Deaf children need language, not (just) speech

Abstract

Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) children need to master at least one language (spoken or signed) to reach their full potential. Providing access to a natural sign language supports this goal. Despite evidence that natural sign languages are beneficial to DHH children, many researchers and practitioners advise families to focus exclusively on spoken language. We critique the Pediatrics article ‘Early Sign Language Exposure and Cochlear Implants’ (Geers et al., 2017) as an example of research that makes unsupported claims against the inclusion of natural sign languages. We refute claims that (1) there are harmful effects of sign language and (2) that listening and spoken language are necessary for optimal development of deaf children. While practical challenges remain (and are discussed) for providing a sign language-rich environment, research evidence suggests that such challenges are worth tackling in light of natural sign languages providing a host of benefits for DHH children – especially in the prevention and reduction of language deprivation.

Deaf Children as ‘English Learners’: The Psycholinguistic Turn in Deaf Education

“…The researchers concluded that their study offered "the most compelling support yet available in CI literature for the benefits of spoken language input for promoting verbal development in children implanted by 3 years of age" (p. 1). However, as Hall et al [33] explain, the study presents no evidence that there is a causal relationship between the use of signing and lower achievement, and it is quite possible that Geers et al's results "reflect a self-selection effect, where children who fare best in spoken language gravitate to oral-only environments while children who struggle in spoken language remain in or seek out sign language and manual communication environments" [33] (p. 6).…”

“…This has led to cochlear implantation becoming the standard of care for deaf children in developed countries. In many cases, parents are discouraged from signing with their deaf children based a limited set of studies that suggest that the acquisition of sign language may interfere with speech development (see [33,34]). Even where parents are not explicitly discouraged from signing, the success of cochlear implants-coupled with the difficulties associated with acquiring a new language-mean that the vast majority of hearing parents are not choosing to sign with their deaf children [3].…”

“…However, other studies point to significant within group variation, demonstrating that not all infants who receive implants gain adequate access to the auditory language present in their environments [4,33,[56][57][58][59]. Deaf children raised in spoken English environments who do not have full access to English exhibit language delays not only in the acquisition of English, but also in ASL [16,60].…”

“…Deaf children raised in spoken English environments who do not have full access to English exhibit language delays not only in the acquisition of English, but also in ASL [16,60]. In 2019, Hall, Hall, and Caselli [33] report that deaf children are still "significantly underperforming on standardized assessments of speech and spoken language, even after early identification, early amplification, and early enrollment in intervention and support services" (p. 3).…”

“…Language deprivation is a very rare phenomenon among hearing children, typically only seen in cases of severe abuse or neglect [59], and it would clearly be unethical to intentionally deprive a child of language for research purposes. But, as Hall et al [33] note, language deprivation is "so common among DHH children and adults that it often fails to provoke the alarm it deserves" (p. 2).…”