[sw-l] Re: SW in Latin American & Spain

[James Shepard-Kegl, Esq.]

on 5/23/05 6:20 PM, Steve Slevinski at slevin at signpuddle.net wrote:

> James Shepard-Kegl,
>
> It seems to me... (as a hearing man raised with English as my first
> langauge)
>
> Administrators have a problem of ignorance and misunderstanding.  I
> think talking about SignWriting only makes the problem worse.  To me,
> SignWriting is like grammar. It has rules and lessons.  It is made up of
> best practices.  It can be boring to talk about unless you're directly
> involved.


Respectfully, SW is not like grammar at all.  SW has no grammar (albeit it
has rules of punctuation.)  Sign languages, however, do have grammar -- or
they would not be "languages".  SW is very useful for discussions of sign
language grammar.  One can write the signed sentence on the board, then
discuss the various grammatical elements in the sentence.  This is cheaper
and superior to playing videotapes over and over --  just as it is better to
write an English sentence on the board than repeatedly playing back an
audiotape.

>
> Sign langauge can be written,  just as any other langauge.  However,
> sign langauges use a movement alphabet, rather than a phonetic alphabet,
> because sign langauge moves.

Writing is a visual presentation of a language.  Written English is a visual
presentation of a speech driven language.  SignWriting is a visual
presentation of a visual language.  Logically, signed languages lend
themselves to writing.  Ironically, spoken languages do not.  I am not
suggesting that speech driven languages cannot be written -- as obviously
they can.  I am merely pointing out that sign languages by their nature lend
themselves to writing systems.  So, why did we have to wait through two
million years of human existence for Valerie to come along?  That would seem
to be more a metaphysical than linguistic question.
>
> Only ignorance and misunderstanding makes it possible for someone to say
> that using SignWriting violates standard teaching procedures.  You use
> written langauge with SignWriting.  Written langauge is the basis of any
> modern education.  An education system that rejects reading and writing
> would violate standard teaching procedures.

There is no Deaf educational system that rejects reading and writing
deliberately.  However, almost all schools emphasize literacy skills in the
dominant societal language as a matter of practicality and independent
living skills.  The fallacy to the traditional approach, I believe, is
two-fold:  1) second language skills are exactly that:  "SECOND"!  It is
usually preferable to develop literacy skills in one's first language before
tackling a second language -- and this is especially true for Deaf people
who are not merely transitioning from a first to a second language (hard
enough even for hearing students), but from a visual language to a speech
driven one.  2)  So much emphasis is placed on second language skills that
Deaf children are often deprived of decent first language skills, to say
nothing of other academics.
>
> Helping people understand the importance of sign language is the real
> problem.  But before we can discuss sign langauge, we have to get to the
> heart of the matter.  Langauge is the true foundation of a modern education.
>
> The earlier children are exposed to langauge, the better.  Children
> absorb and create langauge naturally.  Humans are linguistic creatures.

No argument from me here.  The Bluefields school is foremost a first
language acquisition program.  We stress narrative skills: critical analysis
and organized presentation (in sign, of course.)
>
> While Oralists admit that early exposure to langauge is important, I am
> not sure if they accept sign langauges as true languages.
>
> Oralists choose to ignore that the children's attitude and experiences
> are important.  A child's involvement, interest and enjoyment in
> education makes all of the difference in their development as human
> beings.
>
> Deaf history is filled with stories of children who were robbed of their
> childhoods because they were mainstreamed.  Their early years were
> filled with confusion because they were forced to use a language they
> could not fully experience.  Their time was consumed with constant
> drills so that they could lip-read and voice.
>
> A basic education is no different for a hearing child or a deaf child:
> 1) Early exposure to language
> 2) A love of learning
> 3) The ability to read and write their primary language
>
> Once a child has been equiped with these 3 steps of a basic education,
> there is no stopping the child from becoming a successful individual.
> Oralism fails starting with step 1.  Oralism continues to fail with step 2.

The school in Bluefields is probably second to none in terms of being
educationally accessible.  All classes are taught by sign language fluent
Deaf teachers either acting alone or alongside hearing teachers.  Movies are
not simply interpreted -- they are reverse interpreted.  That is, the
hearing interpreter is always assisted by a Deaf teacher acting as the
intermediary interpreter.

There is no speech therapy component to the school.  That is not out of some
philosophical opposition to speech therapy, but because we lack the
personnel, the financial resources and most importantly the time.  For a
variety of reasons, including dire poverty and extreme humidity, hearing
aids are not a viable option for anyone in the school.  Furthermore, given
the relatively short school day, any time spent on speech therapy would
require a reduction on time dedicated to traditional academics -- and our
time is simply too precious.

Could that all change?  You bet.  An oralist with a checkbook could simply
come in and fund a radical change in the curriculum.  The result would be
that any Deaf child over the age of 11 would refuse to attend.  The entire
teaching staff would quit on the spot and probably publicly protest.  (In
short order, some of those teachers would experience a gnawing pain called
hunger.  I do not wish to be melodramatic.  This is a Third World country --
one of the poorest in this hemisphere -- with desperate poverty.  Severe
malnourishment is commonplace.)   But the youngest students would probably
stay in school and suffer immeasurably, unless someone else with a checkbook
offered to fund an alternative program.

-- James
>
> -Steve
>
>
> James Shepard-Kegl, Esq. wrote:
>
>> To educators using SW in Spanish speaking countries:
>>
>> As I guess all of your are aware, we use SW a very great deal in Bluefields,
>> Nicaragua, and we have developed a good deal of reading material:  three
>> volumes of reading lessons in SW, applied math workbooks in SW, Spanish
>> texts and workbooks incorporating SW.
>>
>> Our Deaf teachers and students, of course, appreciate the value of SW in a
>> teaching curriculum.  Why?  because for them there are practical
>> applications on a daily basis.
>>
>> However, for government administrators in the Ministry of Education, SW is
>> much more of an abstract.  Yes, if they had to think about it, the concept
>> would seem like a good idea.  However, use of SW in a teaching curriculum is
>> not a traditional approach in Deaf education.  Everyone knows that I espouse
>> it, but what do I say when some foreign consultant comes in and says, "This
>> is not accepted practice anywhere else.  Using SW violates standard teaching
>> procedures."
>>
>> So, immediately we have the battle of the foreign consultants.  This is in
>> part what occurred in Condega, Nicaragua.  And the Columbian oralist had an
>> advantage in this debate:  He is a Latin American and he speaks Spanish.
>>
>> At some point (possibly June), I am planning to hold a teaching seminar for
>> the hearing staff at the Bluefields Deaf School.  This program would be not
>> merely for government teachers, but also for the supervisors the government
>> sends to the school from time to time.  These individuals are not
>> particularly well trained, if at all, in new approaches to Deaf education --
>> which makes them very vulnerable to oralism or so-called "total
>> communication" advocates.
>>
>> I can say that SW is being used at varying levels (pilot programs,
>> developing curricula, etc.) in other Spanish speaking countries.  But, it
>> would be much better if a description of the varying programs came from the
>> sources -- and written in Spanish.  I would be happy to share your one - two
>> page reports with our own staff and with the participants in this teaching
>> seminar.
>>
>> Please address any documents to:  El proyecto de idioma de senas de
>> Nicaragua
>> at kegl at maine.rr.com
>>
>> Thank you for your help.
>>
>> -- James Shepard-Kegl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>