Childs behavior

faire_jour said:
You continue to refer to spoken English as "having oral skills", that disrespects the language as well as making it seem trivial. English is the language, you are right. Speaking and listening is the modality. You can have "oral skills" and NOT be a fluent English user. You can also be fluent in English and NOT have "oral skills". My point is that having "oral skills" is NOT the focus of oralism, but instead, developing English as the language of communication IS.
Click to expand...

English is a language and it has two forms...spoken/oral and written/print.

I was in an oral preschool and developed fluency in English from that preschool.

It is not disrespecting the language..it is a fact. Deaf people who have good oral skills can use English in the spoken form.

What's disrespectful about it? I dont understand all the defensiveness.
 
AlleyCat said:
I'm not talking about fluency in English. I'm talking about possessing oral skills to articulate whatever it is that I want to say.

Your post is not about what *I* articulated. You are the person saying "I'm thinking of an animal, it is a mammal, it's young is called a foal. The hair on the animal is called a mane." If I did not understand those words, then you'd be correct, I would not be fluent in English. But there is no way I am going to articulate those very words *myself* if I don't possess oral skills. We are talking two entirely different things here.
Click to expand...

Alleycat, someone suggested that the OP focus on oral skills and asl. several of us emphasized that developing language was more important than focusing on articulation and suggested that we instead use the term English or spoken English ( if we needed to differentiate from written).
 
faire_jour said:
But the point that Grendel and I are making is that no one here cares about "oral skills". She and I want our children to become fluent in ALL aspects of English, including listening and speaking it. Yes, it takes oral ability for someone to express spoken language but to reduce English to "oral skills" is unfair and ridiculous.
Click to expand...

WE care. It is what we were raised with.
 
shel90 said:
English is a language and it has two forms...spoken/oral and written/print.

I was in an oral preschool and developed fluency in English from that preschool.

It is not disrespecting the language..it is a fact. Deaf people who have good oral skills can use English in the spoken form.

What's disrespectful about it? I dont understand all the defensiveness.
Click to expand...

What if I switched from saying that my daughter used ASL and instead said she had "developed some manual skills".?
 
faire_jour said:
What if I switched from saying that my daughter used ASL and instead said she had "developed some manual skills".?
Click to expand...

Some people say "I am skilled at signing" I dont take offense to it. Then if it is so offensive to you, then why did you call your daughter's school and oral program?
 
shel90 said:
Some people say "I am skilled at signing" I dont take offense to it. Then if it is so offensive to you, then why did you call your daughter's school and oral program?
Click to expand...

It's shorter. In truth, it is a listening and spoken language program.

But again, "signing" is generally talking about the language and not just the ability to move your hands, which would be the equivalent to "oral skills".
 
GrendelQ said:
Alleycat, someone suggested that the OP focus on oral skills and asl. several of us emphasized that developing language was more important than focusing on articulation and suggested that we instead use the term English or spoken English ( if we needed to differentiate from written).
Click to expand...

In order for spoken English to take place in the deaf, the art of developing oral skills must take place first. For us who are deaf, we could not just speak at the drop of a pin. We had to LEARN to articulate first. That's what oral skills is about. It may not be the same for those who have a CI when they can hear speech.
 
It feels like we are on 2 different pages here. I'll be back in a minute.

Okay, I'm back.

I had no way of knowing how to say "horse" without being trained to do so. How to make the sound come out, and correctly. Otherwise I'd be saying "mfjgk" like I said in my earlier post.

Once I got past learning how to pronounce my constanants and vowels, and how to form words, then from there I could form SPOKEN words and sentences with the vocabulary, grammar, syntax, everything I'd learned about English. Learning how to articulate those words HAD to take place for me first. That is what my oral skills are.

FJ, you said "I don't think that many people focus on articulation instead of language. If so, it is a crime." -- it is not "instead". It is FIRST, and THEN. Learn oral skills to articulate, and THEN learn language. I worked with a speech therapist, sign teacher, and TOD all at the same time. To speak, to learn English, and to learn ASL.

I suspect the confusion lies in that Miss Kat has access to speech and learning to articulate comes far more naturally for her, just as it would have for most other hearing children, than those with HAs. I am a child of the 70's before CIs existed. So I had to develop what many of us call "oral skills" to articulate FIRST.
 
*elevator music while Alleycat molds Play-Doh into shapes of tongues*
 
AlleyCat said:
In order for spoken English to take place in the deaf, the art of developing oral skills must take place first. For us who are deaf, we could not just speak at the drop of a pin. We had to LEARN to articulate first. That's what oral skills is about. It may not be the same for those who have a CI when they can hear speech.
Click to expand...

Hearing people produce speech when they speak, dont they? Some people people have poor speech skills while some have good speech skills. Same thing with deaf people.

I was talking about that too many people put too much focus on speech skills thinking that is the only way to learn English but when thousands of deaf people have become fluent in English without being able to pronounce a word.

Everyone knows that developing fluency in English is important. I dont knwo what the argument here is about. It is like I am being told that I devalue English or something. :dunno:
 
I suspect the confusion lies in that Miss Kat has access to speech and learning to articulate comes far more naturally for her, just as it would have for most other hearing children, than those with HAs.>>>> if you asked me, I I believe MsKat was able to code switch easily and quickly since activation because she did have a language (ASL) Otherwise, she would not know what a ball is if she heard it for the first time.
 
deafgal001 said:
I suspect the confusion lies in that Miss Kat has access to speech and learning to articulate comes far more naturally for her, just as it would have for most other hearing children, than those with HAs.>>>> if you asked me, I I believe MsKat was able to code switch easily and quickly since activation because she did have a language (ASL) Otherwise, she would not know what a ball is if she heard it for the first time.
Click to expand...

Yes, studies have shown that ASL never hinders with the development of speech skills.
 
faire_jour said:
Ok, if someone can speak English but not read or write, are they fluent in the language?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd say that they are fluent in the language - but not literate in it's written mode.

Languages have different modes of use - some are ONLY spoken (have no written form at all), some are spoken and written (in one, two or three different alphabet systems aka Cyrillic & Roman & braille), some are only written (no spoken language at all, and some - including ASL,BSL etc are signed.

The variations are what makes language and linguistics sooo fascinating to many people :)
 
Back
Top