Operationalization and Measurement of Sign Language
Temas
Detalles
We outline a number of fundamental issues in how sign language exposure and proficiency were operationalized and reported by Geers et al. Most importantly, the authors did not distinguish between those exposed to ASL versus English signing systems (eg, signing exact English, sign-supported English, baby sign) when classifying children. This is a fatal flaw because, in contrast to artificial English signing systems, natural sign languages such as ASL are legitimate languages (as long-affirmed by the Linguistic Society of America1 ), with all the cognitive benefits a natural language provides. The study is recklessly misleading because of this inappropriate conflation, especially given that the authors’ conclusions contribute to long-standing bias, resistance, and misperceptions against natural sign languages in clinical recommendations for deaf children.