- grew up oral, then learned sign language?
- grew up learning english (writing and reading) and rejected it?
- grew up learning ASL and rejected it?
- grew up learning one mode of sign language and rejected it for another kind?
- are outraged that ASL is the dominant (if not the only) sign language being taught in American schools? (because their mode of communication is different from ASL, that is)
- are trying to advocate for (insert Non-ASL) interpreters with the video relay companies? (SEE interpreters? Oral interpreters? but luckily, mexican sign language interpreters have been expanded now but I refer modes, not countries)
- said their lives were better because they finally learned sign language?
- really understand the structure and grammar of ASL, as people do with the english language? (in a way that they say “oh, that was an incorrect use of classifiers, improper/unclear body shifting, lexicon, facial expression especially the eyebrows when asking a question)
- took as many ASL classes growing up as they did in english classes. (For example, 4 years of spanish in high school along with 4 years of english)
I would guess that no one knows anyone who rejected ASL, even after getting Cochlear implants. I am sure many people know someone who grew up oral but no longer prefer that method. Many have rejected their mode of communication for ASL. I’ve yet to meet someone who took an equal amount of ASL class as they did in English class. Being at a school for the deaf where classes are taught in ASL does not count, unless there was 1 hour devoted to ASL, while 1 hour was devoted to math, science, reading, social studies etc.
We seem to be missing out on making ASL a more rigid language in the sense that we can help many people know and understand ASL as a language the same way people give feedback on other people’s English. I do not mean that there should be people out there trying to criticize and point out every mistake just to make themselves feel better. I’ve always appreciated when people care enough to improve my signing skills as well as my writing skills. I would hope that the quality of feedback I get back is equal from an English teacher and an ASL teacher, but I find that is not so. I’ve corresponded with many non-native English writers (that are hearing) and I can see how they don’t have a handle on the English language, it’s more than just putting a few words together. ASL is much more than putting a few signs together from an ASL dictionary, but so many people have not mastered the language but they end up being ASL instructors. If I can throw out a guess, maybe 75% of ASL teachers do not master the language the same level an English teacher would master the English language.
One thing people should keep in mind is that ASL has been a serious academic study fairly recently, within the last 30 years I am told. The English language has been around and studied intensively for what, 500 years? (Yeah, there’s Old English, Middle English then Modern English, which was formed around 1500.) The future looks bright with so many ASL classes popping up and I am guessing there is a major increase of interpreters, who can be said to be proficient signers, depending on your perspective. Video relay companies have been a benefit to interpreters because it has dramatically helped interpreters improve their receptive skills. I now pretty much can identify an interpreter who has worked for a video relay company based on how they voice for me, or understand me.
So with all of this being said, what is the deal with all these other modes of communication? Are they intended to divide the deaf community, and try to make them fit with the hearing world? If that was the case, why are there vastly more hearing people that know ASL than other modes of communication, which makes for an awkward pairing. How can we justify and defend other modes of communication, when financially it would not be feasible for a relay company to have all these different kinds of interpreters in one place for all different kinds of communication modes. Sure, they can type but even it gets tiring to have to type all day long.
To summarize, I find it odd that parents or school systems endorse a specific mode of communication because, perhaps I am speculating here, that it will help the child communicate with the real world and be viewed as one of the regular in the classroom. This is the “I want my child to be normal” value that takes place here, but it seems odd to me that ASL is the dominant mode of communication in the USA. Because many hearing people are learning it, ASL can be classified as a normal language in the sense that it is one of the most popular “foreign” languages used in schools. It’s easy to find interpreters in ASL, so why doesn’t the school system or parents see that? They then can say, “Ok I want my child to learn sign language because with sign language, the child can communicate with many people who already know it.” I suppose a parent can say they want their child in a deaf institution to keep its SEE skills and request a SEE interpreter, so that would be strange to find an SEE interpreter to watch the teacher in ASL, then convey the information in SEE to the child. Let’s stop the insanity!
I would challenge your assertion that ASL is the dominant mode of communication for signers in the U.S. It all depends on how you define ASL. Since there is no standard grammar book or DVD (or any media) for ASL, what you mean by ASL may be different from others. Does your definition of ASL include or exclude English-like structures? If your definition of ASL excludes English-like structures, I would say that your version of ASL is not the dominant mode of communication. I would say that ASL that includes English-like structures is the dominant mode of communication. The number of ASL purists is much smaller than the ASL signers that use English-like structures.
We are living in a pluralistic society. Why do you think that parents should not be permitted to pick a mode of communication that they think is best for their child? Why should they be denied the choices to pick SEE, PSE, SimCom, ASL signs in English order, Cued Speech or even oral methods? If you are criticizing their decision for picking a mode that is not ASL, are you a step closer to absolutism?
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Comment by Joseph Pietro Riolo — January 28, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
I would say that forms such as SEE or even Cued Speech which are intended to have a one to one correspondence with English are not at all real languages, any more than morse code is a language. They’re just codes. Every last person I know that knows them considers them clumsy and inefficient, even when it’s the only sign they know.
I don’t know as much about PSE (it may be a language, as much as pidgin is a language from a linguistic POV, and derided, the same way pidgen is, by most), but ASL is definitely a language.
It strikes me that attempting to force people to use a coded version of language is a way of controlling and subordinating them. I can’t see another useful reason for having them. If you read up on colonizing theory you’ll see that many minorities are subjected to the dominant language: the Irish were forbidden gaelic, native Americans were beaten at school for speaking anything other than English and so on and on; the examples are legion. It’s just that with deaf people you have to resort to a coded or manual form of English to accomplish the same thing.
No, ASL may not be “well defined” from the point of view of grammarians and such, but if you talk about languages with a linguist (and I work at my job with linguist although I am not one myself), but the lack of formality in defining the language isn’t a hindrance to it. There are after all many languages for which there is no instruction other than learning it natively.
That said, it would be *wonderful* if deaf schools included ASL as a subject in its own right just the same as English is a subject in a typical hearing child’s curriculum.
Comment by anon — January 28, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Joseph,
To clarify my point, when I say that ASL is the dominant mode of communication, I am going by the name of the class offered. I have yet to see a class named something different from “American Sign Language.” I do not know if these classes include or exclude english-like structures.
All the other modes of communication you mentioned, I do not see them as mainstreamed as ASL is. If you called your favorite video relay company, would they be able to provide an interpreter in the mode of communication of your choice? I have been fortunate to meet people from everywhere that happens to know sign language. Would it be a little silly if parents demanded their hearing child learn latin only when so much of american society uses the english language. I have no problems with people learning spanish and english at the same time as it is common in the south because the majority speaks either english and spanish.
A child growing up on SEE, I assume, will have a hard time communicating with hearing people who already know sign language. Is it easy to find SEE interpreters or any other kinds of interpreters for that matter. I was speaking of convenience for parents, if they want their child to be “normal” and fit with the mainstream, it would appear their child would not fit with the “hearing mainstream” that signs. I’m excluding interpreters in this case.
Lastly, what is the standard grammar book or DVD for the english language anyways?
I reject all the modes of communication you mentioned above, and have not met a person who rejected ASL in favor of one of the above modes of communication yet. If parents want ease of communication for their child, would it make sense to go with what the majority of signers use and what the majority of interpreters are trained in? I don’t remember any SEE, PSE, Sim Com, cued speech interpreters at NAD conventions, nor have I ever met one in all kinds of deaf settings. I would be a very frustrated individual if I was fluent in one of these modes of communication looking for interpreters and friends to communicate with.
Comment by deafphilosophy — January 28, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
This may seem like nitpicking here, but it’s a crucial point. ASL IS NOT a mode of communication. It is a separate language in its own right. Everything else (other than pure oralism) is simply an attempt to represent English in some way. SEE, cued speech, LOVE, and all those methods are indeed communication methods, not a language at all. ASL should *never* be called a mode of communication. Otherwise, good entry.
Comment by cali — January 28, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
I do know of two people who grew up with SEE, and they have rejected it in favor of becoming oral. Both of them have residual hearing and live in rural areas, so they aren’t close to other deaf people.
I agree with you that it is ridiculous to teach SEE, cued speech, etc. when many signers don’t use it. I understand that parents may choose a method over another because it can be used as a “tool” to aid in education. Unfortunately, many parents use the tool as their communication mode as well. It is always so fascinating to watch a cued speech conversation back and forth. Wow! Also, ASL can be used as a tool as well, so why waste your time with the extra “tool” in the first place? And poor teachers of the deaf–if each child has a different mode chosen by their parents, they would have to know and use spoken English, ASL, PSE, cued speech, SimCom, Total Communication, ASL signs in English order, etc.!!!
Comment by Rox — January 28, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
Cali,
Thank you for pointing out that ASL is not a mode of communication. Yes, ASL is a language with its own rules, structure and grammar. No, you are not nitpicking at all. There is a valid reason why I stated my post the way I did. Modes of communications are vastly different from a language. ASL should never be confused as a tool used with english, and that is why I was asking about foreign languages, if one spent as many hours in an ASL class as they do in an english class.
Rox,
I agree with the absurdity of having to know all these extra modes on top of teaching in ASL. Unfortunately, if you picked one over the other, you would be identified as an absolutionist. I would prefer that all students in the same school are taught in 1 or 2 languages, not different “tools”. It wouldn’t be good if a school that goes by the english language exclusively has old English, Middle English and Modern English speakers, along with broken English and let’s throw in some ebonics for good measure too. I don’t know French, but I know they are extremely guarded of their language and do not want foreign influence on their language. What’s wrong with doing the same for ASL, and make it more universal within America that is.
Speaking of that, does this problem affect other countries in the world? Does England have this problem? I would certainly hope that all Deafs within a country can communicate with each other easily via sign language. Unfortunately, Deafs in England and Deafs in America can read and write the english language, but not in sign language.
Comment by deafphilosophy — January 28, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
I’ve started reading your blog and I must say I really enjoy your thoughts. When deaf people write in “broken English” or write English in ASL word order, it’s still called English. Bad English, maybe, but English nonetheless. We should look at ASL in the same way….when people sign in English word order but use ASL signs– it is simply poor ASL. As for SEE, Cued Speech, and other modes that follow strictly English grammatical rules and word order, they are codes for English. But from my experience, I’ve seen that once people learn sign language, they tend to gravitate towards ASL (using facial expressions, classifiers, etc.) I think we should stop nitpicking about what ASL is, because no one nitpicks about what English, Spanish, or any other language is—however poor the “speaker” may be in that particular language. Signers of ALL types should, however, aim for excellent ASL skills just as they aim for excellent English skills. The more languages, the better.
Ever since taking Introduction to the Structure of ASL at Gallaudet, I’ve realized how different ASL and English are from each other, and I wish I took ASL classes throughout my education. I admit that I have a tendency to sign in English word order and I’ve been trying to work on that—improving my ASL grammar. If only I had someone correcting my ASL grammar back in elementary school
Comment by Tara Holcomb — January 29, 2007 @ 1:11 am
I grew up hearing and oral,but been deaf most of my life profoundly so in both ears, when I went deaf, I learnt sign language and lip-reading, I’m about 30% with either, and use text a lot, I NEED to be part of the mainstream world, I act as terp for my BSL partner, and as parent to a hearing and disabled child, I simply cannot afford to pigeon-hole myself in the deaf community specifically, my family would suffer, and I don’t care to be dependant on others Obviously I don’t attach any culturality to either mode I use, they’re simply tools of communication, culture is a luxury I can’t afford, I don’t have the TIME for it. I draw distinct difference of view between culture and communication need. I think you can be a fluent lip-reader or oral user yet still be part of any deaf community, I’m quite integrated into the deaf community thing but that isn’t all there is for me. Be you oral lip-reading, whatever, you are STILL deaf, and STILL perhaps spend most of your social and other lifestyle with other deaf people, who has patience with the elite few who sign only and look down on the rest ?
Deaf culture has more ‘non-culturally inclined’ members than it cares to admit. The hype is sign using cultural deaf people in a community, the reality, somewhat different…… and yes Britain has the same issues as Americans, except the ‘community’ here is not as vociferous, impotent even to a high degree, and there are more challenges to the word deaf, and a lot less support for deafisms, audisms and ‘hoods’ ! We have a quota of absolutionists as well,they are mainly seen as disaffected deaf people with a grudge, we aren’t so sophisticated as IKJ in going around the houses about these people for whom, hearing is the anti-christ. Deaf fundamentalism is a non-starter.
Comment by MM — January 29, 2007 @ 3:39 am
Many interpreters are certified not only in interpretation but also in transliteration. Those who use an English-like signing system will not have too much difficulty in finding such interpreter. When I had interpreters in my training courses, I almost always asked interpreters to use ASL signs in English order. I don’t have data with me but I could imagine that signers who use SEE or PSE would have very little difficulty in understanding interpreters who use transliteration.
While I don’t per se reject ASL, count me one who sometimes prefers ASL signs in English order to ASL in some settings. There are people out there who use several modes and choose one mode that is appropriate for a situation. These people can be considered as multi-modal.
Your rationale of going along with the majority of signers is exactly the same rationale that the hearing world used to justify the mainstreaming programs for the deaf students. Because the majority of schools in the U.S. are hearing, the deaf students therefore should go along with the majority and be mainstreamed in their programs. I don’t find any comfort in this kind of rationale. There has to be a better rationale in distributing the limited resources to people who use different modes of communication.
There are several good standard grammar books for English language out there. One that I found is “A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language” as published by Longman. The other is “The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language” as published by Cambridge University Press. Each of them has over one thousand pages. ASL has nothing like that. As the result, there are various opinions on what constitutes ASL.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Comment by Joseph Pietro Riolo — January 29, 2007 @ 4:04 am
Tara,
Thank you for the kind words.
You’ll be surprised what linguistics argue about, as well as English majors. I don’t know the details but I know they argue all the time, there are different schools of thoughts there, so that’s all I care to share about that. (Ok, some sort of preview, check out Noam Chomsky and his army, or how linguistics and language is dead now. Don’t ask me)
On the surface, it may seem silly to determine what constitutes as ASL, the language but one thing I notice is, many of us do not know the rules, so when people see ASL and make an analysis, they will get frustrated and become negative about ASL. “He/She is too ASL, I cannot understand him/her” is a common theme and people start judging ASL. What they should be judging is the person’s handle on ASL, not ASL the language. For hearing people, they recognize the speaker is not very good, the person mumbles, talks too fast, too slow, has a strong accent or is not coherent, whatever. The same thing should be applied to signers, and if more people knew the rules, everyone would benefit and be able to offer feedback. I get feedback all the time on how to improve my ASL, but it is not enough.
You can still improve your ASL grammar now, but it is hard to find a class or a person to help you out. It’s never too late for anything! People of all ages can still improve whatever language they use.
Comment by deafphilosophy — January 29, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
MM,
Don’t you consider looking at deaf blogs as part of the deaf culture, and you have some time for that? There are so many sub cultures in the USA as well as the rest of the world. A culture can have the internet defined as a space, so if you are only involved in the Deaf world on the internet, you would be part of the deaf culture online. There is a strong distinction to make between communication and culture. There is nothing wrong with using whatever method to communicate with people, as long as you are comfortable and have access. Some people need to be part of the Deaf world, so there’s nothing wrong with that. If you have the need to be in the hearing world, I suspect that need is because of the situation you are in, and you have to communicate with hearing people. Need and must are 2 different things. I don’t think any deaf person must be in the Deaf world, but they do need it. I also don’t believe you will find any deaf person that pigeon hole themselves into the deaf culture, it’s simply impossible and impractical to do so. Yes, some deafs may pigeon hole themselves into the hearing world, that is possible for some and do happen all the time. I don’t think you make a fair categorization about the absolutionists, and can quickly dismiss them as having a grudge. You seem to have a grudge, do I call you an absolutionist? If I so badly want to improve education for the deaf, would I be considered an absolutionist? It’s just a word used too loosely on people who advocate hard for topics they are passionate about, namely anything deaf related, wouldn’t you agree?
Comment by deafphilosophy — January 29, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
JPR,
My rationale was that how many people rejected the modes of communication for ASL, and that ASL seems to be the language of choice among Deafs. What I threw in was how parents wanted their child be “normal,” so they would go by whatever is the language of choice, not some obscure mode or tool of communication. Mainstreamed or schools for the Deaf is a choice that parents make when enrolling their children, however you will notice tremendous resistance and pressure in keeping the child away from the school for the deaf AND from using ASL. It’s almost like religion, if you ask people why they believe in a higher being, they will truthfully say it’s because they don’t want to suffer whatever may come. You see, people don’t seem to believe just for the sake of believing, there has to be some negative motivation. I’ve seen parents say, if their child learns ASL, the child’s English will suffer, there is too much “culture” behind ASL, it won’t help the child prepare for the real world etc. Therefore, we move on to the modes of communication, it’s always something against ASL, and never independent of ASL, whatever the motive is. For some strange reason, I don’t see schools for the Deaf as something going against mainstreamed schools. Mainstreamed schools seem to have something against schools for the Deaf. I was brainwashed in oralism and mainstreamed school growing up. Do you really see someone brainwashed in ASL and in deaf schools? In selecting ASL, more people seem to pick it up naturally and without pressure, but in being oral and learning modes of communication, there seems to be much more pressure in choosing them.
If you were on a team that you knew was the best, you would never feel pressure to convince others that your team is the best, actions speak for itself. I know when I am on a bad team; I will pressure people that my team was better and hope by getting people on my team, that the team becomes better. I feel absolutely no pressure at all to let people know Democracy is the best way to govern people, but we are still extremely flawed. Growing up, no one pressured me to learn sign language, once I learned it that was it for me. I have people who grew up on SEE and PSE reject it, why, because it was easier for them to communicate and no one was being dogmatic about them rejecting it. It still seems strange that someone would reject ASL, I must admit. If it enlightens you, I think around 90% of deaf children have hearing parents, so it’s not a surprise to me which school they will pick, but how many of the so called school experts are giving a fair assessment of what kind of education works for the deaf child? I am sure the most common stereotype about deaf schools is that the child will have great social skills, but little education. While the mainstreamed version is that the child gets a better education. This should raise an alarm in any parent’s head, “so my child will get a good education but no social skills and that means an unhappy smart kid?”
Comment by deafphilosophy — January 29, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
It is a window to other deaf people, but I read ‘hearing’ blogs too ! I don’t think I can be labeled as part of a deaf culture just because I read a few blogs (Is it catching or something !). The internet defies the rationale of ‘deaf space’ the deaf can’t stake a particular claim to a specific area, you’ve no way of knowing to what degree people are involved in it, or even if they are deaf at all. You may draw distinctions between communication and culture, as acquired deaf, we obviously do not, we have a point, you cannot argue with, and shouldn’t be. Sad and annoying as it may seem to linguistically inclined deaf people, acquired deaf exist to prove alternatives do exist, and, in some significant numbers too. Our ’sector’ has been in the forefront of many sucessful campaigns for access too.
Are we (Acquired deaf), seen as a stumbling block to culture or something ? we exist to prove that even deafness plus signing, plus an deaf education, may STILL not mean we aspire to culturality, we are a ‘threat’ to it ? We exist, you must accept it. If I read hearing blogs I am hearing ? If I read deaf blogs I am part of deaf culture ? I could just as well be an interpreter honing up my skills but, completely hearing !
Comment by MM — January 30, 2007 @ 3:44 am
For starters – nice website. Glad something like this is out there for all of us to uhhh… “argue” with each other. Fun, fun, fun.
This topic here (the language of ASL or some different mode of communication) has always been a sticky topic – particularly among hearing people. However, it’s not really of an issue amongst people who have discovered ASL.
I am one of those thousands who was born deaf, grew up oral and was introduced to ASL at a much later date. I broke my ASL virginity at the age of 16 years old when I finally convinced my parents to go to a school where I felt belonged – a deaf school, CSD.
I agree with DeafPhilosophy that once a person is exposed to ASL, this person will not reject it. No way. Rox pointed out that he/she knows two people who rejected SEE in favor of oralism which is not surprising but my question here is whether they have been fully exposed to ASL yet? I’ll assume not.
What we need to do is to ensure full exposure of ASL to all deaf individuals who wish to learn it. I’ll raise a different argument here: Who is at fault for one’s lack of exposure for ASL? I probably could write out a list pointing out different people from parents to doctors to audiologists who all do contribute to leading deaf children away from ASL but I think the chief fault for one’s lack of exposure are deaf people ourselves.
Typically we do not “accept” a deaf person in our “gang” who doesn’t speak ASL fluently. We push them out of the group by not inviting them to events or even by criticizing them so much and they don’t come back to us. We talk within ourselves about how wrong they are for not accepting ASL in their lives and yet at the same time we don’t let them. That needs to stop. We need to embrace those people who are trying to meddle themselves in our world and allow them to absorb ASL. Sure, some will have a slower learning curve than others but allow them to be.
Given this change of attitude among ASL users, it will promote more ASL users nation-wide onto creating a ripple effect towards those parents, doctors and audiologists.
I like how DeafPhilosophy pointed out that hearing people would normally not criticize how another hearing person speaks English but rather criticize that person’s skills in presenting or even social skills – never English itself. Tara also had a good argument that some people just have bad English mainly because they weren’t raised with an English speaking family or not educated well. That falls for the deaf person giving us a smaller percentage of “approved” ASL users because the majority of us are not in ASL speaking families and there are almost no ASL classes out there for deaf people. I hear that CSD has those classes now and of course I have to say, “Dammit, why didn’t they have those classes when I was there?”
Onto another note, we need to understand why there are many different modes of communication. My point of view boils down to the fact that parents are told by doctors and audiologists that we need to work on their newborn deaf child to “become” hearing. With that thinking, a lot of different opinions come up and that is where oralism, cued, SEE, etc comes in the playing field. Naturally everyone has different opinions on how things should be done. The problem here is not their thinking on how but their thinking that a deaf child needs to become hearing. If we are able to shift that thinking into accepting a deaf child – all those different types on modes of communication goes away and turns to a language for deaf people which is where ASL comes in the picture.
Comment by Bucky the GREAT — February 13, 2007 @ 10:44 am
I know it is a bit late for me to post a comment, but I’d like to answer your question about knowing anyone who rejected ASL…
My 10-year-old son, who is profoundly deaf, hated Indiana School for the Deaf, just because it was very ASL-oriented. Now, let me describe him a little bit… he was born normal hearing and he must have started losing hearing after turning 2 years old. He attended Rochester School for the Deaf up to 3rd grade. RSD was very into English literacy and SimCom; ASL was still unfamiliar there. He has a strong grasp of English syntax/grammar, reads at 8th grade level for a 4th grader, whathaveyou. He loves talking and singing, having an excellent speech and excellent auditory skills (he cannot live without his digital hearing aids.)
We moved to Indianapolis last summer and enrolled our two deaf children at ISD. My son STRUGGLED, hating it. ISD was so easy for him that he quickly lost interest in academics and became distant. He only loved speech therapy which allowed him to use voice. The rest of the day, he was NOT allowed to use his voice, which felt alien to him. He even said that the classmates mocked him for wearing hearing aids which were “unnecessary” at ISD. We decided to pull him out to mainstream him in the middle of schoolyear and he LOVES it. Yup, he has an ASL-certified interpreter, and he talks in the classes and wants to join choir next fall.
Our daughter is still at ISD and she loves it. She loves ASL, but I am firm on her learning to read and write in the proper English so I spend a lot of time correcting her on English skills. I believe it is because she got exposed to ASL at a younger age than our son was. What makes it ironic is she has a lot more of residential hearing (65 dB) than he has (100 dB.)
The point is we are watching the evolution of our son as a deaf person. Right now, ASL does not work for him but maybe later on, he might embrace ASL, who knows. Oh, my husband and I are deaf, and our children are 5th generation of deaf family dating back to 19th century in Syria, as far as we know. We use mixed communication modes at home—oral, SEE, PSE, ASL…We believe in teaching our children to be accepting of deaf people.
Thanks.
Comment by KM — February 24, 2007 @ 5:55 am