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

drphil said:
Back from Alice in Deafland, I talk about my Implantation because it is REAL. The operation happened almost 4 years ago-July 12, 2007 Sunnybrook/Toronto. No I didn't consult the so-called deaf community here in Toronto even though I knew that I would become deaf after losing all hearing in Right ear-Feb 19/92. ( That is way I started intro ASL in 1996).
I doesn't impact on me what anyone else has/might do in similar circumstances as duly noted before here in Alldeaf.com. Your choice. I joined here almost a year ago.

As for my alleged delusions re deaf militants. Suggest the article in Deaf Canada Today- December 1998-Heather Marsden re Deaf militants. Note: from Cdn Hearing Society/Toronto Hearing Help classes.The entire paper was handed out. I have taken a few classes from 1992 to 2007.
Right-prescient-discussions in Alldeaf.com!

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
Click to expand...

And evidently, the only thing you think of 24/7. Other implantees have lives to live, and simply go about doing that. You sit and concentrate on your CI. Sad way to exist.
 
kokonut said:
To me, the word "oralism" has always been vague in this forum. It's a word that was used back in the days when hearing aids didn't exist. Audition wasn't just possible for those with worse hearing loss.
Click to expand...

Look around. Still in use and becoming more prevalent. Update yourself.
 
In reading the some of the above comments interesting the response-why?.Deaf militants "riled up"?

Even more amusing -anyone in this forum can determine when someone else is actually deaf. The wonders of computer diagnosis!

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
 
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...

Please name a single ADer that opposes teaching a deaf child to speak. Your claim is completely false.
 
rolling7 said:
You and DC can safely assume that ASL can NOT be spoken nor written. This alone hinders the complete language development in deaf children.
Case to point. I often get together with a bunch of deaf guys to watch sports. The C.C. is on the entire game but several of the guys are always asking "what was that call" because the ref/umpire uses general hand signs for calls. So I explain to the guys what the call is BUT if they could read the C.C. they would not need to ask.
Here in Houston we have an ABC broadcast of the news that uses ASL in a PIP and many deaf watch it because they can not read C.C. This short broadcast is usually all the news that these deaf get from television and, of course, the hearing get day long information. Don't get me started on how terrible ADA is went it comes to the news, there is a whole section elsewhere on AD about that.
Click to expand...

Again, another completely false statement, and has been substantiated by volumes of research indicated that ASL accelerates and enhances language development in children.
 
AlleyCat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that we hearing people use it more than the deaf. I adopted its use as a way to emphasize to parents that lip reading is so much more than just looking at mouth movements.
 
jillio said:
Again, another completely false statement, and has been substantiated by volumes of research indicated that ASL accelerates and enhances language development in children.
Click to expand...

He actually said you need both, not just ASL. Writing and reading are crucial skills.
 
GrendelQ said:
Basically the same thing in the way we use it: lipreading is an old term that's changed to be more accurate and give a greater acknowledgment and respect to the skill required. Many here probably grew up with knowing what we now call speechreading as lipreading.

Lipreading is watching the lips to extract whatever speech information you can, speechreading is watching the lips, tongue, teeth, cheeks, eyes, facial expressions, gestures, body language and anything else that gives clues as to what the person is saying. Speechreading encompasses lipreading, plus much more, but I think anyone would know what you mean regardless of which term you use. I had previously used lipreading, too, but a Deaf person explained to me that the term can come across as a bit demeaning.
Click to expand...

But ask any" lip reader" and they will tell you that they are paying attention to all non-verbal information, and not just a speaker's mouth. Essentially, they are one and the same. Just a matter of semantics.
 
shel90 said:
I have said ,'ah hah see" only to get "But my child will be different," or "My child can hear."

Oh well...unfortunately, every year we see kids get transferred to our program after falling so far behind and then people expect that because they learn ASL, they will catch up. Not always...some do if they have language delays but if they have language deficits, almost never be able to catch up and end up with low literacy skills. It is a shame.

I do go nuts sometimes but I do my best for those who lost a lot of years due to ASL being devalued by their families or the public schools.
Click to expand...

If we had a nickle for everytime one of us has heard one of the above 2 statements, we split the proceeds and both retire wealthy this minute!:P
 
Bottesini said:
He actually said you need both, not just ASL. Writing and reading are crucial skills.
Click to expand...

I am objecting to his statement that ASL hinders a child's language development. That is a completely false statement.
 
jillio said:
I am objecting to his statement that ASL hinders a child's language development. That is a completely false statement.
Click to expand...

I don't think he said that. I think he said you need both.
 
Bottesini said:
I don't think he said that. I think he said you need both.
Click to expand...

I just went back and checked the quote to which I was replying. He definately said that ASL hinders the language development of ASL because it was not spoken or written. I still maintain that is a false statement. No matter how you attempt to explain the hindrance, the fact is that ASL does not hinder the language development of deaf children.

Here is his exact statement:You and DC can safely assume that ASL can NOT be spoken nor written. This alone hinders the complete language development in deaf children.
 
First, Welcome Back

If you can prove to all that ASL can be spoken and written, then I'll admit my statement is false.
Otherwise don't be making injurious statements about me.
 
rolling7 said:
First, Welcome Back

If you can prove to all that ASL can be spoken and written, then I'll admit my statement is false.
Otherwise don't be making injurious statements about me.
Click to expand...

:ty:

Read above. The fact that ASL is not spoken or written does not invalidate that fact that ASL creates a linguisitic environment that accelerate language development, particularly in deaf children who are not getting the proper exposure to language through hearing. Writing is an advanced function of language. One has to have language before one can write language. Therefore, ASL does not hinder language development in deaf children, and a statement to that effect is false.
 
I could be wrong, but I think rolling7's original point was that teaching either spoken English-only or ASL-only is detrimental to a child, but that more often these are not taught alone -- both are usually combined with written English.
 
GrendelQ said:
I could be wrong, but I think rolling7's original point was that teaching either spoken English-only or ASL-only is detrimental to a child, but that more often these are not taught alone, but are combined with written English.
Click to expand...

Who teaches ASL only? I know of no program or any household in which a child is exposed to ASL only. That would require isolation with no contact at all with hearing persons, no books, no television, nothing but communication in ASL between the members of that family.:dunno2:

In an educational setting, even when the language of instruction is ASL, a child is taught English through the language of instruction.
 
shel90 said:
Look at post #520...I bolded it in my quote of his post.
Click to expand...

I think he was referencing -- as those who were harmed by the system -- a population of ASL users who are not literate in English, and used as an example some of his friends who aren't comfortable reading captions. We know this is true for both hearing and deaf. And we know that the levels of deaf without the ability to read and write well are terribly high. Some people have slipped through the system without being taught to read -- or at least not taught well enough to be fluent.
 
GrendelQ said:
I think he was referencing -- as those who were harmed by the system -- a population of ASL users who are not literate in English, and used as an example some of his friends who aren't comfortable reading captions. We know this is true for both hearing and deaf. And we know that the levels of deaf without the ability to read and write well are terribly high. Some people have slipped through the system without being taught to read -- or at least not taught well enough to be fluent.
Click to expand...

And he is blaming ASL for this deficiency. Assumption of cause and effect that is false. I happen to know rolling7's age, and I assume his friends are close to that same age range. It was not uncommon during that period to mainstream a deaf child without any accommodation whatsoever. What education students like that received was horribly below standard. Likewise, only Deaf of Deaf has ASL available as a communication method...the hearing parent that endeavored to learn ASL was even rarer than today. Linquistic studies on ASL had not yet been conducted, and it was not recognized as a complete language, but believed to be patomime, and non-systematic gesture. Studies regarding the beneficial contributions to language development had not yet been undertaken.
 
Back
Top