Through the process of distancing, children develop an understanding of the differences between themselves and others, themselves and objects, and objects and representations. Adults can support progressive distancing in children who are congenitally deaf-blind by applying strategies, such as the hand-under-hand exploration of objects, the selection of communication forms that are based on children's level of representation, the use of cues for recall that are based on children's experiences, and modeling of more complex play schemes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnisfeldM. (1984). Development of the symbolic function. In AnisfeldM. (Ed.), Language development from birth to three (pp. 19–65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum.
2.
BloomL. (1993). The transition to language. In BloomL. (Ed.), The transition from infancy to language: Acquiring the power of expression (pp. 79–109). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BornsteinM., & Tamis-LeMondaC. (1995). Parent-child symbolic play: Three theories in search of an effect. Developmental Review, 15, 382–400.
4.
BrunerJ. (1990). Acts of meaning.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
CockingR., & RenningerK. A. (1993). Psychological distance as a unifying theory of development. In CockingR., & RenningerK. A. (Eds.), The development and meaning of psychological distance.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
DeaconT. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain.New York: W. W. Norton.
7.
FewellR. R., & RichJ. (1987). Play assessment as a procedure for examining cognitive, communication, and social skills in multi-handicapped children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2, 107–118.
8.
FinnD. M., & FewellR. R. (1994). The use of play assessment to examine the development of communication skills in children who are deaf-blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 88, 349–356.
9.
FinnD., FewellR., & VadasyP. (1988). The play of young children who have dual sensory impairments. In BullisM., & FieldingM. (Eds.), Communication development in young children with deafblindness: Literature review (pp. 149–163). Monmouth: Teaching Research Division, Oregon State System of Higher Education.
10.
FriedmanC. T., & ChenD. (1990). Assessing interaction with objects: Parents and visually impaired infants.Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.
11.
FurthH. (1996). Human mind in human society. Human Development, 39, 264–268.
12.
GolinkoffR. M., & Hirsh-PasekK. (2000). Word learning: Icon, index, or symbol? In GolinkoffR. M., Hirsch-PasekK., BloomL., SmithL. B., WoodwardA. L., AkhtonN., TomaselloM., & HollichG., Becoming a word learner: A debate on lexical acquisition.New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
HaightW., & MillerP. (1992). The development of everyday pretend play: A longitudinal study of mothers’ participation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 331–349.
14.
HobsonP. (1993). Through feeling and sign to self and symbol. In NeisserU. (Ed.), The perceived self: Ecological and interpersonal sources of self-knowledge (pp. 254–279). New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
HuebnerK. M., JoffeeE., PrickettJ. G., & WelchT. R. (Eds.). (1995). Hand in hand: It can be done.New York: AFB Press.
16.
HughesF. (1998). Play in special populations. In SarachoO., & SpodekB. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education (pp. 171–193). Albany: State University of New York Press.
17.
KennedyM., SheridanM., RadlinskiS., & BeeghlyM. (1991). Play-language relationships in young children with developmental delays: Implications for assessment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 112–122.
18.
MacFarlandS. Z. C. (1995). Teaching strategies of the Van Dijk curricular approach. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 89, 222–228.
19.
McInnesJ. M., & TreffryJ. A. (1982). Deaf-blind infants and children: A developmental guide.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
20.
MilesB. (1998). Talking the language of the hands to the hands: The importance of hands for the person who is deaf-blind. National Clearinghouse on Children Who Are Deaf-Blind [Online]. Available: http://www.tr.wou.edu/dblink/hands2.htm
21.
MilesB., & RiggioM. (1999). Remarkable conversations: A guide to developing meaningful communication with children and young adults who are deafblind.Watertown, MA: Perkins School for the Blind.
22.
MullerU., & RunionsK. (2003). The origins of understanding self and other: James Mark Baldwin's theory. Developmental Review, 23(1), 29–54.
23.
NelsonC., & Van DijkJ. (2002). Child-guided strategies for assessing children who are deaf-blind or have multiple disabilities [CD-ROM]. The Netherlands: Aap Noot Muis.
24.
NelsonK., & ShawL. (2002). Developing a socially shared symbolic system. In AmselE., & ByrnesJ. (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development: The development and consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 27–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
ParkK. (1997). How do objects become objects of reference: A review of the literature on objects of reference and a proposed model for the use of objects in communication. British Journal of Special Education, 24, 108–114.
26.
PenningtonG., LloydL., & WallisJ. (1991). Augmentative and alternative communication: The preschool child with severe disabilities. In CipaniE. (Ed.), A guide to developing language competence in preschool children with severe and moderate handicaps (pp. 111–161). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
27.
PreislerG. M. (1995). The development of communication in blind and in deaf infants—similarities and differences. Child: Care, Health and Development, 21, 79–110.
28.
RogersS., & PuchalskiC. (1984). Development of symbolic play in visually impaired young children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 3(4), 57–63.
29.
RowlandC., & SchweigertP. (2000a). Tangible symbol systems (2nd ed.). Portland: Oregon Health Sciences University.
30.
RowlandC., & SchweigertP. (2000b). Tangible symbols, tangible outcomes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 61–78.
31.
RowlandC., SchweigertP., & PrickettJ. (1995). Communication systems, devices, and modes. In HuebnerK. M., JoffeeE., PrickettJ. G., & WelchT. R. (Eds.), Hand in hand: It can be done (Vol. 1, pp. 219–259). New York: AFB Press.
32.
RowlandC., & Stremel-CampbellK. (1987). Share and share alike: Conventional gestures to emergent language for learners with sensory impairments. In GoetzL., GuessD., and Stremel-CampbellK. (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 49–75). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
33.
Siegel-CauseyE., & DowningJ. (1987). Nonsymbolic communication development: Theoretical concepts and educational strategies. In GoetzL., GuessD., & Stremel-CampbellK. (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 15–48). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
34.
SilbermanR., BruceS., & NelsonC. (2004). Children with sensory impairments. In OreloveF., SobseyD., & SilbermanR. (Eds.), Educating children with multiple disabilities: A collaborative approach (pp. 425–528). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
35.
SladeA. (1987). Quality of attachment and early symbolic play. Developmental Psychology, 23(1), 78–85.
36.
StillmanR. D., & BattleC. W. (1984). Developing prelanguage communication in the severely handicapped. An interpretation of the Van Dijk method. Seminars in Speech and Language, 4, 159–170.
37.
StilsonS., & HardingC. (1997). Early social context as it relates to symbolic play: A longitudinal investigation. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 43, 682–693.
38.
StremelK., & SchutzR. (1995). Functional communication in inclusive settings for students who are deaf-blind. In HaringN., & RomerL. (Eds.), Welcoming students who are deaf-blind into typical classrooms: Facilitating school participation, learning, and friendships (pp. 197–229). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
39.
Stremel-CampbellK., & MatthewsJ. (1988). Development of emergent language. In BullisM., & FieldG. (Eds.), Communication development in young children with deaf-blindness: Literature Review (pp. 165–201). Monmouth, OR: Teaching Research Division, Communication Skills Center for Young Children with Deaf-Blindness.
40.
TrösterH., & BrambringM. (1994). The play behavior and play materials of blind and sighted infants and preschoolers. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 88, 421–432.
41.
Van DijkJ. (1965). The first steps of the deaf-blind child towards language: Proceedings of the Conference on the Deaf-Blind, Refsnes, Denmark.Watertown, MA: Perkins School for the Blind.
42.
Van DijkJ. (1967). The non-verbal deaf-blind and his world: His outgrowth toward the world of symbols: Proceedings of the Jaasrverslag Instituut Voor Doven, 1964–1967 (pp. 73–100). St. Michielsgestel, the Netherlands: Instituut Voor Doven.
43.
WernerH., & KaplanB. (1964). Symbol formation: An organismic-developmental approach to language and expression of thought.London: John Wiley & Sons.
44.
WernerH., & KaplanB. (1988). On developmental changes in the symbolic process. In FranklinM., & BartenS. (Eds.), Child language: A reader (pp. 7–9). New York: Oxford University Press.
45.
WetherbyA., ReichleJ., & PierceP. (1998). The transition to symbolic communication. In WetherbyA., WarrenS., & ReichleJ. (Eds.), Transitions in prelinguistic communication (Vol. 7, pp. 82–83, 155–156, 171–191). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
46.
WilcoxM., & ShannonM. (1998). Facilitating the transition from prelinguistic to linguistic communication. In WetherbyA., WarrenS., & ReichleJ. (Eds.), Transitions in prelinguistic communication (Vol. 7, pp. 1385–1416). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
47.
WriterJ. (1987). A movement-based approach to the education of students who are sensory impaired/multihandicapped. In GoetzL., GuessD., & Stremel-CampbellK. (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 191–222). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
48.
Yoshinga-ItanoC., SnyderL., & DayD. (1999). The relationship of language and symbolic play in children with hearing loss. Volta Review, 100, 135–164.
