Not so David Eberwein - hearing babies vs deaf babies on signing
Not too long ago I posted a video of my 1 year old hearing daughter signing during her 1st birthday party which easily showed the communicative value on signing. What makes signing so helpful for hearing babies/toddlers up to 2 to 3 years old is that they can communicate readily with their hands since their vocal cords are not mature enough for them to start speaking. In my video everybody was talking and not signing to my daughter for her respond correctly with signs. Most signs by hearing babies are related to important signs that address their basic needs and requests such as “hungry,” “food”, “milk”, “ice cream”, “drink”, “candy” and so on going into more specific food groups as the baby gets older while their signing vocabulary expands. This includes basic enjoyment requests from the baby/toddler such as “book,” “movie,” “toy,” and so on. It is clear that hearing babies/toddlers do understand what their parents are saying when they use their voice as evidenced in my video of my daughter at age 1 year. But what about toddlers who are hard of hearing? What are the benefits in the ability to understand speech and recognize sound at that age? What are the benefits to help develop speech and listening skills as the child gets older?
Recently David Eberwein, a Deaf person, said something that struck me as wishful thinking in his “press release” comment prior to the ABG protest soon to take place later this week:
First off, babies born with hearing loss are not automatically Deaf. The word “Deaf” denotes people who are culturally deaf. Babies are born with a wide ranging amount and type of hearing loss from mild to profound. All babies or toddlers with hearing loss do not belong exclusively to the Deaf community but to the parents of that child. This is not to say that deaf/hoh babies shouldn’t learn sign language, they should. It gives them the edge on communicating with their parents regardless of their hearing status.
Having said that, it is equally important for babies with better hearing maintain their familiarity with sounds and words, and learn to develop their speech making skills whether it’s through hearing aids or cochlear implants. Receptive skills whether it’s aurally or visually are important when it comes to communication. Perhaps babies with better hearing would at first use sign language and then progress to using CUED speech after their vocal cords have already matured by age two or so and gradually drop out (or not) the signing portion. And when the child is much older (if hearing receptive skills and words discrimination are excellent) progress to speech and listening only with no need for CUED speech assistance. An example such as this may be good for children who are hard of hearing that can use what good hearing left as a source for their feedback loop to help with their speech and listening skills while using their hearing aids. Children with much more severe hearing loss could indeed fare better with signing (e.g SEE, ASL) but cochlear implant is changing all that on how it can help improve speech intelligibility with the help of CUED speech.
In order to understand that there are various reasons why parents would choose a non-signing approach over, for example, CUED speech or aural/oral approach you need to read a story about a hearing mother’s adoption of a deaf orphaned child from the Ukraine. Reading this story provides an alternative perspective on what a typical hearing mother may do in order to help her deaf child. This mother describes in her website her careful research about deafness, ASL, Cochlear Implant, the Deaf community, oral schools, Gallaudet University, CUED speech in order for her to make a decision on how she can help her deaf child with her education, English language development and acquire crucial communication skills. This is one extreme end when you have a profoundly deaf child compared to a child with mild or even moderate hearing loss on developing good listening and speaking skills alongside with good English language development.
All in all, advocating for all babies to take the early advantage of sign language to help facilitate early communication would be far better to promote than to protest and demand that all babies/toddlers who have a hearing loss ought to use ASL only and eventually become just as proficient in the English language. Doing so would be, in my view, a bit reckless and even militant in trying to get every baby with a hearing loss into the Deaf world with that approach. I’m sorry, David Eberwein, that kind of "militant" in thinking just won’t work. This would be especially so if you go around calling babies with hearing loss as “Deaf” babies. Just promote sign language for all babies and leave it at that, and let the parents make the informed decision on which particular communication mode would be best for their child. As always, each child is different in their ability and skills when it comes to good communication and English language development. This is especially true if they do take advantage of their ability to hear whether it's a hearing aid or cochlear implant. Sound is important. So is communication.
UPDATE: David Eberwein seems like a nice fellow. However, just because somebody's nice doesn't mean everybody must agree with his opinions. Or even agree with on how uses the words (e.g. "Deaf babies") . Not so. I made the opinion that saying "Deaf babies" for all deaf babies may be seen as militant in thinking by some people which is different than calling somebody outright as being militant (e.g. "David is a Deaf militant"). That was never my intention when my opinion was about the words "Deaf babies" he used and not about attacking the person himself.
Now, people need to get a grip here and stop with the ad hominem attacks nonsense by twisting the facts and just being plain petulent. Ad hominem attacks are not the same as presenting arguments. If you think you have a better one, show it to me. Convince me. But to call names is not even a sign of intelligence. Even a 10 year old kid can tell you that.
Recently David Eberwein, a Deaf person, said something that struck me as wishful thinking in his “press release” comment prior to the ABG protest soon to take place later this week:
“We want all Deaf babies to be proficient in both ASL and English.”
First off, babies born with hearing loss are not automatically Deaf. The word “Deaf” denotes people who are culturally deaf. Babies are born with a wide ranging amount and type of hearing loss from mild to profound. All babies or toddlers with hearing loss do not belong exclusively to the Deaf community but to the parents of that child. This is not to say that deaf/hoh babies shouldn’t learn sign language, they should. It gives them the edge on communicating with their parents regardless of their hearing status.
Having said that, it is equally important for babies with better hearing maintain their familiarity with sounds and words, and learn to develop their speech making skills whether it’s through hearing aids or cochlear implants. Receptive skills whether it’s aurally or visually are important when it comes to communication. Perhaps babies with better hearing would at first use sign language and then progress to using CUED speech after their vocal cords have already matured by age two or so and gradually drop out (or not) the signing portion. And when the child is much older (if hearing receptive skills and words discrimination are excellent) progress to speech and listening only with no need for CUED speech assistance. An example such as this may be good for children who are hard of hearing that can use what good hearing left as a source for their feedback loop to help with their speech and listening skills while using their hearing aids. Children with much more severe hearing loss could indeed fare better with signing (e.g SEE, ASL) but cochlear implant is changing all that on how it can help improve speech intelligibility with the help of CUED speech.
In order to understand that there are various reasons why parents would choose a non-signing approach over, for example, CUED speech or aural/oral approach you need to read a story about a hearing mother’s adoption of a deaf orphaned child from the Ukraine. Reading this story provides an alternative perspective on what a typical hearing mother may do in order to help her deaf child. This mother describes in her website her careful research about deafness, ASL, Cochlear Implant, the Deaf community, oral schools, Gallaudet University, CUED speech in order for her to make a decision on how she can help her deaf child with her education, English language development and acquire crucial communication skills. This is one extreme end when you have a profoundly deaf child compared to a child with mild or even moderate hearing loss on developing good listening and speaking skills alongside with good English language development.
All in all, advocating for all babies to take the early advantage of sign language to help facilitate early communication would be far better to promote than to protest and demand that all babies/toddlers who have a hearing loss ought to use ASL only and eventually become just as proficient in the English language. Doing so would be, in my view, a bit reckless and even militant in trying to get every baby with a hearing loss into the Deaf world with that approach. I’m sorry, David Eberwein, that kind of "militant" in thinking just won’t work. This would be especially so if you go around calling babies with hearing loss as “Deaf” babies. Just promote sign language for all babies and leave it at that, and let the parents make the informed decision on which particular communication mode would be best for their child. As always, each child is different in their ability and skills when it comes to good communication and English language development. This is especially true if they do take advantage of their ability to hear whether it's a hearing aid or cochlear implant. Sound is important. So is communication.
UPDATE: David Eberwein seems like a nice fellow. However, just because somebody's nice doesn't mean everybody must agree with his opinions. Or even agree with on how uses the words (e.g. "Deaf babies") . Not so. I made the opinion that saying "Deaf babies" for all deaf babies may be seen as militant in thinking by some people which is different than calling somebody outright as being militant (e.g. "David is a Deaf militant"). That was never my intention when my opinion was about the words "Deaf babies" he used and not about attacking the person himself.
Now, people need to get a grip here and stop with the ad hominem attacks nonsense by twisting the facts and just being plain petulent. Ad hominem attacks are not the same as presenting arguments. If you think you have a better one, show it to me. Convince me. But to call names is not even a sign of intelligence. Even a 10 year old kid can tell you that.
posted by . | 4:33 PM
<< Home