My last blog is going to be a reflection on the whole assignment. I thought this was a really good assignment and a good way to research different aspects of deaf culture. I think if I could do anything different, I would have started it a little sooner. I never felt pressed for time, but towards the end, my blogs were close together which I did not like.
I learned a lot through this assignment. I got to research a school I am interested in, a career I am interested, and many interesting aspects that come with the career path I may follow. Last year I chose to do the paper instead of the blogs. I am glad I chose to do the blogs this year for a couple of reasons. I liked being able to spread out the work. I also liked that I got to research several different topics as opposed to just one main one.
Overall, I thought this assignment was really good. It opened my eyes to deaf culture in many different ways. I used to think that just taking a sign language course was enough, but this assignment helped me to realize that there are a lot of things I will never understand about sign language and my respect grew due to all of my research.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Monday, April 2, 2007
Deaf History
While researching Deaf Culture, I came across a timeline that explained some of the history of deaf culture. At first I wasn't too interested, but after reading a little of it, I was very moved. The timeline dates back as far as 1000 B.C. and some of the things that were done to deafs were just horrible.
The first record of deaf history occured in 1000 B.C. when deaf people were forbidden to own land. Also on the timeline, you see other forms of discrimination towards deaf people. Deafs were considered barbarians, were committed to asylums, rejected from churches, were thought to be possessed by demons, etc. Some of the things that deaf people endured and names that were given to them were just awful. People rejected the unfamiliar back then and were scared of the idea of someone not knowing how to speak or hear. They did not realize then that it is not unnatural for someone to be deaf, and that no one chooses what they are to be.
Also on the timeline, there are some good things that occur. For example, finally in the 1500's deaf education began to grow. It still took quite awhile for deaf education to become accepted, but there were a few famous names that stand out today for standing up for the deaf then.
The timeline that I used went from 1000 B.C. to 1996. It was fascinating to learn about some of the history of deaf life. I can't believe that deaf people were treated so badly at one point in time. Just because they were different, and people did not understand them, does not give anyone the right to ridicule and discriminate against them. I was also very happy to see that deaf education started much earlier than I thought. At first I believed that deaf education was fairly new to our world. However, I was mistaken and learned that there were many people that stood up for what was right and worked together to make the gap between hearing and deaf better so long ago.
The website I used for this post is http://www.aslinfo.com/trivia5.cfm.
The first record of deaf history occured in 1000 B.C. when deaf people were forbidden to own land. Also on the timeline, you see other forms of discrimination towards deaf people. Deafs were considered barbarians, were committed to asylums, rejected from churches, were thought to be possessed by demons, etc. Some of the things that deaf people endured and names that were given to them were just awful. People rejected the unfamiliar back then and were scared of the idea of someone not knowing how to speak or hear. They did not realize then that it is not unnatural for someone to be deaf, and that no one chooses what they are to be.
Also on the timeline, there are some good things that occur. For example, finally in the 1500's deaf education began to grow. It still took quite awhile for deaf education to become accepted, but there were a few famous names that stand out today for standing up for the deaf then.
The timeline that I used went from 1000 B.C. to 1996. It was fascinating to learn about some of the history of deaf life. I can't believe that deaf people were treated so badly at one point in time. Just because they were different, and people did not understand them, does not give anyone the right to ridicule and discriminate against them. I was also very happy to see that deaf education started much earlier than I thought. At first I believed that deaf education was fairly new to our world. However, I was mistaken and learned that there were many people that stood up for what was right and worked together to make the gap between hearing and deaf better so long ago.
The website I used for this post is http://www.aslinfo.com/trivia5.cfm.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Different Kinds Of Sign Language
As a double major in modern languages and business management, I am fascinated by different kinds of cultures and communication methods. I was researching the different kinds of sign languages around the world and was amazed by what I found. I went the the wikipedia site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sign_languages and couldn't believe the length of the list that I found. I found Sign Languages from Africa, The Americas, Asia, Europe, Middle East, etc.
One thing that I found interesting was that not only do these places have their own sign languages, but they have several different ones. Africa alone has at least 25 sign languages. The other places that have lists on this site have close to that number as well. If you stop and think about it, it isn't that strange. Every country will have different slang, dialects, and accents. So, I guess the same goes for sign language. I'm sure many if not all of the 25 different sign languages in Africa are all similar and have the same signs except for a few here and there.
When I did my project last semester, I wrote a paper on linguistics. One of the topics I touched on was different kinds of sign languages. Some of the titles I used were French Sign Language (FSL), English Sign Lanuage (ESL), and a few others. Nothing was unexpected though. French is a completely different language than what we speak here so it was only natural to think that they have different signs and expressions for the sign languages used in their country.
When researching though, I never expected to see title such as Guatemalan Sign Language, Kata Kolok, Selangor, Taiwanese, etc. It is just strange to think that there are so many different kinds of communicating without actually using words. It is fascinating to know that so many different kinds of sign language exist and makes me want to research them some more!
One thing that I found interesting was that not only do these places have their own sign languages, but they have several different ones. Africa alone has at least 25 sign languages. The other places that have lists on this site have close to that number as well. If you stop and think about it, it isn't that strange. Every country will have different slang, dialects, and accents. So, I guess the same goes for sign language. I'm sure many if not all of the 25 different sign languages in Africa are all similar and have the same signs except for a few here and there.
When I did my project last semester, I wrote a paper on linguistics. One of the topics I touched on was different kinds of sign languages. Some of the titles I used were French Sign Language (FSL), English Sign Lanuage (ESL), and a few others. Nothing was unexpected though. French is a completely different language than what we speak here so it was only natural to think that they have different signs and expressions for the sign languages used in their country.
When researching though, I never expected to see title such as Guatemalan Sign Language, Kata Kolok, Selangor, Taiwanese, etc. It is just strange to think that there are so many different kinds of communicating without actually using words. It is fascinating to know that so many different kinds of sign language exist and makes me want to research them some more!
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Deaf Culture Views
While researching Deaf Culture on google.com, I came across something that I found very interesting. Using the site http://www.signmedia.com/info/adc.htm, I learned that a deaf community can be defined in two different ways. The two different ways are known as pathological and cultural.
I learned that people that follow a pathological view tend to be very specific in their definition. They believe that only people who are deaf or lack hearing should be a part of a deaf community. After reading this, I did not agree with these peoples' way of thinking. Think about families for example. If you have deaf parents and two deaf siblings, and you are hearing, would that make you part of the community that your family belongs to? Or according to a pathological view, would you technically not apply to the definition? I think that this definition was just a bit to "one way or the other". It seems to me that if people followed this definition of what a deaf community should be, deaf people and hearing people would be very secluded from each other and have very little contact.
The second definition is a cultural view. This view was a little more open and said that anyone that could use sign language as a means of communication, as well as all deaf people would make a community. This definition would work for the example I mentioned earlier about being the only hearing child in a family. Because the child would understand and speak sign language with their family, they would be considered part of the deaf community. I don't think it's right to single out hearing people just because they may not know how to speak sign language. It almost seems as though some deaf people are scared of hearing people, their world, and what they may do if they were part of the deaf community.
I thought it was very interesting to see that deaf people had such opinions on what constitutes a community. I think that everyone should be welcome in all communities and no one should be turned away because of their differences. I don't feel that anyone should be opressed because of who they are. People just need to learn to understand and accept everyone around them. If this can happen, maybe deaf people and hearing people will find a community that fits both.
I learned that people that follow a pathological view tend to be very specific in their definition. They believe that only people who are deaf or lack hearing should be a part of a deaf community. After reading this, I did not agree with these peoples' way of thinking. Think about families for example. If you have deaf parents and two deaf siblings, and you are hearing, would that make you part of the community that your family belongs to? Or according to a pathological view, would you technically not apply to the definition? I think that this definition was just a bit to "one way or the other". It seems to me that if people followed this definition of what a deaf community should be, deaf people and hearing people would be very secluded from each other and have very little contact.
The second definition is a cultural view. This view was a little more open and said that anyone that could use sign language as a means of communication, as well as all deaf people would make a community. This definition would work for the example I mentioned earlier about being the only hearing child in a family. Because the child would understand and speak sign language with their family, they would be considered part of the deaf community. I don't think it's right to single out hearing people just because they may not know how to speak sign language. It almost seems as though some deaf people are scared of hearing people, their world, and what they may do if they were part of the deaf community.
I thought it was very interesting to see that deaf people had such opinions on what constitutes a community. I think that everyone should be welcome in all communities and no one should be turned away because of their differences. I don't feel that anyone should be opressed because of who they are. People just need to learn to understand and accept everyone around them. If this can happen, maybe deaf people and hearing people will find a community that fits both.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Websites for last post!
Sorry, I forgot to post the website I used for my last post! Here it is!
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos175.htm
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos175.htm
Interpreters
I decided to write my next post on a job that I've become more and more interested in since taking this class. I have always loved languages and have begun to think that maybe a translating hob is something I should look at. I did a little research to find out more and was very intrigued by what I found.
Interpreters are people that help enable communication between two or more different languages. My main languages as of now are spanish, french, and sign. I hope to pick up some arabic, german, and italian as well. Many of these are primary languages that require a translator. Sign is one of the most important. While english, french, and spanish words sometimes sound the same and may be able to be understood, deaf people have less similarities with other languages. There are certain signs that people may understand, but not as many as speaking languages.
I also learned that there are two different kinds of interpreters. There are simultaneous and consecutive. Simultaneous occurs when an interpreter listens and speaks at the same time. Simultaneous interpreters are known to work in pairs because of the difficulty of maintaining several different conversations at once. Consecutive interpreters are more likely to take notes and then explain the information they have received. I think simultaneous sounds like a lot of work and I don't know if I have enough time to become fluent in enough languages. But it does sound like a lot of fun!
Interpreters can be used in many different kinds of jobs. They can be seen in occupations like libraries, courts, schools, business conferences, etc. Because of the high demand for bilingual or more speakers, I was very surprised to find out that most interpreters are self employed. If there is such a high demand, why do many people work by themselves and often times as a part time position?
I would like to learn more about the possibility of becoming an interpreter. It seems like a very gratifying job and one that may fit my interests. I am still very unsure but it is always fun to learn about new occupations and those of interpreters are fascinating to think about!!!!
Interpreters are people that help enable communication between two or more different languages. My main languages as of now are spanish, french, and sign. I hope to pick up some arabic, german, and italian as well. Many of these are primary languages that require a translator. Sign is one of the most important. While english, french, and spanish words sometimes sound the same and may be able to be understood, deaf people have less similarities with other languages. There are certain signs that people may understand, but not as many as speaking languages.
I also learned that there are two different kinds of interpreters. There are simultaneous and consecutive. Simultaneous occurs when an interpreter listens and speaks at the same time. Simultaneous interpreters are known to work in pairs because of the difficulty of maintaining several different conversations at once. Consecutive interpreters are more likely to take notes and then explain the information they have received. I think simultaneous sounds like a lot of work and I don't know if I have enough time to become fluent in enough languages. But it does sound like a lot of fun!
Interpreters can be used in many different kinds of jobs. They can be seen in occupations like libraries, courts, schools, business conferences, etc. Because of the high demand for bilingual or more speakers, I was very surprised to find out that most interpreters are self employed. If there is such a high demand, why do many people work by themselves and often times as a part time position?
I would like to learn more about the possibility of becoming an interpreter. It seems like a very gratifying job and one that may fit my interests. I am still very unsure but it is always fun to learn about new occupations and those of interpreters are fascinating to think about!!!!
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Cochlear Implants
I thought I would do a post on the movie we watched for class today, Sound and Fury. I found the movie very interesting and moving. The two kids and their families that were facing the decision on allowing their kids to have cochlear implants had very different perspectives about whether it was a right decision or not.
The family with the little five year old girl named Heather was considering giving their daughter the implant but were a little scared that she would lose her sense of self. I think that they had very good reason for thinking this, but I don't think it was enough reason to end up saying no to the implant. When they visited the school with kids that had cochlear implants, none of them signed. At such a young age, they should still be using sign language in case the cochlear implant stops working or they decide to take it out at some point. I don't think that a cochlear implant should automatically change the child from being deaf to hearing. They should still experience both worlds.
However, I do feel like Heather's family made the wrong decision in not allowing her to get an implant. She is only five years old and that is around the best time to do it, because they still have a good chance at learning to speak and understand. In the movie, the school tried to eliminate sign language from their students lives. I think this worried the family but I don't see how they could eliminate it from Heather's life because of the fact that her parents are deaf. If she got the cochlear implant, would her teachers not allow her to speak to her family anymore? I think that she could have lived both worlds and then given a choice later on as to whether or not she wanted to keep her cochlear implant.
The other case was a relative of Heather's. It was her cousin peter. He was born with a hearing twin brother, but he himself was deaf. His parents wanted to get him a cochlear implant immediately so that he could have as "normal" of a life as possible. Almost everyone was against this decision except for the parents. His deaf grandparents were very against it at first but I think they began to come to their sense a bit towards the end and realize that it wasn't their decision to make and that they just had to respect it and hope for the best.
I'm not sure how I feel on baby Peter's case. I can see both sides and I think that I am leaning more towards the side of the grandparents and the other family members. I think the parents were definately trying to look out for their son, but he wasn't even a year old when this decision was made for him. Unlike Heather, he wasn't able to express his own desires and thoughts on the cochlear implant. I think doing cochlear implants on infants is a bit too early and that maybe they should of waited a couple more years to see how he felt. However, I do also agree with their parents at the same time. They wanted their baby to be able to have the best life possible and according to them, schooling for hearing kids is better than that of deaf kids. If this is true, by allowing their son to have a hearing person's education, they are making the better decision.
Cochlear implants are very controversial. It ends up just coming down to a matter of personal decisions and experience. I think cochlear implants definately change a person and that anyone with one can be both deaf and hearing but maybe feel like neither of those. They may feel strange, special, or different. These implants are very difficult decisions and should be researched and thought out very carefully before going forward with one.
The family with the little five year old girl named Heather was considering giving their daughter the implant but were a little scared that she would lose her sense of self. I think that they had very good reason for thinking this, but I don't think it was enough reason to end up saying no to the implant. When they visited the school with kids that had cochlear implants, none of them signed. At such a young age, they should still be using sign language in case the cochlear implant stops working or they decide to take it out at some point. I don't think that a cochlear implant should automatically change the child from being deaf to hearing. They should still experience both worlds.
However, I do feel like Heather's family made the wrong decision in not allowing her to get an implant. She is only five years old and that is around the best time to do it, because they still have a good chance at learning to speak and understand. In the movie, the school tried to eliminate sign language from their students lives. I think this worried the family but I don't see how they could eliminate it from Heather's life because of the fact that her parents are deaf. If she got the cochlear implant, would her teachers not allow her to speak to her family anymore? I think that she could have lived both worlds and then given a choice later on as to whether or not she wanted to keep her cochlear implant.
The other case was a relative of Heather's. It was her cousin peter. He was born with a hearing twin brother, but he himself was deaf. His parents wanted to get him a cochlear implant immediately so that he could have as "normal" of a life as possible. Almost everyone was against this decision except for the parents. His deaf grandparents were very against it at first but I think they began to come to their sense a bit towards the end and realize that it wasn't their decision to make and that they just had to respect it and hope for the best.
I'm not sure how I feel on baby Peter's case. I can see both sides and I think that I am leaning more towards the side of the grandparents and the other family members. I think the parents were definately trying to look out for their son, but he wasn't even a year old when this decision was made for him. Unlike Heather, he wasn't able to express his own desires and thoughts on the cochlear implant. I think doing cochlear implants on infants is a bit too early and that maybe they should of waited a couple more years to see how he felt. However, I do also agree with their parents at the same time. They wanted their baby to be able to have the best life possible and according to them, schooling for hearing kids is better than that of deaf kids. If this is true, by allowing their son to have a hearing person's education, they are making the better decision.
Cochlear implants are very controversial. It ends up just coming down to a matter of personal decisions and experience. I think cochlear implants definately change a person and that anyone with one can be both deaf and hearing but maybe feel like neither of those. They may feel strange, special, or different. These implants are very difficult decisions and should be researched and thought out very carefully before going forward with one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)