Is it worth to be "oral"?

[tomm]

I developed my speech without any corrective devices.

I know a Deaf woman who has heard nothing in her life, is fluent in sign language, and can speak perfectly well. It was a shock to me to see that she never wore hearing aids, but learnt how to speak using vibrations from another's throat.

 

[tomm]

I reconize a lot of oral only "OMG those deaf people who are advocating for Sign want sign exclusive approach" rhetoric......He really does sound almost like a lot of the oral only parents on FB.....I think if he observed at READS,the New Bedford MA Deaf classes,Maryland Schools for the Deaf,and many other Deaf ed programs,he would be blown away that yes....dhh kids can learn to BOTH speak and Sign and thus be BILINGAL!

Sorry, didn't see this earlier.
Will emphasise, as you cannot read apparently, this sentence I wrote:
"They ALL speak great. Some of them do sign as well. And they've not sacrificed their ordinary education for speech therapy time at all."

No, I am not against advocating for sign language for deaf children, in educating and providing information to parents about sign language and it's usefulness. I believe that giving deaf children a visual language is in fact a good thing.
However, what I have been trying to point out to you are that you have been making assertions about deaf people who are oral only. Wrong assertions. And you cannot deal with being wrong, it seems.

 

[kokonut]

Yep I have. Shite school. Shite staff. You were a bloody lucky kids if you got accepted to the mainstream program at a city high school, as several of my friends were.

Thanks bro. You play pretty well, how long have you been playing? Can you play other instruments?
I also feel fortunate to be in this time, not only because of the bloody awesome technology I've gained so much from, but from attitudes in general today.

Thanks. Been playing since I was 7. Once I entered college my playing slowed down as I needed to study and work. But I managed to find a few pianos on the campus of Gallaudet University at the library and even more and better pianos while I was a grad student at Univ of Idaho. Resumed my normal playing once I graduated and started working fulltime with the focus mostly on ragtime piano and some early jazz pieces.

 

[BecLak]

You forgot to add "for me" at the end of that. I'm just saying.

It's not patronizing that others would feel differently than you, or that your hung up on "perfection". This is a very subjective topic. If a deaf person cannot achieve intelligible speech, meaning it's not understandable, then no I doubt that person would think its worth it to be oral. But for the many deaf and HoH that DO they may feel differently.

I have no problem with differing views, however in reference to my previous post, I will not be patronised by someone, with obvious undertones of superiority, who attempts to 'educate' me on the use of the English language of which I am fluent. I am not hung up on 'perfection'. In my previous post I was referring to the whole spectrum of speech therapy and speech training. The minimal level of which is comprehendable speech.

If you would care to note from my posts throughout the entire forum regarding my personal experience (honestly, having to repeat it over and over in response to various posts, is getting a tad old), I, too was raised oral. I underwent speech therapy classes, as well as, constant daily correction of my diction throughout my growing years, by my mother who was a trained media and stage presentator. My trained profession as an adult was in Public-speaking and business college. My speech skills are considered excellent to the point that the average person would not know I was D/deaf, so I have been told by people who have heard me speak. I am not here to boast about my oral/speech skills (unlike some), quite the contrary in fact....that now as a mature adult, I have deliberated in making the choice, by preference, to be voice-off and use non-verbal communication, both Sign language and written modes of other languages ie: English etc.

Here is a excerpt from an article I am in the middle of writing along this very debate:

TO BE OR NOT TO BE ORAL.

To be or not be oral is a major debate in d/Deaf circles. Oralism (the use of speech), was first introduced by medical professionals and educational institutes in an attempt to integrate Deaf people into a mainstream majority hearing society.

Before diving into what I about to address, I would like to emphasize that I am referring primarily to those who have been born d/Deaf including those who are commonly known as hard of hearing, but in are in fact deaf, who from this point on I will refer to as deaf.

What must be understood is that anyone born with any level of deafness, regardless of whether or not they have made any form of oral achievement, if expected to use speech as a mandatory requirement of society, is subject to a life-long sentence of continuous hard work and effort to maintain such speech that can be understood by society at large. Contrary to popular belief, having speech therapy and ‘learning’ to use speech is not a one-off, fix-it-all ‘solution’ that can be checked off the to-do-list as ‘done’.

The effort needed for a d/Deaf person, of whatever age, to produce comprehendable speech (that for many is still unattainable) is not just the achievement of delectable speech, it also requires a life-long maintenance of that so-called achievement. This has been very wrongly labelled as ‘oral success’.

IS DEAFNESS A DISABILITY?

In the attempt to correct what is generally seen as a ‘disability’, a ‘handicap’, or an ‘imperfection’, society has grossly subjected d/Deaf people to an insistence that speech be used. This is so deafness would not be as apparent, even to the deception of appearing to be ‘hearing’, therefore creating a mentality that it would eradicate the ‘problem’ and magically eliminate the need to accommodate the rights of the d/Deaf child or adult. Instead of actually ‘curing’ the so-called disability, it is in fact, enforcing a disability or handicap onto the d/Deaf child or adult for a lifetime. What is seen as an ‘oral success’ is gravely detrimental to the well-being and self-esteem of a child/adult who is born d/Deaf. They are, most often than not, being instilled by society around them that they are ‘broken’ and in need of being ‘fixed’. Coupled with, that if they don’t become an ‘oral success’, they will be isolated from society, outcasts, low-life s. Such words as ‘an embarassment’; ‘strange’; ‘weird’ ‘funny (as in peculiar)’ ‘retarded’ is the vocabulary they are continuously bombarded with. This is by in large profusely denied with shock by family, friends, neighbours and strangers alike, but undoubtedly the unspoken thoughts of the good majority of a hearing society.

Another excerpt from the same article:

Finding a Common Ground for Communication

Technology, for the most part, does work in the favour of d/Deaf people. It provides a common middle ground for interaction with an oral society within a non-oral medium. In this technology- crazed era, people are spending more and more time texting, emailing, instant-messaging, You-tubing, Facebook-ing and on other Social Media networks, so much so, that a largely hearing society is now showing serious concern that people are not speaking (oral) enough. Not so with the d/Deaf. It just proves our point, that speech is not imperative for a healthy interaction with another human being. There is still the richness of language, the expression of loves, hates and concerns just as in any other era of human existence. If anything, it has enhanced communication on a much larger scale with a hearing society, far more than ever could be imagined. It’s fast, effective and reaches to the far corners of the globe almost instantly. It has helped bridge the gap of communication like never before.





NB: This is not referring to someone is born hearing and loses their hearing later, as in late-deafened. I am all for them desiring their hearing be restored. Also, if one so chooses to have speech-training of their own accord. That is their personal choice.

 

[kokonut]

Comprehensible speech is intelligible speech which would be the minimum required understanding of the spoken language. I think everybody would agree on that one. How long it takes to attain this minimum level of speech intelligibility varies based on a variety of factors and circumstances. I am sure most people would agree to that as well. How well one achieves beyond the minimum level of speech intelligibilty would also depend on a variety of factors and circumstances as well. No two people are like. They are raised in a different environment where differences in circumstances may proved more fruitful or advantageous than the other. It could be that we are wired differently that can make a difference. And so on. What wouldn't hurt is to include the visual component of the human language and have that full visual communication. Or vice versa if you want to switch that thinking around, too (sign/voice, voice/sign, sign only, voice only). But for any of that to be effective it must be done at the earliest possible age. Again, factors are at play.

 

[ambrosia]

Okay I didn't read all if that, I'm that interested but I read enough to get the just and the tone. But I hope you realize that that is your perception. That may have been your experience, but I highly doubt that speech therapy is done for the sole purpose of "hiding" deafness. It is just a tool to communicate with hearing. If your speech is intelligible that us sufficient. Trying to attain "perfect" speech is retarded and unnecessary.

Now let's look at the other half of being oral, because speech is only half. Yes I've read plenty enough of your posts to realize that's the part you don't think is worth it. The "listening" half. Speech is no effort for me, not so with trying to understand what hearing person is saying to me. For me, every bit of effort I expend doing it is completely totally worth communicating with my friends family, coworkers and clients.

 

[BecLak]

Okay I didn't read all if that, I'm that interested but I read enough to get the just and the tone. But I hope you realize that that is your perception. That may have been your experience, but I highly doubt that speech therapy is done for the sole purpose of "hiding" deafness. It is just a tool to communicate with hearing. If your speech is intelligible that us sufficient. Trying to attain "perfect" speech is retarded and unnecessary.

Now let's look at the other half of being oral, because speech is only half. Yes I've read plenty enough of your posts to realize that's the part you don't think is worth it. The "listening" half. Speech is no effort for me, not so with trying to understand what hearing person is saying to me. For me, every bit of effort I expend doing it is completely totally worth communicating with my friends family, coworkers and clients.

I found with having oral skills, that once opening my mouth and using my voice, all attempts at the need to find a middle ground where those on either side of the communication are having their needs met, goes completely out the window. It ends up one-sided to the benefit of the hearing and not D/deaf. When voice-off, it immediately becomes apparent that the mode of communication needs to be changed to the benefit of both D/deaf and hearing alike.

In addition, although I attained to having excellent speech skills, even after being a public-speaker my whole adult life, the effort to maintain that speech is not, as I said in my article, a one-off check off the 'to-do-list' as 'done' thing. It still takes the same effort to maintain that speech now as it did when I was a child. I had just become very good at masking that effort. When voice-off and not using speech, it becomes very apparent that visual modes need to be exercised for clear communication, eliminating the effort needed to play the 'guessing game' on my part.

 

[kokonut]

Okay I didn't read all if that, I'm that interested but I read enough to get the just and the tone. But I hope you realize that that is your perception. That may have been your experience, but I highly doubt that speech therapy is done for the sole purpose of "hiding" deafness. It is just a tool to communicate with hearing. If your speech is intelligible that us sufficient. Trying to attain "perfect" speech is retarded and unnecessary.

Now let's look at the other half of being oral, because speech is only half. Yes I've read plenty enough of your posts to realize that's the part you don't think is worth it. The "listening" half. Speech is no effort for me, not so with trying to understand what hearing person is saying to me. For me, every bit of effort I expend doing it is completely totally worth communicating with my friends family, coworkers and clients.

True. Speech is only part of the whole component when it requires auditory input does it make a difference. It does not make a whole lotta sense to learn how to speak if one cannot hear him/herself speak. I agree on what you said about the listening part. All in all to me, totally, totally worth it in spades. I am enternally grateful to my mother for her loving help and dedication.

 

[ambrosia]

I found with having oral skills, that once opening my mouth and using my voice, all attempts at the need to find a middle ground where those on either side of the communication are having their needs met, goes completely out the window. It ends up one-sided to the benefit of the hearing and not D/deaf. When voice-off, it immediately becomes apparent that the mode of communication needs to be changed to the benefit of both D/deaf and hearing alike.

That's too bad. I have not experienced that at all. My speech actually is exactly like hearing person, because I was hearing until I was 20. But I've had very few experiences where someone isn't willing to look at me, go slower or help me figure the word in a sentence I'm not getting. By large most people are very accommodating for me, so it's still very worth it to me.

 

[MangaReader]

True. Speech is only part of the whole component when it requires auditory input does it make a difference. It does not make a whole lotta sense to learn how to speak if one cannot hear him/herself speak. I agree on what you said about the listening part. All in all to me, totally, totally worth it in spades. I am enternally grateful to my mother for her loving help and dedication.

Whaaat!! Are you serious?? It does not make any sense to learn how to speak if you cannot hear yourself???

I cannot hear myself at all and yet I was taught speech so I can make myself understood in the hearing world. I'm thankful for that so I am able to speak whenever I need to. Just because a person can't hear themselves doesn't mean they cannot learn how to speak! Many of us can!

 

[Frisky Feline]

Whaaat!! Are you serious?? It does not make any sense to learn how to speak if you cannot hear yourself???

I cannot hear myself at all and yet I was taught speech so I can make myself understood in the hearing world. I'm thankful for that so I am able to speak whenever I need to. Just because a person can't hear themselves doesn't mean they cannot learn how to speak! Many of us can!

True I ve met some D/deaf people who cant hear themselve yet they speak clearly.

 

[kokonut]

Whaaat!! Are you serious?? It does not make any sense to learn how to speak if you cannot hear yourself???

I cannot hear myself at all and yet I was taught speech so I can make myself understood in the hearing world. I'm thankful for that so I am able to speak whenever I need to. Just because a person can't hear themselves doesn't mean they cannot learn how to speak! Many of us can!

Agree. It can be done and has been done, obviously. Even my very good friend of mine who was born deaf and never wore a hearing aid can speak well enough but prefers not to since people have asked if she has a cold. Even Helen Keller learned to use her voice. I was thinking in the context of factors and circumstances. It would undoubtedly have a much higher level of effort to achieve speech intelligibility. Not that it cannot be done. Hope I was clear on that one.

 

[Jiro]

Agree. It can be done and has been done, obviously. Even my very good friend of mine who was born deaf and never wore a hearing aid can speak well enough but prefers not to since people have asked if she has a cold. Even Helen Keller learned to use her voice. I was thinking in the context of factors and circumstances. It would undoubtedly have a much higher level of effort to achieve speech intelligibility. Not that it cannot be done. Hope I was clear on that one.

nope. you were pretty clear about this -

True. Speech is only part of the whole component when it requires auditory input does it make a difference. It does not make a whole lotta sense to learn how to speak if one cannot hear him/herself speak. I agree on what you said about the listening part. All in all to me, totally, totally worth it in spades. I am enternally grateful to my mother for her loving help and dedication.

and now you're saying it doesn't require auditory input?

 

[Jiro]

 

[deafdyke]

Koko,you are a TROLL.............you have REPEATLY said you're pro oral only....
Why? Is it b/c you believe that dhh kids are so low functioning that they cannot master speech without it being a be all and end all? Do you not understand that dhh kids can master BOTH Sign and speech? It's very different from your day....Very different.Even the best HOH functioning kids STILL say what a lot....and STILL are lost in anything but perfect listening situtions...........HOH DOES NOT equate with hearing.....In your day they assumed that HOH= more hearing then deaf.....That's not true and never has been true! Even unilateral HOH kids can have great difficulty in less then optimal hearing situtions...........
Here's a question.............if you feel totally comfortable in the hearing world,then why are you here at a Deaf site? If oralism did indeed create equal access to the hearing world for dhh kids,then you wouldn't be around here ...........but the plain fact of the matter is that you don't feel like you fit in the hearing world.........but yet you seem to completely and totally bash the Deaf community....

 

[Smithtr]

Koko,you are a TROLL.............you have REPEATLY said you're pro oral only....
Why? Is it b/c you believe that dhh kids are so low functioning that they cannot master speech without it being a be all and end all? Do you not understand that dhh kids can master BOTH Sign and speech? It's very different from your day....Very different.Even the best HOH functioning kids STILL say what a lot....and STILL are lost in anything but perfect listening situtions...........HOH DOES NOT equate with hearing.....In your day they assumed that HOH= more hearing then deaf.....That's not true and never has been true! Even unilateral HOH kids can have great difficulty in less then optimal hearing situtions...........
Here's a question.............if you feel totally comfortable in the hearing world,then why are you here at a Deaf site? If oralism did indeed create equal access to the hearing world for dhh kids,then you wouldn't be around here ...........but the plain fact of the matter is that you don't feel like you fit in the hearing world.........but yet you seem to completely and totally bash the Deaf community....

Sound look likes aggressive.. unfornately

sorry hear you problem.. do you bash affect.

I understand viewpoint to no doing I love speaking lip reading and no matter both cochlear implant and lip reading I have alots of experince 10 yrs

Many people have experience oralize more experience to oral is increase easy usually mostly!

 

[kokonut]

Koko,you are a TROLL.............you have REPEATLY said you're pro oral only....

Where have I said that I'm pro-oral only for deaf/hh kids? Show the people in AD the posts where you claimed that I have said that. No where have I ever said that I'm pro-oral only. I've already made it clear in this thread (and elsewhere over the years) on what I support and how circumstances and factors can and do play a role when it comes to using sign language, speech skills, speaking aptitude, and/or visual communication preferences (e.g. SEE, ASL, PSE, Cued Speech). I keep possibilities open, not close them.

Why? Is it b/c you believe that dhh kids are so low functioning that they cannot master speech without it being a be all and end all?

I already said repeatedly that there are a variety of factors and circumstances regarding attaining the necessary speech skills that goes beyond just intelligible speech. And because of that some kids end up doing better than others. When you say to "master speech" I am assuming you mean to improve speech that goes beyond just intelligible speech. Exactly what do you mean by "master speech"?

Do you not understand that dhh kids can master BOTH Sign and speech?

Certainly. I never said otherwise. I even said just recently today this morning

"What wouldn't hurt is to include the visual component of the human language and have that full visual communication"

a few postings ago.

It's very different from your day....Very different.Even the best HOH functioning kids STILL say what a lot....and STILL are lost in anything but perfect listening situtions...........

This is about developing a speech skill. But I agree, hoh people can and do miss out on some words or conversations depending on the environment. Again, that depends on a lot of things and how communications can be improved.

HOH DOES NOT equate with hearing.....In your day they assumed that HOH= more hearing then deaf.....That's not true and never has been true! Even unilateral HOH kids can have great difficulty in less then optimal hearing situtions...........

Hard of hearing does relate to the ability to hear and discriminate sound and the spoken words. A person can describe him/herself as deaf and hard of hearing for that matter. But the term "deaf" on the surface does not say anything about the ability to hear and discriminate sound while the term "hard of hearing" would give you some ideas. Even though we know the term "deaf" does not always mean the inability to hear or discriminate the spoken words. We already know that. Hearing people generally don't necessarily get it. Pretty much the same idea using the term "blind" people end up thinking it means complete darkness. Not so. Same idea with the term "deaf," too. And it does present its own problems, too.

Here's a question.............if you feel totally comfortable in the hearing world,then why are you here at a Deaf site?


I am comfortable in the hearing, hoh, and deaf worlds. I have my preferences. Why AD you say? Well, AD have CODAs, hearing parents of deaf/hh kids, hearing people wanting to learn more about deaf and hh people and about other deaf related issues. AD have deaf people, culturally deaf people, hard of hearing people, late-deafened people, lip-readers, people who wear hearing aids, CIs and implantable hearing devices, people who grew up oral/aural and never signed, people who grew up using Cued Speech, people who grew up using SEE, people who are comfortable signing in PSE, and people who grew up using ASL or those who have learned sign language or other visual communication methods later in life and so on. AD is an amalgam of all those people. AD is a melting pot of culture, ideas, philosophies and experiences. What do you think AD would do? Discriminate on the basis of how culturally deaf one must be in order to pass muster here? Because I don't see that at all. Do you? Do you support discrimination or what, and make sure only culturally deaf people of the "right kind" grace themselves in AD? I certainly hope not.

If oralism did indeed create equal access to the hearing world for dhh kids,then you wouldn't be around here ...........

Not sure what you meant by that. The ability to speak (and even hear) does not create "equal access." Equal access is a two way street that goes both ways and people must understand and respect for that to work. What oralism (the speaking part) does is create an opportunity the means to use the spoken language for the deaf/hh person's benefit.

but the plain fact of the matter is that you don't feel like you fit in the hearing world.........

Not even a fact that you are trying to claim it to be so. I've no problem in the hearing world. They just need to be aware of my hearing loss. I make sure they know that and make the necessary adjustments by letting them know. I deal with the hearing world everyday over the phone, field radio, in meetings, at social events, etc. I'm comfortable with it and have been for decades. Hearing people still have a lot to learn, tho.

but yet you seem to completely and totally bash the Deaf community....

I don't "bash the Deaf community." I am assuming you meant the culturally deaf community. Not sure how having opinions about language, education, mode of communication preferences, parental issues, and hearing technologies constitute as "bashing the Deaf community." Many culturally deaf people do share some of my opinions. Others do not. There are lots of overlaps where people would agree and disagree on a variety of subjects. No surprise there. The Deaf community is an unique community with it's own language and culture where a lot of my friends are a part of and of whom I interact with. It makes no sense that I engage in "bashing the culturally deaf community" at large.

Deafdyke, please note that I have not attacked you by making odd claims or trying to compartmentalize you in a negative way but you certainly don't mind doing that to me. If you have questions, please do ask. Attacking is not the answer. I have my own opinions, ideas and philosophy. You can either agree or disagree with what I opine.

 

[tomm]

Awesome that you kept at it. I gave up playing the piano when I was a teenager as I basically either wanted to be watching telly, playing outside or (later on) working for more money by working on the after school cleaning crew. I had no pocket money :-( Lmao.

Thanks. Been playing since I was 7. Once I entered college my playing slowed down as I needed to study and work. But I managed to find a few pianos on the campus of Gallaudet University at the library and even more and better pianos while I was a grad student at Univ of Idaho. Resumed my normal playing once I graduated and started working fulltime with the focus mostly on ragtime piano and some early jazz pieces.

 

[kokonut]

Awesome that you kept at it. I gave up playing the piano when I was a teenager as I basically either wanted to be watching telly, playing outside or (later on) working for more money by working on the after school cleaning crew. I had no pocket money :-( Lmao.

I also played the violin in the beginning but stopped after a year. I just wished I didn't stop because I can't bring a piano everywhere with me when I feel the need to play some music.

 

[Bottesini]

Sorry, didn't see this earlier.
Will emphasise, as you cannot read apparently, this sentence I wrote:
"They ALL speak great. Some of them do sign as well. And they've not sacrificed their ordinary education for speech therapy time at all."

No, I am not against advocating for sign language for deaf children, in educating and providing information to parents about sign language and it's usefulness. I believe that giving deaf children a visual language is in fact a good thing.
However, what I have been trying to point out to you are that you have been making assertions about deaf people who are oral only. Wrong assertions. And you cannot deal with being wrong, it seems.

The assertions aren't wrong for all oral deaf people. They may be wrong for you, but you don't represent everyone.

So you are equally annoying and unable to read the experiences of others..

You are just the other side of the ridiculous overly assertive coin.