Childs behavior

[AlleyCat]

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.

I completely disagree with the bolded part. Language comes first, then articulation. You show a child a ball and say "ball" and they coo back "bah" and you say "Yes! A ball". That is about teaching language not "oral skills" or articulation.

I don't disagree with what oral skills are, I disagreed that deaf children are today being taught to speak the way you described. I think that is where the misunderstanding lies.

You did disagree with what oral skills are. Go back and look at what I've posted. (Look directly above.)

We've not said that Miss Kat is being taught the same way we were. We've been saying how WE were taught. And why we say "oral skills" the way we do.

 

[faire_jour]

You did disagree with what oral skills are. Go back and look at what I've posted. (Look directly above.)

We've not said that Miss Kat is being taught the same way we were. We've been saying how WE were taught. And why we say "oral skills" the way we do.

I see why you thought that, I wasn't clear. What I disagreed with was the idea that what you posted was how they taught deaf children today. The reason I was saying that kids today were not being taught "oral skills" was specifically because what you described is not what is happening.

And again, people are using "oral skills" to describe the children using listening and spoken language today.

 

[deafskeptic]

Thank you guys again, for the wonderful suggestions, I created a picture book two days ago for us to use and she seems timid but she understands it. She is in a pre-preschool program within our state system, but she almost never has the same behavior at school. I have noticed that since she started this program in late Sept, she is starting to make more eye contact-which is helping some. I am not opposed to teach my kiddo any language, as long as in some way she is able to tell/sign whatever her little heart desires. I would like to thank you all again for the advice, as it hopefully with help us get her on a better path of communication.

Glad to hear that. Let us know how things progress.

 

[BecLak]

FJ, Having 'oral skills' is having the ability to 'speak'. If you speak English then you are using spoken English. Same thing. Your argument is just hot air.

 

[GrendelQ]

If, like AlleyCat, Beclak, and Shel, you feel it's important to encourage this parent to start her child on developing oral skills right now you have every right to give that opinion. But some of us disagree and think that language should come first, ASL and English, not ASL and oral skills. We're not saying your experience was crap by choosing another approach. It has nothing to do with you and the hard work you've done to achieve those oral skills and we're not dismissing you, just disagreeeing.

FJ, Having 'oral skills' is having the ability to 'speak'. If you speak English then you are using spoken English. Same thing. Your argument is just hot air.

That is just like saying 'having dexterous hands is the ability to form handshapes, If you form handshapes then you are using ASL. Same thing.'

Being able to use your hands to do cued speech does not equal ASL. Using your hands to do baby sign does not equal knowing ASL.

Oral skills is having the mechanical ability to speak. It's a skill that's very useful in using the English language. It doesn't = English. It doesn't = spoken English.

Many, many people with oral skills don't even know or use English. They use other spoken languages. If I have oral skills and I know Mandarin, that doesn't mean I know English.

 

[BecLak]

If, like AlleyCat, Beclak, and Shel, you feel it's important to encourage this parent to start her child on developing oral skills right now you have every right to give that opinion. But some of us disagree and think that language should come first, ASL and English, not ASL and oral skills. We're not saying your experience was crap by choosing another approach. It has nothing to do with you and the hard work you've done to achieve those oral skills and we're not dismissing you, just disagreeeing.



That is just like saying 'having dexterous hands is the ability to form handshapes, If you form handshapes then you are using ASL. Same thing.'

Being able to use your hands to do cued speech does not equal ASL. Using your hands to do baby sign does not equal knowing ASL.

Oral skills is having the mechanical ability to speak. It's a skill that's very useful in using the English language. It doesn't = English. It doesn't = spoken English.

Many, many people with oral skills don't even know or use English. They use other spoken languages. If I have oral skills and I know Mandarin, that doesn't mean I know English.

Oh really, this is unbelievable. We are not talking about Chinese or Japanese, Thai or any other language here. You are barking up the wrong tree. Alleycat, Shel and myself were all raised oral speaking ENGLISH. So the oral-skills we are referring to = spoken English.

 

[GrendelQ]

Oh really, this is unbelievable. We are not talking about Chinese or Japanese, Thai or any other language here. You are barking up the wrong tree. Alleycat, Shel and myself were all raised oral speaking ENGLISH.

You were. Not everyone in the world is. Is the point not clear in this example? Having oral skills does not equal knowing spoken English.

 

[Daredevel7]

Oh really, this is unbelievable. We are not talking about Chinese or Japanese, Thai or any other language here. You are barking up the wrong tree. Alleycat, Shel and myself were all raised oral speaking ENGLISH. So the oral-skills we are referring to = spoken English.

I'm guessing you've never met a deaf person who could speak well but couldn't speak English well?

I used to think, well if a person could speak, surely he knows English!

I met someone who proved me wrong. They spoke common sentences well, but you cannot engage into conversation with them.

 

[deafgal001]

What?

We did need speech therapy in order to learn to articulate. It does apply to deaf people. I don't have a speech disorder other than that I'm profoundly deaf.

Once I learned how to pronounce sounds, I remember it. In 30+ years, I haven't forgotten.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your post.

I sat with hearing kids during speech therapy.. They really had a difficult time articulating the word because of their speech disorder. I saw how a SLP teach them differently from me (they made them do tongue excercise and such.. I didn't have to do that) . Not big deal as I am not a SLP

 

[BecLak]

But we are discussing today, and today's kids and today's experiences. I never said that what you have are not "oral skills", I said that today, especially with CI's (and bilingualism), we are discussing spoken English and language, not just the ability to articulate.

Again, I am not saying there is anything wrong with having "oral skills", I am simply saying that what Grendel and I are discussing and what all hearing parents that I know want is fluent language.

So, what you are saying is that you cannot acquire fluent language unless, as you mentioned in another post, that you listen (with aid of CIs) and use speech? Then how is it that many oral-deaf with 'oral-skills' without the aid of CIs to listen, are capable of acquiring spoken English to such a degree that few in the general public know that we are deaf. (Many posters have shared experiences such as this). Are you then saying we do not have fluency in English because we were raised with 'oral skills' without CIs? How then, are we able to contribute to a forum such as this?

 

[shel90]

So does that mean many of us who learned oral skills weren't in essence learning the spoken language as well which was English, in our case? We developed fluency in English just like today deaf children who have good oral skills.

I honestly do not see what the big fuss is here. It is the same to me.

There r many children with CIs who don't have good oral skills so therefore, they can't use English in the spoken form.

I am sure it is like that in French, Spanish, Chinese, and other speaking countries with some deaf children being able to develop good oral skills to speak the language being spoken at their home and some who weren't able to.

 

[GrendelQ]

So does that mean many of us who learned oral skills weren't in essence learning the spoken language as well which was English, in our case? We developed fluency in English just like today deaf children who have good oral skills.

I honestly do not see what the big fuss is here. It is the same to me.

There r many children with CIs who don't have good oral skills so therefore, they can't use English in the spoken form.

I am sure it is like that in French, Spanish, Chinese, and other speaking countries with some deaf children being able to develop good oral skills to speak the language being spoken at their home and some who weren't able to.

Are you saying that if a child acquires oral skills, the child knows the English language? So, if a child can forms the sounds in words, a child has language?

I don't agree. If a young child is drilled and has the physical ability to fingerspell the alphabet, I don't think that = knowing ASL.

In effect, you are saying that SEE = ASL on the basis of having skill or facility with forming the words. Both require the skill. One is a language. Do you see a difference in skill and language there?

 

[GrendelQ]

Oh really, this is unbelievable.

Take it easy Beclak, this is just a discussion.

 

[deafskeptic]

So, what you are saying is that you cannot acquire fluent language unless, as you mentioned in another post, that you listen (with aid of CIs) and use speech? Then how is it that many oral-deaf with 'oral-skills' without the aid of CIs to listen, are capable of acquiring spoken English to such a degree that few in the general public know that we are deaf. (Many posters have shared experiences such as this). Are you then saying we do not have fluency in English because we were raised with 'oral skills' without CIs? How then, are we able to contribute to a forum such as this?

Right. I was one of those people who gained oral skills without CIs. I got my CI at age 41. So it wasn't the CI that did it for me. I didn't even get my first HA till I was 2 1/2 years old and my loss is in the profound range. Nor did I learn to speak till I was 3.

 

[GrendelQ]

Right. I was one of those people who gained oral skills without CIs. I got my CI at age 41. So it wasn't the CI that did it for me. I didn't even get my first HA till I was 2 1/2 years old and my loss is in the profound range. Nor did I learn to speak till I was 3.

That's great, deafskeptic. I think that's pretty cool.

But, no one is saying that you need a CI to use spoken English. The argument being made and argued is whether or not the focus for a 3YO should be on language (both ASL and spoken English) as Faire Jour, and I (and I believe Jillio, too) are suggesting or as Shel, Beclak, Alleycat and several others are saying, on developing "oral skills."

I find it a pretty odd position for these particular people to be taking, but the argument continues.

 

[BecLak]

Take it easy Beclak, this is just a discussion.

Note my post was all questions....valid questions to the discussion at hand.

 

[BecLak]

That's great, deafskeptic. I think that's pretty cool.

But, no one is saying that you need a CI to use spoken English. The argument being made and argued is whether or not the focus for a 3YO should be on language (both ASL and spoken English) as Faire Jour, and I (and I believe Jillio, too) are suggesting or as Shel, Beclak, Alleycat and several others are saying, on developing "oral skills."

I find it a pretty odd position for these particular people to be taking, but the argument continues.

Have you forgotten that our whole argument is: Oral skills = spoken English
and before you say more, in other words in our case: oral was English, not Chinese or any other language. Because I would have to acquire different oral skills for spoken Thai for example.

That statement in bold is saying that our argument is invalid?

 

[deafskeptic]

That's great, deafskeptic. I think that's pretty cool.

But, no one is saying that you need a CI to use spoken English. The argument being made and argued is whether or not the focus for a 3YO should be on language (both ASL and spoken English) as Faire Jour, and I (and I believe Jillio, too) are suggesting or as Shel, Beclak, Alleycat and several others are saying, on developing "oral skills."

I find it a pretty odd position for these particular people to be taking, but the argument continues.

I believe that Shel, Beclak and Alleycat are saying that "oral skills" are not the same as having excellent English skills. Until you have to deal with a deaf child who has excellent oral skill but poor English writing skills, you may have a hard time understanding this concept.

 

[deafskeptic]

Have you forgotten that our whole argument is: Oral skills = spoken English
and before you say more, in other words in our case: oral was English, not Chinese or any other language. Because I would have to acquire different oral skills for spoken Thai for example.

If I'm not mistaken, many of the Asian languages are much more pitch dependent than English. So we would have to master pitch to a much greater degree than we do with English.

 

[Beowulf]

That's great, deafskeptic. I think that's pretty cool.

But, no one is saying that you need a CI to use spoken English. The argument being made and argued is whether or not the focus for a 3YO should be on language (both ASL and spoken English) as Faire Jour, and I (and I believe Jillio, too) are suggesting or as Shel, Beclak, Alleycat and several others are saying, on developing "oral skills."

I find it a pretty odd position for these particular people to be taking, but the argument continues.

When I think about my speech "therapy" growing up, I still shudder. It was pretty brutal. We were made to wear headsets that hurt our ears, forced to put our fingers alongside oily noses for certain pronunciations, and were often rebuked for mistakes. The worst were those hastily-constructed earmolds that often cause bleeding in our ears, and we would whimper and do the glaring teachers' bidding despite the pain. Oral training? Of COURSE! What the hell else would you call it? The only thing we didn't do was to be called Shamu.