Content area
Full Text
For hundreds of years, language philosophies and education of deaf children have been mired in an “either-or” dilemma between sign language-inclusive and spoken language-only approaches. It has been described as a “highly polarized conflict” with widespread misinformation about what is the best approach (Humphries et al. 2012b), such as the belief that sign language acquisition interferes with spoken language acquisition. In fact, bilinguals are associated with better cognitive outcomes when compared with monolinguals (Adesope et al. 2010), especially at earlier ages of active bilingualism (Luk et al. 2011). This belief of sign language-interference has endured despite a long-standing lack of empirical evidence that spoken language-only approaches are more effective (Henner et al. 2016; Humphries et al. 2016).
In a recent systematic review of sign language and spoken language interventions compared to spoken language-only interventions, the authors concluded “…very limited, and hence, insufficient evidence exists to determine whether adding sign language to spoken language is more effective than spoken language intervention alone to foster [spoken] language acquisition” (Fitzpatrick et al. 2016, p. 14). Such reviews are fundamentally flawed in failing to distinguish natural sign languages from artificial communication systems, which would not enable bilingualism or language transfer (e.g., sign-supported speech or signing exact English) (M. L. Hall et al. 2017). Additionally, the authors approach the system review as if the “burden of evidence” is in only one direction; however, if the evidence is supposedly insufficient in one direction—ipso facto, it is insufficient in the other direction and there is insufficient evidence of spoken language-only approaches being more effective.
Medical and educational advice is frequently rooted in a framework of viewing deaf children as “defective hearing people” (Bailes et al. 2009), an approach that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, medical school education does not address language development for deaf and hard-of-hearing children (Humphries et al. 2014), which can lead to flawed medical advice. Additionally, parents often rely on community sources (e.g., teachers, ministers, other community members) that are not knowledgeable about language, cognitive, and brain development of deaf children (Humphries et al. 2014).
Some hearing loss professionals and organizations advocate for preventing sign language exposure through the Listening and Spoken Language approach, what is historically known as oralism (Sugar 2016; Sugar and Goldberg 2015). This opposition...