Bebonang,
Not to get off topic, but you were the first person to welcome me to AD. Thank you so much, I have benefited so much from the people I have met here.
Now back to topic, it seems that the biggest argument for CI's is to provide the child with oral language skills, putting them on "even ground" with their peers. This would be a very strong argument, if ASL was not recognized as a legitimate language with its own form of grammar, which is a huge determining factor when recognizing a language.
The following is a passage that I copied from CNN Spanish News and used an online translator to translate it to English.
LOS PRIMEROS 100 DIAS DE OBAMA
Vea los primeros 100 días del presidente Barack Obama en el poder. CNN en Español le brinda amplia cobertura con el mejor equipo político que sigue paso a paso las acciones del nuevo gobierno de Estados Unidos.
THE FIRST 100 DAYS OF OBAMA
It sees the first 100 days of president Barack Obama in the power. Cnn in Spanish offers ample cover him the best political equipment than it step by step follows the actions of the new government of the United States.
Where I am going with this is that people need to understand that ASL is the native/natural language of the Deaf, just as Spanish is the native/natural language of those from Spanish based countries. Spanish no more translates to perfect English grammar anymore than ASL does. As a result, I don't personally feel that the language argument of the CI debate is really all that strong.
Does this make sense, or am I off base here?
