can mute people actually talk?

[RithKingWill]

this idea came to me a few days ago... MOST LIKELY it is ungodly stupid but:

Mute people cannot speak like "normal" people would right? Is it because they simply can't use their vocal cords or something else?

Anyway, if they can breathe out of their mouth then, using my odd logic, they could be able to speak.

the /p/ sound doesn't require vocal cords just air

So, if this all correct, they should be able to speak, just in whispers...

Like I said...this may be ungodly stupid but an idea that just came to me

[Yng]

Muteness can be psychological or biological or a mixture of the two. I'd imagine mute people with just the latter problem can, yes - there are machines which will vibrate the vocal cords, as well, which can help mute people speak.

[LinguistCat]

On the other hand, if it's psychological, they may have the physical ability to speak, but can't make themselves or don't want to.

[Radagast]

Many mute people can't speak because they can't hear and haven't been able to acquire language in a non-signing community, but have an otherwise completely function articulatory apparatus. Some deaf people do learn to speak, but it seems to be highly dependent on their environments active efforts to teach them.

[Torco]

Or with clicks and other non-pulmonics. It might be possible, I ... I don't know.

[kelsavasi]

So, if this all correct, they should be able to speak, just in whispers...

Mostly right, except that mutes usually have working vocal chords - hence someone without working vocal chords would be said to have a speech impediment, not to be mute, since they can still speak.

Damaging the vocal chords leaves one unable to create voiced sounds like (though many languages have no voicing distinctions, anyway), though such people will not actually be considered mute. Similarly someone who lost use of their lips (e.g. by using too much Botox or by some freak accident - or never had them, in the case of some hypothetical bird-like aliens) will be unable to pronounce labials like [p b m f v w u o]. Though that isn't muteness, either, but rather a speech impediment not unlike lisping.

The most likely candidate for physiological muteness would be the loss of a tongue (e.g. by epileptic seizure, cancer from smoking or the mafia being unhappy with them talking to the police). That way only voicing and tone on low vowels and labial or glottal consonants would remain - i.e. becomes [a o], [p t k h] becomes [p h]. However, all of the above only rarely actually cause muteness since muteness is the absence of the ability to speak, not the lack of ability to realize a phonetic contrast.

The majority of mute people are either congenitally deaf (or at least lost their hearing as children, since later loss of hearing won't lead to a loss of speech) or have a neurological or psychological problem like being autistic or having suffered a stroke or trauma. In those cases it is important to remember that muteness is a question of degree: someone deaf could learn to speak, but this is difficult since they have not the feedback from hearing their own voice and matching it up to what they hear (hence the need for sign language); autistics might be able to talk to their family but not to people they do not know; those traumatized might be unable to bring themselves to speak at all.

Then there are some people who voluntarily choose not to speak (e.g. monks taking a vow of silence or a suspect making use of his right to say nothing). Though unless you know for sure that a person belongs to a religious group that requires a vow of silence you should assume that it is involuntary because it is annoying as hell if someone tells you that you're not actually mute but just too lazy to speak.

[Radagast]

So, if this all correct, they should be able to speak, just in whispers...

Mostly right, except that mutes usually have working vocal chords - hence someone without working vocal chords would be said to have a speech impediment, not to be mute, since they can still speak.

Damaging the vocal chords leaves one unable to create voiced sounds like (though many languages have no voicing distinctions, anyway), though such people will not actually be considered mute.

Vowels are voiced too.

[kelsavasi]

Vowels are voiced too.

Yeah, but most languages have no voicing distinction in the vowels - e.g. are distinguished by lip rounding and tongue height, not voice. Tonal languages would be another story, since tonality relies on use of the vocal chords. Of course one can whisper in Chinese - but then the vowels aren't distinguished by tone anymore but by other features like length or finer distinctions of tongue positions (just like the loss of voicing leaves one unable to distinguish voiced and unvoiced consonants whereas aspirated and unaspirated ones can still be distinguished).

[Radagast]

No but people with damaged vocal chords would speak with unvoiced vowels which is the same as whispering so the original poster was right.

[kelsavasi]

I don't understand. I said that he is right in that people with damaged vocal chords would need to whisper but wrong in that being able to whisper means that one is not mute, hence having damaged vocal chords does not imply muteness since in fact most mute people have intact vocal chords. So are you claiming that all mutes can whisper or that I claimed that people without vocal chords can produce voiced sounds?

[Radagast]

I think I misread you as saying that people without functioning vocal chords weren't mute since they were only unable to produce voicing distinctions in stops. I wanted to add that not having functional vocal chords was a little worse than that since you also can't produce vowels. Sorry for the confusion.

[finlay]

unvoiced vowels which is the same as whispering

actually, no. Whisper phonation is a different thing and involves some constriction in the larynx. But it's quite conceivable that a problem with one's larynx might imply that one can't fully voice but can constrict a bit to whisper.

[curiouslymute]

I saw some of the crazy answers and had to come post.

Can mutes talk? Yes, I talk with my hands with sign language.
Can mutes talk vocally? No, that is the very definition of mute.
Someone who can speak vocally, but has abnormal speech would be said to have a speech impediment. Someone without vocal chords, if they cant produce voice, they are mute - not a speech impediment.
Can mutes whisper? Some can, some can not. That depends largely on what made them mute. Still others choose not to whisper. I can produce whipser sounds, but I never had any practice forming words with that whisper. My whisper sounds very distorted as a result. It is also a lot of effort on my part, and I'm not comfortable with how close people need to be to hear it. I choose not to try using whispering.
Someone here said that many mutes cant speak because they cant hear. No, that would be deaf people. Deaf people are not mute, far from it. In fact, about half of my Deaf friends choose to voice to me since I am able to hear.
Clicks... yes, I used to use clicks. Dental work on an injury to my mouth took clicks away from me.

[finlay]

As much as we don't follow that many rules around here, thread necromancy is generally frowned upon, especially by first time posters. I mean the last post was three whole years ago!

[zompist]

Cool down, finlay. curiouslymute saw the thread browsing the board and, being mute, wanted to add a more knowledgeable response, thus asked me for an account. It's true that it's an old thread and probably not all these people are even here any more, but first-hand knowledge is always valuable.

[curiouslymute]

Many people get it wrong about mutes. So much so that I run in to trouble constantly, including being wrongly yelled at for "faking deafness". Thus, I'm going to add correct info on the topic whenever I have such an oppertunity. My appologies if it took me three years to find this particular thread.

[Drydic]

Frankly, I actually love thread necromancy. It gives me something to boggle at and lets me google for a new thread necromancy image, plus it's a neat game to see how far back someone can necro something. And this time it was actually on-topic and useful! Triple Necromancy Score!

[curiouslymute]

The only time I hate thread necromancy is when it's about something no longer relevant.
Mutes still exist, at least I'm pretty sure I still exist, so it's still relevant and useful.

[hwhatting]

at least I'm pretty sure I still exist

Salmoneus will probably tell you that this is a fallacy.

[curiouslymute]

at least I'm pretty sure I still exist

Salmoneus will probably tell you that this is a fallacy.

I sign, therefore I am.

-Julie

[Nesescosac]

Where are you from? If you live in the US/Anglophone Canada you could help my ASL be less shitty.

[Salmoneus]

at least I'm pretty sure I still exist

Salmoneus will probably tell you that this is a fallacy.

"I think therefore I am" is certainly a fallacy (or, depending how strictly you define 'fallacy', at least an argument that fails to prove what it thinks it proves). It's riddled with assumptions.
But I think people can know they exist - they just can't Know they exist, where 'Know' is a certain type of certain knowledge upon which further certain conclusions can be built. I also suspect that while we can know we exist, and probably can know we know we exist, we probably can't know we know we know we exist. However, I'm not sure about that.

I'd have to quibble with a few of their points, though.
Some mutes can't talk in any way. Psychological or neurological issues can affect all forms of communication, not just speaking.
Some mute people can speak. Selective mutism can be all but indistinguishable from other forms of mutism, if the circumstances in which the person will (/can) speak are very constrained - but these people do still have the ability to speak, and utilise that ability at times.
There's no real philosophical line between a speech impediment and mutism, is there?. If a 'speech impediment' is so severe that a person cannot be understood, this is indistinguishable from them being mute (an inability is just an insurmountable impediment), but what is and isn't understandable isn't an objective matter of fact.
Contrariwise, if a person can whisper sufficiently well to have their words heard and understood, they are not mute, they just have a speech impediment. I'm thinking here of old people I've heard talking, where either their lungs or their larynx has been damaged so badly they can only speak in a whisper - but we do not generally say that these people have become mute.

[I would think it would be more useful to define mutism not in terms of abilities but functionally, in terms of how people actually communicate, regardless of the reason. This would mean including Trappists - but then you could refine it to exclude those who specifically aver that they have intentionally chosen to avoid speech]


Anyway, thank you for your contribution. Don't worry about the necroposting - like Drydic, personally I enjoy it (though I do sometimes feel sad when I see how many people have left over the years), and since you had something useful to add it's certainly acceptable, to me at any rate.

EDIT: of course, even if we accept that we exist, that doesn't mean we can just accept that we STILL exist! Knowledge of the past is a whole different thingamajig!

[sirdanilot]

No but people with damaged vocal chords would speak with unvoiced vowels which is the same as whispering so the original poster was right.

No.

Whispering is not the same as unvoiced; you put the glottis in a certain position to whisper ('whispering triangle') whereas it's completely open for unvoiced things such as your normal everyday breathing.