I Fill This Small Space: The Writings of a Deaf Activist

Of Language, Speech, Speech Reading, Manual Communication

89 Of Language, Speech, Speech Reading, Manual Communication Manual communication, that is, fingerspelling and signs, has never in educational circles been given the place of respect and importance that it deserves. The stand taken in favor of it has often been apologetic and defensive. The vilification heaped against it, the fact that it has been made a scapegoat for many of our educational ills, have been allowed to continue with little effective opposition. The rationale for the arguments against manual communication can be narrowed down to two major premises: (1) It will hurt the acquisition of good English and (2) it will hurt the development of speech and lipreading skills. The first premise, because there is not one iota of proof, is based more on a figment of the imagination than on fact. How can judgment be rendered against something that has never been fully and formally accepted and given a fair trial by authorities in the field of education? Those who fall into the anti-manual communication syndrome can usually be characterized as having little or no understanding of the potential, the flexibility and the versatility of manual communication. It is the unison and totality of methods—speech, fingerspelling, signs—and not their parts that can serve as a powerful tool of communication in the classroom and make possible correct grammatical usage. Deaf students are individuals with different levels of maturity, mental acumen and different stages of readiness. These aspects of human nature should control the interplay of fingerspelling and signs and the degree to which either is used with, of course, the simultaneous utilization of speech. The potential and flexibility of the language of signs has seldom been more graphically illustrated than by David Anthony and his language The Deaf American (December 1968) 90 of signs classes in Anaheim, California. In actual usage were a different sign for such a group of words as: denture, dental, dentist; for past tenses, for “ing” endings, for such verbs as was, is, are. There have been others experimenting with the language of signs so that it will follow the footpaths of proper English usage but the trouble is that the efforts have been isolated rather than concerted and coordinated. Again and again detractors of the language of signs forget that the eyes follow spoken speech with signs coming within the peripheral vision of the deaf. This spoken speech has correct grammatical structure. The combination of manual communication and speech results in less strain for the eyes of the deaf and less emotional tension. In the development of vocabulary, take the word “crash.” How dull it must sound when one hearing person tells another that two automobiles crashed into each other. The language of signs could help show a crunching effect with fenders flying, the shattering and splattering of glass—vroooom! With the hands acting as such a powerful, active, live visual aid the deaf student surely will have a difficult time forgetting the word “crash.” Vocabulary leads to sentences and sentences to language flow. When a teacher uses his hands to tell a student we say “How many parts” and not “How much parts” he or she is using the natural language of the deaf, manual communication, to teach English with three dimensional power. When students can express themselves in a medium that is comfortable and adequately meets their needs, an atmosphere is created where it will be possible to stimulate their minds, and other aspects of their development as human beings. Like their hearing counterparts, deaf children are enraptured by storytelling but how many of them have really had the chance to “listen” to one? Manual communication can help dramatize stories as no other medium can and this in turn could whet the appetites of deaf children and lead them on to reading where lies the greatest single factor in their potential mental development and language flow. The need for reading is far more acute with the deaf than with any other group of people with the exception of the deaf-blind but, unfortunately, so few of the deaf can be considered readers. It is understandable the way those involved in the education of the deaf become overly concerned in regard to the second promise, in regard to having the deaf talk and lipread. The feeling is strong that the 91 deaf would not be far removed from the mainstream of society if they could approximate...