Childs behavior

[shel90]

Then what's the difference between English and spoken English. Why not say that the children are learning English? By saying they are developing spoken English skills, it is about developing oral skills to speak the language otherwise there wouldnt be an emphasis on it being spoken, wouldn't there? If it is not, then what's wrong with just saying English?

 

[BecLak]

I am so glad I am out of this. I am totally lost and I've only been here every few days.

I understand what I am talking about but maybe that's only for me to know

 

[GrendelQ]

Then what's the difference between English and spoken English. Why not say that the children are learning English? By saying they are developing spoken English skills, it is about developing oral skills to speak the language otherwise there wouldnt be an emphasis on it being spoken, wouldn't there? If it is not, then what's wrong with just saying English?

That was one of the original suggestions: to use English, and if you felt it necessary to differentiate the mode, then spoken English. That's a very good alternative, Shel.

The emphasis is on the language development, not on the delivery, doesn't matter of your oral skills are bad, good, great, what matters is becoming fluent in the language.

 

[faire_jour]

Yes, that was one of the original suggestions: to use English, and if you felt it necessary to differentiate the mode, then spoken English. That's a very good alternative, Shel.

I agree. I will only use "English", from now on.

 

[shel90]

That was one of the original suggestions: to use English, and if you felt it necessary to differentiate the mode, then spoken English. That's a very good alternative, Shel.

The emphasis is on the language development, not on the delivery, doesn't matter of your oral skills are bad, good, great, what matters is becoming fluent in the language.

To me when someone says the child is developing spoken English skills, it is the same as developing oral skills....both have the same ultimate goal..to speak English in its spoken form.

Like Alleycat said, there would be no purpose to teaching us oral skills if fluency in English was the goal. Why teach someone to say the word "horse" clearly but not expand on the concept? That was what was used with us when we were little.

That is why I couldnt understand some of the reasoning here.

 

[BecLak]

[quote=shel90;1701354]Then what's the difference between English and spoken English. Why not say that the children are learning English? By saying they are developing spoken English skills, it is about developing oral skills to speak the language otherwise there wouldnt be an emphasis on it being spoken, wouldn't there? If it is not, then what's wrong with just saying English?[/quote]

I agree too, so now we all agree on something that's great nice finish.

 

[faire_jour]

To me when someone says the child is developing spoken English skills, it is the same as developing oral skills....both have the same ultimate goal..to speak English in its spoken form.

Like Alleycat said, there would be no purpose to teaching us oral skills if fluency in English was the goal. Why teach someone to say the word "horse" clearly but not expand on the concept? That was what was used with us when we were little.

That is why I couldnt understand some of the reasoning here.

The SLP that my daughter worked with at the bi-bi school was teaching "oral skills". She worked on memorizing the spoken words that went with common phrases. She was teaching the kids how to "deal with hearing people", by learning "oral skills" to help in life. She was simply teaching a few hundred words and phrases. It was not about language fluency. It was not about learning English. It was about teaching her the "sounds expected" for the sign "ball" and so on. She was not teaching her language, she was not teaching her to communicate, she was teaching her "oral skills".

That is why I use a different word for language.

 

[BecLak]

The SLP that my daughter worked with at the bi-bi school was teaching "oral skills". She worked on memorizing the spoken words that went with common phrases. She was teaching the kids how to "deal with hearing people", by learning "oral skills" to help in life. She was simply teaching a few hundred words and phrases. It was not about language fluency. It was not about learning English. It was about teaching her the "sounds expected" for the sign "ball" and so on. She was not teaching her language, she was not teaching her to communicate, she was teaching her "oral skills".

That is why I use a different word for language.

Having the last word I see!

 

[faire_jour]

Having the last word I see!

I'm just explaining where I'm coming from.

 

[BecLak]

I understand how you would view it. I think I am having a difficult time explaining how I view it. Maybe just one more try at this. If you can't see it, then let's just leave it at that. Perhaps someone who visits this forum may get what I'm saying one day.

If someone is unable to articulate, it doesn't mean they have bad oral skills, having oral skills whether or not they can articulate, they would still have knowledge of and understand the workings of the spoken language. Understanding and knowledge of spoken language does not depend on articulation. Is that any clearer? If you don't see what I am getting at then we will just agree to disagree. ok?

 

[Juli-terp-to-be]

I understand how you would view it. I think I am having a difficult time explaining how I view it. Maybe just one more try at this. If you can't see it, then let's just leave it at that. Perhaps someone who visits this forum may get what I'm saying one day.

If someone is unable to articulate, it doesn't mean they have bad oral skills, having oral skills whether or not they can articulate, they would still have knowledge of and understand the workings of the spoken language. Understanding and knowledge of spoken language does not depend on articulation. Is that any clearer? If you don't see what I am getting at then we will just agree to disagree. ok?

I am going to take a crack at explaining it (if I am wrong I beg forgiveness in advance)

What you are saying is whether or not you have the physical ability, not necessarily the ability to hear, and to make movements and sounds for speech. Doesn't mean you don't mentally understand the basics of the language itself. Therefore making a person able to be fluent in the language they are learning.

 

[BecLak]

I am going to take a crack at explaining it (if I am wrong I beg forgiveness in advance)

What you are saying is whether or not you have the physical ability, not necessarily the ability to hear, and to make movements and sounds for speech. Doesn't mean you don't mentally understand the basics of the language itself. Therefore making a person able to be fluent in the language they are learning.

Finally someone understands. I still call this being 'orally skilled'.

BTW, adore your cat!

 

[Juli-terp-to-be]

Finally someone understands. I still call this being 'orally skilled'.

BTW, adore your cat!

Hopefully I made it clear for others. And all the while not using any of the incendiary catch words.


BTW: Not my cat. Stolen from the LOLcats site, still cute though.

 

[BecLak]

Hopefully I made it clear for others. And all the while not using any of the incendiary catch words.


BTW: Not my cat. Stolen from the LOLcats site, still cute though.

again.

 

[GrendelQ]

I am going to take a crack at explaining it (if I am wrong I beg forgiveness in advance)

What you are saying is whether or not you have the physical ability, not necessarily the ability to hear, and to make movements and sounds for speech. Doesn't mean you don't mentally understand the basics of the language itself. Therefore making a person able to be fluent in the language they are learning.

Yes Julie! Where we disagree is that some of us define "oral skills" as that ability to form words, the mechanics of speech production, pronunciation, using all those speech organs, knowing how to bring together tongue, cheeks, lips, lungs, glottis and all that goes into producing words.

And we think that language development (whether the mode is spoken or written or signed) is the comprehension of how words are used together to communicate concepts, including grammar, syntax, semantics, phonetics, phonology, everything about how the mind codes ideas into something transferrable to another person.

It's not just that we're using the different interchangeable words to define the same concept that's at issue, it's that a critical point involves separating out the mechanics of producing speech and words from the development of, and a focus on, language. One of the big criticisms of "oral learning" that I've heard from the deaf is the focus on refining incomprehensible sounds (boo, bah, bee is often tossed around) when what a child needs early on is a way to communicate. This doesn't have to be the way a child acquires a spoken language.

English and ASL can both be taught to very young children, while fully developing manual skills and oral skills (those skills we can employ to deliver language) occurs organically during the language development or with aid at a later time. For deaf without access to speech, historically oral skills were the focus. For a hearing child or one with access to sounds via CI or HAs, picking up oral skills can be incidental and language can be the focus from the start.

 

[Daredevel7]

Well, one thing for sure, using BekLak's definition, someone with really good articulation can give the ILLUSION that he has good oral skills (spoken English skills), right? All he has to do is memorize a few key phrases "How are you? I'm fine. Where is the restroom?" etc. So someone can initially think, wow this person speaks well/knows English well. But engage into conversation with them and soon you will say to yourself "English.. FAIL." (Via spoken OR even sometimes written aspect)

 

[jillio]

You can have excellent mastery of the English language, in it's spoken form but have terrible oral skills. You could be completely unintelligible to all but a very few close friends. Also, in reverse, you could speak beautifully, with wonderful inflection and a great voice, but merely have memorized a few hundred words and we completely unable to function in spoken English. In the first example, that person has poor oral skills, but excellent spoken language. In the second example, they have great oral skills, but no language.

Saying someone has poor oral skills, but excellent spoken language is a complete and total contradiction. :roll:

 

[jillio]

Well, one thing for sure, using BekLak's definition, someone with really good articulation can give the ILLUSION that he has good oral skills (spoken English skills), right? All he has to do is memorize a few key phrases "How are you? I'm fine. Where is the restroom?" etc. So someone can initially think, wow this person speaks well/knows English well. But engage into conversation with them and soon you will say to yourself "English.. FAIL." (Via spoken OR even sometimes written aspect)

Bingo. Unfortunately, many equate an ability to articulate with fluency in language. Nothing could be more mistaken. Articulation is an indication of ability to articulate and nothing more.

 

[GrendelQ]

Oral skills, or even the ability to use spoken English does not imply fluency. That is the whole point. There are many issues to language fluency, and most are hidden from view unless an expert is examining the linguistic sample of use and the cognitive process that are attached. The very reason that the vast majority of parents will claim their child is "doing great" when an expert will see vast delays in language development.

I agree with you when you differentiate oral skills from English in this post. And as you've pointed out before, although the mode may differ, both written and spoken are simply different forms of the English language.

Having good delivery skills (oral, written, or manual) contributes enormously to the effective use of language, but does not necessarily imply fluency in the language.

 

[jillio]

I agree with you when you differentiate oral skills from English in this post. And as you've pointed out before, although the mode may differ, both written and spoken are simply different forms of the English language.

Having good delivery skills (oral, written, or manual) contributes enormously to the effective use of language, but does not necessarily imply fluency in the language.

On this we are in complete agreement.