Nomfundo Moroe, Victor Manuel de Andrade
9 min
This study explores the lived experiences of hearing Children of Deaf Adults (CODAs) in South Africa, focusing on how birth order and gender influence the role of language brokering. In many Deaf-parented families, children act as a vital communication link between their parents and the hearing world. This research investigates the dynamics of how these children come to inhabit this role, often navigating complex emotional and developmental challenges at a young age.
While international research often identifies the eldest child as the primary interpreter, this study found a more fluid and informal delegation process. In the absence of professional interpreting services, hearing children in South Africa frequently perform this function by necessity. Notably, participants reported that younger siblings often assumed the role, sometimes because older siblings had moved out of the household or deliberately avoided the responsibility. The study highlights that this is rarely a formal assignment but rather an emergent, daily necessity to prevent communication breakdown.
Gender played a significant role in how these responsibilities were distributed. Female children were found to be more likely to serve as interpreters than their male siblings. Participants suggested this was partly due to societal expectations regarding caretaking and helping, as well as some male siblings avoiding the role due to feelings of shyness or embarrassment regarding their parents' communication methods in public settings. The children often found themselves in precarious situations, translating for sensitive, age-inappropriate, or emotionally heavy topics, which placed considerable pressure on their development and mental well-being.
The authors argue that the reliance on children for professional-level interpreting is an systemic issue that places an unfair burden on the next generation. They conclude that there is a critical need for the formalization and government-supported provision of professional South African Sign Language (SASL) interpreting services. By institutionalizing these services, the state could protect children from premature adult responsibilities and ensure that Deaf families have equitable access to health and social services.
BACKGROUND: Culturally, hearing children born to Deaf parents may have to mediate two different positions within the hearing and Deaf cultures. However, there appears to be little written about the experiences of hearing children born to Deaf parents in the South African context. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to investigate the roles of children of Deaf adults (CODAs) as interpreters in Deaf-parented families, more specifically, the influence of gender and birth order in language brokering. METHOD: Two male and eight female participants between the ages of 21 and 40 years were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling strategies. A qualitative design was employed and data were collected using a semi-structured, open-ended interview format. Themes which emerged were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The findings indicated that there was no formal assignment of the interpreter role; however, female children tended to assume the role of interpreter more often than the male children. Also, it appeared as though the older children shifted the responsibility for interpreting to younger siblings. The participants in this study indicated that they interpreted in situations where they felt they were not developmentally or emotionally ready, or in situations which they felt were better suited for older siblings or for siblings of another gender. CONCLUSION: This study highlights a need for the formalisation of interpreting services for Deaf people in South Africa in the form of professional interpreters rather than the reliance on hearing children as interpreters in order to mediate between Deaf and hearing cultures.
Alex: How did they find families and get beyond a simple account of who usually signs?
Sam: They interviewed ten hearing adults raised by their biological parents, with at least one Deaf parent. Recruitment combined selecting people who met the study criteria with snowball sampling, where contacts refer other potential participants. Interviews invited accounts of childhood and interpreting experiences.
Alex: Referrals can reach people who are hard to recruit, but they don't produce a representative sample. What did this group look like?
Sam: There were eight women and two men. Most participants were white, and all lived in Gauteng. The researchers used open-ended interviews, following participants' answers rather than asking every question in a fixed sequence.
Alex: What made those accounts analytically useful, rather than just a collection of difficult memories?
Sam: The researchers used thematic analysis, looking for recurring patterns across the interview transcripts. They supported those patterns with participants' own words. One participant said, “Whoever is there interprets. No one was chosen to do it.” That captures the difference between an assigned role and an everyday necessity.
Alex: So “no formal assignment” does not mean the responsibility was evenly shared. What happened when they looked at birth order?
Sam: Responsibility sometimes passed down when older siblings left home. But participants also described older siblings stepping back while still living there. All five last-born participants had interpreted for their parents, although their accounts differed in how that responsibility arose.
Alex: That differs from the oldest-child pattern. Do the interviews explain why younger siblings took over?
Sam: They offer participants' explanations, not a tested cause. Some pointed to personality differences. One described an older sister as introverted and reluctant to interpret, leaving her to do most of it. Another described a succession: as an older sibling moved out, the next became the interpreter.
Alex: Then this is evidence against assuming birth order fixes the role. It isn't evidence that youngest children generally interpret more than oldest children.
Sam: That's the distinction to keep. The authors contrast their findings with earlier studies, but these accounts cannot establish a population-wide reversal. They also cannot separate changes over time from differences between settings. They show why context-specific research remains necessary.
Alex: What about gender? Does the study challenge the earlier literature there too?
Sam: There it broadly agrees. Participants reported daughters assuming more interpreting responsibility than sons. Some women described brothers avoiding it, leaving them to interpret from a sense of duty. One male participant said he was not fluent in South African Sign Language and rarely signed for his parents.
Alex: The paper discusses embarrassment about public signing. Can that explain the gender pattern, or is that going beyond the evidence?
Sam: It is a possible explanation in some accounts, not an established explanation for the pattern. Participants described discomfort with attention from hearing people, and some interpreted siblings' avoidance as embarrassment. The interviews do not demonstrate why women, as a group, took on more interpreting.
Alex: Let's return to what the responsibility involved. Knowing who interpreted matters more if we understand what children were being asked to manage.
Sam: One participant recalled answering a phone call announcing her grandfather's death, then having to tell her mother. Her mother began crying, and she did not know what to do. Another recalled interpreting an unfamiliar word about sexual violence, then being shocked when her father explained it.
Alex: Those accounts suggest that accurate wording was only part of the task. The child was also inside the emotional situation.
Sam: Participants described needing to prevent misunderstandings and make communication work, not merely pass along words. That added pressure is central to the authors' argument. Speaking or signing both languages did not mean a child felt prepared for the subject or its consequences.
Alex: How much confidence should we place in the interpretation of those interviews, given the researchers' own positions?
Sam: The authors acknowledge that they were audiologists, not hearing children of Deaf parents. They describe reflecting on their assumptions, using peer review of their interpretations, and discussing the work with colleagues. The interviewer also contacted some participants for clarification after transcription.
Alex: Those steps help scrutinise interpretation. But the regional sample and memories of childhood still constrain the conclusion.
Sam: Those are the major limits. Participants came from an urban, economically active province, so their experiences cannot represent all South African families. The authors also acknowledge that retrospective accounts may involve altered memories. My reading is strong descriptive value, but limited grounds for estimating how common these patterns are.
Alex: What should change in response, according to the authors? And did they test any support for families?
Sam: They did not test an intervention. They recommend formal professional interpreting services instead of reliance on hearing children, while acknowledging resource constraints. They also propose support addressing the whole family's needs. Those are recommendations arising from the accounts, not demonstrated solutions.
Alex: Who should read the full document, and where would you send them first?
Sam: Researchers studying family communication, childhood responsibility, or Deaf communities should start with the birth-order and gender findings, then read the limitations. Practitioners should also examine the recommendations, keeping proposals separate from tested outcomes. For everyone else, remember this: a child's ability to interpret is not proof that the responsibility belongs to them.
Alex: That's a distinction to carry into the next conversation.