Deaf children's abstract-counting errors reflect the rule-bound base-5 structure of Belgian French Sign Language: they stop at production-rule boundaries and make fewer omission errors than hearing children¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2002 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Deaf children stopped counting disproportionately at points where a new BFSL production rule begins (after 5 and after 15), and made fewer omission errors than hearing children. → Jacqueline Leybaert and Marie-Noëlle Van Cutsem 2002

Evidence¶

Jacqueline Leybaert and Marie-Noëlle Van Cutsem 2002¶

Jacqueline Leybaert and Marie-Noëlle Van Cutsem. (2002). Counting in Sign Language. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2002.2660

q3 · i? · associational · r1

Descriptive error analysis of first errors in the abstract counting task: 64% of hearing children versus 24% of deaf children made omission errors. Percentages are descriptive; no statistical test is printed.

"This kind of error was more common in hearing children than in the deaf children (64% of the hearing children made omission errors compared to 24% of the deaf children)."

Jacqueline Leybaert and Marie-Noëlle Van Cutsem 2002 (2)¶

Jacqueline Leybaert and Marie-Noëlle Van Cutsem. (2002). Counting in Sign Language. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2002.2660

q3 · i? · associational · r1

Descriptive analysis of stopping points: deaf children's stops clustered at BFSL rule-transition points (after 5 and after 15), whereas hearing children's stops varied more widely across the sequence.

"Most of the deaf children stopped counting in the portion of the number sequence where a new production rule should be adopted, (i.e., after 5 and after 15)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Access — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Cross-cultural evidence: adults without a counting system fail to develop exact representations of numbers beyond 3 or 4 despite a normal ANS — related
• Deaf children produce shorter conventional number strings in abstract counting than hearing children of the same school level, with a roughly 2-year delay — a broader claim this one bears on
• In object counting, deaf and hearing children make similar attention and principle errors, but deaf children make more number-string errors — related
• Deaf and hearing children do not differ in accuracy of object counting or creating sets of a given cardinality up to 14 items — related
• Linguistic delay may affect verbal mathematical abilities without impairing conceptual counting development, as deaf children's one-to-one correspondence understanding was age-appropriate — related