Seeing voices
I met my first deaf person when I was sixteen. I don’t remember dealing with it very well; it was not long after my family and I had arrived in a new area, with Dad working at a new church, and I was very much one of the ‘new minister’s sons’. I was talking to her after church one night, and without noticing it, I had to repeat myself several times to get the message across. She was quite clearly frustrated by it, because she finally told me that she had a hearing impairment. For some reason, that shocked me – she didn’t look like she should be deaf (which is a dumb thing to think, after all), and her voice sounded normal. I stuttered and stumbled through conversations by virtue of exaggerating my mouth movements, shaping cavernous /o/s and forming teethy /ee/s for her. In hindsight, I know it helps some hearing-impaired people to lipread (as confirmed by meeting another hearing-impaired girl at a party recently, who relies solely on lipreading), but I imagine it’s also a bit humiliating for the hearing-impaired person to be talked at in a manner that appears hugely condescending.
J sometimes signs when she talks to me. I found out later that many hearing-impaired people do it without thinking; it’s a kind of thinking-out-loud with your body, instead of your voice. I’m confused by the disparity between what she’s saying and the sculptures her hands form in the air – she does it so quickly that I can’t even start correlating signs with words. But I remember thinking that it was beautiful to watch someone sign.
There are two primary sign languages in Australia that I know about: signed English and Auslan. There are differences between them – Auslan uses its own grammar and syntax rules, whereas signed English uses the same grammar as spoken English. That makes Auslan attractive to me, because you don’t have to sign all the little words to communicate the same thing. However, I don’t actually know the correct grammar for Auslan signing, so I’m pretty much up the creek. Anyway, when Lorien took up a community Auslan course in order to better communicate with any hearing-impaired children she encountered in her future as a special-ed primary teacher, I decided to sponge off her in order to better communicate with J.
It starts slow, and only gets slower as you go on. First, I learned how to fingerspell. Each letter has its own unique sign – the letter A’ is touching your left thumb with your right index finger, and ‘B’ is making the ‘OK’ sign (index finger touching thumb) with both hands and touching the two formations together. It’s intuitive, most of the time. Then, learning partly from J and partly from a dictionary, I progressed into single-word signs – ‘thank-you’, ‘please’, and ‘sorry’ were the first words I could say in this new language. They’re still the words I use most in my conversations with J, if you factor in ‘OK’ as well. Over about six months, I got to know somewhere between forty and eighty words. Not enough to have a conversation entirely in sign, but good enough to clarify what I mean.
“I like some of Jung’s stuff,” I tell J. We’re talking after church, as we do, and I’m filling her in on the more boring points of my uni course.
“What?” J asks. The look on her face tells me she’s missed something, probably due to my muttering as I speak.
“I said, ‘I like some of Jung’s stuff’.”
“You like who’s stuff?”
OK, now’s your chance. Realising that the word ‘Jung’ would just look like an /oo/ speech-sound, I’m now all revved up to fix my mistake in sign. But my confidence precedes me, and I stumble through shaping the letters in the psychoanalyst’s name, even though there are only four of them. The downward stroke of the J comes before the little-finger ‘U’, which I always mix up with other vowels. Then there’s the two-finger touch of ‘N’, and finally the double-fisted ‘G’ to finish. J heads me off at the pass and guesses it by the ‘N’.
There’s always the danger of mis-expressing yourself in sign. As J speaks a mixture of Auslan, signed English, and foreign-nation sign, it’s common for me to use an Auslan sign and get a curious look (actually, it’s far more common for me to ask her what the sign is for a certain word, but that’s beside the point). The word for ‘sugar’, for example, is vastly different between the two languages: for signed English, it involves touching the cheek, while for Auslan, you extend the index and middle fingers together, bunch the rest of your fingers into a fist, turn the whole thing palm up, and flick your wrist twice to the left (or something like that).
And, of course, there is the faux pas of accidentally saying something you don’t intend. The sign for ‘Sydney’ is, unless you’re careful, easily transformed into the sign for ‘sex’, and the signed English sign for ‘do’ is one finger away from a sign for ‘gay’. To wit:
We are sitting in the back of the church after the meeting, speaking in the strange marriage of speech and sign. I am trying to impress both J and myself by signing fairly quickly, but as a result, I’m making mistakes.
[I think I do], I sign in response to a question. I have to say the words as I sign them to concentrate; one day, I hope to be good enough to be able to sign without vocalising.
“You’re what?” J asks me.
I backtrack in my head. “What do you mean?”
J holds up her right hand, turns it side on, and brings her thumb and index finger together. “This is ‘do’,” she instructs me. Then, she opens her hand again and, this time, brings the middle finger and thumb together twice, in quick succession. “This is ‘gay’.” She pauses and looks askance at me. “Are you trying to subconsciously say something?”
We laughed about it; it’s another mishap hearing people can easily make.
I aspire to one day be good enough to be able to sign-interpret during church. It has taken me a while to realise exactly how much of church is oriented towards hearing people; the singing and the music, the confessions (spoken in paragraphs by whoever is leading), the sermons, the congregational prayer. J has been getting by on copies of the sermon text and someone writing notes for all the spoken parts, but having fulfilled this duty for her, I realise how much you have to omit in order to keep up. There are some churches who have full-time interpreters, but they tend to be big churches and, in some cases, do not teach the Bible soundly. I suppose that’s a big dilemma for hearing-impaired Christians who feel more comfortable with sign – in a church meeting that caters primarily to hearing people, where can one go to meet with God’s people in sign?
David G said,
Oct 7, 05:40 #
Auslan is one of the many languages I would like to learn but probably never will.Kathleen said,
Oct 7, 06:56 #
That was well-written. It isn’t easy to depict sign-language in writing.My mother used to learn Auslan and she interpreted in church once or twice. Some hilarity – she didn’t know the word for praise so she held out her hands, palms forward, and waggled them upwards towards the ceiling (think a Southern Baptist saying Alllayluja). Hilarity followed.
I never spoke a great deal of Auslan, but we learned interesting things – that you can ‘mumble’ in sign language, that the deaf can talk with their mouths full but not with their hands full, that personality can be very vividly conveyed in how you sign, that grace is said with eyes open, etc. And did you know there is a translation of the Bible for the hearing impaired? They often do not use metaphors etc as much or the same way as hearing people do.
Ben said,
Oct 7, 08:11 #
That’s heaps interesting, Kathleen – I never knew that ‘grace’ is said with eyes open (though I am thankful that sign lets you ‘talk’ with your mouth full, as the need to do so happens frequently for me). And a Bible for the deaf! I never thought they’d prefer a different version, though I suppose the linguistic differences between sign and speech would affect the use of metaphor, etc.I watched a video the other day with deaf kids in Amsterdam. One little girl in the school playground wanted to tell another girl a secret, so the second girl held up her jacket to form a barrier, within which the first girl could sign with hunched shoulders and diminuitive, secret hand movements.
Dave, I’d be happy to teach you the little I know, but you’re probably referring to the fact that you don’t have time time to learn it at all.
Jane said,
Oct 7, 09:42 #
Hey Ben! You could submit this article to SALT! Ok, so I just said that because I wanna be famous…ish. But it seriously puts down half the stuff I wanted to say about disabled ministry.David G said,
Oct 7, 23:47 #
There’s always the possibility of making time. I was just being fatalistic.Kathleen said,
Oct 8, 00:36 #
There’s a German movie you might be able to get ahold of (its on SBS occasionally, or try a uni library) called Jenseits der Stille, (The Other Side of Silence). It’s about a hearing child growing up in a deaf family and later becoming involved in the deaf community, as well as pursuing a career in music. Very good. My favourite scene is where the main character as a small child has to sit up late, crosslegged in front of the television with her back to the screen, translating romantic movies for her mother.Micah said,
Oct 8, 17:37 #
A few weeks ago, I ran across this fascinating news story about Nicaraguan deaf kids who were brought together in a special school, but with no one to teach them sign language; over time, they developed their own, unique, sign language with its own definable rules of grammar and syntax: (I’ll just give the URL in-text instead of linking, since the comment window is of fixed size which makes linked pages very hard to read)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6029190/
Although, I think the conclusion that “And, it seems, it is children who drive the evolution of language” seems to me, if based only on this case, an unwarranted conclusion (i.e., it seems merely contingent that the deaf people thrown back on their own resources in this case happened to be children).
Jane said,
Oct 8, 23:46 #
Actually, it’s quite a valid conclusion. It takes 2 generations for a language to become a proper language and not a pidgin/bastard language (see most linguistics books). Also research was done to show that deaf children being brought up to lip read, when placed together, will form their own language, and it takes another generation for the language to properly develop.People not exposed to language after a certain age will never learn to speak the language or understand certain forms of syntax eg the difference between ‘me’ and ‘I’. Check out Seeing Voices by Oliver Sacks for more information.
Ben said,
Oct 9, 02:54 #
I think Micah is saying that you can’t make the conclusion the NBC article is making, based on one case. So you’re both right.An open question for those interested: cognitive psychology research tells us that our short-term memory system (and, probably, our long-term one as well) is phonological, i.e. nearly all verbal information is stored in the form of ‘sound’ in our heads (the technical term for short-term subvocal rehearsal of information is ‘phonological loop’). What I want to know is, what do congenitally deaf children do? If they’ve never heard sound in their life, much less coherent speech-sounds, does verbal info get converted into visual memory (in which case, they have an impoverished or non-existant phonological loop, and an enlarged visuospatial sketchpad)?
Am I just being a psychology nerd?
Micah said,
Oct 9, 04:36 #
Yes. And that’s fine. :-)Jane said,
Oct 9, 05:57 #
Ben – I have a feeling that Seeing Voices will answer your questions. Ask Lolly if you can bum it off her!Pete said,
Oct 10, 05:18 #
One the most amazing experiences I’ve had with signing was returning home after a training session with Jane, sitting down to write something and faintly feeling the movements as part of my internal monologue./Karen/ said,
Oct 11, 07:30 #
I echo Jane’s sentiments about SALT.Jane said,
Oct 11, 08:07 #
Yay! Even Karen wants me to be famous!/Karen/ said,
Oct 12, 06:13 #
Of course I do! :)