Speaking glove
Aug. 4th, 2003 12:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
magidSomeone has created a talking glove that translates ASL into speech. It's a fascinating thought; I wonder how easy it would be to reprogram to translate other sign languages into speech. The inventor is also planning to have a two-glove system out sometime in the next couple of years.
Perhaps predictably, there are some who are not in favor (from the linked Globe article above):
I've read about how many Deaf see their culture as rather separate from mainstream American culture (in Seeing Voices and Train Go Sorry, for instance), but this seems to be obstructionist: a glove like this could make it much easier for a deaf person to communicate to non-deaf, non-ASL-speaking people.
Perhaps predictably, there are some who are not in favor (from the linked Globe article above):
But the idea of turning sign language into speech annoys some deaf people who see ASL -- used in the United States and English-speaking Canada -- as part of their unique culture. ''Some feel that being deaf is not a deficiency,'' said Andy Lange, president of the National Association of the Deaf. ''It's simply another way of life and the deaf should not use artificial means to overcome a loss of hearing.''
I've read about how many Deaf see their culture as rather separate from mainstream American culture (in Seeing Voices and Train Go Sorry, for instance), but this seems to be obstructionist: a glove like this could make it much easier for a deaf person to communicate to non-deaf, non-ASL-speaking people.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
assimilation/preservation
Date: 2003-08-05 05:40 am (UTC)Until I went to grad school, I didn't understand why "bilingual education" might be seen as a less-than-positive thing; I assumed it referred to having native English speakers learn another language integrated in the curriculum, rather than having non-native speakers learn English more fully. I don't think that immersion is necessarily right for all kids, nor is bilingual ed right for all kids (why is it so hard for voters to figure out "people are different" so solutions might vary?). And suing teachers just seems like a bad idea.
I don't know much about the language issue outside the school context. I can imagine there's a lot of pressure to learn English; I don't see why it would be better to remain monolingual (actually, that's how I feel about language in general - it would be a good thing if more people were bi-, tri-, or multilingual).
I hadn't realized that there were race divisions in gay political organizations before your comment.
The French government trying to keep French pure: I understand that they don't want to become another form of English, but languages do evolve over time, and there is borrowing in the process. If the French term they come up with is more cumbersome than the borrowed English phrase, I'd think it would be hard to get people to use it. Heck, even if they use English words, how likely is it that an English speaker would recognize them ("Why do you think I have this outraaageous accente?").
I don't know much about the Deaf community. I can see how people would prefer to use ASL (not signed English, etc) for communication within the community. Is it better to rely on interpreters or a glove if one needs to go outside the community, though? I don't see this as changing things within the community, just facilitating communication when one has to deal with people who are illiterate in ASL.