Prelingually Deaf

Studies on language development in hearing infants can also refer to prelingual vs. postlingual activity. One example.
 
I understand the point being made in the FB quote, and in most things, would agree. I just think, in the case of the term "prelingually deaf", it provides more of a benefit to the deaf individual than it does a hindrance. Of course, I'm not deaf, but I do know that when I advocate, or when I assess for needs, or when I determine instuments needed for assessment, and any number of other things, it is very helpful to me to be able to determine if one is prelingually, postlingually, adventituously, or late deafened because it helps me to appropriately address their needs from their perspective.
 
^^^ What she said.

I've never taken offense at being called prelingually deaf (I am, for those who didn't know.)

My take on it is the same as Jillio's last sentence.
 
posts from hell said:
Fact: There are prelingual hearies
Fact: People don't say prelingual hearies.
Click to expand...

how do we solve the riddle, then? seems we're both right.
The term is not insulting.
There's another thing. From the clinically point of view, how do you study a deaf person that has language acquisition problems? how do you cathegorize it? prelingually *beep*?
This discussion just proves what I think. I think that the concept it's being twisted to fit the combative and activist ideology of someone that most of the time is right, but that might be wrong once in while (or, now you tell me he's perfect).
And belive me, I have no problems with being combative and activist. I do have a problem when someone tries to fit any believe or idea to their comfort. No matter the idea is social, political or religous.
 
Waxy said:
how do we solve the riddle, then? seems we're both right.
The term is not insulting.
There's another thing. From the clinically point of view, how do you study a deaf person that has language acquisition problems? how do you cathegorize it? prelingually *beep*?
This discussion just proves what I think. I think that the concept it's being twisted to fit the combative and activist ideology of someone that most of the time is right, but that might be wrong once in while (or, now you tell me he's perfect).
And belive me, I have no problems with being combative and activist. I do have a problem when someone tries to fit any believe or idea to their comfort. No matter the idea is social, political or religous.
Click to expand...

I am about as combative and outspoken as they come when it comes to audism and language that creates oppression for the Deaf. But, like you, I think this instance is just a bit misguided.
 
jillio said:
Those categories are indicative of needs. A postlingually deafened person does not have the same needs that a prelingually deafened person does, nor does a late deafened person have the same needs that a prelingually deafened person does. Not just language needs, but, as one can see from so many of the posts here, cultural needs, psycho-social needs, and educational needs.

If we are going to attend to the needs of the individual, we need to have all the circumstances surrounding that individual known.
Click to expand...

My point was aiming more to the miss-informed. When a valid label is used to justify an incorrect action or education plans. We all walk around this world everyday with preconceived notions in our heads. My argument is that a label of "prelingually deaf" might leave some in the medical profession with the impression that language is not possible and make misguided recommendations to the parents.

I honestly have no idea how often this happens. But just looking at some of the posts in AD I begin to wonder if this isn't the case sometimes. I am very pleased that there is a site like AD that can assist parents in discovering real answers to their search for understanding. How many times have we heard stories about the hearing parents that were told to "just put her in an institution". Granted this does not happen as much as it used to, old habits die hard.
 
It is not insulting to me. :dunno:
 
Cheetah said:
My point was aiming more to the miss-informed. When a valid label is used to justify an incorrect action or education plans. We all walk around this world everyday with preconceived notions in our heads. My argument is that a label of "prelingually deaf" might leave some in the medical profession with the impression that language is not possible and make misguided recommendations to the parents.

I honestly have no idea how often this happens. But just looking at some of the posts in AD I begin to wonder if this isn't the case sometimes. I am very pleased that there is a site like AD that can assist parents in discovering real answers to their search for understanding. How many times have we heard stories about the hearing parents that were told to "just put her in an institution". Granted this does not happen as much as it used to, old habits die hard.
Click to expand...

I see your point. In the medical field, the label of prelingual is most likely to result as a push for CI as the only option for language rather than an expectation of no language being possible. This label will have the most significant impact in the educational arena, though. Since so many deaf children are being mainstreamed, they are having educational services provided by general education or special education teachers who have no experience, training, or education regarding deaf children. Quite often, in this situation, it is the staff of the school system that has lowered expectations.That definately could lead to negative consequences. That is why, IMO, it is necessary for the parent to educate themselves long before their child starts school or to use an educational advocate that has experience with deaf students. In that way, the needs specific to a prelingually deaf child will be addressed, and more realistic expectations for acchievement will be used.
 
Waxy said:
no.
the point then is with the word DEAF (the condition)?
what about prelingually signer (the language)?
I think that I can be hearing, but not being in contact with a specific language at all, the years can pass and I can "learn" a language (even a sign one) and be a postlingually... what? "communicator"?

I see the point of your question, but still don't invalidate the fact that we had a phase pre/post.
Click to expand...

hearing language on common something language reason hearing communication!

I am reading on pretty familiar!

I will morer figure out think myself consider tell you!!
 
Does the following from Starting Point-resource for parents of Deaf or Hard of Hearing Children-Cdn Hearing Society/Toronto 1999- make sense? Prelingual deafness:Deafness which occurs before a child develops a language system. Page 89


Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
 
How the hell are we supposed to know what they say? You didn't provide a link, enough information for a citation.:roll:

If you want to know if the messed up quote you used defining prelingual deafess...that was already established early in the thread.
 
How I did know what was printed? Easy I have the book-Starting Point. The quote is exact- page 89.
Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
 
How I did know what was printed? Easy I have the book-Starting Point. The quote is exact- page 89.
Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
 
drphil said:
How I did know what was printed? Easy I have the book-Starting Point. The quote is exact- page 89.
Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
Click to expand...

If you have the book, you need to quote it, dummy.:roll:

Or is that some sort of secret information that can only be accessed through a secret handshake?:laugh2:
 
Sorry to inform you- Jillio-the quote is exact. Oddly enough you didn't discuss the quote-why?

Is this discussion by "nit picking"?

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
 
drphil said:
Sorry to inform you- Jillio-the quote is exact. Oddly enough you didn't discuss the quote-why?

Is this discussion by "nit picking"?

Tthen, you should have put it in quotation marks. That way, everyone would know it was a quote from that specific publication. The sentence was not in quotes, and so it could not be ascertained whether that was the concept from the publication or not. As it stood, it was impossible to tell what exactly, you were referrring to in regard to the publication, vs your own ramblings.

Since I now know what the quote was, it is correct. Next time, make yourself a bit more clear by including the expected grammatical structure and punctuation instead of using incomplete sentences and lack of punctuation.
Click to expand...
 
There was no way to know that sentence was an actual quote from that book.

In case you didn't know, drPhil, or forgot, AllDeaf rules (you can find this in the Forum thread) dictate that if you're going to quote something, you have to give it credit. We're not nitpicking for the sake of it, we're doing it because we're keeping AD legal (and out of trouble for not giving credit where due. )
 
I did give the Canadian Hearing Society credit- line 2 post #31

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
 
Back
Top