Do we have a challenge ahead of us to avoid becoming Hearing?

shel90 said:
If so, then I agree. Same with hearing people...if they cant read and write in English, options are limited for them as well.
Click to expand...

TRUE! I have met people who can speak but can't read or write in english.
 
StSapphire said:
I think he's trying to claim that it would be limiting to literally only know ASL, and be unable to read and/or write English. Which... is confusing, since that was never mentioned anywhere or brought up previously at all.
Click to expand...

Thank you, that was a big favor you did explaining.
Yes, you would be right about the read/write English never being mention but I had to bring it into play for the very reason you explained in your post.
Shel90's point was "oralism is oppression", which to me based on previous post meant that to teach the deaf using oralism-only would be oppression.
ASL-only will do the same thing.
 
Frisky Feline said:
TRUE! I have met people who can speak but can't read or write in english.
Click to expand...

So have I. I worked in the U.S.P.S for 38 years and there were plenty of hearing who could not functionally read nor write. Funny how that is given that all day long w were suppose to be reading the mail's address.
On the other hand, out of the 238 deaf hired in the early 70's there were eleven who could not read nor write. But, boy oh boy, they were the best signers.
 
Wirelessly posted (HTC Thunderbolt)

rolling7 said:
StSapphire said:
I think he's trying to claim that it would be limiting to literally only know ASL, and be unable to read and/or write English. Which... is confusing, since that was never mentioned anywhere or brought up previously at all.
Click to expand...

Thank you, that was a big favor you did explaining.
Yes, you would be right about the read/write English never being mention but I had to bring it into play for the very reason you explained in your post.
Shel90's point was "oralism is oppression", which to me based on previous post meant that to teach the deaf using oralism-only would be oppression.
ASL-only will do the same thing.
Click to expand...

The difference between your point and Shel's was that her designation of "oralism only" wasn't referring to written/read language in any manner. She wasn't saying "oralism is oppression" because oralism isn't teaching reading and writing any more than saying "classical literature is oppression" because it doesn't teach mathematics.

Nobody anywhere is advocating for ASL only, to the seclusion of written language, which is why your point doesn't make amy sense.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Oralism is speech and hearing, not reading and writing.
Click to expand...

Oralism is focused on speaking and speechreading. Auditory-oral is pretty much the same method, but in addition to speaking and speechreading, also includes the use of residual hearing, if available. Auditory-verbal includes listening and speaking using technology such as hearing aids or CIs.
 
I took it as a matter of the way to teach a deaf child. Within the posts, there are many ADers who oppose teaching deaf children to speak. They also post of their disgust for those who are against ASL being taught. My bringing reading/writing into the equation is to show that communication in life goes beyond signing and beyond speaking. So both, oralism and ASL, are an oppression without reading/writing.
 
Wirelessly posted (HTC Thunderbolt)

rolling7 said:
I took it as a matter of the way to teach a deaf child. Within the posts, there are many ADers who oppose teaching deaf children to speak. They also post of their disgust for those who are against ASL being taught. My bringing reading/writing into the equation is to show that communication in life goes beyond signing and beyond speaking. So both, oralism and ASL, are an oppression without reading/writing.
Click to expand...

No, it's a manner of teaching a specific style of communication. Reading and writing could both be taught either orally or via ASL, so it doesn't enter into the equation.

Nobody has expressed opposition to the teaching of speaking. They've opposed the teaching of speaking when does to the exclusion of teaching ASL. You're cautioning against a straw man that never existed in this thread.
 
Is it the teaching OF speaking and speechreading or speaking and listening that those opposed to oral methods abhor or instruction provided IN spoken language, requiring learning BY speechreading or listening and expression in voice that those people who oppose oralism abhor?
 
Good question. When I was learning the foreign languages I spoke of, I totally welcomed the teaching OF speaking and speechreading (to the little extent that speechreading was discussed). I would not have done so well, and in fact did not do so well, when instruction was only provided IN spoken language, which I sometimes did not hear clearly enough to mimic.
 
Last edited:
GrendelQ said:
Is it the teaching OF speaking and speechreading or speaking and listening that those opposed to oral methods abhor or instruction provided IN spoken language, requiring learning BY speechreading or listening and expression in voice that those people who oppose oralism abhor?
Click to expand...

The first one. Second is not as bad. But the first is usually required first in order to be able to do the second.
 
the problem here is that hearing kids do not have a class, per se, in speech. They learn by listening and "trial and error" method. Whereas, a deaf kids would most likly always have to take a speech class and lip-reading. My main point is that both must take classes on reading and writting. To me oralism is not taught, as said above, but is corrected as needed. Speaking and giving a speech are two different things and for the hearing kids that do take a speech class, it is all about learning the correct way to give a speech, not about talking.
 
rolling7 said:
the problem here is that hearing kids do not have a class, per se, in speech. They learn by listening and "trial and error" method. Whereas, a deaf kids would most likly always have to take a speech class and lip-reading. My main point is that both must take classes on reading and writting. To me oralism is not taught, as said above, but is corrected as needed. Speaking and giving a speech are two different things and for the hearing kids that do take a speech class, it is all about learning the correct way to give a speech, not about talking.
Click to expand...

:confused:

What do hearing kids and speech have to do with deaf people and the problems with the oral-only method?
 
Wirelessly posted (HTC Thunderbolt)

DeafCaroline said:
GrendelQ said:
Is it the teaching OF speaking and speechreading or speaking and listening that those opposed to oral methods abhor or instruction provided IN spoken language, requiring learning BY speechreading or listening and expression in voice that those people who oppose oralism abhor?
Click to expand...

The first one. Second is not as bad. But the first is usually required first in order to be able to do the second.
Click to expand...

Er, what?

Basing your entire education on a method of communication which is very likely not your best communication method isn't as bad as trying to teach you the communication method in the first place?

I've apparently misunderstood, I thought the second thing (requiring your entire education to take place orally, rather than either both orally and in ASL, or primarily in ASL) was far worse than simply teaching speech/speechreading/whatnot.
 
Honestly, now that i am re-reading GrendelQ's question, maybe I read it wrong. I read it as "is it worse to be manually taught how to speak, listen and speechread than to receive instructions orally that requires one to know how to speechread?"
 
DeafCaroline said:
Am I out of date if I say lipreading instead of speechreading? That's a new term to me.
Click to expand...

No. Everyone I know around me still refers to it as lipreading. AD is the only place I've seen it referred to as speechreading.
 
StSapphire said:
Wirelessly posted (HTC Thunderbolt)



Er, what?

Basing your entire education on a method of communication which is very likely not your best communication method isn't as bad as trying to teach you the communication method in the first place?

I've apparently misunderstood, I thought the second thing (requiring your entire education to take place orally, rather than either both orally and in ASL, or primarily in ASL) was far worse than simply teaching speech/speechreading/whatnot.
Click to expand...

So, in your view, it's not the learning of speaking and speechreading or speaking and listening (depending upon the approach), but the educator conducting any teaching using voice and expecting response in voice that you object to? Adding to clarify: Or would you object only if voice-alone is used, rather than some sign and some speech as the means by which an educator communicates?
 
DeafCaroline said:
Honestly, now that i am re-reading GrendelQ's question, maybe I read it wrong. I read it as "is it worse to be manually taught how to speak, listen and speechread than to receive instructions orally that requires one to know how to speechread?"
Click to expand...

No, I didn't make my question very clear :) and still not sure if this does it, but I'll try to word it a little differently. I'm trying to find out of the general objection to "oralism" as it's done today is to the learning OF how to speak and how to speechread (or speaking and listening, depending upon if it's an auditory-oral or auditory-verbal approach) or if the objection is to the language in which subjects are taught or class is conducted (English vs. ASL).

I sometimes see people writing about the agony of "speech class" and pullouts, and I see that as a complaint with the first situation I gave. I also see some people complain about being in a room without being able to clearly understand the teacher and what's being taught or to interact with other students -- the second issue.
 
Back
Top