No, I’m not going on an ill-advised mission for advocating speech therapy. Rather, what my subject heading refers to is the multitude of speeches some of us in the DC area were lucky enough to enjoy (subtext: gagged, tied down, and unwillingly made to watch) last week.
As many of you know, last week was graduation at Gallaudet. What this means is many people get up on stage and spout platitudes, “you shall go out in the real world now and astonish people with your contribution to a field that no one really cares about.” Okay, okay, can you tell I’m not big on rituals and the trite messages people have to partake during such?
I’m not exactly against speeches. But what I’m against is tired old messages. Luckily, Cecily Whitworth (one of my good friends who is also in the department of Linguistics. I’m not biased I swear!) was chosen as the graduate commencement speaker. No tired old message here. She spoke about multilingualism. If you look closely, you can see that there’s a message to be learned here. As one of my professors said, it’s actually a parable. Here is the speech in full:
I spent six weeks last summer in Kigali, the capital city of Rwanda. I was there doing research at a school for deaf children, but I was staying with my father and stepmother who work for USAID, the United States Agency for International Development. The number of languages that ended up being used every day, by me and the people I was trying to communicate with, was a little overwhelming.
Rwanda has three official languages. The first language of most people is Kinyarwanda. French and English are also official languages. French is spoken more frequently than English, but government documents, newspapers, and the like are usually published in all three.
At the school where I was working, most of the teachers are hearing and most of them are from Italy or Brazil; only a few were from Rwanda and only one part-time teacher was deaf. The students at the school are taught Rwandan sign language (the abbreviation is AKR, for Amaranga y’Ikinyarwanda, “Rwandan Language of Signs” in Kinyarwanda) and they are also taught Kinyarwanda, French, and a little English.
I used whatever language I could to communicate with the teachers. Most of the time, a mix of AKR and French was the most effective- but that meant that none of us, neither me nor the teachers, were using our first language. We ended up relying a lot on drawing pictures, gestures, and, when available, interpreters.
By far the most effective communication, however, was when the one deaf teacher was available. This teacher had traveled widely, met a lot of other deaf people, and was fluent in not only Kinyarwanda and AKR, but also in French, English, and ASL. This meant that he was the only person who could communicate with all of the other people in any given conversation. He spoke and lipread Kinyarwanda with the parents of the children, he spoke and lipread French with the teachers, he interpreted spoken French to spoken Kinyarwanda, he interpreted spoken Kinyarwanda to ASL, he interpreted ASL to spoken French, and of course he interpreted all of these languages into and out of AKR.
It is sad that the hearing teachers at the school in Rwanda could only barely communicate with their deaf students, and it is sad that I grew up in a country where people are only expected to be able to use one language, English. However, it is inspiring and exciting to me that it was a Deaf person who was able to overcome so many language barriers and who was the one really crucial link in so many conversations.
You can never know too many languages. We, at Gallaudet, are lucky in that we are already a step ahead of most American universities At Gallaudet, we see more than one language being used every day. Students here are fluent users of English, fluent users of ASL, and often fluent users of additional languages as well. When we are faced with a language barrier, we adjust and adapt and find a way around it.
I encourage all of you not to let that head start go to waste. Don’t be the hearing teachers who can’t communicate in the language of their students. Don’t be the foreigners who can’t communicate in the language of the country they are in. Be people who can communicate in the right language for the right setting, to make up for the shortcomings of all those other people who don’t know how. Be multilingual and be proud of it.
Indeed…
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
indeed! in this vast growing world of culture clashes, information exchanging at the speed of internet, one who are multilingual stands out. with Chinese as my first, English comes second and finally with ASL, and looking forward to learn Japaneses and Tibetan. I find some of the literatures are far more fascinating to read in it’s origin language, it also does help when u are traveling.
Thanks for sharing! This speech illustrates why it is a good idea to not be so limited to one mindset, one language, one point of view, and whatever.
I’ve always said one of characteristics of a true bilingual (and I suppose a multi-lingual) is being able to adjust to different language demands and flow in and out among languages as well as find new solutions to communication issues.
One nice thing about knowing more than one languages, it becomes easier to pick up even more languages.
Good article Julie. I quite liked that speech also, and of course Haydee Garcia’s speech rocked, too!
Thanks for sharing the text of the speech Julie. I have always wondered how the children such as those in the Rwandan classroom eventually perceive their own country’s deaf adults when the teachers are white people from first world countries. Why aren’t there more deaf people such as the one deaf teacher mentioned in the speech?
Well, there should be, of course but it’s the same old catch-22 as anywhere else. Deaf education isn’t great, so no Deaf people are qualified to become teachers, so no teachers can sign, so deaf education isn’t that great.
Things are changing, I hope. Slowly. At the school in question, the Deaf teacher teaches AKR classes to the children, which is a huge step up from many deaf schools in developing nations where signed languages are forbidden entirely.
Cecily,
Do visiting deaf teachers at the school you taught at also train native deaf people to become teachers? Perhaps also educating the current administrators and teachers aware of the critical need to train and hire more deaf teachers? If this already happens, I applaud your efforts.
I would hope that the goal is to create changes that can be self-sustaining. This reminds me of the following quote:
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
- Chinese Proverb
Well, I was doing lingusitic research, not policy work or reform. The educational situation in Rwanda in general, and particularly at schools for the deaf, is very complicated, and there aren’t any easy fixes. The fact that they have a Deaf teacher and that they actively instruct the children in AKR is a very positive sign.
Ah, linguistic research, ok. Yes, it is good that there’s a deaf teacher at the school.
This is a great discussion! This is totally my bag of tricks. I am enjoying your input. As most of you already know, I’m firmly on the side of multilingual literacy and bicultural/bilingual education.
Alas, those days I am swamped with work and have no energy to do research. I could make snarky comments or just I’m just gonna blab at length about what I am thinking…
So, good job, guys!
I do want to add, that I feel that it is very much mistaken to make the assumption that English is the only valuable language to learn. Yes, English is used in the USA, and it is used as an business language. It is widely taught, yes. In today’s climate, absolutely.
But we must always place the use of languages within context. For instance, the “international” language once was French. Another time it was German. Languages do not exist in a vaccuum, and we must always remember that.
Let me give you an example - in the movie, “Firefly”, English is not the dominant language, Chinese is. Apparently, in the future, the Chinese become dominant, and so their ways of instruction, way of life, language and writing become dominant. It was very interesting to me, as it made me consider, not just on an intellectual level, but on an social level, of how their lives were different, in very subtle ways - what they ate, what they wore… The cast of the ship “Firefly” are white, but they identified with a culture of other language and customs, not of anglo-saxon ancestry. They WERE Chinese. Just white.
English will not always be dominant. Time will change that.
I guess what I am trying to say in my long, rambling post is that language exist in a social context, and that any value we place upon it truly is temporary. This, in turn should give us opportunity to consider our own perspectives towards other languages. Unfortunately, America is somewhat isolationist, mostly due to geography (in my opinion), and our preestablished social structures reinforce that.
So, to sum it up. If you believe that another language is less valuable or not worthy of learning. If you feel that it is perfectly proper to suppress or to decry the use of any language by any native population, then you are actively upholding a system where languages are used as a tool to manipulate social outcomes (by giving those who use the “approved” language a higher social status).
Basically, you’re saying that because you use the approved language, you are superior.
DISCLAIMER:
I didn’t mean that all people who use English believe they are superior! :)
I was referring to those who believe that English is the most important, the only language, and, thus, devalue multilingualism.
I absolutely love Firefly! :)
I used that tv show as an example in my class discussions on lingua francas as well.
Good points you raised…
the dark blue background is very impossible to read. please change to lighter or white background. thanks.
Wait a minute! Is the Gallaudet University a step ahead of other higher education institutions in linguistic uses?
Gallaudet University is still in the real linguistic policy mess except the Gallaudet Faculty Senate’s recent vote to officiate the promotion of American Sign Language and Written English.
Gallaudet University adminstration have not formally announce the formal recognization of American Sign Language (ASL) as a primary and standard language use on the campus to faciliate the visual-spatial language.
FYI, Signing Exact English and Language Contact (PSE) are not really the language in any sense. Other signed languages from other countries like LSF, Dutch and BSL would be acceptable.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
This ties in to the Cued Speech discussion in that CS is one more tool to have in your bag of communication tricks.
With all due respect, Julie, I recognize you as the Poster Girl for the study of linguistics on the Gallaudet University website. A parable is supposed to illustrate a moral attitude or principle. How does Cecily Whitworth’s Graduate Commencement address qualify as a parable? I am concerned about Cecily’s liberal use of the word “fluent.” If the objective is, in Cecily’s words, “people who can communicate in the right language for the right setting,” then English must be the coin of the realm at Gallaudet and in the United States of America.
It’s not clear to me what cause for concern you find in my use of the word “fluent”. Are you concerned about a possible misunderstanding of the term? Do you feel I have used the term (”liberally?”) to describe situations in which fluency in a language was not the case? Do you have some basis for such claims? Do you propose a definition of “fluent” which would clarify the issue?
I take great exception to the idea that “communicating in the right language for the right setting” can be equated with any kind of generalization about a specific language always being the right one. At Gallaudet, as at every other institution of higher learning (in the United States and elsewhere), individual people vary greatly in their abilities to use any specifically identified language. It is certainly not the case that English is always the appropriate language for use in all settings (by “setting”, I am including not only the physical location, but also the time and the participants) at Gallaudet or anywhere else. This attitude, that ONE language is the answer, will only hinder communication; there will always exist people who are not fluent in any given language, and the resistance to knowing more than one language can only mean an inability to communicate.
With all due respect, Cecily, the story of education of the deaf in America has been the struggle of deaf people to master the roots of connected language. Beginning in 1957, when Dr. William Stokoe began his linguistic studies at Gallaudet College, English has been conveniently retired from circulation and downgraded to a second language. American Sign Language and a myriad of communication theories have risen to supplant English. Simultaneously, the academic integrity of Gallaudet University has been called into question. Thus, your liberal connotation of “fluency” struck a responsive chord in me. How do the Stokoe disciples in the Department of Linguistics propose to defend the record created since Dr. Stokoe’s appearance a half century ago? Why is Gallaudet faced with this moment of truth in 2007? Finally, I congratulate you on your graduation and trust that you will take this different perspective to heart.
“English has been conveniently retired from circulation and downgraded to a second language.” Where is your evidence for this? My experience has shown that English (or other communication systems) is still the thriving language on campus.
I’m sorry, I still don’t understand your problem with the word “fluency”, and I also think you have seriously misread my speech. Neither I nor anyone else in this comment thread has made any statement denigrading the use of English or suggesting that it not be learned. What I, and what I hope others, want is for everyone (deaf, hearing, American, Rwandan) to learn more than one language.
With all due respect, Julie and Cecily, I must have stirred up quite a hornet’s nest with two best friends ganging up on me. With charity to all and malice toward none, let me try to make myself clear one more time. English is the coin of the realm in the United States of America. Literacy is the name of the game in basic education and more so in deaf education. I have not read your audiograms, but I believe that you, Julie and Cecily, are postlingual deaf persons. Welcome to the club, but please do not turn a blind eye to the different language problems of prelingual deaf persons. They are not well served by constant exposure to a multiplicity of languages. In order to master English, the prelingual deaf person must have the opportunity to see and use English every day of their lives. Not just for today but tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. The end result would be the more realistic academic programs that Dr. Gallaudet envisioned when he addressed the Conference of Principals in 1868.
Bert, that is simply not true. Please see, e. g.:
Johnson, R., Erting, C. & Liddell, S. (1989). Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving access in deaf education. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.
Hoffmeister, R. (2000). A piece of the puzzle: The relationship between ASL and English literacy in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, R. Mayberry, & J. Morford (Eds.), Language Acquisition by Eye. Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum Publishing.
Drasgow, D. (1998, Spring). American Sign Language as a pathway to linguistic competence. Exceptional Children, 3(64), 329-342.
McAnally, P.L., Rose, S. & Quigley, S.P. (1999). Reading practices with deaf learners. Austin, Tex. : Pro-Ed
With all due respect, Cecily, I truly appreciate the references you recommend and promise to check them out. In the meantime, could you explain to me how and why Gallaudet University is mired in an academic and accreditation crisis in 2007? Have a nice day.
By the way, I’m prelingually deaf.
So am I!
im “prelingually deaf” as well i.e. born deaf.
I was born deaf, therefore I’m prelingually deaf too.
Bert, one could argue that it is a moral responsibility to use the language of the community. That responsibility with the Deaf community clearly becomes a complicated issue (as exemplified by a few recent blogs). Basically it is a multilingual community. What warrants the use of a specific language depends on the situation and audience. And it SHOULD depend on the situation and the audience (i.e., choose what fits best). That is the point of (or parable in) Cecily’s speech.
And Bert, I disagree with you about English being the “coin of the realm”. This is a multilingual world. We would do well to catch up with the rest of the world, and become as fluent (read: able to use a language effectively for communication) in different languages so that we can then have a toolbox for communicating with different people in different situations.
Trying to insist on the superiority of English for the purpose of education has been much more harmful than successful.
With all due respect, Julie, the founder of higher education of the deaf in America would beg to disagree. Dr. E. M. Gallaudet, in an address to the Conference of Principals in May 1868, stated: “When speaking children are sent to French or German schools for the purpose of acquiring the languages spoken by the teachers of those schools, are they not expected, after a short time, to make the new languages the media of communication with all around them? Why then should not the case be so with the deaf and dumb? In coming to our institutions, the learning of the sign language is not their most important task. Their lives are not in a majority of cases to be passed among deaf-mutes, but in association with speaking people, and their great object is to acquire a means of communicating accurately with the world in general. The failure to do this, manifest in too many of the graduates of our institutions, stands forth as the gravest practical defect of our system, and is largely attributable, in the opinion of the writer, to the cause just recited, which may so readily be removed.” (E. M. Gallaudet, “The American System of Deaf-Mute Instruction–Its Incidental Defects and Their Remedies,” American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 3, p. 155.
Looking to the past does not give us the answers. There are lessons to be learned, sure, but that does not mean they got it right back then. In fact, I don’t think we still have gotten it right today. We’re always changing, sensitive to the forces active in today’s world.
I think that one thing is being overlooked here. I am not advocating that English be replaced by ASL. Nor am I advocating the opposite. Rather, what I am suggesting is that we use both languages. There is nothing wrong with ASL being used in the academic setting. Some people better express themselves in ASL and I think they should be allowed the opportunity to do so.
or should that be “the powers that were” …?
“the powers that were…”
That, as yet, remains to be seen.
I find that the base context for Gallaudet’s statement is telling: “When speaking children are sent to French or German schools for the purpose of acquiring the languages spoken by the teachers of those schools”- clearly, even in 1868, the powers that be recognized the value of having their children learn multiple languages. Children were being sent to schools for the purpose of becoming multilingual.
With all due respect, Cecily, Dr. Gallaudet was drawing an allegory in which he cited French and German as symbolic examples of English. He was not making any reference to “multiple languages,” but stating that prelingual deaf students could attain proficiency in English through constant exposure to and persistent usage of English. The academic reputation of the National Deaf-Mutes Institution meant a great deal to him. Just as the academic integrity of Gallaudet University is a real concern to us and each generation.
Actually, I disagree. There was strong nativist sentiment at that time against “those people” who spoke different languages and came from different countries, than the mostly anglo-saxon protestants who arrived earlier.
One factor that contributed to the ban on sign language was the sentiment that English was the “proper” language and any other language would sully the white, anglo-saxon ascendancy at that time. Even today, we still have those congresspersons (in Utah, for instance) saying that those people from over the border who speak a different language are “corrupting” America.
Gallaudet made a statement which he advocated that children be sent to French and German speaking schools, which those children used their native languages on a daily basis. I have no reason to believe he would not want the same for ASL.
In fact, it is my personal belief (I’m could probably prove it, pull up dozens of studies, but I’m lazy right now) that those same efforts to establish English as the dominant language in deaf education *is* of the largest sources of discontent in the deaf community. After all, when you grow up in an environment where the language you are most comfortable to, that is most accessible to you, is repeatedly mutiliated, denied to you, and degraded, it prevents you from having complete access to a language.
Any linguist will tell you that complete access to a language, a first language, NO MATTER what language, is the best predictor of future literacy development. I’m certain I could not find a published, respected, and degree-holding linguist anywhere who would disagree with that statement.
To think, all those attempts to deny deaf children access to ASL have often impaired their ability to acquire language at all!
With all due respect, Mr. or Ms. wildstarryskies, why do you hide behind the cloak of anonymity? Are you also too lazy to “pull up” Dr. Gallaudet’s original article, “The American System of Deaf-Mute Instruction–Its Incidental Defects and Their Remedies,” American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 3?
Yes, I am too lazy. I am a full time ASL teacher, and I am doing my finals. I already explained that up above. My students come first, so I do not have time to research. I have priorities, and providing evidence to convince you of my position is not one of them.
It is also common courtesy, that if you refer to quotes in an article, to provide a link so we can find it ourselves and check.
And I am not anonymous. Everyone here knows who I am, in fact, I was one of the presenters for the Blog/Vlog conference that took place last February. Everyone here know I am an “opinon” commenter who likes to debate points. In addition, I attended high school with Shane and JT. Hi there!
Feel free to disagree, but don’t pick a fight with someone unless you know who they really are and what qualifications they have.
And before you make any other assumptions, let me assure you that I am prelingually deaf, hold a post graduate degree from an ivy league school, and amazingly so, I am a Gally graduate as well. And I don’t try to pass off my observations as a “fact”, and try to include disclaimers when applicable. In fact, you’ll find a couple of them in the comment threads here.
Personal attacks are not very becoming, as I have learned from my experience.
Thank you.
Oh, and my name is Katie Roberts.
With all due respect, Katie, I know who you are and have an idea of your qualifications, but I disagree with you, I am not intimidated by you, and I will be happy to debate you anytime.
With all due respect, I quote you:
“With all due respect, Mr. or Ms. wildstarryskies, why do you hide behind the cloak of anonymity?”
I realize this is slightly off topic, but I feel strongly enough to say when people *always* begin their posts with ‘With all due respect,’ that tells me you have ZERO respect for the person you’re responding to.
My unsolicited advice is, if you want to have a honest and civil debate, quit the ‘with all due respect’ remarks.
Bert,
You are welcome to debate me. I have no interest in intimidating you or anyone else.
In that case, please refrain from personal slurs and attacking my so-called anonymity (especically since when you did know who I was?).
Tahnk you.
With all due respect, Katie, you told me your name was “Katie Roberts” in the post (#83715) above. Have a nice day.
With all due respect, you said,
“With all due respect, Mr. or Ms. wildstarryskies, why do you hide behind the cloak of anonymity?”
The wonderful thing about the internet is that your words are stored there for everyone to access at any time. After all, I see no reason to attack me for being “anonymous”, if you already knew who I was, other than an attempt to discredit me personally.
Have a nice day back to you too! HUGS.
WHERE IS THAT EDIT BUTTON??!!
Okay, let me repost the second paragrah -
After all, I see no reason to attack me for being “anonymous”,
if you already knew how I was, other than an attempt to discredit me personally.
Sorry.
I have to agree with Deaf Pundit. As of this writing, Mr. Shaposka has written 14 posts, all of them beginning with “With all due respect,” and they started out polite but they have grown much more barbed. I think the attack on Julie below was uncalled for, for example. It appears that you, Mr. Shaposka, have a very different perspective from many of us, and that is all right. I’m willing to listen and consider what you have to say, but not when you show contempt for your audience.
Have a wonderful day, with all due respect, sir.
With all due respect, Katie Roberts, Jenny (anonymous), and A Deaf Pundit (anonymous), I think you all suffer from severe cases of paranoia. Believe it or not, my form of address was intended as a gesture of respect. Case closed. Now with reference to the question of hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, I am willing to subject my beliefs and opinions to public scrutiny under my full Christian name. Assuming that you are equally adamant about your own beliefs and opinions, would it be too much to ask you to do the same? Who is attacking whom from behind the cloak of anonymity? Shall we now get back to the original topic of “Speech, Speech, Speech!”?
it must be a verbal tic in his part :)
Bert, I’m not really anonymous. I wrote a guest blog on here, and I have my own blogsite, which some entries have my real name on it. I just like the ‘A Deaf Pundit’ moniker.
I don’t appreciate the accusation of being paranoid, since we have never met each other in person, nor are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Nor do I understand why I am being accused of being paranoid when I am pointing out that your tone on here is considered to be offensive to many of us and indicates a lack of respect for us.
Now, onto the original topic of this blog… Multilingualism is a good thing. I don’t see how a person can reason that it is NOT a good thing.
With all due respect, A Deaf Pundit, you are anonymous because I have never heard of you and have never read your blogs or seen your blogsite. Therefore, you are anonymous as far as I am concerned. Before you take umbrage at me for calling you “paranoid,” I don’t think much of your reading things into my form of address and ulterior motives that aren’t there. Have a nice day.
Wow, this is becoming one of those Saturday Night Live skits or something. It’s really annoying but at the same time, it’s became really funny.
Incredible. Simply incredible. This is the first time I’ve ever been accused of being anonymous when using my real name. Now that takes the cake. Furthermore, we have every right to decide how we want to be known in cyberspace, and it is a personal choice that should be respected, as long as debate remains respectful.
I also agree with Deaf Pundit - I don’t appreciate being basically called a wide-eyed paranoiac for the exact same reasons she enumerates. A word to the wise, sir, when several people are saying your tone is offensive, the best response is not to accuse them of being paranoid. A clarification of your intentions, certainly, but an accusation? Not a way to gain respect from others.
Seconded, Deaf Pundit - Multilingualism is a wonderful thing.
*grins at WSS* yeah, I’m starting to wonder if this is really Bert, or some random troll trying to rile us up.
Anyway, I re-read Cecily’s speech, and I think what she said was admirable. Thanks for this blogpost, Julie. Enjoyed reading it!
Seconded, Jenny. I am not ashamed of my name, I am not ashamed of my opinions. I just do not want to be “googleable” by my students and my boss. I am a high school teacher, after all, and I have no interest whatsover in my students finding out what Ms- does in her free time. Although I’m pretty sure that someone pretty clever will figure it out eventually. I just would like to delay that moment as much as possible.
Anyone in the deaf community can find out who I am in a matter of minutes, so I’m not exactly “anonymous”
Bret, with that in mind, would you please stop typing my full name online? I don’t mind outing myself from time to time for clarity, but don’t do it again.
With all due respect, wildstarryskies (anonymous) and and Jenny (anonymous), I understand your reasons for not using your full Christian names. I am a free agent with no professional encumbrances and do not lie awake at night worrying about who “Googles” me. This cloak of anonymity thing is far from a dead issue, however, and it is already a popular topic of commentary in the media. So much for democracy and free speech. Have a good day.
I want to make clear on the so-called multilingual language usage on Gallaudet University are ASL and sign languages from other countries and written languages.
Cued speech, Language Contact, Signing Exact English and LOVE are not officially being part of the language family in any way. They are just communication modes, not language.
I agree with you, Julie that the superiority of English for the purpose of education at Gallaudet hurts much than being helpful.
I am speaking of deaf college students from other countries coming to the United States for higher education, especially deaf Arabic students. Those people definitely have a hard time to absorb the English language as compared to their Arabic language usage.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
With all due respect, Mr. Mason, regarding your comment that “the superiority of English for the purpose of education hurts…,” may I infer that you have just given a ringing endorsement to mediocre academic standards at Gallaudet University? Please explain.
This country blows when it comes to foreign languages. Funds for language departments are being cut and cut, as more time has to be focused on drilling the kids to muster through the No Child Left Behind mandated test batteries. Spanish and maybe French - whoopie doopie. That’ll let you tell the Mexicans what you want on your burritos and those stubborn Quebeckers how much molasses you want to buy…
In other countries (case in point - the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland among others) - the kids learn English starting at age 10, and in the equivalent of a college prep high school, they learn at least one other language. Makes it much easier to travel to other countries and not have to thumb through a translation book and end up asking a local in a grocery store “Please would food chuck in trashbag” instead of “Plastic bag please” or some other inane statement….
I’ve met people in the 20s who speak 4 or 5 languages fluently. And yet indeed, Americans struggle to comprehend their own native language of English. But interesting point to consider - the British are not well-known for their language proficiency. So perhaps the English language is a handicap…..
*giggle*
No, I think it’s becuase English is currently the dominant language in the world, so they don’t have much incentive to learn other languages. For the most part, it’s all about, “you do it OUR way!”
Basically.
it is because in the UK, modern languages is not taught in the majority of primary schools but that ll change. There are talks about having non-English languages taught to kids at the age of 4 at primary schools in Northern Ireland - now thats a step forward!
Bert, I did not mean to give the impression that I was teaming up with Cecily to gang up on you. That was far from it. I believe in healthy and honest discourse, which was what I was engaging in. I never mean to insult or belittle anyone. If you felt that way, I apologize.
Now with that said, it is clear that you have your position on this matter. That’s fine. My position is that I believe in the use of different languages for different purposes. I know that is a vague statement but I cannot be more specific because it depends far too much on the situation, e.g., who’s involved, what’s happening, etc.
With all due respect, Julie, I have certainly made my position clear and I regret some of the contrary opinions. Some of the comments are so softheaded and superficial that I do not believe the academic integrity of Gallaudet University can be salvaged. Perhaps the fact that you are prelingually deaf is the real cause of our widely divergent viewpoints. I believe this ideological divide will remain with us for the duration of Gallaudet’s existence.
“With all due respect”, a lot of people who actually know how the world works would agree with them.
Julie and Cecily have traveled extensively, lived, studied and worked in other countries. Where have you been? Other than commuting on the beltway, sipping beer at Heinz field and being a “runaway train”?
It’s interesting that you say, “perhaps the fact that you are prelingually deaf is the real cause…” Aren’t most deaf people prelingually deaf? Especially when talking about issues like academic standards at Gallaudet and fluency/knowledge/call-it-what-you-like in English and ASL.
That seems to be a weakness in arguments posed by deaf educators who are hearing or grew up hearing (i.e., did not receive their education as a deaf person OR did not acquire language as a deaf person). These educators assume they know what is best for deaf people without involving them in the discussion. That seems a bit silly to me.
With all due respect, Julie, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you want Gallaudet to be an all-inclusive university, so if you base enrollment on whether an applicant is prelingual or postlingual, the crux of the issue would be whether the applicant is capable of a satisfactory level of academic performance, would it not? For what it’s worth, I am not a hearing deaf educator, I received my education as a deaf person, and fortunately, I was able to internalize the roots of connected language. Given these facts, what, pray tell, is the weakness in my argument? Have a nice day.
With all due respect, Ben M, you are getting personal here, but to answer your questions, I have been in Pittsburgh and Wheeling, there is no Beltway in those cities, I don’t drink beer, and “the runaway train” is at Gallaudet University.
With all due respect, you should be ready to take if you’re going to give.
And since you’ve disavowed association with it, I can still enjoy beer.
With all due respect, I base my comments on the bio you gave for your guest blog:
http://www.deafdc.com/blog/?p=825
The beer comment aside, which was in jest, I repeat my question, where you have been?
The most relevant issue is, the entire world is going multilingual. Do you oppose this trend?
In all due respect, of course. ;)
With all due respect, the man said he has been to Pittsburgh and Wheeling. Although not exactly Kenya, the drive between these two cities–according to Google Maps–must have made him witness to cultural wonders at the PA cities of Bridgeville, Canonsburg, Claysburg and West Alexander and the WV city of Triadelphia.
Score one for Bert!
My coffee just went through my nose. Now I have to clean my keyboard. But thanks for injecting a little humor in my morning. :)
Chris Kaftan has just posted a blog (”The Elephant in the Corner”) which brings up an excellent point that has direct bearing on the question asked in the comments here. The question being, “what’s going o