Interest on ASL on the Decline?

Not just American Sign Language that has been on the down trend over the last several years in Google search but interest in terms like "deafhood," and "a*dism" are also on the downturn as seen in Google Trends. Check out the graphs below.  

Just a bit of factoid thrown in here I think that would interest you.

Deaf News Galore

Deaf policemen of Mexico.

Bullet kills deaf man in home robbery attempt.

Author implores deaf students to chase their dreams - “Deaf people can do anything,” Willman told a group of students and faculty at Iowa School for the Deaf.

I. King Jordan Proves That ‘Deaf People Can Do Anything—but Hear’ - “In the past, people saw limitations,” he says. “People defined me and other deaf people by what we couldn’t do.”

Free ASL classes for families with deaf children.

ASL vs Signed English Video Music of "Do I"

Here's a video of a song that is signed using the ASL version versus the SEE/English (signed English word order) version. The music is "Do I" by Luke Bryan signed by Allyballybabe. Here is what she has to say between the two signed versions.

I wanted to show the differences between ASL and SEE/English. There is a HUGEEEE difference, and hopefully this helps to see that. SEE and English SL are NOT languages. ASL, however, IS a language! Enjoy!

When searching for YouTube vids, be sure to take notice of if it is REALLY ASL, or if it's SEE/English that is mislabeled.. There are LOTS of SEE/English YouTubers out there. If you're wanting TRUE ASL, take caution..

Click on YouTube to get to her site containing the lyrics in English and in ASL gloss.

I agree. There is a stark difference. Just like that female astronaut who signed in PSE/SE/SEE (i.e. English word order) and certainly not in ASL. And thus no one can claim that first ASL was signed in outer space. Nearly 75% of those who answered my poll agreed that the female astronaut signed in an English word order format whether it's PSE, SEE, or SE. The point is that the majority saw the astronaut signed in English, not ASL which has a markedly different grammar and syntax than English. So, it's the signed English word order (whether it's PSE, SE, or SEE) that made into outer space. American Sign Language (ASL) never made it into outerspace but sign language did. So, don't call it ASL but sign language. It may be awhile til a true ASL signing astronaut will be seen from outer space. Meanwhile, let's celebrate the fact that sign language made its first debut in outer space in 2010!

Huzzah!

Deaf culture? Yes. Blind culture? No. Arrogance?

Alicia made a response today in a blog called "Why do deaf people want to be considered a culture and not a disability, but not blind people? "

Because while Deaf people have their own language, arts, poetry, stories, and so forth... blind people do not.

Says who? Isn't this rather an arrogant thing to say? Would it be arrogant and perhaps selfish for a Deaf person to say that?  For anybody to say that?

In an old discussion forum from several years ago one person who is blind had this to say about "Blind culture."

Does blindness have a culture? I've asked this question a number of times in various situations and the most common answer is "no". The subject of whether blindness has borne a culture is a topic of debate in many blindness-related forums and meetings.

The existence of a deaf culture is not in dispute. Many people are proud to be counted in that community and consider their inability to hear to be a characteristic and not a disability. Blindness is viewed in almost the opposite light. It's odd.there are many people who would attach certain characteristics and behaviors to all blind, and yet deny that we have a culture of our own.

To admit that blindness was more than a disability, that it was a cultural characteristic of which we could be proud, would be like finally admitting that we are not the pitiful creatures that the media, and some of society, usually portray. To call us a culture would be like recognizing our uniqueness without belittling it. Would it be an accurate term though? Are we truly a culture?

I posit that we are. Many of us use a form of written communication that differs from the mainstream. Braille bears no visual resemblance to the written alphabet and only a person trained to read Braille can do so. And, it is a form of reading and writing unique to the blind. Even (most) visually impaired print readers have to either get their materials from an alternative source, or use technical aides to enhance the print.

The need to do this is unique to the visually impaired. Like some signing deaf people need an aural interpreter, those of us not around our chosen written medium need someone as a print interpreter. We may share the same language as the majority, but the way in which we access printed material differs markedly

Alyssa Hopfe continues and note the bolded words....

Let's review the major points though. I believe we are a culture because: Many of us share a 'written' language, or at the very least, the need to have an alternative method of accessing materials.

We share linguistic traits unique to the blind.

We are a minority symbolically identified as being unique among those around us.

We are linked by the attitudes of those around us and by the problems we face.

A number of us live in similar economic conditions.

We form groups to further the aims of the whole.

We share some methods of understanding our world and we sometimes share mannerisms.

We share internal conflicts alien to the larger community.

We are intrinsically linked by the concerns that we have.

Now for the benefits of recognizing our status as a culture rather than just a group or community. People would begin to see blindness as a characteristic rather than a problem to be solved. People wouldn't automatically assume that we are hopeless or that we'd sell our souls for sight. Whatever divisions within, discrimination would be met with a powerful response. Our unique ways of gathering information would be seen as cultural traits.

We would develop more pride in ourselves with the knowledge that we were a culture and that our "mannerisms" (some of us have them) were a norm. People would be less apt to say "So and so succeeded DESPITE his blindness" and may even start to see blindness as a component of the success.

Organizations and corporations would be forced to accommodate us as they have the deaf (closed captioning for them, audio description for us).

Readers would be bound by an official code of ethics. Complete integration or "normalization" wouldn't be one of the goals considered when educating the blind. Medical breakthroughs wouldn't be heralded as "the only true road to equality" and they wouldn't be what we supposedly pine for the most. One of the largest pluses would be that blind people would be hired to work with other blind people as a matter of course and respect for a unique culture. No longer would a sighted person be considered an optimum teacher for a blind person. American Sign Language (ASL) is considered by many to be a complex and beautiful language, whereas Braille is seen as a last resort. This double standard MUST end.

In order to gain respect, and for blindness to be seen in it's proper light, I believe that we need to recognize our special status as a culture and act accordingly. We should hold our heads up and be proud of what we are! Yes, proud.blindness and all. We should call ourselves what we truly are, by virtue of bonds formed by language, experiences and concerns.we are a culture. For those of you who disagree with my stance, I ask that you at least consider the possibility that what I say has merit.

To deny or not recognize blind people as having a Blind culture would be the same as not recognizing Deaf people of their own culture as well. Doing so would be an act of arrogance.

AB2072 bill - more potential ASL support than thought.

In the most recent amended AB2072 bill as of August 17, 2010, in the panel members designation section starting on page 3, the bill recommends in setting up a panel that consists of 13 members of which possibly up to 5 members with ASL (i.e. visual language instead of "visual communication") background or experiences could be appointed to the panel. That's more than a fair share in seeing that ASL gets represented fairly on the panel (see the bolded words below) where the panel is to help produce an unbiased informational pamphlet. Even with the fact that 3 of the 5 could be appointed by the Governor. So, please, let's not get into what's fair or not fair here or other "wild-eyed" conspiracy claims that this bill tilts favorably to the medical establishment. It clearly does not.

The panel shall be composed of 13 members, as follows:

(A) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses auditory-oral language, appointed by the Governor.

(B) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL, appointed by the Governor.

(C) An educator of the deaf in an auditory-oral educational setting, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.

(D) An educator of the deaf in a visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL education setting, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.

(E) A parent representative of a child who primarily uses auditory-oral communication methods, appointed by the Governor.

(F) A parent representative of a child who primarily uses visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL, appointed by the Governor.

(G) A representative of a nonprofit organization that services primarily auditory-oral learners, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.

(H) A representative of a nonprofit organization that services primarily visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL learners, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.

(I) A researcher engaged in the study of auditory-oral communication for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, appointed by the Governor.

(J) A researcher engaged in the study of visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL, and communication modalities for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, appointed by the Governor.

(K) An audiologist who specializes in evaluating and treating infants, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.

(L) A physician who specializes in pediatric otolaryngology, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.

(M) The Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his or her designee, who shall be an ex officio member."

What are the "risks" for ASL option in the AB2072 bill?

Ok. Like I said before, many of us already know the benefits of ASL but what many people have not really touched upon at all is the risks of using ASL. Yesterday I blogged about the AB2072 bill with its new language regarding the risks and benefits of each communication option in the bill which raised the question exactly what would the risks be for an ASL communication option (i.esigning option)? It's like during an interview you give everything positive about yourself but the table gets turned when the interviewer asks you to describe the negative part about yourself. This is exactly what I was getting at in my blog yesterday. Nothing puzzling about it. It just raises new questions on the "risk" part of ASL in the AB2072 bill that requires that information in a future pamphlet for parents of babies born with a hearing loss.

Let's help with the "risk" part for this future pamphlet on the ASL option for parents of babies born with a hearing loss. Tell the readers here in the comment section on what those risks may be. Please, no descriptions or comments on the advantages or benefits for ASL since we already know that. What I and many others are interested in are the risks description part. I will use my descretion as a moderator to include only comments that discuss the "risk" part of the ASL communication option (i.e. signing). I will also delete comments that do not follow my request. You've been warned! Discuss only the risk part, please.

Let's the commenting start!

ADDENDUM: No "jokey" risk comments, too. Just as the AB2072 would request risks and benefits for oral or other communication options as part of the information packet in a pamphlet so will the outline be required for the ASL option, too, on risks and benefits. The focus here is on "risks."

AB2072 - risks and benefits for ASL option

If you haven't read the updated and revised AB2072 bill that came out last week in the effort to help provide crucial information for parents of babies born with hearing loss by providing:

an unbiased, comprehensive, evidence-based informational pamphlet for newborns and infants identified as deaf or hard of hearing about visual and auditory communication and language options including, but not limited to, American Sign Language (ASL), and Listening and Spoken Language, that is sufficient to allow a parent to make an informed decision on which options to choose for his or her child.

Well, that's good and dandy. And just to be fair for each of the visual, auditory and language options the pamplet must also provide risks and benefitis for each of the option provided, including ASL seen on page 3 of the bill.

The pamphlet shall contain both benefits and risks of all options.....

In other words, this pamphlet MUST provide benefits and risks for the ASL option as well as for any options described in it. And in an unbiased manner, too. It'd be foolish and folly to think that ASL will be excluded from the risk part if every other options must describe the benefits and risks when everything is of equal weight and value in terms of information provided for the parents....in an unbiased manner.

We already know the benefits but what are the risks for the ASL option? I could probably name a few potential risks in using the ASL option. Although I'm surprised nobody even saw this little line regarding the "benefits and risks" that must be described for each option. This should get interesting on what ASL stakeholders will say about this one. It'll be equally interesting to see exactly what the risks are for the ASL option coming from ASL stakeholders, too, who will undoubtedly be a part of this pamplet development in an advisory stakeholder panel.

My, my...a can of worms from this bill? A conundrum? A new warning label for the ASL option from ASL stakeholders?

Video: How to promote a positive picture of ASL without attacking...

The simplest and best to way to promote ASL is to focus on the positive only. No need to attack individuals or organizations for having a different opinion or philosophy. Below is my 1994 video of my hearing daughter, Heather, at her 1st birthday showing her cute way of responding to family's request on how to sign certain words. This is her at exactly 1 year old seeing how precocious of a child she was at the time when it came to signing and understanding the spoken language. This is exactly how ASL can be promoted in such a positive and enjoyable manner to parents of hearing and deaf children.

I am responding here to show people that I do support ASL for children with hearing loss. I even support the use of signing for hearing and deaf/hh babies because the benefit is the ease of communication for the baby or toddler. But in the same vein I also support the parents right and duty to make an informed decision regarding communication and educational options for their child with a hearing loss. Depending on circumstances or philosophies if the parents make an informed decision and decide to forgo signing then we have to respect that and move on.

Amy Cohen exemplified this very simple concept on the promotion of ASL a few years back in a discussion lost somewhere in the pages of Google history. I agree with her that the best way to promote ASL for children is to focus only on the positive. If there are leaders or people directly connected to an organization trying to promote ASL that have a habit of making personal and public attacks to other individuals or organizations then that organization will not succeed in its goal. It will fail. Why? Because people get turned off when an organization decides to go from a positive goal to a negative one. A goal cannot be achieved if one decides to focus more on the negative attacking than the promotion of ASL. Someone needs to make a decision on how this goal is achieved and maintained. I have no tolerance when I get personally attacked on a very public internet by an organization trying to promote ASL. I have my own opinions and philosophies. Either privately agree to disagree and move on. For an organization to publicly attack people can only make it look weaker and raises questions on the integrity of an organization's own goal in promoting the positive value and benefits of ASL to young children with hearing loss.

Kokonut Pundit's ASL video message to deaf community

Here it is folks. My signed message to the deaf and hard of hearing community. Something to help dispel some myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings. Basically it's time to start with my signing and video-taping. I've been thinking about this for a few months now and I suppose there is no better time than now to bring out this video for you fans (and not so friendly fans) of Kokonut Pundit. I plan to do a 2nd video later on tonight since this first video I didn't have time to finish the rest of what I wanted to say and still have some thoughts left over. At any rate, here's my first video to help squelch some rumors and more.

Mike Sign Message to Deaf Community Part 1

RIT Library Guide References Kokonut Pundit's blog piece

An interesting tidbit I found out recently. RIT library listed my blog by linking under "Deaf Native American Resources" to a piece I did about whether ASL has hurt Indian Sign Language where it is slowly disappearing. Scroll down to "Web Resources" to find my blog name.