The impact of face masks on the communication of people with hearing impairment in Jordan during COVID-19

Abstract

People with hearing impairment (the Deaf, Deafened and Hard-of-hearing) were immensely impacted by COVID-19. They had to figure out the meaning of the new pandemic-related terminology, and they had to suffice with hand gestures in the absence of face expressions and lip movements due to wearing face masks. In this study, we investigated the signs of 25 new and old pandemic related terms in Jordanian Sign Language (JSL), Unified Arab Sign Language (UASL) and International Sign Language (ISL). We found that each new term that spread during the Corona pandemic was signalled using approximately the same sign in all three languages under investigation. On the other hand, it was found that the old terms, whose meaning expanded semantically during the Corona pandemic, were signalled differently. To expand our quest, we conducted a survey of 120 hearing impaired people in Jordan to find out the impact of wearing face masks during the Corona pandemic on sign language users. This data was analysed using Rbrul software. The results showed that communication with either hearing impaired or hearing people was made difficult with the so-called “mask advisory” and “mask mandate”.

Keywords:

• Covid-19
• hearing impaired
• pandemic terminology
• interpreting
• sign language

1. Introduction

The innovative Coronavirus and the disease associated with it, COVID-19, were first revealed in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared this disease a global pandemic on 11 March 2020. As far as communication is concerned, COVID-19 terminology can be divided into two main categories: new terms that were coined during the pandemic and old ones whose semantic fields expanded during the pandemic. The need to investigate such terms is crucial for all groups, especially people with hearing impairments as they rely mainly on sign language to communicate which often combines gestures, postures, face expressions and signs. There are numerous sign languages used across the world, each with its own distinct set of signs. These signs vary in terms of hand shape and the specific ways the hand interacts with the face and body for each sign. In this respect, there was a need within the hearing impaired community to understand the nature of the disease, symptoms, preventions and possible cures (Ellala et al., 2021). This study tries to shed light on the pandemic within the hearing impaired community in Jordan with special focus on signs for the pandemic-related terminology and the effect of wearing face masks on communication.

Unified Arab Sign Language is used in Arab countries as a means of communication between hearing impaired people. Unfamiliarity with Unified Arab Sign Language or any of its regional varieties increases the isolation of the hearing impaired communities. Translating between Arabic and Unified Arab Sign Language is a challenge for the translator, because the two languages have different structures and rules (Luqman & Mahmoud, 2019). Jordanian Sign Language is slightly different from Unified Arab Sign Language as do all other regional sign languages in the Arab World. Regional Arab sign languages have some differences in some signs, gestures, postures and movements. Thus, Unified Arab Sign Language can be referred to as the sign lingua franca in the Arab World. It would be of considerable significance to highlight how COVID-19 related terminology was adopted among the Jordanian hearing impaired community. Doing so sheds light on an often neglected community within the Jordanian linguistic landscape. The findings of this study can be used as feedback to the decision makers in Jordan in case future health issues mandate wearing face masks.

The literature on the communication amongst people with hearing impairment is limited and needs further investigation in different speech communities. Alqudah et al. (2021) exposed the obstacles, difficulties and challenges faced by the hard of hearing people who use hearing aids during the Corona pandemic in Jordan. Potential response categories were compared using descriptive and inferential statistics. A number of 278 hearing aids users completed a questionnaire designed to identify potential barriers resulting from the use of hearing aids during the Corona pandemic. The results showed that the duration of using hearing aids before the lockdown was much higher than the use of hearing aids during the pandemic. It is likely to be attributed to the difficulties faced by people with hearing impairments during COVID-19, represented by the lack of batteries for hearing aids and limited access to programming and repair services for hearing aids.

Poon and Jenstad (2022) investigated the impact of face masks and other preventative measures on speech comprehension in the daily lives of adults who are deaf or have hearing loss in Canada. They also identified possible strategies for improving access to communication. The data were collected from 656 adults who identified themselves as deaf or hard of hearing. The results showed that more than 80% of deaf people and people with hearing loss have difficulty understanding others who wear face masks. The percentage increased with the severity of the hearing loss. They made a number of recommendations to remedy such situations that “included more widespread use of clear face masks to aid lip-reading; improved clarity in policy guidance on face masks; and greater public awareness and understanding about ways to more clearly communicate with adults with hearing loss while wearing face masks” (para. 1).

Similarly, Homans and Vroegop (2022) investigated the effect of protective masks and surgical shields on speech intelligibility in adults with moderate to severe hearing loss. They measured speech tracking scores in three different situations: without a mask, with a surgical mask and with a face shield. The study sample encompassed 42 patients suffering from moderate to severe hearing impairment, 23 cochlear implant users and 19 hearing aid users who are fluent in Dutch at Erasmus Medical Centre. The results revealed medium to large hindrances in speech perception scores as a result of the three masks under study. They found that “surgical face masks, and face shields to a lesser extent, have a negative effect for patients with moderate to severe hearing loss” (para. 4).

Amorim et al. (2020) analysed three signs currently used in Brazil to signify “Coronavirus” in different social situations to compare the linguistic differences between these signs. They also discussed the linguistic harm and health risks of the deaf community during COVID-19. They collected scores from 20 videos of sign language interpreters in cooperation with Brazilian TV channels and institutions with 100% reach of the deaf community in Brazil and then recorded and filmed this information. They also created a questionnaire and presented videos of the three signs and asked 14 deaf people about their understanding of the signs. They concluded that it was not fruitful to provide written signs to deaf people without providing the signs that stood for them. They advised that it is crucial for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) to collaborate in developing new signs that are specific to health threats such as Coronavirus. Providing universally comprehensible and unified signs related to health pandemics can help the deaf communities the world over.

Interestingly, the situation of COVID-19 terminology was not ideal amongst hearing Arabic speakers either. Alduhaim and Alkhaldy (2023) showed that COVID-19 terminology came primarily from English and was translated inconsistently by different translators in various Arab countries. They dealt with COVID-19 terms as neologisms in medical discourse. They focused on four terms: infodemic, covidiot, herd immunity and cabin fever. The findings show that the “majority of these terminologies are translated using a descriptive method, or Arabicisation” (p. 21). They recommended that a consistent Arabic medical terminology database be created to solve the inconsistencies in COVID-19 medical terminology. In a similar context, Dahmani and Akmoun (2022) highlighted the importance of showing positive emotions when discussing COVID-19 issues in public speeches. Positive facial expressions as well as positive emotional content were both important in public speeches intended to resist COVID-19.

Other areas were researched in relation to language acquisition of children with hearing impairment (Caselli et al., 2020), assistive technology to help people with hearing impairment communicate (Yin & Read, 2020), smart systems (Jamil, 2020), translation systems (Ko et al., 2019), automatic sign trackers (Charles et al., 2014), neural networks (Rahman et al., 2019) and sign language recognition systems (More et al., 2018; Rastgoo et al., 2021).

2. The Aim of the Study

With the availability of multiple sign systems in the Arab world, one of the first concerns of this study is to know the different signs used to signal pandemic-related terms in three principal sign systems: Jordanian Sign Language (JSL), Unified Arab Sign Language (UASL) and International Sign Language (ISL). Moreover, this study inquires about the difficulties the deaf community in Jordan faced during the pandemic from their own viewpoints via a survey. The following research questions were posited: 1) How were pandemic-related terms rendered in JSL, UASL and ISL?, 2) Do these terms need facial expressions that have been blocked by wearing face mask? and 3) How does the Jordanian hearing impaired community viewback communication during the pandemic?

3. Methods and Procedures

This section provides a clear description about the methodology used in this study. The methodology is essentially twofold, comprising of two main components. The first component focuses on a sample of 25 pandemic-related terms, while the second component is based on a survey in the form of a questionnaire. The following provides information about the study sample, data collection and data analysis.

4. Sample and Data Collection

Coronavirus pandemic has given rise to the so-called pandemic-related terminology. Few new words appeared to describe the pandemic and the disease that resulted from it. Many already existing words expanded their meanings to encompass the intricacies of the pandemic. Thus, a sample of 25 pandemic-related words were chosen to show how they are rendered in three sign languages: JSL, UASL and ISL. The introduction of such relatively new words into the hearing and hearing impaired lexicons has resulted in their regular usage in daily conversations, becoming an integral aspect of daily routines. It is not uncommon to hear both young and old individuals using these words repeatedly in their daily interactions, highlighting the significant impact they have had on our language and communication patterns. The sample related to COVID-19 terminology consisted of 25 terms. The signs in the three sign languages under investigation were compared and contrasted highlighting whether they needed extra facial expressions or not.

The second instrument used in this study was a questionnaire that consisted of two main sections. The first section concerned the external factors and the second concerned five questions that enquired about the impact of wearing face masks during the pandemic on the comprehension of the people with hearing impairment in Jordan. The aim of the questionnaire was to identify the impact of COVID-19 on sign language users from their points of view. The questionnaire was prepared by the researchers and presented to two experts to ensure its suitability for the study. All modifications suggested by the two experts were made, i.e., some statements were rewritten and other similar statements were deleted for redundancy. The questionnaire was administered at Prince Ali Bin Al-Hussein Deaf Club in Amman, the capital of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

5. The Participants

The present study data was collected from 120 Jordanians with hearing impairment. They belonged to different social groups or factors: gender (males/females), age (young −25, middle-aged 25–40, and old + 40), hearing impairment level (severe, moderate and mild), hearing aid use (aided and non-aided), lip-reading level (weak, moderate, good) and hearing impairment time (pre-birth and post-birth). The main reason for selecting the participants from Prince Ali bin Al-Hussein Deaf Club was that this club provided services for the largest number of hearing impaired Jordanians. Secondly, the diversity of the cultural backgrounds of the participants and the presence of a number of sign language interpreters made administering the questionnaire there more reliable.

6. Data Analysis

The data extracted from the questionnaire were analysed by a statistical software called Rbrul. This package is able to analyse the answers of 120 different participants to each question in relation to the following six factors: gender, age, hearing impairment level, hearing aid use, lip-reading level, and hearing impairment time. Those external factors comprised the first section of the questionnaire. The second section consisted of five yes/no questions about the impact of COVID-19 and wearing face masks on people with hearing impairment in Jordan. The yes/no questions were purposefully developed to make them easy for the participants to understand and respond to. Moreover, Rbrul handles data better when the answers are binary.

7. Coding Protocol

In order to analyse the data, a coding protocol was prepared by the researchers. The data were organized using Microsoft Excel and were analysed using Rbrul software. The Rbrul analysis was done by the third author who is an expert of such analyses. Table 1 illustrates the coding protocol used in the Excel sheet which is essential for the analysis in Rbrul.

Table 1. Coding protocol

Category	Sub-category	Code
Gender	male	M
	female	F
Age	<25	Y
	25–40	Mid
	>40	O
Hearing impairment level	severe	0
	moderate	1
	mild	2
Hearing aid use	aided	A
	non-aided	Z
Lip-reading level	weak	W
	moderate	H
	good	E
Hearing impairment time	pre-birth	PR
	post-birth	PO
Questions (1–6)	yes	S
	no	N

8. Findings and Discussion

The results are threefold. Firstly, the 25 corona-related terms are discussed in relation to JSL, UASL and ISL. Secondly, the answers to the five questions by the entire sample regardless of the external factors involved are presented and discussed. Thirdly, the answers to the five questions by the entire sample are presented and discussed in relation to six external factors: age, gender, hearing impairment level, hearing aid use, lip-reading level and hearing impairment time.

9. COVID-19 Terminology

As stated above, the researchers asked professional sign language interpreters to interpret a number of corona-related terms and saved the interpretations as videos. Focusing on the most salient hand movements and facial expressions, each sign for each term was discussed across the three sign languages in question. The number of movements in signalling “quarantine” in both JSL and UASL is higher than in ISL. This might be due to how the phrase is semantically rendered in Arabic, i.e., it is represented as a phrase consisting of two words hajr sihhi “lit. health quarantine”. The signs for this term principally depend on hand movement and face expressions are not essential; therefore, wearing face masks might not have a major impact on the general comprehension of the term. Moreover, a common procedure in the event of an outbreak of communicable and infectious diseases is to stay home without receiving any visitors, i.e., hajr manzili “home quarantine”. The sign for this concept is signalled differently in the three sign languages in question. It is a complex sign that involves “home” and “quarantine”. It does not necessitate accompanying face expressions, so we do not expect wearing face masks to impact the comprehension of this sign. Similarly, ʕazl manzili “home isolation” means to stay away from all uninfected people, even in the house. The sign is interpreted differently in each of the three sign languages. In all three sign languages, it depends more on hand movements than on facial expressions; therefore, wearing face masks would not hinder the comprehension of this term. Hadhr tajawwul “curfew” refers to the prohibition or prevention of the movement of people due to exceptional circumstances. The sign for this term is complicated in all three sign languages and involves a large number of hand movements. In the ISL, it involves even more hand movements and effort. Nevertheless, the need for face expressions is minimal. As for saafiraat alinthaar “sirens”, it is principally signalled similarly in all three sign languages using one hand in a circular movement. Sometimes, translated letters are used in ISL.

Interestingly, in the three sign languages in question, the same sign is used to refer to fayrus kurona “Coronavirus”, kufid-19 “COVID-19”, jayihat kurona “Corona pandemic” and any related matters. This is logical in order to reduce the interpretation load on hearing impaired people. Moreover, face expressions do not play an important role in the interpretation of these terms; therefore, it is not expected to be impacted by people wearing masks. As for the term matʕuum “vaccine”, its sign in JSL is completely similar to that in UASL. In ISL, it is signalled differently. The semiotics is obviously similar but the way the signs signal the syringe and injecting it are different. Perhaps the signs reflect the way people often hold the injections and administer them in different parts of the world. Again, face expressions are not necessary but adding a “pain” expression might boost the comprehension of the term. Tabaaʕud ijtimaaʕi “social distancing” is signalled differently in the three sign languages under investigation. Specifically, in UASL, it has more moves than in the other two sign languages. Some hand movements related to this sign are accompanied by some facial expressions and eye movements; therefore, wearing masks would make it difficult to signal and comprehend. Mashat kurona “Corona swab” is a diagnostic test for Coronavirus that involves inserting a long swab stick into the nose. This medical procedure is reflected in the sign as it is signalled similarly in all three sign languages in question. This makes it easier for people with hearing impairment to understand and memorize it in various areas in the world. Nevertheless, it might be very difficult to signal this sign while wearing face masks. Jarathiim “germs” are microorganisms that can make people sick. This term is signalled differently in the three sign languages. In all three sign languages, one important stage is signalling the sense of “gross” or “disgust” using the lips and eyes in order to show that the meaning of germs is not a “pleasant” one. This means wearing masks and signalling the term is very difficult and even impossible. Amr difaaʕ “defence order” has six movements in JSL and UASL, but five in the ISL. The most important move involves signalling “strict order” by moving the finger down. Thus, face expressions are not that important in signalling this sign and wearing face masks might have minimal impact. Mariidh kurona “Corona patient” is one who has tested positive for COVID-19. In JSL, the sign signals a sense of “there is a disease’, a message similar to that conveyed by the other two sign languages. The difference is in the movement denoting “disease”. It is noteworthy that sometimes sign language interpreters might choose to add facial expressions donating that the person is not feeling well; therefore, wearing face masks might hinder signalling and comprehending this complex sign. Another related term is isaaba shadiidah “severe (strong) infection”. This term was used in daily conversations during the pandemic as a follow-up question to the news that someone has contracted COVID-19. It is a simple body posture/gesture that denotes “strength”. However, face expressions are very important in this sign which makes wearing face masks a potential hinderer of its comprehension and or signalling. The sign for muʕdi “contagious” is the same in JSL and UASL, but it is slightly different in ISL. Generally, it involves a number of hand movements signalling the transmission of the virus with slight face expressions (especially eye brows); therefore, we expect face masks related difficulties. In JSL and UASL, thumbs up and thumps down in the context of Coronavirus tests signals natiijah ijaabiyyah “positive test result” and natiijah salbiyyah “negative test result”, respectively. In ISL, however, the signs are made differently using the fingers and the palm of the hand. Put differently, no face expressions are necessary to signal and comprehend these two terms.

Because COVID-19 impacts mainly the respiratory system, the term uksijiin “Oxygen” was frequently used during the pandemic. If a COVID-19 patient needed Oxygen support, that denoted the severity and seriousness of the infection. The sign for this term is uniform in all three sign languages. Since the first hand movement of the sign signals putting an oxygen mask on the face, doing this while wearing face masks might be complicated and hinders the comprehension of the term. One of the recognisable suspected symptoms for COVID-19 is the suʕaal or kahha “cough”. In all three sign languages, the sign for this term is simple and involves putting the hand on the mouth; therefore, wearing face masks makes it essentially difficult to signal and comprehend. Fatrat hadhaanat almaradh “disease incubation period” is the period before the symptoms of the disease appear. In all three sign languages, face expressions are minimal in the sign of this term; therefore, we expect the impact of wearing face masks to be minimal on the comprehension of this sign. Alwiqaaya min alʕadwa “infection prevention” is another related term, but it involves a simple two-handed gesture in all three sign languages. There are no necessary facial expressions involved in this sign; therefore, wearing face masks does not impact it. The term kimaamah or kammama “face mask” itself gained a wide popularity during the pandemic. It is quite easily signalled and interpreted in all three sign languages as it involves making hand shapes similar to the way people put on “face masks” on their faces. Another term that was frequently used during COVID-19 is muʕaqqim alaydii “hand sanitiser” whose sign in all three sign languages resembles a simple mime that involves squeezing a plastic bottle into the palm of the hand. In JSL and UASL, an additional movement involves swiping two fingers down the lower lip.

In Jordan, three principal vaccines were made available and administered by the Ministry of Health: Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sinopharm. Notably, Jordanians referred to the three vaccines using the name of the country of origin of each. In other words, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sinopharm were known in Jordan as the American, British and Chinese vaccines. Interestingly, this way of referring to the vaccines is the same in all three sign languages under investigation. No face expressions are needed in these terms. It is important to note that one of sign language conventions is that hearing individuals commonly fully articulate the words they sign along with the hand movements and facial expressions. This convention serves as a helpful aid to some individuals with hearing impairments who can read lips, as they can better understand the spoken words that are being signed using two cues: the sign and real mouth movement. However, wearing face masks presents a significant challenge to this convention, as it obstructs the ability to read lips and fully articulate words. Therefore, the use of face masks can be a hindrance to clear communication in sign language, particularly for those who rely on lip-reading as a part of their communication strategy.

10. Survey Findings

Question 1:

As a result of people wearing masks during the pandemic, has this affected your ability to read lips?

When considering the participants’ answers without specific reference to the external factors, the percentage of people with hearing impairment who reported that their ability to read lips was affected by people wearing face masks was 57.5%. Face masks hinder lip-reading access; therefore, it is normal for the majority of the participants to report being negatively impacted by face masks. In relation to the six external factors, Table 2 shows Q1-model generated by Rbrul after feeding it with the excel sheet with answers coded for the above-mentioned six social and linguistic factors (see coding protocol). The best step-down model with the answer “yes” as the application value shows the following descending value of statistical significance: Gender (5.78e-11) [p-values dropping from full model].

Table 2. Rbrul results for the first question in the questionnaire

					R^2 0.511
Gender	Logodds	Tokens	[i] mean	Centred factor weight
F	2	37	0.973	0.881
M	−2	83	0.398	0.119
(p< 5.78e-11)

The results in Table 2 showthat “gender” is the crucial factor that determines the effect of wearing masks on the participants’ ability to read lips with a p-value of (p < 5.78e-11). From the respondents’ answers to question number one, wearing masks during the pandemic influenced females (Centred Factor Weight = 0.881) more than males (Centred Factor Weight = 0.119). A Centered Factor Weight is statistically significant only if it is above (0.5). In terms of percentages, 88% of female participants reported that their ability to read lips was influenced by people wearing masks during the pandemic. Only 39% of the males reported such an effect. When a person with hearing impairment banks on reading lips to understand and he/she is confronted with a face covered with a mask, he/she would lose a lot of his/her deciphering power. It is not clear, however, why females reported higher impacts of face masks on their ability to read lips. Is it because Jordanian females with hearing impairment depend more on reading lips than males? This question needs further investigation and is recommended for future research, but it is beyond the scope of this study.

Question 2:

As a result of wearing masks, have you found it harder to communicate with people after the pandemic?

By disregarding external factors and focusing solely on the participants’ answers, we find that the percentage of those who answered “yes” was 64.2%, while the percentage of those who answered “no” was 35.8%. During the pandemic, face masks greatly affected hearing and non-hearing people’s communication with each other. Face masks hid the movement of the lips and other facial expressions and made communication automatic and less humanlike. Table 3 shows Q2-model generated by Rbrul after feeding it with the excel sheet with answers coded for the above-mentioned social and linguistic factors (see coding protocol). The best step-down model with the answer “yes” as the application value shows the following descending value of statistical significance: Gender (2.01e-09) + Lip-reading. Level (0.00851) + Time. Lose (0.00986) + Hearing. Level (0.0428) [p-values dropping from full model].

Table 3. Rbrul results for the second question in the questionnaire

					R^2 0.963
Gender	Logodds	Tokens	[i] mean	Centred factor weight
F	9.8	37	1.000	0.999
M	−9.8	83	0.482	0.001
(p< 2.01e-9)
Lip-reading level	Logodds	Tokens	[i] mean	Centred factor weight
W	0.789	43	0.721	0.688
E	0.214	21	0.714	0.553
H	−1.003	56	0.554	0.268
(p< 0.00851)
Hearing impairment time	Logodds	Tokens	[i] mean	Centred factor weight
Post-birth	0.786	50	0.760	0.687
Pre-birth	−0.786	70	0.557	0.313
(p< 0.00986)
Hearing impairment level	Logodds	Tokens	[i] mean	Centred factor weight
1	0.765	43	0.744	0.682
0	0.669	64	0.641	0.661
2	−1.434	13	0.308	0.193
(p< 0.0428)

The results in Table 3 show that “gender”, “reading-lip level”, “time of hearing loss”, and “hearing level” are statistically significant factors determining the effect of wearing masks on communicating with deaf people in Jordan. As shown in the table, gender is the most significant factor with a p-value of (p < 2.01e-9). From the respondents’ answers to question number two, wearing masks during the pandemic influenced female (Centred Factor Weight = 0.999) participants more than males (Centred Factor Weight = 0.001). A Centered Factor Weight is statistically significant only if it is above (0.5). In terms of percentages, 100% of female participants reported that they were affected by people wearing masks during the pandemic. Only 48% of the males reported such an effect. Perhaps female Jordanians with hearing impairment rely more on reading lips and other facial expressions while communicating with others. It is also possible that the small size of the female sample (n = 37) played a role in these results although Rbrul takes this into account while generating the model.

The second important factor is lip-reading level with a p-value of (p < 0.00851). From the respondents’ answers to question number two, wearing masks during the pandemic influenced those with weak lip-reading skills (Centred Factor Weight = 0.688) and with good lip-reading skills (Centred Factor Weight = 0.553). The effect of masks on those with moderate lip-reading skills was not statistically significant (Centred Factor Weight = 0.268), i.e., below (0.5). In terms of percentages, 72% of those with weak lip-reading skills, 71% of those with good lip-reading skills and 55% of those with moderate lip-reading skills reported that they were affected by people wearing masks during the pandemic. Perhaps those with moderate lip-reading skills were still evolving and trying to make use of other ways to communicate other than lip-reading and facial expressions.

The third most important factor is the hearing impairment time with a p-value of (p < 0.00986). From the respondents’ answers to question number two, wearing masks during the pandemic influenced those who lost their hearing after birth (Centred Factor Weight = 0.687) while those who lost hearing before birth were not affected (Centred Factor Weight = 0.313). In terms of percentages, 76% of those who lost their hearing after birth and 56% of those who lost their hearing before birth reported that they were affected by people wearing masks during the pandemic. Perhaps losing hearing after being able to hear makes people with hearing impairment rely on facial expressions more than those who were never able to hear.

The fourth most important factor is hearing impairment level with a p-value of (p < 0.0428). From the respondents’ answers to question number two, wearing masks during the pandemic influenced both those with severe (Centred Factor Weight = 0.661) and moderate impairment (Centred Factor Weight = 0.682). Naturally those with mild hearing impairment were not affected by face masks (Centred Factor Weight = 0.193). In terms of percentages, 74% of those with moderate hearing impairment, 64% of those with severe hearing impairment and 31% of those with mild hearing impairment reported that they were affected by people wearing masks during the pandemic. The interpretation of these results is not surprising as those who can fairly hear can make use of what is left of their hearing to compensate for lip-reading and other facial expressions while communicating with people with masks.

Question 3:

Have you found it difficult to understand the pandemic-related terminology?

In all candour, both hearing and hearing impaired people found it difficult sometimes to fully understand some of the pandemic-related terms. It is not surprising that a majority of the sample (73.3%) reported experiencing difficulties in understanding certain terms and a minority (26.7%) reported the opposite. We propose that the World Health Organization (WHO) ensures comprehensive dissemination of pandemic-related terminology through various media platforms, including but not limited to orthography, phonetic representations, and Braille resources, in the event of future pandemics, as a precautionary measure. Table 4 shows Q3-model generated by Rbrul after feeding it with the excel sheet with answers coded for the above-mentioned social and linguistic factors (see coding protocol). The best step-down model with the answer “yes” as the application value shows the following descending value of statistical significance: Gender (6.64e-06) [p-values dropping from full model].

Table 4. Rbrul results for the third question in the questionnaire

					R^2 0.381
Gender	Logodds	Tokens	[i] mean	Centred factor weight
F	1.533	37	0.973	0.822
M	−1.533	83	0.627	0.178
(p< 6.64e-06)

The results in Table 4 show that “gender” is the only statistically significant factor with a p-value of (p < 6.64e-06). As shown in the table above, females were affected (Cantered Factor Weight = 0.822) more than males (Centered Factor Weight = 0.178). These results show that females are the most affected with a percentage of 97% compared to males with a percentage of 63%. It can be said that females are not as social as males and have no interest in watching the news on TV. Consequently, their ability to understand pandemic-related terms is not on par with that of hearing and hearing impaired males.

Question 4:

As a result of wearing masks, have you increased your use of eye movements?

An analysis of the participants’ answers without specific reference to external factors reveals that the answer to this question was different from the answers to other questions as the percentages were close. In other words, 53.3% of the participants reported increasing their eye movements due to wearing face masks while communicating with others. Interestingly, 46.7% of the sample reported no extra eye movements. Table 5 shows Q4-model generated by Rbrul after feeding it with the excel sheet with answers coded for the above-mentioned social and linguistic factors (see coding protocol). The best step-down model with the answer “yes” as the application value shows the following descending value of statistical significance: Gender (2.74e-05) [p-values dropping from full model].

Table 5. Rbrul results for the fourth question in the questionnaire

					R^2 0.178
Gender	Logodds	Tokens	[i] mean	Centred factor weight
F	0.91	37	0.811	0.713
M	−0.91	83	0.410	0.287
(p< 2.74e-05)

The results in Table 5 show that “gender” is the only statistically significant factor with a p-value of (p < 2.74e-05). Female participants increased eye movements during the pandemic (Centered Factor Weight = 0.713) more than males (Centered Factor Weight = 0.287). In terms of percentages, females are the most affected with a percentage of 81% compared to males with a percentage of 41%. The utilization of face masks leading to the reduction of facial expressions may have prompted female participants to engage in increased eye movements as a compensatory mechanism, potentially driven by their heightened reliance on ocular cues during interpersonal communication. In contrast, male participants may not have exhibited the same compensatory increase in eye movements due to their differential attribution of significance to eye reading in interpersonal interactions.

Question 5:

Have face masks influenced your happiness index?

By disregarding external factors and focusing solely on the participants’ answers, we find that the majority of the participants reported that their happiness index has been impacted by face masks (62.5%). As the hearing impaired rely heavily on facial expressions and reading lips, they have been negatively influenced by face masks which acted as hindrances. Not only the ability and ease of communication were affected by face masks but the feeling of compassion and belonging as well. The happiness and well-being of those with hearing impairment should be of immense importance in any modern community; therefore, future action should be made in order to protect and provide for this often neglected minority. Table 6 shows Q5-model generated by Rbrul after feeding it with the excel sheet with answers coded for the above-mentioned social and linguistic factors (see coding protocol). The best step-down model with the answer “yes” as the application value shows the following descending value of statistical significance: Gender (7.07e-10) + Lip-reading. Level (0.0429) [p-values dropping from full model].

Table 6. Rbrul results for the fifth question in the questionnaire

					R^2 0.515
Gender	Logodds	Tokens	[i] mean	Centred factor weight
F	1.975	37	0.973	0.878
M	−1.975	83	0.470	0.122
(p< 7.07e-10)
Lip-reading level	Logodds	Tokens	[i] mean	Centred factor weight
E	0.665	21	0.762	0.66
W	0.103	43	0.651	0.526
H	−0.768	56	0.554	0.317
(p< 0.0429)

The results in Table 5 show that “gender” and “reading-lip level” are statistically significant factors. With respect to “gender” as a factor, it is the most statistically significant factor with a p-value of (p < 7.07e-10). As shown in the table, females’ happiness was impacted (Centered Factor Weight = 0.878) more than males’ happiness (Centered Factor Weight = 0.122). In terms of percentages, 97% of females reported more impact compared to males with a percentage of 47%. It can be said that females are affected psychologically more than males; therefore, the pandemic impacted them more harshly than males for various physical and psychological reasons.

The “lip-reading level” is returned as the second significant factor (p < 0.0429). Regarding the analysis, participants with good and weak levels of reading lips were the most affected (Centered Factor Weight = 0.66, and 0.526, respectively), while people with moderate ability of reading lips were the least affected (Centered Factor Weight = 0.317). This result can be interpreted in relation to learning development. Hearing impaired individuals who possess moderate lip-reading skills may be undergoing ongoing adaptation and exploration of alternative communication methods beyond facial expressions. Consequently, their well-being appears to be the least affected by the utilization of facial masks as a preventive measure during the pandemic.

11. Conclusion

This study sought to highlight the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on people with hearing impairment in Jordan. By researching past events, researchers get a good idea of what really happened in order to avoid the same mistakes or shortcomings in the future. Face masks may be no longer mandatory now, but the world is still suffering from the aftermath of COVID-19. The diverse availability of different sign languages worldwide presents a significant challenge for the hearing impaired community, making communication and understanding more difficult for them. In other words, there are too many variations between sign languages than needed. Dealing with this situation is very hard for them as they have to deal with unnecessary cognitive linguistic loads. Face masks around those with hearing impairment cause hindrances for full communication. Governments have to take that into consideration and provide them with suitable transparent face masks/shields. Furthermore, an unintended outcome of our study was the realization of a notable insufficiency in professional Jordanian sign language interpreters. Upon conducting a concise examination of program curricula within translation departments in Jordan, it becomes evident that there is a notable absence of courses specifically focused on Jordanian Sign Language interpreting. Moreover, our brief interaction with the available interpreters has revealed a need for additional training and development.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ibrahim Darwish

Ibrahim M. Darwish is an associate professor of linguistics at the Translation Department at Yarmouk University, Jordan. He holds a PhD degree in linguistics from Essex University, UK. His research interests include socio-pragmatics, phonetics, phonology, translation studies, localisation and media analysis.

Razan Fakhouri

Razan R. Fakhouri is an English teacher at Latin Patriarchate School in Al-Mafraq, Jordan. She holds an MA degree in translation studies. Her research interests include sign language interpreting, machine translation and translation studies.

Noora Abu Ain

Noora Q. Abu Ain is an assistant professor of sociolinguistics at the English Department at Jadara University, Jordan. She holds a PhD degree in sociolinguistics from Essex University, UK. Her research interests include sociolinguistics, pragmatics and ethnography of communication.