Return-Path: <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fAL4ln012411; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 23:47:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 23:47:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <fe.f4b14d6.292c8b0e@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: KathleenBombach@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:3790] Re: Deaf, communication issues X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10021 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_fe.f4b14d6.292c8b0e_boundary" Status: O Content-Length: 1798 Lines: 30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kate: I looked at the signwriting website. Very interesting. It reminds me of research done comparing the abilities of deaf and hearing children to reproduce drawings of varying complexity from memory. The deaf children were able to reproduce complicated images accurately; hearing children did much worse. Deaf brains are different from hearing brains because they develop from visual inputs, whereas hearing brains develop from visual and sound inputs. So it makes sense that a visual-symbolic written language might make more sense to a deaf person. It also might explain why they have so much trouble learning to read and write in phonologically based script. Kathleen Bombach
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:05 EST