naisho
Forum Disorders M.D.,Ph.D
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,433
- Reaction score
- 12
I had some recurring thoughts over this issue. The continual oral vs sign approach flame never seems to die. I have always thought they were just two soldiers from opposite sides clashing at each other. Deep in I felt the problem always rooted at something else.
I have an intuition that the underlying cause is English, the language itself. If you take an essay, or a speech, and reciprocate it into sign, interpreters would often skip out on "descriptive" or words they felt were unnecessary to interpret, in other words, the filler words. Adjectives, adverbs, descriptive/prescriptive grammar are often snipped out to get to the crux of the point in the topic.
This is why we often are reminded of the "oral failures", or why "speech" fails the deaf/hard of hearing. It is complicated in that they can't breach past the barrier that defines basic expression to creatively or structurally organizing their grammar. Which isn't right or wrong, there is nowhere a written rule that states being able to express yourself clearly, descriptively is mandatory for life.
So in comparison I looked at other languages. According to the FSI (Foreign Service Institute), asian languages are one of the most difficult languages to learn in the world. I immediately had a thought: Why don't we look at the hard of hearing or deaf in China? Being a hard language, then there are going to be likely less "proficient deafs" compared to the USA since english is naturally easier to learn.
My intuition doesn't seem to be wrong. According to sources out on the web, the first Deaf Chinese graduate was in 2001, her name was Zhou Tingting and she got accepted to Gallaudet. Gallaudet opened in the 1800's so naturally there's bound to be a deaf graduate in the USA way earlier than China's progression. China's deaf population probably has it worse than the USA.
Thus this is my chain of thought: If there was a language that closely mimics most forms of sign language in that it is basic, non-representative of English grammar but more in terms of expressions and getting the idea across - everyone in that society would potentially do equally well when the strive, or need to be 'highly proficient' in a language is unnecessary.
I have an intuition that the underlying cause is English, the language itself. If you take an essay, or a speech, and reciprocate it into sign, interpreters would often skip out on "descriptive" or words they felt were unnecessary to interpret, in other words, the filler words. Adjectives, adverbs, descriptive/prescriptive grammar are often snipped out to get to the crux of the point in the topic.
This is why we often are reminded of the "oral failures", or why "speech" fails the deaf/hard of hearing. It is complicated in that they can't breach past the barrier that defines basic expression to creatively or structurally organizing their grammar. Which isn't right or wrong, there is nowhere a written rule that states being able to express yourself clearly, descriptively is mandatory for life.
So in comparison I looked at other languages. According to the FSI (Foreign Service Institute), asian languages are one of the most difficult languages to learn in the world. I immediately had a thought: Why don't we look at the hard of hearing or deaf in China? Being a hard language, then there are going to be likely less "proficient deafs" compared to the USA since english is naturally easier to learn.
My intuition doesn't seem to be wrong. According to sources out on the web, the first Deaf Chinese graduate was in 2001, her name was Zhou Tingting and she got accepted to Gallaudet. Gallaudet opened in the 1800's so naturally there's bound to be a deaf graduate in the USA way earlier than China's progression. China's deaf population probably has it worse than the USA.
Thus this is my chain of thought: If there was a language that closely mimics most forms of sign language in that it is basic, non-representative of English grammar but more in terms of expressions and getting the idea across - everyone in that society would potentially do equally well when the strive, or need to be 'highly proficient' in a language is unnecessary.