The aim of this study is to delineate aspects hearing parents of deaf or hard-of-hearing children living in a bilingual society view as important when choosing the linguistic and educational path for their children. Despite the increasing positive attitudes towards bilingualism in general and the view that cultural differences enrich our society, we find one group of children with a unique possibility and, in fact, foremost a necessity to achieve bilingualism and biculturalism. However, due to societal attitudes and/or an education system that does not fully support the development of a bilingual identity, deaf and hard-of hearing children are still in several countries recommended a monolingual, i.e. a spoken language approach. According to the Ethnologue database there are 121 registered Sign Languages in the world but the actual figure is most likely higher (Malm & Östman 2000). The national Sign Language is a deaf person’s native or first language and signed languages are the only languages a deaf child can learn without formal education, in the same manner hearing children acquire the languages they are exposed to at an early age. The constellation hearing parent-deaf child is unique and interesting in many aspects as it brings out questions about linguistic and cultural identity that seldom arise in families where parents and children automatically share a language. Furthermore, the unique linguistic and cultural situation of the deaf has resulted in interesting and pioneering research on culture and language in general. These include language acquisition with little or no adult linguistic input and the link between early exposure and language development, including the finding that the critical period for language acquisition is modality-free and as decisive for native fluency in signed languages as in spoken languages (Goldin-Meadow 2003a, 2003b; Mayberry & Eichen 1991; Mayberry 1994; Volterra & Erting 1994). Technical advances such as the Cochlear Implant have greatly influenced the possibilities of spoken language development even in profoundly deaf children, and consequently also influenced the view on the early intervention and education of deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Technical advances have also resulted in sophisticated methods of hearing screening (Ackley & Decker 2006), allowing the intervention to begin early on. Nevertheless, a monolingual and monocultural approach in favour of a spoken language only can be devastating for children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. It may hold back their possibilities to achieve to their full potentials regarding educational, personality and social development (Londen 2005, 2006). The right to a well-functioning and – especially regarding deaf people – an accessible first language is vital for the individual’s emotional, social and cognitive development (Skutnabb-Kangas 2006; Svartholm 1994, 2006; Siegel 2006). Therefore, Sign Language is crucial for deaf people’s effortless communication but also for deaf people’s self-assurance, togetherness as well as for their linguistic and cultural identity (Padden & Humphries 1988, Siegel 2006). Some of the arguments for a monolingual approach for deaf or hard-of hearing children are similar to ones proposed some 30 thirty years ago (regarding hearing children) about how early exposure of two languages will result in children growing up with poor language skills. Findings and experience from Sweden do, however, indicate that deaf children educated bilingually academically perform very well (Svartholm 2006).

This paper is partly based on a study (Londen, 2004) on how hearing parents choose language and education for their deaf or hard-of-hearing children. The families taking part in the study live in a bilingual country with a minority language (Swedish) as their mother tongue, complicating the issues of language and education even further. The study is based on in-depth interviews with Finland-Swedish parents of deaf or hard-of-hearing children with hearing losses ranging from mild to profound. Seventeen in-depth interviews with hearing parents of deaf or hard-of-hearing children were conducted. The same parents also completed a questionnaire. The study is qualitative with a phenomenological hermeneutical approach.

The importance of linguistic, cultural and educational views and values when fostering children are clearly shown in this study. Parents of deaf and hard-of-hearing children want their children to be educated in a context supporting the family’s linguistic and cultural background, but parents of signing children emphasise that his should take place in a deaf school where the deaf child’s primary language and Deaf identity is supported. In order to further develop the intervention and education for deaf and hard-of-hearing children a deeper understanding of the challenges facing hearing parents is required, as is a deeper understanding of the bicultural and bilingual/multilingual situation for deaf and hard-of-hearing children is required – following the approach in Sweden. The objective and possibilities of bilingualism must thus receive a more central role in the intervention and education of all deaf and hard-of-hearing children. This includes an acknowledgement of the possibilities and benefits a signed language also can give children with a cochlear implant.