correlation matrix (Table 3). From this is apparent that the correlation between UTANT and social class nearly reaches
significance level, Ivhich has been kept low for this exploration (viz. p = and that F.I. correlates more strongly with UTANT scores. This strong latisn between UTANT and F.I. can be interpreted as a direct influence, se the F-1. turns out to show very low nonsignificant correlations with ~-CM- -1-Q. and social class. The correlations between UTANT on the one LQ. and social class on the other hand cannot be interpreted
the
SOCIAL CLASS, DEFECTIVE HEARING, AND LANGUAGE
TABLE 2 Mean UTANT-2 Score of Children with Defective Hearing _--_-__I_Class I Class II UTANT total score Vocabulary Analogies and antonyms Morphology Vocal encoding
- 1.23 -0.37 -- 1.02 -1.20 -0.91
223
Class 111 ---
-1.28 -0.67 - 1.47 - 1.46 - 1.27
-1.73 -1.16 - 1.88 -1.41 -1.39
that easily because of the high mutual correlation with S.03. -1.Q. and social class. In order to get a clear picture it is important to find ou; how strong the correlation between UTANT and S.O.N.4.Q. is, when the “influence” of social class is eliminated. The same is true for the strength of the association between UTANT and social class, in which S.O.N. -1.Q. must be eliminated. One way to for:tn this picture is to calculate the partial correlation. The
coefficients are me&oned in Table 4. Table 4 shows, as could be expected, that the partialing out (holding “constant * ‘) of S .O.N.-I .Q. and social class does not cause any changes in the association between F.I. and UTANT. The F.I. indeed has an independent direct influence on UTANT. Moreover the partialing out of class turns out to have some effect on the association between S.O.N.4.Q. and UTANT, it is true, but this effect does not prove to be significant. This is even more true when this effect is compared with the drastic reduction
TABLE Correlation Coefficient and Their Significa,lce Relatin o the Variables: UTANT. F.I., S.O.N. -1.0. and Social Class x -____UTANT-total
score
F.I. * S.O.N. --IQ. Class -_-
St, dev.
32
17
randP UTANT _--___-_-96 --
147 106
69 13
96 96
0.001 0.038
0.32
0.10 -
96
0.111
0.755
0.003
2 ^~
0.75
N
Class
F.I.
S.O.N.
-0.56
0.21
0.16 -0.03 0.31 --
-
*The F.1.k were multiplied by a factor 3 in order to avoid always being confronted with l/3 or ;S in the calculations, So, F.I. = 147 means a hearing loss of 49 dB . Legend: In the right-hand top triangle the T’S are represented; in the left-hand bottom triangle there are the tail probabilities. Underlined means significant, dotted means “almost” significant; p 6 0.10 we call significant.
A. I’. J. M. VAN DEN HORST and 0. W. M. KAMSTRA
224
TABLE 4 Coefficients of Partial Correlations and Tail Probabilities F-1. “conslant” UTANT x S.O.N. = UTANT x Class = S.0.N. “constant” UTANT x F.I. = LTANT x Class =
0.33 0, = 0.002) 0.17 @ = 0.089) -0.59 @ = 0.001 ) 0.11 (p = 0.309)
ass ’‘constant. LTAW’ x F.I. = UTAh”T x S.O.N. =
-0.56@ = 0.001 0.17 (p = 0.095)
Class _‘constant k”TANT 2: S.O.N. =
0.29 (p = 0.005)
l
F.I.
l l
F-1. and S.O.N. **constant_* CTANT
x Class =
0.08 (p = 0.436)
S.O.N. and Class “constant”
‘e”TANTii F.I. =
-0.59 (p = 0.001)
Significance level is p d 0.10.
on the association between social class and UTANT, caused by the partialing out of S.0.N .-I .Q. Attention should be paid to the tail probabilities. So S .O .N .1-Q. does have an indqendent influence on UTANT, but social class seems to impinge on l”iEANT both via S.O.N.-I-Q. and an own influence. This can be visualizee as in Figure 1.
=,
S.O.N.4.Q.
;
Fig - 1.
The correlation matrix and the coefficients of the partial correlations. Each graph indicates a signkxnt cnrreration between the variables mentioned at the beginning and at the end of the graph, and the direction of the infiuence. It is rather precarious to aim the graphs and in doing this certain presuppositions have been made. First, we have chosen the UTANT as Qrntinus, i.e., as dependent variable. Second, we do accept an influence of social class on S-O-N--1-Q.,but thatwe do not accept the reverse, because of the age of the subjects. As to designing such models, cf. Blalock 197 1.
SOCIAL CLASS, DEFECTIVE HEARING, AND LANGUAGE
0.31
Class
225
=+ S.O.N.-I.Q.
0.11
V UTANT c: Fig. 2.
-0.56
F.I.
F.I. has by far the greatest influence on UTANT, and social class has the smallest, direct, influence via S.O.N.4 .Q. Apart from that, these three variables together account for only 37% of the UTANT variance (The multiple correlation coefficient between UTANT and the independent variables is 0.61; addition of the age variable brings the percentage of variance accounted for to 62%).
The next step, apart from the direction of the influence, is to indicate also its strength by means of path-coefficients. As to F.I. and UTANT these can be calculated from the correlation coefficients and the same is true for social class and SON-I.Q. but as to the other influences, this cannot be done, because of the mutual association between social class and S.O.N.-I.Q. For these coefficients we are dependent on the betas from the multiple regression of UTANT on S .O.N .-I .Q. and social class. These betas indicate the extent in which social class and S.O.N.-I.Q. contribute to the prediction of UTANT scores. In Figure 2 the path-coefficients have been completed. The influence of F.I., S.O.N.-I.Q. ar social class on the UTANT scores is also visualized in Table 5. In this table tl 1 F.I. ‘s have been divided into 3 classes viz, I: F.I. < 40dB (mean 33 dB; S.D. = 16); III: F.I. > 55 dB (mean 74 dI3; S.D. = 22); II: 40 > F.I. < 55 dB. The S.O.N.-I.Q.‘s have also been divided into 3 classes viz. I: S.O.N.-I.Q. < 100; III: S.O.N.-I.Q. > 111 and II: 100 > S.O.N.-I.Q. < 111. The three values of social class have already been introduced earlier in this article. In this table in which the UTANT scores are mentioned, the F.I.-I category is compared with the FL111 category. The F.I.-II category is left out because of the small number of subjects (N = 15). Table 5 shows that F.I. has a very strong influence on the UTANT score. Moreover the influence of social class seems to be stronger in F.I.-I than in FLIII, whereas in both cases the influence of S.0.NJ.Q. seer is to be more or less the same. As a final conclusion it can be ascertained that the UTANT scores of young children with perceptively defective hearing are determined to a large extent by the degree of defective hearing (F.I.) and age, whereas social class and nonverbal intelligence only exert a small influence.
_--m_---
33 32 41
33
I II III
Mean per class category
47
48 33 54
44
42 52 43
40 37 48
gory
Mean per ciass category
I II III
S.O.N. -1.Q.
20
18 34 -
Class I
22
19 20 24
Class II
26
24 20 30
Class III
19 22 26
MeaIl per S.O.N. category
Subject with moderate to severe auditory perception defective (N = 38) V-W--
-I--“---
Subjects with slight to m(~d~ratc auditory pt’rcepno;~ defect (N .-.-4.1) -._-._._____-____ ---m.- ---..P_--S.O.N. -1.Q. Class CliISS Class Mean per I II III S.O.N. cate-
_-_-
TABLE 3 -I .Q., Social C’lassand LJI’ANT ‘l’otulScares of Slightly to Moderately Auditory Defective Subjects to that of Moderately to Scvercly Auditory Defective Subjects
I___. l_--l-_--_-_D_.-
Between SUN.
F.I. -ill (dB = 34)
w .----_I--...-
ofthe Rclutimship
F.I. -I (dB = 33)
Comparison
SOCIAL CLASS, DEFECTIVE HEARING, AND LANGUAGE
227
Discussion 1. On superficial inspection the WANT scores of auditory defectve subjects seem to show similar associations with social class as the on,., found by
Kohnstamm C.S. with subjects with normal hearing. At first sight this does not confirm the results of Van den Horst’s study in 1971 (defective hearing, school achievements and school choice). 2. However, when in the total of the associations examined, we consider the strength of the correlations, social class turns out to have a considerably less strong effect than the other variables. That age plays a significant part may be taken for granted. More important is the strong influence of the differences in defective hearing within the group of defective hearers, which seems to dominate the social class difference. Also the difference in nonverbal intelligence has a stronger effect on the achievements in the UTANT than the social class difference. The modest association, which social class, after elimination of differences in hearing, still proves to have with linguistic achievement, is accounted for the greater part by the fact that the difference in social class goes together with the difference in intelligence. Through this there is a connection with Van den Horst ‘s study ( 197 1) after all, for in this study the subjects were matched in pairs according to S.O.N.-I.Q. (see introduction). 3. The negative influence of hearing loss seems to be so predominant on the acquisition and learning of spoken language, that the well-known “linguistic advantages ” of the higher classes (social classes II-IV versus social class 1) cannot be materialized. Table 2 shows t7 rt higher class hearing-defective children are r-within their own class relative y more handicapped than lower class hearing-defective children. References Baratz, J. C. ( 1970). Teaching reading, in an urban negro school system. In Williams, F. Language and Poverty, Univ. Chicago Press: Chicago, pp. 11-29. Bereiter, C., and S. Engelmann ( 1966). Teaching Disadvantaged Children i’n the Preschool. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Bernstein, B. (1961). Social class and linguistic development. In: Halsey, A. H., Education, Economy und Society. New York, 288-3 14. Bernstein, B. (1970). A sociolinguistic approach to socialization, In F. Williams, Language and Poverty, Chicago, 23-6 1. Blalock, H .M .( 197 1) .Causal Models in the Social Sciences (Hfdstuk 2). New York: Aldine Press. Cools, A. (1970). De relatie tussen kindertaal, milieu en schoolprestaties. Pedag. Stud&n 47:456462.
Geest, T. v. d., R. Gerstel, R. Appel en B. Tervoort. ( 1973). Communicative Competence. Een onderzoek naar de taalvaardigheid van drie sociaal onderscheiden groepen van drie-tot vierjarige kinderen. Ned. T. v. d. Psychologie 28:91- 154.
