James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack) (03/28/91)
Index Number: 14545
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Robin I read your post on first langauges of deaf kids. Youareright
in what you say about the ease communication when a deaf kid comes
from deaf parents who are ASL'ers. Youmention using different languages
based on whatthe kid understands. I think that is where they key lies.
Deaf kids for themost part get only bits and pieces of phonetic languages
simply because the receptor organ is either non-functioning or malfunctioning.
As a result, a true educator who understands and has sensitivity tothis
would question whether the child understands the "language." Language
is a fantastic thing. Itis learned but not formally taught (undoker
natural circumstances). Itis something you internalize and it is a
reflection of a people, their culture, their beliefs aboutthemselves,others
and the world in general. That is why people are so different in views,
outlook, customs and etc.
In any case, to truly understand a language, the child must gothrough
thenatural process of acquisition. Teaching a language artificially
via formal instruction can work. Testament to this is thatit is done
for millions of second language learners all over the world every year.
The distinction with the deaf is that when it comes to a phonetic language,
deaf people are then prevented from obtaining it naturally. Indeed,
cannot. Therefore deaf people will always show (no matter how smart
they are) a degree of lag in a lot of subtle andnot so subtle elements
of a phonetic language. A recent post regarding humor is acse in point.
One person considered deaf institution students to be humorless. The
reference was unfortunately from an English speakers' point of view
without regard or respect for deaf culture points of view. However,
besides all that, the post did show that indeed a deaf person will
lack someof the subtle aspects of a phoentic language by virtue of
the fact that the receptor organ will not allow certain types of input
to occur in order for internalization to take place. Humor is an excellent
example because a deaf person willoften not laugh at a joke thathearing
people consider to be outrageously funny. They don't laugh because
the subtle phonetics and the cultural aspect of the joke is simply
not internalized. Many second language learners do indeed find themselves
having to have certainthings explained even to those who have "mastered"
the second language. A deafperson will experience it a bit more often.
Now as for the first language, ASL is indeed natural to all deaf people.
This sounds like a giant pile of taurus manure onthe surface, but think
for a moment. If the receptor organ (the ear) is dysfunctional, then
the "natural" acquisition method for receiving and "internalizing"
the phonetic language is jammed. However, educators persist in trying
to ram English through to the deaf via assistive devices (at one point
inmedieval history they blew trumpets inches from deaf people's ears
so loudly the ears bled and destroyed whatever residual hearing did
exist) manual representations of the phonetic language (despite the
absurdity of trying to convey phonetic properties with motion and shapes.).
The eye is a light collector designed to distinguish hues, shades,
form and to track moving objects. The ear is designed to collect and
distinguish kinetic energy manifested as sonic energy whenever matter
is made to vibrate. The functions of theorgans are different. Consequently,
attempting to make one do the job of the other is limited to the degree
and amount of success. However, as a language, ASL is taylor made for
the eye. For deaf people who are shut out from sonic reception, ASL
is the natural language to use to facilitate comprenhension of the
world around us, internalize a "first" language on which to base further
learning including English as a second language. That is why deaf kids
learn ASL so readily, even in schools where it is forbidden (they get
it from their peers who know it from deaf parents or other deafies).
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!14!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.orgRobin.Chronister@f429.n275.z1.fidonet.org (Robin Chronister) (04/04/91)
Index Number: 14620
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Your post concerning languages was terrific - I captured it to take to
school and show the teacher I work with. You have confirmed what we
have believed all along - through observation and experiment, even
though many of the textbooks would not agree...
I found your comments on manual representations of a phonetic
language particularly interesting. We have a student who is profoundly
deaf from birth, whose parents decided that cued speech was the best
choice for communication. Now, I can actually see some applications for
cueing (don't hit me, please!) with those who have mild to moderate
hearing losses - as a matter of fact I have another student that I would
love to try it with. For a profoundly deaf individual who has never
heard any voice using any language, I can't see how it could possible
work. As a matter of fact, it doesn't - he came to us in 3rd grade with
a preschool language level, and simply could not function beyond the
most simple, concrete tasks. He also has a cochlear implant, and his
parents were VERY opposed to signing. The teacher managed to convince
them that he would be better able to keep up with the class if he were
allowed to sign and they grudgingly agreed. The boy fell very naturally
into ASL patterns and is now 4 grade levels above where he started last
year. As for the implant - well now he recognizes the bell and the fire
alarm, and complains that the room is too loud, but the signing is what
really freed him to learn.
The main concern I have with many of our students is that they come
to school with no appreciable language whatsoever. I once read that if
a child does not acquire language within the first five years of life,
that it will never truly be a native language to him, and the delay can
be critical in later acquisition of knowledge. That makes sense to me,
and what I see tends to support that. I don't know if there is any
solution to that particular problem. I guess that hearing parents of
deaf children will always latch on to the solution that is presented
most strongly to them, and aren't really in the emotional condition to
always make a rational decision about language in the early years.
Lord, how I wish the parents of those children could see from the
beginning what deaf people can do if given a means of communication from
the start!
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!275!429!Robin.Chronister
Internet: Robin.Chronister@f429.n275.z1.fidonet.org