Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFox
ASL is open to everyone. After all, it stands for American Sign Language, not American Deaf Sign Language.
I can think of a good use for signed languages for hearing people to use between themselves. What if one of them had a cold, sore throat or some other condition that made them hoarse or otherwise made it hard to speak? If they happened to know a signed language, they'd still be able to communicate in places that don't have paper or computers. I wonder what the oralists would think of that. 
Another use would be to communicate over long distances like between floors at an atrium without yelling. A really cool use would be to give signed tours of coral reefs on scuba dives.
Check out this page for examples of sign language usage by hearing people. Take that oralists!  |
I couldn't agree more to what you said. Also the great thing about ASL is, it is a visible language.
You know, In another thread it was talking about the greatest irony of deaf babies that are focused on AVT and hearing babies are focused with learning the sign language. That came to got me to think that the other thread applies to this thread in a way because even hearing babies are learning sign language, the hearing parents are also learning it too so which means it is for everyone to use but yes, ASL still will always be original to the deaf community.
So, how would oralism work for the deaf parents if the situation would be reversed? It may be possible but difficult. Just imagine how the scenario would be reversed? I don't see how oralism would work for most of us anyhow.
__________________
“Tough girls come from New York. Sweet girls, they're from Georgia. But us Kentucky girls, we have fire and ice in our blood. We can ride horses, be a debutante, throw left hooks, and drink with the boys, all the while making sweet tea, darlin'. And if we have an opinion, you know you're gonna hear it.” - Ashley Judd