Forbidden Signs: Deafness and Language Socialization in Mexico City

Abstract

Language socialization, the simultaneous process of learning language and culture, occurs spontaneously in most families. However, deaf children born to hearing parents cannot fully access the spoken languages of their families and hearing society. This study provides data illustrating that Mexico's therapeutic approach to language does not constitute language socialization for deaf children; simultaneously, it affirms that signing communities offer sites where deaf people can actively engage in this critical process. Mexican families with deaf children and deaf adults from the same community reflect upon their oralist upbringings and (1) depict the consequences of the therapeutic approach to language for Mexican deaf people and (2) illustrate how strictly oralist approaches did not constitute language socialization, and in fact, served to constrain these processes in ways that often came at a great linguistic, emotional, and educational cost to participants. La socialización del lenguaje es un proceso simultáneo del aprendizaje del lenguaje y de la cultura, y ocurre espontáneamente en la mayoría de las familias. Sin embargo, los niños sordos que nacen a papás oyentes no pueden acceder completamente a los idiomas hablados de sus familias y de la sociedad oyente. Este studio de investigación proporciona datos que ilustran como el enfoque terapéutico mexicano del lenguaje no es igual a la socialización del lenguaje para los niños sordos. Simultáneamente, afirma que las comunidades donde se utiliza la lengua de señas ofrecen oportunidades y espacios para que gente sorda pueda participar activamente en el proceso crítico de la socialización del lenguaje. Las familias mexicanas con niños sordos y adultos sordos de la misma comunidad reflexionan sobre sus creencias oralistas y (1) representan las consecuencias del enfoque terapéutico del lenguaje para la gente sorda de México e (2) ilustran como un enfoque estrictamente oralista no constituye la socialización del lenguaje, y de hecho, sirve para constreñir estos procesos de tal forma que se producen daños en términos lingüísticos, emocionales, y educacionales para los participantes.

Linguistic Anthropology in 2017: It Could Be Otherwise

“…Pfister () also offers an ethnographically situated examination of diverging epistemologies and ontologies in assessing competence in language use. Specifically, she critiques the ways in which deaf students’ success in language acquisition via oralist pedagogies is evaluated in Mexico, noting that children undergoing such therapy (to the exclusion of exposure to interactive contexts of sign‐language use) are often deemed to be developing appropriate spoken‐language competencies but only in contrived testing situations that isolate an individual child from ongoing multiparty interactions embedded in social activities.…”

“…In everyday settings outside of such evaluative contexts, however, deaf children and adults reported that oral methods often fail miserably. Pfister (, 150) notes, then, that the deaf children could only be assessed as achieving competence from a perspective that “severely underprioritized” sociality (150).…”

Language readiness and learning among deaf children

“…Thus, a teacher's skill and experience with sign language may affect their ability to understand and/or interpret information conveyed through sign-based gesture. In effect, an educator or interpreter's fluency in sign language may enhance (or inhibit) their ability to predict the steps that learners take (please see also Pfister, in press). Therefore, in educational environments for deaf students, fluent signers – such as children and adults capable of modeling sign language vocabulary and syntax – as well as the availability of well-trained sign language interpreters, are additional factors that influence learning readiness and meaning making among deaf students (Pfister 2015a; 2015b; Pfister et al 2014).…”

“…In communities of practice, members learn through mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and (particularly germane to this discussion) a shared repertoire (Wenger 1998). In other words, the concept of communities of practice brings together context, sociality, and meaning, to emphasize the interactivity of language and socialization (Pfister 2015b). Only by attending to the dynamics of skill within a community of practice is it possible to understand how gestures paired with signs may convey meaning differently.…”

“…The authors miss this crucial aspect of language by promoting an overly formulaic “communicative act” that they suggest consists of only imagistic and categorical formats. Research among deaf youth who experience language socialization among signing peers in Mexico City has provided an example of how community participation and sociality cannot be divorced from understanding (Pfister 2015a; 2015b; 2015c; in press; Pfister et al 2014). We argue that the social components of language influence meaning making because the context, sociality, and shared experience conveyed within communities of practice factor heavily into better understanding, and researching further, G-M&B's emphasis on the “whole of a communicative act” (sect.…”