Sunday, 4 November 2018

A Message from Trinidad and Tobago.


The deaf still seems overly obsessed with demands for BSL grammar and do not appreciate this is an 'alien' grammar with little 'in' to the mainstream usage of the local language. Signed English poses no problems if taught at day one and is aligned with the educational curriculum. 

Do the deaf think hearing have an easier time learning English? I might want to insist on a French approach to signing, but I don't live in France, herein lies the problem, deaf have to learn TWO forms of language and the BSL one being more simplistic they reject the one they really need to learn. Especially and given there are still not enough signs in BSL or support exists, to enable a deaf person to manage outside a deaf world. 

The entire BSL dictionary is challenged as valid at this time.    Mainly because it was left to deaf people to develop it their way.  We have people like Paddy Ladd and others to blame for the nonsense of deafhood and its total obscurity of explanation and inability to stand up to real scrutiny or even accessibility TO other deaf people. Learn Signed English approaches first, then the entire deaf community is more on par with everyone else, and access issues become easier to address.  Sign is still signing. If hearing people can learn BSL, why can't deaf learn English?  They are saying they are not up to it?  using the lesser used grammar as an excuse? or even exploiting cultural aspiration as a right to remain isolated?

Deaf are disabling themselves via a reluctance to address language issues.  Simply demanding others adapt to them is unrealistic.  Mainstream will carry on without them.