5 Reasons Why You Should Maintain A Good Work-Life Balance
The brain-boosting benefits of bilingualism have been in the news quite a lot of late, and for good reason. The collective results of neurological and psychological studies show that bilingual thinking has a profound effect on the brain’s executive function, and bilingualism produces positive results in areas ranging from greater cognitive flexibility and faster response times to staving off dementia. With the backing of such staunch scientific proof, it seems only reasonable that educators, medical professionals and parents would advocate for bilingual education for children, and often they do; integrating foreign language learning into early education is an oft-cited goal for curriculum developers. But for deaf children, bilingualism as an educational option is ignored and in many cases even actively discouraged. The result is a child at risk of not mastering any languages, and therefore failing to reach his or her linguistic and cognitive potential.
It’s been proven since the 1960s that American Sign Language (ASL) has all the characteristics of a full and natural language, with a syntax and vocabulary independent of English, so the benefits of ASL-English bilingualism are the same as bilingualism between any two spoken languages. (I’m referring here to ASL and English, but the same holds true for signed and spoken language bilingualism in countries around the world.) So why would parents or educators try to stunt a child’s growth?
It isn’t a case of ill-intent, but rather simple misinformation. The media characterizes cochlear implants as miracle cures for deafness, and in the face of such impressive-sounding technology those who advocate for sign language education seem out-of-date or bitter about the potential loss of Deaf culture. In reality, though cochlear implants have provided hundreds of thousands of deaf people with unprecedented access to sound, as yet they cannot restore normal hearing. Success rates as to whether the user will be able to hear or understand sound and speech vary greatly, so deaf children accessing language solely through imperfect technology get fewer chances to acquire language than their hearing peers, and fall behind because of it.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not anti-technology, nor am I advocating for deaf separatism. Learning written and spoken English should be a top priority in deaf education; it’s essential for a successful integration into mainstream society. However, promoting speech shouldn’t mean sacrificing linguistic understanding, and it doesn’t have to. If given the chance, deaf children can acquire language through the natural process of incidental learning via signed language, because the visual modality allows for one-hundred percent access to linguistic information at all times. Having a strong linguistic foundation with which to think about language then allows a child to go on and learn a second language without frustration or the threat of developmental delay. But because of the stigma surrounding signing, children are often denied access to language in favor of promoting access to speech.
The arguments against ASL are many; the use of ASL prevents a child from learning to speak; learning ASL is hard; the distinct syntax and structure of ASL lowers deaf children’s reading levels. But the suggestion that ASL prevents a child from speaking is irrational, and illustrates a double standard in the education of deaf versus hearing children. Parents of a hearing child would never be instructed to stop speaking Spanish, French, Azerbaijani, etc, with their child in the worry that the child would not be able to learn English. In fact, teaching basic signs to hearing babies is trendy of late. It’s thought to decrease frustration, facilitate early communication and actually encourage speech. The idea that knowing two languages could hurt one’s reading ability is also tenuous. While some statistics show lower reading levels for deaf children, this data also includes children educated with oral methods, and research shows that children who have exposure both ASL and spoken English read better than those who know just one or the other. And the suggestion that verbal communication is easier for families should be met with question easier for whom?
With bilingualism, deaf children will not only catch up to their hearing peers, but also have access to the advantages of linguistic and cultural diversity experienced by bilingual thinkers everywhere. That is, if we let them.
Author Bio:
Sara Blazic is an instructor of undergraduate writing at Columbia University, freelance literary translator, and the founder of Redeafined (www.redeafined.com). You can also find her on Twitter @redeafined.
About the author
This post was written by a lovely contributor. If you would like to write for the Adventures in Technical Translation blog or participate in one of our ongoing series, please visit the Contributions page for more information. You can also check out the awesome contributions already published on our blog.
You may also like
Keep it up. I think the case you make here and in the past for the benefits of ASL is so logical and balanced, it is hard to comprehend how others fail to see how it can be beneficial. I like that you do not present an either/or argument but best/best.
An idea came to me while reading this, that if there are benefits for hearing children to be raised bilingually, why can’t that foreign/second language be ASL? It should give them all the developmental benefits of learning a second language while at the same time raising up children who are comfortable with conversing in ASL.
Thanks for reading, John. I agree; with the benefits of bilingualism increasingly apparent, it seems silly not to include multiple languages in every child’s curriculum, particularly at the early and elementary level, when the brain absorbs language the most. If that second language could be ASL, well that’d just be icing on the cake!
I am very curious now, Sara. Does Cued Speech have a place in this Bilingualism?
Hi Grady,
Cued Speech is not a language in and of itself, but rather a handshape system with which one can make the invisible phonemic aspects of spoken language (in this case, English) visually explicit. Since Cued Speech isn’t a language, knowing Cued Speech does not make one bilingual. However, in my opinion, Cued Speech can be a valuable tool for teaching deaf children about speech and phonics, so cuing in relation to the English-learning portion of ASL-English bilingualism is definitely something for parents and educators to consider.
To read more about Cued Speech on our website, check out answers to the FAQs of cuing here: http://www.redeafined.com/2012/05/whats-deal-with-cued-speech-faqs.html
Thanks for reading!
“Learning written and spoken English should be a top priority in deaf education…”
It should be mandatory for learning written English and an optional for learning spoken English.
Learning written English is achievable and the individual success will benefit greatly in mainstreamed society. However, learning spoken English is incredible tough. It take lot of focus and practice to learn spoken English. The spoken English is seen as ‘Trojan Horse’ in deaf community that ushered in different audiotry-verbal training take over the sign language premise.
The truth is those deaf child who try to learn spoken English will fall behind in cognitive and emotional development.
The deaf child needs a invested time in learning true bilingualism which are ASL and written English. With those foundation established and the child can learn spoken English effectively. In long run, some will be able to speak and other don’t. When they fail the spoken English and they have high profiency of written English and ASL to fall back on and can function in mainstreamed society comfortable.
“If given the chance, deaf children can acquire language through the natural process of incidental learning via signed language, because the visual modality allows for one-hundred percent access to linguistic information at all times.”
This is only true if the child is surrounded with signing adults and peers– such as is found at a state school for the Deaf. If the child is the only one in his school/home/neighborhood that signs –and that is highly likely given the incidence of Deafness in the population– then his access to incidental learning is still blocked.
I would suggest that the language deficits are NOT the major handicapping consequence of Deafness. It is the lack of incidental learning that causes so much educational havoc. I work with high school age deaf children. The reading and writing problems are very real, and I don’t deny them, but those can be worked around using an interpreter (while they are also being addressed by the Deaf Ed teacher). What cannot be worked around is the lack of so much basic information. ‘Why everyone knows what a jury is, even if they’ve never been involved in court.’ That is wrong. Deaf kids only know what has been specifically taught to them. The state mandated tests are chock full of ‘everyone knows’ bits of information. All that stuff that we pick up from overhearing people around us, from radio, from TV… A Deaf child gets NONE of that, unless he is not only ASL literate, but also surrounded by people who also sign at all times in his presence.
I’m in the ASL program at Columbia College Chicago and our teacher wanted us to read this. All I have to say is that it is truly sad that the old “hearing” mind set of “fixing” Deaf people still makes things complicated. Too many chefs in the kitchen, it’s 2012 already! Let Deaf people sign, and not it isn’t hard to learn ASL, you just have to use it!