quote: There is no evidence that languages shape anyone's ability to think.
Maybe I have little imagination, but I cannot imagine thinking abstractly without knowing a language.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Children do not learn language faster than adults.
Can you elaborate? Because I have seen research directly that contradicts this.
quote: 9) Being Hearing is *not* better than being Deaf. It is just "different".
9a) Do not try to cure the Deaf. The Deaf do not want to be cured. Deafness is not a "defect". It is a variation.
I don't see how you can classify missing one entire type of sensory perception that the rest of the population has as anything other than a defect, and how you can say it would not be better to have five senses than to have only four. Except if wishing makes it so.
Sorry if I am taking a tongue-in-cheek thread way too literally.
posted
I grew up with people in the deaf community--many of the opinions attributed to the community at large in the ASL thread are things I did not perceive. It all seems very PC to me.
They may or may not want to tell themselves these things, but it's sour grapes.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Icarus, I *so* agree. And that is what we are mocking. But there do seem to be people who feel this way.
It reminds me of how homosexuals feel about being told they have a defect and not liking people to want to "cure" them. It is all a matter of perspective.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:Children do not learn language faster than adults.
Can you elaborate? Because I have seen research directly that contradicts this.
I became fairly fluent in Tagalog far faster than a child can learn their first language.
The reasoning is that my mind is already mapped out in one language, so it isn't that much of a "jump" to map out another.
But because of the developmental state that children are in, they will learn languages more *completely* than adults learning additional language. They will pick up on the nuances of accent, the subtle changes in sound that are important phonemes in that language.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Icarus, I *so* agree. And that is what we are mocking. But there do seem to be people who feel this way.
It reminds me of how homosexuals feel about being told they have a defect and not liking people to want to "cure" them. It is all a matter of perspective.
Woah, woah, woah. Me no likes that comparison. There are significant differences. Being deaf isn't really anything but a malus. You can't hear, you lose music, sound, a lot of beauty. There's no natural reason for people to go deaf, it just happens, same as people losing their sight and needing glasses or going blind.
Homosexuality is another matter. There is some evidense that homosexuality is natures own built in method of population control. And being homosexual really isn't a problem, they can get all the same sexual pleasures a heterosexual can in their own ways, and there are certainly more than enough kids in need of adoption that having a few more couples that can't have kids of their own but want kids really isn't a bad thing at all. Yea it is a genetic defect (we think), but in this case it might be there for a REASON. And in any case its sorta helpful to society at large (or it would be if we could just get over it and accept it).
Deafness, on the other hand, royally sucks for those who are deaf. They learn to live with it obviously. But if you could give them their hearing back, and would anyone really turn that down (aside from old people too set in their ways to bear the thought of change)?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I wasn't sure if you were advancing these ideas or mocking them, or a little of both.
On the language thing, maybe you pick up a second language faster than a child picks up a first. But I don't think that's what the claim is. I think the claim is that a child who has already picked up a first language--and so has already made some of those connections--can pick up a second language more quickly than an adult. I have seen the studies, but my own anecdotal evidence is mixed. I arrived at kindergarten not knowing a word of English. The teacher did not speak Spanish, nor did any of my classmates (maybe one or two, but at this point in time, I was still a relative anomaly as a Spanish speaker). I learned English very quickly. Within a matter of weeks, actually. After half of a school year, I was responding to my parents, who were speaking Spanish to me, in English without even realizing that I was doing it. On the other hand, when I took half a semester of French in graduate course, although I was doing well in the course, I certainly did not find that it came to me as easily, though a second romance language should have been easier to learn than a germanic one (to a non-English speaker).
And yet, in the case of my daughters, learning one language at all was a struggle--heck, it still is a struggle to pick up little nuances, like "What we are doing?" "I drinked my water" and "I falled down." And so we have not taught them Spanish, because we felt that this would interfere with the ability to learn English well.
So in my own life, the evidence is inconclusive. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Deafness, on the other hand, royally sucks for those who are deaf. They learn to live with it obviously. But if you could give them their hearing back, and would anyone really turn that down (aside from old people too set in their ways to bear the thought of change)?
quote:9) Being Hearing is *not* better than being Deaf. It is just "different".
9a) Do not try to cure the Deaf. The Deaf do not want to be cured. Deafness is not a "defect". It is a variation.
Yeah, right. While I understand that some deaf people feel this way, there's not a single hearing person that would put their money where their mouth is on this issue. And I bet that it wouldn't be hard to find any number of deaf people that disagree too.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I have to say that I tried to take Chinese immersion method and (I don't use this word lightly) it sucked.
Most adults get 1 hour a day (with summers off) to learn a language in and it takes them three years. A baby gets a lot more daily hours and it takes a long time. Depends on the kid.
So did you ever get back to us on why Chomsky makes you screw up your eyes?
quote:Yeah, right. While I understand that some deaf people feel this way, there's not a single hearing person that would put their money where their mouth is on this issue. And I bet that it wouldn't be hard to find any number of deaf people that disagree too.
This reasoning still applies to the homosexual community. I haven't met one who doesn't say "If I could choose to be straight, it would be so much easier..."
[ January 06, 2005, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People do turn it down. It may be like a window of opportunity thing, like with other language development.
After all, that's what we're talking about here. You take a deaf person and give them their hearing . . . . HELLO! Unless they became deaf gradually, you have given them the ability to hear, but not the ability to comprehend spoken language. Suddenly they find themselves in the same situation many of us find when we have to try to learn a new language as an adult.
And when you have spent a lifetime in quiet, noise can be pretty scary too.
I can see how, once accustomed to deafness, you might turn down the gift of hearing.
But I still say it's clearly best to have been able to hear all along.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: But if you could give them their hearing back, and would anyone really turn that down (aside from old people too set in their ways to bear the thought of change)?
Yes. Absolutely. Being Deaf is part of their identity. They have never been hearing, and they don't want to be. They don't think they are missing out on anything important.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the claim is that a child who has already picked up a first language--and so has already made some of those connections--can pick up a second language more quickly than an adult.
Actually, this is probably true. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yeah, right. While I understand that some deaf people feel this way, there's not a single hearing person that would put their money where their mouth is on this issue.
Meaning what exactly?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I still say it's clearly best to have been able to hear all along.
Well of course *we* would say that.
Anyone seen the ST:TNG episode where Troi loses her ability to sense the emotions of others? Everyone is like, "Dude, what's the big deal?" And she is devistated at losing her 6th sense.
If you have never heard music, what would motivate you to want to? If you have never heard sound, you aren't going to care that much about it.
Those who lose their hearing after knowing it, now that is a whole 'nother story. But they usually aren't Deaf, they are deaf. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Well, like some of the other ideas in this thread. The thought that grammar is inborn in us gets tossed around by "composition theorists" to the point where it has become accepted as a truism. And, anecdotally, based on my own experiences as an English teacher who started my career out believing this hokum because my grad school teachers told me it was so, and those of my wife who was smart enough not to buy into this line of reasoning in the first place, and watching tons of kids go through schools I have worked at over the past ten years, this just isn't so. Those of us who are avid readers convince ourselves that it is because we used grammar nearly perfectly without knowing what the heck a gerund was, but this was not because we had an intrinsic sense of it, but because we picked it up contextually from our reading. People who don't pick up grammar through reading, because they don't read enough, do benefit from having formal grammar taught to them. So do those of us who did pick it up effortlessly, by the way, because we can always learn to use it better. The unfortunate result of Chomsky's doctrine, though, is that many English teachers no longer teach grammar at all. It has become unfashionable, too, so that those who do are scorned. And there is a reason behind this. Most Language Arts teachers teach Language Arts because they love literature, not because they are linguists. And so this takes from them the responsibility to carry out a part of their jobs they find tedious, and frees them up to spend more time on literature.
But, in my experience, it tends to do their students a disservice.
quote: Meaning that hearing people all view deafness as a bad thing.
Well duuuh.
Bringing this back to homosexuality, how many straight men feel pity for the man who is incapable of being pleasured by a woman? How many think, "You just don't know what you are missing, man!!"
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Anyone seen the ST:TNG episode where Troi loses her ability to sense the emotions of others? Everyone is like, "Dude, what's the big deal?" And she is devistated at losing her 6th sense.
I enjoy watching Troi suffer far too much in that episode.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note how assiduously I avoid the homosexuality tangent!
Hearing people would say it is best to be hearing. Deaf people would say it is not. So this means it is all relative and there is no true best?
I disagree. I think it is self-evidently better to have more senses than less, provided your brain is wired in such a way as to be capable of processing all of the input.
And so, to those Deaf people who say being hearing is not better, I will quite arrogantly say that they are fooling themselves, that they are believing a convenient fiction.
Like I said: sour grapes.
Which does not mean I do not understand why a deaf person would turn down the ability to hear.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The unfortunate result of Chomsky's doctrine, though, is that many English teachers no longer teach grammar at all.
This is unfortunate.
Just because we are "hardwired for language" does not mean that we will immediately grasp all the nuances of the grammar of any one language. Like my example of only recently becoming aware of "If I were" instead of "If I was". I functioned and communicated quite well without the distinction. But being able to make the distinction, putting it into words if you will, between "If I were" and "I was" (I believe) has a defining effect on my thoughts.
It is my opinion that grammar/syntax is what allows us to "placehold" our thoughts. Kinda like how math gets to a point that we just can't picture the numbers anymore. It is easy to visualize three objects, right? You can tell at a glance three from four. But can you tell at a glance ten from eleven? Probably not. The use of numbers in math allows us to "placehold" our thoughts. It is a tool, a stepping stone, to higher thought and sentience. Abstract thought is either impossible or highly handicapped without it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oh, I agree. I was referring to grammar specifically. Did I misinterpret you in that other thread?
Yeah. You may have thought I take Chomsky's "inborn grammar" hook, line, and sinker. I don't, really. I thought it was an interesting idea, but I never believed it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, on surly days, I know just how you feel. Star Trek: TNG is not for surly people. That's why there is the original series. Double handed hammer hit to the back, anyone?
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And so, to those Deaf people who say being hearing is not better, I will quite arrogantly say that they are fooling themselves, that they are believing a convenient fiction.
I know you are avoiding the homosexuality can of worms, but I will just point out that just as this is your opinion and you have your reasons, I have my reasons for holding mine about homosexuality. But they are not the joking reason I provided above. They are based on doctrinal assumptions that cannot be proven at this time. But the reasons are there, and they make sense. Edit: They make sense only *if* you accept the doctrinal assumptions that cannot be proven, of course.
quote:Suddenly they find themselves in the same situation many of us find when we have to try to learn a new language as an adult.
Actually, it's apparently worse. The theory of generative grammar is that all languages share important structures (words for things, words for actions, ways of expressing position, manner and time. They all have syntax even if the particulars of it are different.). Once you know one language, learning another isn't acquisition so much as translation.
I think being deaf is a lot like any other minority. You want the world to accept you, not to have to change yourself to get by in the world. There is a difference between "minority" and "variation". And every minority has its outspoken proponents that seem to make matters worse, that project anger rather than compromise. They naturally get the most attention.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cheered when Troi was ordered to wear a uniform like everybody freaking else!
You know the funny thing? I think she looked much hotter in the uniform than in the spandex outfit, and her character became less annoying as well. She became generally more competent outside of her bailiwick--okay, except for when she crashed the Enterprise --and less tiresome in general. I don't think that this is caused by the uniform, of course. I think they finally realized they had created one of the most annoying characters in TV history and decided to gradually fix her more annoying tendencies. And I give them props for that.
-o-
I would certainly have agreed with her that it would be worse to lose that sense of empathy, even without having had it myself.
quote: But if you could give them their hearing back, and would anyone really turn that down (aside from old people too set in their ways to bear the thought of change)?
Yes. Absolutely. Being Deaf is part of their identity. They have never been hearing, and they don't want to be. They don't think they are missing out on anything important.
First off, last I checked, for someone who is completely deaf there was no way of returning full hearing right now. Has that changed?
If not, then how can you really say that? They may say now that they would never, but if truely faced would the choice, I have a hard time believing that someone who had experienced hearing would give up the chance of getting it back. Even those who hadn't would probably want to at least try the experience, with the choice of going back (if possible) or would SERIOUSLY consider it if not. The bit in italics falls under those too set in their ways to stand change, but I'm willing to bet even they would be torn pretty badly on the issue if they were faced with the real choice.
If so, then my hypothosis's will have obviously been disproven by experiement (as it were ). However, I would like to see evidense of such a case. *goes off to see if he can find either thing for himself*
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have my reasons for holding [my opinions] about homosexuality. . . . They are based on doctrinal assumptions that cannot be proven at this time. But the reasons are there, and they make sense. Edit: They make sense only *if* you accept the doctrinal assumptions that cannot be proven, of course.
*nod*
I agree/I believe you.
I don't have a problem with Christians considering homosexuality sinful. I don't think they are bigots for doing so.
And that's as much as I will say there.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icky -- I think the same thing. She was far more attractive after they stopped trying to make her seem sexy. I have no idea why.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was an interesting discussion about grammar over on the writers workshop. I was posting as franc li. I'll just sum up: You don't learn grammar from English teachers. You learn it in a foreign language class. Possibly from reading, though I doubt it.
I can tell you that if English teachers didn't learn grammar, it wasn't because they believed in Chomsky. It was because they used Chomsky as an excuse to remain lazy.
Generative grammar isn't about no grammar, it is about one grammar that can be used to describe all languages.
[ January 07, 2005, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alcon, the cases of deafness that are toughest to "fix" are nerve damage. But cochlear implants can stimulate the nerves directly in many cases. But the quality of the sound is bad because only a few of the frequencies can be "tapped" with the technology we have at this time. Everything probably sounds like one of those really bad computer vocal simulators.
Many Deaf view cochlear implants as "evil". Well, "evil" might be too strong. They don't like them, and they don't respect those who get them.
There is also the possibility of nerve regrowth as medical technology advances. This would also be threatening.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:First off, last I checked, for someone who is completely deaf there was no way of returning full hearing right now. Has that changed?
Not full hearing, but partialy hearing yes. In either my aunt or uncle's case, I don't recall which, they were able to "restore" (you can't restore something that was never there, neh?) some hearing with an implant, even though they were completely deaf since birth. They found the experience profoundly unpleasant. (At least, that's the way it was recounted to me.)
Dude, did you read what I said about this issue up above?
If it weren't for beverly and pooka, I'd start to think I was posting in a vacuum.
posted
Hey Icky, that explanation you gave was very interesting. I'm very bad with grammar - I know the very very basics and that's all - so I've always wondered how it is that I'm a coherent writer. I've always read a ton, so now that I think about it, it makes sense that I've picked up grammar from constant reading and can use grammar accurately without being able to define most parts of speech.
Unfortunately, because I'm an English major, people assume I know grammer. I always reply that I'm not a grammar major.
quote: First off, last I checked, for someone who is completely deaf there was no way of returning full hearing right now. Has that changed?
No, but they can get partial hearing.
How expensive, bulky, difficult to deal with is it? How practical for the average deaf person is it? That plays a huge factor. If someone can't afford it... I can definately see the reaction being to convince themselves that they don't need it, they don't want it.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Generative grammar isn't about no grammar, it is about one grammar that can be used to describe all languages.
Just as a side note, I think that saying that similarities in all grammer indicating inborn grammar is like saying that similarities in the math developed in isolated cultures indicates "inborn math".
I think this is a mistake in assumed causality. I think it is better attributed to "that's just the nature of reality".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dude, did you read what I said about this issue up above?
If it weren't for beverly and pooka, I'd start to think I was posting in a vacuum.
Sorry Icky, that reply took me a while to write and edit, I'm kinda half posting on this thread, half playing a game atm. When I started it, I only saw like the first two replies after my last one. So no in fact, I did not.
EDIT:
Yeesh, I must be more tired than I thought. I somehow missed this entire post:
quote: People do turn it down. It may be like a window of opportunity thing, like with other language development.
After all, that's what we're talking about here. You take a deaf person and give them their hearing . . . . HELLO! Unless they became deaf gradually, you have given them the ability to hear, but not the ability to comprehend spoken language. Suddenly they find themselves in the same situation many of us find when we have to try to learn a new language as an adult.
And when you have spent a lifetime in quiet, noise can be pretty scary too.
I can see how, once accustomed to deafness, you might turn down the gift of hearing.
But I still say it's clearly best to have been able to hear all along.
I'm really sorry about that...
Hmm... put that way. Yeah, for someone deaf their entire life, I can sorta understand it. Personally, if I could gain another sense, say Troi's empathy, I'd jump at the chance. Even if it would take getting used to. But I could see that someone born into deafness might see it as more trouble than its worth to 'recover' hearing. However, for those who have had sound... yeah, I very much doubt they'd turn it down. And yea, current technology wasn't what I meant, if I could only have a few fequences of bad quality... I might even choose silence or the music of my mind over it. And I very much like having sound.
quote: I can definately see the reaction being to convince themselves that they don't need it, they don't want it.
Cochlear implants aren't that big a deal to get, and I imagine many insurance companies would pay for it. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I more or less agree about the laziness thing.
But--
When I took composition theory, we read Chomsky. I won't claim to remember the experience clearly. However, the upshot from our prof was that we should not teach grammar, and that the teachers who did were old fashioned and delusional, but rather we were taught to encourage our students to develop their inborn grammar by encouraging them to try on the speech patterns of different "discourse" communities. To encourage them to do this, of course, we could not penalize mistakes.
I firmly believe that we learn the use of grammar (best) from reading. I don't mean reading grammar books; I mean reading things that are well-written, and learning through example and context. I don't know how I could begin to prove that assertion to you, though. I just think about all of us who feel like we knew how to emulate proper grammar long before having it formally presented to us, and I don't think this only describes bilingual people.
I don't think formal grammar instruction is the best way to learn grammar, but I think it is better than nothing, and I think everyone can benefit at least a little bit from it.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Icarus bears the consequences.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
--and less tiresome in general. I don't think that this is caused by the uniform, of course. I think they finally realized they had created one of the most annoying characters in TV history and decided to gradually fix her more annoying tendencies. And I give them props for that.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
