A View of Deafness

Although theorists, researchers and deaf people are more aware of the possibilities of sign languages and have actively promoted bilingual policies and practices, the reality is that hearing society has hardly accepted their validity.  The population of Europe is nearly 400 million people yet less than  0.1% have real access to sign language.  Figures presented by supporters of sign language are hopelessly optimistic in terms of the number of deaf sign users and of the numbers of fluent signers among the hearing population.  Although there is a gradual retrenchment in oralism and a huge deficit in oralist research as compared to sign research, the impact on the communities of Europe is negligible.

At the same time, it is suspected that the impact on deaf people is also limited.  There is an emerging small group of deaf people who live and work in signing environments.  Yet the vast majority of deaf people live in hearing communities, born to hearing parents, having hearing children, uncertain as to how and when they should use sign language.  Although teachers and parents are interested in sign language, they have rarely anywhere to learn effectively or any means to immerse themselves in language or culture; despite their initial enthusiasm, they reach an early and low plateau of performance in sign.  Significantly, the decision makers in education, psychology, social services are still unable to sign.   In Europe, there can be no more than a handful of headteachers of deaf schools who are deaf themselves; there are still relatively few hearing headteachers who can communicate effectively in sign with the deaf children in their care.

Oralism may be on the wane but sign language has yet to fill the vacuum.

There have been changes in many places (as Tervoort suggested there would be) notably in the previously strong oralist countries of Britain and Holland.  These policy changes in deaf schools have brought sign into the classroom.  But the problems of hearing staff learning a sign language later in life and in less than ideal learning environments, has meant that the use of sign in class is mostly accompanied by speech and it suffers from all of the weaknesses which were reported by Johnson, Liddell and Erting (1989) eg  deaf children are not able to understand their teachers well when speech and sign are mixed - even when done apparently fluently.  The rights of access to the curriculum can rarely be achieved when this form and level of communication is in place. 

Although more people talk about bilingualism than before, the practice of parents, teachers and other professionals is still some way from the use of two languages.  At times, this circumstance may arise as a deliberate policy.  Sign may appear in school but this is rarely an abandonment of spoken language, merely an attempt at soft assimilation.  Sign may be treated as a temporary prop to be replaced by the language of the majority as soon as is feasible.

It is clear that there has been only a limited move to heritage teaching (as there has been in the case of say, American Indians).  Deaf children remain ignorant of their deaf roots and of the culture, to which they could belong.  More significantly, they still come to their natural language late and ineffectively, at best with low status models, at worst, with only peers, struggling at the same time to develop a self-image and native language.  Not surprisingly, the performance in school is depressed.

The course is copyright
to the Centre for Deaf Studies and the Lecturers named above
and should not be used for any other purpose than personal study.
© 2000

Back to Social Issues Homepage
This page was last modified January 25, 2000
jim.kyle@bris.ac.uk