Purpose: Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children use a wide range of communication opportunities, often in combination. We assert that not all forms of signed communication are equivalent. We provide evidence to distinguish signed languages from signed communication systems and caution speech-language pathologists (SLPs) about the dangers of conflating them. Conclusions: We argue that signed communication systems alone are not sufficient to support cognitive and linguistic development for DHH children. Although they may have communicative value, only accessible natural language will prevent language deprivation and its detrimental effects on a host of educational and health outcomes. SLPs must understand that communication systems are not as accessible or complete as natural signed languages and should provide education and recommendations to parents and other professionals accordingly.
Lee et al. (Tue,) studied this question.