- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 45,078
- Reaction score
- 335
A friend of mine sent me this email.....
AVT, ASL, and definitions
Musings on this -- AVT seems to forbid the use of ASL. ASL-using D/deaf people are annoyed at this. People whose kids use AVT are insisting that their kids are fine without ASL, so it's not needed; this is very different from saying that ASL damaged kids and so should be forbidden.
It all seems to come down to the fact that ASL either does or does not damage kids. If it does, then prove it. If it doesn't, then there just isn't a reason to ban it, and apparently, AVT requires the banning of ASL. (English language schools work for hearing kids -- those kids do fine without Swahili or Breton, too. So let's ban Swahili and Breton. Does this make sense? Just because a kid does fine without something is not an argument in favor of erasing it from the Earth.)
If the going-with-ears-and-mouth part of AVT works fine for some kids, that is not by itself an argument in favor of the banning-ASL part of AVT. The question is, would the inclusion of ASL have caused those kids to not do as well?
If this is not the case, and adding in ASL does not cause those kids' language acquisition to drop, then include it. It won't hurt the kids who don't need it (and may help; bilingualism is routinely demonstrated to increase intelligence) and the kids who do need it will be damned happy to have it there.
That seems to be it. That really just does. This is not complicated. Demonstrate that ASL damages kids' spoken language acquisition, or do not. If it doesn't, then there is absolutely no reason to ban it.
There really seems to be a strange way of thinking about these things sometimes. People who advocate for CIs (not CI users, but CI advocates) stress that if it's done early, it will cause natural language acquisition, but then follow it up by saying that without intensive AVT and a total absence of signed language, the kid will slip back into deafness, or something. That doesn't sound very natural. CODAs learn both with no problem.
Some kids will be able to acquire spoken language. Some will not. If ASL does not harm the first group, then include it. It does no damage to the first group and it is a huge boon to the second. Banning it will not harm the first group but will enormously harm the second.
That seems fairly straightforward to me. The question is whether or not simple exposure to ASL will cause a kid in Group 1 to slide over into Group 2. Unless this can be demonstrated (and there does seem to be a lot of data to the contrary), then do not ban ASL from CI-using kids.
That really does seem to be pretty much it. No emotions, no "I'm a parent and I know everything in my child's best interest!" No "CI users are nazis." None of that.
Either ASL damages the spoken language acquisition of a kid, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then do not ban it. QED.
This couldnt be further from the truth!
AVT, ASL, and definitions
Musings on this -- AVT seems to forbid the use of ASL. ASL-using D/deaf people are annoyed at this. People whose kids use AVT are insisting that their kids are fine without ASL, so it's not needed; this is very different from saying that ASL damaged kids and so should be forbidden.
It all seems to come down to the fact that ASL either does or does not damage kids. If it does, then prove it. If it doesn't, then there just isn't a reason to ban it, and apparently, AVT requires the banning of ASL. (English language schools work for hearing kids -- those kids do fine without Swahili or Breton, too. So let's ban Swahili and Breton. Does this make sense? Just because a kid does fine without something is not an argument in favor of erasing it from the Earth.)
If the going-with-ears-and-mouth part of AVT works fine for some kids, that is not by itself an argument in favor of the banning-ASL part of AVT. The question is, would the inclusion of ASL have caused those kids to not do as well?
If this is not the case, and adding in ASL does not cause those kids' language acquisition to drop, then include it. It won't hurt the kids who don't need it (and may help; bilingualism is routinely demonstrated to increase intelligence) and the kids who do need it will be damned happy to have it there.
That seems to be it. That really just does. This is not complicated. Demonstrate that ASL damages kids' spoken language acquisition, or do not. If it doesn't, then there is absolutely no reason to ban it.
There really seems to be a strange way of thinking about these things sometimes. People who advocate for CIs (not CI users, but CI advocates) stress that if it's done early, it will cause natural language acquisition, but then follow it up by saying that without intensive AVT and a total absence of signed language, the kid will slip back into deafness, or something. That doesn't sound very natural. CODAs learn both with no problem.
Some kids will be able to acquire spoken language. Some will not. If ASL does not harm the first group, then include it. It does no damage to the first group and it is a huge boon to the second. Banning it will not harm the first group but will enormously harm the second.
That seems fairly straightforward to me. The question is whether or not simple exposure to ASL will cause a kid in Group 1 to slide over into Group 2. Unless this can be demonstrated (and there does seem to be a lot of data to the contrary), then do not ban ASL from CI-using kids.
That really does seem to be pretty much it. No emotions, no "I'm a parent and I know everything in my child's best interest!" No "CI users are nazis." None of that.
Either ASL damages the spoken language acquisition of a kid, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then do not ban it. QED.
This couldnt be further from the truth!
