The new deaf generation....speaking and listening

[jillio]

He won't.

Yeah, we all know that he never answers a question, but asks many of them. Gotta be suspicious of what someone is hiding in those circumstances, huh?

 

[jillio]

i have the same problem

So my observations are evidently generalizable. It is amazing how many times I can say..."I see such and such in my clients or my students, and have so many members of AD say, 'I'm that way, too.'" It just goes to show that there are similarities in cognitive processing and social issues related to deafness. Those who deny the holistic impact of deafness on the individual, or the fact that this impact can be predicted based on what we see in other deaf individuals is simply being naive.

 

[jillio]

Oh, I was sincere in wanting to see if you ever answer a question directly. I knew you posed that question as an excuse to jump on someone who dared to say no they didn't agree that GrendelQ or Faire Jour made an informed choice. I know your M.O. very well by now.

You are so correct. He thinks he is so sophisticated in his manipulation, but he is so transparent that his next move can be predicted with 99% accuracy.

 

[jillio]

Grendel, Grendel, Grendel. Every single person I meet whether personally or on the street would say I was fluent in English, both spoken and written. However, you go into the definition given by Kokonut "the ability to express oneself effortlessly". No d/Deaf person, including myself, could ever be 'fluent' in speech, because it cannot be achieved without consistent effort day in day out.

If effort were not required, it would not be necessary to employ all of the extraneous services needed for deaf children to learn to speak and use spoken language. They would acquire it in the same way as hearing children do.

 

[jillio]

Fluency is when your use of language flows with ease, speed, and with little effort. Kokonut's definition looks accurate to me. No matter how much you don't like the guy, it's silly to go redefining the English language just to make him wrong in his definition. Look, I sure don't agree with a lot that Koko says -- politically, I suspect we're diametrically opposed , so I know your frustration. But you have so much to argue in terms of real issues in which you differ. Do you really want to redefine yourself and all other deaf people as no longer being fluent in English in the service of arguing this point with Koko?

Deaf people can be fluent in English, both written and spoken English. It is not accurate to state that no d/Deaf person can speak English fluently. Of course, not all can. Not all hearing can. But some d/Deaf can speak English fluently, as effortlessly as any other native user of a language uses it.

Beclak did not address fluency. She addressed the need for effort exerted in the use of spoken language use for a deaf individual. I have to agree with her. If effort were not necessary, a deaf child would not need all of the additional services they do in order to develop use of spoken language.

 

[GrendelQ]

Beclak did not address fluency. She addressed the need for effort exerted in the use of spoken language use for a deaf individual. I have to agree with her. If effort were not necessary, a deaf child would not need all of the additional services they do in order to develop use of spoken language.

Fluency was exactly what Beclak was addressing: she chose to point out part of the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster's and Free Online Dictionary definition (see links Kokonut included) that state that a characteristic of fluency is "effortless" expression as the basis for her argument that no d/Deaf person can be fluent in a spoken language. I disagree: d/Deaf people can be fluent in a spoken language.

They said "listen and speak fluently" - deaf children cannot hear fluently! Even with CIs, it's rare that they can "listen fluently". It's very very misleading information.

They're not saying "listen fluently and speak fluently." The context of it all is about speaking fluently, not "listen fluently" which does not make sense when you consider the definition of the word "fluent." There is no such thing as "listen fluently" because "fluent" means to "express oneself effortlessly." It's already clear on what they meant when they said, "listen and speak fluently."

Fluently - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

fluently - definition of fluently by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

If speaking fluently is "expressing oneself effortlessly" then no d/Deaf child or adult for that matter could ever obtain that. I speak very well, so people tell me, yet even after being raised orally my whole life (I am now in my late 40s), it still takes immense effort on my part to speak. Yes, I can speak well enough that people don't know I am deaf. But to speak effortlessly - is not possible.

 

[jillio]

Fluency was exactly what Beclak was addressing: she chose to point out part of the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster's and Free Online Dictionary definition (see links Kokonut included) that state that a characteristic of fluency is "effortless" expression as the basis for her argument that no d/Deaf person can be fluent in a spoken language. I disagree: d/Deaf people can be fluent in a spoken language.

I see where you are going, but it was actually the definition that koko presented that equates fluency with no effort. Beclak was simply saying that "effortlessly" is not a proper criterion for determining fluency. There are many deaf indivuduals that would be considered fluent but still have to exert a greater effort when it comes to the use of spoken language, either expressively or receptively.

 

[deafskeptic]

I see where you are going, but it was actually the definition that koko presented that equates fluency with no effort. Beclak was simply saying that "effortlessly" is not a proper criterion for determining fluency. There are many deaf indivuduals that would be considered fluent but still have to exert a greater effort when it comes to the use of spoken language, either expressively or receptively.

I have to say I agree with Beclak on this one. I speak well but I would never say effortlessly. While I did not struggle as much as my class mates speech wise, some words are hard to pronounce and it takes a good deal of effort to pronounce them correctly.

 

[jillio]

I have to say I agree with Beclak on this one. I speak well but I would never say effortlessly. While I did not struggle as much as my class mates speech wise, some words are hard to pronounce and it takes a good deal of effort to pronounce them correctly.

Yes. That is why I said that Beclak was not addressing fluency, but simply saying that "effortless" was not a criterion to be used in determining fluency.

 

[KristinaB]

It is becoming more and more of an effort for me to speak clearly, but I am quite fluent in English.

 

[deafskeptic]

Yes. That is why I said that Beclak was not addressing fluency, but simply saying that "effortless" was not a criterion to be used in determining fluency.

Only the hearing speak effortlessly. :P

 

[Beowulf]

Sometimes I speak as well as my ass chews gum. Not gonna worry about it.

 

[jillio]

Only the hearing speak effortlessly. :P

And some of them even have a problem!

 

[BecLak]

Beclak did not address fluency. She addressed the need for effort exerted in the use of spoken language use for a deaf individual. I have to agree with her. If effort were not necessary, a deaf child would not need all of the additional services they do in order to develop use of spoken language.

Jillio

Grendel is back to her M.O. once again.

 

[BecLak]

Yes. That is why I said that Beclak was not addressing fluency, but simply saying that "effortless" was not a criterion to be used in determining fluency.

again.

 

[BecLak]

I have a question for Grendel. Do you truly and honestly believe that a d/Deaf child with a CI or CIs can speak effortlessly?

 

[GrendelQ]

Yes. That is why I said that Beclak was not addressing fluency, but simply saying that "effortless" was not a criterion to be used in determining fluency.

The word "fluency" was used in the Auditory-Verbal promotional video the OP posted, "Deaf children learn to listen and speak fluently."

Several ADers have contested that wording, including Beclak, who states that no d/Deaf people can be fluent in a spoken language, because their use of language doesn't meet the definition of fluency, which includes the word effortless.

If it's a great effort for you to use a language, you aren't fluent in it. If you can use a language with ease, express yourself quickly and effortlessly, you are fluent. The issue has been from the start with the use of the word "fluently," as seen in the video that led off this thread. I disagreed with Beclak, who stated that no d/Deaf person can be fluent in a spoken language. I understand that you probably feel foolish about writing that -- you thought you were opposing Koko's definition rather than one found across several dictionaries -- and having to back it up and are looking for a way to back off your statement, but it's right in front of us. Fluency has a pretty clear meaning: it includes a component of ease, of effortlessness, of speed. And yes, it is possible to find d/Deaf people with fluency in spoken languages.

 

[BecLak]

The word "fluency" was used in the Auditory-Verbal promotional video the OP posted, "Deaf children learn to listen and speak fluently."

Several ADers have contested that wording, including Beclak, who states that no d/Deaf people can be fluent in a spoken language, because their use of language doesn't meet the definition of fluency, which includes the word effortless.

If it's a great effort for you to use a language, you aren't fluent in it. If you can use a language with ease, express yourself quickly and effortlessly, you are fluent. The issue has been from the start with the use of the word "fluently," as seen in the video that led off this thread. I disagreed with Beclak, who stated that no d/Deaf person can be fluent in a spoken language. I understand that you probably feel foolish about writing that -- you thought you were opposing Koko's definition rather than one found across several dictionaries -- and having to back it up and are looking for a way to back off your statement, but it's right in front of us. Fluency has a pretty clear meaning: it includes a component of ease, of effortlessness, of speed. And yes, it is possible to find d/Deaf people with fluency in spoken languages.

Then you are the one being fooled dearie, as for all who would believe such a video. I am not trying to change the definition. Fact: No d/Deaf/hoh child or adult can speak effortlessly, regardless of whether they have or have not CIs. Going by the dictionary definition of fluency, no d/Deaf/hoh child or adult could ever be fluent in spoken language, we are just masters at fooling people by appearing to be so. I am not the one being fooled here. (Note that I did not mention written language so d/Deaf/hoh can be fluent in English or any other language in the written mode according to the definition).

p.s All the more reason I believe that d/Deaf children and adults should never be deprived of their own language - Sign language.

 

[Grummer]

So my observations are evidently generalizable. It is amazing how many times I can say..."I see such and such in my clients or my students, and have so many members of AD say, 'I'm that way, too.'" It just goes to show that there are similarities in cognitive processing and social issues related to deafness. Those who deny the holistic impact of deafness on the individual, or the fact that this impact can be predicted based on what we see in other deaf individuals is simply being naive.

sorry come again? i have some trouble reading (maybe i need more coffee, but im also under stress today got lots to do in town all-time-dependent! ei banks, police, massage parlour...(and no, not the sex place, the actual theraptic massage for stress and sore back)...

 

[Grummer]

in other words, i cant focus right now...but do please rephrase just abit , thanks
...to be honest, psychology is a bit out of my reach...