Childs behavior

[Beowulf]

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.

I see your position and simultaneously feel sorry for you and envy you. Sounds like your daughter is destined to have an interesting life, and you are the right Mom for it.

 

[jillio]

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.

Keep in mind, as you watch her progress, that fluency is also developmentally dependent, and development is age related. Fluent language use now will not necessarily be fluency 2 years from now. If she is able to communicate her basic wants and needs, if she is able to discuss the world around her at an age appropriate level, if she is asking appropriate questions regarding her environment and the actions of others then she is using language fluently. Creativity is also a big factor. Does she "play" with language in both ASL and English? I think you told me about her using "folded" for "death" because of the movement of the sign. That would be creative play with language. She demonstrated an understanding of the concept and creatively found a way to express that concept.

 

[shel90]

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.

Exactly which is why I distinguish oral skills and fluency in a language.

We have a student who has great oral skills but her Englishh is poor so she is not bilingual yet due to not being fluent in English yet despite having good oral skills.

I have two Spanish deaf friends. They are both fluent in ASL, Spanish via orally, and English via written. They are trilingual due to having fluency in 3 languages despite not being able read and write in Apnaish and not being able to develop good oral skills in English.

That's how I see it when defining someone as bilingual or trilingual. I am fluent in ASL and English in its two form but that makes me bilingual, not trilingual.

Someone said that is someone can speak and write English and use ASL, that person is trilingual. That's incorrect because that person only knows 2 languages.

 

[faire_jour]

Exactly which is why I distinguish oral skills and fluency in a language.

We have a student who has great oral skills but her Englishh is poor so she is not bilingual yet due to not being fluent in English yet despite having good oral skills.

I have two Spanish deaf friends. They are both fluent in ASL, Spanish via orally, and English via written. They are trilingual due to having fluency in 3 languages despite not being able read and write in Apnaish and not being able to develop good oral skills in English.

That's how I see it when defining someone as bilingual or trilingual. I am fluent in ASL and English in its two form but that makes me bilingual, not trilingual.

Someone said that is someone can speak and write English and use ASL, that person is trilingual. That's incorrect because that person only knows 2 languages.

But who here is aiming for "oral skills"? When I discuss my daughter and other deaf children, I am very careful to be clear that I am for teaching spoken English. The focus in no way is "oral skills". It is about fluency in the language of English, in it's spoken (and, always, of course written as well) form. But I am consistently responded to with "oral skills".

 

[jillio]

Exactly which is why I distinguish oral skills and fluency in a language.

We have a student who has great oral skills but her Englishh is poor so she is not bilingual yet due to not being fluent in English yet despite having good oral skills.

I have two Spanish deaf friends. They are both fluent in ASL, Spanish via orally, and English via written. They are trilingual due to having fluency in 3 languages despite not being able read and write in Apnaish and not being able to develop good oral skills in English.

That's how I see it when defining someone as bilingual or trilingual. I am fluent in ASL and English in its two form but that makes me bilingual, not trilingual.


Someone said that is someone can speak and write English and use ASL, that person is trilingual. That's incorrect because that person only knows 2 languages.

Correct. And I know that you distinguish the difference between mode and language, and also between fluency and vocabulary.

 

[jillio]

But who here is aiming for "oral skills"? When I discuss my daughter and other deaf children, I am very careful to be clear that I am for teaching spoken English. The focus in no way is "oral skills". It is about fluency in the language of English, in it's spoken (and, always, of course written as well) form. But I am consistently responded to with "oral skills".

If it is about fluency in language, why all the speech therapy and transfer from a bi-bi school that did not provide speech therapy?

 

[shel90]

But who here is aiming for "oral skills"? When I discuss my daughter and other deaf children, I am very careful to be clear that I am for teaching spoken English. The focus in no way is "oral skills". It is about fluency in the language of English, in it's spoken (and, always, of course written as well) form. But I am consistently responded to with "oral skills".

Oral skills and spoken English are the same it is the use of English through the vocal cords. U can call it spoken English as long as u aren't saying the a deaf person who doesn't have oral skills is considered not fluent in English even though he/she has done a dissersation using written English. That's my whole point.

 

[faire_jour]

Oral skills and spoken English are the same it is the use of English through the vocal cords. U can call it spoken English as long as u aren't saying the a deaf person who doesn't have oral skills is considered not fluent in English even though he/she has done a dissersation using written English. That's my whole point.

It's NOT the same! The ability to say the word does NOT correlate to the ability to understand the language or to fluent in it! Just because I could pronounce a few Japanese words that someone took hours to teach me, does NOT mean that I speak Japanese. I would not understand the semantic, grammar, syntax, or anything else that makes one fluent in a language. Just because someone can make noise that is intelligible to others does NOT make them fluent in the language!

 

[shel90]

So a person who can't speak the language but understands it is not fluent?

One can be fluent in English with or without good oral skills.

It seems like u are saying that for one to be considered fluent in English, they must be able to speak it. is that what you are saying?

 

[faire_jour]

So a person who can't speak the language but understands it is not fluent?

One can be fluent in English with or without good oral skills.

It seems like u are saying that for one to be considered fluent in English, they must be able to speak it. is that what you are saying?

No, the very opposite.

It is perfectly possible. It is also possible to speak, have speech, and "oral skills", and NOT be fluent in the language.

 

[GrendelQ]

Oral skills and spoken English are the same it is the use of English through the vocal cords. U can call it spoken English as long as u aren't saying the a deaf person who doesn't have oral skills is considered not fluent in English even though he/she has done a dissersation using written English. That's my whole point.

Oral skills and spoken English are NOT the same and are not interchangeable. In ASL terms, knowing how to form handshapes is not the same as knowing ASL.

 

[AlleyCat]

Going back to my example of being taught how to say "horse" ... The word "horse" alone doesn't imply that I'm fluent in English. If I say "I have a horse and his name is Max. He is 30 years old and lives in a red barn in my backyard. Everyday I ride my horse and exercise him." That would imply fluency in English. Yet, we deaf people must have oral skills in order to articulate each and every one of those words.

 

[faire_jour]

Going back to my example of being taught how to say "horse" ... The word "horse" alone doesn't imply that I'm fluent in English. If I say "I have a horse and his name is Max. He is 30 years old and lives in a red barn in my backyard. Everyday I ride my horse and exercise him." That would imply fluency in English. Yet, we deaf people must have oral skills in order to articulate each and every one of those words.

But if I say to you "I'm thinking of an animal, it is a mammal, it's young is called a foal. The hair on the animal is called a mane." and you don't know, you wouldn't be fluent in English, no matter how well you articulate the words.

 

[shel90]

No, the very opposite.

It is perfectly possible. It is also possible to speak, have speech, and "oral skills", and NOT be fluent in the language.

Right...

But someone said that if someone can speak the language that person is trilingual. I was trying to make a point that it is incorrect.

 

[AlleyCat]

But if I say to you "I'm thinking of an animal, it is a mammal, it's young is called a foal. The hair on the animal is called a mane." and you don't know, you wouldn't be fluent in English, no matter how well you articulate the words.

I'm not talking about fluency in English. I'm talking about possessing oral skills to articulate whatever it is that I want to say.

Your post is not about what *I* articulated. You are the person saying "I'm thinking of an animal, it is a mammal, it's young is called a foal. The hair on the animal is called a mane." If I did not understand those words, then you'd be correct, I would not be fluent in English. But there is no way I am going to articulate those very words *myself* if I don't possess oral skills. We are talking two entirely different things here.

 

[faire_jour]

I'm not talking about fluency in English. I'm talking about possessing oral skills to articulate whatever it is that I want to say.

Your post is not about what *I* articulated. You are the person saying "I'm thinking of an animal, it is a mammal, it's young is called a foal. The hair on the animal is called a mane." If I did not understand those words, then you'd be correct, I would not be fluent in English. But there is no way I am going to articulate those very words *myself* if I don't possess oral skills. We are talking two entirely different things here.

But the point that Grendel and I are making is that no one here cares about "oral skills". She and I want our children to become fluent in ALL aspects of English, including listening and speaking it. Yes, it takes oral ability for someone to express spoken language but to reduce English to "oral skills" is unfair and ridiculous.

 

[faire_jour]

Right...

But someone said that if someone can speak the language that person is trilingual. I was trying to make a point that it is incorrect.

Yes, you keep saying that but you seem to be missing our point.

 

[GrendelQ]

Right...

But someone said that if someone can speak the language that person is trilingual. I was trying to make a point that it is incorrect.

I asked if you saw someone who knew spoken + written English + ASL as trilingual. I don't think anyone answered yes, most said, no, bilingual or multilingual.

 

[shel90]

Yes, you keep saying that but you seem to be missing our point.

I think you are missing my point about oralism. It is the use of a language through speaking but you keep saying no.

 

[faire_jour]

I think you are missing my point about oralism. It is the use of a language through speaking but you keep saying no.

You continue to refer to spoken English as "having oral skills", that disrespects the language as well as making it seem trivial. English is the language, you are right. Speaking and listening is the modality. You can have "oral skills" and NOT be a fluent English user. You can also be fluent in English and NOT have "oral skills". My point is that having "oral skills" is NOT the focus of oralism, but instead, developing English as the language of communication IS.