Which is better? : Deaf or Deafness?
Which is better : Deaf or Deafness?
It’s one of the few things that annoys me to no end. It just drives me nuts.
It’s when people use the word deafness in the wrong way. It’s when they define that word erroneously.
Did it ever occur to you that Deaf and Deafness are both the same. The only difference is how each is used in a sentence or a title.
We have seen how some claimed deafness is the focus on ‘ears’ and ‘mouths’.
We have seen how some claimed deafness is medical. Pathological.
Is deaf better than deafness?
No way, no how.
Both mean the same thing.
Really!
We have seen how some claimed deafhood is better than deaf or deafness.
Throw in a bit of a common sense here, okay? Along with learning English structure.
Deaf is an adjective.
Deafness is a noun.
I’m not sure what deafhood is, it’s not even in the dictionary, not the official one anyway.
Definition of DEAF
1
: lacking or deficient in the sense of hearing2
: unwilling to hear or listen : not to be persuaded <was overwrought and deaf to reason>— deaf·ish adjective
— deaf·ly adverb
— deaf·ness noun
Merriam-Webster does not have a stand alone definition of deafness, most likely because it is the same definition of deaf except deafness is a noun and its use is dependent on how a sentence or title is worded.
We can say: I am deaf.
We cannot say: I am deafness.
We can say: My deafness does not define me.
We cannot say: My deaf does not define me.
We can say: This book is about deaf people.
We cannot say: This book is about deafness people.
We can say: I am going to a book signing for “Understanding Deafness.”
We cannot say: I am going to a book signing for “Understanding Deaf.”
We can say: share your deafness with me.
We can not say: Share your deaf with me.
I don’t know where the idea that deafness is defined to mean Oral or ‘ears’ and/or ‘mouth’, because that is not what deafness means.
It seemed that it might have come out during a time where certain people assumed that oral organization with the word deafness in it meant it is oral related, has to do with ears or mouth. I do remember someone saying deaf is better than deafness.
Truth is, It depends on how the title of an organization is named or how a sentence is set up.
There’s no way to compare these two words because they both mean the same thing.
Soooo, which is better? Deaf or Deafness?
Neither. They’re the same.
Comments are closed.
Candy 
Once upon a time the only issue was access and cures, now it’s terminological warfare, which I have little time or patience for, and produces everything that is negative.. What is in a word ? An whole new dogma for the disaffected, the extremist, and the disfranchised…. we need to get back to basics of human need and choice. Not an single new ‘term’ has provided anything positive in the respective and warring worlds of hearing loss. I don’t care who is deaf or who is Deaf, it’s all about respect and terminology has became an disease..
MM..
I agree.
This deaf vs deafness is quite silly, they mean the same thing. I don’t know if they just came up with this definition all on their own – on purpose or if they truly don’t understand American English Grammar. In any case, I’m here to help. :o)
I agree! It’s a reminder of the things that are illusory… making things more than what they really are by those who are desperately trying to reinvent the wheels in order to suit their issues. Shameful. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. One more classic blog by you.
Yeah, I have often wondered the same thing, Candy, ever since I first saw this….at first, I just regarded it as a grammatical error but as as it took hold and persisted, I became perplexed. As if there isn’t already enough legitimate stuff out there to discourse over……
I agree with you, Candy. There is nothing wrong with the word “deafness.” Deaf and deafness are the same thing, just like prettiness and goodness. But at the same time, I can sort of understand the other perspective. In research literature, the word “deafness” has come to be associated with pathology, i.e., something to be fixed, something deficient. I don’t feel horribly sensitized to that association, myself, and I don’t think most people I’ve encountered mean it that way either. One thing’s for sure: I will never use this new word, “deafhood,” no way, no how, in place of deafness!
lucidly written but i respectfully disagree. i think deafhood is a term that should have been articulated long ago; it’s a handy addition but i wish it didn’t come loaded as a direct counterpart to other terms just as i wish deafness didn’t acquire the stain it has.
when i say i’m deaf, that’s appropriate usage of the word. when i say i find strength in my deafness, that also works… but begs a bit because i read stuff in where the goal is to lessen the incidence of deafness such as in eradicating meningitis and find myself okay with it. that’s because it’s a different definition of deafness being used; there’s the condition, but i’m talking about identity.
my brother recently said parenthood has been the most transformative experience of his life, and that was a succinct claim. i also understood that parenthood, while a universal concept, is elastic and individual. that’s how come i think there’s a place in our dictionary for deafhood — we say the deaf identity, the deaf experience, etc, but deafness doesn’t always quite capture that particular connotation. words are living — they evolve, die away, get introduced… and i believe deafhood transcends euphemism and so merits entry into our vocabulary. as for that it isn’t yet in the books, that’s a circular argument and unproductive — and the last resort for its naysayers.
lastly, not to make this grandiose, i’d like for us to look at orwell and shakespeare. orwell wrote about winnowing words in 1984 as a way to stunt expression and, ultimately, confound debate while shakespeare wantonly made up words that conformed with existing logic and thus enriched us all. we have nothing to fear from new words if they expand possibilities for all.
Dictionaries generally don’t include *connotation* in their definitions: for example, one wouldn’t say a man was beautiful, nor a woman handsome unless one intended to imply gayness.
The connotation of “deafness” is pathology: illness, condition of, definition of a defect, etc. The connotation of “deaf” is simply not hearing.
Examples: Deafness runs in the family. The patient has heart trouble, deafness, and diabetes. Deafness is the topic of the symposium. Alport syndrome is a complex of deafness and chronic renal disease. Because of her deafness, she is not able to answer the phone.
Deaf: She is a deaf graduate of Northern Secondary School. The family has three deaf and four hearing members. He is an artist who is deaf. Gallaudet University is a higher education institution for deaf students. She is culturally Deaf. See how it sounds more normal?
The difference is lexically slight, as you say. However, truly skilled writers and communicators are aware of the connotations of words and use them deliberately.
theholism…
Yup, re-inventing the wheel. Thanks. It was something that annoyed me so much. It’s like this one reader who contacted me and asked if I realized I mixed up ‘sent’ and ‘send.’ This was a pet peeve of that person, and I responded, saying that I was aware of it. I always never could get it right. Because of that person, I am now more conscious about using either words. At least, I try. I have not heard back from that person since. LOL!!! I welcome correction and criticism. However, in my case, it wasn’t deliberate such as, in the name of deaf identity politics. lol
Tousi43…
You got it right, “as if there isn’t already enough legitimate stuff out there to discourse over.” lol Nice to know others like you see it the way I do. Someone contacted me via private FB message and pretty much said the same thing as you did. It’s nice when we can be grammatically correct. It’s okay to be creative when writing, even if done in jest. But, we keep seeing the same thing, over and over. Oh, the insanity! 😉
Anonymous the first…
Yes. You also gave a good example and I am surprise Dianrez didn’t take what you shared into account since she commented after you did.
Prettiness and goodness. Yup.
In research literature as you put it, can it be replaced with deaf and still make sense, or rather would it be grammatically correct?
I think I will do some checking around and give out more examples….
I’ll be back to respond to the rest in a bit…..
gl..
Deafness as an identity? Is this something concocted? Such as, rather than deaf and deafness being what it really means as defined in dictionaries? At first, in my mind, without even checking the definition of deafness, I told myself that deafness is a condition of being deaf. A condition, yes. Both are the same.
You’re getting into ‘deafhood’ and it may be my fault since I brought it up as it not being in the dictionary. I did ask which is better, deaf or deafness. Not, which is better – deaf or deafness or deafhood. 😉 I realize some people pick certain words and run off with it and others read the whole post and ‘get’ what the topic is about. Not going to get into deafhood at all. Only deaf and deafness.
Deaf and deafness identifies a person who has hearing loss. Something that we all should not be ashamed of. The point is, both mean the same. However, in sentences or titles, or whatever, it is used according to how it should be used grammatically.
If it is all about identity, what is wrong with deaf? In what ways would deaf be negative as versus deafness? And, how so?
Other definition of deafness:
Answers.com – Temporary or permanent impairment or loss of hearing.
The Free Dictionary – The lack or severe impairment of the ability to hear.
Audio English (audioenglish.net) – partial or complete loss of hearing
Medterms.com – defined by partial or complete hearing loss.
Like it or not, being deaf is a medical condition. Medical in the sense that deafness is caused by genes, illness, injury, virus, bacteria, etc. Note how I did not say: Medical in the sense that deaf is caused by…. It’s because it would have been grammatically incorrect.
I don’t think this has anything to do with winnowing words. We have seen deaf people online who have emphasized that deafness is medical/pathological as if to say that it is a bad word because it focuses on the ears and mouth as if deafness focuses on oralism, as if deafness focuses on cochlear implants, listening and speaking, etc. They come up with their own definition of deafness which is not even defined as such in dictionaries!
Dianrez..
Connotation is the emotional and imaginative association surrounding a word. Sure sounds like someone letting their emotions get to them over that word and they got imaginative with the word too.
I am going to change deafness to deaf in the paragraph you wrote:
Deaf runs in the family. The patient has heart trouble, deaf, and diabetes. Deaf is the topic of the symposium. Alport syndrome is a complex of deaf and chronic renal disease. Because of her deaf, she is not able to answer the phone.
BAD GRAMMAR!!! There is a reason why deafness is used.
Now, on to your other example, I’m going to change from deaf to deafness:
She is a deafness graduate of Northern Secondary School. The family has three deafness and four hearing members. He is an artist who is deafness. Gallaudet University is a higher education institution for deafness students. She is culturally Deafness.
BAD GRAMMAR!! There is a reason why deaf is used.
Grammar, Grammar, Grammar.
That was my point. Deaf is used when appropriate and deafness is used when appropriate as well. They both mean the same thing.
So, deafness is the condition of being deaf. I think this sums it up nicely.
Okay, Candy, I hadn’t taken Anonymous’ comment into consideration since I was talking about a specific concept: connotation or hidden or implied meaning, not one’s sensitivity or association. An example:
NTID admits students with deafness. Athletes dealing with deafness compete with other athletes on the college playing field. The art gallery displays works by people coping with deafness and the art is about living with deafness.
See how totally condescending and clinical that sounds? The connotations are clear: limitation, handicap, altered life, medical consideration.
The same paragraph: NTID admits deaf students. Deaf athletes compete with other athletes on the college playing field. The art gallery displays works by deaf people and the art is about deaf lifestyle.
Now: for comparision, let’s substitute the word “blackness” (although it does not describe a pathological condition in our present culture.)
Howard admits students with blackness. Athletes dealing with blackness compete with other athletes on the college playing field. The art gallery displays works by people coping with blackness and the art is about living with blackness.
That sounds stupid, wouldn’t you agree? It’s all in the perspective.
The blackness example sounds stupid and the deafness example sounds condescending and clinical?
They both sound stupid, period. Who writes like that?
I don’t see your example using deafness as condescending or clinical. It just does not reflect good writing. A journalist or PR person who writes that way isn’t going to get any accolades for that kind of writing.
You choose to perceive deafness as condescending and clinical based on what you were taught, damn the definition. I can’t change how you think.
Deafness and deaf have the same meaning but used differently. I think you do know what I mean, but you are having a hard time letting go of the perception that deafness is evil.
Here’s the truth: No matter how one tries to paint deaf or deafness, both has to do with hearing loss. Hearing loss is a medical condition. A disability. There’s no way around it. We just choose not to be ‘disabled’ by overcoming the loss of one of our senses. We adapt. We make do with what we have. We make the best of it.
If one isn’t content being deaf and accepting their deafness, then I feel sorry for that person.
One can use deaf and deafness in the same sentence as I just did above, that is what I am getting at. It’s how these two words are used.
I respect your perception. However it is misleading for one to imply that deafness is all about the focus on ears/mouth, oralism, listening/speaking, because deafness is also about sign language and deaf culture. It is. 😉
There is no clear cut definition that states deafness is different from deaf.
“See how totally condescending and clinical that sounds? The connotations are clear: limitation, handicap, altered life, medical consideration.”
This goes to show how some ppl see the word deafness with black-colored glasses.
I find the first sentence in the quotes somewhat strange– “See” how ______that “sounds”?
See and sounds? I can understand a lipreader expressing something like that though. 😉
Ann_C
Candy
“Deafness as an identity? Is this something concocted? Such as, rather than deaf and deafness being what it really means as defined in dictionaries? At first, in my mind, without even checking the definition of deafness, I told myself that deafness is a condition of being deaf. A condition, yes. Both are the same.”
all identities are concocted when you think about it, so yes. 🙂
as for the rest, yes – they’re interchangeable in many instances. that’s not in question. if you don’t like how deafness has become loaded or disagree with its connotations, that’s an altogether different debate, and as a rule i agree with you.
whether deafhood is a word, i’ll put that aside for another day.
Ann_C..
Metaphor’s is quite fascinating. 😉
gl..
I will agree that most, if not all, identities are concocted.
As for deafhood, another day, yup. If ever. If you’re interested, I do have a few older post on deafhood. Comments are closed, as are all of my older posts.
To everyone, have a great week! Enjoy the warm autumn, while it lasts!