Re: Responsible Publishing

Corina, David P.; Schaefer, Tristan

doi:10.1542/peds.2017-2655d

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some 25 Deaf and hearing scientists (including the three authors of this article) have reported a radically different interpretation of the Geers et al results due to several methodological limitations in a series of editor-reviewed replies that interested readers may find worthwhile (Caselli, Hall, & Lillo-Martin, 2017; Corina & Schaefer, 2017; M. L. Hall, Schönström, & Spellun, 2017; Martin, Napoli, & Smith, 2017), plus several published comments available online posted in response to Geers et al (2017).…”

Section: Why We Are Not Persuaded That Developmental Approaches That mentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Some twenty-five Deaf and hearing scientists (including the three authors of this paper) have reported a radically different interpretation of the Geers et al results due to several methodological limitations in a series of editor-reviewed replies that interested readers may find worthwhile (Caselli, Hall, & Lillo-Martin, 2017;Corina & Schaefer, 2017;Hall, M.L., available online posted in response to (Geers et al, 2017). Here, we briefly highlight selected points as they relate to our broader argument.…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deaf children need language, not (just) speech

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Why We Are Not Persuaded That Developmental Approaches That mentioning

confidence: 90%

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Deaf children need language, not (just) speech

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors interpreted this pattern to mean that use of a natural sign language harms spoken language development. Geers et al (2017) drew much criticism for the research methodology, and consequently, the researchers' interpretations of the patterns in the data were widely contested (e.g., Caselli et al, 2017 ; Corina & Schaefer, 2017 ; M. L. Hall, Schönström, & Spellun, 2017 ; Martin et al, 2017 ). Among the many concerns was their causal interpretation of their correlational data; the results were also consistent with the possibility that families use manual communication more when spoken communication is not effective.…”

Section: Arguments That Sign Language Will Harm Spoken Language Acqui...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning a Sign Language Does Not Hinder Acquisition of a Spoken Language

Pontecorvo

Higgins

Mora

et al. 2023

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine whether and how learning American Sign Language (ASL) is associated with spoken English skills in a sample of ASL–English bilingual deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) children. Method: This cross-sectional study of vocabulary size included 56 DHH children between 8 and 60 months of age who were learning both ASL and spoken English and had hearing parents. English and ASL vocabulary were independently assessed via parent report checklists. Results: ASL vocabulary size positively correlated with spoken English vocabulary size. Spoken English vocabulary sizes in the ASL–English bilingual DHH children in the present sample were comparable to those in previous reports of monolingual DHH children who were learning only English. ASL–English bilingual DHH children had total vocabularies (combining ASL and English) that were equivalent to same-age hearing monolingual children. Children with large ASL vocabularies were more likely to have spoken English vocabularies in the average range based on norms for hearing monolingual children. Conclusions: Contrary to predictions often cited in the literature, acquisition of sign language does not harm spoken vocabulary acquisition. This retrospective, correlational study cannot determine whether there is a causal relationship between sign language and spoken language vocabulary acquisition, but if a causal relationship exists, the evidence here suggests that the effect would be positive. Bilingual DHH children have age-expected vocabularies when considering the entirety of their language skills. We found no evidence to support recommendations that families with DHH children avoid learning sign language. Rather, our findings show that children with early ASL exposure can develop age-appropriate vocabulary skills in both ASL and spoken English.

show abstract

“…A third aspect of the Geers et al (2017a) study that drew widespread criticism (e.g. Corina 2017) was their conclusion that sign exposure causes poor language outcomes simply because sign exposure correlated with poor outcomes in their data set. In the US and around the world, it is not uncommon for deaf children who fail to develop speech under oral-only programs to be transferred to programs where some form of signing is used.…”

Section: Geers Et Al (2017)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenging the oral-only narrative

Pichler

2022

Hrvat. rev. rehabil. istraž. (Online)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learning a language is, at its core, a process of noticing patterns in the language input surrounding the learner. Although many of these language patterns are complex and difficult for adult speakers/signers to recognize, infants are able to find and learn them from the youngest age, without explicit instruction. However, this impressive feat is dependent on children’s early access to ample and well-formed input that displays the regular patterns of natural language. Such input is far from guaranteed for the great majority of deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) children, leading to well-documented difficulties and delays in linguistic development. Efforts to remedy this situation have focused disproportionately on amplifying DHH children’s hearing levels, often through cochlear implants, as young as possible to facilitate early access to spoken language. Given the time required for cochlear implantation, its lack of guaranteed success, and the critical importance of exposing infants to quality language input as early as possible, a bimodal bilingual approach can optimize DHH infants’ chances for on-time language development by providing them with both spoken and signed language input from the start. This paper addresses the common claim that signing with DHH children renders the task of learning spoken language more difficult, leading to delays and inferior language development, compared to DHH children in oral-only environments. That viewpoint has most recently been articulated by Geers et al. (2017a), which I will discuss as a representative of the many studies promoting an oral-only approach. Contrary to their claims that signing degrades the language input available to DHH children, recent research has demonstrated that the formidable pattern-finding skills of newborn infants extends to linguistic cues in both the spoken and signed modalities, and that the additional challenge of simultaneously acquiring two languages is offset by important “bilingual advantages.” Of course, securing early access to high quality signed input for DHH children from hearing families requires considerable effort, especially since most hearing parents are still novice signers. This paper closes with some suggestions for how to address this challenge through partnerships between linguistics researchers and early intervention programs to support family-centered bimodal bilingual development for DHH children.

show abstract

Re: Responsible Publishing

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

Deaf children need language, not (just) speech

Deaf children need language, not (just) speech

Learning a Sign Language Does Not Hinder Acquisition of a Spoken Language

Challenging the oral-only narrative

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About