Princess, that's interesting, because I've learned Spanish and Hebrew, two very different langauges, and learning the one didn't prevent me from learning the other at all. I actually studied them conjointly for 3 years.
Sozo, I asked you about specific deaf children that you mentioned earlier and you come back with some article about "theory of mind". That's interesting, but not what I asked about. I would think that if you had had actual experience with this kind of thing, you would be able to share some of it.
rufio what the heck are you ASKING? I have a master's degree in deaf education and experience up the wazoo, if I knew a) what you were asking and b) that you would pay the slightest attention to my answers, I would happily answer any question you have.
The article was the first that I found on Google that showed, through studies, that deaf children who are not exposed to accessible language have both linguistic and cognitive delays, while deaf children who do have that exposure do not have the same kinds of delays. That is what was being discussed.
well, rufio, there are some of us who just defy expectations. . . your language prowess is impressive indeed. .
but I think you're out of line with soz, here. . . it seems to me she's tried to answer all of our questions, and we've asked her an awful lot of them. . .
I am asking what exactly (specifically) it is that makes you able to tell a child that grew up with hearing parents from a child that grew up with deaf ones.
It's not impressive at all, princess. I knew at least a couple people who did the same thing as me, and I know people who study two (different) langauges concurrently now. JRR Tolkien also studied a variety of different langauges in his lifetime - I know he did Welsh, Finnish, and Latin, and probably a lot more.
If you say that studying different types of languages impedes our ability to learn others, than how to people who speak English learn Chinese? How to Chinese and Japanese immigrants learn English and still speak their native tongue? I'm sorry, there's just too much contrary evidence for this to be an anomaly.
I'm saying that in the case of Chinese immigrants, most of them choose to learn english because they live here (I believe I explained this when I discussed the people who live in areas where two very different languages are commonly spoken). Of course, those who choose to move to areas where new languages are spoken are left with little choice.
What I was trying to express is that when people choose to learn different languages for fun, as a hobby even, they usually pick languages within the same family or spoken within the same general area.
So, no, immigrants are not an anomaly. I believe, however, that Tolkien is, in more ways than one. He is not the best choice for an "anyone could do this" claim.
soz, you have a wonderful child (due, not least, to her loving mother)... I know my daughter had a lot more to say to me than she could articulate. When she was about fourteen months old, she managed to tell me that the kite she saw stuck in a tree (to my knowledge, she'd never seen one flying) worked on the same principle as the sailboards we'd seen on the lake two weeks before... I was astounded. I have often wondered what she would have told me if we'd shared more language at that age...
That is what is exciting to me, too, Wy...
Surely all the people I know can't be anomalies. You're not even talking about the psychological effects of language here - you're talking about personal preferences. I would guess that most people interested in learning different langauges would be interesting in learning them for their differences, not for their similarities.
rufio wrote:I would guess that most people interested in learning different langauges would be interesting in learning them for their differences, not for their similarities.
At least in most states outsite the USA, most people learn different languages just because they have to - namely at school.
(I never had considered learning Latin and at the age of ten voluntarily, believe me!)
The only languages I voluntarily learnt - a little bit of Dutch, some phrases in Italian - were done because of the similarity.
And at school, I really liked English and French (although this didn't mirror in my notes, I fear
), but just because it wasn't sooooo different.
Noten is not notes but marks, aha.
But Americans say "grades"
Yours helpfully,
McT
Hehe. . . thank you, Walter :-) It's good to see I'm not the only one who was boring enough to only learn languages similar to eachother ;-)
And I'm sure your Noten were ganz gut :-)
Wy, that's some impressive figuring-out, though. Babies are quite good at communicating even without ASL, especially if their moms are attentive.
rufio, in my own experience, I can generally tell a deaf person had deaf parents (deaf of deaf, or DOD) or hearing parents (DOH) by:
- Language skills, ASL: DOD are much better at language, in general, but the first obvious manifestation is their ASL. Crisp, clear, flowing, perfectly grammatical. DOH use ASL, but there is more grasping for words, more incomplete thoughts, less crisp "enunciation" (how the handshapes are formed), etc.
- Language skills, English: DOD are usually very good at English, and when they are not, they follow recognizable ASL grammatical patterns. For example, if a sentence as written is a bit off, and I then sign it, it makes sense in ASL. DOH often have severe problems with English. The average Deaf adult reads at the 4th grade level. In my program, students were hard-pressed to pass tests at the 2nd grade level.
- Attitude: Many DOH who were raised by hearing people and whose parents did their best to make them hearing in one way or another (oral schools, cochlear implants, hearing aids) are resentful of hearing people in general. They don't have patience for people who are not fluent in ASL, and are quick to take offense from hearing people; "It's just because I'm Deaf." They usually don't have a close relationship with their family, and their peers are hugely important (leading to a lot of family-type intrigue among peer groups.) DOD on the other hand did not usually have those pressures, and felt a part of and close to their family forever. They tend to be more accepting of hearing people, and more realistic about the role deafness plays in their lives.
- Social skills: Related to the above, DOD usually have much more advanced social skills. DOD and late-deafened people overwhelmingly make up the leadership in the Deaf community. (I. King Jordan, the President of Gallaudet University, is late-deafened.) DOH have often faced both cognitive delays and difficult social situtions -- mainstreaming, isolation, etc. -- and tend towards back-stabbing, immature behavior. There is a saying in the Deaf community about crabs -- when one crab tries to climb out of the bucket, all of the other crabs grab it and drag it back down.
- Ability to follow complex instructions: I had several DOH staff, and I had to be abundantly, painstakingly, mind-bogglingly clear. I had to say things over and over, say them in a few different ways, have written instructions, demonstrate, follow-up, etc. Simply giving instructions once, in writing or in ASL, was not enough. I have worked with several DOD, and that was not an issue. (Again, these are generalizations -- exceptions in each group, of course.)
Do a Google search on "cognitive delays deaf" and you'll find much more, scientific findings, etc.
Many thanks for the painstaking care with which you have written all this; I never knew of these things until now.
McT
Thank you for these explanations, Sozobe.
Sure!
I'm happy to give them, by the way, just nonplussed by rufio's approach.
Thanks, soz!
(Couldn't you have told me this 20 years earlier? My exam in 'Communication Sciences' would have been excellent! :wink: )
Understandable, soz :-) The stuff about DOH children and adults is especially fascinating, and poignant, to me. . . have there been any improvements in the gap between the DOD and DOH recently, or has this always been the trend?
Well, the most promising development is early intervention, which is my main area of activity now. Universal Newborn Hearing Screening was made a law recently, where every single baby's hearing is screened while still in the hospital. If the result shows a hearing problem, the family is first told to go for a follow-up, and if that shows a hearing loss as well, the family is sent literature with resources on deafness.
The problem is that right now, that's where it stops. That one letter with resources. So while a certain number of infants are tested and found to have hearing losses every year, not that many of them find their way into the system. (I forget the percentage.) So there are still a lot of them who are not being properly diagnosed/ getting early intervention. We're working on changing that part, to get the kids into the system in some way that is more "sticky."
But early intervention is really promising. The main issue is just that gap between birth and exposure to language. If the exposure comes much earlier, and there are more and more programs being set up to provide it (I have just started working in a program where deaf adults go to visit deaf babies and their hearing families, to expose the babies to ASL and teach the families, and generally answer questions), then the cognitive/ linguistic gap is greatly, greatly reduced. The big problem has been when deafness hasn't been diagnosed until the kid isn't talking and the parents take him or her in to a doctor to find out why.
How tragic. . . I have a question I feel I should somewhat know, but don't seem to. Can deafness be inherited? I mean, are there genetic types of deafness as well as those caused by other mitigating factors?
