The new deaf generation....speaking and listening

[jillio]

And this is why I went to the extreme to say that ALL d/Deaf and even HoH would never be considered truly fluent under that definition.

Even Grendel modifies it to fit with her child. With this modification then yes many of us would be fluent even with speech. But have you noticed the change in approach, from first Koko's definition to the 'modified', in an attempt to prove me wrong?

Right. I understood what you were saying all along. But then, I am not the least bit defensive when I read this stuff.

 

[jillio]

YouTube - ‪Fainting Goats‬‏

These special "fainting goats" faint when startled or get excited too quickly and their muscles tighten up, and they "faint."

Actually, they don't faint. They have a seizure, as the result of a birth defect in the brain. They are bred to have that specific birth defect for no other reason that to entertain some simple minded humans.

 

[jillio]

Beach Girl, you brought up kind of what I was thinking. I considered taking the FS exam once and looked into those requirements. What they are looking for is someone who can communicate in that country's 'standard' dialect, eg, high German, not low German, or proper Israeli Hebrew, not Yiddishe-accented Hebrew.

Most people will never, ever ever lose their accents. The accent decreases, but it's still there. Post-lingual acquisition means you'll not achieve the same level of accent fluency as a native speaker. Someone coming to the U.S. at age 12 and speaking English as an adult may have very proper English that sounds almost like a British accent.

Obviously, working with the CIA is a bit different than being a diplomat...I mean, a diplomat has to have fluent foreign language skills whereas a CIA operative may need to pose as a native speaker. That usually requires someone to be bilingual from childhood. I assume this is why the FS has scales that deviate slightly from traditional linguistics.

Fluency is a matter of understanding and being understood. Someone who is from Northern Minnesota and has 'bad grammar' is still fluent.

Depending upon the age of the post-lingual hearing loss, it can mean much more than just developing the accent of a native speaker. Use of the language as a native would use it is also impaired when post-lingual loss is in the childhood or even oftentimes, the adolescent ages.

 

[jillio]

ILR

This site has information about the Foreign Service Institute's definitions of fluency for students studying foreign languages. It might have some relevance here, as some have said that for deaf children, particularly, English or any other spoken language is a "foreign" language to them, as opposed to sign-language.

The scale goes from 0 (no fluency or ability to say anything beyond a few words in the target language) up to 5 (the fluency of a native, well-educated speaker). There are other sections for evaluating reading and writing which use the same scale.

Note that you can be considered quite fluent (4+ level) and still have an accent. That might cover some who speak with a "deaf accent."

For a level 5 speaker, however: "Pronunciation is typically consistent with that of well-educated native speakers of a non-stigmatized dialect."

Professional Foreign Service officers typically must achieve 3/3 (speaking/reading) fluency levels in the target language (the language of the country to which they are assigned), and they are strongly encouraged to keep improving their language fluency while at post.

So perhaps some here who are arguing that HoH and some deaf (especially late-deafened) individuals are "fluent," they might be accepting a level of fluency that might be graded anything from 3 up to a 5. (A 3 can converse well, but might have some vocabulary or pronounciation deficits.) But those who are saying "No, that's not true, no deaf or HoH individual can really be fluent in English or any spoken language" are thinking only of the highest level, the "functionally native proficiency," and believe that no HoH/deaf person reaches that level.

Here's the page for writing:

ILR

Grammar and spelling errors would prevent someone from being classified at Level 5, "functionally native proficiency." Even a Level 4 should be "able to write the language precisely and accurately..."

For reading comprehension, the breakdowns are similar.

ILR

FS Officers get a two-part score, with the first number being for spoken language and the second one for reading. It is very common to have a higher number for reading than for speaking. For instance, I have a 3+/4 in Spanish - my reading is half a level better than my speaking.

Maybe some of the deaf educators here could hazard a guess as to what might be typical scores for their students. Perhaps their scores also might very commonly be better in reading than in speaking; that wouldn't be surprising at all. You could probably evaluate ASL usage the same way; a well-educated native signer being a "5," and lesser abilities at producing and comprehending would be at the lower levels.

The problem is, with most deaf children, English is not learned as a second language. Because they were not offered ASL as a first language, English is their first and only language, and at that, they do not have native command. In short, they have not acquired any language to the degree that they can achieve native fluency. That impacts not only the way they are able to learn any subsequent language, but also affects cognitive processes that are dependent upon language.

 

[TheOracle]

Depending upon the age of the post-lingual hearing loss, it can mean much more than just developing the accent of a native speaker. Use of the language as a native would use it is also impaired when post-lingual loss is in the childhood or even oftentimes, the adolescent ages.

I was thinking about hearing people acquiring a L2, which is what the FS exam assumes...

 

[jillio]

completely makes sense now! I don't think you'd see my daughter as fluent the way I do if you heard her speak but she could tell you a great story.

Articulation can be deceptive when used as a criterion for fluency.

 

[jillio]

I was thinking about hearing people acquiring a L2, which is what the FS exam assumes...

Right. And that cannot be applied to deaf children, or even deaf adults. The results are based on those who have an L1 language acquired at developmentally appropriate times. Language acquisition is much more than learning vocab and grammar, but involves intuitive use and expression of the language acquired. Those skills are then transferred to any other language learned.

 

[deafskeptic]

Right. And that cannot be applied to deaf children, or even deaf adults.

Post lingual deaf adults?

 

[jillio]

Post lingual deaf adults?

Depends upon the age when the hearing loss was acquired. Late deafened, no. But post lingual is anything after the age of 3. And those children grow into adults that experience many of the same difficulties with language as a prelingual adult does. As far as the statements regarding accent, etc., even a late deafened person could not be expected to achieve the same results as a hearing person. So the test results are basically useless when discussing the deaf population.

 

[deafskeptic]

Depends upon the age when the hearing loss was acquired. Late deafened, no. But post lingual is anything after the age of 3. And those children grow into adults that experience many of the same difficulties with language as a prelingual adult does.

Very well. I should have rephrased that to late deafened adults (deaf who lost hearing as adults) cuz that's what I had in mind.

 

[Bottesini]

The problem is, with most deaf children, English is not learned as a second language. Because they were not offered ASL as a first language, English is their first and only language, and at that, they do not have native command. In short, they have not acquired any language to the degree that they can achieve native fluency. That impacts not only the way they are able to learn any subsequent language, but also affects cognitive processes that are dependent upon language.

Can you give details of the cognitive processes that depend upon language, please?

 

[jillio]

Here's the thing: Spoken word and written word are not the same. It isn't a matter of audio. People speak English using different styles than how they write it. It is also an issue of speed and how our brain organizes things. My written Spanish is 5x better than my oral.

An 'accent' is only loosely related to fluency. People can be totally bilingual and still have an accent until they die. (In fact, most will never lose it.)

If someone can understand my speech - even if they are hearing - and can communicate in response, they're fluent. You can be Deaf and fluent in an oral language. If a linguist were studying the issues we brought up here, they'd consider a deaf person's ability to understand the syntax and semantics of conversational English.

Accent is irrelevent to the discussion that Beclak prompted. As I stated before, you can be deaf and fluent in any aural/auditory based language, but that doesn't mean that you can speak it without making effort part of the process of speaking. That is why "effortlessly" has no business being a criterion for determining fluency.

 

[TheOracle]

Can you give details of the cognitive processes that depend upon language, please?

I think Jillio is talking about neural wiring. That would take something like a neuro textbook if you mean it literally.

But your language helps wire how you process emotion, space, music, body language, etc.

 

[TheOracle]

Accent is irrelevent to the discussion that Beclak prompted. As I stated before, you can be deaf and fluent in any aural/auditory based language, but that doesn't mean that you can speak it without making effort part of the process of speaking. That is why "effortlessly" has no business being a criterion for determining fluency.

The discussion started to veer towards accents and 'deaf' accents, so that's why I mentioned it. I already know that accents aren't a part of fluency.

 

[jillio]

Can you give details of the cognitive processes that depend upon language, please?

Well, most all cognitive process of the higher level are dependent upon language. Reasoning, problem solving, critical thinking, dichotomous thinking (more a of a tendency to be dicotomous in those who are affected by not having acquired a native language) are a few.

 

[jillio]

The discussion started to veer towards accents and 'deaf' accents, so that's why I mentioned it. I already know that accents aren't a part of fluency.

Still can't compare a deaf accent to someone who is learning a second language and is hearing.

 

[jillio]

I think Jillio is talking about neural wiring. That would take something like a neuro textbook if you mean it literally.

But your language helps wire how you process emotion, space, music, body language, etc.

I understood what Bott was asking, and have explained it. No need for a neurology textbook.

 

[deafskeptic]

Still can't compare a deaf accent to someone who is learning a second language and is hearing.

Especially when you consider the fact that English is the only language that many deaf know.

 

[TheOracle]

Still can't compare a deaf accent to someone who is learning a second language and is hearing.

*frustrated*

That was supposed to be my point!

 

[jillio]

Especially when you consider the fact that English is the only language that many deaf know.

Right. Just because it is their only language, it does not mean that they are able to use it with native fluency.