Start with spoken language or ASL?

[jillio]

it is HER own conclusion that is substantiated by these findings.

Exactly. People really need to learn what a direct quote is.

 

[sirena rossa]

it's still never going to be 100% unless there's a technology that can correct our "defective" hearing at DNA level.

well u are referring to genetic hearing loss, yes? which is not the case with me. no one in my family is deaf. my loss is due to either premature birth or ototoxic drugs. so it could just simply be a case of me having no hairs inside my ear.
There COULD, someday, be a technology that corrects the defect. granted, we're a long way off from that. but stem cells could prove to be successful in 50+ years. here is hoping!

 

[deafskeptic]

Where did German and French come from?

Greek and Latin.

ASL is new, but BSL and JSL are way older than ASL and has more vocabulary than ASL. They aren't "spoken" language, but "Sign" language.

Hmm.. what about Chinese, Japanese? Korean? Do they have Latin and Greek roots?

 

[Jiro]

well u are referring to genetic hearing loss, yes? which is not the case with me. no one in my family is deaf. my loss is due to either premature birth or ototoxic drugs. so it could just simply be a case of me having no hairs inside my ear.
There COULD, someday, be a technology that corrects the defect. granted, we're a long way off from that. but stem cells could prove to be successful in 50+ years. here is hoping!

no. a defect within your body is caused by a defect in DNA. That's what I was referring to. In my case - I was born with weak or lack of ear hair nerve and that is a defect in my DNA. For other cases - it is caused by outside factor such as tinnitus, loud noise, fever, etc... and that is fixed by technological means - HA or CI.

 

[imdeafsowhat]

Hmm.. what about Chinese, Japanese? Korean? Do they have Latin and Greek roots?

No, those are different. They are like 2 or 3 words in one symbol. It's the lines that makes the meanings. Almost the same as roots from latin and greek, but same meanings.

 

[sirena rossa]

Then exactly hopw would you propose that policy be set. By what is effective for one? Or by what has been shown to be effective for the majority? Policy has to be in place. Otherwise, one is operating without a foundational support in theory or practice.

If you went to the doctor, and he diagnosed you with cancer, would you wnat to receive the treatment that has been shown effective for the majority that have had that same type of cancer, or would you want the treatment that worked for 1 out of 100,000. Keep in mind, those other 99,999 would have died, because the treatment was not effective for the majority.

Yowza! that's quite a harsh comparison. Cancer vs. Deafness. jeez. cancer means possibility of death! deafness certainly does not.
However, I do see what u are getting at. There DOES need to be a foundation and a basis to work from. All i am saying is, its good to deviate from the norm and challenge it up a bit. As for how policy should be set. its what i have been saying all along. ASSUMING the child has capability and potential to do so, then START with spoken language and then implement ASL (or SEE). IF the child does NOT, then by all means, start him/her off with ASL and have the spoken language part slowly implemented.

 

[Jiro]

ASSUMING the child has capability and potential to do so, then START with spoken language and then implement ASL (or SEE). IF the child does NOT, then by all means, start him/her off with ASL and have the spoken language part slowly implemented.

that is what Shel and Jillio have been arguing for a whole time. What you just proposed is not a reliable success. It is even worse than a 50/50 chance. If spoken language doesn't work... then switch to ASL. That is not good at all. It's a lot of time and resource being wasted. Early Intervention is the key. Time is of crucial essence.

Spoken Language .... then ASL... vs ASL..... then Spoken Language... for general deaf population - I think I can safely say that the latter produces a more reliable and solid success.

 

[imdeafsowhat]

I suppose I could say that SEE is the way to go if you failed the spoken language. SEE will help your spoken language greatly, because it is exact english.

 

[sirena rossa]

no. a defect within your body is caused by a defect in DNA. That's what I was referring to. In my case - I was born with weak or lack of ear hair nerve and that is a defect in my DNA. For other cases - it is caused by outside factor such as tinnitus, loud noise, fever, etc... and that is fixed by technological means - HA or CI.

OH okay, i see what u mean now Jiro
May I ask if u wear HAs or CI? just curious! i wear two HAs.

 

[Daredevel7]

that is what Shel and Jillio have been arguing for a whole time. What you just proposed is not a reliable success. It is even worse than a 50/50 chance. If spoken language doesn't work... then switch to ASL. That is not good at all. It's a lot of time and resource being wasted. Early Intervention is the key. Time is of crucial essence.

Spoken Language .... then ASL... vs ASL..... then Spoken Language... for general deaf population - I think I can safely say that the latter produces a more reliable and solid success.

Why is everyone assuming that trying out spoken language takes a long time? You can't even try one month? Just one measly month to test out the capabilities? I know Jillio will say "Even one month has repercussions!" How about a week?

Is it safe to assume that no one thinks its worth taking advantage of a deaf child's high lipreading/oral skills? Is it simply because "Well, if s/he has such high skills for speaking, s/he will eventually talk anyway, so what's the problem?"

 

[Jiro]

OH okay, i see what u mean now Jiro
May I ask if u wear HAs or CI? just curious! i wear two HAs.

2 HA's too. Same for my brother. I may end up getting CI in the future. Who knows? My hearing is GRADUALLY GRADUALLY declining.

 

[Jiro]

Why is everyone assuming that trying out spoken language takes a long time? You can't even try one month? Just one measly month to test out the capabilities? I know Jillio will say "Even one month has repercussions!" How about a week?

Is it safe to assume that no one thinks its worth taking advantage of a deaf child's high lipreading/oral skills? Is it simply because "Well, if s/he has such high skills for speaking, s/he will eventually talk anyway, so what's the problem?"

Again... can you say that what you just suggested would produce a better yield of success than "ASL then Spoken Language" for general deaf population?

 

[jillio]

Yowza! that's quite a harsh comparison. Cancer vs. Deafness. jeez. cancer means possibility of death! deafness certainly does not.
However, I do see what u are getting at. There DOES need to be a foundation and a basis to work from. All i am saying is, its good to deviate from the norm and challenge it up a bit. As for how policy should be set. its what i have been saying all along. ASSUMING the child has capability and potential to do so, then START with spoken language and then implement ASL (or SEE). IF the child does NOT, then by all means, start him/her off with ASL and have the spoken language part slowly implemented.

The point is, do we decide what is effective based on a majority, or what is effective based on a singualr anecdote?

How exactly do you know from the beginning if a child has the potential to develop spoken language? We already know that a deaf child has the potential to access language through visual means. That doesn't have to be tested. We don't have to wait and see, thus creating delays in exposure.

 

[jillio]

that is what Shel and Jillio have been arguing for a whole time. What you just proposed is not a reliable success. It is even worse than a 50/50 chance. If spoken language doesn't work... then switch to ASL. That is not good at all. It's a lot of time and resource being wasted. Early Intervention is the key. Time is of crucial essence.

Spoken Language .... then ASL... vs ASL..... then Spoken Language... for general deaf population - I think I can safely say that the latter produces a more reliable and solid success.

Exactly.

 

[imdeafsowhat]

The point is, do we decide what is effective based on a majority, or what is effective based on a singualr anecdote?

How exactly do you know from the beginning if a child has the potential to develop spoken language? We already know that a deaf child has the potential to access language through visual means. That doesn't have to be tested. We don't have to wait and see, thus creating delays in exposure.

Confidence will show that the child have the potential to access languages. Parents that don't give up.

 

[jillio]

Why is everyone assuming that trying out spoken language takes a long time? You can't even try one month? Just one measly month to test out the capabilities? I know Jillio will say "Even one month has repercussions!" How about a week?

Is it safe to assume that no one thinks its worth taking advantage of a deaf child's high lipreading/oral skills? Is it simply because "Well, if s/he has such high skills for speaking, s/he will eventually talk anyway, so what's the problem?"

Because a month is not long enough to create a situation where input starts to show reliable results. By the very nature of what is being proposed, time has to lapse in order to see if results are obtained.

Unless of course, you are going to take a child making a couple of vocal approximations as indication that they are developing language. But that is a risky thing indeed.

Deaf babies will often babble vocally, as well. Is that an idication that they will develop spoken language skills on par with their hearing peers? How long do we wait to see if language develops? In the past, the reccomendation has been the age of 2.5 years. If they haven't begun to show indications of developing age appropriate oral language by that age, then start to investigate why. That is 2.5 years without linguistic input that allows the child to acquire and internalize language. For that 2.5 years, you will need at least 5 years remediation work to bring them to age level speech production. In the meantime, they are constantly playing catch-up, so there is no time to tend to the developmental tasks they should be completing. It is a circular effect that never ends.

Now, if you can show me a way to insure, from the very beginning, that the child has the potential to function in an oral only environment to the degree that they aren't experiencing deficits that lead to language gaps, I will be glad to see that. However, to date, none of the professionals have been able to come up with such a solution.

 

[imdeafsowhat]

Because a month is not long enough to create a situation where input starts to show reliable results. By the very nature of what is being proposed, time has to lapse in order to see if results are obtained.

Unless of course, you are going to take a child making a couple of vocal approximations as indication that they are developing language. But that is a risky thing indeed.

Simple. Take the risk. You never know if that child is a prodigy like doofenslim.

 

[rockdrummer]

......In order for you to have any substantiation for accusing me of thinking that you were an idiot, you would have to provide evidence that I had actually used that term in reference to you.

Yes I did make an assumption. That we agree on. Your assessment of providing evidence that you actually said something is not true. That's why its called an assumption. Now do you get it? And can we please stop kicking the dead horse.

 

[jillio]

Yes I did make an assumption. That we agree on. Your assessment of providing evidence that you actually said something is not true. That's why its called an assumption. Now do you get it? And can we please stop kicking the dead horse.

And an assumption is an interjection of meaning that was not stated.

 

[imdeafsowhat]

Ass u me

Making an ass out of yourself and "me".