.quote:
Originally posted by Olentzero
I don’t mean to be flippant or rude, but, no kidding! We certainly should work on it - many of us are. I don’t feel that the idea of “working on it” negates what I fee is the reality of disabled people having particularly limited choices as opposed to able-bodied people in the current world.
In a word, yes. Let’s look at that:
“But the world isn’t perfect and the cold hard truth is that it would probably be easier for immigrants to learn English than for all 500 million some-odd Americans to learn a second language.”
English is far and away the predominant language in the U.S. [shrug]
Doreen, I don’t normally give high fives in GD, but that was a damn fine point. Kudos. And since your kind of a newbie, welcome to the boards.
Good Lord, I’m an idiot. I guess I was working too many threads and mixed up the posters I was writing to. 400+ posts = newbie? Hell, that’s me.
Anyway, sorry for that.
And you still have my Kudos.
Where in God’s name are you pulling this out of? If a deaf child is born in the US, she learns to read and write English as her native language. If she was born in Russia, then yes, English would be a foreign language, but that has to do with geographical location rather than a physical disability.
Well, I don’t know any ASL, so it’s probably pretty obvious how I did. That may prove that ASL is at this point as incomprehensible to me as any foreign language I don’t speak, but that in no way proves that English is a foreign language to US-born deaf children. They don’t grow up, at least as far as I understand it, learning to read and write with that system, then learning to read and write English. They start out both learning to use ASL and to read and write English.
Does that make it any easier for an adult immigrant from, say, Guatemala to learn English than it does for you to learn Spanish? Sure, English may be the predominant language in the US, but how does that justify you not learning even enough to be moderately functional in a second language, if the need arises often?
On a similar note, would you consider that attitude justifiable if it were reversed? Say, for instance, your company sends you to Mexico for several years. Would you think it acceptable for the Mexicans to believe you ought to learn Spanish since it’s the predominant language south of the Rio Grande?
I’m not arguing that deafness is not a disadvantage. I feel it’s similar to the disadvantage many immigrants face in coming to the US, being unable to speak English, either fluently or at all.
Which is at the roots of why there is such a tightly knit deaf culture, both here in the US and abroad.
The difference, however, is that deafness is actually less of an obstacle to becoming a fully functional, contributing member of US society than the inability to speak English. There are examples of that even here in this thread, and at the center of this debate. This, to me, is the key to the argument - these children’s parents are highly successful and well-educated individuals who just happen to be deaf. They are proof that it is possible to succeed even with a disability, and therefore it shouldn’t matter whether they want deaf children or not because those same children have just as good a chance of being successful as their parents.
Olentzero,
I respect you as a poster and I pretty much agree with most of what you’ve posted in this thread. But this latest is just bunk. Sorry to have to tell you that. Sign Language is not English. Those who learn Sign Language as their native language, regardless of what the prevalent oral language is, have as their native language the Sign Language of the area.
The fact remains that English is still a foreign language to them. The writing for English does not convey their native language to them.
[/quote]
I think it’s sick-o-sick.
This child could have had the best of both worlds. She could have had loving, parents and the chance to learn signing and be part of a strong, supportive deaf community. And at the same time she could have learnt hearing speech and communication, have participated in the mainstream hearing world/community - if she so wished - enjoyed music, listening to the radio - AND watching deaf theatre, whatever.
Instead they have chosen to try to create a disabled child. Deafness IS a disability. It means you cannot hear. It means if someone shouts a warning to you, you can’t hear. It is an impediment - whether minor or major - to some aspects of life.
I fully understand the arguments against cochlear implants, where a not-quite-properly-hearing implanted deaf child struggles to cope in a hearing world.
But to want your child to have a disability is sick-o-sick-o-sick. These women are sick. Frankly they should not be allowed to be parents. They’re either acting out of fear or jealousy, either is despicable.
Right… I couldn’t possibly know anything about this kid and his family even though I went to the same school as this crowd. The hearing kid wasn’t removed at birth - he was removed at the age of 12. I don’t know what triggered it, but it was peculiar to say the least.
Why are you arguing so hard that the parents were at fault? Is it easier for you to believe that parents could be neglecting a child than that the state foster care system could make a mistake?
Not the case here. The child removed was just one year behind me in school - he wasn’t taken away at birth or as a toddler but at the start of junior high. From 12 to 16 he was shuffled from one foster care family to another and whenever he asked why he was told “your parents were hard of hearing and couldn’t take care of you”. He was denied contact with his deaf family. He was punished for using ASL, which was actually his native language being the first form of communication he learned. I’d think it unlikely that he’d been vocally deprieved - lots of hearing relatives on both sides, and the guy when I met him was pretty aritculate, and prior to the removal he’d been doing very well in the public school. He thought the whole mess was triggered by hearing relatives who felt deaf people were OK to raise deaf kids, but a normal child shouldn’t be left with them. Which is possible.
Dooreen, you’re talking hypotheticals. I’m talking about a living, breathing human being I actually met and spoke to. I went to high school with this guy’s sister. These were NOT reclusive, insular Deaf people but folks who had lots of contacts on both sides of the fence. No, I am not privy to intimate details of this family’s dynamics - but then, neither are you. Yes, it’s possible the whole family, including the guy who could hear, were lying. It’s also possible there are some really screwed-up bigots out there who have too much power over other peoples’ lives.
Last I talked to anyone in the family he’d been talking about getting a law degree and working in custody issues. Don’t know if he did that or something else.
Please be so kind as to change the wording in my posting above from “[…] bunk.” to “[…] common misconception.”
I did not mean to imply that Olentzero was tossing around untrue things intentionally, but merely that he was voicing a misperception. Sorry about that, Olentzero.
Broomstick, nobody’s saying that we know what happened with the kid. What we’re saying is that claiming that a child was taken from his parents solely for being deaf and no other reason is quite remarkable (let alone the implication that this was anything other than an isolated incident). And sorry, but on the SDMB people generally ask for some support before we accept remarkable claims at face value. We certainly hope for more than
Again, this does not mean we think that you’re lying or even wrong. It does mean that your knowledge is second- or third-hand, and that there are many things that could not have come to your knowledge. As I asked before, do you expect that if there was some embarassing reason, that they would make an effort to make sure his sister’s schoolmate knew about it? The answer is no. If they were looking for an excuse to tell people not very close to the family, would the deafness be a good cover? Yes.
It may have happened. But before we accept the claim that it definitely did happen, we need more than "I went to school with this girl whose brother … " Sorry.
Couldn’t they just have adopted deaf children? There are so many disabled children out there, why not do that?
I have pretty much disagreed with most of what Olentzero’s posted in this thread, but I think that what s/he’s written here is perfectly reasonable. If I understand him/her correctly, all s/he’s saying is that a deaf child raised in a deaf home may have two native languages: the sign language, signed or written, that she learns from her parents, and the written or lip-read English she learns from school. It’s exactly analogous to a child of Mexican immigrants who learns Spanish at home and English from the TV, school, and playmates. Both languages will be native languages for her. This doesn’t amount to a claim that Spanish=English
Originally posted by Olentzero
[QUOTE]
I’m not sure I agree with this statement, for a couple of reasons. Sadly, I’m not sure if I can properly elucidate them, but I’m gonna give it a shot.
First, the phrase “fully functional” gives me a problem. If one is a deaf person living in a majority hearing world, I wonder if one is truly “fully functional” with those limitations. Sure, perhaps the deaf (and disabled people at large) are merely in the minority, as opposed to being abnormal/fully functional, but I wonder.
I also suspect that finding a job would indeed be easier for a non-English speaking hearing person than it’d be for a deaf person for the following reason;
I’m taking a somewhat educated guess that ethnic neighborhoods (Chinatown, Little Havana, etc.) are much more prevalent in the U.S. than are deaf neighborhoods. A Cuban immigrant living in Little Havana wouldn’t, I think, have much trouble running a store even if s/he had limited or no knowledge of English, as most of the customers would speak the (or ‘a’) Cuban dialect of Spanish. A deaf person wouldn’t have much trouble finding a job in a neighborhood where the population was predominantly deaf, but I wonder if such communities exist. I’m not talking about a school, such as Galludet - I’m talking about a neighborhood in your average American city.
I know a couple of guys who’re quite profoundly deaf (one lipreads, one doesn’t) - I’m gonna ask them about this when I see them in class tomorrow, get their opinions.
Incidentally, to my knowledge, the New York State Teacher Certification for secondary educators doesn’t allow ASL as a ‘language’. If I’m correct, what does that say about what value America as a whole places on the potential of deaf Americans? I wonder. If I’m wrong & it is accepted, I’m a moron who should’ve done my homework & the point is moot 
The fact remains that English is still a foreign language to them. The writing for English does not convey their native language to them
[/quote]
I suppose that’s technically true, if you consider “native language” to mean first language.
But you started with this:
I suppose that would have a lot to do with how old I was when I learned the second language and how often I used it I didn’t learn a second language until high school.rarely used it and never was fluent. My husband learned his second language (English) when he went to school and has used it when he was not with his family since then. He is as fluent as any speaker of English as a first language.
Doreen
Yes, Doreen, I do consider first language as native language and vice versa.
Now, if you’d like to take a gander at how well the educational establishment is teaching English as a foreign language to the Deaf, we can do that. So far, what I’ve noticed is that establishment for many years has acted as though English already is the Deaf’s native language in the US.
Tyrell McAllister has pretty much formulated what I was thinking about the subject. ASL is definitely not English, as there is also Signed English - akin to hand spelling, if I understand correctly. But the fact that ASL is not English does not automatically mean that a deaf person born in the US does not have English as their native language. It’s what they learn to read and write in, therefore it is native. They also learn ASL as the substitute for spoken English, therefore ASL is also their native language.
Please do. I’d love to see what you have to bolster your assertion.
Olentzero,
Both you and Tyrell are mistaken. First, the child who grows up in a monolingual Spanish home and then learns English at school does not have two native languages. That child has the native language learned at home (Spanish) and then the foreign language learned in school.
Please, try to understand that “foreign” does not have to mean “from outside the borders of this country.”
Next, the Deaf child is in the same position–the child does not learn to hear English. Now, exactly how can someone who can’t hear learn a spoken language as a native language?
Also, prior to the child learning written English, is English his or her native language? Of ocurse not! But the child does have a native language. I think you know that.
You might want to check with quite a few colleges in this country to see if they consider English to be a Deaf child’s native language. Mine recognizes ASL as a full-fledged language in its own right and thus permits the student to declare that as his or her native language. But, I’m in California, so I’m sure somone (not either one of you!) is going to make a smart remark about this state.
If this hasn’t persuaded you, here’s a link for you:
from About ASL
I’ll be happy to post more if you’d like to tell me how many will satisfy you.
A couple posts back, you defined your use of “native language” when you wrote, “I do consider first language as native language and vice versa.” I think that there are a few problems with this definition. First, does “first language” mean first language mastered, or first language in which a mere word is uttered (or signed), or something in between? On the one hand, I don’t think a child can be said to have mastered a language until she has been speaking (or signing) it for several years. On the other hand, suppose a child has, say, an English-speaking mother and a French speaking father, and learns English and French more or less concurrently. I don’t think it’s reasonable to call English a foreign language to the child if the first word out of her mouth happens to be French.
The second problem I see with the definition is that, well, I don’t like it as much as mine :D. I think that for the terms “native” and “foreign” to be useful, they should distinguish the manner in which the child acquired her languages, not the order in which she acquired them. A child under the age of, say, three, acquires language in a very different manner from an adult. The adult, when first learning a second language, must translate phrases from the second language into her first language to understand them. If she wishes to say something in the second language, she must translate it from her first language into the second. So here there’s a meaningful sense in which the first language is native, and the second is foreign. A very young child, on the other hand, has entirely different neurological mechanisms in place for language acquisition, and can more or less “boot-strap” herself into a language without having to have a pre-existing language. I expect that a child will employ these specialized mechanisms to learn a language even if she happens to already know one, and a second language she acquires in this manner is, for all intents and purposes, native.
A young child of Spanish-speaking parents may have many opportunities to hear English spoken while she is in her formative language-acquiring years. She may hear it from play-mates, the television, or pre-school teachers, for example. I believe that such a child will acquire English as a native language in every important respect.
Yeah, you make a good point. Unlike the case of the child with Spanish-speaking parents I described above, the deaf child probably won’t be able to learn English until she can read, and she won’t be able to do this until she is well past the language-acquiring prime of 2-4 years of age. The only exception I can think of would be if she somehow learned to lip-read English while very young. But I’ve never heard of that happening, and I doubt that it would be possible.
**
It won’t be me, since that’s where I am too :).
Though I’ve come to agree that a deaf child normally couldn’t come to acquire English as a native language in any meaningful sense, I do want to point out that this was never a debate about whether ASL was a language in it’s own right. No one here was arguing that ASL is just some pantomimed version of English. Of course ASL can be a native language. The question was whether it must be so to the exclusion of all others.
And exactly how can the first word out of a child’s mouth be in an oral language which he or she can’t hear?
BTW, you made my point.
Not your original point, which was that a deaf person couldn’t be as fluent in written English as in ASL. Even if we stick to “native language” as the first language,that doesn’t mean a person can’t achieve native fluency in another. It’s also not unheard of for a person to learn to read and write only in the second language.
Doreen
Doreen:
My point was not that the person could not achieve native fluency in another language, but rather that English is not the native language of the Deaf.