http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak.r1q7H3yptDYS77IVsUyMjzKIX?qid=20060911215215AAsQswV
I decided to look at yahoo questions posted concerning Deaf people to talk about my first topic. This question starts with opinions about two deaf parents, then narrows specifically to the issue of a hearing child’s ability to speak. Whether the child speaks or not, should be of no concern because suppose the child speaks a foreign language fluently, but not the local language? This sort of value is misguided because we should place an emphasis on the ability to communicate.
The parents are Deaf, and we have to assume the parents are fluent in sign language. The only concern should be if the parents communicate with the child. If the parents have a profound hearing loss and do not know sign language, and has no communication with the child, who speaks perfectly, would not that be short of abandonment? The issue should never be about a child’s ability to speak but ability to communicate.
Stephen Hawkins, perhaps one of the most brilliant minds in the last 50 years, does not speak at all. He uses a computer to have the ability to talk, but it is arduous for him to get a sentence out, and he blinks in Morse code if I remember correctly. If a child can communicate in Morse code, then what is wrong with that as long as there is communication? Why do people confuse the ability to speak with language development? Communication is not just about making sounds, nor is it about the ability to hear sounds.
Values need to be examined, but the worst value of all is the value of normalcy. “Oh, my baby is normal.” What does it mean to be normal, did you have an image of what a normal baby looks like? Was it a white baby, a black baby, a/n (insert color) baby? Was it hearing, deaf, mute, blind, had all of its appendages? Do we say “Oh no, the baby weighs 1 pound more than the normal weight?” We will have the problem of determining what exactly the normal weight is anyways.
To battle all the “–isms” that face the Deaf world; we have to think about what the dominant majority puts a value on and the reason behind it. What is so special about having the ability to speak is it because it goes well with the ability to hear coherently? The bigger picture is the ability to communicate, not specific modes of communication that is prevalent to the rest of the world, don’t emphasize one mode over another mode just because the rest of the world uses it and assume it works for all people.
Hello,
Your message is an ongoing problem in this country. Most hearing people still thinks that Deaf people don’t have language or communicate because of our method. One time, someone was telling a group of people about deaf kids don’t learn language until after they get into school. I told them that it was not true, since I learned language when I was perhaps 8 months. My parents signed to me and I am communicating with them on what I need. Most hearing people are ignorant and doesn’t realize that we have language, and it’s just different from how hearing people is used to. They (hearing people) would think that if you don’t hear anything, you can’t “function” correctly. The best way to make this changes, is to educate them. I have had some people approaching me about “baby signs” and how wonderful it was. I would tell them that it proves that baby can communicate a lot earlier than those who don’t use signs at that age (8 to 12 months). I did some research in the past and one researcher said that both hearing or deaf child learning sign language will pick up language 6 to 8 months earlier than those who don’t. Thanks for sharing this with us and I look forward to more of your postings!
Comment by Mariah — January 27, 2007 @ 5:21 am
[...] Read on… Comments » [...]
Pingback by What matters deafness of the ears, when the mind hears? :: Values « Deaf and Philosophy :: January :: 2007 — January 27, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
Mariah,
Another perspective is, babies are always communicating. They cry, which is a form of communication. They also toss and turn, and push things away, meaning they are telling you something (and you have to figure out what it is). It doesn’t necessarily start with languages in the verbal sense. A baby merely laughing is communicating, so that’s verbal as well as physical communication.
I believe there is a distinction to make, deaf or hearing baby probably have access to “communication” at the same time, and it may be that a baby has a slight advantage with sign language as opposed to making distinct verbal sounds such as milk, mom, dad. Maybe at the same time, a baby is trying to say words, but is unable to do so, and can make a sign which we interpret as milk. I don’t know what linguistics define language as these days, does it still require the use of sounds as a criteria, or has it expanded to include sign language, body language without being restrictive in verbal use. I’m probably better off just using the word “communicate” for the sake of clarity.
Comment by deafphilosophy — January 27, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
Markus
It was quite useful reading, found some interesting details about this topic. Thanks.
Trackback by Deaf Culture — February 21, 2007 @ 9:22 am