That’s not what bilingualism means. Scholars already assume that most bilinguals do not use both languages with equal fluency.

Comment by BR — April 17, 2008 @ 3:22 pm

Actually the contexts for using langauge are wider than signing/ speaking.

They can be VISUAL as well as aural. As anyone who studies art can tell you.

Language does not have to have a written mode - Australian Aboriginals existed for years on oral traditions.

So the fact that you sign, but don’t speak, doesn’t mean you are not bi-lingual. You know two languages, you are bilignual.

Comment by Tony Nicholas — April 17, 2008 @ 3:35 pm

I consider myself bilingual even though I don’t speak. I can read/ write English and use ASL fluently, Consider people like Tayler Mayer, Carl Schroeder, Ella Mae Lentz. Would you define them as NOT being bilingual just because they cannot “speak”? They have already proven themselves beyond a shadow of doubt that they are fluent in both ASL and English, and quite literate in both languages.

If you define whether one is lingual or bilingual by the ability to speak, you will have to remove ALL hearing people who lose their voice for whatever reason, but can still hear and read any given one or two spoken language from the category of those who are lingual or bilingual.

A language does not have to be heard and spoken to be called a language. For a comprehensive description of a bilingual-bicultural education, please look up http://www.ccsdeaf.com/bibi.html.

Shel

Comment by Shelley Potma — April 17, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

Interesting! But we ASL/Deaf really consider ourselves to be “Bi-Bi” (bilingual-bicultural), not just bilingual alone. This approach is employed at all Deaf schools. But if you want to get technical, yes, we Deaf/ASL are bilingual…ASL and English, as ASL is recognized as a true language in itself.

Comment by elle — April 17, 2008 @ 3:57 pm

The person who wrote this seemed as if he or she is denying that ASL is a language that can be counted for bilingual persons. This reduces the historic, cultural and literal value of ASL and this would not fly well with most Deaf people. Nor with most linguists or interpreters..

“Bi-monolingual?” Please stop torturing the English language!

Comment by Dianrez — April 17, 2008 @ 4:20 pm

Maybe a better term would be bimodality?

Also, I find the use of the term ‘bilingual’ in Deaf Bilingual Coalition amusing. … it should have been deaf bilingualism coalition but as we all know, English isn’t John Egbert’s strongest forte.

Comment by E — April 17, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

You’re asking a lot of interesting questions that have to do with the philosophy of language. The idea of “language” is incredibly complex and fascinating–stretching beyond boundaries of American Heritage Dictionary definitions (though, that’s a place to start).

You’re also touching on a the very point of what I hope my son’s bilingual education will look: thorough training in two languages, as their own respective entity.

Comment by Jeannette — April 17, 2008 @ 4:25 pm

So, according to you, the majority of the world are not true bilinguals. Do you realize that the majority of the languages in the world are NOT written?

My unsolicited advice is to go do some very basic linguistic research first, before writing up blog posts like this.

Comment by A Deaf Pundit — April 17, 2008 @ 4:53 pm

Hmmm… interesting question. But then I am not familiar with the world’s languages, so I am not the one to be able to comment, since I am pretty ignorant about linguistics.

My eyes are wide open… keep coming.

Comment by Karen Mayes — April 17, 2008 @ 4:55 pm

What you are saying is to inflame the divide between the oral and ASL communities. I will no longer be reading your blog.

Comment by WAD — April 17, 2008 @ 5:00 pm

Did you realize that there are about 6,400 languages in the world and ONLY 700 are in written with about 5,700 languages are spoken or signed. Therefore the linguists do consider spoken or signed language indeed part of language world.

Comment by Joey Baer — April 17, 2008 @ 5:11 pm

Hola Todos,

As far as I’m concerned, I don’t see any merit in this blogpost nor do I feel the website to be of any value to those of us who are happy where we are.

It looks to me like the sole intention of this person’s post is to ignite some fire with hopes that everything gets burned and all there is that remains are the ashes of what was.

I don’t think there will be many of us reading this Blog much longer.

Hi-dee-ho HA-HA!,..I’m Chucky and I’m your friend to the end!
adios cabrones!

J

Comment by Jeffrey — April 17, 2008 @ 5:21 pm

#6,

John was perfectly correct to call it the “Deaf Bilingual Coalition” because the purpose is to support Deaf people being bilingual.

The title you propose (”Deaf Bilingualism Coalition”) would mean an organization comprised of Deaf people that promotes all types of bilingualism for all types of people. That’s OK, but that’s not really the specific primary purpose of the group.

Comment by BR — April 17, 2008 @ 5:32 pm

Rachel- I ve been enjoying reading your blogs, up until this point. You are ruining your credibility by posting these entries from this guy. There is not one iota of intelligence in that entry, and if you wish for people to listen to you and learn from your life experiences, then I’d think about getting rid of the guy. Jeffrey is right on the spot too.

Comment by JP — April 17, 2008 @ 7:00 pm

Whether we like what he says or not, we have to respect each others’ opinions.

Open-Minded Deaf Observer is just giving his opinions. If you don’t agree with him, I would suggest you respectfully explain to him why you don’t agree. We’re here to educate each other.

Comment by Rachel — April 17, 2008 @ 7:07 pm

4. elle, I beg to differ, many schools for the deaf do not use the bi-bi approach. Many schools will claim to use this approach, but upon further analysis, we find that it doesn’t truly using the approach in the way it was intended to be.

Openminded, I see that you only picked one of the several different definitions of the word “language” in the American Heritage College Dictionary (I have the third edition). Perhaps you should post the entire definition and you can admit that the definition of language includes signals, gestures, and signs.

Comment by Anonymous — April 17, 2008 @ 7:08 pm

The reality is that, in the United States, if you cannot speak English, you will be at a disadvantage. Semantics and definitions aside, that is why parents want their children to be fluent in speaking the English language. No doubt the same holds true for parents in other countries, with other languages, so it isn’t specific to English. It is community specific. It isn’t as if the deaf culture is in one place. Even Martha’s Vineyard is not primarily deaf individuals, and it is rare for me to come across a signing deaf person in daily life. So, as a parent, I think the bilingual approach is unappealing because it focuses on a little used language in our culture, and only uses English secondarily. (And, we know also that the English writing skills are a struggle in deaf schools in general, so even that is not particularly successful by itself).

The linguistic definitions matter little to parents. Nor do they care to argue, really, with the concept of ASL as a true language. They want their children to be successful in the society at large. Now that they can with cochlear implants, that’s what they focus on. Most immigrant families similarly seek to learn the language of the country that they are in, and the kids learn it best. No matter how you paint it, education and jobs will be easier for those who can easily navigate the language of the teachers and bosses (or, even become the boss or teacher)!

The fact that “bilingualism” in deaf ed. means ASL first means that most parents will avoid it, having seen what will be more successful for their kids.

Comment by Martha — April 17, 2008 @ 8:18 pm

Martha,
I am a hearing parent and I disagree with you. Giving Deaf babies the opportunity to access their own natural visual language from birth is the key of successful language acquisition. Conceptional thinking is critical at birth in order to build on language. ASL is not an option by a human right for Deaf babies. Hearing parents are mislead that their child must adhere to the spoken language in America in order to be successful and fit into the mainstream. This is NUTS!! Deaf people everyday are productive members of this society just like you and me. I am real tired of people equating success with “hearing”.
My Deaf daughter was raised in a hearing family who wasn’t afraid to learn her language…ASL. Hey we survived learning it and guess what…..she IS very successful as a bilingual/bicultural Deaf adult. She is way more independent in this mainstream society than many hearing people I know. And even more importantly, we have been blessed with knowing that “hearing” and “speaking” isn’t the ultimate goal in life……love and respect for cultural diversity is way higher up on the ladder of success.

Comment by Hearing Mom — April 17, 2008 @ 9:59 pm

Hearing mom, it’s great that your daughter is a success. But statistics show us that she is in the minority. No one is suggesting that we should not respect cultural diversity or love, for goodness sake. But we parents who choose to allow our children to hear and speak are aware that most hearing parents rarely can get beyond a preschool level of sign language. Thankfully, spoken language is fully accessible to them. What you did years ago with your own child does not necessarily apply to today’s generation, and there are few parents willing to deny the option of hearing and speaking to kids just on the premise that ASL is a ‘right.’ As nuts as it may seem, it is much easier to succeed (and safer) with spoken language, and that’s the reality. And so we are thrilled that we can offer it in entirety. Deaf babies aren’t more visual than hearing babies until they are trained to be so, and if today’s child has the opportunity to hear with a CI they will be just as auditory as the next child, and no more visual than the next. We would never consider denying them that natural language of humanity– SPEECH– since it is available and works well.

Comment by Martha — April 17, 2008 @ 10:13 pm

Rachel,
I think I am done reading your blogs too. You are doing more harm than good. I had hoped you might learn a few things from some very exceptionally well educated Deaf experts who have responded to you, but instead you continue to divide by making remarks of superiority.
You have a long way to go. I hope that you will step out of your comfort zone someday and meet these wonderful people who have tried to reach you and share their knowledge of ASL and the culture that surrounds those that embrace it.
I grieve for each Deaf baby that is kept from knowing ASL exists and what it means to those who use it. Regardless of amplification, ASL has a purpose in the lives of Deaf babies.

Comment by Hearing Mom — April 17, 2008 @ 10:15 pm

You make it sound as if ASL is English when that isn’t the case as ASL has it own set of syntax and grammatical structure that is separate from the English language. If it isn’t a different language from English then why is it offered as a foreign language in many schools and univeristies across the nation? Therefore knowing both English and ASL is indeed bilingual. Now if Rachel knew ASL she would then be trilingual.

Additionally, there are many spoken languages worldwide that are actually unwritten so why should ASL be an exception? Based on your statement, “In order to be bilingual deaf person, he must master in two different sign languages and/or reading/written languages. Are there any bilingual education at deaf schools that use two different languages? If there is bilingual in deaf schools, it should mean that they use two different languages in one and/or two different contexts (signing and written/reading).” Suppose I know ten tribal spoken languages that are unwritten and I know the English language, then you would be labelling me as being monolingual.

Comment by Older and Wiser — April 17, 2008 @ 10:25 pm

Martha,
We could probably go back and forth all day long and never agree. I can tell you that today is NOT any different than 10, 20, 50, or 100 years ago. Deaf babies are still being denied their rights to use ASL. Amplification has improved, and that is great!! Rather than limit a Deaf baby to speaking and listening, why not embrace ALL possibilities and opportunities.
Your comments that speech is the natural language of humanity and the only way to success is exactly what Deaf people have had to endure for 128 years. This type of thinking only continues to increase the divide.
Why not get to know some ASL experts and learn a little bit about the language before you decide to make blanket statements that speech is the easiest way to be successful in today’s world.
Believe me…..I have heard a thousand tragic stories of being raised in isolating environments with parents who don’t try to understand anything but their own life experiences. This doesn’t change regardless of how much speech your child has. And this is happening in today’s world even in the advent of technology.
Your child is Deaf. I hope you embrace and respect him or her for who they are and not for what you want them to become. We don’t own our children. We don’t always know what is best for our children. But we can surely be open minded and learn from those around us….especially those who live it everyday.

Comment by Hearing Mom — April 17, 2008 @ 10:38 pm

Rachel,

You say

“Whether we like what he says or not, we have to respect each others’ opinions.”

Deaf Observer did not only leave his opinion, but also some errors in his message. This is irresponsibility on your part. Everyone knows that many many high schools and colleges across the nation offer ASL as a foreign language requirement. If all of these educational institutions did not believe it was a true language, then why would they allow students to take ASL classes for foreign language credit- allowing them to choose ASL over Spanish, French, German, and what not. They have to take ASL I, II, & III, just like you took French I, II & III. William Stokoe, a famous linguist, has already justified ASL as a true language, it meets all the definitions of a language! Tt has its own grammatical structure & rules.

It is in fact one of the most difficult languages to learn, and also one of the most beautiful. Mastery of ASL is considered a feat!- Interpreters are constantly criticized of their skills. They are very brave people to stay in the field! I don’t know how they can do it!

Having the foundation of a primary language leads the path to learning another language. If a child does not have basic language skills to start with, then learning another language would be very difficult. I understand that because of your cochlear implant, you were able to access sound and utilize your hearing skills to master English. In fact, there is VALID research that deaf children of deaf parents fare much better on reading/writing test scores, than do deaf children of hearing parents- Of course there is the exception- of exceptional parents that are involved from day one towards language immersion. Kudos to them! You must have great parents. Unfortunately, there are lot of parents who get lost in the confusion of what to do with their child, and shuttle their children between various educational programs and methods, and the child suffers a language delay as a result.
There are so many parents who do not teach their children to read or take the commitment to get involved in their children’s education, the same is true for all parents (regardless of disability or non-disability!) There are smart people in the hearing world, just as there are smart people in the deaf world. There are stupid people in the hearing world, just as there are stupid people in the deaf world.
Of course, There are some hearing people that can’t read. That can’t spell.
Of course, There are deaf people that can’t read. That can’t spell.
What we are trying to do is educate parents to get INVOLVED with their child, and providing ALL points of access to direct communication.

Just implanting your child is not the solution. We need to do a WHOLE CHILD approach. There is nothing wrong with doing AVT & ASL at the same time. Why not let the two supplement each other?

CODAS (child of deaf adults) are usually very well developed in terms of intelligence and language ability, and they have far superior test scores, more than their peers, because they had that immediate access to language and communication as compared to hearing children of hearing parents, who have to wait until they are 2 years old before they can speak an intelligble word and be understood.

I dont have an implant. But I wear hearing aids. And they work just fine for me. I can hear on the phone. I can speak clearly, that no one suspects that I have a hearing loss until I tell them. I didn’t discover ASL & the deaf community until I was in college, and I feel blessed to be involved with the deaf community and learning the beauty of ASL.

I can function in the “hearing world” just fine. but I CHOOSE to be in the Deaf world. In a world like today, i EMBRACE being Different. I am not alone & isolated.

“Deaf by Birth, Proud by Choice”

Comment by JP — April 17, 2008 @ 10:53 pm

In fact.. I just remembered you were into journalism. You of all people should know that fact-checking should be done before publishing an article. The fact that this guy is posting on YOUR site, you are somewhat allowing HIM to represent who you are and your perspectives on Deaf people and ASL. I truly don’t believe that this is what you want to achieve on your website. Your inclusions of the speech pathologist is great, and I think very educational for your audience.

Comment by JP — April 17, 2008 @ 11:01 pm

Hearing Mom,

Learning from exceptionally well educated Deaf experts doesn’t necessarily mean that my opinions will change. They can educate me why they view the way they view, but they can’t force me to change my opinions.

Building a bridge does not mean all deaf people knowing ASL. It means respecting each other’s views.

I’d suggest you read this entry to understand better what allows CI users become successful - http://cochlearimplantonline.com/blog/?p=108

I’m here to educate and inform those who want to learn more about cochlear implants, AVT, and my views. I’m not here to ask people to agree with me. If you don’t like what I say, don’t bother coming to my site. That’s not a problem.

Comment by Rachel — April 17, 2008 @ 11:07 pm

JP,

Like I said, Open-Minded Deaf Observer was only stating his opinions. Just because many high schools and colleges across the nation offer ASL as a foreign language course, it does not mean that we have to agree with the educators that ASL is a true language.

Like I said in my previous comment, if you didn’t agree with his belief, just please respectfully educate him on your opinion.

Open-Minded Deaf Observer is here to blog because he has unusual viewpoints. How many people who are deaf and were raised with ASL have a viewpoint like his on DeafRead? I’m assuming none. If I’m wrong, please share their blog. So, why is it bad to read his perspective? It’s good to hear all kinds of perspective views. The only perspective I’ve seen from the deaf ASL community is that ASL is extremely important to all of deaf people’s lives and/or who are not fond of CIs.

Comment by Rachel — April 17, 2008 @ 11:19 pm

“…hearing children of hearing parents, who have to wait until they are 2 years old before they can speak an intelligble word and be understood.”

This is misinformation. Nowadays, according to the FDA guidelines, children can be implanted as young as 12 months; however, surgeons can implant children as young as six months at their own discretion. Thus, deaf infants can start learning spoken language and to hear as young as six months. I know a 23 month old deaf child personally who was implanted at the age of six months and is already speaking in short sentences clearly.

JP, I would suggest you to read my previous entry and the comments about what allows CI users to become successful - http://cochlearimplantonline.com/blog/?p=108

Comment by Rachel — April 17, 2008 @ 11:36 pm

Rachel,

Actually when you say ‘How many people who are deaf and were raised with ASL have a viewpoint like his on DeafRead? I’m assuming none. If I’m wrong, please share their blog. So, why is it bad to read his perspective? It’s good to hear all kinds of perspective views. The only perspective I’ve seen from the deaf ASL community is that ASL is extremely important to all of deaf people’s lives and/or who are not fond of CIs.”

Many of these deaf and raised on ASL and have some type of intellectual viewpoint may not be on deafread.com but you’ll certainly find them on http://www.deafvideo.tv, only problem is that you probably wont understand most of them if you do not know ASL. I cannot name names here, simply because there are many.

Comment by Older and Wiser — April 17, 2008 @ 11:41 pm

“Just implanting your child is not the solution. We need to do a WHOLE CHILD approach. There is nothing wrong with doing AVT & ASL at the same time. Why not let the two supplement each other?”

I agree with JP 100% on using both AVT and ASL. Why can’t we give a CI child an opportunity to learn both visual and auditory languages? My CI child LOVES learning both spoken English and ASL. ASL doesn’t interfere her spoken English development.

“CODAS (child of deaf adults) are usually very well developed in terms of intelligence and language ability, and they have far superior test scores, more than their peers, because they had that immediate access to language and communication as compared to hearing children of hearing parents, who have to wait until they are 2 years old before they can speak an intelligble word and be understood.”

I agree with JP on this, too. My CODA is also bilingual in ASL and spoken English. He is far ahead of most of his peers in the academics. Why are baby signs so popular for hearing parents with hearing babies??? Those signs help babies communicate and reduce their frustrations before they begin to speak at age 2! Our caregivers told us that my CI child was the easiest to communicate with using sign language when she was 1 yr old while her hearing peers were so frustrated and couldn’t communicate. The research also shows sign language at an early age increases their intelligence.

Anyway, I still consider ASL a true language and it s completely different from English. So, I believe that bilingualism in ASL and English is an appriopriate term.

Rachel, you would probably never understand why the Deaf community cherish ASL so much until you learn ASL and participate in the Deaf community yourself.

Comment by Anonymous — April 18, 2008 @ 12:15 am

#26

Rachel,

You wrote “..it does not mean that we have to agree with the educators that ASL is a true language.”

Rachel, take my advice. You are making yourself look very foolish.

Comment by FH — April 18, 2008 @ 12:44 am

if hearing = more success in life, why are most hearing people are NOT successful?

its more the attitude than anything else. In my landscaping business, i do not have any bad clients because the ones that are willing to communicate are the ones who have a proper attitude towards what i can do and not what i can’t do.

the beauty of this? Those clients get such beautiful landscapes. I adore it when the former client that didn’t give me the time of the day once, will come back to me and ask to do their landscapes as well.

Never a bad client… and even hearing people can (astoundingly) learn.

Comment by dog food — April 18, 2008 @ 1:06 am

#30

FH,

Here’s an analogy: There are several educators who say that evolution is a theory that should be taught in science classes; however, there are some others who say that evolution is not a theory and it should not be taught in science classes.

Comment by Rachel — April 18, 2008 @ 1:52 am

#32,

There is no dispute any longer about whether ASL is a language or not. ALL scholars agree that ASL is a real language.

Comment by FH — April 18, 2008 @ 1:57 am

Dog Food, Right on!!! That is what I am talking about!!

Comment by JP — April 18, 2008 @ 2:43 am

I am copying and pasting this comment from Jodi’s blog, to highlight the factors for successes and failures of ANY deaf people, with or without CIs (interesting note… the anonymous commenter claimed to teach at Gallaudet U.): “I am so very tired of hearing that ASL is the answer. If that’s the case, why are there so many deaf adults from deaf families who still haven’t mastered English? I teach at Gallaudet. I see the poor reading and writing abilities, and inability to present a well thought out argument far more often than I would like.
As it makes no sense to compare oral education as it existed 20 or more years ago to what is available to oral deaf kids with CIs today, it also makes no sense to compare kids who received the early versions of CIs with the high tech CIs of today. With good early intervention, these kids will soar in their language and communication abilities.
Finally, we must not forget that some research says as many as 40% of deaf kids today have an additional disability. Deaf kids with a learning disability, another sensory disability, etc. really have it tough. So, let’s not blame everything on the CI not working, or the parents not caring. The vast majority of parents do all that they can, so let’s not be so quick to point the finger of blame.”

I know this comment does not have any relations to your latest posting, but worth interesting to leave it on your blog ;o)

Comment by Karen Mayes — April 18, 2008 @ 4:48 am

Hi Rachel, we all have to accept each person’s right to have and express an opinion, but that certainly doesn’t mean we have to respect his or her opinions.

But if you do view your blog as an information resource for those interested in cochlear implants, rather than just a place where you voice your personal opinions, then as ‘editor’ of your blog, you have a sort of editorial responsibility when allowing or encouraging someone to post an article, and without a disclaimer stating otherwise, you are tacitly approving the nature of the article.

When the validity of information presented in an article appears to be so significantly challenged — when fundamental statements that make up the ‘logic’ of the argument are clearly in error, as in this one — I’d expect an editor to vet it to some standards of fairness and accuracy. In articles addressing sensitive situations, where your author or his qualifications cannot be identified — like this one — the responsibility for challenging the facts falls your shoulders.

For example, if I sent you a poorly constructed but passionate article about AVT exercises that includes slapping a child after each incorrect response to a sound cue, wouldn’t you challenge the accuracy of that approach before posting that article on your site just because it is an “unusual opinion”?

If you want to encourage debate about language models or bilingual education, bring on a guest writer who knows what he is talking about and has some credibility. I’d love to have the discussion that lies behind this, but by starting the discussion in a far less than sensitive manner that just feels offensive and insulting to me, leaves me just wanting to walk away, feeling cranky and discouraged about the direction you want discourse to take here.

Comment by Li-Li's Mom — April 18, 2008 @ 5:52 am

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned - Those of you who espouse raising deaf children with ASL could actually be learning something from “Open-minded Deaf Observer.” Remember that he was raised with ASL in a hearing family. Yet, he feels as he does. Instead of criticizing him for his feelings, why not stop and ask why he feels the way he does? Obviously, it is his experiences in life that have led him to feel the way he does, and this points out that there are those raised with ASL, sent to residential schools, etc., who don’t feel passionately about the deaf culture. Understanding his viewpoint could be very helpful to avoiding the same pitfalls for today’s deaf children regardless of which methodology they are raised with.

Comment by Melissa — April 18, 2008 @ 8:58 am

Melissa, I think open-minded Deaf person is unhappy with himself and trying to portray that unhappiness onto a whole community. Many of us do not feel the same. In most cases, it is usually the opposite..many deaf people were unhappy growing up with spoken language only until they learned ASL. If you truly want to remain nuetral and learn from the Deaf community, it is best to go out there and interact with them instead of blogging biased viewpoints like this one. This person does not represent all of us.

I agree with most people here…by publishing something like this can misinform many new parents of deaf babies about ASL and we dont need more misinformation about the Deaf community and ASL. If u want to publish about the Deaf community and ASL, pls check if the information you are about to publish is not inaccurate. Same would go for someone who grew up with ASL and doesnt have a CI publishing information about CIs. The person would make a fool out of him/herself if he/she continues to post innacurate and biased information about CIs. It goes both ways.

I do not agree with this person’s views on ASL not being a true language. I consider myself and many other Deaf people bilingual.

Comment by shel — April 18, 2008 @ 9:16 am

Shel,

I never said that all or even most of the deaf community agrees with his views. I’ve been reading DeafRead long enough to know that that is not the case. However, my point still stands that he does feel as he does. Instead of criticizing him for his feelings, maybe it would be more helpful to understand why he feels the way he does and learn from it so that not even one deaf child grows up today to feel as he does.

Comment by Melissa — April 18, 2008 @ 9:22 am

Rachel,
“How many people who are deaf and were raised with ASL have a viewpoint like his on DeafRead? I’m assuming none.”

Don’t you think there’s a reason for that? Only ONE person with this view out of the thousands and thousands that don’t?

Comment by Rox — April 18, 2008 @ 9:26 am

shel, right on!

Interesting how we, the Deaf, often get blamed for misinformation!!!

Comment by Rox — April 18, 2008 @ 9:29 am

Hey commenters,

I am very shocked to hear angry responses from you. I never said that ASL is not a language. I said that ASL is “voice sounds” which is under definition of language.

What do you call proper term for a person who is fluent ASL user and printed English reader/writer but he/she cannot communicate with hearing person who cannot read or write? That is why I am questioning if I am bilingual person even though I cannot communicate with speaking person who cannot read. That is why I feel if bi-monolingual in two contexts is proper term.

I guess cross-context bilingual is better word. But I hope that you have a better word than my term.

Since I am raised in hearing family and I am often left over because I lack my spoken language so I often find something more exciting things to do such as reading or thinking than asking my family what are said in the conversation. It is often happening to ASL DOHers so DODers and DOHers have different perspective on some issues due to different family dynamics.

I am sorry that my entry angered you but I am just bringing it up and hope to hear your rebuttals or inputs respectfully.

Comment by Open-minded Deaf person — April 18, 2008 @ 10:05 am

Open-minded Deaf Observer states as a central point: “I feel that the proper term for acquiring fluently in written/reading English context and ASL is a bi-monolingual in two different contexts.”

Melissa, you ask us to learn from this, but I’m struggling with the whole concept proposed here of creating a new set of terminologies and definitions for languages. Is this person an academic, an expert in languages, in early childhood development? This statement is very hard to take at face value. Can you can help me better understand what you have learned from this perspective? Is “bi-monolingual” a term that you would support to define fluency in English and ASL or English and French? It seems that this proposes a new definition for bilingualism, for language, and for evaluating the value of different forms of expression.

Based on what I see in this statement: If I can detect that Rachel is not a native French speaker when she uses the language, does that make her “bi-monolingual” instead of bilingual?

ASL has a visual form, but no written form. English has a verbal form, a written form, but no visual form. Navajo has a verbal form, but no written form, Sanskrit has a written form, but no current verbal form, this list could go on and on. What happens when we refine this attempt to equate only parallel forms further to alphabet differences within written forms?

If we we want to change the meaning of the word “bilingual” from meaning fluency in two languages to meaning fluency in two languages with exactly the same form, does that now discount fluency in Mandarin and English from the list of possible bilingual scenarios?

But honestly, why are we even trying to base a reasonable discussion on this very flawed statement? Isn’t this post just an ever-so-slightly veiled attempt to use some anonymous deaf person who possibly doesn’t even exist as a blog puppet to state that despite existing definitions and academic proof, you don’t happen to think ASL should be classified as a bona fide language.

Perhaps you struggle with accepting ASL as a language because you already know the importance of acquiring multiple languages as early as possible in life if you hope to achieve true fluency, and the value of expanding your world by being truly bilingual. And if you accept that perspective, than naturally it would make perfect sense for a child with a CI to learn both spoken English and ASL during those critical early years.

Comment by Li-Li's mom — April 18, 2008 @ 10:07 am

I understand the poster’s statements - since ASL only operates in one “mode” (visual) it should be called monolingual - however…maybe I’m missing something…but why is this essential? why is this important to ASL/Deaf culture?

What I take offense to is the implicit suggestion that languages that operate in one mode is less sophisticated than bimodal languages such as English - which is really a faulty premise. ASL is a quite beautiful language, maybe not one that works for all instances. However, I will say that ASL is much better at expressing spatial and emotional concepts. English may be better at expressing technical things such as legal terms. But isn’t that true for all languages? Some languages can express certain concepts better than others.

I’m sorry but I just see this discussion, which might be interesting in the philosophical realm, largely irrelevant. Changing the terms of children who are fluent in visual ASL and written English bi-monolingual makes no sense in a world that doesn’t really distinguish between lingual modes. Labelling ASL-English Deaf people as bi-monolingual will hurt the in the world’s eyes - it took long enough for society to accept ASL as a true language of its own, not just a visual transilteration of English, let’s not ruin that.

Comment by Anonymous — April 18, 2008 @ 11:44 am

Wow!

Look at all the angry people!

A con artist almost always has the “attitude” in making people feel safe, secure and trustworthy. So, be careful the next time you hire a landscaper because you might be conned into believing something that isn’t true.

Kinda like many “Deaf Experts.”

:o)

Paotie

Comment by Paotie — April 18, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

BR ..

It is clear that you do not understand how scholarly research works.

You are inferring then, that Mr. Paddy Ladd’s book, “Deafhood”, is nothing but a set of assumptions, no better than the National Enquirer. Assumptions are ideas and things that people believe without proof or question.

Scholarly research is NOT based on assumptions, nor do scholars ASSUME things - even if they read it in the National Enquirer.

I have hope for you, BR - you may very well have a solid future as a staff member at the National Enquirer.

Right up your alley.

:o)

Paotie

Comment by Paotie — April 18, 2008 @ 12:39 pm

What irritates me is that people choose to criticize rather than educating others. I could really learn a great deal from you all about why you believe his views are wrong. As someone who has little exposure to ASL and who has always viewed ASL as a tool to help deaf people to communicate, it would be really nice to respectfully educate me about ASL. After reading comments from a few about why ASL is still a language, I can now understand better why ASL is purely a language, which is because it is a form of communication.

So, let’s please not get riled up. Just please educate Open-Minded Deaf Observer why his views are not right. Others and I could learn a great deal from others. Also, like my mom said, why can’t we ask him why he feels the way he feels? His personal experiences surely do impact his views. I’ve been corresponding with him through e-mail, and I can certainly say that he has valid reasons to feel the way he feels. So, I would ask him so that we can avoid the same pitfalls for today’s deaf children.

Comment by Rachel — April 18, 2008 @ 1:05 pm

Dear Mr. Open-Minded Deaf Observer:

Nihil sub sole novum! “Lingua” means voice in Latin. People in ancient ages (1,500 B.C. to 1500 A.D.) did NOT know that any sign language was (is) a language. Plato and Aristotle illogically declared deaf people as a people who were incapable to reason just because they could not use speech. They were what I call “myopic
philosophers.” Aristotle and Plato are dead, dead dead! Who influenced the negative thinking on Aristotle and Plato about deaf people? Look at the chronology of history, and it would tell you. Comme bonjour (!): Those who influenced A and P still to date think that deaf people cannot function in the hearing world; so, they send deaf children to an oral school as well as have them implanted because they think that oralism and cochlear implant are the answers TO LEARN A LANGUAGE. Faux! St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo also said that. Faux! He said that deaf people could NOT go to heaven because they could NOT hear the word of God! How myopic! Deaf people have
brains, however uneducated or educated. I knew there was (is) God
a year before I entered a private oral school at St. Francis Xavier’s. How so? My reasoning — through NEITHER the ears nor the
eyes. Reasoning? Where? In my head! Simply put! Therefore, I needed
no voice to reason. I need no sign language to reason.

Blest est Italy’s Renaissance mathematican-physician Geroloma Cardano, a friend of Leonardo da Vinci who had deaf art students, debunked Aristotle’s and Plato’s theories. He had living proof that deaf people, indeed, do have a language through NOT ears but EYES. How so? He had a deaf son who could reason, read, and write.
Juan Bonet (Spain) and l’Abbé de l’Épée ((France) also refuted the splendidly éduqués, yet severely myopic Greek philosophers! De l’Épée tested the UNSCHOOLED teenager Jean Massieu’s logic. Voilà! M. Massieu COULD reason logically SANS education!

Unless you should ever decide to study linguistics, please forget the term, “lingua.” It is like climbing in the Tower of Babel in
Iraq. Leave it alone to linguists as well as to those who are very knowledgeable about linguistics if they have taken 21 credit-hour study on linguistics.

Once again, I ask that you BURY the term, “lingua,” 7 feet deep in
the grave. Forget it entirely.

Merci beaucoup,
Jean Boutcher

Comment by Jean Boutcher — April 18, 2008 @ 1:19 pm

Rachel,

i think it’s hard for some of us ASL-ers to explain how ASL is a full and rich language because we take that premise for granted. Just like your take the premise that English is indeed a language.

ASL has a completely different grammar and syntax structure than English. If i wrote the sentence “I am going to the store now” in ASL via English, it would be “now store me go.” Also, spatial placement is crucial in ASL - if i sign and refer to the “air area” behind me, that means I’m talking about the past. If i refer, via my hands, to the area further in front of me, that means i am referring to the future. If I want to tell someone how to get to a certian room, I can make a “picture” via ASL gestures of the motions someone needs to take to get to the room e.g. take the stairs, turn right, and ten go down another flight…blah blah. ASL actually requires good sense of space and distance.

Of course, i have barely stratched the surface, but you can kind of get the idea of the complexities of how ASL translates abstract ideas like motion, temporality and distance into spatial signs. It’s really an amazing language and I do want to see it flourish.

However, i recognize that America is a predominantly English-using country and I’m more than willing to use that in my everyday life. However, I cherish my knowledge of ASL and I woudln’t give it up for anything. Maybe it’s not the most useful language in terms of how many other people use it but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be used. You have an automatic connection with someone who uses ASL much more than someone who uses English.

Comment by Anonymous — April 18, 2008 @ 1:19 pm

Non, non, non! Bi-monolingual is a wrong term.

Illiterate = no language
Semi-lingual = know not very much a language
Monolingual = fluent in a language
Bilingual = fluent in two languages
Trilingual = fluent in three languages
Multilingual = fluent in many languages.

Daddy knew nine languages and was studying Sanskrit as his
10th language when he died.

Comment by Jean Boutcher — April 18, 2008 @ 1:23 pm

I can’t speak for myself and the deaf and hearing linguistic community. All you have to ask any linguists about the term accurately.

Good topic and debate, though, Rachel.

Comment by White Ghost — April 18, 2008 @ 1:34 pm

Jean ..

What’s the difference between being “functionally illiterate” as opposed to simply being “illiterate?”

:o)

Paotie

Comment by Paotie — April 18, 2008 @ 1:39 pm

Paotie,

One is an Ass and the other is a Dumbass.
Make any sense?

Comment by Trainwrekd — April 18, 2008 @ 2:38 pm

Hi Rachel,

I realize I was harsh in my hastily scrawled message above, and I may be unreasonably skeptical that neither you nor OMDO knew that ASL is a language — I’m trying to recall when I first learned that ASL had a distinct grammar and syntax and all of those elements required for language. But it’s the context of what I took as a disingenuous question about language posed as a cautionary tale that’s making me overly cranky.

You and Melissa have each pointed to this post as a warning specifically to those of us who are educating our children to value ASL. Melissa cautions: “Those of you who espouse raising deaf children with ASL could actually be learning something from ‘Open-minded Deaf Observer.’” And you mention that you’ve been corresponding with him through e-mail, and suggest that we ask him about his feelings so that we can avoid the same pitfalls for today’s deaf children.

I’m a hearing mom bringing up my deaf child bilingually, with ASL and spoken English, so I’m more than interested in learning or in watching out for relevant dangers, but I’m just not getting it. I realize I’m very likely being obtuse on this sunny Friday afternoon, or perhaps there’s more context in the correspondence you’ve had with OMDO than posted here, but what feelings do you want us to ask him about and what are the pitfalls for our deaf children that you see here that we need to examine and beware?

Comment by Li-Li's mom — April 18, 2008 @ 3:11 pm

Li-Li, your post #36

re: ” But if you do view your blog as an information resource for those interested in cochlear implants, rather than just a place where you voice your personal opinions, then as ‘editor’ of your blog, you have a sort of editorial responsibility.” is spot on.

This is a point that both Rachel and her Mom are missing. So, I don’t think you are being obtuse, or missing the point yourself.

More to the point, a false argument is being presented by using a negative experience, OPEN MINDED DEAF PERSON, to bolster a positive image of the CI.

Inspite of protestations to the contrary, me thinks there is an undertone of aversion to Sign Langauge and beign Deaf. I know, I used to be there myself.

Comment by Tony Nicholas — April 18, 2008 @ 3:56 pm

Li-Li’s Mom Know How.

I second Tony’s comment.

Comment by Jeffrey — April 18, 2008 @ 4:04 pm

Mr. Nicholas,

To demonstrate why you are not qualified to tell Rachel how to manage her blog, I point out to your own comment:

First, you said:

“More to the point, a false argument is being presented by using a negative experience ..”

And then you said:

“Inspite of protestations to the contrary, me thinks there is an undertone of aversion to Sign Langauge and beign Deaf. I know, I used to be there myself.”

Yes, Mr. Nicholas, you presented a false negative regarding your comment in general.

Enjoy your mashed potatoes.

:o)

Paotie

Comment by Paotie — April 18, 2008 @ 5:32 pm

anonymous #49,

I appreciate your explaining the concept of ASL. It’s very interesting! It’s sounds like a very different language concept.

Li-Li’s Mom,

I suggested to Open-Minded Deaf Observer to write a post about his experiences, and so, please give him some time to write up one if he chooses to.

___________

“re: ” But if you do view your blog as an information resource for those interested in cochlear implants, rather than just a place where you voice your personal opinions, then as ‘editor’ of your blog, you have a sort of editorial responsibility.” is spot on.

This is a point that both Rachel and her Mom are missing. So, I don’t think you are being obtuse, or missing the point yourself.”

While this blog is an information resource for those who are interested in CIs, it is surely also a place to voice personal opinions as I have in the past, and to educate each other through debates. If you’d like to see a disclaimer in the future, I’d be happy to write one.

I apologize that this blog caused anger. I thought Open-Minded Deaf Observer had a valid question due to his personal experiences, and he wanted to gain a better understanding why ASL can be classified as a true language. I appreciate all of you taking time to respond, and, as I said before, I can now see why it’s a true language because it is a form of communication, and maybe OMDO, does see it now too, but I can’t speak for him.

Comment by Rachel — April 18, 2008 @ 9:44 pm

Paotie,

You’re hysterical! Thanks for posting that comment, #57. I needed that.

Thanks! :o)

Comment by Rachel — April 18, 2008 @ 9:45 pm

Many respondents have said they cherish knowledge of ASL as well as English, and that alone should convince people on the fence about learning both.

Anybody that does not know ASL and assails it for various reasons: not in general use by the public, “degrades the English quality of the deaf person”, “prevents learning to hear and speak” is obviously speaking from a position of ignorance by definition.

What personally angered me was the statement that ASL-using Deaf people are not independent or able to function in the world. Actually, the overwhelming majority (hundreds) of people I know who use ASL are independent, taxpaying, employed and home-owning people who are driving cars, raising families or are supporting other people in some way. I challenge the people who say that ASL-using deaf people are unable to function come up with at least ten people who are in fact that. Bear in mind that respected professional and board chairman Jane Bassett Spillman said that and got bounced off the Gallaudet campus in a historic revolt.

And if they who use ASL are “unable to travel”, just visit the next World Federation of the Deaf convention and observe the hundreds of sign language-using Deaf people who traveled unaccompanied as delegates from their various countries.

“Open-minded” may be unhappy with himself and his accomplishments and is blaming it on the lot in life that he was dealt. I can’t imagine a more negative and more ineffective way to approach life. You ain’t lived enough, sir. Nor do you represent most Deaf people.

Comment by Dianrez — April 18, 2008 @ 11:14 pm

Paotie

Thanx for the mash. Enjoyed it very much with tomato sauce.

Mwah!

Comment by Tony Nicholas — April 19, 2008 @ 12:44 am

In follow up to the discussion of the written translation of “me going to the store” in a way that is comparable to the way that this is signed I have a question that maybe you can help me with.

When you refer to kids learning ASL and written/spoken English as a bilingual model, how does that work in real life practice? For example for me I know English as a first language so that when I learn say Italian, I would learn the English translation of those words and use that first language as the foundation for my second.

In my son’s case, in AVT the spoken was the same as the written, so for example if he sat on my lap and I read a book to him, what he heard me say and the words in front of him on the page are the same?

So how does it work when the 2 languages are ASL and English? Do you focus initially on a foundation language of ASL and then when that foundation is there, build on that and use that as a base for understanding written/spoken English? Ot is it done simultaneously? I’m really curious to know and I’m not trying to be insensitive, I just don’t understand how you teach the 2 languages simultaneously where there appear to be differences in both the way the sentence is structured in each language and the phrasing of each language. I have heard before (rightly or wrongly) that it is actually not possible to directly translate English into ASL some of the time? Is that true or is that another myth?

thanks in advance

Comment by anothermum — April 19, 2008 @ 2:56 am

Since you asked, here’s some interesting stuff about ASL…

-It uses the same area of the brain as spoken languages. Don’t worry, the brain won’t get too crowded with too much information. If a person spoke both English and French, it would take up just as much space as if a person used both English and ASL.

-ASL is often better at describing how things happen. We don’t need to add extra words for more descriptions. For example, all of the following sentences use only three words.
“The boy is on the boat.” could be signed as BOAT BOY ON
“The boy is sitting on the boat.” BOAT BOY SIT
“The boy is sitting near the front of the boat.” BOAT BOY SIT-NEAR-FRONT (SIT-NEAR-FRONT is one sign)
“The boy is laying near the back of the boat.” BOAT BOY LAY-NEAR-BACK (again, LAY-NEAR-BACK is one sign)
“The boy is sitting excitedly in the boat.” BOAT BOY SIT-EXCITED
“The boy was sailing along in the boat when all of a sudden, it tipped over and he fell out.” BOY SIT-IN-BOAT-LONG-TIME SIT-FALL-OUT

-English has two different kinds of morphemes. Free and bound. Free morphemes are morphemes that can stand alone, such as month, week, or year. Bound morphemes are those that must be attached to a word, such as -ly, -s, -ing, etc. It is possible in ASL to have a sign that can’t be a free morpheme. One example would be “month”, which is signed the same way as “one month”. There is no way to sign the word “month” without having the “one” incorporated into it. You could sign “two months” or “monthly”, but there’s still no way to get that sign to be a free morpheme.

-ASL often puts the topic at the beginning of a sentence. For example “I’m going to color the duck yellow” would be DUCK ME COLOR YELLOW

-Articles (are, the, a, of, by, etc.) usually aren’t signed. This is because the language is so visual that it isn’t necessary. For example, “The cat plays by the TV” is signed TV HERE (mark a space where the TV would go in front of you) CAT PLAY (you would sign “play” in the space next to where the TV is). You can see there is no need to put the extra information that many people assume is “lost” from English.

If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them.

Comment by Rox — April 19, 2008 @ 3:01 am

There’s one other aspect of sign language that I adore, and that is sign singing.

I’ve taught some sign singing workshops, where an entire class of hearing students, learnt to sign a sing in two hours [the length of the workshop].

The song? Dock Of The Bay {Otis Redding}

Comment by Tony Nicholas — April 19, 2008 @ 3:32 am

While we are on the modality of sign languages, a Deafie from an English speaking would have a good chance of communicating successfully with a Deaf person from a non English speaking country.

Indded, the possibilities of a global language is inherent in sign.

Comment by Tony Nicholas — April 19, 2008 @ 3:35 am

anothermum, I’m happy you asked… I am not a bi-bi expert, but I have some knowledge and experience with it and may be able to answer some of your questions.

One goal of bi-bi education is to keep the 2 languages on the same level. One is not better than the other. They are equally important. There are some situations where English may work better (obviously, reading/writing), and there are some situations where ASL may work better (such as math, since ASL shows spatial concepts well). We do not try to mash them up and use both for the same purpose when one will clearly work better than the other. This resulted in the SimCom (often incorrectly labeled as total communication) approach that many people thought would be the best way, since it covers both avenues, but it sucked. This is because one cannot use two languages simultaneously. Could you speak French and write English at the same time? One may attempt it, but they would end up focusing on one more than the other. Since many deaf ed teachers’ primary language was English, they naturally dropped many of the parts of ASL that were necessary to be understood fully.

Hearing children learn a spoken language before learning how to read it. The bi-bi approach is similar in that we want a child to have the ability to hold a conversation before starting their education. We don’t hold off the education part until after they have mastered conversational skills, we just want to speed up the ability to have a conversation before they enter school and have to learn through this language. The number of deaf children who enter school without the ability to hold a conversation is woefully high. Even Rachel has admitted that her language was delayed when she was younger. When parents first find out that a child is deaf (which doesn’t always happen with newborn testing), it often takes time for decisions to be made, molds to be created and modified, surgery to schedule, auditory training, etc. During this time, that opportunity for developing spoken language is lost. Even after all the best hearing enhancements and auditory training, the child may still not hear well enough to understand spoken English, especially the quiet sounds, such as /s/ and /h/. It is even more saddening when parents assume that the child can hear everything when they can’t. With ASL, the language is already 100% accessible, right from the start.

As for reading a book, the words on the page and the ASL signs are not the same, but they are the same concepts. For example, “once upon a time” could be signed LONG-TIME-AGO HAPPEN. This same sign can be used again and and again each time, and as the child reads these words, they begins to connect the two together (similarily, a child may not know that the spoken “Once upon a time” is the same as “Once upon a time” printed in the book, but eventually connects the sound and the print). When you read a book to your child, do you always read it word for word? Some parents will expand on the meaning, add background information, or add character voices. We do the same thing with ASL. Sometimes we read the text word for word, which isn’t really ASL, but it helps students to see what words are being used, then we sign it in ASL, sometimes pointing out certain words that are relevant to what we’re signing. Mind you, this doesn’t take a whole lot of extra time to sign it (at least not for fluent signers).

It is true that it is actually not possible to directly translate English into ASL. Just like any other language, you can always interpret between the two, but it takes practice. One example would be an idiom. “It’s raining cats and dogs” would be translated more like “it’s raining really hard”. ASL also has certain phrases that are hard to translate into English. Many Deaf adults don’t see this as a real difficulty and easily switch back and forth between the two languages.

Comment by Rox — April 19, 2008 @ 4:48 am

I’d also like to suggest visiting the Deaf Bilingual Coalition blog http://deafbilingual.blogspot.com/ and ask your questions there as well.

Comment by Rox — April 19, 2008 @ 4:50 am

Rox, that is what I see on a constant basis at my job. The influx of older deaf children who never learned ASL during their early years due to their parents wanting them to develop oral skills. What happens is that they enter elementary school only to find out that their language foundation is not fully established and then they struggle to develop literacy skills. As a result, they are sent to programs where ASL is used so at the ages of 5, 6, 7 or even older, they have to learn a new language when they should be learning how to read and write. That is why it is very important that all deaf children have full access to language during their early years so they will be ready to develop literacy skills later on instead of having to find out that they couldnt due to a poor language foundation. That is what the DBC’s goal is. It is not about forcing ASL on people but to ensure that no deaf children are language deprived.
In my experience, I have seen children who had a strong L1 language foundation in ASL developing spoken English skills because they understand the importance of having some oral skills to be able to communicate with hearing people. Many of my deaf friends who grew up with ASL have a great command of spoken language as well. That is truly bilingual hence the goal of bilingual deaf education.

Comment by shel — April 19, 2008 @ 8:06 am

I’d suggest NOT visting the Deaf Bilingual Coalition.

I suggest people Google, “DBC sucks.”

That’ll take care of any questions you have about the DBC and it’s lack of ethical and professional guidance.

:o)

Paotie

Comment by Paotie — April 19, 2008 @ 8:09 am

Here is another perspective - One of the reasons that kids implanted very young who then have AVT succeed is auditory impressions. That is, children born with normal hearing develop auditory impressions, that is the knowledge by their brains of how things are supposed to sound. They learn to use “a” and “the” properly, as well as ed past tenses, s vs. es plurals, etc, and they also develop correct word order, not because they understand the grammatical rules but because their brains have the auditory impressions. They know what sounds right. The critical period for this to happen is before age 3 but especially by age 2.

Rachel was implanted at 2 years 7 months, Jessica at 15 months. I saw the difference auditory impressions make firsthand as Rachel did not instinctively use “a” and “the” properly, and we had to teach her past tenses. Her word order was not always correct because she didn’t know that it didn’t sound right. Jessica, on the other hand, had expressive language that developed very naturally. She even made the same mistakes as her normal hearing peers, such as saying, “He builted it.” These types of errors eventually corrected themselves as her brain continued to receive auditory information and sorted it out. With Rachel, though, we had to go through all of this. We had buckets of es plurals, such as buses and horses. We’d pull out a horse and say, “Look, here’s one horse.” Then, “Look, here’s two horses.” In essence, we bombarded her with auditory impressions so that she did learn what sounded correct. In this way, we had to take her through what she missed. To this day, though, occasionally, I will see her make errors that are still a result of lacking auditory impressions.

Writing is an extensive of expressive language. Thus, if a child doesn’t have English first as a spoken language, writing grammatically correct English has to be more difficult. The child has to learn the grammatical rules similarly to learning the rules of a foreign language. Thus, if a child can be implanted early and develop excellent expressive English language skills naturally as does a hearing child, that child would have to have an easier time learning to write English. Now, I recognize that that is at the elementary school age. As children progress in school, they all need English teachers who know how to teach writing in terms of paragraphs, organization, etc. However, just as reading is an extension of receptive language, writing is an extension of expressive language. So, while I understand that you are saying that a child whose first language is ASL will associate a phrase with a signed phrase, to then have to write grammatically correctly still has to be more difficult than for a child for whom the written expressive language flows naturally.

Comment by Melissa — April 19, 2008 @ 8:46 am

Paotie,

Can you hear me laughing? I just googled “DBC sucks” LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

Thanks for being so brave to speak up!

Comment by Rachel — April 19, 2008 @ 9:23 am

Rox,

Thanks for answering the question about how ASL works. I see that it’s an interesting concept.

Comment by Rachel — April 19, 2008 @ 9:39 am

Melissa, what you say makes absolute sense…until you consider examples of Deaf people like me, who never had “auditory impressions” and did not start learning language until after 18 months old.

The way we learned language was visually, and by early and voracious reading, we learned to be fluent in English. Please do not speak as if those people do not exist, nor as if there is only the auditory way to learn language.

Comment by Dianrez — April 19, 2008 @ 10:06 am

Dianrez,

I never said that what I wrote applied to all deaf children raised orally. I specified those implanted at very young ages today who are raised with AVT, ie who are taught to understand spoken language through their hearing. That they can do this today is a big advantage compared to those raised visually orally, which I understand created all sorts of difficulties because these kids did not have the advantage of auditory impressions.

Not all who are raised with ASL will master reading easily nor become voracious readers. This is true of all kids, hearing and deaf. The adults I know who were raised orally in the pre CI/AVT days who are still oral and who have excellent language skills have told me that they were voracious readers as children. I think that this points out another important factor in the success of any child with language, including deaf children.

Comment by Melissa — April 19, 2008 @ 10:21 am

Dianrez ..

Melissa knows I am here. My background mirrors yours almost exactly, and she acknowledges me (as does Rachel). I did not see any implication in Melissa’s comment that suggests “we” are irrelevant.

Please do not speak on my behalf.

Thank you.

:o)

Paotie

Comment by Paotie — April 19, 2008 @ 10:25 am

Melissa,

Deaf children whose first language is ASL do not have difficulty mastering written English. The learning process is different, not more difficult. It is only more difficult if the deaf child doesnt have a strong language foundation to begin with.

Comment by shel — April 19, 2008 @ 11:06 am

Shel,

If this is the case, then why is the reading level so low at so many of the schools for the deaf? See http://www.greatschools.net. For instance, in my state, we have the Atlanta Area School for the Deaf. Here are some scores for the elementary school ages:

2007 percent meeting or exceeding standards:

Grade 1
Reading: 8%
English Language Arts: 0%
Math: 0%

Grade 2:
Reading: 0%
English Language Arts: 0%
Math: 10%

These are not oral failures who have left other programs, such as have been cited to me at the high school ages.

Comment by Melissa — April 19, 2008 @ 12:00 pm

Melissa,
“Not all who are raised with ASL will master reading easily nor become voracious readers.”

The same is true for those implanted at a young age and are raised with AVT.

Comment by Rox — April 19, 2008 @ 12:14 pm

Rox,

Did you read my next line? It says, “This is true of all kids, hearing and deaf.”

Melissa

Comment by Melissa — April 19, 2008 @ 12:21 pm

Melissa,
There are several possible reasons for the stats you cited. The school does not have a bi-bi program. So who knows what language they learned first. They do have a speech therapy program, so some of the students may be “oral failures” from its own school system. I am also curious to know how many of the students at the Atlanta Area School for the Deaf have additional disabilities (the stats I’ve heard repeatedly for schools for the deaf is around 50%). Furthermore, these students are being tested in their 2nd language. If they were tested in their 1st language, the results may be different. Another thing I’ve seen is that English tests will have questions related to phonics, which makes the test unfair for deaf children. You don’t have to know specific phonic sounds to understand English (granted it does help).

I hope this answers your questions.

Comment by Rox — April 19, 2008 @ 12:36 pm

Melissa,
Yes, I read your next line. You also “specified those implanted at very young ages today who are raised with AVT”, which is why I pointed it out. Are you contradicting yourself?

Comment by Rox — April 19, 2008 @ 12:38 pm

Melissa, I could post even lower scores for an all-hearing school (sadly), and ask the same question — why is reading level so low at this school — and it would have the same bearing on this argument. Just because a public (hearing) school in South Carolina has truly awful test scores compared to my daughter’s private school for the deaf isn’t an argument for teaching all hearing children in ASL.

Is your primary concern that learning ASL will slow reading ability in all kids, deaf or hearing (and will slow speaking ability in the case of kids w/CIs)?

If so, why? Is it because the child is combining visual with spoken language model (and are you thinking that language centers in the brain are limited to learning one mode (verbal only, written only, or visual only) at a time (not simcom, alternating), or would your concern be about the capacity of the brain to learn any two spoken languages at the same time. Or are your concerns more pragmatic, focused on the ability of a parent to be committed to immersing a child in 2 languages, etc.)?

Comment by Li-Li's Mom — April 19, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

Melissa ..

I agree with Li-Li’s Mom for the most part.

Mr. Egbert has defined himself as an “oral failure.” As such, it should be noted that he has also admitted that he suffers from dyslexia.

Given the fact Mr. Egbert was taught the oral method as a young boy, it stands to suggest that educators, unaware of his dyslexia, attempted to discipline him into comprehending English. If you may not know, many dyslexics have stories of middle 20th century educators insisting that students were “lazy” or “stupid” or “too slow” if they did not keep up with their peers.

I am sure that happened to Mr. Egbert in one fashion or another. His belief in the “bi-bi” method is evident and makes sense if you adjust for his dyslexia and the fact it was probably ignored while he was a student.

As such, if his lower test scores were an indication of anything, it would NOT be that the oral method is a failure, nor would it be a “success” story for the “bi-bi” method.

It would be a sad tale of an ENTIRE educational system (AVT, TC, ASL, “bi-bi”, etc.) failing a student.

There is no one-size-fits-all paradigm, either for oral deaf or for ASL deaf. There isn’t and has never will be one.

The day people admit that, the day the middle road will start to appear on the horizon.

Just a thought.

:o)

Paotie

Comment by Paotie — April 19, 2008 @ 1:05 pm

Rox, you hit the nail on its head. Yes, we have to look into factors as additional disabilities, age when these children were exposed to ASL, and what kind of program this deaf school is.

In my experience, it is the deaf children who have been exposed to ASL since birth who achieve higher literacy skills than those who havent been exposed to ASL since birth. Does that mean all deaf children who are oral fail? No but the risks are greater for these children than those who have been exposed to both. How would you really know that Melissa if you have never learned ASL nor see what a BiBi program looks like? I used to hold ASL responsible until I learned it. What I discovered was entirely the opposite.

Melissa, I suspect that you hold ASL solely responsible for the low reading levels. Am I correct?

Comment by shel — April 19, 2008 @ 1:07 pm

Shel ..

You stated, “How would you really know that Melissa if you have never learned ASL nor see what a BiBi program looks like?”

Learning Latin or Greek is not required to appreciate the “Classics” because I can find plenty of those writings in English form. I can discuss Machiavelli’s political theories without having read his books or traveled to Italy.

Thus, your point irrelevant.

Please explain your point, “I used to hold ASL responsible until I learned it.”

Also, please explain to me how one “holds” a language responsible for their actions.

If an ASL deaf man robs a bank, will you be the attorney and declare, “Not guilty! Not guilty by reason of ASL!”

I’d pay good money to see that.

:o)

Paotie

Comment by Paotie — April 19, 2008 @ 1:36 pm

The point that my mom is making is that just simply providing ASL does not solve the problem.

As I always say, it’s all about parental involvement…

A little info - Jessica has learning disabilities and is doing phenomenally well as someone who was raised only with hearing and spoken language because my mom identified her learning disabilities early and provided good early intervention therapies.

I’m sure my mom will chime in later and give a greater explanation.

Comment by Rachel — April 19, 2008 @ 1:41 pm

Shel ..

For clarification purpose, your question towards Melissa regarding her belief that “visual language” may hinder a child’s development is valid.

Likewise, your question suggests that ASL itself is NOT responsible for “successes” in “bi-bi” methods anymore than Melissa can state AVT is better.

Your comment pointed out that ASL is NOT the reason why some people develop language acquisition better than others. Perhaps it is the educational approach, and NOT the language (ASL), as your question to Melissa suggests.

Thanks.

:o)

Paotie

Comment by Paotie — April 19, 2008 @ 1:45 pm

Paotie is right - It is deaf education that has failed deaf children. When Rachel’s deafness was first diagnosed in 1987, the “experts” told us that Total Communication was the way to go. I’m glad that we didn’t listen to them because now I am reading how TC didn’t work, how it was a failure.

To me, you cannot prove to me that the Bi Bi approach is the way to go for all deaf children, that it will be the deaf education approach that will work for them all, because it can’t be. In addition, it’s not tried and true yet. It doesn’t have a long history.

Any approach we choose is dependent upon who is carrying it out. This goes for all of education. A poor teacher can’t teach even with an excellent curriculum. For me personally, AVT is proven effective in my girls. They are living proof that it works. None you can tell me that AVT doesn’t work, only that you don’t think it works all the time. I believe in the approach because I have seen it work beautifully in my girls and in so many other deaf children. Would I say that all deaf children should be raised with AVT? No. However, I would say that all deaf children who have parents who are willing to fully commit to the approach should have the chance to succeed with it that my girls have.

Comment by Melissa — April 19, 2008 @ 3:22 pm

To add to what Rachel wrote about Jessica. She does have some learning disabilities that run in my husband’s family. So does my son. Some call it minor dyslexia, others visu