The new deaf generation....speaking and listening

[kokonut]

You may say it 'sounds' ok, but I can tell in both these examples just by reading their mouths and facial expressions.

1. Vin Cerf - yes, he speaks very fast, but he is slurring his words. (btw, I don't see any mention of him being hoh in his write-ups)

I heard no slurring of his words. His was clear and understable. I'd say he speaks at a normal speed typical of people who normally speak. Yes, he is hoh. Born with a hearing loss.

2. The children in the video - I am Australian. I can recognise Australians. By the way the children are positioning their lips and pausing, you can easily tell they are using effort to speak.

I saw and heard no indications of them speaking with effort. They sometime pause and speak just like anybody else in a conversation.

I saw an interview with the real Sue Thomas (on Youtube) and she displayed the same tell-tale signs. Isn't she supposed to have clear and concise speech and an expert in lipreading? (Now I am not criticising her, I admire her very much for her achievements, yet since she is considered one of the best at what she does, even she has these tell-tale signs). So does Deanne Bray who plays her in the TV series.

Tell tale signs? What do you mean?

 

[kokonut]

Please look up fluency. You will see no mention of resonance, articulation, even clarity. You are talking about a very different measure. The issue we're discussing is fluency.

You took issue with the word "fluency" as used in the opening of the OP's posted video where they described the scene as "Deaf children learn to listen and speak fluently" and said that wasn't possible.

Beclak has repeatedly stated that no d/Deaf person can ever be fluent in a spoken language. I continue to disagree.

I know d/Deaf people who describe themselves as fluent in both spoken and written English. I've spoken with d/Deaf people who are obviously fluent. They might have a deaf voice / deaf accent, and yet they are still perfectly fluent in using the language.

I know d/Deaf people who describe themselves as fluent in ASL. I can't judge that, because I'm not yet fluent, but I sure believe them. They may be easily distinguishable from a native-born signer, but still perfectly fluent in using the language.

My close friend is an amazing writer. He has terrible arthritis and has been experimenting with software programs to transcribe his drafts, he's tried using shorthand-style notations, voice programs, he often types entire pages with a single finger (I'm a two finger typist, too ). His handwriting is horrible and unintelligible. He's still a fluent writer: his language flows fluently despite the alternative means by which he completes his work.

Don't you mean illegible rather than unintelligible? Or are you saying his handwriting was illegible and how he wrote it didn't make sense?

Anyways, what I said on what wasn't possible or make sense is when one "listens fluently." I understood when someone said, "listen and speak fluently" while some else took it to mean "listen fluently and speak fluently," which didn't make a whole lot of sense.

I agree on what you said about fluency.

 

[kokonut]

I could try to make a distinction between the two uses here, linguistic articulation (which refers to the production of precise sounds) and expressing oneself articulately (which refers to the clear use of language), but they are close enough -- I'll give you this one. Yes, someone needs to be able to express himself articulately to be fluent.

Now, you can have a deaf voice/accent, slur, and still express yourself articulately, still be fluent using spoken language. You can have arthritis and still express yourself articulately, still be fluent using written language. You can have tennis elbow and still be fluent in ASL.

And can do it effortlessly.

 

[DeafCaroline]

I understood when someone said, "listen and speak fluently" while some else took it to mean "listen fluently and speak fluently," which didn't make a whole lot of sense.

I agree on what you said about fluency.

What you just said didn't make any sense either. What's the difference between speak and listen fluently vs. speak fluently and listen fluently?

 

[kokonut]

What you just said didn't make any sense either. What's the difference between speak and listen fluently vs. speak fluently and listen fluently?

By saying "listen fluently" doesn't make any sense.

BTW, it was written out as "listen and speak fluently" which is fine because it is obviously not saying "listen fluently *and* speak fluently."

 

[deafskeptic]

The problem is that the hearing parents we have here on the forum more or less say verbally spoken English is a required parameter of obtaining fluency.

That's where i say..... Yo.

And Grendel............. Get me these deaf people who you say that they are fluent without effort - I'd like to ask them a few questions.[/QUOTE]

I was about to ask for the same as well.

Ditto here.

 

[Jane B.]

Don't you mean illegible rather than unintelligible? Or are you saying his handwriting was illegible and how he wrote it didn't make sense?

Anyways, what I said on what wasn't possible or make sense is when one "listens fluently." I understood when someone said, "listen and speak fluently" while some else took it to mean "listen fluently and speak fluently," which didn't make a whole lot of sense.

I agree on what you said about fluency.

What you just said didn't make any sense either. What's the difference between speak and listen fluently vs. speak fluently and listen fluently?

I take it that he is saying that you first listen and then speak fluently. The only part of the two step process that has the fluently modifier is the speaking.

 

[DeafCaroline]

By saying "listen fluently" doesn't make any sense.

BTW, it was written out as "listen and speak fluently" which is fine because it is obviously not saying "listen fluently *and* speak fluently."

Then you need to go back to school and learn a bit more about English grammar.

I can jump and skip very high. - this does not mean I can jump but only skip very high. It means I both jump and skip high.

You're reaching here. You really are.

 

[kokonut]

I take it that he is saying that you first listen and then speak fluently. The only part of the two step process that has the fluently modifier is the speaking.

The speaking part, yes. "learn to listen" and "speak fluently."

 

[shel90]

Wow..

 

[DeafCaroline]

Wow..

Exactly. I'm actually very amused right now.

 

[shel90]

Exactly. I'm actually very amused right now.

 

[kokonut]

Then you need to go back to school and learn a bit more about English grammar.

I can jump and skip very high. - this does not mean I can jump but only skip very high. It means I both jump and skip high.

You're reaching here. You really are.

DC, you wrote:

"Deaf children learn to speak and LISTEN fluently."

But the video I referred to didn't say that, it said,

"Deaf children learn to listen and speak fluently."

http://www.alldeaf.com/our-world-ou...eneration-speaking-listening.html#post1844324

It is immediately clear in YouTube it was written, "Deaf children learn to listen and speak fluently" to mean "learn to listen" and "speak fluently."

 

[DeafCaroline]

Ok, whatever. Knowing you by now, it doesn't matter what anyone says, you are going to think what you want regardless and say it is so. That's fine, that's part of your Deafhood journey, I guess.

 

[StSapphire]

DC, you wrote:

"Deaf children learn to speak and LISTEN fluently."

But the video I referred to didn't say that, it said,

"Deaf children learn to listen and speak fluently."

http://www.alldeaf.com/our-world-ou...eneration-speaking-listening.html#post1844324

It is immediately clear in YouTube it was written, "Deaf children learn to listen and speak fluently" to mean "learn to listen" and "speak fluently."

I think her point is that in English, very often an adverb that modifies another verb when two verbs are present (as in the form of "X and Y ADVERBLY" or "ADVERBLY X and Y") is ambiguous and very often (and not necessarily incorrectly) interpreted as "X ADVERBLY and Y ADVERBLY".

This of it like math: You can have x + y * z or (x + y) * z. You meant the former (ie x + (y * z)) while DC interpreted it as the latter (ie (x * z) + (y * z)). English is an ambiguous language, and so neither interpretation is, grammatically speaking, wrong.

 

[rolling7]

The problem is that the hearing parents we have here on the forum more or less say verbally spoken English is a required parameter of obtaining fluency.

That's where i say..... Yo.

And Grendel............. Get me these deaf people who you say that they are fluent without effort - I'd like to ask them a few questions.

Ask away!

But before you do, set the standards! I know plenty of hearing people (several U.S.presidents come to mind, including Obama) that butcher the language that I have to wonder if fluency even exist in the hearing world today.

(see previous post to determine if I met your qualification of a person you want to ask)

 

[jillio]

I am fluent in spoken English but it takes effort to make sure I pronounce the words correctly especially in public speaking. That is what Becklak is talking about. You include effortlessness but for deaf people, we are using our weakest sense so we dont have that component.

Exactly. That definition was based on hearing perspectives. It has to be adapted for the deaf.

 

[jillio]

Jillio

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

You are quite welcome. It seems to be difficult for some to understand that you cannot take a definition that was developed with hearing populations, and apply it to the deaf without adapting it.

 

[jillio]

again.

No problem!

 

[Bottesini]

You are quite welcome. It seems to be difficult for some to understand that you cannot take a definition that was developed with hearing populations, and apply it to the deaf without adapting it.

You are right. And that seems to be the problem of those who are arguing on how fluent they are not!

And that is not Grendel. You can be perfectly fluent without even speaking a word.