From: Wayne.Silsbee@p1.f222.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Wayne Silsbee)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Deaf Culture
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:01:13 GMT
Reply-To: Wayne.Silsbee@p1.f222.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/222.1 - N.W. Family History, Oregon City OR

Index Number: 21064

[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]

In a msg of <04 Apr 92>, Kimberly Bobrow writes to Wayne Silsbee:

 KB> I don't recall the instigating post, but I was probably
 KB> bemoaning the fact that many deaf kids don't get much access
 KB> to ANY language.  ASL is denied to them in many cases, and you
 KB> can't call the signing they get in class a true representation
 KB> of English.

Yep, that was the gist of the message you posted, and I agree with
your assessment. Now, without starting from scratch, and, over the
next two months, re-losing our way... <grin>

I do believe that the only attempt, of which I am aware, to have a
truly manual English was stillborn. In answer to my question to
you, I don't believe that signed English will ever catch on with
any large group of people -- it's too burdensome. ASL streamlines
the language to suit the medium, and if ASL is not used, the
closest we'll see to a manual English is PSE. That's *my* opinion.
Without a doubt you have a different one... :)

 KB> I can see that a signed English could be useful for some
 KB> things.  There  KB> are *some* technical discussions *given
 KB> in English* that might be easier to interpret and understand if
 KB> the language wasn't changed.  I do think  that a native ASL
 KB> signer could give an equal technical discussion, I'm speaking
 KB> of interpreted talks.  Interpreters can only do so much, and in
 KB> technical matters they may not be up to moving the discussion to
 KB> another language, and a transliteration might be the most
 KB> understandable to a student.

It seems to me ("No", in answer to a previous question as to
whether I am fluent in ASL -- I've been around it a lot, but
wouldn't consider myself anywhere close to fluent) that ASL has
been built around visual concepts, and, at least until recently,
has been woefully lacking in communicating abstract ideas. How do
you see this situation?

 KB> I don't think it is ridiculous.  I do think it hasn't worked,
 KB> and proponents of it ought to take a good look at that fact
 KB> and stop talking about continuing to do the same damn stuff,
 KB> and blaming its failure on ASL. I do think the idea that ASL
 KB> has anything to do with the failure of Signed English is
 KB> ridiculous.

No, the blame does not lie with ASL. However, because ASL (as I
mentioned previously) is streamlined for the visual medium, it's
highly unlikely that anyone is going to go through the contortions
of a signed English when they already have some concept of a faster
way to do it. There isn't any "blame", but the existence of, and
the common knowledge about, ASL is going to "spoil" most, if not
all, people on the idea of manual English.

 KB> So, what are *your* theories, and how do you overcome the
 KB> past failures in your theories if they include things like
 KB> Signed English which hasn't worked up to this point?

I am not convinced that the teaching of English to a deaf child is
dependent on the amount of hearing. I believe a combination of oral
English along with ASL would be an excellent way to give the child
a basis for both oral and manual language while also giving parents
and teachers some history as to which the child is better able to
grasp. If a child can become "bi-lingual" (English and ASL), that
child would truly have the flexibility for both an occupation as
well as socialization. Say what?

TTYL

Wayne

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!222.1!Wayne.Silsbee
Internet: Wayne.Silsbee@p1.f222.n105.z1.fidonet.org