|
IS
THERE ONE SIGN LANGUAGE FOR ALL COUNTRIES ?
No more so than there is one spoken language for all
countries !But every where you find Deaf people, you
will find sign language. The impulse to communicate
is universal. For deaf people, the impulse to sign is
universal. Deaf children not exposed to any standard
sign language will invent their own sign systems ("home
sign") .Every national sign language, however,
is different .
Every different sign language reflects its own history,
culture, and social mores. Thus (in most of these different
sign languages) you will find completely different signs
for un8iversal concepts : "mother, "boy, "girl,"
day, ""night, "tree, "water,"
"good," "bad," and so forth. * Each
sign language may have a myriad of regional variations.
And what is a perfectly acceptable sign in one language
may turn out to be an obscenity in another .
But signers from one country seem to have less trouble
establishing communication with signers from another
than do their speaking counterparts. Deaf people can
be very inventive, even ingenious, in bridging language
gaps ! They improvise, using gestures, pantomime, expressions
- expressions-whatever works-until they establish some
sort of mutual comprehension, and build on that foundation.
"International sign language" does exist to
some extent. An "artificial" international
vocabulary, "Gestuno," which functions as
a kind of visual Esperanto, was developed in the mid-70s
by the commission on unification of Signs of the World
Federation of the Deaf, gestuno hasn't really caught
on. It is useful for international gatherings of Deaf
people (e.g., the gala opening performance at THE DEAF
WAY conference and festival in washingtion, D.C., july1989),
where it's impractical to throng the stage with dozens
of interpreters in everybody's native sign languages.
American Deaf performers were specially drilled in Gestuno,
and used it to introduce acts and give simple communications
to the audience-"Welcome, ladies and gentlemen,"
No smoking, please," "No flash photography
allowed at performances," "I hope you enjoy
our show. The signs used are as simple, logical, and
universally-recognizable as possible. Since Gestuno
was developed by a c committee, it's not a real language
.
2
IS THERE ANY SIMILARITY BETWEEN BRAILLE AND SL ?
None
whatever, but you' de be surprised how many folks apparently
think they're the same thing. Some hearing people have
told us that when they first saw Deaf people signing
to each other, they immediately thought, "oh, they're
using Braille. They must be blind !" Why ?
Blind
people are visible to us in a way that the Deaf aren't
. Many blind people use special white canes ; some also
have guide dogs with distinctive harnesses. A blind
person waiting to cross a traffic-congested street or
boarding a city bus is immediately recognized as blind
and quickly offered assistance-an arm while crossing
the street, a front seat on the bus .
Deaf
people, however, are not immediately recognizable as
"Deaf." There will be no telltale cane or
(in most cases) dogs, no dark glasses, nothing out of
the ordinary except, perhaps, one or two hearing aids,
if they're visible at all. Thus, hearing people undoubtedly
have very clear images of what blind people "look
like," "but no clear nation of how Deaf people
"look." Not until Deaf people are seen communicating
with each other in sign (or a hearing stranger approaches,
mumbles something to them, and gets no response or a
gesture of incomprehension) are they identifiable as
"Deaf."
In
our culture, blindness has garnered more recognition
and respect than deafness . They may also have a clearer
notion of Braille, a tactile code, than SL, a visual
language. Consequently, when they see native Signers
for the first time (and this is our wild guess), they
associate signing with the language of the blind, not
the language of the Deaf. Or they assume that most Deaf
people "know Braille."
3
HOW
DO DEAF PEOPLE LEARN SIGN LANGUAGE ?
They
learn it from each other. With the advent of the Bilingual-Bicultural
approach to deaf education, and recognition of SL as
a foreign language by a number of countries , the situation
is changing. Slowly.) As Arden Neisser observes :
[F]
or close to a century,[sign language] was matter-of-factly
ignored, despised and outlawed, neither taught nor tolerated
in classrooms for the deaf. Teachers in the schools
were completely unfamiliar with it, did not use it,
and could not understand it. They were trained in oral
methods….(….) oral programs being by teaching
the children to make sounds, then words, then words
, one at a time. Deaf children who have been in oral
kindergarten programs have leaned, by age five, perhaps
fifty words. At the same time, a child with normal hearing
has a vocabulary of several thousand words; and a deaf
child of deaf parents who has learned SL as a first
language has a vocabulary of several thousand signs.
But most deaf children (around 90 percent) have hearing
parents and enter school with no SL and such a restricted
knowledge of English that they are virtually without
any functioning language at all . (…)
It
is estimated that 90 percent of deaf adults who were
deaf as children use SL , and most of them learned it
at schools for the deaf-from each other . They simply
singed behind their teacher's backs.' (….) SL is
said to be the only language in the world that is transmitted
from child to child ?
Deaf
children, arriving at school, are plunged into an SL
environment in the playgrounds, cafeteria, and (especially)
the dormitories. Even if signing is forbidden in class
(e.g., Clarke school) or if signed-English-only is used
there, deaf kids use SL everywhere outside the classroom
; they're surrounded by it., New kids pick it up quickly.
Within a few months, they've become skillful signers,
SL their firs language . when they grow up, many alumni
marry another deaf person, a veteran ISL user. Most
deaf parents (an estimated 90%) have hearing children.
The 10% who have deaf children usually send them to
the residential schools, where they teach the other
kids SL. Thus SL has been transmitted from generation
to generation .Deaf-blind people do use tactile signing
and fingerspelling (either done directly in the palm,
or in the usual front-of-body position and "read"
with the fingertips) to converse with each other or
with sighted Deaf people. They are extraordinarily adept
at it. Blind hearing people (especially those who have
attended combined schools for the deaf and blind) may
be skilled in this as well; fingerspelling is relatively
easy to learn .But you will never see two people standing
on the comer having a conversation "in Braille."
*
Interestingly, Samuel F.B. morse had a deaf wife, and
communicated with her by "tapping our morse code
in her hands!" see Harlan Lane, when the mind Hears,
p. 276 .
4
ARE
THERE SUCH THIGS AS ACCENTS AMONG SIGNERS
FROM DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE COUNTRY OR WORLD ?
Indeed
there are! One fascinating aspect of sign language is
that every signer signs differently, developing his
or her own unique style. Some sign abruptly, angularly,
some sloppily, some gracefully. Some sign "small,"
some "large' and clear. Just as with spoken languages
: everyone enunciates a bit differently, and there will
be a great difference in quality between the voice of
a trained performing artist and that of someone who
slurs, mumbles, and has sloppy articulation. Instead
of vocal accents, signers have visual/gestural accents
.
Conversely,
every sing-language system "works" differently.
Thai sign Language (from our observation) looks very
formal ; the face has a tighter, more deadpan look.
British Sign Language (BSL) might, at first glance,
be mistaken for American Sign Language, but it "moves"
completely differently. A native user of BSL who learned
ASL would undoubtedly retain a BSL intonation or "accent."
In
the past, even within the boundaries of one European
country, signers from lone city might not understand
signers from a different city. But in the united States,
ASL has achieved a remarkable level of homogeneity.
Native signers from one area can easily understand those
from a distant area . However, as with spoken American
English, there are many regional variations, with some
signs peculiar to a specific are or community. You can't
necessarily guess right off what part of the country
a signer is from, but the variations can be (and have
been) pinpointed, mapped, and studied .
There
will be differences between the ASL usage of a college
graduate and a relatively uneducated grassroots- Deaf
person .
Deaf
people do tease each other lightheartedly about their
accents. There are bilingual hearing people-primarily
those with Deaf parents-whose ASL accent is "pure"
since relatively few hearing people become fluent signers,
a native signer can usually (though not invariably)
recognize a hearing person by the slightly halting quality
of their signing and the way they use their face and
body : "oh, you sign with a hearing accent!"
Some
deaf persons learn ISL later in life. But the best way
to become proficient in ISL is to achieve total immersion
in it-living with Deaf people-or, second best, through
everyday social contact with native ISL users. Third
best is to associate with them regularly in the classroom
or office .
5
Why
do so many deaf people have trouble with English?
Because
English is primarily a spoken language. All hearing
children of English-speaking parents absorb it unconsciously,
starting from the moment they're born. They're surrounded
with English; bombarded with it from all sides! They
listen; they imitate. Effortlessly, it seems, they begin
to put together grammatically correct sentences well
before they learn to read. Children who are born deaf
(or early-deafened) are excluded from this process because
they cannot hear. The lucky ones whose parents are fluent
in SL start school already knowing a language. Those
whose parents cannot (and will not) sign are often forced
to star school without any real language at all. This
can have disastrous effects on their educational development.
As Deaf educator sam supalla has pointed our, you can't
learn a language in the classroom unless you already
know a language .
Moreover, SL is grammatically "at odds" with
English. The two couldn't be more different. English
is an electric Indo-European language, a rich hybrid
of Anglo Saxon syntax, Old French, Old German, a generous
measure of Greek/Latin vocabulary, retaining a wealth
of grammatical quirks and irregularities . SL is not
a simple string of word-pictures in the air, it's a
visual/gestural language-a very different approach to
communication from a spoken one. For example, SL has
plural forms, but not in a recognizably "English"
sense. As Harlan Lane points our, "Body shift,
sign reduplication, sign trajectory, using more fingers,
and using more hands are all devices to indicate various
kinds of plurals. "SL does not convey plurals with
word endings, nor ongoing activities with participles,
nor has it any use for other features that make good
English good English .
Various forms of manually coded English (SEE1, SEE2,
etc) are commonly used in the classroom to teach English.
But they have not really succeeded in solving the Deaf-literacy
problem. They presuppose a working knowledge of English
grammar which many deaf children lack. A native SL user
often ends up writing English as though it conformed
to the logic that governs SL . The result : a barely
literate pidgin. 1
A few determined born-deaf persons acquire fluency not
only in SL but also written English. It takes years
of agonizing work. It's possible. But rare. Most Deaf
people have such a wretched experience with English
that by the time they graduate from school with "minimal
language skills," they're glad to have done with
it. And that's the level of skill they maintain for
the rest of their lives . It has nothing to do with
intelligence. English is not their first language. SL
is . This is the crux of the ongoing English 50 controversy
at Gallaudet University : should the English-proficiency
requirements be eased, or should Deaf students be forced
to struggle with a language which is not theirs ?
Endless difficulty with English has certainly affected
the quality of Deaf people's lives-not only their ability
to enjoy reading, but their careers, their mobility,
their access to information, and their relations with
the hearing world. 2
This is not a new predicament. It started several generations
ago. The blame lies with a society that equates communication
with speech, and an educational system that devotes
for too much time to oral/aural training while prohibiting
SL in the classroom . And the Deaf community should
share the blame for not having fought harder to prevent
this form happening .
Instead of asking only why so many Deaf people can't
read and write English, we should also be asking why
so many hearing people, especially teachers and parents
of deaf children, know nothing about SL.
 |
It
is possible to teach English through SL- the
"Bilingual-Bicultural" approach. See
chapter 12
|
|
Some Deaf adults remain poor readers, but to preserve
their dignity ("save face") , try to
fake comprehension. Faced with the task of reading
and critiquing a piece of writing they don't understand,
they 11 pretend to understand and appreciate it,
reacting with approval, even enthusiasm ("Good!")
. Of course, this can get them into trouble. But
so deep is their pride, they're willing to risk
the embarrassment of getting caught rather than
confess their inadequacies beforehand.
|
6
DO
ALL DEAF PEOPLE BENEFIT FROM HEARING AIDS ?
No. A hearing aid is not a miracle machine. It's a tiny
amplifier. It makes sounds louder, and that's all it
can do. It amplifies everything it picks up, without
distinction-- all sounds that happen to pop up in the
immediate area as well as distracting background noises
like traffic. A hearing aid cannot "zero in"
on the voice or voices you most want to pick up; it
doesn't work selectively as our hearing does. And it
cannot make other people's speech clearer, merely louder.
So if a speaker's articulation is not particularly good-for
example, if he's a mumbler--or if his face is not clearly
visible, a hearing aid is of very little help .
Because even severly deaf persons have some degree of
recognition of certain sounds, many do wear powerful
hearing aids to pick up whatever sounds they can; they
feel it helps make them more aware of what's going on.
Others do not feel comfortable with an aid and don't
like to wear them. Many Deaf people function quite well
without any electronic doojizmos.
Adults who feel that an aid might help them, an get
tested by an audiologist, and try some of the many aids
on the market before choosing the one that's best for
their needs. Expense, of course, is a consideration
. Hearing aids are exorbitantly costly.
Some Deaf people, we've noticed, wear noticed , wear
aids all the time- even when they're with other Deaf
people who Sign fluently! Others wear them when they
want to listen to a concert or something of special
interest on TV , or to use a telephone or an audio loop
in a theatre. Others never wear them. It's admitter
of personal preference .
7
THE
COCHLEAR-IMPLANT CONTROVERSY
In the summer of 1990 , the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
approved cochlear implants for children aged 2-17 .
Previously, only adults had been able to get implants.
Now the green light was given to implanting children
without their consent .
A cochlear implant is a "bionic ear" device.
A small receiver is implanted in the mastoid bone behind
the ear; an array of electrodes (22 for the 22- channel
device) is inserted surgically into the cochlea (the
snail-shaped organ of the inner ear). This operation
involves drilling a hole in the skull . After one month
of hearing, the implantee is fitted with an ear-level
microphone and a transmitting coil attached by a cord
to a speech processor, a sort of pocket computer. The
microphone picks up sounds, relays them to the speech
processor, which tansmits them to the receiver behind
the ear, which sends the signals to the internal device,
which stimulates the auditory nerve, which sends these
signals to the brain, which interprets them as "sounds."
Candidates for implants are those who have little or
no usable hearing in one or both ears. A cochlear implant
does NOT completely restore haring to the implanted
ear, nor is the quality of sound completely " natural."
An implanteee, ideally, will be able to hear a wider
variety of sounds and develop better speech patterns.
They may or may not be able to use the telephone .
The long-rang effects of such a device are unknown.
What sort of effect the constant electronic stimulation
may have on the tissue and nerves of the inner ear is
like wise unknown. Many deaf people feel that this is
a rather drastic expedient. Hearing adis , vibrotactile
devices, auditory trainers, and FM systems are at least
removable. A cochlear implant is there to stay .
Results have been mixed. While some children and adults
certainly benefit from an implant, other have benefited
very little. In a few cases, the results have been horrible
- the body painfully rejects the implant, or the implant
destroys whatever residual hearing there was. It's impossible
to predict if an implant will be accepted and will benefit
the implantee. The implantee may enjoy considerable
improvement in the quality of sound, or moderate, or
practically none ,
Needless to say, cochlear implants are fantastically
expensive, and the companies who manufacture them tour
their benefits. They claim that a child with an implant
will have more options and better social, educational,
and job opportunities. It's estimated that no more than
1% of the deaf population are good candidates for implants,
yet those who support its use are enthusiastic about
the possibility of wiping out deafness making it"
obsolete .
The
Deaf community is certainly not against adults voluntarily
undergoing the operation and receiving implants. Late-deafened
adults often make excellent candidates. For example,
a number of ALDAns (members of the Asscoiation of Late-Deafened
Adults) have received implants, and love them. A few
have gotton mediocre results, and a very few have had
bad results .
Deaf-rights advocates tried, but were unable, to prevent
the FDA from approving implants for children. Many of
us were disturbed by the FDA's decision. Why ?
For one thing, Deaf people themselves - deaf children
grown up- have had no say in the matter. Their views,
and their real concern for other deaf children, formed
by long and hard first-hand experience, are typically
dismissed as irrelevant by those who have the power
- the hearing oralists, scientists, executives, audiologists,
and governmental officials .
We feel that deaf children should be exposed to sign
language as well as speech, as part of a Total communication
or Bilingual - Bicultural curriculum . They can choose
whatever mode they feel most comfortable with. They
can elect to wear a gearing aid, and when they're old
enough, voluntarily receive an implant. Or not. The
issue is choice. Some Deaf people feel that it's decision
ONLY deaf people can make for themselves. Others feel
that implants should be outlawed, period .
An
implant is the ultimate invasion of the ear, the ultimate
denial of deafness, the ultimate refusal to let deaf
children be Deaf. Those who make the decision to implant
children choose to risk the children's health so that
they can hear more sounds and develop clearer speech.
Children attending oral schools and mainstream programs
are the most likely to be implanted. Their parents,
the ones who choose to have their children implanted,
are in effect saying, "I don't respect the Deaf
community, and I certainly don't want my child to be
part of it. I want him/her to be part of the hearing
world, not the Deaf World."
8
HOW
DO PEOPLE BECOME DEAF ?
We're either born deaf or become deaf. A person born
deaf is said to be congenitally deaf ; a person who
becomes deaf after birth is adventitiously deaf .Adventitious
deafness can be either pre - lingual (occurring during
the first 3 years of life). Or post-lingual (becoming
deaf after age 3.) And the area of post-lingual deafness
is further subdivided into childhoo deafness, pre-vocational
deafness (becoming deaf while still a teenager), or
post-vocational deafness (becoming deaf while an adult).
A "deafened adult" is one who became deaf
after age 19 . One can also be described as "early-deafened'
or "late-deafened." Interestingly, more males
than females are early-deafened, but since women tend
to outlive men, there are more late-deafened elderly
women than men.
What does all this fancy terminology mean ? Many Deaf
people (i.e., those with a strong cultural affiliation
to the signing Deaf community) are congenitally deaf
or early-deafened. Deafness that urns in the family
(genetically transmitted, hereditary, or inherited deafness)
is a relatively rare cause. More common is prenatal
exposure to a virus. The rubella (German measles) epdemic
of the mid - 1960s affected many pregnant women whose
children were subsequently born deaf . The Rh factor
and prematurity are two other causes of congenital deafness.
When no specific cause can be determined, One's deafness
is described as "of unknown etiology." This
handy phrase crops up in the medical histories of a
large number of deaf people .
It should be noted that congenital and hereditary deafness
are not synonymous. Congenitally deaf means born deaf
. But not all congenitally deaf people have hereditary
deafness. Children born deaf because of prenatal exposure
to the rubella virus may not be carrying any gene whatsoever
for deafness. Cnversely, someone who has hereditary
deafness may be born with normal hearing that progressively
deteriorates and the cause is pinpointed as hereditary
.
Adventitious deafness can be caused by accidents (as
when I King Jordan, the first deaf president of Gallaudet
University, was hurled off his motorcycle), bomb blasts,
injuries (e.g., punctured eardrums) extreme chill, high
fever, viral infections such as mumps, meningitis, and
encephalitis, diseases such as neurofibraomatiosis-2
(tumors that attack the auditory nerves). And reactions
to certain (ototoxic) drugs .
Gradual hearing loss can result from repeated doses
of very deep or high noise- e.g., blasting-loud rock
concerts, commuting on the subway, constant exposure
to industrial hazards such as operating a pneumatic
drill, or even living too near an airport. Otosclerosis
- hardening of the bones of the middle ear - is common
among older people. There are numerous causes of deafness,
and you're likely to meet deaf persons from a wide variety
of "backgrounds." There is no blanker definition
of deafness; all deaf persons are individuals.
Often a Deaf person will greet a stranger by asking
"Are you Deaf"? - were you born deaf ? that's
their way of "sounding out" the new person
- getting a quick idea of their ethnic identity, so
to speak - their back ground, outlook, and place in
the Deaf community.
9
DO DEAF PARENTS BREED DEAF CHILDREN ?
This man not sound like a civilized question, but it's
certainly one that has been asked many times in many
cultures, by supposedly civilized people. And it's still
being asked .
There is a philosophy (or pseudo-science) called "eugenics,"
which deals with inherited characteristics and the possibility
of improving (or controlling) those of succeeding generation
by "choosing suitable parents." Suitable parents
would be encouraged to breed, while unsuitable parents
would be encouraged to breed, while unsuitable parents
would be discouraged, even prevented, from having "inferior-quality"
children. Eugenics was a popular topic in the 19th Century.
When many hearing educators and philosophers decided
that it was better for the "future of the race"
if deaf people could be prevented from reproducing more
deaf people. Even Alexander Graham Bell, whose own mother
and wife were deaf and who invented the telephone while
seeking a device to help hard-of-hearing people hear,
subscribed to this absurd notion . In his "Memoir
Upon the Formation of a Deaf variety of the Human Race,"
he discussed various measures for preventing deaf people
from breeding. He proposed legislation to prohibit deaf
people from marrying each other, although admitting
that this was an impractical expedient .*
However, as a result of the wide publicity given to
Bell's theories, a number of Americal deaf children
were sterilized. During the early years of the German
Third reich, the Nazis carried this practice even further,
forcibly sterilizing many deaf jewish and Christian
school children and young adults to ensure that they
would never be able to breed "defectives ."
What are the facts? Simply this:90% of all deaf parents
have hearing children. The facts speak for themselves.
Anyone who wants to prevent deaf babies from being born
should prevent hearing people from breeding .
In earlier generations, some tyrannical parents tried
to prevent their deaf children from marring , unwilling
to have them transmit deafness. This was not only cruel
but futile. Most "deaf genes" are transmitted
by, and inherited from, hearing parents. Furthermore,
the genetic tendency towards deafness is a tad unpredictable.
The same mother and father may have several hearing
children and several deaf, or all deaf, or all hearing,
or all hearing but one, or all deaf but one .
Deafness runs congenitally in only a small percentage
of families. The genes causing hereditary deafness may
be transmitted through hearing persons for generations
before they "express" themselves. Even babies
who are born deaf may not have inherited their deafness
genetically ; they may have been prenatally deafened
as a result of exposure to the rubella virus, for example.
Early-deafened children may have gotten their deafness
from a virus (e.g., spinal meningitis), high fever,
or accident, Thos deafened by exposure to a virus, illness,
or accident would not necessarily be carrying any deaf
gene whatsoever-even if one or both parents are deaf.
The odds are therefore against a deaf parent having
a deaf child. But for a deaf child to be born into a
deaf family is no tragedy. Indeed , it can be a blessing.
What Bell and many other never recognized (much less
appreciated) was the quality of life in Deaf surroundings.
Far from being "defectives," many Deaf families
have enjoyed rich, fulfilling lives. Most Deaf parents
who have deaf children immediately accept them as normal
children (something a good number of hearing parents
must struggle to accomplish). To Deaf parents, deafness
is normal. There's nothing wrong, bad , inferior, or
defective about it. Since so many Deaf parents are fluent
Signers, deaf children born into such families begin
life with complete immersion the lanauge of the parents.
The communication barrier, so common in hearing families
with deaf children, simply doesn't exist. So deaf children
of Deaf parents start school with a considerable advantage
over deaf children from nonsigning hearing families.
Deaf children of Deaf parents have traditionally been
the transmitters of sign language and Deaf culture to
their schoolmates; the leaders, the boat-rockers . They
tend to grow up with a sense of identity, a pride that
many deaf children of hearing parents initially lack.
Paternalistic hearing people do not take kindly to the
idea of dynasties of uppity Deaf folks. Few of our oppressors
have ever sought the truth beneath the invidious stereotype
.
The quality of parenting, not the health of the auditory
nerves, is what's important. To make a general statement
; since many Deaf parents have positive feelings about
their own deafness, they are correspondingly more accepting
of others deafness, and transmit those feelings to their
own deaf children, who grow up with appositive self-image,
a more comfortable sense of identity than many deaf
children of hearing parents. As noted above, that's
a definite advantage. Deaf parents can offer what any
good parent does; acceptance, love, patience, wisdom,
morality, and guidance towards eventual independence
.
10
IS
IT OK TO USE THE TERM "DEAF-MUTE" IN REFERENCE
TO DEAF PERSON WHO CAN'T TALK ?
No, it's no longer an acceptable term. "Mute"
refers to someone who cannot talk, that is, produce
intelligible speech, or someone who has malfunctioning
or missing vocal cords. "Mutism" is a medical
or psychological condition- the inability or refusal
to produce sounds. Virtually all deaf persons are physically
and psychologically normal in this area. They have vocal
cords and voices, just as the vast majority of hearing
people do. This also applies to deaf people who prefer
to communicate exclusively in sign language. Their vocal
apparatus is perfectly normal. But, being deaf, they
cannot hear themselves talk, and thus, cannot easily
modulate their voices. Consider; If you were born deaf
or became deaf as an infant and have never heard yourself
talk, it's extremely difficult to talk clearly, with
normal intonation. So signing is the natural mode of
communication for many deaf people; speaking can never
be. A few deaf people have good clear articulation -better
than some gearing people - but most don't . It's a matter
of personal preference, deciding what we feel most comfortable
with .
11
WHY
ISN'T "DEAF AND DUMB" AN ACCEPTABLE TERM ?
Think
about the last time you used the word "dumb."
You used it to describe something stupid, clumsy, or
foolish, right ? A century ago, this term was in common
use. Nobody thought twice about its propriety. It's
outmoded now, and insultingly inaccurate. We're aware
that this term is still used in England to describe
someone who is deaf, But that doesn't say much for the
discernment of those who persist in using it.
As
for the correct term, why not simply say "deaf?"
So what are the correct terms ? Understandable. Some
hearing people find the simple, blunt, four-letter word
"deaf" a bit hard to swallow. "Deaf"
can mean not only "unable to hear," but "heedless"
or "unwilling to listen." Common expressions
such as "deaf to their pleas," "their
appeal fell on deaf ears," "turned a deaf
ear," and "the silence was deafening."
"have a decidedly negative connotation. To some
people, "deaf" still connotes something shameful.
Recent euphemisms include "hearing-impaired,"
"hearing-handicapped." "hearing-disabled,"
"auditorily handicapped," and "non-hearing"
. most deaf people dislike these terms, as they promote
a negative image of deaf people as broken ears or malfunctioning
machinery. "Deaf" refers to the medical fact
of hearing loss, but can also designate pride and cultural
affiliation (i.e., "Deaf") fussy terms like
"auditorily-handicapped" don't .
"Hearing-impaired" may be useful as a way
of designating all those with various degress of deafness,
including mild, moderate, severe, and profound hearing
loss. But those who insist on using this term should
best employ it in combination, i.e., "deaf/hearing-impaired/hard-or-hearing."
That way, nobody gets left our. The majority of deaf
people prefer the simple term "deaf."
We'd like to note that the International Federation
of the Hard of Hearing, the world Federation of the
Deaf, NAD, and the Pennsylvania Society for the advancement
of the Deaf , have all agreed that the term "hearing-impaired"
is no longer acceptable, and that "deaf/hare-or-hearing"
should e used in all future references .
12
CAN'T
ALL DEAF PEOPLE READ LIPS ?
One of the most common "Hearing" mis-conceptions
is that all deaf people have this magic ability to "read
lips." .All too often, the first question a hearing
person asks a new deaf acquaintance is, "can you
read my lips" (Note : This is the one question
all deaf people can undoubtedly speechread!) if the
answer is "yes," the hearing person will often
exaggerate his or her mouth movement and talk abnormally
slowly, which of course makes communication much more
difficult. If the answer is "no," the deaf
person may be perceived as a poor sport and/ or a nitwit,
and whatever potential there was for communication will
be totally nullified . ("High? How can she say
no? she answered my question correctly, didn't she ?
Is she playing games ?"
Lipreading involves a high proportion of guesswork and
"instant mental reply. "Only some 30% of all
spoken sounds are visible on the lps. Many sounds, like
"b," "p," and "m", are
virtually impossible to distinguish by watching the
mouth . And what about homonyms (homophones)- "blue"
and "blew?" They look and sound identical!
Moreover, everyone makes sounds a bit differently, everybody;
everybody's voice and articulation are different. A
stranger, whose speech patterns are unfamiliar to the
lipreader, presents a more formidable challenge than
members of the household or close friends. All this
means that even a skilled lipreader must rely to some
extent on guesswork to understand what's being said,
using the context to fill in the inevitable gaps .
Anyway, lip-reading' is amisnomer. A more accurate term
is speechreading. Speechreaders don't just look at the
mouth; they read the entire face: the eyes, the way
they eyebrows tilt or the brows knot when certain words
are emphasized. They note changes in expression, shoulder
shrugs, posture, gestures. They also note any props
the speaker is carrying; their surroundings. Picking
up these associational cues is, an art in itself. It
requires a high degree of attention . It can be exhausting
.
Everybody (hearing as well as deaf) makes use of some
degree of speechreading at times. For deaf people. It's
a survival sill. Even so, some consider speechreading
skill an inborn ability, like dancing. Many deaf people
never become very proficient at it. If all else fails,
hearing people should forget the "rubberlipping"
and try the old standby, pencil and paper .
13
SPEECHREADING
PROTOCOL: A FEW WORDS OF ADVICE
Nothing
creates so much anxiety in Deaf-Hearing relations, it
seems, an the fateful first encounter. A few suggestions
to make it a bit easier for all those involved:
|
Facial
Topography : Many deaf people who are skilled
speechreaders have difficulty "reading"
men who have full or unkempt beards, thick, sweeping
mustaches. Men and women who don't remove sunglasses
or doff hats that overshadow their faces also
create difficulty for deaf readers. People who
nervously shield their mouths with their hands
while talking or who take frequent furtive glances
to the side, breaking eye contact, drive us crazy.
It's best to remain relaxed, focused, and clear
as possible.
|
|
Popping
the Question : If you run into a deaf person (and
we're assuming that you don't know sign language
or finger spelling, which is the case with the
majority of hearing folks), ask politely, in as
natural a way as possible, "Can you read
my lips?" or "Can you speechyread me?"
Don't over-enunciate (exaggerate) your question.
You don't have to point to your lips (but most
hearing people do this instinctively); if you
do, do it discreetly - don't ham it up, repeatedly
jabbing at the air in front of your mouth you're
not auditioning for a third-rate sit-com; you're
trying to communicate .
|
|
What
Comes Next : If the deaf reader shakes her/his
head or says "No," be friendly. Don't
shrug, throw up your hands in dismay, or mumble,
"Sorry." And whatever you do, don't
walk away. Try to establish some common ground.
Get a pen and paper. Use a restaurant napkin.
Scratch letter on your vertically-upended palm.
(Don't bother "writing" letters in the
air, however - this never works well.) If you
want to badly enough, you and your deaf reader
will think of something . Human beings are a pretty
ingenious species. Two persons who have a language
barrier and really want to communicate will usually
find a way .
|
14
WHY
DON'T SOME DEAF PEOPLE LIKE TO READ ?
A few reasons :
|
SL
is the native language of many Deaf citizens here,
and SL has no written form .
|
|
It was long considered more important for deaf
children to acquire good speech articulation than
good reading and writing sills. So speech was
stressed above literacy . More time was spent
on articulation than education. The results? A
community with extensive oral training that they
have little occasion to use . and a distressingly
low level of literacy.
|
|
The
attitude of the educational establishment : contempt
for/ignorance of SL , low expectations for deaf
students, and a "brutalist" approach
to beating the essentials of English grammar into
their heads.
|
The
two most common misperceptions about Deaf people and
reading are actually two sides of the same coin :
|
The
Silent Bookworm : Some hearing people have the
misconception that all Deaf people instinctively
adore books because the avenue of sound is closed
to them. Deprived of music, the radio, conversation,
don't they love to read? In their frequent isolation,
don't books become their only friends ?
|
|
The
illiterate Dork : The other side of the stereotype
is equally pernicious some Deaf people can't read
because they re not as intelligent as hearing
people period. They lack mental stimulation; they
can't think abstractly.
|
The
facts : Both of these perceptions are romantic nonsense.
Deaf people are social creatures who enjoy a variety
of experiences-yes, even going to discos. If books play
little or no part in Deaf people's lives, there must
be a reason . It is NOT lack of intelligence or some
deficiency in the ability to handle abstract concepts.
There are a number of Deaf people who are fluent in
SL , yet enjoy reading. If English has been taught to
them in a positive way, they can appreciate English
literature as much as any native English-speaker. Literacy
skills are not a true gauge of intelligence .
Our
quarrel is not with the English language as such, but
the way it has been (and still is being) taught. No
matter how beguiling or potentially enriching the subject,
a bad teacher can turn the students permanently against
it in no time at all. We all know this. Teachers whose
underlying message is that deaf kids can't are the prime
culprits. Boring, outmoded, and irrelevant material,
hateful classroom experiences, and the suppression of
the child's native language are not limited to deaf
schools, but the consequences are just as destructive.
The kids get lost very soon. If they never get beyond
"bad, mad, pad, and dad" or drills in sentence
diagrams, they won't stick around to appreciate the
delights of jane Austen or Shakespeare. Why bother?
As
for the "beauty of the English language,"
it's been battered forcibly into their heads. Many deaf
children have started school without any real language.
The common-sense approach would be to give them an immediate
grounding in a visual language, then use that language
to teach English as a second language. English is not
a visual language; it's primarily an aural one .
And
them there's the ordeal of speech therapy and speech
training . Is speech a gift? The birthright of all deaf
children? Many deaf children who endured the endless
hours of training would have been pleased to decline
such a gift. Endless hours spent on auditory training,
listening skills, and speech - and their articulation
was still poor.
In
earlier times, it was not that uncommon for therapists
to strike young deaf children. Because they were misbehaving?
No, because they mispronounced a word when they repeated
it. A word they couldn't even hear .
Deaf
people do like magazines, particularly those with lots
of pictures. Some do real newspapers, for the sports
coverage .
|
 |
