Apparently it is easier for Deaf people to accurately recite the alphabet than to recite phonemes in isolation.
ie- they can say "ay bee see dee..." but it might be more difficult to elicit the sound an /m/ "mmmmm"
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Science is everywhere
I know what you are thinking (Srav), Saturday AND Sunday? Seriously? This girl is on a roll!!!
I just wanted to comment about how I am writing fieldnotes in my grad program. Cool, right? Kinda. It's cool only because I have an idea of what I need to do already. Granted they aren't called fieldnotes, but they are essentially the same concept.
We know that if you consider yourself to be working in a "science," then that implies the scientific method. It's everywhere, guys! First we will interview with the client, get an idea of their history, why they are seeking our services, blahblah. Make some early hypotheses. (FAST FORWARD through diagnostic evaluation) If therapy is appropriate, we set goals/objectives we would like to accomplish through therapy. We meet with them, observe, take notes on those observations (fieldnotes = SOAP notes), and based on those observations (of everything from mood to performance data) we will plan for the next session. More fieldnotes, more practice, more performance assessment, more planning....
Thus the scientific method. Though, the progress is based on the performance on standardized tests (kinda... at least the diagnostic is). Which is lame. But as I was telling Katie, who is also quite opposed to these things, we will graduate and re-philosophize our field and become the best we can be and the best there ever was! Kids will love us because we are so different from the common SLP.
I just wanted to comment about how I am writing fieldnotes in my grad program. Cool, right? Kinda. It's cool only because I have an idea of what I need to do already. Granted they aren't called fieldnotes, but they are essentially the same concept.
We know that if you consider yourself to be working in a "science," then that implies the scientific method. It's everywhere, guys! First we will interview with the client, get an idea of their history, why they are seeking our services, blahblah. Make some early hypotheses. (FAST FORWARD through diagnostic evaluation) If therapy is appropriate, we set goals/objectives we would like to accomplish through therapy. We meet with them, observe, take notes on those observations (fieldnotes = SOAP notes), and based on those observations (of everything from mood to performance data) we will plan for the next session. More fieldnotes, more practice, more performance assessment, more planning....
Thus the scientific method. Though, the progress is based on the performance on standardized tests (kinda... at least the diagnostic is). Which is lame. But as I was telling Katie, who is also quite opposed to these things, we will graduate and re-philosophize our field and become the best we can be and the best there ever was! Kids will love us because we are so different from the common SLP.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Sanchez
One example case study my professor created to inspire conversation in my Clinical Procedures class was about Emily Sanchez. She is a Deaf girl who came to the clinic for aural habilitation and was really benefiting from her hearing aid. Her speechreading was fantastic inside the speech center, but she was dealing with a conflict outside of the speech and language center. She did not want to wear her hearing aid because of what her deaf friends might think.
The classes resolved the issue with: she can take the HA off with her deaf friends because she doesn't need to hear.
Honestly this is such a simplistic answer! I'm sure she can think of this answer herself. So there must be more to it than that, right? Or else she wouldn't come to the clinic with that question if there was an easy answer. The truth is that there will be situations where she might want to hear and sign. Perhaps in a mix of hearing and deaf friends. Or if they go to a restaurant or somewhere else in public and need to interact with the Hearing world. Maybe she wants to be able to access both worlds at the same time?
Why does she feel ashamed to wear her HA? They think that she is ashamed of her deafness? Of her culture? Next thing ya know, she'll be refusing sign language and closing her eyes when they try to communicate with her. My only suggestion to her is that she needs to sit down with her "friends" who might look at her differently with a HA in. Talk about why she wears it and why she doesn't want to. Deaf radicals who think that assistive listening technology is turning people into cyborgs need to get their head out of the ground and look around at the world. If it works for some people, let them be! Live and let live??? If it's not for you, fine! No one is pushing anything on you. She is still just as Deaf as she was yesterday. She can just hear a little bit more now. Chill out.
The classes resolved the issue with: she can take the HA off with her deaf friends because she doesn't need to hear.
Honestly this is such a simplistic answer! I'm sure she can think of this answer herself. So there must be more to it than that, right? Or else she wouldn't come to the clinic with that question if there was an easy answer. The truth is that there will be situations where she might want to hear and sign. Perhaps in a mix of hearing and deaf friends. Or if they go to a restaurant or somewhere else in public and need to interact with the Hearing world. Maybe she wants to be able to access both worlds at the same time?
Why does she feel ashamed to wear her HA? They think that she is ashamed of her deafness? Of her culture? Next thing ya know, she'll be refusing sign language and closing her eyes when they try to communicate with her. My only suggestion to her is that she needs to sit down with her "friends" who might look at her differently with a HA in. Talk about why she wears it and why she doesn't want to. Deaf radicals who think that assistive listening technology is turning people into cyborgs need to get their head out of the ground and look around at the world. If it works for some people, let them be! Live and let live??? If it's not for you, fine! No one is pushing anything on you. She is still just as Deaf as she was yesterday. She can just hear a little bit more now. Chill out.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Hearing Culture
What the fuck? What does that mean? Did I just make that shit up?
One of the presenters at orientation (Dirksen Bauman - gorgeous) informed us that when he was born, he could hear. He repeated it. When he was born, he could hear. He said, it wasn't until he was 21 years old, that he became Hearing. [please note: Hearing is capitalized to emphasize the Hearing culture, not the sense of hearing] He asked the audience what that meant. Of course it is because at 21 was when he first became aware of what that was. That there was such a thing as Deaf culture and there was such a thing as to be Hearing. He first met a Deaf person when he was 21 years old.
It makes sense. Often times, you don't notice something until something comes along. (says the Devil in the South Park Movie: Without evil, there would be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes!- is the only thing that comes to mind.) Anyway, at 21 he realized that there was this thing/identity/culture called hearing. You are Hearing, and I am Deaf. Get it?
It is interesting to see hearing people when they first learn about this term. They will be explaining something and realize they need a term for someone who is NOT deaf. They look to their peers, who give the sign/term "Hearing" (please note- the sign for "Hearing" is different than the sign for "to hear" -- interesting!). It's funny to see their reactions to their first exposure to that label (I'm assuming it is created by the Deaf community, but who knows).
Another interesting, somewhat related tidbit:
A friend of mine was talking about her experience with a hearing friend. (I am not a stickler for capitalizing Hearing/Deaf.... I think it depends on my mood. And/or if I want to emphasize that label/identity/culture...) She is deaf, and she speaks very well. She will wear a hearing aid or two and is quite a skilled lipreader. She says that sometimes he forgets that she is deaf, that she can't hear, at all. They were discussing enrolling him in an ASL class; that sometimes, it would be easier if he had a basic understanding of sign langauge/culture/identity. In any event, while communication hasn't been an issue, communication itself has been brought to light. That means that there are times when he is just so used to talking with her that he honestly doesn't realize she can't hear. And that assumption can definitely lead to other assumptions and expectations that wouldn't arise if there were a constant reminder that that person can't hear (ie if she did NOT speak). Therefore, he might be missing out on understanding that there is whole other side to who she is as a person. It can go unnoticed when you are in a mainstream hearing culture that some people can be very much integrated into it, but fail to have that one sense that everyone else has, that the culture is defined as having. (in a way). Weird, right?
I am not sure if this is the smartest way to end it. Maybe I'll edit this post more later.
One of the presenters at orientation (Dirksen Bauman - gorgeous) informed us that when he was born, he could hear. He repeated it. When he was born, he could hear. He said, it wasn't until he was 21 years old, that he became Hearing. [please note: Hearing is capitalized to emphasize the Hearing culture, not the sense of hearing] He asked the audience what that meant. Of course it is because at 21 was when he first became aware of what that was. That there was such a thing as Deaf culture and there was such a thing as to be Hearing. He first met a Deaf person when he was 21 years old.
It makes sense. Often times, you don't notice something until something comes along. (says the Devil in the South Park Movie: Without evil, there would be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes!- is the only thing that comes to mind.) Anyway, at 21 he realized that there was this thing/identity/culture called hearing. You are Hearing, and I am Deaf. Get it?
It is interesting to see hearing people when they first learn about this term. They will be explaining something and realize they need a term for someone who is NOT deaf. They look to their peers, who give the sign/term "Hearing" (please note- the sign for "Hearing" is different than the sign for "to hear" -- interesting!). It's funny to see their reactions to their first exposure to that label (I'm assuming it is created by the Deaf community, but who knows).
Another interesting, somewhat related tidbit:
A friend of mine was talking about her experience with a hearing friend. (I am not a stickler for capitalizing Hearing/Deaf.... I think it depends on my mood. And/or if I want to emphasize that label/identity/culture...) She is deaf, and she speaks very well. She will wear a hearing aid or two and is quite a skilled lipreader. She says that sometimes he forgets that she is deaf, that she can't hear, at all. They were discussing enrolling him in an ASL class; that sometimes, it would be easier if he had a basic understanding of sign langauge/culture/identity. In any event, while communication hasn't been an issue, communication itself has been brought to light. That means that there are times when he is just so used to talking with her that he honestly doesn't realize she can't hear. And that assumption can definitely lead to other assumptions and expectations that wouldn't arise if there were a constant reminder that that person can't hear (ie if she did NOT speak). Therefore, he might be missing out on understanding that there is whole other side to who she is as a person. It can go unnoticed when you are in a mainstream hearing culture that some people can be very much integrated into it, but fail to have that one sense that everyone else has, that the culture is defined as having. (in a way). Weird, right?
I am not sure if this is the smartest way to end it. Maybe I'll edit this post more later.
Friday, September 4, 2009
tell as inform
When you are learning sign language, you might ask a Deaf person "How can I sign, 'She told me...' or 'I told you...'?" Typically they will tell you a directional/referential sign that points to your mouth. I know I use that phrase all the time. "I told her already." "She told me she'd be late." In reality, though. When hearing people say "told," they typically mean to focus on the fact that they received or sent some kind of message -- some information was exchanged. I think the better sign to use in this context is the sing to "inform" instead. You won't see many deaf people sign "she told me" in this context, but rather "she informed me" -- it kinda depicts information from the brain to a person.
It's a little surprising (though it shouldn't be) to think about all of the vocal/auditory nuances in our spoken language. She told me. I heard about it. That sounds cool. Of course these all make sense and are used correctly to mean what they say, but at the same time, it emphasizes the vocal and auditory means, so of course it doesn't translate well. Instead, maybe we should try to interpret the meaning of what you are trying to say, rather than the directly translate the words.
ps- things I need to remember to write about
-audism/phonocentrism/cognitive diversity
-window v. door (ben bahan?)
-burrito (bb?)
-proxemics - triangle building blocks (bb?)
-reading the envi/sounds/sensory reach
It's a little surprising (though it shouldn't be) to think about all of the vocal/auditory nuances in our spoken language. She told me. I heard about it. That sounds cool. Of course these all make sense and are used correctly to mean what they say, but at the same time, it emphasizes the vocal and auditory means, so of course it doesn't translate well. Instead, maybe we should try to interpret the meaning of what you are trying to say, rather than the directly translate the words.
ps- things I need to remember to write about
-audism/phonocentrism/cognitive diversity
-window v. door (ben bahan?)
-burrito (bb?)
-proxemics - triangle building blocks (bb?)
-reading the envi/sounds/sensory reach
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Speech Reading > Lip Reading
So we're off. School has begun, textbooks are in the mail, commuting is a bitch. I still plan on writing about orientation, and I realize that every day that passes is a day away from a good memory. We'll see how long it takes me.
Today I want to write about speech reading. This was my first time being exposed to that phrase- in Clinical Procedures for Communication Disorders (with a strong emphasis on aural rehabilitation). For those of you who don't know, lip reading is a common (do I really know that?) method among deaf individuals to gather what they can regarding what you are saying to them. They will "read" your lips, trying to decipher the words you are saying. I've been told that only about 30% of the spoken American English can be seen (i.e. "m", "p", and the shape of vowels- to some extent). If you want to try it for yourself, mute your television (without captions!) and do your best to focus on the lips of the characters. How much of what they are saying do you think you would be able to understand? If you want to give yourself some help, try to just have the volume EXTREMELY low -- to simulate SOME residual hearing. You got anything?
There are people in this world who do wonders and can actually make out a LOT of what people are saying just by reading their lips. How do they do it?! (practice is some part of it, but there is more...)
So in class the phrase speech reading comes up, and of course this is different than lip reading. Speech reading will take in lip reading, true, but also much more than that. Other visual elements include facial expression, gestures, body language; cognitive elements like linguistic competence in the target language and situational cues; and of course any residual hearing. With that extra information, you can see how it might make more sense that the angry driver that passed you screamed "Fuck you!" and not "Vacuum!" And in the same sense, that your mom wants you to clean your room, not insult you...
So all this is well and good, but I have a few issues with this. First of all, what makes that "speech" reading any more than "lip" reading? I suppose you could argue that speech includes body language and situational clues, but really? Also, if deaf people only looked at lips, there is no way they would understand what the fuck was going on. OF COURSE they use all of these clues to help understand the world around them -- they're not dumb, that's an outdated idea :-) .
In any event, I thought I would enlighted those who are unaware of all the shit that deaf people take in when they are lip reading... or speech reading. Or whatever the difference is. To me, they are the same concept. Arguing semantics seems to be an inescapable future. Kill me.
Today I want to write about speech reading. This was my first time being exposed to that phrase- in Clinical Procedures for Communication Disorders (with a strong emphasis on aural rehabilitation). For those of you who don't know, lip reading is a common (do I really know that?) method among deaf individuals to gather what they can regarding what you are saying to them. They will "read" your lips, trying to decipher the words you are saying. I've been told that only about 30% of the spoken American English can be seen (i.e. "m", "p", and the shape of vowels- to some extent). If you want to try it for yourself, mute your television (without captions!) and do your best to focus on the lips of the characters. How much of what they are saying do you think you would be able to understand? If you want to give yourself some help, try to just have the volume EXTREMELY low -- to simulate SOME residual hearing. You got anything?
There are people in this world who do wonders and can actually make out a LOT of what people are saying just by reading their lips. How do they do it?! (practice is some part of it, but there is more...)
So in class the phrase speech reading comes up, and of course this is different than lip reading. Speech reading will take in lip reading, true, but also much more than that. Other visual elements include facial expression, gestures, body language; cognitive elements like linguistic competence in the target language and situational cues; and of course any residual hearing. With that extra information, you can see how it might make more sense that the angry driver that passed you screamed "Fuck you!" and not "Vacuum!" And in the same sense, that your mom wants you to clean your room, not insult you...
So all this is well and good, but I have a few issues with this. First of all, what makes that "speech" reading any more than "lip" reading? I suppose you could argue that speech includes body language and situational clues, but really? Also, if deaf people only looked at lips, there is no way they would understand what the fuck was going on. OF COURSE they use all of these clues to help understand the world around them -- they're not dumb, that's an outdated idea :-) .
In any event, I thought I would enlighted those who are unaware of all the shit that deaf people take in when they are lip reading... or speech reading. Or whatever the difference is. To me, they are the same concept. Arguing semantics seems to be an inescapable future. Kill me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)