dmimi@uncecs.edu (Mimi Clifford) (03/22/90)
Index Number: 7227
MC is Mimi Clifford (dmimi@uncecs.edu)
RS is Romy Spitz (rspitz@UCSD.EDU)
MC1:
The point is NOT that ASL, SEE or whatever is inferior (or
superio r, for that matter) to English. The point IS that IT IS
NOT English. Whether for good or bad the world, in the US and
to some extent elsewhere, functions in English.
RS:
I caught your message on the newsnet regarding which is best for
Deaf/HI st students SEE, cued speech or ASL. You say that you
advocate the use of SEE over ASL because the US and other parts
[use English]. But don't you think this statement applies to all
people who need to learn English as a second language. People,
Deafaf/HI or otherwise have the capacity to become bilingual.
MC2:
It appears that the problem for the deaf (at least for the pre-
lingual deaf--those who have been deaf since birth or at least
since before the NORMAL time for language development) is that
they do not have a "first" language. ASL or whatever sign system
they learn, is taught to them often long after normal first
language develops in hearing children. And, to make the problem
really nasty, there is evidence that first language learning must
take place during a 'critical period'--that is during the first
two years of life to result in full learning of the language
being learned.
RS:
In case of Deaf, ASL is often their first language.
MC2:
Not completly true though it is the first language learned, it is
learned too late.
RS:
Seems to me the best approach would be to find better ways ways
to teach english as a second language. The system we have for
doing this at present doesn't appear to work well, regardless of
the person's native language (signed or spoken). Unfortuneatly
the barriers may be greater for Deaf in that the teacher's who
are teaching ESL classes in programs for the Deaf, are not
skilled signers in ASL.
MC2:
The problem that the deaf have is that they do not learn a
complete, standard first language. While some do learn English
at a competent level (perhaps as a second language) many do not.
I doubt that teaching skill is the crucial barrier, though it is
obviously important to have skilled teachers.
I think that the nature of ASL as a language is one big issue.
It is a far more limited language than is English or most of the
other standard languages. In a standard language one tends to
have many meanings for a given concept and often concepts which
share the same word. It is my impression that that is not so in
ASL, which seems to have a one word-one concept correspondance.
Another difference is a reduction in level of abstraction that
can be conveyed in ASL. I recall vividly the problems a bright
deaf high school student in a regular (hearing) social studies
class was having understanding the concept of 'culture.'
RS:
Also you stated that "research" has shown that Deaf are less able
to use language than Hearing. This is a considerable
simplification of a very complex area of study. When language
and length of language use and education are taken into account,
there are actually very few differences between Deaf and Hearing.
MC2:
I agree completely with your second statement. We are talking
about a very complex area. BUT, when length of education, age,
and IQ (measured appropriately for the deaf) are taken into
account, the deaf DO NOT do as well as the hearing by a
considerable margin. In addition, deaf adults are under-
employed, under-represented in colleges, under-paid, etc., etc.
While some of this may be due to bias against the handicapped, I
don't believe all of it is. Blind persons, for example, are not
nearly as handicapped in jobs, etc., as are the deaf. Measures
of language acheivement by deaf persons of whatever age are FAR
below the language acheivement of hearing people. If you would
like, I can send you a copy of my dissertation's 20+ page
bibliography dealing with just this issue.
RS:
Remember that most Deaf have Hearing parents and so start their
schooling with poor if any communication skills. This means
that they will not have been learning their numbers, how to
count, or watching Seseme Street to learn any of the other myriad
of details that are picked up by most hearing children by age
5. So they spend many years tryiing to catch up, le on the
basics as well as trying to learn a new language (english) which
is largely phonetic in nature.
MC2:
Exactly. And as long as they are not exposed to a FULL, NATURAL,
STANDARD language they appear never to catch up with language
skill. I'm not sure about the other areas, but suspect that they
catch up with arithmetic, etc. fairly quickly AS LONG AS IT IS
NOT LANGUAGE BASED. I am arguing, partly, that language is THE
cornerstone of virutally all intellectual/cognitive activity.
MC1:
So my argument for Cued Speech or at least SEE, is that the deaf,
as all of us, must have full access to the full resources of
standard language for their intellectual, cognitive well-being,
even though they can get along perfectly well with other people
with ASL.
RS:
That stuff aside, I hope that you guys continue your discussion
on the net. Although ew may not agree on everything, the posts
force all of us to consider different points of view and clarify
our own thinking.
BTW: Do you know of a way to access SILENTTALK (I think that's
the name) from a site in SAn Diego? If so could you pass it on?
Thanks,
Romy Spitz (rspitz@ucsd.BITNET)