Editor for this issue: Ann Dizdar <ann
linguistlist.org>
I am writing to add my voice to Robert Englebretson's excellently articulated response to the posting on blind/sighted communication. I agree with Mr. Englebretson that the presuppositions underlying Welcome Sekwati's proposed research are unscientific at best, and at worst conducive to internecine prejudice. I also agree that "constant transmission failures" do not characterize blind/sighted interaction, neither in my own experience nor in the literature I have seen on the topic; the natural redundancy present in linguistic interaction compensates for whatever slight difficulties may arise. While recent research (L.S. Kekelis & P.M. Prinz, "Blind and sighted children with their mothers: The development of discourse skills", _Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness_ 90:5, 1996) seems to indicate that there may be some developmental differences in early discourse of blind children, no study I know of indicates communicational difficulties on the part of adult blind speakers. I am a Ph.D. candidate in linguistics who is blind as well. What I have observed in personal interaction is: increased use of vocatives by both blind and sighted speakers; and occasional confusion arising from the use of spatial deixis in lecture-type situations (e.g. "Now, this chemical reaction is okay except for the extra hydrogen atom down here"). Blind/sighted communication is an area for potentially interesting research, but -- as with any topic with social ramifications -- it must be approached with scientific detachment and without damaging preconceptions. - -------------- Sheri Wells Linguistics Department State University of New York at Buffalo sbwellsMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueacsu.buffalo.edu
I enjoyed reading Robert Englebretson's response on this issue of blind/sighted communication. I would like to widen some of the points he made. He said: > I should note that, of course, there are sometimes miscommunications between > blind and sighted people. But, and this is important, there are > miscommunications between all kinds of people--most of which have nothing to > do with vision. Thus, one should not immediately jump to conclusions, that a > particular miscommunication was due to blindness, gender, age, regional > origin, etc. etc. One of the neat things about language, in my opinion, is > that language also gives us tools for 'fixing' miscommunicaition. It is surely a fundamental of language that negotiation must happen in communication. In conversation speakers adjust to channel, interlocutor features, physical environment and so on. Speakers constantly need to negotiate such matters as: + which language to speak chosen from the personal repertoire + how to cope with discrepancies between one's own variety and that of interlocutor(s) + how to adjust speech according to distance between speaker and hearer(s), + how to cope with written/spoken/auditory-only channels + how to negotiate cultural differences and sensitivities Everyone gets some things right and some things wrong, but the negotiation of these differences is a part of everyone's language skills. If a speaker from Baltimore has some difficulties speaking to a speaker from Leeds, it is almost certainly not because one of them has a failing or an inadequacy but because they have not negotiated their talk (yet). I can imagine that there are some speakers who would feel discomfort at speaking to a blind person or indeed to someone sitting in a wheelchair (the 'does he take sugar?' syndrome) a phenomenon which needs to be interpreted in a cultural and ideological context. Anthea Fraser Gupta * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Anthea Fraser GUPTA : http://www.leeds.ac.uk/english/$staff/afg School of English University of Leeds LEEDS LS2 9JT UK * * * * * * * * * * * *Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Dear Linguist members, I would like to make a few comments in confirmation of what Prof. Englebretson wrote recently on the subject of communicating with the blind. Since I have a blind brother with whom I have had a close relationship almost all his life (he is now over 36 yrs. old), I believe I have some "empirical data" in the form of gathered experiences communicating with him to substantiate all of what Robert Englebretson stated. First of all, my brother shows now, and to my recollection has never shown, any deficiency in the acquisition of language. In fact, he has been very proficient in the acquisition of two other (second) languages, German and Spanish, both of which I also speak, making it possible for me to judge. He has always, since learning to read braille, had a very large appetite for reading, which undoubtedly has contributed to his further growth in language proficiency. However, before he learned to read (reading began for him in the first grade, just as it does for sighted people), he had no difficulty acquiring spoken English. As far as I recall, his speaking ability at that time did not differ, and since has not differed, from that of sighted people. I would conclude, therefore, that his "language development" has not been measurably different from the norm amongst the sighted. Regarding his ability to communicate with the sighted and with other blind individuals, I would again agree with Robert Englebretson that there is no impairment of any noticeable kind. While it may be the case that my brother, like other blind people, uses some additional strategies in conversation for picking up on subtleties of speech, this does not create any kind of breakdown in communication. I would whole-heartedly agree that the redundancies in communication more than suffice for any loss due to blindness. I would be happy to address specific questions about the case of my brother, if they are forthcoming. John te Velde Dept. of Foreign Languages and Literatures Oklahoma State UniversityMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue