Sociolinguistic Journals- Part 4

Contextual or Cultural?

Chapter 14 of Holmes discusses interviews, within the context of misunderstandings. Discourse is analyzed constantly by the participants, even while they are speaking. This analysis is how a participant decides what to say. When I was about 16, I went in for my first formal interview, without any job coaching at all. When I was asked why I wanted to work in that company, I told them I just needed a job. When they asked me what strengths and weaknesses I brought to the table, I listed them out with brutal honesty. As the reader can imagine, I bombed that interview. Although I answered the questions in the most appropriate way I knew how, given my knowledge of English as a native speaker, the interviewer was not actually asking for the information I gave him. If I, a native speaker, had such trouble understanding the contextually informed meaning, how much more would a non-native speaker? Holmes discusses this very situation, and outlines a case in which a man immigrated from Nepal blindly took an American interview for all its literal questions. I would like to present another case of similar situation, and discuss an ethical question we have often encountered as interpreters for the Deaf. Not only are Deaf clients working in the context of a second language, they are working through an interpreter, which further separates them from the interviewer, and also are dealing with a huge cultural gap. Deaf culture, as a rule, is a very straight forward culture, and its language- ASL- does not have much structure to allow for naturally evasive or circumvention communication. Due in part to the visual/spacial nature of the language, ASL is very literal, and although it is fully capable of discussing abstract ideas, does so explicitly. This concept of asking for one thing but desiring and expecting another is foreign to ASL. So when an interpreter is in this environment, mediating culturally and linguistically between a hearing English speaker, and a Deaf ASL signer, how much mediation can take place? If the hearing interviewer asks "What strengths and weaknesses will you bring to our company?", do I sign "STRENGTH WEAKNESS YOU BRING WHAT?", and elicit a literal response? Or do I sign "SKILL YOU HAVE CONNECT WORK HERE WHAT? SKILL IMPROVE YOU WANT WHAT?" and illicit the response the interviewer is expecting? How much of this misunderstanding is contextual (aka- because we are in an interview) and how much is cultural (aka-because one is Deaf and one is hearing)? If the difference is solely contextual, do I leave the responsibility on the Deaf interviewee, to learn his/her lesson the hard way, like I did at my first interview? The mere fact that I am there standing (metaphorically and somewhat physically) between them makes it more difficult for the Deaf person to get a read on the interviewee. He/she may find it impossible to discern why the interview went awry. 

Sociolinguistic Journals Part 3

Language Planning & Deaf in America

In Deaf education around the country, language planning is creating a dichotomy between two schools of thought. First, there is "oral" education, that prioritizes English for all their students. Aiming to provide independent access to the American world, they train their students in speech, reading, English (generically) and sometimes even lipreading. The other approach is more accepted by the culturally Deaf ('Deaf and proud of it'). This is education in full ASL for any and all students in their school. This provides the students with full access to language from the start. Both approaches are examples of language planning; both channel all students into the same 'language corral'.

I want to suggest a scenario in which language planning is entirely absent, but the students are still given access to their environment's languaculture (a new term referring to both language and culture, as they are tied together). In (select) public schools today, when a student turns up with anything outside of normal- anything that can't be handled in a cookie cutter classroom setting- they are referred to the Special Education department. Now, this may create a stigma, a negative one, for nobody likes being labeled as special ed. But this is where the magic happens. Specialists of many fields within this department will meet and discuss the individual student's situation and needs. Conferences take place with the student or parent (if the student is not a legal adult) and as many professionals as possible. At this meeting, an agreement is is found, a plan made. A student may be provided with hearing aids and a mic/speaker system in the classroom. Or a full ASL interpreter. Or maybe both, depending on what the student needs. They can get private tutoring in whatever language is preferred, and can even specify their preferred sign system for the interpreter to use. Surely, individual needs are better met without language planning


Gender Stereotypes in Language

Historically, all (as far as I know) cultures of the world assign dominance to one gender or another; most assign it to males. This turns up in language, a reflection of the culture in which the language developed. I decided to look into ASL, to see what kinds of gender marking shows up. Starting with the following sign pairs, what is noticed? MAN/WOMAN HUSBAND/WIFE BOY/GIRL GRANDPA/GRANDMA SON/DAUGHTER BROTHER/SISTER

Each of these sign pairs is identical except for the gender marker. The gender marker for female is sign initial, on the side of the chin. For male, it is on the side of the forehead. 'Sign initial' means that these signs start in those places, and continue with the sign appropriate for that pair. It is interesting to me that the gender marker for male is higher relative to the gender marker for female. This suggests male dominance. However, gender neutral signs, like PEOPLE CHILDEN NATION etc do not bear any gender marking and are truly neutral. There is never an appropriate situation in which a gender marked sign would be understood as neutral (as is with "mankind" in English).

I hypothesize that the distinction between neutral signs and gender marked signs is because of the state of the culture ASL developed in. ASL developed in a culture that supported diversity, success of the underdog, and equality. Although male dominance is hard to erase completely (placement of the gender marker), the playing field was much more level when ASL came into being.