Introduction

Hearing is not merely a biological faculty—it is fundamentally a cultural experience. Hearing children of deaf adults (CODAs) stand at the intersection of deaf and hearing worlds, moving between bicultural boundaries shaped by both signed and spoken languages. Their physiological development often mirrors that of hearing peers. However, their psychosocial development is deeply shaped by deaf parenting dynamics and cross-cultural positioning (Dočekal & Klimentová, 2025; Singleton & Tittle, 2000). Occupying the role of a lifelong bridge between their parents and the external world, these adolescents often take on responsibilities that Western literature has traditionally categorized through a deficit-based lens. Responding to Palmer’s (2025) recent call to dismantle these deficit-based frameworks, this study examines how Turkish CODA adolescents construct meaning around their parentification experiences within a collectivist cultural context.

Hearing children of deaf adults and developmental context

The term CODA refers to hearing children born to one or both deaf parents. Within the broader framework of “deaf-parented families,” these children connect deaf and hearing communities through linguistic and cultural mediation (Chen & Ni, 2024). Although variations such as “KODA” (kid of deaf adults) exist to specifically denote minors under 18 (Erdoğdu, 2018), the CODA identity is central to understanding the intergenerational dynamics of these families. With the increasing visibility of the deaf community, the unique role of CODAs as language brokers and cultural mediators has gained recognition in both academic and public spheres (Filer & Filer, 2000; Heffernan & Nixon, 2023; Karahan, 2022).

Seminal scholarship in this field has substantially shaped our understanding of the CODA experience. Preston’s (1994, 1995, 1996) Mother Father Deaf trilogy offered the first comprehensive ethnographic account of bicultural CODA lives, documenting how identity, belonging, and the heritage of difference unfold across generations. Buchino (1993) examined the perceptions of the eldest hearing children of Deaf parents, while Hadjikakou et al. (2009) documented CODA experiences in family, school, and societal contexts in Cyprus. In the Global South, Moroe and de Andrade (2018a, 2018b) analyzed language brokering through the lenses of gender and birth order, and Gee et al. (2021) documented healthcare communication brokering in the U.K. Crucially, Napier (2017, 2021, 2024) has reconceptualized language brokering not as a burden but as a relational, cooperative family practice—normative, even gift-like—that can serve as a precursor to professional interpreting expertise. The present study enters into dialogue with this international body of literature to examine how these dynamics manifest distinctively within Turkey’s collectivist cultural context.

However, growing up bicultural complicates their development. CODAs navigate a bimodal–bilingual environment—acquiring sign language as a home language and spoken language from their social environment—yet research on their linguistic development presents mixed findings. Some studies suggest that intensive exposure to sign language may lead to challenges in spoken language acquisition, potentially precipitating social difficulties such as peer bullying or stigmatization (Sheng et al., 2024). Conversely, foundational research by Singleton and Tittle (2000) argues that these concerns are often unfounded. CODAs can acquire healthy spoken language proficiency with as little as 5–10 hr of weekly input from hearing speakers. Furthermore, early exposure to sign language has been associated with enhanced general linguistic competence (Kanto et al., 2013) and positive cross-linguistic transfer between signed and spoken modalities (Tang et al., 2014).

Yet even with these language skills, the duality of living between two worlds often leads to identity negotiations. Some individuals define themselves as “half-deaf, half-hearing,” navigating internal conflicts regarding belonging and identity (Allard & Roos, 2025; Frank, 2019). These identity negotiations are not merely personal struggles but are shaped by structural and social contexts that position CODAs as perpetual mediators.

Parentification: burden or cultural duty?

A central tension in CODA research lies in the conceptualization of family roles. Families are relational structures shaped by biological ties, emotional bonds, and social interactions (Huntington, 2010; Millar & Vione, 2024), yet the distribution of caregiving roles varies across cultural contexts. In many deaf-parented families, hearing children assume roles of interpreting and mediation. Western literature conceptualizes this through two key constructs: “parentification”—when children take on instrumental (e.g., paying bills, medical interpreting) or emotional caregiving roles typically reserved for adults—and “language brokering”— the act of translating and mediating communication between parents and the hearing world. This deficit-based framework often depicts these responsibilities as carrying a developmental burden or suffering from a loss of childhood (Heffernan & Nixon, 2023; Jurkovic, 1997). These responsibilities, particularly prevalent among firstborns and daughters, are frequently viewed as disrupting sibling hierarchies and risking premature maturation (Tannenbaum-Baruchi et al., 2025).

However, applying this deficit-based model universally risks pathologizing culturally normative practices. In Turkish collectivist culture, the family is conceptualized as an interdependent unit rather than a collection of autonomous individuals (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007). Within this context, what Western psychology terms “parentification” may be reframed by CODAs not as a burden but as fedakârlık and hürmet—a Turkish concept denoting selfless filial devotion, a relational practice rooted in collectivist family structures, solidarity, and intergenerational duty. This cultural reframing does not negate the structural barriers CODAs face but repositions their agency within a value system that honors intergenerational care and mutual support.

Structural barriers and the social work perspective

The vulnerabilities observed in CODA experiences are often exacerbated not by deafness itself but by systemic barriers. In the present study, structural audism refers to the institutional policies and practices that center hearingness as a normative standard, systematically disadvantaging Deaf individuals by positioning their communication modality as a deficit rather than a difference (Bauman & Murray, 2014). Concrete manifestations include the absence of professional sign language interpreters in public institutions, healthcare systems that operate exclusively through spoken language, and digital platforms inaccessible to sign language users. These structural gaps compel CODAs to assume the role of institutional mediators from an early age, filling gaps that should be addressed through policy rather than family labor. Structural audism, lack of professional interpreters, and inadequate social policies leave CODAs to fill institutional gaps (Ministry of Family and Social Services, 2023; Oram et al., 2024). CODAs occupy a unique position within social work frameworks: While they themselves do not have a disability, they experience disadvantage by proxy due to their parents’ deafness, creating intergenerational impacts that ripple across family systems (Erdoğdu, 2018). Although ecological systems theory suggests that individuals must be understood within their nested environmental contexts (Danış, 2006), current social work interventions in Turkey often lack the structural competency to address the specific needs of deaf-parented families. These interventions should ideally encompass strengthening coping mechanisms, facilitating resource access, and providing psychosocial support—yet such comprehensive services remain largely unavailable. Research on vulnerable populations in Turkey reveals a systemic pattern wherein institutional support gaps force individuals into prolonged “waiting” and reliance on individual coping strategies, leading to institutional mistrust (Gencer et al., 2022). For deaf-parented families, this manifests as interpreter shortages, inaccessible healthcare systems, and limited family-centered services—structural deficits that compel CODAs to assume caregiving roles from early childhood. Turkish studies have documented the negative impacts of these unmet needs on CODAs’ social development and family dynamics (Alsancak, 2020; Seven & Göl-Güven, 2016). Beyond linguistic barriers, the digital divide—the unequal access to education, healthcare, and social services platforms that are predominantly designed around spoken and written language—and digital audism—the systematic absence of sign language-accessible infrastructure in online platforms (Aktan, 2026)—leave both Deaf parents and CODAs navigating simultaneous linguistic and technological barriers. Turkish studies have documented specific consequences of these unmet structural needs, including social withdrawal, heightened vulnerability to peer bullying, and role confusion within the family system (Alsancak, 2020; Seven & Göl-Güven, 2016).

Critically, the extent to which these structural barriers impact CODAs’ experiences varies considerably depending on access to diverse language models and supportive social networks (Singleton & Tittle, 2000). Participants in the present study reported that early communication patterns with their parents shaped their current social interaction styles, suggesting that early intervention and systemic support could mitigate potential challenges. Despite these challenges, the literature has largely overlooked how CODAs in non-Western contexts actively resist deficit narratives. This study argues that their experiences cannot be adequately understood through Western models alone, requiring analysis that accounts for cultural context. Importantly, we do not claim to be the first study to adopt a strengths-based framing of CODA experiences. Napier’s (2021) foundational work on sign language brokering in Deaf-hearing families has powerfully demonstrated that CODAs often embrace brokering as a source of pride, competence, and relational investment—a gift rather than a grievance. What this study contributes is the empirical grounding of such positive reframing within a specifically collectivist, non-Western cultural context, where the concepts of fedakârlık and hürmet provide a culturally distinct vocabulary for experiences that Western-centric frameworks have tended to pathologize.

The present study

This study argues that evaluating the experiences of Turkish CODA adolescents through Western deficit-based models leads to cultural misinterpretation. In this collectivist setting, language brokering and family caregiving are complex experiences conceptualized simultaneously as fedakârlık, hürmet, and early maturation. By analyzing semi-structured interviews with 20 Turkish CODA adolescents (ages 12–17), this research offers an empirical response to Palmer (2025) by reconceptualizing parentification as a developmental resource rather than a pathology.

In line with this research aim, the following questions are addressed:

• 1) How do Turkish CODA adolescents construct meaning around their language brokering and parentification experiences within a collectivist cultural context, and how does this meaning-making differ from the burden narratives that predominate in Western literature?
• 2) How do bicultural identity negotiations and sensory awareness—particularly navigating transitions between silent home environments and auditory external worlds—shape their sense of belonging and identity development?
• 3) How do coping mechanisms and familial support networks interact with structural barriers such as interpreter shortages and institutional audism?

Method

Research design

This qualitative study examines how Turkish CODA adolescents construct meaning around their parentification and language brokering experiences within a collectivist cultural context. The study was designed as a direct response to Palmer’s (2025) call to abandon deficit-based approaches in CODA research, aiming to foreground participants’ cultural reframing processes and agency rather than pathologizing their experiences.

We selected content analysis because it enables systematic examination of both manifest content (explicit statements) and latent meanings (underlying cultural values). This approach is particularly suited to identifying culturally specific interpretations (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). This approach is particularly suited to identifying culturally specific interpretations—such as the reframing of parentification as fedakârlık—that might be overlooked by Western-centric analytical frameworks.

The study is grounded in two complementary theoretical lenses. First, ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) posits that individual development cannot be understood in isolation but must be situated within nested environmental contexts: the microsystem (immediate family interactions), mesosystem (school and peer relationships), exosystem (community resources, deaf associations), and macrosystem (social policy, cultural norms). For CODA adolescents, this framework enables simultaneous analysis of family caregiving dynamics, peer exclusion, and systemic interpreter shortages as interacting influences rather than isolated factors. Second, the biopsychosocial model examines how biological characteristics (e.g., sensory experiences shaped by silent home environments), psychological processes (e.g., identity negotiation, coping strategies), and social structures (e.g., audism, family solidarity) mutually constitute one another. Together, these lenses allow us to analyze how structural barriers and cultural values interact with individual agency in shaping CODA experiences—without reducing complex phenomena to either biological determinism or social pathology.

To operationalize this comprehensive framework, data were generated through two primary techniques: semi-structured in-depth interviews and participant observation. Interviews allowed participants to articulate their lived experiences in their own terms, while observation notes captured nonverbal communication patterns (gestures, facial expressions, code-switching between spoken Turkish and sign language) that enriched understanding of bicultural identity negotiations. The study adopts a holistic perspective that bridges social work, deaf studies, and cultural psychology (Baltacı, 2019; Karahan, 2022).

Participants and sampling

In this context, the study group was established using a multi-staged purposive sampling strategy, specifically combining criterion sampling to ensure eligibility with snowball sampling facilitated by gatekeepers (the local deaf association) to access this hard-to-reach population. Inclusion criteria required participants to be hearing individuals, have at least one deaf parent, possess sign language proficiency, and be between the ages of 12 and 17.

The final study group consisted of 20 participants (16 female, 4 male). Data generation continued until data saturation was reached, defined as the point where no new codes or themes emerged from the interviews.

Ethical considerations and data generation process

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Anadolu University Health Sciences Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee (Date: January 31, 2024, Protocol No: 681908).

The research site was identified as a metropolitan city in Central Anatolia, Turkey. To access the CODA population, consultation was established with a local nongovernmental organization for the deaf. This setting was selected due to its accessibility and the established rapport, which facilitated the data collection process. Our research team conducted in-depth conversations both face-to-face and online using a semi-structured interview guide.

Prior to the interviews, the purpose of the study was explained, and written informed consent forms were obtained from all participants. For participants under 18 (n = 20), written parental consent was obtained from legal guardians alongside written participant assent, ensuring voluntary participation and informed agreement from both parties. With consent, interviews were audio-recorded. Participants were assured that their information would be used based on the principle of confidentiality. Consistent with ethical protocols, neutral pseudonyms (P1–P20) were assigned to each participant to ensure anonymity and avoid any interpretive bias in representation.

All interviews were conducted in spoken Turkish, the common native language of both the participants and the researchers. Since all participants possessed fluency in spoken Turkish, no sign language interpreters were required. Sign language emerged naturally only during specific moments of code-switching, where participants expressed cultural nuances. The presence of a CODA researcher on the team—who is fluent in sign language and deeply familiar with CODA culture—ensured that the Turkish transcription process was completed without data loss. Interviews lasted approximately 1 hr on average. Observation notes were taken during the interviews to capture non-verbal cues (gestures and facial expressions).

Two additional ethical dimensions merit acknowledgment. First, the deaf association through which participants were recruited functioned as a gatekeeper, meaning that the study sample may skew toward families more actively engaged with formal deaf community networks. Families with less institutional affiliation may have different experiences of structural support or isolation, which may not be fully represented in this dataset. Second, conducting research with children and adolescents aged 12–17 requires particular sensitivity to power dynamics. In line with Napier’s (2021) discussion of ethical considerations in research with young CODAs, all interview questions were formulated to be open-ended, experience-centered, and nonleading, to avoid placing participants in the position of evaluating or criticizing their parents. Participants were explicitly informed of their right to pause, redirect, or withdraw from the interview at any point without consequence.

Data analysis

Data analysis was conducted in accordance with qualitative methodological standards, utilizing content analysis. Interviews were transcribed within 1–2 days following each session. The research team listened to the recordings in detail and transferred the dialogues verbatim into Microsoft Word. These transcriptions, along with observation notes, were archived under strict confidentiality and stored securely to maintain an audit trail.

Following data preparation, the material was analyzed using NVivo 14 qualitative data analysis software by the principal investigator and research assistants. To ensure intercoder reliability, the research team (the PI and three research assistants) independently coded the first three interview transcripts (15%, n = 3). Following this pilot coding, codes were compared in weekly team meetings, and discrepancies between coders were discussed and resolved through consensus.

The coding process followed a two-stage approach: open coding and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Open coding was conducted during the initial data collection phase, wherein all transcripts were systematically reviewed to identify preliminary codes and emergent themes. Selective coding was subsequently employed to refine these codes, integrating them into broader analytical categories.

For example, when a participant stated, “I want to be there when my mother goes to the hospital,” the CODA researcher coded this as “familial solidarity,” whereas non-CODA researchers initially interpreted it as “parentification.” Through discussion, a consensus upper-code of “parentification in cultural context” was established.

The remaining 17 interviews were coded by the principal investigator and the CODA researcher based on these consensus codes, structured through continuous interaction with the research team. Strategies such as peer debriefing and negative case analysis were employed during the analysis. The coding team (mixed CODA/non-CODA) specifically analyzed statements that contradicted the main themes (e.g., viewing parentification as a burden or situations requiring sign language) to ensure findings did not create a monolithic narrative.

Furthermore, to prevent loss of meaning, the analysis was first conducted in Turkish. It was verified by the CODA researcher proficient in sign language and culture, and only the illustrative quotes used in the manuscript were subsequently translated into English by a professional translator fluent in both Turkish and English, followed by back-translation verification to ensure semantic accuracy.

Researcher positionality and reflexivity

The trustworthiness of this study is grounded in the mixed-positionality of the research team. The team consists of a non-CODA social work academic, non-CODA social work practitioners, and a researcher who is a CODA and social work expert.

The presence of the CODA researcher provided an “emic” (insider) perspective, adding significant depth to the study. This facilitated: (1) rapid establishment of rapport and trust with participants; (2) an environment where participants could express experiences (e.g., peer bullying, interpreting stress) within a “mutual understanding” without fear of stigma; and (3) the accurate coding of biopsychosocial and cultural nuances (e.g., the fine line between “fedakârlık” and “maturation”) that might be overlooked by non-CODA researchers. This approach directly responds to Palmer’s (2025) critique of deficit-based research.

The “etic” (outsider) position of the non-CODA researchers provided: (1) an analytical and objective lens in linking findings to social work theory (e.g., biopsychosocial model, systems theory) and (2) a balance against the potential for “over-identification” by the CODA researcher.

We adopted the methodological stance defined as “edgewalking” (Allard & Roos, 2025; Beals et al., 2020). Through this, the CODA author offered an insider view of the participants’ lifeworld, while peer debriefing with non-CODA researchers maintained analytical distance. This reciprocal insider-outsider validation process ensured that the findings are both “experientially rich” and “theoretically grounded.”

Rigor and trustworthiness

The trustworthiness of this study was established through multiple strategies aligned with Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) criteria for qualitative rigor.

Credibility was ensured through three mechanisms. First, member checking was conducted to confirm whether the findings accurately reflected participant experiences. After the analysis, a document summarizing the main themes and example quotes was sent via email to five randomly selected participants (P2, P8, P11, P13, P15). All participants confirmed that the presented themes accurately represented their experiences. Second, peer debriefing between CODA and non-CODA researchers was conducted throughout the coding process to challenge assumptions and interpretations (as described in Data Analysis). Third, prolonged engagement was achieved through extended interview durations (approximately 60 min each), allowing participants to elaborate on their experiences in depth.

Transferability was addressed through thick description of participant experiences, providing sufficient contextual detail to enable readers to assess the applicability of findings to other settings. The Results section includes rich, contextualized quotations that illustrate the lived realities of Turkish CODA adolescents.

Dependability was maintained through an audit trail preserved in NVivo 14, documenting all coding decisions, theme development, and analytic memos. This trail enables external scrutiny of the research process.

Confirmability was strengthened through negative case analysis, wherein the research team actively sought and examined data that contradicted emerging themes (e.g., participants who viewed parentification solely as a burden rather than fedakârlık). These divergent cases were integrated into the analysis to ensure a balanced interpretation. Additionally, researcher reflexivity (detailed in the Researcher Positionality and Reflexivity section) ensured transparency regarding the research team’s potential influences on data interpretation.

AI-assisted tools disclosure

During the preparation of this manuscript, AI tools (Perplexity AI and DeepL) were utilized for academic translation support from Turkish to English and for linguistic proofreading, given that the research team consists of non-native English speakers. Perplexity AI was used for literature scanning, research assistance, and citation formatting, while DeepL assisted in translation verification. However, all intellectual content, research design, data collection, analysis, thematic coding (all coding processes via NVivo 14), theoretical framing, and interpretation were performed exclusively by human authors. All AI outputs were reviewed and verified by the authors. As a final step prior to submission, the manuscript underwent professional English proofreading and language editing by a native English-speaking academic.

Limitations

Certain limitations should be considered when evaluating this study. First, the gender distribution of the participants (16 female, 4 male) is imbalanced. This distribution is related to the structure of the population reached through the deaf association and those who volunteered. Conceptual experiences such as “taking responsibility,” “caregiving burden,” and “parentification” may be influenced by gender roles; thus, the extent to which these findings reflect the experiences of male CODAs is limited. Research on parentification indicates that daughters disproportionately assume caregiving roles due to gendered socialization patterns (Tannenbaum-Baruchi et al., 2025). Indeed, themes like fedakârlık may be filtered largely through the experiences of female participants; the potential impact of this gendered reflection is further addressed in the Discussion section.

Second, this study is limited to participants in a specific province and employs a qualitative design; thus, findings should not be generalized to the entire CODA population in Turkey. Third, while qualitative research does not aim for statistical generalization, the findings suggest that cultural scripts regarding fedakârlık might be gendered. Future research should specifically examine whether male CODAs experience instrumental parentification differently, particularly in the Turkish context where patriarchal norms might exempt sons from certain caregiving expectations.

A fourth limitation concerns the exclusive use of audio recording during interviews. Given that CODAs are known to employ bimodal bilingual discourse patterns—including co-speech gesture, simultaneous signing, and code-switching between Turkish Sign Language and spoken Turkish (Bishop et al., 2006; Bishop & Hicks, 2005, 2008)—audio recording alone may have resulted in incomplete capture of certain nonverbal communicative acts. To mitigate this, detailed observation notes were taken during each interview and subsequently integrated into the transcripts prior to analysis. Nonetheless, future research would benefit from video recording protocols, particularly for studies examining embodied communication and bimodal bilingualism among CODA populations.

Results

The thematic analysis of the interviews yielded four primary themes: (1) From Burden and Sacrifice to Maturation: Cultural Reframing of Parentification; (2) Between Two Worlds: Needs, Structural Barriers, Belonging Struggles, and Sensory Awareness; (3) Invisible Support Networks: The Grandmother Factor, Family Solidarity, and Coping Strategies; and (4) CODAs’ Voice: From Familial Expectations to Structural Solution Recommendations.

From Burden and Sacrifice to Maturation: Cultural Reframing of Parentification

Participants conceptually reframed their language brokering and caregiving roles beyond the literature’s definition of a “developmental burden,” describing them instead as fedakârlık and a vehicle for “early maturation” that strengthens family bonds. Older CODA participants, in particular, emphasized that assuming parental responsibilities in the face of challenges enabled them to become responsible, mature, independent, and capable of creating opportunities. Contrary to Western-centric individualistic approaches, participants framed these responsibilities not as a “loss of childhood” but as a source of “life skills and resilience” that distinguishes them from their peers.

“I think we are ahead of other people because we have to mature earlier... I can do things that most of my friends cannot: paying water bills, taking my parents to the hospital, communicating with doctors...” (P11, 16, Female).

Another participant supported this experience of early responsibility, similarly framing the situation less as a burden and more as a “privilege”:

“I think it’s a hardship that comes with privilege. You are both someone’s mouth and ears, and at the same time, you are their communication tool, like a phone. But this happens in a very concrete way.” (P13, 17, Female).

“I don’t see it as a difficulty coming with privilege; I see it as an advantage. Because we have to mature earlier, and I can do things that most of my friends cannot do.” (P16, 17, Female).

Unlike Western-centric literature that treats “parentification” as a pathological burden, these statements indicate that participants culturally reconceptualize family responsibilities as a “developmental resource” and “privilege.” This cultural framework repositions what Western parentification literature defines as a burden within the context of hürmet (filial piety) and the debt of gratitude felt toward parents in collectivist societies. In Turkish culture, supporting parents is not merely an obligation but a value system that reinforces family bonds and receives social approval. Furthermore, P13’s statement aligns with Darvin and Norton’s (2015) concept of “investment in language.” In this study, it is highlighted that language choices are related not only to motivation but also to social positioning. P13’s phrase “you are both the mouth and the ear” should be read as an investment in familial roles and social identity, rather than just linguistic proficiency. This supports Palmer’s (2025) critique of deficit-based approaches.

Another dimension of CODAs’ early maturation processes is their instinct to protect their parents against potential societal threats. This leads to parental role reversal, where children assume protective responsibilities not typically suited for their age. This reflects an increased sense of responsibility and protective behavior, positioning them to defend their families against discriminatory attitudes, misunderstandings, or even verbal abuse from hearing individuals.

“When my father has an appointment, I want to go with him too.” (P20, 13, Female).

This statement demonstrates the participant’s sense of responsibility to not leave her father alone, to support him during potential communication barriers, and to protect him.

The analysis of CODAs’ positions within the family and society, the development of their roles and responsibilities, and their sense of belonging yielded four categories: “Role Sharing within the Family,” “Sense of Belonging,” “Positive and Negative Attributes of Being a CODA,” and “Consciousness of Responsibility.”

Hearing children of deaf parents support their parents by undertaking tasks outside their own responsibilities within the family role distribution. To understand the impact of these tasks on their lives and intrafamilial relationships, the focus was placed on the concept of consciousness of responsibility. However, participants noted that adapting to bridging these two worlds can be difficult. Some participants expressed that this situation influenced their perspectives on family order and perceptions of parenthood. Nevertheless, the majority emphasized that the responsibilities they took on made them early-maturing, responsible, self-confident individuals with developed problem-solving skills.

“Developmentally, I am definitely someone who believes there are more advantages than disadvantages. I think I am definitely very good at finger and hand-arm coordination, and better at facial expressions and gestures compared to other people.” (P13, 17, Female).

Participants emphasized that their manual coordination was more developed than their peers, they used facial expressions more effectively, and sign language had a positive impact on the development of these abilities. The constant need for CODAs to use their hands indicates that sign language has become a habitual and integral part of their daily lives. Conversely, a participant who did not know sign language explained the difficulties experienced in communication:

“We had trouble communicating because my knowledge of sign language is very little. In the home environment, my mom and dad don’t use sign language either. I mean, they use it among themselves sometimes. They mostly use it when talking with their friends.” (P9, 15, Female).

CODAs exist simultaneously in both deaf and hearing environments.

“I feel closer to the hearing environment because it is a bit harder to talk with deaf people since I don’t fully understand sign language. It is easier to communicate in spoken Turkish.” (P4, 13, Male).

“I definitely feel closer to the deaf and hard-of-hearing. They are happier, more cheerful, they laugh...” (P2, 12, Female).

Four participants felt close to both environments, seven to the hearing environment, and nine to the deaf environment. Participants who felt a sense of belonging to the hearing environment either did not know sign language at all or knew it very incompletely. CODAs who felt closer to the deaf environment stated that they were more entertained and comfortable in that setting.

On the other hand, while the majority of participants reframed parentification positively, a few could not. For instance, P10 expressed frustration:

“I got angry at my mother asking why don’t you hear.” (P10, 15, Female).

Similarly, P19 reflected on a sense of longing:

“Honestly, I always wondered this: if my mom and dad weren’t deaf, how would I get along with them, how would I talk to them? I always thought about this; I wanted to experience it.” (P19, 12, Female).

These narratives demonstrate that cultural reframing is not universal but varies depending on context, such as the intensity of peer bullying, the availability of family support, and structural interpreter access. These few negative cases indicate that the ideology of fedakârlık may coexist with stress, especially in the absence of institutional support (school interpreters, accessible healthcare). This finding aligns with Palmer’s (2025) warning against romanticizing CODA experiences and underscores the importance of addressing systemic audism alongside cultural values.

Between Two Worlds: Needs, Structural Barriers, Belonging Struggles, and Sensory Awareness

The findings indicate that the source of challenges experienced by CODAs is not deaf parents but rather the hearing world’s systemic barriers—interpreter shortages and institutional audism.

Sensory awareness: the comfort of silence

Participants reported developing a heightened “sensory awareness” in the transitions between the silent home environment and the noisy external world (school, street). Participants expressed discomfort with noisy environments not as a biological deficit but as a sensory preference shaped by their culturally deaf home environments. Rather than pathological sensitivity, they described a cultural longing for the “comfort of silence”—a preference for quietude cultivated in visually oriented, deaf-parented households.

Findings indicate that childhood experiences significantly impact CODAs’ biopsychosocial development. Coping with issues such as identity confusion in the family and social exclusion or discrimination in society can also affect their biological needs and problems.

Navigating two languages: communication barriers and linguistic development

The most fundamental need of children is to express themselves and communicate effectively with their environment through both sign language and spoken language. Since CODAs are present in both hearing and deaf environments, they are termed “bilingual.” When this need is not met, various problems are observed in the bilingual learning process.

“...During primary school, we couldn’t communicate with my mother; my grandmother would come along with my mother. She would explain things to my mother.” (P6, 14, Female).

This statement illustrates early communication barriers stemming from limited input in both sign and spoken language. The grandmother assumed the role of linguistic mediator, functioning as a bridge between the child and her deaf mother. While this facilitated daily communication, it also reflects a power dynamic where the deaf parent’s linguistic autonomy is temporarily displaced (Singleton & Tittle, 2000)—a pattern that, despite being supportive, risks marginalizing deaf parental authority.

“...because I am constantly used to hand signs, I have communication problems. I can’t speak Turkish clearly [due to limited spoken language input]; sometimes I stutter a lot... I use my hands very often.” (P14, 17, female).

Regarding language development, interviews revealed that the gender of participants did not create a significant difference in language development.

The health needs of CODA children generally show similarities with other children. Findings reveal a need for CODAs to recognize and define problem areas.

“I wouldn’t want my children to face such problems, because these barriers imposed by the hearing world lower their quality of life.” (P15, 17, Female).

Some CODA children expressed that having a deaf parent in the family would not have a positive or negative reflection on an individual’s life. Using sign language with parents and growing up in a silent home environment can shape the sensory experiences of CODA children. Most participants expressed discomfort with loud sounds and noise, stating they determined their social circles based on these preferences:

“...I am a person who is very afraid of loud noises. I am a person who does not like noise. I don’t keep anyone around me who speaks loudly.” (P13, 17, Female).

This sensory awareness affects CODAs’ social environment preferences and, in some cases, limits their social interactions.

Belonging struggles: peer exclusion and bicultural identity

Additionally, exclusion experiences in the school environment have complicated CODAs’ social adaptation processes:

“...in primary school, my friends used to make fun of my mom and dad.” (P8, 14, Female).

“When I was little, I had a lot of difficulty with this subject, wondering if people would misunderstand me... I had a fear of exclusion and not being understood.” (P13, 17, Female).

Like every individual, CODAs have a need to be accepted and feel safe in their family and social circles. When this need is not met, behavioral problems such as identity confusion, assuming excessive responsibility, needing to be the center of attention, anger management issues, blaming parents, or hiding the parents’ disability from social circles emerge.

CODA individuals are forced to protect their parents against hearing individuals in society and other potential dangers.

“Actually, I never fully told my hearing circle that my mother and father were deaf; they realized it when they saw my family.” (P18, 14, Female).

“I was angry at my mother, asking why she couldn’t hear.” (P10, 15, Female).

CODAs live with the instinct to protect their parents from society’s potential stigma and prejudices. One of the most fundamental needs of CODA individuals is for their developmental needs to be met across different stages and to grow up without assuming parental responsibilities incompatible with their age. However, contrary to the healthy fulfillment of developmental needs, it is noteworthy that CODAs undertake different responsibilities in childhood compared to children of other families.

They stated that in points where they felt they could not express themselves well despite using sign language, they unintentionally hurt their relatives with sudden outbursts of anger. CODA individuals hid this situation from their social circles due to the fear of exclusion stemming from their parents’ disability type.

“...everyone’s family was helping their daughter, but I was struggling there on my own. My mother couldn’t do anything; this made me very sad and caused me to be jealous of my friends.” (P16, 17, Female).

“I want to be a singer when I grow up, but my parents won’t be able to listen to my song.” (P1, 12, Female).

The initial reaction of CODA individuals exposed to peer bullying at young ages was a feeling of jealousy. Having hearing-impaired parents was associated with various life challenges such as peer bullying, marginalization, and difficulty in belonging, causing them to be sometimes exalted and sometimes pushed out within the peer group.

“The only difficulty I experienced was being exposed to too much peer bullying in primary school...” (P8, 14, Female).

“...My peers are very good at bullying or humiliating, and I was very shy about this subject. There were many times when I didn’t say anything. I had a fear of exclusion and not being understood.” (P13, 17, Female).

“Frankly, I always thought, if my mom and dad weren’t deaf, how would I get along with them, how would I talk to them? I always thought about this, I wanted to experience this.” (P19, 12, Female).

The need for understanding in CODA individuals becomes more pronounced as a result of having to communicate with sign language in the family environment and the inability to establish healthy parent–child communication. This situation reinforces the fear of exclusion by increasing the anxiety of not being understood.

CODAs experience the needs and problems faced by their deaf parents. Specific needs arising from having deaf parents and the failure to meet these needs create various problems.

“When we got on the bus, they looked at us weirdly; this actually wasn’t about the difference. We were normal people, just like everyone else.” (P2, 12, Female).

“The only difficulty I experienced was being exposed to too much peer bullying in primary school; in primary school, my friends used to make fun of my mom and dad.” (P8, 14, Female).

In the interviews, CODA individuals mentioned exclusion experiences. As understood from the statements, CODA individuals were mostly excluded by their environment. One CODA stated that the presence of deaf family members paved the way for exclusion, while another expressed experiencing peer bullying and mocking attitudes with their deaf family being targeted. At the root of CODAs’ exclusion problem lies the unmet need for acceptance, integration with society, and a sense of belonging. Children need to feel they belong to a group in the family and society and to be accepted without judgment.

Structural Barriers: Interpreter Gaps and Unmet Institutional Needs.

CODA individuals may face additional responsibilities due to the daily difficulties their parents experience. Accordingly, situations such as the interruption of educational life may occur.

“In daily life, when going to the hospital, I have to go too. For example, when my brother was sick and I had to go with my father, I remember having to stay at the hospital until very late at night. Even though I had an exam the next day. I experienced many difficulties like this.” (P15, 17, Female).

CODA children are forced to sacrifice their education due to family members’ hospital visits and interpreting responsibilities. CODA individuals face problems regarding receiving academic support and undertake responsibilities incompatible with their age. These difficulties create a need for interpreters to communicate with education and institutions.

CODA individuals’ self-expression involves the ability to communicate with deaf family members. This communication generally occurs through sign language, lip-reading, written notes, or other alternative communication methods. Their closeness with deaf family members may cause them to form a deep emotional bond, but in some cases, communication difficulties within the family and external pressures can affect CODA individuals. Below, CODA individuals mentioned the problems they experienced while expressing themselves:

“When I was little, it was hard to express myself because I didn’t know the meanings of some words. That’s why I had to write, but even if I wrote, my mom and dad didn’t understand exactly what that word meant. That’s why sometimes we experienced a breakdown in communication.” (P13, 17, Female).

“I was always at home with my family, I was quiet, I only communicated with my mom and dad. Compared to my social life outside, I was a very quiet child even when our relatives came to us. This is not just about my education life, friends, or teacher; because I grew up as a very quiet child, I couldn’t communicate much with my teacher either.” (P15, 17, Female).

Since CODA children grew up in an intense communication environment within the family, they could have difficulty communicating with the outside world. Silence and introversion are understood from the statements indicating that their ability to communicate in outside social interactions and at school was negatively affected.

CODAs grow up with their deaf parents while simultaneously growing up in a world with hearing ability. This situation may require balancing different forms of communication such as sign and spoken language. The social environment’s inability to understand CODA individuals’ communication language and reacting differently to it can also create adaptation problems.

“This is probably a bit about the person being able to get used to it, accepting this situation, because a person cannot adapt to the outside world when they are at an age where they blame themselves asking why me?” (P15, 17, Female).

“I don’t remember, but instead of calling out to my friends, I was apparently touching them. And they perceived it as if I was hitting them. There was such a problem.” (P9, 15, Female).

In the statement by P15, the process of accepting being the child of a deaf family is related to adapting to the outside during a period of self-blame. In the situation described by P9, she was accustomed to the tactile communication language established with her deaf parents, reflected this to the hearing environment, and was even perceived incorrectly by her social circle.

Invisible support networks: the grandmother factor, family solidarity, and coping strategies

The approaches of CODA individuals to the problems they experience, coping and support mechanisms, and the roles of family relatives in the process were analyzed under three categories: “Behavior,” “Supporting Family Relative,” and “Adaptation to Social Life.”

CODAs show strong adaptation and adjustment abilities by developing various coping mechanisms against the problems they experience. However, these behaviors can vary according to personal experiences, family dynamics, and external factors.

“...Before, I used to get angry and sulk because they didn’t understand me, but when I realized that the problem was my inability to express myself, I stopped blaming them. Now I approach them more calmly, more moderately.” (P15, 17, Female).

The participant reports that she previously succumbed to negative emotions when misunderstood, but in later years, gained awareness and demonstrated a calmer and more moderate approach.

It is seen that participants encountered various problems due to having deaf parents and developed various coping mechanisms to solve their problems. They stated that their grandmothers provided significant support, especially during this process. These coping mechanisms vary according to lived experiences, family dynamics, support groups, and environmental factors, creating personal and significant approaches.

“My grandfather and grandmother raised me. They live downstairs from us. When I was little, my grandmother took care of me more; she would call me to her house because my mom and dad couldn’t hear if I cried.” (P20, 13, Female).

“Thanks to my grandmothers and grandfather, I learned to read and speak; without their support, it would probably have been very difficult.” (P14, 17, Female).

“I overcame the problems I experienced by sharing them with my mother, and I’m glad I shared them with her because I think I wouldn’t have been able to solve these problems if I had shared them with someone who wasn’t deaf. This was truly a problem I experienced due to my family being deaf; I saw this more clearly while talking to my mother, and seeing this benefited me.” (P15, 17, Female).

Participants express that their parents and second/third-degree relatives (maternal grandmother, paternal grandmother, grandfather, cousin, aunt, uncle) played significantly supportive roles in the process of solving the problems they experienced.

“For example, when an interpreter is needed, my aunt and cousin help out. As much as they can...” (P12, 16, Male).

“My aunts and uncles in my environment used to help when I was little.” (P2, 12, Female).

When the findings are examined, it is seen that many important factors such as family environment, age, school and friend circles, support mechanisms, and communication skills affect CODA children’s adaptation to social life.

CODAs’ voice: from familial expectations to structural solution recommendations

The expectations and recommendations of CODA individuals were analyzed under two categories: “Expectations and Recommendations from Parents” and “Expectations and Recommendations from Relevant Institutions and Organizations.” Expectations and recommendations from parents are presented below:

“When I was a child, I really wanted my mother to read me fairy tales.” (P20, 13, Female).

“If my child is a hearing person, I would definitely aim to take them to as many social activities as possible... Apart from that, I would definitely want my child to know sign language very well... I would want to support them socially as much as I can.” (P13, 17, Female).

“I would improve myself more, look to develop and learn... asking children everything doesn’t seem very right to me in this regard. Because when you constantly get help from children, you start not doing anything yourself anymore.” (P14, 17, Female).

CODAs expressed a longing for certain types of shared activities with their parents (e.g., rituals of reading fairy tales in sign language). These expectations reflect not parental inadequacy, but a longing for communication rituals that are underemphasized in families due to structural barriers (lack of Turkish children’s literature in sign language). CODAs stated that they performed mandatory language brokering for their families due to the lack of structural interpreters in public institutions (hospitals, banks, schools). Participants emphasized that this situation stemmed not from their parents’ inadequacy, but from the hearing society’s failure to provide accessible services to deaf citizens (structural audism). One participant (P15, 17, Female) stated: “The biggest deficiency I see is that people outside are unconscious... people need to know how to behave when they encounter a person with hearing loss.” This statement shows that the problem is systemic, not individual.

While CODAs assume the responsibility of being an “interpreter to the hearing world” for their parents, they also demand reciprocity from their parents. This reciprocity manifests as early and intensive investment in sign language (Allard & Roos, 2025) and striving to establish emotional intimacy. These findings contrast with Allard and Roos’s (2025) argument that Swedish CODAs “invest in their languages”; instead, they show that Turkish CODAs demand their parents “invest in their language (sign language).” P20’s desire for fairy tales reflects not only an emotional expectation but also a demand for narrative richness in sign language. This reveals the need for parents to develop sign language not just as a pragmatic communication tool, but as a vehicle for cultural and emotional transmission. P13 and P14’s statements confirm the concept of role reversal in parentification literature, but also show that CODAs do not accept this passively; rather, they demand parent–child reciprocity. This aligns with Palmer’s (2025) call to avoid viewing CODAs merely as subjects carrying a burden: Turkish CODAs, while supporting their parents, demand an equitable distribution of this process and for their parents to act as “interpreters to their childhood worlds.”

CODA individuals have certain expectations from relevant institutions and organizations to facilitate the lives of both their deaf parents and themselves.

“There could be interpreters in government institutions, banks, hospitals, police stations. Not just in government institutions, for example, there should be interpreters in large places, shopping malls...” (P12, 16, Male).

“The biggest deficiency I see is that people outside are unconscious; I would want these people to become conscious. I would want to show them how they should behave and communicate when they encounter this situation, a deaf person.” (P15, 17, Female).

“I would buy hearing aids. I would learn to drive. I would do whatever I could for them. I would try not to leave them alone.” (P16, 17, Female).

When CODA individuals’ expectations from relevant institutions are evaluated, important clues emerge regarding how to find solutions to the needs and problems they face in their daily lives. CODA individuals demand the provision of hearing aids, support for social skills, structural empowerment of their parents, and widespread communication facilities that could be more effective in places such as government institutions, banks, hospitals, and shopping malls where interpreters are present.

Although CODAs reframe familial responsibilities as fedakârlık, this does not legitimize the lack of interpreter infrastructure in structural systems. It reveals that the lack of interpreter services negatively affects not only deaf parents but also turns children into secondary victims. Participants demand the professionalization of language brokering, which is coded as invisible labor, and for deaf parents to have independent access rights in public spaces. These demands make visible both the important needs of deaf parents to be more comfortable and independent in social life and the support needs of CODAs in this regard. Additionally, although CODA individuals are not deaf themselves, they can carry their parents’ stigmatization vicariously. Although CODA individuals are not deaf themselves, they experience courtesy stigma (Goffman, 1963)—the social devaluation extended to family members of stigmatized individuals. P18’s concealment (“I never fully told my hearing circle”) reflects a stigma management strategy rather than shame toward deaf parents. CODAs demanding education and awareness campaigns instead of passively accepting this situation reflects their transition characteristics from the role of stigma managers to advocacy activists.

On one hand, CODAs reframe this maturation as fedakârlık and “privilege” (Theme 1); on the other hand, this reframing legitimizes adults ignoring CODAs’ childhood needs (childhood needs invisibility). This confirms the risk of “loss of childhood” in the definition of parentification (Heffernan & Nixon, 2023). At the same time, it reveals the bidirectional nature of the process (Singleton & Tittle, 2000), indicating that these responsibilities should be evaluated together with developmental outcomes such as premature maturity. More critically, despite CODAs expressing their expectations (having voice), the failure to meet these expectations (not being heard) reveals that CODA individuals are not adequately represented on the social policy agenda. This invisibility indicates that policies and services insufficient for deaf individuals leave their children (CODAs) as neglected stakeholders.

Discussion

The findings of this study demonstrate that adolescent CODAs in Turkey assume a crucial “bridge” role between their deaf parents and the hearing world—a phenomenon extensively documented in international literature. Heffernan and Nixon (2023) define this role as “parentification” and “language brokering,” involving responsibilities disproportionate to the child’s developmental stage. Tannenbaum-Baruchi et al. (2025) conceptualize this as a “responsibiligated” status, marked by bidirectional pressure: both responsibility (active caregiving, brokering) and obligation (culturally scripted roles). However, our participants—who manage hospital appointments, institutional liaisons, and sibling care—frame these duties not as compulsory burdens but as processes of cultural maturation embedded in filial piety.

Contrary to the “deficit-based” paradigms critiqued by Palmer (2025), Turkish CODAs’ experiences demand a strengths-based interpretation. Parentification here is not pathology but a solidarity practice rooted in collectivist culture. In familistic societies like Turkey, fedakârlık is deeply ingrained in “family integrity” where children’s contributions signify ensuring family survival, not role reversal. This cultural framing transforms what Western literature terms “instrumental parentification” into a source of pride and maturity. While hürmet (filial piety) forms the cultural and moral foundation of the adolescents’ respect for their parents within collectivist family structures, the empirical findings of this study primarily highlight fedakârlık—the active, lived manifestation of this respect through daily caregiving and language brokering contributions.

These findings resonate with and extend Napier’s (2021) reconceptualization of sign language brokering in Deaf-hearing families. Napier demonstrates that CODAs across Anglo-Saxon contexts frequently embrace brokering as an asset—a source of pride, relational competence, and even professional trajectory—rather than an unbearable burden. The present study corroborates this positive orientation while adding a culturally specific layer: In the Turkish collectivist context, the reframing is not only individual (a personal sense of pride) but deeply relational and value-laden. Responsibility is not merely tolerated; it is actively celebrated through the cultural grammar of fedakârlık and hürmet. Where Napier’s participants described brokering as “a gift,” our participants articulated it as an intergenerational duty with honor—a subtle but meaningful distinction that underscores the importance of culturally situated analysis in CODA scholarship.

Napier (2021) also documents that heritage signers’ feelings about brokering are not uniformly positive; they can shift over time and may co-exist with frustration or stress—particularly in high-stakes contexts such as healthcare settings. This nuance is consistent with our negative case findings (P10, P19), where the cultural framing of fedakârlık coexisted with moments of frustration and longing, confirming that this study does not romanticize CODA experience. Furthermore, Napier (2021) demonstrates that heritage signers actively resist the indirect stigma and shame associated with brokering by reframing it as a source of pride and belonging—a shame resilience strategy that directly parallels how our participants deployed fedakârlık as a counter-narrative to peer exclusion and bicultural marginalization. Finally, the theme of brokering as cooperation and responsibility (Napier, 2021) resonates closely with the concept of hürmet articulated in this study: In both contexts, brokering is experienced not as something imposed upon the child but as something freely offered—a relational commitment rooted in intergenerational loyalty rather than obligation.

While Allard and Roos (2025) highlight legal rights and individual autonomy in Swedish CODAs’ identity development, our study reveals that in relational cultures like Turkey, CODA experiences center on familial duties and collective sacrifice. Whereas Swedish participants may invest in their language (Sign Language), Turkish CODAs invest in caregiving for their families—a distinction reflecting divergent cultural value systems.

This “connector” role produces bidirectional effects. Participants reported that these responsibilities enhanced crisis management and problem-solving skills, fostering early maturation. Allard and Roos (2025) describe bimodal–bilingual life as an “engine for awareness.” Our findings support this but suggest that in Turkey, this engine drives familial solidarity rather than purely individual autonomy—echoing Karademir and Aytekin’s (2022) observations on CODAs’ advanced skills. Critically, the “Supportive Family Relative” theme—particularly grandparents— plays a vital role in this development. This mirrors Dočekal and Klimentová’s (2025) concept of the “inverted sandwich generation,” where grandparents fill the language model gap. Similarly, Seven and Göl-Güven (2016) emphasize that such social support mechanisms enable healthy development despite potential linguistic risks.

Conversely, participants noted that this role creates role confusion and multiplicity of roles, challenging family hierarchies—supported by Karasu’s (2023) findings on adverse CODA experiences. While Turkish Sign Language (TİD) facilitates family communication, it can pose challenges in interactions with the hearing world. Without external support, children’s spoken Turkish development may be delayed. Public and professional services—beyond sign language alone—are essential to support CODAs’ holistic language development. These findings align with Kanto et al.’s (2013) observations on bilingual challenges and underscore that early TİD acquisition significantly mitigates communication barriers. Chen and Ni (2024) note that family language systems shape CODAs’ identity and communication skills; however, our study observed more flexible, context-dependent systems in Turkish families, suggesting that cultural context and family dynamics are critical factors.

Identity development

CODAs simultaneously experience belonging to both deaf and hearing worlds. For some, this fosters empathy and communication skills; for others, it triggers anger management issues and social adaptation challenges—mirroring Allard and Roos’ (2025) findings. Notably, some Turkish CODAs reframe these responsibilities positively, diverging from Western literature’s predominantly negative framing. This reflects Turkish cultural values where sacrifice and solidarity are esteemed virtues.

Allard and Roos (2025) define CODA identity as dual: “half hearing, half deaf” or “physically hearing but psychologically deaf.” Our participants’ affiliations varied—some felt closer to the deaf community (citing joy and comfort), others to the hearing world (citing ease of communication)—confirming Singleton and Tittle’s (2000) “insiders, yet outsiders” paradox. This is among the study’s most significant contributions to international literature.

Future research should focus on creating healthy developmental frameworks for CODAs navigating both worlds. Group-based support programs can strengthen belonging by facilitating peer sharing. Individual and family counseling, alongside school social work, should address cultural and identity dimensions to reduce conflict in identity exploration.

Gender, parentification, and intersectionality

The gender distribution (16 female, 4 male participants), noted as a methodological limitation, becomes an analytical focal point. Literature shows that caregiving responsibilities and emotional labor disproportionately fall on girls within gendered roles (Tannenbaum-Baruchi et al., 2025). The dominance of “sacrifice” and “early maturation” narratives in our findings may reflect this gendered dynamic.

In Turkey, where gender roles are pronounced, girls may internalize familial duties as a “natural” extension of their role, framing it as “maturation”—potentially differing from male adolescents’ experiences. Parentification is thus not only cultural but gendered. The prevalence of female participants (n = 16) suggests that “caregiving” and “sacrifice” themes may intersect with gender socialization.

Parentification literature confirms that girls undertake more emotional parentification, reinforced by gendered socialization (Hooper, 2007, 2008; Jurkovic, 1997). In collectivist societies emphasizing family unity, gender-based patterns become more pronounced. In Turkish culture, when familial roles intersect with gender expectations, female CODAs may internalize parentification as “sacrifice,” while male CODAs may frame similar responsibilities as a “protector role.” The emotional labor expected of girls further complicates CODA experiences (Hochschild, 1983).

This gendered pattern extends beyond CODA families. Gencer et al. (2022), examining vulnerable populations in Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic, found that gender-blind welfare policies reproduced gendered “waiting” experiences: Women bore disproportionate care burdens, while men faced masculinity crises. This finding resonates with our study—gender-neutral framing of parentification risks obscuring how Turkish patriarchal norms assign emotional labor disproportionately to daughters, while sons may be exempted from caregiving expectations due to “protector–provider” role scripts.

The dominance of “sacrifice” discourse among our predominantly female participants may reflect not only collectivist values but also gendered socialization—a critical point for generalizability. Future research should examine whether male CODAs in Turkey experience parentification differently, particularly regarding emotional labor demands and how “protector–provider” roles are culturally framed.

Instrumental versus emotional parentification

Western literature predominantly frames CODAs’ early responsibilities as “parentification”—a pathological burden (Heffernan & Nixon, 2023; Singleton & Tittle, 2000). As Palmer (2025) critiques, this risks reading CODA experiences through “deficit-based narratives” of dysfunction.

Our findings reveal that participants’ experiences fall under instrumental parentification—task-oriented roles (language brokering, medical interpreting, bill payments). Unlike Western literature’s emotional parentification (role reversal as emotional caregiver), Turkish participants frame these roles as filial duty (Hooper, 2008; Jurkovic, 1997). This nuance shows how parentification is culturally constructed: In collectivist societies, instrumental tasks signify “early maturation” and family contribution, not “childhood loss” (Palmer, 2025).

Our findings suggest that Turkish CODAs prioritize instrumental over emotional parentification, framing these tasks as filial duty rather than emotional burdens. This contrasts with Western findings where instrumental tasks correlate with emotional stress (Hooper, 2008; Jurkovic, 1997), pointing to cultural differences in parent–child obligation schemas (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007): in Turkish collectivism, instrumental support is normative and valued; in individualistic cultures, it may signal parental inadequacy.

Filer and Filer (2000) argue that deaf culture prioritizes collectivism and interdependence over individualism, and should not be judged through Western norms. Similarly, in familistic cultures like Turkey, “family integrity” and “filial piety” supersede individual autonomy. Social work interventions must avoid labeling parentification as inherently negative by ignoring this cultural nuance (Palmer, 2025); instead, they should focus on how individuals make meaning of their roles, adhering to the “start where the client is” principle.

Sensory awareness: adaptation, not pathology

A significant contribution is CODAs’ “sensory sensitivity” experiences. Expressions like “discomfort with loud noises” are not individual preferences but sensory adaptations to quiet home environments. We interpret this as environmental adaptation to transitions between silent homes and noisy external worlds (Allard & Roos, 2025)—not biological disorder.

High noise sensitivity should not be misinterpreted as hyper-vigilance (trauma response) but understood as “bimodal sensory navigation”—a culturally adaptive skill. This aligns with deaf Studies literature reframing deaf sensory experiences as DeafGain, not deficit (Bauman & Murray, 2014). Similarly, CODAs’ sensory flexibility (comfort in silence, discomfort in noise) reflects embodied bilingual competence—adaptive expertise, not pathology.

Structural audism and peer bullying

Participants reported that fears of exclusion, ridicule, and misunderstanding led to timidity and self-confidence loss. This parallels Heffernan and Nixon’s (2023) findings on peer differentiation and bullying, where CODA children were stigmatized through derogatory labels such as “deaf and dumb” (a term used by bullies to demean, not by the authors). As Palmer (2025) emphasizes, the issue stems not from parents’ deafness but from structural barriers—systemic audism and ableism. Bullying reflects societal prejudices and institutional support gaps, not parental inadequacy.

This highlights a multidimensional problem involving societal norms and structural deficiencies. Beyond micro-level individual empowerment, mezzo-level family work and school social work expansion are crucial. At the macro level, legal regulations tailored to CODAs’ needs, awareness programs, and prejudice reduction initiatives are required.

Conclusion and recommendations

This study examining Turkish CODAs’ life experiences reveals that the “bridge” role between deaf parents and the hearing world can lead to excessive responsibility and role confusion. While this dynamic may trigger cycles of burnout, communication problems, and “postponed childhood,” it also engenders positive outcomes. The majority of participants framed family role-sharing positively, noting that experiences often viewed negatively in academic contexts contributed to their maturation.

To support CODAs’ psychosocial development, Social Service Centers should provide empowerment-based family and psychological counseling focused on clarifying roles, developing healthy responsibility, and ensuring childhood is not deferred. Psychosocial support groups offering peer sharing can facilitate coping.

Given that TİD often develops as the primary language while spoken Turkish may be delayed, communication barriers can arise. Early childhood language screenings, promotion of bilingual home environments, and sign language course dissemination are vital for identity development and social integration. Technological innovations, such as AI-supported bidirectional dictionary applications (Sheng et al., 2024), can bridge communication gaps in CODA and Parents of Deaf Children families.

Considering “sensory sensitivity” findings, where CODAs report discomfort with loud noises, school social workers and educators should implement empowerment-based programs preventing withdrawal from noisy classrooms and supporting self-confidence. As Palmer (2025) states, these interventions must be “strengths-based,” highlighting cognitive flexibility and empathy from biculturalism—not deficit-based.

Educational disruptions should be addressed through school social work expansion. In-service training for teachers to recognize CODAs’ communication experiences, and sign language inclusion in curricula, should be encouraged to enhance social cohesion.

Participants’ bullying experiences were notably framed not as individual inadequacy but as results of the social environment’s “ableism/audism” and lack of awareness (P15: “The biggest deficiency I see is people’s unconsciousness”). This locates the problem in societal awareness deficits, not families. Given risks of social exclusion and problematic technology use among adolescents (Aktan & Gökçearslan, 2024), psychoeducational group work should incorporate cognitive-behavioral approaches addressing these risks.

Finally, this study highlights CODAs’ “invisibility” in social policy. Often categorized broadly as “young carers” in United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), World Health Organization (WHO), and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) documents, their unique experiences of language brokering and biculturalism are overlooked. As Palmer (2025) critiques, such classifications rely on deficit-based models founded on systemic audism that question deaf parents’ competence. Therefore, social workers must advocate with policymakers (e.g., Ministry of Family and Social Services, UNICEF) for official recognition of CODAs as a distinct group with linguistic and cultural rights requiring specific psychosocial support. Simultaneously, efforts must ensure deaf parents are recognized as competent individuals requiring institutional support (e.g., free professional interpreters), not remediation.

The findings from Turkey—emphasizing “sacrifice,” “maturation,” and “familial contribution”—offer an alternative strengths-based perspective to Western deficit-based models centered on pathology. This experience can inform culturally sensitive, nonpathologizing models for social work in other familistic and collectivist cultures (Mediterranean, Middle East, Latin America, Asia). Building on experiences from CODA International and EU CODA Network, establishing national and global networks, and expanding conferences, camps, and online support platforms for CODAs is recommended.

Ultimately, this study demonstrates that CODAs’ challenges stem not from deaf parents’ inadequacy but from the hearing world’s exclusionary structures (schools, healthcare, public services). Social work interventions should not aim to “fix” families but to support CODAs’ “cultural mediation” strengths and dismantle societal and institutional barriers (audism).