I’m going to talk about sign language.
Is it ironic to say that? Can I actually ‘talk’ about a signed language? I think I can; I can describe handshapes, history, meanings and structure. Using only my mouth and not my hands (resist the innuendo… resist!) I’d be limited, but I could give a fairly good description or discussion of sign language without using a single sign.
It’s the same with spoken English – I can describe it quite effectively using sign language, but I’ll eventually come up against something intangible that I can’t quite explain. How to accurately express the sound of the word ‘shoe’, or the click of a letter K, to someone who doesn’t actually have a concept of sound in the first place?
Some things just can’t be expressed in a different form. For example, sign language cannot be written down. Those pictures you see, with arrows pointing this way and that to show hand movements – they are in no way a written language. They are cues, educational tools. Brilliant educational tools, that help many people in their journey to learning sign, but they aren’t a fully comprehensive written form of the language. They can’t be. Ever. Because the nature of what makes sign language a sign language is, well, the signs.
So, does that mean sign language can only belong to those who use it, and understand it, in its pure forms?
Here, we have British Sign Language. It is beautiful; everyone says so, and they’re right. It is structured, and unique, with a rich history apparent in every sign.
But we also have SSE, and cued speech, and we have people who are just learning BSL and know how to hold a conversation but aren’t particularly adept or fluent (yet). Are these versions of sign language lesser than BSL? Are they better than BSL because they can bridge different languages? They aren’t necessarily fully formed and structured languages themselves, but they ARE a means of communication which works for many people.
I am currently struggling with the concept of BSL as an untouchable language, unreachable unless you are perfectly fluent and promise never to compromise it. It’s not as if it’s something that smacks me in the face every morning, but every so often conversations or situations, or posts on the internet, seem to bring up a whirlwind of discussion about who ‘owns’ sign language, and what they should and shouldn’t do with it.
Let me give you an example that’s ‘hot right now’; signed songs.
Personally, I don’t believe a signed song can ever truly be a BSL song. I have many variations on why I don’t, but it essentially boils down to this; BSL is a language which doesn’t need sound, and which has a unique structure. Songs, made for those who can hear and appreciate them, require sound, and require a structure which reflects and harmonises with that sound. Take the sound away, and even if you transform the lyrics into perfect and gorgeous, artistic BSL, it isn’t a song anymore. I don’t know what it is. And I’m not sure it’s even BSL anymore, because the signs will have been bent to fit the English lyrics, rather than the song or poetry being created from the signs. But I do believe that it’s definitely art, and that’s definitely allowed.
See, I don’t think that signed songs are a travesty, or an attack on BSL. I think they are wonderful. Yes, even the bad ones where people studying Level 1 or Level 2 BSL struggle their way through ‘I Have A Dream’ or that bloody thing from Frozen. It is a fun and engaging way of learning a language – and I don’t believe it harms BSL at all, as long as it isn’t presented as ‘a song in BSL’. And then there’s the signed song artists, who create heartbreakingly beautiful masterpieces that can really resonate with individuals and connect communities – as all great art should.
BSL is evolving, as all languages do, to keep up with society. There was no sign for ‘iPhone’ twenty years ago, because there was no need. The sign for ‘phone’ itself has changed along with the technology; from an old two handed winder, to the traditional thumb and finger, to today’s closed fist mobile sign. And I’m not sure why anybody would complain about that kind of progression, even though I see several people doing so.
I COMPLETELY understand that BSL is sometimes at risk. Particularly with the emphasis of modern medicine and technology on ‘fixing’ deafness, there is a real danger of signed languages becoming more and more of a minority. And we definitely shouldn’t let that happen. BSL is beautiful, and useful, and has totally earned a higher place in society than it currently holds.
I just wonder if, sometimes, maybe, by being so protective of it, we’re actually doing it more damage than good. There is a huge range of deafness, from slightly hearing impaired to profoundly Deaf, and we should all be able to access a language that helps us and liberates us.
Does that mean we all have to go full BSL or bust?
Or is there room for all the stages and individual expressions of sign in between?
Maybe I’m not talking about sign language after all. Maybe I’m actually just talking about communication, expression and connection. And nobody has the right to belittle anyone else for the way they do those things… right?
Emily Howlett is a regular writer for this site. She is a profoundly Deaf actress, writer and teacher. Emily is co-director of PAD Productions and makes an awful lot of tea. And mess. She now has not one, but four grey eyebrow hairs. C’est la vie. She tweets as @ehowlett
Reg Cobb
July 28, 2016
At the end of the day, as JFK said, “Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.” So does it matter if we’re a BSL user or not. Actually in UK, there are 50,000 deaf BSL users and that’s 1/16 of the population of the 800,000 people who are profoundly and severely deaf. I’m a BSL user, but don’t want to appear aloof over those who don’t use BSL properly, we just want to be understood … that’s another quote … “It’s a luxury to be understood.” by Ralph Waldo Emerson, maybe it doesn’t need to be a luxury!
Cathy
July 28, 2016
Emily, I actually agree with every word you’ve said: I have never really taken to signed songs in BSL, because without any sound it is no longer a song and BSL does not fit into songs because of the Grammar! So that is two things BSL cannot do: be written down and be made into a song and that is a direct result of its grammatical structure, so however amazing or wonderful you think BSL is, it has a very weak side indeed.
As for the notion of “fixing” deafness, I do not see it as a fix! The CIs doing popular rounds now are simply powerful hearing aids. Deafness can never be fixed or at least not until Doctors actually fix the ears instead of adding contraptions to them!
Those using CIs will obviously have better life chances than those totally deaf with no aid whatsoever. Naturally, this support also supports speech, which often comes on in leaps n bounds and that is brilliant! I cannot see how anyone can complain about a deaf person being aided to speak, it not only gives one greater independence but greater self esteem and confidence, that has to be a plus!
Unfortunately, where one thing becomes a plus, there is always a minus and this minus is always going to be sign language, itself. We cannot expect to improve Deaf people’s lives, yet still retain the language they needed before the improvement! We cannot have it both ways: we either leave Deaf people as they are in a silent world, with no speech and reliant on BSL and interpreters or improve their lives by giving them sounds and some semblence of speech (if not full) and increase confidence and independence but at the demise of BSL. I certainly know which one I prefer.
Linda Richards
July 28, 2016
I didn’t read Emily’s article as an ‘either/or’ but about embracing communication.
Tim
July 28, 2016
Great post!
I wish some BSL users would ‘get’ that most Deaf people who use SSE don’t do it to threaten or undermine BSL, they do it because they were denied BSL growing up (aka oralism) and are not as fluent in BSL as they would like to be.
To blame them in any way is appalling; if you want to blame somebody, blame the oralists.
Melow Meldrew
July 29, 2016
Tim, That isn’t strictly accurate, many deaf use SE or SSE because they had useful hearing in formative education, so follow the grammatical norm they were taught. Many others use it because they work alongside hearing and have to adapt to what they use, mainstream isn’t going to adopt BSL grammar in work to suit deaf. As a poster pointed out there is no written form of BSL to follow anyway. It is unfair to to use the discrimination argument in this context. Deaf can learn BSL grammar and their own we are adept enough and we NEED to follow English it isn’t a choice. Without it they wouldn’t read this blog.
Linda Richards
July 29, 2016
I think Emily’s article is very important from the perspective of embracing communication in all its forms rather than insistence on a particular dogma or practice.
However, I don’t believe we should accept slack or ill-executed BSL signs any more than we should accept poor subtitles or shoddy goods. There have been a number of factors which have led to a decline in good BSL execution, which in turn have impacted on service provision such as education, social service provision, CSWs and interpreting services.
Lack of suitable teachers of BSL, the advent towards SSE or Signed English in education (though now ceased as a specific methodology), changes in BSL teaching practices (think about the number of idioms or multi-channel signs that are now accompanied by an English lip-pattern equivalent – which, worryingly, also dictates the pace of the said idiom or phrase never mind changes it), increase in private companies or businesses seeking to earn a quick buck and the appointment of (the wrong) people to key jobs who haven’t the prerequisite skills are just some of the factors. Combined with the (inflated?) high costs of training, the sense of income generation from students of BSL and from examination bodies, shortcuts will happen including by those who will benefit financially.
The advent of what a friend called the ‘signing police’ hasn’t helped as their ttargets seem to be the vulnerable members which could (should) be supported, discreetly corrected or counselled out.
As a BSL monitor for various outlets (though the title is misleading as I explain to those I work with), I strike a balance between the person being true to themselves, suggesting an alternative way of signing something, or demonstrating the correct execution (or executions as there may be more than one including regional variations) because what I cannot and will not do for the Deaf person is set them up to fail, to look silly or to be someone else.
As for Interpreters and CSWs, until we have a different system which truly trains and examines them in different spheres, we will continue to have people who have ‘passed’ (after all, how many times have we heard the phrase that ‘nobody fails their NVQ’) and who, whichever route they’ve taken (be it the old examination to the Register, the NVQ route, the ‘academic’ route – including sadly the rejection by a recently qualified interpreter of a Deaf colleague’s views on the abilities – or lack of – interpreting students on an academic course and they’ve all now been ‘passed’), have determined their own abilities and the domains in which they would work – often without any of the necessary learning or experience. Where there is a vested interest in preserving the ‘system’, whatever it may be, there is less objectivity.
A good example of Emily’s point and the potential damage that comes from an unhealthy focus on dogma can be found in Charlie Swinbourne’s film ‘My Song’ produced for the BSLBT. Funnily enough, it includes a signed song event (and I’m with Emily on this being an art form). It also includes glimpses of what damage is (potentially) done by those who engage in criticisms for the sake of them.
Not least is the fact that the late Dr John Denmark, a wonderful psychiatrist for Deaf people and founder of the psychiatric services for Deaf people in the UK, and Frank Warren, social worker, found the high % of Deaf young people being referred as needing their support and services was because they’d been subjected to the oral system of education, were deemed failures and endured significant mental health issues because of the lack of access to sign language as well as being moulded into people they could never be: Hearing speaking people. The problem still continues today. What makes it all the more insidious is it’s coming from inside the ‘Deaf Community’.
Time for a change.
Melow Meldrew
July 31, 2016
You need people who are aware of the need for deaf to adjust to a hearing world and it’s system, or deaf will stay in a world of their own making and, remain out of it. I also think you interfere with deaf education via BSL at the detriment of deaf children. I found personally that people who don’t know sign are better able to follow SE or SSE than BSL, even without a terp. It’s their grammar. Contrary to hype, most terps use SE too. Why wouldn’t they ? they are hearing too… It’s OK if you want to be a purist and academic about it, leave it to people like Ladd etc… but practically it isn’t really viable. When will deaf understand the world doesn’t evolve around what they use ? Or that a cultural drive will change that ? Time to tell the real truth about the myth of deaf bilingualism, they are clearly NOT bi-lingual and struggling.
Tim
August 3, 2016
You need people who are aware of the need for Welsh to adjust to an English world and it’s system, or Welsh will stay in a world of their own making and, remain out of it. I also think you interfere with Wales education via Welsh at the detriment of Wales’ children. I found personally that people who don’t know Welsh are better able to follow English than Welsh, even without a terp. It’s their grammar. Contrary to hype, most terps use English too. Why wouldn’t they ? they are English too… It’s OK if you want to be a purist and academic about it, leave it to people like Owain Glyndŵr etc… but practically it isn’t really viable. When will Welsh understand the world doesn’t evolve around what they use ? Or that a cultural drive will change that ? Time to tell the real truth about the myth of Welsh bilingualism, they are clearly NOT bi-lingual and struggling.
Lila
August 1, 2016
Agreed. I feel D/deaf to Deaf/bullying can be far more painful than bullying from hearing people.Small mindedness and passing on sadness can be damaging.I agree with Linda re:the signing police-there is a strong affective factor in language acquisition (it is often easier to acquire a language when you relate to users, are relaxed and feel an emotional connection to the language)and this factor cannot be exploited when people feel alienated.Recognising the need to be pragmatic, at varying times as Melow mentions whilst allowing people to be themselves (children can be allowed to be naturally visual even if oral)