Language Matters: Denying the Existence of the 30‐Million‐Word Gap Has Serious Consequences

Abstract

Sperry, Sperry, and Miller (2018) aim to debunk what is called the 30-million-word gap by claiming that children from lower income households hear more speech than Hart and Risley () reported. We address why the 30-million-word gap should not be abandoned, and the importance of retaining focus on the vital ingredient to language learning-quality speech directed to children rather than overheard speech, the focus of Sperry et al.'s argument. Three issues are addressed: Whether there is a language gap; the characteristics of speech that promote language development; and the importance of language in school achievement. There are serious risks to claims that low-income children, on average, hear sufficient, high-quality language relative to peers from higher income homes.

Language Does Matter: But There is More to Language Than Vocabulary and Directed Speech

“…Although we believe that bystander speech is a fruitful topic for further research, we take issue with Golinkoff et al. 's () assertion that such speech is the focus of our argument. In fact, we explored three definitions of the verbal environment, only one of which focused on bystander speech: (a) Speech addressed to the child by primary caregivers (consistent with HR and most other literature on vocabulary development); (b) speech addressed to the child by all other family members; and (c) bystander speech, that is, all ambient speech within the child's hearing.…”

“…In recent years this claim has been widely disseminated within and beyond the academy and it has generated high‐profile interventions designed to reduce the gap by teaching poor parents to talk more to their children. As Golinkoff, Hoff, Rowe, Tamis‐LeMonda, and Hirsh‐Pasek () say, “this catchy phrase” (the 30‐million‐word gap) has “let the public in on the research” (p. 6). Thanks to the remarkable success of this dissemination (more about this later), many Americans are likely to think that parents from low‐income and minority backgrounds do not talk enough to their young children, thereby imperiling their school achievement.…”

Language Clearly Matters; Methods Matter Too

“…The number of evaluation sessions at each time point and during each type of setting should be sufficient enough to extrapolate more broadly across similar unmeasured periods. As raised by SSM and Golinkoff et al (), the quality and quantity of language and the different types of language heard should be accounted for. This could be conducted by taking advantage of new technology (Gilkerson et al, ) that allows for capturing various aspects of language interactions (including the “conversational‐duet” noted by Golinkoff et al, ).…”

“…As raised by SSM and Golinkoff et al (), the quality and quantity of language and the different types of language heard should be accounted for. This could be conducted by taking advantage of new technology (Gilkerson et al, ) that allows for capturing various aspects of language interactions (including the “conversational‐duet” noted by Golinkoff et al, ). However, it may also be beneficial to measure nonverbal communication such as gestures as this has been found to be an important component of early language development (Iverson & Goldin‐Meadow, ).…”

“…Sperry et al (, ), and Golinkoff et al () both raise critical issues of how we measure language and in what contexts. As noted by Sperry et al (), blanket statements about a massive word gap and a need to fix it may be inadvertently harmful to certain populations.…”