The culture of Augmented and Alternative Communication:
An evolving culture.
Meredith Allan.
The first question we must ask is “Does Augmentative and Alternative
Communication (AAC) have a culture?” If it does have a culture, where is the
theorectical basis for the culture?
The culture of AAC has to be part of the disability culture, and it has to be a part of a
language culture, and we will assume there is also a part of the AAC culture that is
uniquely it’s own.
The second question we must ask is, “Does AAC have a language culture?” The
paper, “The Language of AAC” explores this question and concludes in part “We
miss the fullness of language and maybe miss some of its beauty. We use language
effectively, sometimes to our own detriment, we cross the borders of known
genderlects and upset linguists, we are developing our own rules. We use the
confines of the language we are given and explore it. We use the same language as
'verbal' speakers but use it differently.”(Allan: 2002)
The culture of AAC will be analysed in two areas, firstly, the disability culture, and
secondly, the language culture. To analyse the unique part, if it exists, will take
several more years.
The Disability Culture
There is little doubt to look at the disability culture is to look at a culture of
oppression. Disabling values in society have led to disabling and parochial policies,
which leads to a culture of tragedy, embodiment and otherness. (Priestly: 1999) We
are made to feel our bodies are inferior and emphasis is focused on our differences.
(Priestly: 1999).
Mike Oliver has been leading the cultural variation of disability and pushing for an
enabling counter culture.(Priestly:1999) It is hard to break away from the tragic view
of disability, especially when we are so dependent on the welfare dollar, no matter
how independent we may feel. (Priestly: 1999) Social change and hence, cultural
change, will only come about by setting new agendas and emphasising commonality
with society. (Priestly:1999).
A couple of months ago I was in yet another bank, doing the 100-point check for an
account I had become a signatory for. I was answering the questions, showing the
licence and various identifications the bank person required. She did not ask me my
occupation, she had written in the space,”PENSIONER”. All I can remember is
saying to myself, be calm Meredith, and wanting to get out of there quickly. I know I
wanted to tell the woman I earned more than she did.
.
Being a person with a disability is belonging to a society that oppresses. International
Year of Disabled People was a turning point is trying to break the oppressive culture,
and the United Nations did make a statement of intent, which included words like
full participation and equality of opportunity, but the barriers to inclusive citizenship
still exist.(Priestly: 1999)
At the ISAAC Bienniel Conference in Denmark, in August 2002, Fiona Given gave a
paper on “Disability and Oppression”. The paper spoke about the physical barriers
and social perceptions of disability and how the exclusion from employment keeps the
people with disability in the lower socio economic bracket. (Given:2002)
Fiona specifically mentions the cost of technology, the complexity of language and
barriers to education as keeping the person who uses AAC oppressed in society.
(Given: 2002) Fiona states, “Many people who could be empowered by AAC, are
not”. (Given: 2002)
Michael Williams also speaks of a “cultural history”of being disempowered, and
“abandoned without communication”. (Williams: 2000) We have only just begun to
break away from the cultural history we do not want, and demand our right to be
heard.
Disability has it’s own special relationship with technology, unlike most cultures; we
have made technology part of our culture.
In 1974, I remember our teacher asked the class to imagine what we would be doing
if we lived in the previous century. I said I would not be alive. And the rest of the
class said they would not be alive either. The advancement in technology had given
us the chance at life.
The debate over the nature/ nurture culture and concerns with technology interfering
with that culture, is not an issue in the disability culture. (Hillyer: 1993) We live with
the dualism of the nature, technology hierarchy.(Hillyer:1993) Technology has
helped us be who we want to be.
Being dependent on technology has made us vulnerable, and it is not without caution
do we integrate technology into our daily lives. (Hillyer: 1993) Nor does it mean
technology takes away from our awareness of self, our body image or our sexuality.
(Hillyer:1993). It is an integration process. For example, I demand the best voice on
my Voice Output devise and I must use the female voice.
One day I had a friend to lunch and she asked me if my young nieces, who have
grown up with me, recognise the Light writer as being my voice. I had to admit the
youngest niece, who is just three, has only just started responding to my Lightwriter
as my voice. Before that it was just a computer game. However, when I raise a finger
she starts crying knowing she is in big trouble.
The older niece, who is five, goes and gets the Lightwriter out of my bag, when she
wants me to read her a story. I would much rather have her pretend to read to me
than have the intrusion of technology.
There is space in the nurture/technology debate, and how there is integration in the
disability culture, for recognising individual concerns.
The Language Culture
The anthropologist, Bronislaw Malinowski, states that a “culture cannot be created in
one act or in one moment”, and that “institutions, morals and religions cannot be
conjured up”. (Malinowski: 1927) In other words a culture evolves.
Malinowski goes onto say that, language, thought and material culture are correlated
and must be at every stage of development, hence they are also a the beginnings of a
culture. (Malinowski:1927) Material culture is social organisation, houses, cooking
implements and materials needed to keep a community together. (Malinowski: 1927)
Language, as described by Malinowski, is the “bonds of speech that unites groups of
people at all levels of a culture, and sharply distinguishes them from those with whom
it is impossible with by word of mouth”. (Malinowski: 1927) It is seventy-five years
since Malinowski wrote those words, but the irony cannot go unnoticed.
Linguistically, there are two theories, Chomsky and Whorf, which are important to
the AAC culture theory. There are other theories, but only two will be covered here.
First year linguistics students read Chomsky with confusion. Chomsky is very hard to
read, let alone comprehend. Breifly, Chomsky believed language was based on
linguistic structure and performance, where structure was the priority. (Jeffries: 1998)
As Leslie Jeffries explains it, “it is easier to cope with the complexity of language by
pretending there is a clear boundary between inefficient language use and the perfect
language system in our brains”. (Jeffries:1998)
It would be easy to stop with the Chomsky theory and interpret it into the AAC
culture.
Words, however, are just “part of the equation”, meaning has to play a large portion
of what is read or heard. (Jeffries: 1998) There is also non-verbal communication;
unwritten rules and context, which interact to govern the language. (Jeffries: 1998)
Cultural interpretation too, is hidden within language to help decipher or misinterpret
words. Salman Rushdie once wrote a book called, The Satanic Verses, which made
him a literary genius in one culture, and an assassination target in another culture.
(Jeffries: 1998)
Benjamin Whorf saw language as a system, with all parts of the system inter
dependant on each other. (Jeffries: 1998) Whorf is important to the AAC culture
theory, as Whorf saw language as the “oppressor”. (Jeffries: 1998)
Remember back to the bank example, it was the language that was the oppressor.
Think of the disability culture, language is the oppressor that hurts the most. If we are
to define an AAC culture, language is the oppressor.
.It was Whorf who with his student, Edward Sapir, who developed the hypothesis
that says, "it is language which determines the limits of our world, which constructs
our reality". (Spender: 1983) It is true when people enter a new speech community,
they see the world differently.
Those marginalised in society become victims of the “power of language over
perception”. (Jeffries: 1998) In the mid 1970’s, there was a growing movement
showing there was a female linguistic culture. Two male researchers tested this
theory in studying the court system, they determined yes the female language did exist
but it was not unique to women, it was the language of those marginalised in society.
O’Barr and Atkins, (1998) It was the language of the powerless.
The philosopher, Rousseau wrote, “man is born free but everywhere he is in chains”.
A culture which is determined by a language, has within it many cultures burdened by
the language itself.
The Evolving Culture of AAC
AAC is a new and evolving culture. As Malinowski says a culture is “not created by
an act or at one moment”, the culture develops with the correlation of “language,
thought and material culture”. (Malinowski: 1927)
Emphasis is needed on seeing the AAC culture as an “evolving” culture, so it will not
be seen as an “oppressive” culture. This is despite the fact that the AAC culture is
part of the disability culture and Whorfian theory. Hopefully the evolving culture of
AAC we can break free from the oppression.
Kim Isaac notes that in every culture, “non verbal communication is established
before the verbal culture”. (Isaac: 2002) However the non verbal communication
risksrelaying the wrong messages, offending people, and miss subtleties of language.
(Isaac: 2002) Communicative competence, or conversational satisfaction, is achieved
by motivation, knowledge and skill. (Isaac: 2002) The AAC community always seek
to achieve communicative competence. They do not want to stay in the non-verbal
culture.
Technology is a part of our culture, for those of us who choose to use technology. We
also have the choice not to use technology. Most people who use AAC,
seetechnology is a pathway to communicative competence and citizenship of society.
The AAC culture does exist, if only by the proof of cross culture misunderstandings.
We have narrow categorizations because of our communication aid’s design, or our
own wish to use language effectively and efficiently. Also the cultural barriers of the
reader, hearers may lead to huge cross-cultural misunderstandings. (Isaac: 2002)
I know I always have to move slowly into a conversation with a new reader, hearer. I
know at work where we have a very big multi cultural work force, that I cannot even
use the word “arvo”, I have to use afternoon. There r a lot of people who simply
cannot read or choose not to read, in fear that the person using AAC will show their
disability up. Also there are people who read or hear what they want to read or
hear..
Kim Isaac gives us a picture of culture as an iceberg. The explicit shows while the
depths of the implicit shows. (Isaac: 2002)
Sunday lunch in our house is always shared. I buy the bread or rolls, my sister
supplies the fillings, my brother in law makes the sandwiches or rolls. I was
reading the paper in my lounge, my brother in law was in the kitchen, my four-yearold niece was the intermediary.
“Mez, do want cheese?”
I nodded.
My niece goes back to her father and says yes.
My niece returns to me.
“Do you want sliced or tasty?” “Do you want sliced?”
I shook my head.
“Do you want Tasty?”
I nodded.
“Dad, Mez says she wants Tasty.”
My sister said from the decking, she did that better than most adults with you.
My niece has grown up with the AAC culture, she recognises the implicit part of the
iceberg.
The AAC culture is an identifyable culture, to be aware of, understood and learned.
The language of AAC is part of the language of powerless. Being part of the
language of the powerless should not be a worrying factor as the language that would
be seen as it is used by the majority of the population. Unfortunately the minority who
use the language of power, take the leadership positions in society.
The secret to the AAC culture not becoming an oppressive culture, is those who use
AAC being able to look at those with a regular voice, especially those with power,
and asking ‘would that person be that person without a voice’.
I especially like doing this with politicians, and I know without a voice, very few
would make it through the oppression of the disability culture, let alone have the
patience to develop their AAC skills.
Conclusion
Yes, there is an AAC culture, just as there are many cultures within the same
language. There are cross-cultural barriers when we integrate with the outside world.
Yes, language is an oppressor, but it is to everyone, not just to people without a voice.
Within our own culture we are all equal. As Sapir-Whorf determined it is language
that constructs our realities. If we want to go beyond the AAC culture, we have to
move beyond the language of AAC.
References
Allan, Meredith (1998) “The Language of Augmented and Alternative
Communication” the Words+/ISAAC Outstanding Consumer/User Lecture 1998,
Presented at the 8th Biennial ISAAC Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 25 August 1998.
Reprinted in AGOSCI News June 2002.
Given, Fiona (2002) “Oppression an Disability” paper presented at 10th Bienniel
ISAAC Conference, Odense, Dennmark, August 2002.
Hillyer, Barbara (1993) Feminism and Disability Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
Isaac, Kim (2002) Speech Pathology in Cultural & Linguistic Diversity London:
Whurr Publishing.
Jeffries, Leslie (1998) Meaning in English Houndmills: McMillans Press.
Malinowski, Bronslaw (1927) Sex and Repression in Savage Society London:
Routledge.
O’Barr, William M and Atkins, Bowman K (1998) “”Women’s Language” or
“Powerless Language”?” in Coates, Jennifer (ed) (1998) Gender and Language
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Priestly, Mark (1999) Disability Politics & Community Care London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishing.
Spender, D.(1983) Man Made Language London: Routledge & Kegan Paull.
Williams M B (2000) Privacy and AAC in Williams, M.B. (ed) (2000) Alternatively
Speaking Vol 5 No 2 pp 1,2 and 5.