Deaf Culture and cochlear implants

[hazel-rah]

MGibson:

ASL is less efficient than english, or for that matter, any other spoken language.

in terms of being able to communicate a given thought or idea, all languages are equally up to the task. you may have to borrow some vocabulary initally if you want to say, discuss nuclear physics in bahinemo, but if having to borrow vocabulary counts against a language, then english would be dead last in any comparison.

With verbal communication I don’t have to keep my eyes on the subject who is speaking at all times. I can communicate at a much farther range then someone who is confined to ASL. And I can communicate with a large percentage of the local population whereas someone dependent on ASL cannot.

any disadvantage you can come up with, i’ll bet english has a similar one compared to ASL. can you talk through plate glass windows? i’m thinking no. i’ll let some ASL speakers run with a comparison if they want to. to me, it’s a waste of time to compare languages in this fashion. all it reveals is which one you prefer more. and that’s usually the one you speak.

-fh

[RickJay]

Originally posted by hazel-rah *
**
if we were genetically predisposed to the use of spoken language, a child in the presence of people who use a spoken language and a signed language would only learn the spoken language.*

That’s a logical disconnect. Why would that happen? One instinctive drive does not completely trump another.

**as far as cites, if you want to get started on learning about language, an easily available book that’s well-written is “the language instinct” by steven pinker. **

Funny, I was going to use Pinker. Of course, Pinker’s theories are themselves highly controversial, and disputed by many others.

** Alternately, take an introductory linguistics course at your local college. looking at your other posts (“ASL is a much simpler language than english”)**

I know ASL and English, and ASL is simpler. I guess it depends on your definition of “simpler” but ASL has a comparatively tiny vocabulary and far fewer rules.

How is, say, ASL less “Linear” than spoken English? Any language involves the sequential communication of individual concepts to form a whole idea. ASL throws out words in a linear fashion, just like any other language.

in ASL you can combine morphemes simultaneously, in spoken english, you have to do it sequentially. the fact that ASL morphemes are signed in three-dimensional space makes this possible…

Again, no offense, but that’s gobbledygook. The fact that ASL morphemes are signed in “three-dimensional space” doesn’t make them more expressive than English words any more than an English word spoken over a surround sound system is more expressive than the same word in two-dimensional type. Come on, you can’t tell me the word “dog” in ASL is more expressive than the word “chien” in French just because it’s signed in 3-D.

As to the ability to compbine morphemes, how does that make ASL less linear? You can do the same thing in English; words can be combined to create new words, and it’s done all the time. ALL languages allow this sort of flexibility. Well, maybe not Esperanto (Kidding, kidding.) Suffixes, prefixes and even tone of voice and careful use of context can be used to make words mean different things.

my original comment is kind of a joke- generally speaking, all languages are equally good at expressing anything. ASL is not more efficient than english. but the opposite is equally true, yet it remains a very popular belief that sign languages are somehow lesser languages.

I didn’t say ASL was a lesser language, so you may be beating up a straw man. NO language is as expansive and complicated as English; it has a larger vocabulary than any language. That doesn’t make other languages any less full-blown languages. French has a smaller vocabulary but it’s a fully expressive language.

[Phobos]

*Originally posted by hazel-rah *
**
in ASL you can combine morphemes simultaneously, in spoken english, you have to do it sequentially. the fact that ASL morphemes are signed in three-dimensional space makes this possible. spoken languages have to be sequential because you can’t say three words at once.
**

Reminds me of a joke from a play I once saw (can’t recall the name) about a deaf woman married to a hearing man. They were arguing (she signing, he speaking it aloud for the audience). She started signing furiously, then stopped and folded her arms. He kept translating and after a few seconds of catching up, translated “and I can sign 3 times faster than you can talk”.

great topic - I wish I had more time to read all the lengthy posts.

“morphemes” - that one sent me to the dictionary.

[Atreyu]

*Originally posted by RoboDude ***

Parental authority should always be considered secondary to what’s best for the child.**

While I am not a lawyer and therefore cannot speak on the legal subtleties of parental authority vs. the child’s welfare, I can say this: generally speaking, the parents have the prerogative to determine what is best for the child. If it is determined that parental actions are causing harm to the child’s welfare, then parental authority is superseded by legal authority. This is how we have laws in place regarding child abuse and neglect. It has never been established anywhere, even by audiologists and otolaryngologists that have a favorable view of cochlear implants, that withholding a cochlear implant will cause severe physical or psychological harm to the deaf child. Cochlear implantation is an elective procedure, and parents choosing not to pursue that option are not necessarily dooming their child to failure. Being deaf does equate to being helpless, even in a hearing world.

**Unless there is a logical reason why being part of the deaf community would better than being able to hear, i’d have to say that being being deaf is not what’s best. **

I’ll never claim that being deaf is a picnic. There are many things about my severe-to-profound deafness that I don’t like. It meant that I would never be able to join the military. It meant that certain careers would never be open to me. It meant that I would grow up having great difficulty being accepted by many of my hearing peers. It meant that I have never heard what the voices of my family and friends really sound like, nor have I ever heard what a particular piece of music really sounds like…even with hearing aids, since the frequency range of a hearing aid’s output doesn’t come close to reproducing the possible frequency range of normal hearing. It meant being a wallflower at parties because it was usually too noisy to pick out the words that another person was saying. It meant great sacrifices on the part of my family to deal with raising a child with this impairment.

But it did not mean that I would never be a success. Today I am an audiologist, and I try to use my personal experiences to help inform me in dealing with individuals with hearing losses. Although I’m not a user of American Sign Language (I can only fingerspell and use and understand some phrases), I still have to work hard at understanding the world around me. This would be true of anyone with a cochlear implant. The implant will not restore anything resembling normal hearing. Even with the implant, the child will have a long road ahead in terms of learning how to communicate efficiently.

Put simply, there are no quick and easy choices here.

In your statement quoted above, you seem to suggest that cochlear implantation would always be the best option. That seems to ignore that families of deaf children can differ widely in terms of how they view deafness and deaf culture. Instead of saying that cochlear implants are best for all deaf children, I take the view that it is best primarily for the families who are committed to an oral education program for their child, and who understand the time, effort, and money that it will take to achieve optimal results. The evaluation of what is best for a child needs to be done on a case by case basis.

Also, it needs to be pointed out that there are some cases where a deaf child may not be considered a good candidate for implantation, even if the family is actively interested in pursuing that option. There may be physical or psychological conditions that would contraindicate cochlear implantation, or at least severely reduce the chances of a favorable outcome.

Personally, I think that cochlear implants are an exciting technology and shows great promise. It is not a perfect technology, but then again, neither are hearing aids. But who knows what these technologies will become a hundred years from now?

[Atreyu]

*Originally posted by Shy Ghost *
**Being deaf does equate to being helpless, even in a hearing world. **

DOH!

That line should have read: “Being deaf does not equate to being helpless, even in a hearing world.”

[chanting to self]
“…preview is my friend, preview is my friend…”
[/chanting to self]

[matt_mcl]

*Originally posted by RickJay *
Again, no offense, but that’s gobbledygook. The fact that ASL morphemes are signed in “three-dimensional space” doesn’t make them more expressive than English words any more than an English word spoken over a surround sound system is more expressive than the same word in two-dimensional type. **

No, that’s not what hazel means at all. Let me give you an example. There’s a type of verb in ASL called a spatial verb; for example, the verb WALK. A spatial verb is a verb which is combined with a directed motion: for example, moving your signing hand forward for WALK-FORWARD, moving your signing hand up for WALK-UP, etcetera.

In English, you must express these concepts linearly, as separate morphemes strung together:

walk up
walk forward
walk backwards

Or you can do it in reverse order, as in Spanish:

subir caminando
avanzar caminando
regresar caminando

Or you can make a compound word, as in Esperanto:

suprenmarshi
antaumarshi
retromarshi (or) malantaumarshi

Or you could even create a word which means “to walk forward”, but which includes neither morpheme, which is therefore beside the point, which is good because I can’t think of an example.

But only in a signed language can you sign “WALK” and “FORWARD” simultaneously. That’s because “walk” is indicated by a handshape/finger movement, whereas “FORWARD” is indicated by hand movement. Using such phonetic categories as directional hand motion (up, down, left, right…), inflectional hand motion (from/to me/you/it…), hand shape and finger motion, you can add many morphemes at the same time. That’s what hazel meant by “three-dimensional space” and whatnot.

Of course, it’s not linguistics’ place to make value judgments. ASL is “more expressive” only in the sense that you can sign several morphemes at once, not in the sense that it is better (or for that matter, worse) at conveying human experience.

[RoboDude]

The key problem with ASL is not with the language itself, but the fact that the overwhelming majority of hearing people don’t know it.

Shy Ghost:

If you mean deaf parents taking steps to intentionally render their child deaf, I would have to say that I find that concept a little odd.

Why would it be any more odd than refusing to get a cochlear implant just because they want their child to be part of the Deaf community? The end result is the same, it’s just a matter of action as opposed to inaction. If it would be bad for the parents to render their child deaf, it would be equally bad to refuse to get their kid an implant(if he/she were a good candidate for one).

---

I can say this: generally speaking, the parents have the prerogative to determine what is best for the child. If it is determined that parental actions are causing harm to the child’s welfare, then parental authority is superseded by legal authority.

Exactly. Allowing a child to grow up deaf who could otherwise be able to hear has the potential to be very harmful. If you were paying attention to my earlier post, you’d know why.

---

Even with the implant, the child will have a long road ahead in terms of learning how to communicate efficiently.

It’s still much, much, much better than never being able to communicate eficiently at all.

Also, it needs to be pointed out that there are some cases where a deaf child may not be considered a good candidate for implantation, even if the family is actively interested in pursuing that option. There may be physical or psychological conditions that would contraindicate cochlear implantation, or at least severely reduce the chances of a favorable outcome.

I am aware of that. I was only talking about parents who let their children grow up deaf just because they want their child to be active in the Deaf community, which IMO is arrogant beyond belief.

[Phobos]

Just an addendum/follow-up to my first post in this thread. I spoke further with my deaf brother & his deaf girlfriend about this. Although they would be happy with a deaf child, they would also be happy with a hearing child.

My brother also thinks that the implants are a bad idea and believes that most people would reject the idea of getting them for themselves or their children. For that matter, he won’t even wear a hearing aid (however, his deafness is nearly 100% so a hearing aid doesn’t do much anyway…hearing aids are obviously more useful for people who are hard-of-hearing).

[Alan_Smithee]

RoboDude, Ptahlis, and others:
Being extremely short is clerely a disadvantage. Besides the social dificulties which are likely, certain jobs would be off limits. It is a safety hazard, since most safety devices (airbags, for example) are designed for average-sized adults. If parents (of any size) have a child whom they know is a dwarf,* should they be required to provide hormonal therapy to correct this (assuming hormonal therapy would do the job in this case)? What about a family who happen to members of a pygmy tribe, who also happen to be living in the US (whether or not there currently are any)? Should they be forced to provide “treatment” for their child? Consider that in parts of Africa, height is the primary distinguishing (physical) characteristic of certain tribal groups, analagous to skin color in the US. If it would be acceptable to deny such a child drugs to increase his or her height, would it therefore also be acceptable to malnourish a child in order to stunt its growth?

Speaking of saftey hazards, people keep talking about thse runaway cars that keep barrelling down on these poor helpless deaf people. Does anyone have any REAL statistics on the likelyhood of a deaf person being the victim of such an accident (or any accident for that matter) compared to a hearing person? I doubt being deaf is actally that dangerous.

[Alan_Smithee]

Dammit, dammit, dammit! I should have hit preview. I didn’t mean to shout all of that.

[Jeffro]

I lost my hearing in 1985 due to NF2. Over the years I have considered getting a CEI but have decided not to because the sounds you hear with an implant is nothing like the sounds you hear with normal hearing. Currently all implants are meant to be used as aids in lip-reading and to help you become aware of your environmental sounds doorbells, fire alarms etc.

[RoboDude]

That’s not entirely true anymore. I’ve heard that some recipients have been able to use telephones, and one claimed to have near-normal hearing. The problem isn’t with the hardware, it’s with getting the recipients to be able to use it to its full potential.

Alan Smithee wrote:

---

Being extremely short is clerely a disadvantage. Besides the social dificulties which are likely, certain jobs would be off limits. It is a safety hazard, since most safety devices (airbags, for example) are designed for average-sized adults. If parents (of any size) have a child whom they know is a dwarf,* should they be required to provide hormonal therapy to correct this (assuming hormonal therapy would do the job in this case)?

Yes.

---

What about a family who happen to members of a pygmy tribe, who also happen to be living in the US (whether or not there currently are any)? Should they be forced to provide “treatment” for their child? Consider that in parts of Africa, height is the primary distinguishing (physical) characteristic of certain tribal groups, analagous to skin color in the US.

Assuming that the family intends to stay here for good, I’d have to say yes to this one too. If you move to a culture that is completely different from yours, you will inevitably have to make certain changes, unless you intend to become a hermit.