The new deaf generation....speaking and listening

[jillio]

Beclak, I don't know what definitions you are using for d/Deaf or HoH, especially when it comes to adults. There are certainly plenty of late-deafened, HoH, adults who are perfectly fluent in English (or whatever their native language was).

I recently went to an HLAA convention in Washington and had the opportunity to speak with many people using HAs and many others using CIs. Virtually all of them spoke fluently. Some were speakers on panels, where they gave their presentations in English, again, perfectly fluently.

I don't know what everyone's background was. I'm sure some were late-deafened, some deaf from childhood, perhaps some deaf from birth, I don't know. But certainly there were many, many deaf and HoH adults there who were speaking perfectly fluently. I don't think they (and I include myself in that number) are all fooling themselves.

That's not to deny the special training and effort that goes into learning to speak for young children who are deaf or severely HoH. Just saying that it seems like way, way too broad a brush to claim that no d/Deaf or HoH person speaks fluently.

That is because the late deafened and the HOH had the opportunity to develop speech on a developmentally appropriate time schedule. Not so with those who are prelingually deafended, or those whose hearing loss is of such a degree that they actually loose the ability to speak without effort. You are attempting to compare that which is not comparable.

 

[jillio]

Sure, I get that. I'm just saying that there are HoH definitely, and d/Deaf (although using HAs and/or CIs) apparently, who aren't, or at least don't seem to be, "mindful always." There is such a wide range among people in that situation that it seems overly broad to say that *none* of that group are fluent.

Then they would fit into the definition of fluency based on hearing standards. Because basically, in all ways, they are hearing, but with a deficit.

 

[jillio]

Or in my case, type extraordinarily fluently. I am a little confounded by the effort to not be fluent in English.

No one needs to speak English to be fluent. I have a physical barrier to understandable speech, but I consider myself perfectly fluent.

Stephen Hawking uses a computer to speak his words, but I doubt anyone would say he isn't comfortable and fluent in English.

So well said.

 

[jillio]

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)

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 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.

I am not deaf, and I can hear the effort and the missing sounds in their speech.

 

[posts from hell]

I am not deaf, and I can hear the effort and the missing sounds in their speech.

kind of ironic a deaf person coming on and saying wow these deaf people talk really well.

 

[jillio]

Granted, I'm not determining the breadth of this ability and already acknowledged that in a previous post. What I provided was one video proving false that that ALL people with hearing loss are unable to speak effortlessly. That was my point. I've already conceded that not everyone can do that but that there are cases where many can and do speak effortless and has become 2nd nature for them

Why are you so dichotomous in your thinking? No one has implied or stated "All". The vast majority of us are fluent enough in English and literate enough in the written mode to understand that "majority" is implied.

The only reason you attempt to focus on "all" is so you will have a point to argue and feel like you have proven another one of those "less intelligent than me" deafies wrong.

Your issues are so blatant.

 

[jillio]

kind of ironic a deaf person coming on and saying wow these deaf people talk really well.

Yep. Probably because he can't hear the missing consonants, and leaves them out in his own speech.

But, it is very telling of his audist perspective.

 

[dogmom]

I personally find that it's easier for me to sign - though I'm still very much learning - than it is to speak. I still have difficulty with certain words and still have to think sometimes about how to do them. People can have difficulty understanding me. This thread and the discussion on speech therapy memories brought back a lot for me too, including the tongue depressor thing, and staring at a mirror, the way the room smelled, the games we did. I felt pretty embarrassed or frustrated by it many times, but the card games we played were kind of fun. In some ways it was relief for me to be in there because than I was safe from the other kids. But it was also isolating. Though I honestly don't know now if I was born with a hearing loss or not <and I know the situation for hearing kids attending speech and language therapy vs. that for deaf children attending, is different> - I can relate to many things people are discussing.

 

[jillio]

I asked you a question earlier, what does it mean to speak effortlessly?

Effortlessly = without effort. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

 

[posts from hell]

Yep. Probably because he can't hear the missing consonants, and leaves them out in his own speech.

But, it is very telling of his audist perspective.

Thanks for filling me in on his videos. I was wondering that myself.

 

[jillio]

Funny, they did not like us telling them "Oh, now lets wait for 14 years and see what happens."

Sad when it has to come down to that.

Yep, because it means that they won't get it until it is too late. Sad. That is why we don't see much improvement when it comes to deaf children.

 

[jillio]

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.

Each and every one of those things is included when determining the fluent use of the spoken mode of any language.

Re: your friend...again comparing apples to oranges. Your friend had the ability to develop language on a developmentally appropriate time schedule.

 

[jillio]

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?

Just another attempt to twist and play word games.

 

[jillio]

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."

It is implied in the statement. Are you having difficulty with fluency in your written English? Or is this just another attempt to portray yourself as superior in your use of English by playing word games? I would suspect the second.

 

[jillio]

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.

You can be fluent without speaking a word, as applied to the deaf. However, as the original topic was concerning the aural/auditory mode of English, it becomes a part of the discussion. And I think it has been demonstated that many deaf are fluent in the visual modes of English (eg reading and writing), in their comprehension, but not in their ability to communicate fluently through the aural/auditory mode.

 

[Bottesini]

You can be fluent without speaking a word, as applied to the deaf. However, as the original topic was concerning the aural/auditory mode of English, it becomes a part of the discussion. And I think it has been demonstated that many deaf are fluent in the visual modes of English (eg reading and writing), in their comprehension, but not in their ability to communicate fluently through the aural/auditory mode.

Yes! And most of us are deaf. So there is no need to compare our fluency to a hearing model.

 

[jillio]

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.

Of course. This has become a completely absurd argument of semantics. Which is a shame, because the basic, valuable message is being lost.

 

[jillio]

Yes! And most of us are deaf. So there is no need to compare our fluency to a hearing model.

That is why I said that the definition posted by koko had to be modified, as it was based on a hearing model.

 

[deafskeptic]

Of course. This has become a completely absurd argument of semantics. Which is a shame, because the basic, valuable message is being lost.

Yeah. It's tiresome. :roll:

 

[Bottesini]

That is why I said that the definition posted by koko had to be modified, as it was based on a hearing model.

I wish people would pay attention to that.