Start with spoken language or ASL?

[jillio]

My pint has been completely missed by many here and this thread seemed to have turned about how smart one must be to be able to develop oral skills which gave me the implication that deaf signers with no oral skills are less intelligent. Not, only that turns me off but insulted my deaf brother and many of my deaf friends who all have no oral skills.

I have lost interest in this thread due to some "superior" attitudes. I was willinging to explain my point again but when it comes to insulting deaf people who weren't able to use spoken language but are fluent in English and even those who fluent in more than one language like Spanish , French, or etc along with ASL and written English but have no oral skills, I am not interested cuz it is bigotry.

Having oral skills doesn't mean one has superior intelligence than those without oral skills.

Exactly.

 

[Daredevel7]

So you bought the myth that ASL will delay the speech???? I had speech therapy when I was very young (oral school) and again at a college (ASL). They both are different as day and night. The college teacher can tell me where I had went wrong easily. The first teacher wasn't able to tell me exactly what I had went wrong. How can I learn speech if I didn't understand where I went wrong? How I can stay on the oral path if the teacher show impatience (I can pick that up in her expression)? That would push me away.

If a hearing baby learn ASL and has a larger vocabulary as result. Why deny a deaf baby ASL and thus limit the vocabulary???

If a teacher shows impatience, isn't that more of the teacher's fault than whatever he/she is teaching?

And as for the myth that ASL delays speech, I meant in the case where the child has the capability to learn spoken English at the same rate as learning ASL. In this case, yes ASL would delay speech. Because if the ultimate goal is to learn speech, you can skip the ASL part if you have the capability to learn spoken English.

What Im trying to ask is... should we even BOTHER testing out the capability of learning spoken English of the child before making a choice on teaching him/her ASL, oral, etc? Lets assume that testing out the capabilities only takes a few months.

 

[jillio]

If a teacher shows impatience, isn't that more of the teacher's fault than whatever he/she is teaching?

And as for the myth that ASL delays speech, I meant in the case where the child has the capability to learn spoken English at the same rate as learning ASL. In this case, yes ASL would delay speech. Because if the ultimate goal is to learn speech, you can skip the ASL part if you have the capability to learn spoken English.

What Im trying to ask is... should we even BOTHER testing out the capability of learning spoken English of the child before making a choice on teaching him/her ASL, oral, etc? Lets assume that testing out the capabilities only takes a few months.

ASL has not been shown to delay speech or language development in any way. In fact, numerous studies have found that it indeed facillitates learning English, in both spoken and written forms.

A deaf child can get 100% of the linguistic stimuli through their vision. They cannot get 100% of the linguistic stimuli through audition, even aided with HA or CI. There is the fundamental difference.

Even taking a few months will promote delays in language acquisition that are difficult to remediate. Why would you put a child in a situation where you know you are causing any sort of delay when there is another option?

 

[Daredevel7]

Even taking a few months will promote delays in language acquisition that are difficult to remediate. Why would you put a child in a situation where you know you are causing any sort of delay when there is another option?

So are you saying that we shouldn't even bother testing the child's capabilities for progression in spoken English at all? Go straight to ASL or SEE? Is this what you believe?

 

[jillio]

A fictional culture that is more of an culture than the deaf culture... Ironic, eh?

I think you are mistaken on this one. Deaf Culture indeed meets the sociological and anthropological qualifications to be defined as a culture.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Don't lock this thread, I think this is one of the best I've read. Why you ask? Strong opinions are being revealed in this thread, leading to some good discussion. Granted there were some point where the thread went off topic but there was always a form of discussion.

And I disagree with mods deleting posts, that is just flat-out censorship. Leave it as it is, and if people don't like it, they don't have to read it.[/QUOTE]

Well, you better get used to it. Threads are locked on this forum. Sometimes, I think that's a good thing.

 

[jillio]

I realize that I may be adding to the stereotype that better speech = higher intelligence. I don't mean to do that. There are too many factors that affect this, and it would be ignorant for someone to automatically assume if a deaf person does not speak well, it must mean they are dumb. However, I do believe that intelligence does play in a factor in speech. For example: take 2 deaf children from the same hearing parents, and they both are being taught by the same speech therapist. They both have been tested for any underlying problems such as ADD, learning disability, etc and showed negative. One sibling does better than the other. Why? The same reason why some kids do better in school than others! Of course this is all generally speaking. Just because a kid does bad in school does not mean he isn't smart, but this is a special case, and does not happen MAJORITY of the time.

There are many variables that affect the outcomes of this scenario. Some are known and can be accounted for, and some are not known. However, intelligence is not one of those variables. I do appreciate that you are not intentionally buying into that stereotype, and I do believe that it is your intention to learn. In order to learn what you need to know, you will need to let go of all of your preconcieved ideas regarding language and speech, and begin to look from a perspective that does not contain that bias. It is difficult to learn to do...I had to learn to do it myself. We tend to rely on old ideas even when they don't serve the purpose any longer, because it is what we know. When it comes to learning about the differences in processing a verbal language and processing a visual language, we have to first stop seeing the verbal language as superior simply because it is what we know.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

That's the problem, people don't read the thread before judging.

Yes, we do. I did.

There's alot of people who think spoken language is superior to sign language and that's a wrong assumption. They are just different languages with different syntax. One is NOT superior over the other.

 

[jillio]

EXACTLY! its predominately hearing, so therefore, in general circumstances, its best to have the child start with spoken language. Since that is probably the most challenging. My philosophy is meet the strongest challenge head on! And then implement ASL into their learning. then viola! they got the best of both worlds the worst thing u can do to a child is isolate them.

Yes, it is challenging for a deaf child to learn spoken language. In some cases, it is even impossible. Why would you ask a child to face that challenge without first providing them with the linguistic tools that will make meeting that challenge easier?

 

[jillio]

without a doubt, oral should be the primary.

Might I ask what your connection (for lack of a better word) to the deaf, or to deaf education is?

 

[jillio]

So are you saying that we shouldn't even bother testing the child's capabilities for progression in spoken English at all? Go straight to ASL or SEE? Is this what you believe?

No, that is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that you should not sacrifice linguistic input simply to see if a child is capable of developing spoken language. This serves to create delays that are not just language based, but affect cognitive functioning and social functioning on many levels. In fact, it does very real harm to a child to restrict their linguistic environment, and I object to that harmful situation being created for deaf children based on nothing more than an audist preference for spoken language.

 

[web730]

If a hearing baby learn ASL and has a larger vocabulary as result. Why deny a deaf baby ASL and thus limit the vocabulary???

Right so, it alone speaks aloud enough!

The greatest irony video By Amy was a very good one.

Never understood why others who opposite or deny it. :roll:

 

[Daredevel7]

No, that is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that you should not sacrifice linguistic input simply to see if a child is capable of developing spoken language. This serves to create delays that are not just language based, but affect cognitive functioning and social functioning on many levels. In fact, it does very real harm to a child to restrict their linguistic environment, and I object to that harmful situation being created for deaf children based on nothing more than an audist preference for spoken language.

I agree that ASL or SEE is easier for a deaf child to utilize in order to gain language. You said that I should not sacrifice time JUST to see if a deaf child is capable of developing language. I don't see any other way if you do want to try to start off with spoken language. It seems to me that, according to all the things you said, there is no other way other than sign language if you don't want to delay the language and other skills. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to see if I can put it in layman terms?

 

[Cheri]

You missed my point in some posts I made as well. That is the problem with online forums, points are easily missed. You insulted the way I was raised, the way many people I know were educated.

Bottom line, what works for one child does not always work for another.

I absolutely agree there's no one size fits all. My son had informed me today that there's a cochlear implant student at his school and she was telling everyone a story about the deaf community, how they had criticize her parents at every turn just because for one she has a cochlear implant, two she is in a public school with all the hearing students. and when my son told me this, I told him there are some deaf people in the deaf community are like that way, but I'm not. Sometimes I feel so ashamed being a part of the deaf community. I never understand why some deaf people have to be so cruel. If their daughter is doing great at where she's at, leave them alone.. U know?

 

[sirena rossa]

Yes, it is challenging for a deaf child to learn spoken language. In some cases, it is even impossible. Why would you ask a child to face that challenge without first providing them with the linguistic tools that will make meeting that challenge easier?

ur right, in some cases it is impossible, and in some cases it VERY possible. I don't think asking a child (a young child that is) to face this challenge is unreasonable or even harsh at all because the SOONER (and better yet, the younger) the child begins to overcome this challenge, the easier it will be in the long run. Let's go back to the actual thread of the topic, which is what is better to START with, ASL or spoken language. in my opinion and my own actual experience, i think it is better to see if the child has good capability to learn spoken language first. If s/he does not, then of course by all means, learn ASL and make that the kids primary language. I just feel that once taught ASL, it will be easier for the child to rely on that than spoken language and not REALLY trying to learn spoken language because let's face it, ASL IS easier for deaf people to learn because its 100% visual, whereas spoken language is not. I have had speech therapists tell me that MANY times the child will be predominately oral at first, but once learning ASL, they began to resort to that too much and lose their speech skills because its easier, which makes sense.
What it comes down to is, IF the baby is capable of learning speech, s/he do that as soon as possible otherwise it may be more difficult later in life.

 

[sirena rossa]

Might I ask what your connection (for lack of a better word) to the deaf, or to deaf education is?

i am profoundly deaf with 85-90 dB loss in both ears (with two hearing aids) and am 100% oral. i was mainstreamed and did speech therapy for 12 years starting at age 1. So my connection to the deaf is pretty solid I am basically proof that teaching only speech and being predominately oral IS possible and CAN work successfully.

 

[Buffalo]

If a teacher shows impatience, isn't that more of the teacher's fault than whatever he/she is teaching?

And as for the myth that ASL delays speech, I meant in the case where the child has the capability to learn spoken English at the same rate as learning ASL. In this case, yes ASL would delay speech. Because if the ultimate goal is to learn speech, you can skip the ASL part if you have the capability to learn spoken English.

What Im trying to ask is... should we even BOTHER testing out the capability of learning spoken English of the child before making a choice on teaching him/her ASL, oral, etc? Lets assume that testing out the capabilities only takes a few months.

What if the teacher is signing in PSE/MCE/SEE,etc instead of ASL?? PSE/MCE/SEE is really nobody's language. Far too many teachers who sign, don't sign in ASL.

 

[shel90]

I agree that ASL or SEE is easier for a deaf child to utilize in order to gain language. You said that I should not sacrifice time JUST to see if a deaf child is capable of developing language. I don't see any other way if you do want to try to start off with spoken language. It seems to me that, according to all the things you said, there is no other way other than sign language if you don't want to delay the language and other skills. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to see if I can put it in layman terms?

Sign language is like building a strong foundation as in building a house and then build from there ...of course, add oral skills if the kid has the innate ability to do it.

It is better than taking the risk with a weak foundation and hope it doesnt fail later on.

When kids are older, in my suggestion, if they want to be taught with another approach, I am all for it...just want to ensure that all deaf children build a strong language foundation first so no deaf child are put at risks for serious language delays.

The kid can still learn English...my son's deaf 3 year old friend is learning how to read and she has no oral skills. She can read her and her brother's name anywhere and she already has established a theory of mind which is rare for children that age. Now, her parents are taking her to speech therapy to see if she will develop oral skills.

 

[jillio]

I agree that ASL or SEE is easier for a deaf child to utilize in order to gain language. You said that I should not sacrifice time JUST to see if a deaf child is capable of developing language. I don't see any other way if you do want to try to start off with spoken language. It seems to me that, according to all the things you said, there is no other way other than sign language if you don't want to delay the language and other skills. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to see if I can put it in layman terms?

No, I said that time should not be sacrificed in acquiring language to see if a deaf child is able to develop speech.

And that, my friend, is the inherent difficulty is using speech first as an approach.

And, while I agree that SEE is useful as a teaching tool in teaching English to a deaf child, it is not an easier method for communication. The reason is, the brain processes a visual language in a time oriented spatial way, and the syntax of ASL has evolved to meet those visual processing needs. SEE takes the syntax of English and makes it visable, but it does not account for the fact that the syntax of English is linear. Linear syntax makes sense to the brain auditorily, but it does not make sense to the brain visually. That is why ASL has a syntax different from the oral language of English.

 

[jillio]

Sign language is like building a strong foundation as in building a house and then build from there ...of course, add oral skills if the kid has the innate ability to do it.

It is better than taking the risk with a weak foundation and hope it doesnt fail later on.

When kids are older, in my suggestion, if they want to be taught with another approach, I am all for it...just want to ensure that all deaf children build a strong language foundation first so no deaf child are put at risks for serious language delays.

The kid can still learn English...my son's deaf 3 year old friend is learning how to read and she has no oral skills. She can read her and her brother's name anywhere and she already has established a theory of mind which is rare for children that age. Now, her parents are taking her to speech therapy to see if she will develop oral skills.

And chances are good that she will do well, because she has been given the advantage of acquiring an L1 language, and internalizing the function. This will transfer to the learning, in a directed manner, the language of spoken English.

Would you ask an infant to walk before they have mastered sitting up?