Childs behavior

GrendelQ said:
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.
Click to expand...

But ASL has only one mode of expression. English has more modes of expression. It is necessary to differentiate between the modes of English, while it is not necessary for ASL.
 
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen that in other discussions. In this discussion, however, it was spoken language that was being devalued. A small but significant change in terminology -- replacing "oral skills" with "spoken language" would provide a parallel construction alongside ASL or signed language.
 
jillio said:
But ASL has only one mode of expression. English has more modes of expression. It is necessary to differentiate between the modes of English, while it is not necessary for ASL.
Click to expand...

Yes: spoken English and written English. Not oral skills and written English. Seems minor, but I don't think these should be used interchangeably.
 
GrendelQ said:
Yes, I've seen that in other discussions. In this discussion, however, it was spoken language that was being devalued. A small but significant change in terminology -- replacing "oral skills" with "spoken language" would provide a parallel construction alongside ASL or signed language.
Click to expand...

Oral skills are what so many strive for. The linguistic implications are often ignored. It is assumed by too many that because one can pronounce a word, one is able to use that word as they would be able to use it with a language which they have acquired. That is a myth that needs to be dispelled. There are many with oral skills that are unable to use their one and only language with efficacy and as a native speaker would use it. Just because it is their only language does not mean that they use it as an L1.
 
I realize the confusion going on. They're talking about the ability to have influential speech, not being able to speak.

Knowing how to articulate with flair for speech and creative thinking wouldn't be on my definition of achieving linguistic merit in a language though.

People can be skilled in sign language moreso than others and I wouldn't consider it a different subset of 'english language fluency' or in that sense.

Say Jane and John are both in the same bi-bi class. John was later deafened, so by experience he may have better speech, his parents put him in a model united nations (ie, speech training). Jane started sign early on and has attended more deaf events than John ever.

Both have acquired both sets of skills, however have their specialized traits of differences. This difference should not be accounted for standard english differences, in my opinion.
 
jillio said:
Oral skills are what so many strive for. The linguistic implications are often ignored. It is assumed by too many that because one can pronounce a word, one is able to use that word as they would be able to use it with a language which they have acquired. That is a myth that needs to be dispelled. There are many with oral skills that are unable to use their one and only language with efficacy and as a native speaker would use it. Just because it is their only language does not mean that they use it as an L1.
Click to expand...

Sure, and that's exactly the point. Language is what should be prioritized and pursued, not "oral skills". Whether we're writing about ASL or spoken English.

So when someone advises this parent to pursue "oral skills" and ASL, bilingually, as she did, several of us recommended instead "spoken English" and ASL, but we've gotten a lot of pushback.
 
naisho said:
I realize the confusion going on. They're talking about the ability to have influential speech, not being able to speak.
Click to expand...

I'm talking not about flair in using language or skill in articulating words, but fluency in language.
 
GrendelQ said:
Sure, and that's exactly the point. Language is what should be prioritized and pursued, not "oral skills". Whether we're writing about ASL or spoken English.

So when someone advises this parent to pursue "oral skills" and ASL, bilingually, as she did, several of us recommended instead "spoken English" and ASL, but we've gotten a lot of pushback.
Click to expand...

That is because what needs to be said is to pursue English and ASL. The mode is not important, and really the mode of English should not even be a question until the child has acquired some form of rudimentary language skills and has begun to understand the purpose of language.
 
Beowulf said:
Do you have expectations? Any at all?
Click to expand...

Hi Beowulf -- even though I know this is a serious conversation, I have to laugh whenever I see our names in proximity.

But what do you mean? Expectations that people will start to think of spoken language fluency as more than just a mechanical skill? or expectations that a deaf child with acoustic access might develop spoken language (or something else, like that we all might agree someday and be one big happy deaf family :) ?)
 
GrendelQ said:
I'm talking not about flair in using language or skill in articulating words, but fluency in language.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GrendelQ said:
Hi Beowulf -- even though I know this is a serious conversation, I have to laugh whenever I see our names in proximity.

But what do you mean? Expectations that people will start to think of spoken language fluency as more than just a mechanical skill? or expectations that a deaf child with acoustic access might develop spoken language (or something else, like that we all might agree someday and be one big happy deaf family :) ?)
Click to expand...

I laugh, too, because I'm rather harmless.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but do you EXPECT your daughter to become fluent? Do you think she is aware of that? I do not mean to offend, I am honestly curious.
 
jillio said:
That is because what needs to be said is to pursue English and ASL. The mode is not important, and really the mode of English should not even be a question until the child has acquired some form of rudimentary language skills and has begun to understand the purpose of language.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's language development, ASL and English, that's important. And at that young age, the form of English being used/taught is spoken, so I think you are right in that it doesn't really have to be differentiated in that context. Would love never to see "oral skills" used in place of English.
 
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, again, this is why I'm objecting to the use of and emphasis on "oral skills" instead of English when we're talking about language development.
 
GrendelQ said:
Agreed. It's language development, ASL and English, that's important. And at that young age, the form of English being used/taught is spoken, so I think you are right in that it doesn't really have to be differentiated in that context. Would love never to see "oral skills" used in place of English.
Click to expand...

And perhaps if we could get people to state it in the proper context, it would be the first step in changing their peceptions of the importance of oral skills. Language is powerful and gives many unstated messages.
 
jillio said:
And perhaps if we could get people to state it in the proper context, it would be the first step in changing their peceptions of the importance of oral skills. Language is powerful and gives many unstated messages.
Click to expand...

Exactly, reading between the lines. I throw up my hands at the protests of "I have never said that!" when it is apparent they did.
 
Beowulf said:
Exactly, reading between the lines. I throw up my hands at the protests of "I have never said that!" when it is apparent they did.
Click to expand...

And we seem to get a lot of that lately...especially in the political forum!:lol:
 
Beowulf said:
I laugh, too, because I'm rather harmless.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but do you EXPECT your daughter to become fluent? Do you think she is aware of that? I do not mean to offend, I am honestly curious.
Click to expand...

I do expect her to be fluent in both languages, and for her age, I think she is fluent in both ASL and English right now -- although I suspect we'll see some delays in both when we next test her (she doesn't get another bout of standardized testing in this area until next year, so the measures I can use are a little rough).

I don't think she's aware of what that means or my expectations. She's a high performer in school, and she is around a lot of children (both hearing and deaf). But our emphasis on language development is always organic (no drilling and we don't do AVT)

She's a very high communicator, I think we'd experience frustration from her if she felt she weren't able to communicate fully due to language constraints -- we've encountered that at two points: when she was wearing HAs, just prior to her CI, we felt a language gap and corresponding behavioral issues (frustrated crying) -- she didn't have enough ASL yet to fully communicate (and, being profoundly deaf with no access to spoken voice, she had no English), and again a year later when we went without a CI for almost a month while troubleshooting some issues with it (a bad babyworn coil was frying her processors). Again, she didn't yet have enough mastery of ASL to communicate. Now that she's been in school, immersed in ASL, I think her ASL is advanced enough to serve her well in such situations.

Both her current bi-bi school and her local school district feel that she could effectively be mainstreamed in September -- she'll be 5, she'll be entering kindergarten. We are currently choosing not to do this, because I think her high-level of performance and strong language development (both languages) is to a large part due to the very specific environment she is in. And, I don't think that we could maintain her ASL development if she moved to the local public school -- we need her to have peers, teachers, staff signing to her and around her, we don't have a social immersion in Deaf culture at home (community, church, a network of friends) and the expertise in ASL as way Faire Jour does, my daughter's school is the key to culture and language.
 
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.
 
Back
Top