Childs behavior

AlleyCat said:
IT'S STILL ENGLISH.

Whether it's written or spoken.

It's ONE language.

I'm befuddled by the semantics going on here.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I feel like we are a thousand years back when most people in Europe couldn't read or write, only the elite could. Is there still elitism going on?
 
GrendelQ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Having HAs and CIs, it has been mentioned many times on this forum that they do not give a realistic grasp of sound. CIs are just a glorified version of HAs but still no where near perfect hearing so it has been said. I wore hearings for a total of 4 years from the time I was first diagnosed until I finally gave up on them. During which time I was receiving speech therapy and I still had and have the difficulties when I have previous described on my other posts. So having access to sounds for the deaf still does not meet what is necessary to achieve spoken language in a way that meets the expectations of the hearing.
 
BecLak said:
Having HAs and CIs, it has been mentioned many times on this forum that they do not give a realistic grasp of sound. CIs are just a glorified version of HAs but still no where near perfect hearing so it has been said. I wore hearings for a total of 4 years from the time I was first diagnosed until I finally gave up on them. During which time I was receiving speech therapy and I still had and have the difficulties when I have previous described on my other posts. So having access to sounds for the deaf still does not meet what is necessary to achieve spoken language in a way that meets the expectations of the hearing.
Click to expand...

The children, the children, ahhh the children...
 
faire_jour said:
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".
Click to expand...

Because it isn't the emphasis on English skills that is the issue. It is the emphasis and limitation to the mode or orallly delivered English that is the issue.
 
AlleyCat said:
IT'S STILL ENGLISH.

Whether it's written or spoken.

It's ONE language.

I'm befuddled by the semantics going on here.
Click to expand...

Yes, why call it "oral skills" when it's English we're talking about.
 
Beowulf said:
Yeah. I feel like we are a thousand years back when most people in Europe couldn't read or write, only the elite could. Is there still elitism going on?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It is elitism that is the foundation of any audist perspective. Frightening that there are still those factions in society that have not gotten beyond the elitist attititudes that are so limiting.
 
GrendelQ said:
Yes, why call it "oral skills" when it's English we're talking about.
Click to expand...

Because we associate the ability to articulate English as "oral skills". It's still the same language.

If I'm going to say "horse", It's because I've learned how to say "horse". I would not say it as "mflkj". I've developed the oral skills to pronounce the English word, "horse".
 
jillio said:
Because it isn't the emphasis on English skills that is the issue. It is the emphasis and limitation to the mode or orallly delivered English that is the issue.
Click to expand...

And when the discussion is about learning English and learning ASL in a bilingual approach it does not make sense to describe one as "oral skills" and the other as "manual skills" -- we're talking about learning language, not the mechanics of moving hands or mouth.
 
jillio said:
Because too many equate speech with the mastery of English. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

I agree with you entirely -- these are very different things. I don't think they should be interchangeable. In the context that this originated, we were talking about mastery of 2 languages (ASL and English) -- not about hand or speech development. Oral skills does not equal spoken English.
 
Lemme get this straight. If we're not talking about developments of being able to speak, then is it the other reference going on? That notion of someone highly skilled in speech is often referred "smooth talker" as having entrancing oral 'skills'? I just refer to those skilled in that art as businessmen or cat ladies.
 
AlleyCat said:
Because we associate the ability to articulate English as "oral skills". It's still the same language.

If I'm going to say "horse", It's because I've learned how to say "horse". I would not say it as "mflkj". I've developed the oral skills to pronounce the English word, "horse".
Click to expand...

Bingo. And the written word "horse" is just another symbol for the same concept. Seeing it written does not invoke a mental picture of an elephant. And using the written symbol or the spoken symbol shows mastery of the symbology of English. One mode is not superior to the other.
 
GrendelQ said:
I agree with you entirely -- these are very different things. I don't think they should be interchangeable. In the context that this originated, we were talking about mastery of 2 languages (ASL and English) -- not about hand or speech development. Oral skills does not equal spoken English.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But the thread has progressed such that people were implying that someone without speech and/or hearing had not mastered the language of English.
 
jillio said:
Absolutely. But the thread has progressed such that people were implying that someone without speech and/or hearing had not mastered the language of English.
Click to expand...

Actually, this came up for a similar reason, but in reverse: people were using the term "oral skills" instead of spoken English alongside ASL (in a discussion of bilingual learning). It was suggested that spoken English be used in that context rather than "oral skills," acknowledging both as languages, instead of one as a language and one as a mechanical skill.
 
GrendelQ said:
Actually, this came up for a similar reason, but in reverse: people were using the term "oral skills" instead of spoken English alongside ASL (in a discussion of bilingual learning). It was suggested that spoken English be used in that context rather than "oral skills," acknowledging both as languages, instead of one as a language and one as a mechanical skill.
Click to expand...

And it still carries the same implication.
 
jillio said:
One mode is not superior to the other.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's what some of us are trying to convey. One mode is not language and the other skill. Knowing written English is knowing the language. knowing spoken English is knowing the language.
 
jillio said:
And it still carries the same implication.
Click to expand...

That one is devalued? Yes. I don't believe either should be devalued. i would no more use "manual" or hand skills to refer to ASL as I would use "oral skills" to refer to spoken English.
 
GrendelQ said:
That one is devalued? Yes. I don't believe either should be devalued. i would no more use "manual" or hand skills to refer to ASL as I would use "oral skills" to refer to spoken English.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that one should be devalued, either. But I do believe that for the purpose of the individual, that one can be more useful, and address the needs of that individual educationally, linguistically, and psycho-socially with more efficacy than another.

Unfortunately, there are many in this society that do devalue one. Manual forms of language are thought to be less advanced than spoken forms. Often it is an attitude that is expressed without actually having cognition of the reason behind the attitude.
 
AlleyCat said:
Because we associate the ability to articulate English as "oral skills". It's still the same language.

If I'm going to say "horse", It's because I've learned how to say "horse". I would not say it as "mflkj". I've developed the oral skills to pronounce the English word, "horse".
Click to expand...

But we're not talking about the ability to articulate words. We're talking about knowing a language. If I'm talking about someone's fluency in ASL, I'm not going to say he has developed "manual skills." Sure, you need to move your hands in an articulate manner to sign effectively, and you need to know how to form handshapes. But that alone doesn't = language.
 
Back
Top