ÌðÐÄÖ±²¥

Why Sign Language Is Also Important
for Language Development

By: Julisa Porcayo

The majority of deaf and hard of hearing children are born to hearing parents who tend to not have any experience or knowledge of sign language, the Deaf identity and culture, as well as the best way to approach their child’s language development. For this reason, many rely on the advice of medical experts such as audiologists in how to approach their child’s diagnosis. Yet, there are clear indications that many deaf children are not receiving the right support needed for their language development due to spoken language acquisition being favored over sign language acquisition. From the medical perspective, deafness is viewed as a disability that must be corrected whether through the use of cochlear implants, hearing aids, etc. and the learning of spoken language rather than sign language. Consequently, because of such perspectives of deafness, sign language is believed to be detrimental to the acquisition of spoken language, in this case English, and therefore believed to be counterproductive to teach a deaf or hard of hearing child sign language instead of spoken language. Yet scientific studies have shown that this perspective of sign language is incorrect. Instead, one of the most effective ways that a deaf or hard of hearing child could develop their language is through the use of both sign language, specifically ASL, and English, adopting a bilingual approach. In my essay I will first discuss the origins of the myths placing sign language as a hindrance to acquisition of English, then will analyze the validity of such myths, and finally explain the impacts of these myths on deaf children’s language development.

In order to effectively explain the attitudes towards sign language, specifically in this case American Sign Language (ASL), it is important to understand where such views are derived from. “Family ASL: An Early Start of Equitable Education for Deaf Children” by Lillo-Martin et al. (2021) published in Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, describes the biases that exist pertaining to the idea of early incorporation of sign language in a deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) child’s language development. The article describes how these biases are often found in the medical advice received by parents in regards to how they should approach their child’s diagnosed deafness. These biases then consequently impact the decisions parents make which will have profound consequences on their child language development, cognitive development, even academic achievement, and many other aspects. This article takes a stance in which they advocate for the importance of early sign language usage, especially that of bimodal bilingualism in which DHH children should have access to both English and ASL, providing the child autonomy to choose which route of communication to take when older. In the article, it explains that viewing deafness through the medical perspective deafness is perceived as “a deficit to be corrected through the use of hearing technology” is rooted in ableism in which “disabled people are inferior to abled people” and because of this it is best to find ways to “lessen or eliminate the disability” (Lillo-Martin et al., 2021). This demonstrates how the effectiveness of sign language is not actually being considered, but rather simply ignored and denied all together, due to ableism. Through this ableist perspective, sign language is deemed as a threat as it is seen as “contributing” to the disability, deafness, preventing them from developing spoken language which is most desirable. Additionally, this desirability of spoken language is that of audism, the belief of “[superiority] based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears” (Humphries, 1977, as cited in Lillo-Martin et al., 2021). This reinforces the idea that the reason why sign language is not seen as an effective way to communicate and given the same respect as spoken language is because spoken language is placed above sign language. Hearing is the standard and therefore so is spoken language, and consequently deafness is seen as abnormal along with sign language. It does not follow the norms of the “hearing world.” Such biases are harmful in the way it influences how parents of DHH children view deafness which therefore impacts the decisions they make over their children’s language development.

Not only is it important to analyze the origins of such attitudes that sign language interferes with the quality of English language acquired, but it is also essential to determine the validity of this with scientific research. “Learning a Sign Language Does Not Hinder Acquisition of a Spoken Language” by Caselli et al. (2023) in the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, two main hypotheses are explored: whether learning American Sign Language (ASL) prevents Deaf and Hard of Hearing children (DHH) interferes with spoken English language acquisition and whether acquiring sign language helps with acquiring spoken English. A cross- sectional study was conducted in which data was collected on both English and ASL skills of DHH children between the ages of 8-60 months with hearing parents. Additionally, due to the bilingualism of these DHH children, the total vocabulary was calculated that incorporated both English and ASL together. It was found that “ASL vocabulary size was significantly positively correlated with spoken English vocabulary size” (Caselli et al., 2023). This clearly demonstrates another reality than that of the claims in which it is believed that ASL prevents a child from learning spoken English. This illustrates that a child with a large ASL vocabulary has the ability, that is unaffected by ASL, to obtain a larger English vocabulary successfully. If ASL did truly interfere with English acquisition, the opposite would be observed in which those with large ASL vocabularies would have a much smaller English vocabulary. A child knowing more ASL does not mean that their English skills would suffer. Additionally, it was also found that children with larger ASL vocabularies were “more likely to have spoken English vocabularies in the average range for hearing monolingual children than DHH children with smaller ASL vocabularies” (Caselli et al., 2023). This once again demonstrates the same idea that ASL does not interfere with English development because DHH children are still exhibiting the same amount of English vocabulary as their hearing peers who only know English. Also, and most importantly, the fact that children with large ASL vocabularies were more likely able to be in this average range clearly suggests that ASL is not harmful, but must be rather helpful in providing a base for DHH children to acquire the English language which in turn expands their total vocabulary.

With such findings, the idea of bilingualism becomes relevant to the conversation. As previously mentioned, the total vocabulary was measured that included both spoken English and ASL skills of DHH children. In the study it was found that “DHH children had similar total vocabularies compared to hearing children” (Caselli et al., 2023). This highlights not only how ASL does not interfere with the ability to acquire spoken English, but also the benefits of a bilingualism approach to a DHH child’s language development. DHH children, who know both English and ASL are able to attain similar language development as demonstrated by hearing children who only know English. Not only is it suggested that ASL can be helpful in allowing DHH children to acquire English, but also their bilingualism of both English and ASL has been helpful in meeting similar language milestones as hearing children, therefore refuting the claim that sign language prevents children from acquiring spoken language.

While exploring the validity of such arguments, it is important to explain the negative impacts of such beliefs on the development of language of deaf or hard of hearing children as well as the most effective approach for their language development. In the article “Early Intervention Protocols: Proposing a Default Bimodal Bilingual Approach for Deaf Children,” published by Clark et al. (2020) in Maternal and Child Health Journal, explains that despite the medical advancements and the tools developed to help families with deaf children navigate their diagnosis, there are still problems with how effectively DHH children are acquiring language.The article explains that discriminative biases still influence the medical advice that parents receive. The impact of this can be seen in the way it paints the narrative that parents must choose to either teach their child spoken English or ASL rather than both. But as the article emphasizes, both are possible and it is supported by scientific research. These biases that place sign language as less important than spoken language reflects the medical perspective on deafness in which a DHH child’s deafness is perceived as something to be fixed, in order to “assimilate into the hearing world to the fullest extent possible” (Harmon, 2013; Valente et al., 2002 as cited in Clark et al., 2020) and consequently be put at significant risk for language deprivation because their “early years are often spent honing their listening and speaking skills at the cost of full access to language” (Greene-Woods 2020; Hall et al., 2019 as cited in Clark et al., 2020). This exemplifies the idea that, as various research has shown, sign language is harmful to spoken language acquisition has been refuted, yet advice guided by these ideas are still being given to parents with DHH children. These biases and negative perceptions on deafness and sign language are not only not supported by scientific evidence, but are also causing harm to DHH children’s language development. Parents are being taught that their DHH children would benefit more by focusing on acquiring spoken language and listening skills through hearing technology and not acquiring sign language. This places them at risk of not fully acquiring language at all as spoken language is not readily accessible for DHH children as sign language is. The bimodal bilingual approach would be the most effective route for DHH children as it will focus on incorporating the early use of sign language. By doing so, one is providing DHH children with “an accessible and comprehensible language as early as possible” that will be crucial and beneficial for “neurological and later academic development” (Mayberry et al., 2011; Pénicaud et al., 2013 as cited in Clark et al., 2020). This highlights the importance of providing accessible language, ASL in this case, that will ensure a child’s full language, including brain development, rather than putting them at risk by only focusing on spoken language acquisition. This also demonstrates how harmful these attitudes towards sign language are as they continue to misguide many people into also believing that deafness must be corrected and therefore sign language will not be beneficial to use. This puts a child at risk of not getting the opportunity to fully develop their language skills and increasing the risk of language deprivation. Sign language is not harmful to a child’s language development, but rather the biases that hold back children from getting access to tools that will ultimately improve and benefit their language development.

As it was discussed, the way in which deafness is viewed greatly affects the route taken in terms of a deaf child’s language development. When we view deafness as a disability, we assume that it must be corrected and therefore deny a child the right to access a language most accessible to them. These biases are putting deaf children at risk of language deprivation or poor language development for framing spoken language as more valuable than signed language. Not only are these misconceptions harmful to deaf children, it is harmful to the Deaf community when we place ASL as less valuable than spoken English. It is important to be aware of these biases in order for parents, majority of whom are hearing, of DHH children, to make the best decision in how to approach their child’s language development. It is also crucially important for professionals to be knowledgeable in this aspect, especially audiologists, who are responsible for providing families important information regarding how parents should approach their child’s deafness. Deaf children deserve access to both English and ASL to ensure a rich and healthy language development that remains respectful to their Deaf identity and culture.

References

Clark, M. D., Cue, K. R., Delgado, N. J., Greene-Woods, A. N., & Wolsey, J.-L. A. (2020).
. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 24(11), 1339–1344.

Lillo-Martin, D. C., Gale, E., & Chen Pichler, D. (2023). . Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 43(2), 156–166.

Pontecorvo, E., Higgins, M., Mora, J., Lieberman, A. M., Pyers, J., & Caselli, N. K. (2023).
. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 66(4), 1291–1308.