KappaHH - Mar Gen 27, 2009 12:44 pm
Oggetto: Il resto delle risposte.
Rieccomi Silvieta, è ora di scriverti brevi risposte (altrimenti i discorsi non terminano più) al resto delle ipotetiche domande.
Vorrei chiarire che gli esseri umani sordi non si differenziano dagli altri sordi come gruppo distinto. Apparentemente potrebbe sembrare un "gruppo etnico" perchè al mondo esistono molte generazioni di famiglie sorde. Fra di noi è comune soltanto la lingua dei segni e la cultura sorda (che sarebbe lo stile di vita naturale) perchè di religioni ne pratichiamo di differenti, e l'unica caratteristica fisica che ci accomuna è lo sguardo penetrante, gli occhi fanno da padroni nella nostra vita. Per dirla brevemente, siamo parte di nessun gruppo e non abbiamo la necessità di ghettizzarci se al mondo la LINGUA DEI SEGNI viene praticata ovunque! Non possiamo ignorare che in questo mondo siamo tutti un tutt'uno!
La LINGUA DEI SEGNI, come frase generale, viene usata per descrivere la modalità diversa dal parlato (suono). La prima lingua nel mondo dei Sordi dipende dalla nazionalità in cui sta convivendo da molto tempo assieme a dei parlanti. In America, giustamente, la prima lingua del Sordo è la lingua dei segni americana.
E i valori di tutta la costra cultura per cui non è possibile starsene indifesi è la capacità di espressione individuale e di scelte, ovviamente, personalissime. Tutto questo è possibile solo attraverso una qualsiasi lingua dei segni.
La lingua orale per i sordi non è per nulla diretta perchè si vuole esprimere a seconda della mentalità degli udenti. L'espressione diretta che parte esclusivamente dal proprio "io" sordo è solo tramite una lingua dei segni.
Nella bellissima costituzione italiana fu stato volutamente dimenticato il diritto universale alla persona sorda, allo stesso modo per la recente costituzione europea è stato rifiutato il riconoscimento alla cristianità come base storica delle correnti culturali europee.
Perciò vi trapianto un mio testo storico che riguarda tutti gli italiani dai tempi della monarchia ad oggi:
" Passiamo alla Storia giusto per farci sentire tutti quanti un poco più vicini in quanto dai nostri avi fino a nostri genitori non è possibile dimenticare i nomi di certe cose.
Si tratta di una storia tutta italiana, che senza l'esistenza del personaggio sordo-muto il regno d'Italia sarebbe stato limitatissimo nella Serenissima. Non ci sorprende quindi certe antipatie manifestate dagli attuali e notevoli politici del Nord verso i disabili.
Il Principe di Carignano, Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia, nacque sordo-muto. Un fitto polverone si alzò nelle casate europee di sangue blu.
Correvano gli anni tra il 1628 e il 1709, in cui la scuola speciale più nota era in Spagna dove il prete Don Manuel Ramierez conosceva un metodo per istruire le persone sordomute alla pari dei normodotati.
Emenuele Filiberto di Savoia imparò a leggere e a scrivere senza limitazioni, perciò
potè studiare varie scienze. A quasi trentenne fu un valoroso cavaliere militare e, quindi, nominato Colonnello al servizio del Re di Francia, Luigi XIV Re Sole.
Superati i 35 anni, il sordo-muto dal sangue blu, fu nominato governatore della città di Asti. Infine con tutta la calma tipica dei tempi presenti, verso i 50 anni si ammogliò con la figlia della famiglia D'Este, Maria Caterina.
Tale nozze furono importanti per la Dinastia dei Savoia ma molto mal visti dal regno della Francia per dei legami politici.
I diretti discendenti di Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia, il Principe sordo-muto, furono i primi governatori molto importanti per il regno d'Italia: Re Vittorio Emanuele II e III, Re Umberto I e II. "
La LINGUA DEI SEGNI ITALIANA è una lingua minoritaria? Si, se si vuole limitare l'uso nel mondo dei Sordi. Se invece tale lingua diventa a portata di tutti (è un fatto realizzabile, attendiamo soltanto il SI dei normodotati) allora è una lingua nazionale, oltre all'italiano!
In tutto il mondo la lingua dei segni è di importanza notevole e nella classifica delle lingue più usate al mondo fra le cento lingue, la lingua dei segni si fa classificare al terzo posto condividendo il podio con la lingua francese.
Accogliere le famiglie dei bambini sordi, purtroppo, non è così semplice come sembra. Il Comitato Famiglia ENS, ad esempio, in Italia è così raro per il semplice fatto che la maggioranza dei sordi è analfabeta e non sa come dialogare con le famiglie udenti di bimbi sordi.
Ricordate, tutto questo non significa che i Sordi sono avari di solidarietà.
Vi racconto per ultimo come mai a molte persone sorde non piace il film stereotipo "Figli di un dio minore" perchè rappresente per una minuscolissima parte la comunità Sorda americana.
Il movimento PC (politically correct) è spesso utile per pochi, come per la nostra Marlee Matlin, ma realmente è una grande s.t.r.o.n.z.a.t.a. sul pianeta Terra.
L'attrice sorda era stata scelta fra i segnanti migliori perchè lei era una filo-oralista (si può dire così?).
Adesso lei è una segnanta convinta, ah meno male!
silvieta - Mer Gen 28, 2009 1:53 pm
grazie mille Katia... è veramente sempre un piacere leggerti...
e cmq in breve.. sono convinta anche io che la L.I.S., in italia ovviamente, dovrebbe entrare a tutti li effetti, dovrebbe essere considerata lingua e studiata anche dai cosiddetti "normodotati". Il fatto che gli enti siano "poveri" (e non per mancanza di solidarietà) nell'accoglienza alle famiglie è una cosa che a me dispiace molto,ma credo potrebbe, lavorandoci duramente, essere risolta... "istruendo" all'accoglienza o integrandosi con gli udenti, educandoli alla cultura in mod tale che possano loro agire con le famiglie udenti di bimbi sordi ..
In questo modo il bambino avràà diretto contatto con chi "è come lui" e lo stesso vale per i genitori...
Io, riflettendoci, penso... "se mi nascesse un figlio sordo (ovviamente dando per scontato di non conoscere nemmeno quello che conosco)??" sicuramente non sarei razionale, non al 100%, avrei paura... e non so se crederei a un "sordo", per paura forse penserei che lui dice questo perchè è sordo, ma proprio a livello d'immagine, forse se la stessa cosa me la dicesse uno che "è come me", avrei un approccio diverso...
Spero di essere stata chiara... e comunque sono sempre pronta a spiearmi meglio
KappaHH - Mer Mar 04, 2009 10:56 am
Oggetto: Ethics and Deafness by Oxford
Vi presento una parte dell'articolo (in inglese) in cui si spiega, salvo ulteriori modifiche, che cosa sono le persone sorde di ieri e di oggi: il senso del loro agire in questo mondo caotico. Come la comunità sorda si mette al riparo dalle follie dei nazionalisti che discriminano chi è diverso (movimento auDistico). Perciò la Northeastern University mostra in questi studi di parte il perchè stiamo agendo come un gruppo etnico contemporaneo.
Ethnicity, Ethics, and the Deaf-World
by Harlan Lane
This article is concerned with ethical aspects of the relations between language minorities using signed languages (called the Deaf-World) and the larger societies that engulf them. The article aims to show that such minorities have the properties of ethnic groups, and that an unsuitable construction of the Deaf-World as a disability group has led to programs of the majority that discourage Deaf children from acquiring the language and culture of the Deaf-World and that aim to reduce the number of Deaf births—programs that are unethical from an ethnic group perspective. Four reasons not to construe the Deaf-World as a disability group are advanced: Deaf people themselves do not believe they have a disability; the disability construction brings with it needless medical and surgical risks for the Deaf child; it also endangers the future of the Deaf-World; finally, the disability construction brings bad solutions to real problems because it is predicated on a misunderstanding.
The Deaf-World Is an Ethnic Group
The members of this group have a collective name in their manual-visual language by which they refer to themselves. We refer to them by that name in adopting the English gloss of their compound sign: the Deaf-World.
Feeling of Community
Self-recognition, and recognition by others, is a central feature of ethnicity (Barth, 1969; A. D. Smith, 1986). Americans in the Deaf-World do indeed feel a strong identification with that world and show great loyalty to it. This is not surprising: The Deaf-World offers many Deaf Americans what they could not find at home: easy communication, a positive identity, a surrogate family. The Deaf-World has the highest rate of endogamous marriages of any ethnic group—an estimated 90% (Schein, 1989).
Norms for Behavior
In Deaf culture, there are norms for relating to the Deaf-World: for decision making, consensus is the rule, not individual initiative; for managing information; for constructing discourse; for gaining status; for managing indebtedness; and many more such rules. Cultural rules are not honored all the time by everyone any more than are linguistic rules. Such rules tell what you must know as a member of a particular linguistic and cultural group; what one actually does or says depends on a host of intervening factors, including other rules that have priority.
The underlying values of an ethnic group can often be inferred from cultural norms. A value that appears to be fundamental in the Deaf-World is allegiance to the culture, which is expressed in prizing one's relation to the Deaf-World, in endogamous marriage, in gaining status by enhancing the group and acknowledging its contributions, in the giving of culturally related names, in consensual decision making, in defining oneself in relation to the culture, in distributed indebtedness, in the priority given to evidence that arises from experience as a member of the culture, in treasuring the language of the Deaf-World, and in promoting among Deaf people dissemination of culturally salient information (cf., Lane, 2004a; Mindess, 1999; T. Smith, 1997).
Deaf people have culture-specific knowledge, such as who their leaders are (and their characteristics); the concerns of rank-and-file members of the Deaf-World; important events in Deaf history; how to manage trying situations with hearing people. Knowing when and with whom to use ASL and when to use English-marked varieties of sign language is an important part of being recognized as Deaf (Johnson & Erting, 1989).
The Deaf-World has its own ways of doing introductions and departures, of taking turns in a conversation, of speaking frankly and of speaking politely; it has its own taboos.
There are numerous organizations in the American Deaf-World: athletic, social, political, literary, religious, fraternal, and many more (Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996). As with many ethnic minorities, there are charismatic leaders who are felt to embody the unique characteristics of the whole ethnic group (A. D. Smith, 1986).
"The mother tongue is an aspect of the soul of a people. It is their achievement par excellence. Language is the surest way for individuals to safeguard or recover the authenticity they inherited from their ancestors as well as to hand it on to generations yet unborn" (Fishman, 1989, p. 276). Competence in ASL is a hallmark of Deaf ethnicity in the United States and some other parts of North America. A language not based on sound is the primary element that sharply demarcates the Deaf-World from the engulfing hearing society.
First, the language arts: ASL narratives, storytelling, oratory, humor, tall tales, word play, pantomime, and poetry. Theatre arts and the visual arts also address Deaf culture and experience.
Ethnic groups construct rootedness, with forms of expression that include history, territory, and genealogy. The Deaf-World has a rich history recounted in stories, books, films, and the like. Members of the Deaf-World have a particular interest in their history for "[T]he past is a resource in the collective quest for meaning [and ethnic identity]" (Nagel, 1994, p. 163). A sense of common history unites successive generations (Fishman, 1982, 1989; A. D. Smith, 1986).
Many ethnic groups have a belief in the land of their ancestors. However, "territory is relevant not because it is actually possessed but because of an alleged and felt connection. The land of dreams is far more significant than any actual terrain" (A. D. Smith, 1986, p. 34). Land that the Deaf-World in the United States has traditionally felt an attachment to includes the residential schools; Deaf travel is often planned around visits to some of those schools. There is a Deaf utopian vision of "a land of our own" expressed in folk tales, novels, journalism, theater, and political discussions (Bullard, 1986; Lane, 1984; Levesque, 1994; Van Cleve & Crouch, 1989; Winzer, 1986). Deaf-Worlds are to be found around the globe, and when Deaf members from two different cultures meet, they feel a strong bond although they share no common territory and are limited in their ability to communicate with one another. In this, they are like Diaspora groups, such as the Jews. And, like the Diaspora ethnic minorities worldwide, prejudice and discrimination in the host society encourage them to cultivate their ethnicity to maintain their dignity despite social marginalization.
Some scholars maintain that the core of ethnicity lies in the cultural properties we have examined, so kinship is not necessary for the Deaf-World or any other group to qualify as an ethnic group (Barth, 1969; Petersen, 1980; Schneider, 1972; Sollors, 2001). Others say kinship should be taken in its social meaning as "those to whom we owe primary solidarity" (Schneider, 1969). "Ethnie embody the sense of being a large unique family; the members feel knit to one another and so committed to the cultural heritage, which is the family's inheritance" (A. D. Smith, 1986, p. 49). What is involved is a sense of tribal belonging, not necessarily genetic and blood ties. Certainly, there is a strong sense of solidarity in the Deaf-World; the metaphor of family goes far in characterizing many Deaf-World norms and practices.
What kinship is really about, other scholars contend, is a link to the past; it is about "intergenerational continuity" (Fishman, 1989). The Deaf-World does pass its norms, knowledge, language, and values from one generation to the next: first through socialization of the child by Deaf adults (parent or other) and second through peer socialization. Here, however, there is a significant difference from other ethnic groups: For many Deaf children, socialization into Deaf culture starts late, usually when the Deaf child meets other Deaf children in school (Johnson & Erting, 1989). Members of the Deaf-World have a great handicap and a great advantage when it comes to intergenerational continuity. The handicap is that their hearing parents usually have a different ethnocultural identity that, lacking a shared language, they cannot pass on to their children. Moreover, they commonly do not advocate in the schools, community, courts, and so on for their Deaf child's primary language. Minority languages without parental and community support are normally endangered. The great advantage of the Deaf-World lies in the fact that there will always be intergenerational continuity for sign language because there will always be visual people who take possession of that language in preference to any other and with it the wisdom and values of generations of Deaf people before them. (Although one can imagine an intervention in the future that would provide high-fidelity hearing to Deaf children and thus threaten intergenerational continuity, it seems likely that most countries will not be able to afford it, and that most Deaf parents will continue to refuse such interventions with their Deaf children.)
When we think of kinship, yet other scholars maintain, what is at stake is common ancestors, what Joshua Fishman (1977) termed paternity—real or putative biological connections across generations. Johnson and Erting (1989) suggested that what is primary in this biological criterion for kinship is not genealogy but biological resemblance across generations. In that case, members of the Deaf-World are kin because Deaf people resemble one another biologically in their reliance on vision for language and for much else (Johnson & Erting, 1989). To some extent, like the members of many other ethnic groups, Deaf people come by their biological resemblance through heredity more often than not. The estimate commonly cited is 50% of all people born deaf with little or no usable hearing are so for hereditary reasons (Reardon et al., 1992). However, another 20% are Deaf for reasons unknown; many of those may be hereditarily Deaf people not aware of the role of their ancestry (S. Smith, 1995).
To summarize in the words of social scientist Arthur Smith
By involving a collective name, by the use of symbolic images of community, by the generation of stereotypes of the community and its foes, by the ritual performance and rehearsal of ceremonies, by the communal recitation of past deeds and ancient hero's exploits, men and women partake of a collectivity and its historic fate which transcend their individual existences. (A. D. Smith, 1986, p. 46)
Many scholars in the field of ethnicity believe that these "internal" properties of the ethnic group just reviewed must also be accompanied by an "external" property, a boundary separating the minority from other ethnicities, in particular, the majority ethnicity (Barth, 1969). Does the Deaf-World in the United States occupy its own ecological niche? Does it look to itself for the satisfaction of certain needs, while looking to the larger society for the satisfaction of other needs—and conversely?
Table 2 shows, at the left, activities that are primarily conducted by Deaf people for Deaf people in the Deaf-World in the United States; at the right, activities in the hearing world that impact Deaf people; and in the middle, areas of overlap. The more Deaf people celebrate their language and culture, the more they affirm their distinct identity, the more they reinforce the boundary delineating them from the hearing world. Language comes first for it always plays a powerful role in maintaining ethnic boundaries, but especially so in the case of Deaf people because hearing people are rarely fluent in visual language and members of the Deaf-World are rarely fluent in spoken language. Next, Deaf-World social activities are organized and conducted by Deaf people with little or no hearing involvement. On the other hand, law enforcement is a hearing world activity. Religious services overlap the Deaf and hearing worlds; there are missions to the Deaf, Deaf pastors, and signed services, but the operation of the house of worship is generally in hearing hands. All in all, the Deaf-World keeps to itself for many of its activities; it collaborates in a few with the hearing world; and it leaves the really broad responsibilities such as law enforcement to the larger society; in this, it is like other ethnic groups, such as Hispanic Americans.
This brief survey is intended to show that the Deaf-World in the United States today meets the criteria put forth for ethnic groups (also see Erting, 1978, 1982; Johnson & Erting, 1979, 1982, 1984, 1989; Markowicz & Woodward, 1978; Padden & Markowicz, 1976). Classifying the Deaf-World as an ethnic group should encourage those who are concerned with Deaf people to do appropriate things: learn their language, defend their heritage against more powerful groups, study their ethnic history; and so on. In this light, the Deaf-World should enjoy the rights and protections accorded other ethnic groups under international law and treaties, such as the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (United Nations, 2003a).
Abberley, P. (1987). The Concept of oppression and the development of a social theory of disability. Disability, Handicap and Society, 2, 5–19.
Allen, T. E., Rawlings, B. W., & Remington, E. (1994). Demographic and audiologic profiles of deaf children in Texas with cochlear implants. American Annals of the Deaf, 138, 260–266.
American Genetic Association, Eugenics Section. (1912). American sterilization laws. Preliminary report of the Committee of the Eugenics Section of the American Breeders Association to study and to report on the best practical means for cutting off the defective germ plasm in the human population. London: Eugenics Educational Society.
Bahan, B. (2004, April). The visual people. Paper presented at the conference Deaf Studies Today, Utah Valley State College, Orem.
Balkany, T. J., Hodges, A. V., Eshraghi, A. A., Butts, S., Bricker, K., Lingvai, J., et al. (2002). Cochlear implants in children—a review. Acta Oto-laryngologica (Stockholm), 122, 356–362.
Balkany, T., Hodges. A., & Goodman K. (1996). Ethics of cochlear implantation in young children. Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, 114, 748–755.
Balkany, T., Hodges, A., & Goodman, K. (1999). Authors' reply [to Lane and Bahan]. Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, 121, 673–675.
Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries. Boston: Little-Brown.
Baynton, D. (2000). Bodies and environments. In P. Blanet (Ed.), Employment, disability and the Americans with Disabilities Act (pp. 387–411). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Baynton, D. (2002, July). Deafness and disability. Paper presented at the Deaf Studies Think Tank, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.
Bell, A. G. (1883). Memoir upon the formation of a deaf variety of the human race. Washington, DC: Volta Bureau.
Biesold, H. (1999). Crying hands: Eugenics and deaf people in Nazi Germany. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Binnie, C. (1994). The future of audiologic rehabilitation: Overview and forecast. In J. P. Gagné & N. Tye-Murray (Eds.), Research in audiological rehabilitation (pp. 13–24). Cedar Falls, IA: American Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology.
BU team finds genetic cause of Waardenburg syndrome. (1992, March). Deaf Community News, p. 6.
Bullard, D. (1986). Islay. Silver Spring, MD: TJ Publishers.
Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies, Gallaudet University. (1992). Annual survey of hearing-impaired children and youth 1991–1992. Age at onset of deafness for students with profound hearing losses. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.
Chimezie, A. (1975). Transracial adoption of black children. Social Work, 20, 296–301.
Christiansen, J. B., & Leigh, I. W. (2004). Children with cochlear implants: Changing parent and Deaf community perspectives. Archives of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 130, 673–677.[CrossRef]
Cohen, N. (1994). The ethics of cochlear implants in young children. American Journal of Otology, 15, 2.
Conrad, P., & Schneider, J. (1980). Deviance and medicalization. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Daneshi, A., Farhadi, M., Emamjomeh, H., & Hasanzadeh, S. (2000). Management and the control of gusher during cochlear implant surgery. Advances in Oto-Rino-Laryngology, 57, 120–122.
Davis, D. S. (1997). Cochlear implants and the claims of culture? A response to Lane and Grodin. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 7, 253–258.[Medline]
Davis, L. (2002). Postdeafness. Paper presented at the Deaf Studies Think Tank, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.
Deafness gene. (1992, February 18 ). New York Times, p. 141, B7, C 2.
Deshen, S. (1992). Blind people. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Downie, A. B., Mulligan, J., McCaughey, E. S., Stratford, R. J., Betts, P. R., & Voss, L. D. (1996). Psychological response to treatment in short normal children. Archives of Disorders of Childhood, 76, 92–95.
Dreger, A. (1998). Hermaphrodites and the medical invention of sex. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Eisenman, D. J. (1999). To the editor [a reply to Lane and Bahan]. Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 121, 670–671.
Erting, C. (1978). Language policy and Deaf ethnicity in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 19, 139–152.
Erting, C. (1982). Deafness, communication and social identity: An anthropological analysis of interaction among parents, teachers and deaf children in a preschool. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, American University, Washington, DC.
Fine, H.,& Fine, P. (Executive Producers). (1990, March). Sixty Minutes. New York, NY: Columbia Broadcasting System.
Finkelstein, V. (1981). Disability and the helper-helped relationship. In A. Brechin, P. Liddiard, & J. Swain (Eds.), Handicap in a social world, (pp. 58–64). Sevenoaks, UK: Beckenham, Hodder, & Stoughton.
Finkelstein, V. (1991) "We" are not disabled, "you" are. In S. Gregory & G. M. Hartley (Eds.), Constructing Deafness, (pp. 265–271) London: Pinter.
Fishman, J. (1977). Language and ethnicity. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations (pp. 15–57). New York: Academic Press.
Fishman, J. (1982). A critique of six papers on the socialization of the deaf child. In J. B. Christiansen (Ed.), Conference highlights: National research conference on the social aspects of deafness (pp. 6–20). Washington, DC: Gallaudet College.
Fishman, J. (1989). Language and ethnicity in minority sociolinguistic perspective. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Brighton, UK: Harvester Press.
Fraser, G. R. (1976). The causes of profound deafness in childhood. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Gastman, B. R., Hirsch, B. E., Sando, I., Fukui, M. B., & Wargo M. L. (2002). The potential risk of carotid injury in cochlear implant surgery. Laryngoscope, 112, 262–266.[Medline]
Geers, A. E., Nicholas, J. G., & Sedey, A. L. (2003). Language skills of children with early cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 24(Suppl.), 46S–58S.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Gelb, S. A. (1987). Social deviance and the "discovery" of the moron. Disability, Handicap and Society, 2, 247–258.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gonsoulin, T. P. (2001). Cochlear implant/Deaf-World dispute: Different bottom elephants. Otolaryngology—Head and neck surgery, 125, 552–556.[CrossRef]
Gusfield, J. (1982). Deviance in the welfare state: The alcoholism profession and the entitlements of stigma. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Research in social problems and public policy (Vol. 2., pp. 1–20). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gusfield, J. (1984). On the side: Practical action and social constructivism in social problems theory. In J. Schneider & J. Kitsuse (Eds.), Studies in the sociology of social problems (pp. 31–51). Rutgers, NJ: Ablex.
Gusfield, J. (1989). Constructing the ownership of social problems: Fun and profit in the welfare state. Social Problems, 36, 431–441.
Haller, M. (1963). Eugenics: Hereditarian attitudes in American thought. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Higgins, W. (Ed.). (1993). La parole des sourds. Psychoanalystes, 46–47, 1–216.
Humphries, T. (1993). Deaf culture and cultures. In K. M. Christensen & G. L. Delgado (Eds.), Multicultural issues in deafness, (pp. 3–15). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Huygen, P. L., Hinderink, J. B., van den Broek, P., van den Borne, S., Brokx, J. P., Mens, L. H., et al. (1995). The risk of vestibular function loss after intracochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngologica, Pt. 2(Suppl. 520),270–272.
Hyde, M. (1994). Some ethical dimensions of cochlear implantation of deaf children. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 166, 19–20.
Jalbert, Y. (2003). Décès suite à un implant cochléaire: Pas un type b. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 168, 256.[Free Full Text]
Johnson, R. E., & Erting, C. (1979, November). Sign, solidarity, and socialization. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Cincinnati, OH.
Johnson, R. E., & Erting, C. (1982). Linguistic socialization in the context of emergent deaf ethnicity. In C. Erting & R. Meisegeier (Eds.), Working papers no. 1: Deaf children and the socialization process. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College. (Unpaginated document).
Johnson, R. E., & Erting, C. (1984). Linguistic socialization in the context of emergent Deaf ethnicity. In K. Kernan (Ed.), Wenner-Gren Foundation working papers in anthropology. New York: Wenner-Gren.
Johnson, R. E., & Erting, C. (1989). Ethnicity and socialization in a classroom for Deaf children. In C. Lucas (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of the Deaf community (pp. 41–84). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Kelsall, D. C., Shallop, J. K., Brammeier, T. G., & Prenger, E. C. (1997). Facial nerve stimulation after Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implantation. American Journal of Otology, 18, 336–341.
Kennedy, D. (2003). Little people. New York: St. Martin's Press
Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding deaf culture: In search of Deafhood. London: Multilingual Matters.
Lane, H. (1984). When the mind hears: A history of the Deaf. New York: Random House.
Lane, H. (1994). World Federation of the Deaf News, 2–3, 22–28. Reprinted in Das Zeichen, 29, 332–343 (1994).
Lane, H. (1995). Constructions of deafness. Disability and Society, 10, 171–89.
Lane, H. (1999). Mask of benevolence (2nd Ed.). San Diego, CA: DawnSignPress.
Lane, H. (2004a). A Deaf artist in early America: The worlds of John Brewster Jr. Boston: Beacon Press.
Lane, H. (2004b). The education of Deaf children: Drowning in the mainstream and the sidestream. In J. Kauffman & D. Hallahan (Eds.), The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (pp. 275–287). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Lane, H., & Bahan, B. (1998). Effects of cochlear implantation in young children: A review and a reply from a DEAF-WORLD perspective. Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery 119, 297–308.
Lane, H., & Grodin, M. (1997). Ethical issues in cochlear implant surgery: An exploration into disease, disability, and the best interests of the child. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 7, 231–251.[ISI][Medline]
Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R., & Bahan, B. (1996). A journey into the Deaf-World. San Diego, CA: DawnSignPress.
Lane, H., Pillard, R., & French, M. (2000). Origins of the American Deaf-World: Assimilating and differentiating societies and their relation to genetic patterning. Sign Language Studies, 1, new series,17–44.
Levesque, J. (1994). It's a Deaf Deaf Deaf-World. DCARA News, 15, 2.
Markowicz, H., & Woodward, J. (1978). Language and the maintenance of ethnic boundaries in the Deaf community. Communication and Cognition, 11, 29–37.
May, D., & Hughes, D. (1987). Organizing services for people with mental handicap: The Californian experience. Disability, Handicap and Society, 2, 213–230.
Mayberry, R., & Eichen, E. (1991). The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 486–512.[CrossRef]
Menière, P. (1853). De la guérison de la surdi-mutité et de l'éducation des sourds-muets. Exposé de la discussion qui a eu lieu a l'Académie Impériale de Médecine, avec notes critiques. Paris: Bailliere.
Mills, M. (2002, April 9). Women: I am happy my child is Deaf. The Guardian, 8.
Mindess, A. (1999). Reading between the signs: Intercultural communication for sign language interpreters. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Mitchell, S. H. (1971). The haunting influence of Alexander Graham Bell. American Annals of the Deaf, 116, 349–356.[Medline]
Muhs, J. (1996). Followers and outcasts: Berlin's Deaf community under national socialism, 1933–1945. Collage, 33, 195–204.
Nagel, J. (1994). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. Social problems, 41, 152–176.
National Association of the Deaf. (2000). Position paper Cochlear Implants. Retrieved April 16, 2005, from www .nad .org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=138140.
National Inquiry Into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children From Their Families. (1997). Bringing them home. New South Wales, Australia: Sterling Press.
Newport, E. Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28.
Nunes, R. (2001). Ethical dimensions of pediatric cochlear implantation. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 22, 337–349.[Medline]
Padden C., & Humphries, T. (1998). Deaf in America: Voices from a culture. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Padden, C., & Markowicz, H. (1976). Cultural conflicts between hearing and deaf communities. In F. B. Crammatte & A. B. Crammatte (Eds.), Seventh World Congress of the World Federation of the Deaf (pp. 407–411). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.
Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign Language and reading ability in Deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 165–189). Maway, NJ: LEA.
Peter, W. W. (1934). Germany's sterilization program. American Journal of Public Health, 243, 187–91.
Petersen, W. (1980). Concepts of ethnicity. In S. Thernstrom (Ed.), Harvard encyclopedia of American ethnic groups (pp. 234–242). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Petitto, L. (1993). On the ontogenetic requirements for early language acquisition. In E. de Boysson-Bardies, S. de Schonen, P. Jusczyk, & J. Morton (Eds.), Developmental neurocognition: Speech and face processing in the first year of life (pp. 365–383). New York: Kluwer Academic Press.
Ramsey, P. (1970). The patient as person. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Reardon, W., Middleton-Price, H., Malcolm, S., Phelps, P., Bellman, S., Luxon, L., et al. (1992). Clinical and genetic heterogeneity in X-linked deafness. British Journal of Audiology, 26, 109–114.[Medline]
Reefhuis, J., Honein, M. A., Whitney, C. G., Chamany, S., Mann, E. A., Biernath, K. R., et al. (2003). Risk of bacterial meningitis in children with cochlear implants. New England Journal of Medicine, 349, 435–445.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Reisenberg, D., & Glass, R. M. (1989). The medical outcomes study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 262, 943.[CrossRef][Medline]
Saltus, R. (1989, July 10). Returning to the world of sound. Boston Globe, pp. 27, 29.
Schein J. D. (1989). At home among strangers. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Schneider, D. M. (1969). Kinship, nationality and religion in American culture: Toward a definition of kinship. In R. F. Spencer (Ed.), Forms of symbolic action (pp. 116–125) Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Schneider, D. M. (1972). What is kinship all about? In P. Reining (Ed.), Kinship studies in the Morgan centennial year (pp. 32–64). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington.
Schuchman, S.,& Ryan, D. (Eds.). (2002). Deaf people in Hitler's Europe. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Shapiro, J. P. (1993). No pity: People with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. New York: Times Books.
Simon, R. J., & Altstein, H. (1992). Adoption, race and identity: from infancy through adolescence. New York: Praeger.
Smith, A. D. (1986). The ethnic origin of nations. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
Smith, S. (1995). Overview of genetic auditory syndromes. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 6, 1–14.[Medline]
Smith, T. (1997). Deaf people in context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Sollors, W. (2001). Ethnic groups/ethnicity: Historical aspects. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (pp. 4813–4817). New York: Elsevier.
Strong, M., & Prinz, P. (1997). A study of the relationship between American Sign Language and English literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2, 37–46.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Svirsky, M., Teoh, S.-W., & Neuburger, H. (2004). Development of language and speech perception in congenitally, profoundly deaf children as a function of age at cochlear implantation. Audiology, Neuro-Otology, 9, 224–233.[CrossRef][Medline]
Turnbull, C. M. (1962). The forest people. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Tye-Murray, N. (1992). Cochlear implants and children: A handbook for parents, teachers and speech and hearing professionals. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.
United Nations. (1948). Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Resolution 96/I.
United Nations. (1992). Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. Resolution 47/135.
United Nations (2003a). Declaration on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities Resolution 47/135. In E. Osmanczyk & A. Mango (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the United Nations and international agreements. New York: Routledge.
United Nations (2003b). Genocide Convention, 1948 Resolution 96/1. In E. Osmanczyk & A. Mango (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the United Nations and international agreements (pp. 293-294). New York: Routledge.
Valenstein, E. (1986). Great and desperate cures. New York: Basic Books.
Van Cleve, J., & Crouch, B. (1989). A place of their own: Creating the deaf community in America. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Werth, B. (1991, June 16). How short is too short? New York Times Magazine, Section 6, pp. 14–17, 28–29, 47.
Winzer, M. A. (1986). Deaf-Mutia: Responses to alienation by the deaf in the mid-19th century. American Annals of the Deaf, 131, 29–32.[Medline]
Zola, I. K. (1993). Disability statistics, what we count and what it tells us. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 4, 9–39.
Soundmoon - Dom Gen 24, 2010 6:32 pm
Ragazze, scusate, ma sono rimasto affascinato dai vostri discorsi... Non ne sono rimasto stupito però, perchè, forse per storia personale, mi ero già posto molti dei problemi ai quali ho trovato riscontro nei vostri post. Spero però davvero di potermi confrontare con voi.
silvieta - Gio Set 23, 2010 10:35 pm
Soundmoon... Spero anch'io di potermi confrontare...
Il confronto è crescita...e tutti dobbiamo sempre crescere..