Childs behavior

[shel90]

There's an argument in linguistic circles that standard written English and spoken English can each be considered a distinct language in itself, not requiring a conjoined spoken or written mode to fulfill all requirements of being a language. These arguments for spoken and written English to be considered distinct languages are based on the significant difference in grammars, in both morphology and syntax -- something that sets English apart from other Western languages.

I thought that argument was the basis for considering someone bilingual if he or she has fluency in stand-alone written English + ASL (or, conversely, fluency in spoken English + ASL).

Based on that, it seems like if you consider written English + ASL = bilingual, adding spoken English to the mix would make you trilingual.

How if the person knows only two languages?

Most people get the modes of communication confused with the actual languages themselves.

 

[shel90]

Ok, if someone can speak English but not read or write, are they fluent in the language?

IF they are able to communicate in English well, yes they are fluent.

They are not literate if they cant read and write.

 

[shel90]

Bilingual means being fluent in 2 languages. We are saying we are fluent in English and ASL. That's 2 languages. Speaking English and writing English are not 2 languages.

I dont think it can get more simple than that. I think it is because many hearing people value oral skills and want to call it a separate language?

 

[GrendelQ]

I dont think it can get more simple than that. I think it is because many hearing people value oral skills and want to call it a separate language?

I think it's interesting that you call knowing written English being fluent in the English language, yet call knowing spoken English having "oral skills." This devalues spoken language.

To have a parallel construction, wouldn't you say, for example, he has manual skills and oral skills. Or if actually talking about the language rather than the mechanical ability to use the language, I think you would say he is fluent in ASL and spoken English? (Typically, I wouldn't differentiate spoken and written English except in the case where I'm indicating fluency in a particular mode.)

By using 'language' for one and the mechanics or skills to indicate the other, it reads as though the child isn't actually learning the English language, but just learning how to form the words and use his mouth as a vehicle for words.

 

[BecLak]

By using 'language' for one and the mechanics or skills to indicate the other, it reads as though the child isn't actually learning the English language, but just learning how to form the words and use his mouth as a vehicle for words.

It is interesting you would word it that way, because that is just how it is for a deaf who is oral. That is real insight into our world.

 

[deafgal001]

yeah, and If you grew up hearing half what people say, and taught how to say it through speech therapy, You have to blindly (or should I say deaf-ly) accept those those sounds/words exist. (btw, my speech therapy did not have to teach me everything, Most words I learned was by listening alone with my hearing aids. no different than what kids are doing with their CI. Just that she had to show me sounds I couldn't hear like "s" )

Anyway, Speech therapy for deaf people with no hearing or little hearing (back in the old days when hearing aids were not around-like Helen Keller) , SEE, fingerspelling, morse code, WRITING... They are all the same to me. But it is still English.

 

[deafskeptic]

I think it's interesting that you call knowing written English being fluent in the English language, yet call knowing spoken English having "oral skills." This devalues spoken language.

To have a parallel construction, wouldn't you say, for example, he has manual skills and oral skills. Or if actually talking about the language rather than the mechanical ability to use the language, I think you would say he is fluent in ASL and spoken English? (Typically, I wouldn't differentiate spoken and written English except in the case where I'm indicating fluency in a particular mode.)

By using 'language' for one and the mechanics or skills to indicate the other, it reads as though the child isn't actually learning the English language, but just learning how to form the words and use his mouth as a vehicle for words.

Shel isn't devaluing spoken language. It just does not come easily to many deaf. And good speech does not equal an ability to write good sentences in English. I've met too many deaf with good speech and poor writing skills for me to believe that.

I rarely ever use big words in speech for one simple reason - I have no idea how to pronounce them. I use them in my prose but not in speech. For some deaf, even pronouncing words they know is next to impossible for them.

 

[GrendelQ]

It is interesting you would word it that way, because that is just how it is for a deaf who is oral. That is real insight into our world.

Yes, exactly my point. That is what it's like for a deaf WITHOUT CIs - a mechanical skill. But this is NOT what it's like, very different for a deaf child with access to sound.

 

[GrendelQ]

Anyway, Speech therapy for deaf people with no hearing or little hearing (back in the old days when hearing aids were not around-like Helen Keller) , SEE, fingerspelling, morse code, WRITING... They are all the same to me. But it is still English.

Yes, exactly. You are describing developing mechanical skills for people who can't access the sounds. Learning a language is a different concept . That's the difference I think is important here. Children with CIs or HAs that provide them with access to the spoken voice can learn spoken English - the language. Not just how to form and produce words -- oral skills.

 

[GrendelQ]

And good speech does not equal an ability to write good sentences in English.

Right deafskeptic, that's the differentiation I think is important in choosing these words. Saying that someone has "oral skills" means they can speak words, not that they are fluent in a language.

 

[faire_jour]

How if the person knows only two languages?

Most people get the modes of communication confused with the actual languages themselves.

Clearly Grendel is not confused. She understands what you are saying, she simply things there is an arguement to be made that disagrees with you.

 

[faire_jour]

I think it's interesting that you call knowing written English being fluent in the English language, yet call knowing spoken English having "oral skills." This devalues spoken language.

To have a parallel construction, wouldn't you say, for example, he has manual skills and oral skills. Or if actually talking about the language rather than the mechanical ability to use the language, I think you would say he is fluent in ASL and spoken English? (Typically, I wouldn't differentiate spoken and written English except in the case where I'm indicating fluency in a particular mode.)

By using 'language' for one and the mechanics or skills to indicate the other, it reads as though the child isn't actually learning the English language, but just learning how to form the words and use his mouth as a vehicle for words.

I agree completely. I do not value "speech" or "oral skills", I value ASL and English. Or, I value spoken language, literacy and ASL. It isn't about "oral skills", that is attempting to seperate spoken English from language, which is crap.

 

[faire_jour]

Right deafskeptic, that's the differentiation I think is important in choosing these words. Saying that someone has "oral skills" means they can speak words, not that they are fluent in a language.

I agree with this too. I want my daughter to be FLUENT in English through listening and speaking (and reading of course). Language is what matters. The ability to understand and use the language, understand riddles, puzzles, rhymes, etc, those are not "oral skills", that is language. To me, oral skills is the ability to say a few words, language is very different.

 

[shel90]

I think it's interesting that you call knowing written English being fluent in the English language, yet call knowing spoken English having "oral skills." This devalues spoken language.

To have a parallel construction, wouldn't you say, for example, he has manual skills and oral skills. Or if actually talking about the language rather than the mechanical ability to use the language, I think you would say he is fluent in ASL and spoken English? (Typically, I wouldn't differentiate spoken and written English except in the case where I'm indicating fluency in a particular mode.)

By using 'language' for one and the mechanics or skills to indicate the other, it reads as though the child isn't actually learning the English language, but just learning how to form the words and use his mouth as a vehicle for words.

Pls see post #103

 

[shel90]

I think there is still confusion.

Oralism is the ability to use the mouth to share the language.

Written is the ability to share use print to share the language.

Signing is the ability to use the hands to share the language.

That's all.

English is a language

Asl is a language

Someone who understands both is bilingual or as naishio said, "multilingual"

 

[Beowulf]

I think there is still confusion.

Oralism is the ability to use the mouth to share the language.

Written is the ability to share use print to share the language.

Signing is the ability to use the hands to share the language.

That's all.

English is a language

Asl is a language

Someone who understands both is bilingual or as naishio said, "multilingual"

Bingo.

 

[faire_jour]

I think there is still confusion.

Oralism is the ability to use the mouth to share the language.

Written is the ability to share use print to share the language.

Signing is the ability to use the hands to share the language.

That's all.

English is a language

Asl is a language

Someone who understands both is bilingual or as naishio said, "multilingual"

So why don't you say "English" rather than "oral skills"? You could just as easily, and truthfully, said "Some parents put too much emphasis on English" rather than "oral skills".

 

[jillio]

The OP actually said that her daughter's receptive language is very good, but she struggles expressively. So, again, rather than focus on what has happened in the past, and the arguements on both sides, why don't we give her help and advice on what CAN help.

There is a lot of information lacking that would provide a more complete picture of what is actually going on with this child. The mother said she is signing....but is she signing any time she communicates with anyone in the child's presence or is she just signing when the child gets frustrated and indicates a lack of understanding. Is she signing in any and all communications with the child? How is the rest of the family communicating with the child? When did they begin signing? After she noticed delays, or prior? Too much missing information that could give indications as to why the child is experiencing expressive delays and why she is so frustrated. I've seen any number of mothers who say they "sign", but their sign is so rudimentary and inconsistent that it is useless in helping the child to learn the function of language.

 

[shel90]

So why don't you say "English" rather than "oral skills"? You could just as easily, and truthfully, said "Some parents put too much emphasis on English" rather than "oral skills".

*groan*

By saying that, it would indirectly mean that those parents whose children have no speech skills do not put a lot of empasis on English and that is incorrect.

English should be heavily ephased for all deaf/hoh children or we wouldn't be teaching English at the Deaf schools.

English is a LANGUAGE and it can be through orally or written.

Some parents put too much emphasis on getting their deaf children to use the language orally hence oralism or oral skills.

That is what I was taught in my linguistics classes at grad school.

 

[AlleyCat]

IT'S STILL ENGLISH.

Whether it's written or spoken.

It's ONE language.

I'm befuddled by the semantics going on here.