Review 4 Units 26–36, exercise 1

In conclusion, this essay has considered a variety of different approaches via which a child who is deaf may acquire language. Although to some extent all children develop differently, which makes it difficult to generalize about the best approach, it seems that learning to communicate orally is typically a laborious process and often has disappointing results for many children who are severely or profoundly deaf. Thus, it seems that sign language is a more natural choice of communication. This has implications for both parents and the education system. Lewis (1987) argues that signing should be encouraged; hence, parents may consider learning a natural sign language. The child should also have the opportunity to be immersed in a community of other people who are deaf, such as a school, so that they have the ability to interact with other sign language users. This not only enables a child to develop a language, but crucially also helps them to develop cognitively and emotionally as they have a means of expression (Bavelier et al., 2003).

Although some parents may be concerned that learning a sign language will isolate their child from the community of hearing people, Mayberry et al. (2002) suggest that the acquisition of a sign language could facilitate the acquisition of a spoken language. It is also important to consider that if a child fails to learn a spoken language and has little exposure to a sign language, they may become victims of the 'critical period', the time during childhood most associated with successful language development, and are thereby not able to become proficient in any language at all (Pinker, 1994). Thus, to reduce the risk of this happening, Bavelier et al. (2003) propose that there should be a bilingual approach, whereby students use full natural signing for part of the day and are taught oral and literacy skills for the other part. This approach may help children who are deaf to reach their full potential.