(no subject)
Hey look! A post that has nothing to do with the election!
I recently had a chat with someone about British Sign Language, something I feel very passionate about, and I thought it might interest other people too. A friend is doing a linguistics course and they’ve been covering sign language versus oralism. She said that she’s of the opinion that if oralism requires proper teaching and will never be fully effective for the user, but sign language is acquired by children like any other language would be, then the focus should be on sign language over oralism. However everyone else seems hell bent on 'integration' at all costs, which I find a bit offensive, surely that would be for society's convenience, rather than deaf people's? She asked me what my thoughts are. I said:
I am quite anti-oralism and "integration at all costs". I have seen the effect that oralism has - and it so often means isolation for the child involved. For a deaf child, it is infinitely easier to communicate in sign language than to be forced to "talk" so that they fit in. Children who are denied the right to communicate in sign language often develop language much later - my mum didn't speak until she was 8 years old and was never really able to communicate with her parents, who never learned sign language.
The idea behind oralism - that it is better for a child to be able to fit into the "hearing world" - is laudable in theory but in practice it means that the child often struggles because the fact is, they will never really "fit in". It is a struggle for deaf people to join in general conversation because hearing people are so unaware of the needs of deaf people - they're not aware that you can't turn away from the deaf person while you're speaking, that you can't stand in front of a window because their face will be silhouetted and impossible to lip-read, and that you can't put your hand in front of your face while you're talking. Let alone knowing that you need to speak clearly, enunciate your words, and not shout. For a deaf person, the hearing world is full of people who are essentially talking to you like this: "So I er [hand on front of mouth] supermarket [turns away] courgettes mumble mumble [indecipherable fast speech] fifty pence!". Imagine you're in a classroom and trying to learn maths from someone whose every other word you miss!
You can learn to lip-read and talk all you like but the inaccessibility of most hearing people's speech means that it's often impossible to understand anyway, no matter how much you've been taught to put your tongue on the back your teeth to make a "th" sound. Having sign language means that you can at least have a proper conversation with someone else who signs once in a while.
There's also the loss of a beautiful language - BSL is a gorgeous, expressive, fun, intelligent language in which storytelling becomes an epic journey, jokes can be told in a different (and often funnier!) way, there's the poetry and symmetry of movement, and the binding together of a community of people from whom you are not isolated and with whom you share experiences.
That's not to say that deaf children shouldn't be taught to "speak" or to lip-read. That is of course also important, just to function in the normal world. But it should happen alongside sign language so that children can fully express themselves rather than struggle with a language that doesn't come easily when you can neither hear how it should sound nor understand fully what noises you're making with your own mouth.
There's no doubt that life is easier for deaf people when they're able to communicate with hearing people, but it's also a lot more lonely if you're never able to really participate fully in chat. For example, a deaf person who has been taught really well to lip-read and has understandable speech will still struggle in an office situation. Imagine a group of colleagues down the pub after work. They're talking over each other and you can't look at more than one person at a time so at any one point you're probably missing what at least one person is saying. And if you have great colleagues who are helpful and try their best and take turns talking and alert you to who is speaking and speak clearly and slowly and never put their hands over their mouth, then you're made painfully aware that this conversation is awkward and stilted for them and everyone is often just uncomfortable. They'd rather just sit and chat naturally. Instead there you are, making it difficult for them. No one wants to feel that way.
Imagine that's it - that's all you ever have in terms of conversation. Pretty sad, isn't it? Now imagine that, in addition to that, you can also have conversations with your signing friends in which no one feels awkward. Conversation flows. You can express yourself fully without struggling to understand or be understood. No one has to "make allowances" for you. You're free! You're a normal human being. Why would anyone deny a deaf person that?
***
To which she replied with thanks and that she was especially concerned that the other students were equating sign language using children with immigrants who also have to be forced to learn English. And would I consider BSL to be a native language of the UK. I replied:
BSL is definitely a native language of the UK. It was finally officially recognised as such in 2003 although it is of course much older than that. It is a fully developed language with its own syntax and grammar, not to mention its own idioms and poetry and beauty. It is separate and distinct from the sign languages of America or France or any other country.
The comparison between deaf children and those of immigrants who are forced to use English is facile at best. It ignores context completely. The children of immigrants are free to use their own language at home - but the majority of deaf children are born to hearing parents who do not know sign language. Without being able to learn it and use it at school with other deaf children, they are isolated in the deepest sense from those around them. A deaf child can and does learn English of course, but they will never be able to use it to communicate with the wider community in the same way that a child with English as a second language can. A child of immigrants can still hear the people around them and can, once they've learned English to a sufficient degree, participate in the ordinary chatter around them. A deaf child can't for the reasons outlined above.
Not knowing English is not a disability. Being deaf is. It's hard for people who have never experienced it to understand how isolating the inability to hear can be. Imagine you go to France and you learn French perfectly. Now imagine that even though you know the language you still can't access it properly because everyone around you is mumbling, turning away, speaking too fast, and you're only catching every other word and even then you're only catching every other word of the person you happen to be looking at and missing every other person talking and all the other sounds around you. You can learn French so perfectly you're 100% fluent and still never be able to fully engage with anyone around you.
If you don't allow them to express themselves in the manner which is easiest for them they will always be playing catch-up. They will be at a disadvantage. But let them communicate and learn in a language that flows, where you can really properly follow the conversation, where the words make sense and have a context, and you have a child that can really learn. Why would you deny them that because of the idea that they must "fit in"?
Up until around 30 or 40 years ago almost all deaf schools were 100% oral. Children were not allowed to sign and were punished for being caught doing so. My own mother was punished by being locked in an air raid shelter, and on another occasion was put in a straight-jacket for being caught signing. The result was that most deaf children left school with an average reading age of 8. Neither of my parents have a single academic qualification because so much of their time was dedicated to teaching them to "speak". Hours of repetitive speaking lessons. And the result? My parents are still deaf. They still have "deaf" voices that are difficult for most hearing people to understand. Why? Because they cannot hear! You cannot teach a disabilty away.
I could go on forever. Being deaf can be wonderful - my parents are members of a rich, vibrant community with their own beautiful language. My mother was an actress/director, had her own theatre company and has translated Shakespeare into sign language. She won awards for her production of Titus Andronicus. And this is in SPITE of her oral education, not because of it. Imagine what she'd have been able to learn if she'd been taught in a language she can fully engage with!
I recently had a chat with someone about British Sign Language, something I feel very passionate about, and I thought it might interest other people too. A friend is doing a linguistics course and they’ve been covering sign language versus oralism. She said that she’s of the opinion that if oralism requires proper teaching and will never be fully effective for the user, but sign language is acquired by children like any other language would be, then the focus should be on sign language over oralism. However everyone else seems hell bent on 'integration' at all costs, which I find a bit offensive, surely that would be for society's convenience, rather than deaf people's? She asked me what my thoughts are. I said:
I am quite anti-oralism and "integration at all costs". I have seen the effect that oralism has - and it so often means isolation for the child involved. For a deaf child, it is infinitely easier to communicate in sign language than to be forced to "talk" so that they fit in. Children who are denied the right to communicate in sign language often develop language much later - my mum didn't speak until she was 8 years old and was never really able to communicate with her parents, who never learned sign language.
The idea behind oralism - that it is better for a child to be able to fit into the "hearing world" - is laudable in theory but in practice it means that the child often struggles because the fact is, they will never really "fit in". It is a struggle for deaf people to join in general conversation because hearing people are so unaware of the needs of deaf people - they're not aware that you can't turn away from the deaf person while you're speaking, that you can't stand in front of a window because their face will be silhouetted and impossible to lip-read, and that you can't put your hand in front of your face while you're talking. Let alone knowing that you need to speak clearly, enunciate your words, and not shout. For a deaf person, the hearing world is full of people who are essentially talking to you like this: "So I er [hand on front of mouth] supermarket [turns away] courgettes mumble mumble [indecipherable fast speech] fifty pence!". Imagine you're in a classroom and trying to learn maths from someone whose every other word you miss!
You can learn to lip-read and talk all you like but the inaccessibility of most hearing people's speech means that it's often impossible to understand anyway, no matter how much you've been taught to put your tongue on the back your teeth to make a "th" sound. Having sign language means that you can at least have a proper conversation with someone else who signs once in a while.
There's also the loss of a beautiful language - BSL is a gorgeous, expressive, fun, intelligent language in which storytelling becomes an epic journey, jokes can be told in a different (and often funnier!) way, there's the poetry and symmetry of movement, and the binding together of a community of people from whom you are not isolated and with whom you share experiences.
That's not to say that deaf children shouldn't be taught to "speak" or to lip-read. That is of course also important, just to function in the normal world. But it should happen alongside sign language so that children can fully express themselves rather than struggle with a language that doesn't come easily when you can neither hear how it should sound nor understand fully what noises you're making with your own mouth.
There's no doubt that life is easier for deaf people when they're able to communicate with hearing people, but it's also a lot more lonely if you're never able to really participate fully in chat. For example, a deaf person who has been taught really well to lip-read and has understandable speech will still struggle in an office situation. Imagine a group of colleagues down the pub after work. They're talking over each other and you can't look at more than one person at a time so at any one point you're probably missing what at least one person is saying. And if you have great colleagues who are helpful and try their best and take turns talking and alert you to who is speaking and speak clearly and slowly and never put their hands over their mouth, then you're made painfully aware that this conversation is awkward and stilted for them and everyone is often just uncomfortable. They'd rather just sit and chat naturally. Instead there you are, making it difficult for them. No one wants to feel that way.
Imagine that's it - that's all you ever have in terms of conversation. Pretty sad, isn't it? Now imagine that, in addition to that, you can also have conversations with your signing friends in which no one feels awkward. Conversation flows. You can express yourself fully without struggling to understand or be understood. No one has to "make allowances" for you. You're free! You're a normal human being. Why would anyone deny a deaf person that?
***
To which she replied with thanks and that she was especially concerned that the other students were equating sign language using children with immigrants who also have to be forced to learn English. And would I consider BSL to be a native language of the UK. I replied:
BSL is definitely a native language of the UK. It was finally officially recognised as such in 2003 although it is of course much older than that. It is a fully developed language with its own syntax and grammar, not to mention its own idioms and poetry and beauty. It is separate and distinct from the sign languages of America or France or any other country.
The comparison between deaf children and those of immigrants who are forced to use English is facile at best. It ignores context completely. The children of immigrants are free to use their own language at home - but the majority of deaf children are born to hearing parents who do not know sign language. Without being able to learn it and use it at school with other deaf children, they are isolated in the deepest sense from those around them. A deaf child can and does learn English of course, but they will never be able to use it to communicate with the wider community in the same way that a child with English as a second language can. A child of immigrants can still hear the people around them and can, once they've learned English to a sufficient degree, participate in the ordinary chatter around them. A deaf child can't for the reasons outlined above.
Not knowing English is not a disability. Being deaf is. It's hard for people who have never experienced it to understand how isolating the inability to hear can be. Imagine you go to France and you learn French perfectly. Now imagine that even though you know the language you still can't access it properly because everyone around you is mumbling, turning away, speaking too fast, and you're only catching every other word and even then you're only catching every other word of the person you happen to be looking at and missing every other person talking and all the other sounds around you. You can learn French so perfectly you're 100% fluent and still never be able to fully engage with anyone around you.
If you don't allow them to express themselves in the manner which is easiest for them they will always be playing catch-up. They will be at a disadvantage. But let them communicate and learn in a language that flows, where you can really properly follow the conversation, where the words make sense and have a context, and you have a child that can really learn. Why would you deny them that because of the idea that they must "fit in"?
Up until around 30 or 40 years ago almost all deaf schools were 100% oral. Children were not allowed to sign and were punished for being caught doing so. My own mother was punished by being locked in an air raid shelter, and on another occasion was put in a straight-jacket for being caught signing. The result was that most deaf children left school with an average reading age of 8. Neither of my parents have a single academic qualification because so much of their time was dedicated to teaching them to "speak". Hours of repetitive speaking lessons. And the result? My parents are still deaf. They still have "deaf" voices that are difficult for most hearing people to understand. Why? Because they cannot hear! You cannot teach a disabilty away.
I could go on forever. Being deaf can be wonderful - my parents are members of a rich, vibrant community with their own beautiful language. My mother was an actress/director, had her own theatre company and has translated Shakespeare into sign language. She won awards for her production of Titus Andronicus. And this is in SPITE of her oral education, not because of it. Imagine what she'd have been able to learn if she'd been taught in a language she can fully engage with!