Deaf children and hearing parents...why don't the parents learn sl?

Status
Not open for further replies.
some of what i wrote came out wrong. hearing parents might have lowered expectations for their deaf child and not see them as useless.

Ive read different threads about deaf peoples parents not learning sign. I hate being judgemental but sometimes it sounded as if the parents were just too lazy.

I think birth order and number of siblings play a part in how the deaf child is treated. If the parents only child is deaf or first born, I think the parents will make more of an attempt to do everything they can to help. The reason I bring up birth order is cuz my sis had 4 kids. One measurable difference in how they treat the first born vs. the other children is in the numbers of pictures taken. With their first child they took zillions of pics. LAter on with the other children they didnt take no where near as many pics. Maybe the novelty wore off.

Then if the deaf child is in a large family with lots of siblings, maybe the parents feel too busy to make every accomindation for their deaf child.
 
I managed to learn the language of my family (spoken English) because I first learned mine (American Sign Language). If I hadn't learned ASL first, I without a doubt in my mind, would never have been able to acquire English as well as I have now. I needed that strong language base (L1) in order to learn the second language (L2).

It infuriates me that my parents cannot and will not learn sign language.
 
loml, what I suggest with deaf and hoh people is to take advantage of every tool available to help them.

For example, if they are a lawyer, use an interpetor so nothing spoken is missed. Dont settle for 90% comprehension when 100% is possible. Dont settle for good enough.
 
Everyone should learn a lil sign language, even hearing folk. Itd be usefull for them when in a very noisy enviroment that speech cannot be heard.

Nothing extreme, just a few basic words.
 
Doug5 said:
Everyone should learn a lil sign language, even hearing folk. Itd be usefull for them when in a very noisy enviroment that speech cannot be heard.

Nothing extreme, just a few basic words.
Click to expand...

Everyone sure seems to know how to use that universal sign (middle finger), especially on the road ;).
 
Can I just say...as an answer to every post that questions what i believe...THAT I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILD. USING SIGN AS A FIRST LANGUAGE AND ORAL AS A SECOND IS BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!! It gives the child a strong language base that they are equally capable of achieving, oral is learned so they can communicate relatively effective with others who do not know sign.

Why does it seem so unreasonable that children should have one solid language base? This will help the child emotionally and psychologically by letting them know that they have a solid form of communication with loved ones.

Why is that so hard to understand? I'm dyslexic...maybe I'm not writing it well...
 
Holly said:
Can I just say...as an answer to every post that questions what i believe...THAT I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILD. USING SIGN AS A FIRST LANGUAGE AND ORAL AS A SECOND IS BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!! It gives the child a strong language base that they are equally capable of achieving, oral is learned so they can communicate relatively effective with others who do not know sign.

Why does it seem so unreasonable that children should have one solid language base? This will help the child emotionally and psychologically by letting them know that they have a solid form of communication with loved ones.

Why is that so hard to understand? I'm dyslexic...maybe I'm not writing it well...
Click to expand...

I feel the same frustrations as you do. I dont understand the idea of oral only first and if it fails then use sign language. That is just setting the children up for failure.
 
I agree with you guys, holly and shel.

It would be helpfull for a deaf person to establish solid foundation of any language, otherwise they will always be second guessing themselves.

An analogy would be teaching someone calculus before they understand algebra.

I think there is too much emphasis on deaf people being oral at any costs. Its unrealistic. They are gonna miss spoken words and may or may not have a deaf accent that makes people think theyre retarded or impaired.

I have arthritis in my legs and can walk without crutches or cane but its with a ridiculous exagerated limp. When I walk around like that in public, people seem to look at me like wtf? When on crutches people are sympathetic, going out of their way to open doors for me.

Im not worried about what people think about me. I just dont want them to assume Im less intelligent than I am.
 
shel90 said:
If u want to talk about CS, pls start a new thread ...we can talk about it in your new thread. This is about parents' refusal to learn sign language.
Click to expand...
Cued Speech can very well be a reason why parents decide not to use ASL... so it's very relevant..
 
loml said:
jillio - There are no contradictions in my post, nor have I discounted Doug5's experiences. What is typical here, is the attempt to inflame a discussion by you.
Click to expand...

Nope, no inflaming at all. You questioned the validity of doug5's experience, and likewise, the opinion he has formed as the result of his experience. But it doesn't surprise me at all that you refuse to recognize the implications of this, as you also refuse to recognize the validity of the posts that deaf individuals have made regarding the ineffectiveness of CS when they have, in fact, experienced it and found it to be of limited value. You continually blace the blame for the failure of a system, or the failure of a parent, on the deaf individual rather than where it belongs.
 
Doug5 said:
your welcome.

yes, not all parents didnt learn sign cuz they couldnt be bothered. Sometimes theyre told by the professionals not to learn sign.
Click to expand...

And it still has negative effects for the child. While a parent m ay be jsutified in following the advise of these very mistaken and orally biased professionals simply because they don't know what else to do, it does not do away with the fact that this practice continues to handicap deaf children more than their deafness ever would.
 
Cloggy said:
Cued Speech can very well be a reason why parents decide not to use ASL... so it's very relevant..
Click to expand...

And since loml is not a parent of a deaf child, it is completely irrelevent to this thread, and simply another way to highjack yet another thread into a discussion regarding CS.
 
Holly said:
Can I just say...as an answer to every post that questions what i believe...THAT I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILD. USING SIGN AS A FIRST LANGUAGE AND ORAL AS A SECOND IS BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!! It gives the child a strong language base that they are equally capable of achieving, oral is learned so they can communicate relatively effective with others who do not know sign.

Why does it seem so unreasonable that children should have one solid language base? This will help the child emotionally and psychologically by letting them know that they have a solid form of communication with loved ones.

Why is that so hard to understand? I'm dyslexic...maybe I'm not writing it well...
Click to expand...

No, Holly, you are being perfectly clear in your posts, and your posts contain many valid and reasonable points. It is only those that are so rooted in their opral only approach that refuse to recognize the validity. But don't feel sigled out. They refuse to recognize the validity of solid research that points out the errors and the gaps in their philosophies, as well. It is a pattern. They also make the deaf child totally responsible for the difficulties in communication rather than taking that responsiblity themselves, as the adult in the situation.
 
Doug5 said:
loml, what I suggest with deaf and hoh people is to take advantage of every tool available to help them.

Doug5 - I completely agree with you.

For example, if they are a lawyer, use an interpetor so nothing spoken is missed. Dont settle for 90% comprehension when 100% is possible. Dont settle for good enough.

Doug5 - Whatever the individuals person’s preferences are: interpreter, translitorator, oral interpreter etc., should be provided, to provide equal access to information.
Click to expand...
:)
 
jillio said:
Nope, no inflaming at all. You questioned the validity of doug5's experience, and likewise, the opinion he has formed as the result of his experience. But it doesn't surprise me at all that you refuse to recognize the implications of this, as you also refuse to recognize the validity of the posts that deaf individuals have made regarding the ineffectiveness of CS when they have, in fact, experienced it and found it to be of limited value. You continually blace the blame for the failure of a system, or the failure of a parent, on the deaf individual rather than where it belongs.
Click to expand...

jillio - I have done nothing of the sort. You portray with an obsessive need - permitting yourself to create supposed implications in individuals posts, pair this with your egocentric approach in making replies for other people, this is disrespectful. Please refrain from doing so. :ty:
 
Holly said:
Can I just say...as an answer to every post that questions what i believe...THAT I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILD. USING SIGN AS A FIRST LANGUAGE AND ORAL AS A SECOND IS BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!! It gives the child a strong language base that they are equally capable of achieving, oral is learned so they can communicate relatively effective with others who do not know sign.

Holly - I agree that a strong base of language provides the potential for the successful aquisition of other languages.

Why does it seem so unreasonable that children should have one solid language base? This will help the child emotionally and psychologically by letting them know that they have a solid form of communication with loved ones.

Holly - It is paramount that the deaf/hoh child's family is able to provide their child with visual access to the language of their family, as soon as possible.

Why is that so hard to understand? I'm dyslexic...maybe I'm not writing it well...
Click to expand...


p.s.

Holly - There is no need to yell. Thanks. :)
 
Doug5 said:
I think birth order and number of siblings play a part in how the deaf child is treated. If the parents only child is deaf or first born, I think the parents will make more of an attempt to do everything they can to help. The reason I bring up birth order is cuz my sis had 4 kids. One measurable difference in how they treat the first born vs. the other children is in the numbers of pictures taken. With their first child they took zillions of pics. LAter on with the other children they didnt take no where near as many pics. Maybe the novelty wore off.

Then if the deaf child is in a large family with lots of siblings, maybe the parents feel too busy to make every accomindation for their deaf child.
Click to expand...

Doug5 - You have made some excellents points! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top