The new deaf generation....speaking and listening

[Beowulf]

Sure I do. What's left of it, that is. Thank god for hearing aids and early intervention. I can pick up all kinds of accents but I can you this, Vint Cerf does not have that deaf accent and can easily pass as a hearing person. Like I said, one example to prove your premise as false.

Oh, it is with such a heavy heart I hang my head down and stand corrected. I shall suffer lack of sleep forthwith.

 

[AlleyCat]

Oh, it is with such a heavy heart I hang my head down and stand corrected. I shall suffer lack of sleep forthwith.

Has it actually been confirmed that this guy has absolutely no deaf accent?

Not that it matters, but this name keeps getting brought up .. and I still wonder about the point of it all.

 

[Beowulf]

Has it actually been confirmed that this guy has absolutely no deaf accent?

Not that it matters, but this name keeps getting brought up .. and I still wonder about the point of it all.

Nawww. Just put him in a room with life insurance salesmen (preferably former Moonies) and his chinks will show.

 

[kokonut]

Like I said, one example is all it takes.

 

[Beach girl]

Accent doesn't really matter, so long as it doesn't interfere with understanding. EVERYone has an accent of one sort or another, be it regional or sometimes class-related or even, as discussed, the "deaf accent."

I knew I had been away from home for a long time when I went back for a visit once and thought "My goodness, did everyone here always sound like this?" Yup. My Michigan family just sounded different to me after I had lived out of the state for a while.

I've lived a lot of places now, and have noticed regional accents everywhere. Michigan accents are different from Boston accents are different from Mid-Atlantic accents are different from North Carolina accents.

To me, anyway, a "deaf accent" doesn't have any more to do with fluency than a regional accent does, so long as it doesn't interfere with understanding.

And even "understanding" is a little subjective. I can barely understand my sister-in-law's strong Welsh accent. When my husband first came to the U.S., he really, really struggled to understand accents in St. Louis, of all places. And then when we traveled in the South, he had some difficulties in Georgia and Tennessee.

My point is accents are to be expected. Someone's accent doesn't really have anything to do with fluency or command of the language, in and of itself.

 

[Beowulf]

Accent doesn't really matter, so long as it doesn't interfere with understanding. EVERYone has an accent of one sort or another, be it regional or sometimes class-related or even, as discussed, the "deaf accent."

I knew I had been away from home for a long time when I went back for a visit once and thought "My goodness, did everyone here always sound like this?" Yup. My Michigan family just sounded different to me after I had lived out of the state for a while.

I've lived a lot of places now, and have noticed regional accents everywhere. Michigan accents are different from Boston accents are different from Mid-Atlantic accents are different from North Carolina accents.

To me, anyway, a "deaf accent" doesn't have any more to do with fluency than a regional accent does, so long as it doesn't interfere with understanding.

And even "understanding" is a little subjective. I can barely understand my sister-in-law's strong Welsh accent. When my husband first came to the U.S., he really, really struggled to understand accents in St. Louis, of all places. And then when we traveled in the South, he had some difficulties in Georgia and Tennessee.

My point is accents are to be expected. Someone's accent doesn't really have anything to do with fluency or command of the language, in and of itself.

The point of this thread was really to say that some deaf have speech that makes it impossible to distinguish him/her from a hearing person. Baloney, I say. Maybe the first few times the deafie can fool the hearie but they will eventually be outed. That's all.

 

[Jiro]

Well, from one hearing person who had this to say about Vint Cerf:

"I think he speaks better than most hearing people.... I did not notice any hesitation (which can not even be said for most hearing people). He was a lot more eloquent than most people who are talking into a tape or video. If someone is not used to speaking in front of a group they sound much worse than this guy does.... I would not have been able to tell he was not a hearing person at all. There is not a bit of dropping parts of words, slurring, pausing, hesitating or anything like that."

And that was my assessment, too.

oh my.... he must have had a very expensive coach or speech therapy lessons... probably the same training that actors/actresses take.

 

[GrendelQ]

The point of this thread was really to say that some deaf have speech that makes it impossible to distinguish him/her from a hearing person. Baloney, I say. Maybe the first few times the deafie can fool the hearie but they will eventually be outed. That's all.

No, that was never the point. The argument was whether or not a d/Deaf or HOH person could be fluent in spoken language. That's it. Some are now trying to say that to be fluent your speaking must be absolutely perfect and that's far from true.

The caption on the OP's video on pg 1 of this thread described the scene as "Deaf children learn to listen and speak fluently." Some contested that this was not possible (e.g., Beclak's "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."). And Beclak later expanded that to included any d/Deaf, or HOH person, even late-deafened over time. And several challenged the OP to provide one example of a fluent deaf or HOH person.

Has it actually been confirmed that this guy has absolutely no deaf accent?

Not that it matters, but this name keeps getting brought up .. and I still wonder about the point of it all.

I think his name was brought up just because he's really well-known, so people could easily confirm that he's deaf and not age-deafened with pre-existing speech.

There are many examples out there, and a few ADers also said they considered themselves fluent in spoken languages or knew of others who consider themselves fluent.

I don't know what accent has to do with this, though -- such things don't have a bearing on fluency as long as you can express yourself and use the language with ease, speed, and flow/smoothness.

I'm not going to post someone's home video of their child speaking, but you can find many on YouTube. This one, however, is designed for public use.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaB_GblwZSA]Hear and Say - Liam Radio[/ame]

This 11YYO child has an accent, I'd guess NZ, but that doesn't mean he isn't speaking beautifully, and it doesn't mean he can't be fluent just because he has an accent. I've seen videos of him joking around with radio djs, too -- he's a bit shy, but doesn't seem to have any difficulty conversing like a typical hearing kid might.

I'd hate to think that having an accent disqualifies you from being fluent. Despite some careful masking with a painstakingly acquired Virginia drawl, I'd be willing to bet that anyone studying linguistics or accents would quickly pick out my guttural Long Island roots and note that I was raised in a household where English was a second language for a large number of my family members. My speech is far from perfect, but I feel that I am fluent in English. My Deaf daughter's speech is far from perfect, but I think she expresses herself fluently in spoken language.

 

[Jiro]

My, my, and how time has changed with the pace of technology and (very) early intervention have made a huge difference. People wouldn't know if they were listening to a deaf or hh person. All it takes is to have one example to make that premise that all deaf/hh people have a deaf accent as false.

so.... just one anomaly and it's a miracle for all?

Jesus Christ must be here already!

 

[Beowulf]

No, that was never the point. The argument was whether or not a d/Deaf or HOH person could be fluent in spoken language. That's it. Some are now trying to say that to be fluent your speaking must be absolutely perfect and that's far from true.






You don't know the OP as well as I do.

 

[jillio]

sad is health dangerous for the goat?

Anytime there is a seizure disorder, the life span is expected to be shortened.

 

[jillio]

TheOracle, I provided two links on the definition of "fluently" of which one is about speaking effortlessly. I also agreed with what GrendelQ said about fluency.

What Beclak claimed was that people born with hearing loss (or very early on) are unable to speak effortlessly later on whether with mild hearing loss or profound, and whether with a hearing aid or cochlear implant. Effortlessly in this example is the ability to speak without much effort or thought. I provided video examples of such from people with hearing aids and cochlear implants who are able to speak effortlessly. Meaning, they speak without any problems...not struggling, not haltingly, not mumbling, etc. For example, I speak effortlessly with anyone that I speak to, and they understand me 100%. Not a surprise because speaking has become automatic for me. Just as people can sign effortlessly without thinking to other signers and be understood 100%. They do it automatically. Just like when Vint Cerf speaks effortlessly. It is automatic for him. I answer the phone and speak with strangers without any effort. It's automatic for me. Just because you can't do it effortlessly doesn't mean every deaf or hard of hearing person is unable to speak effortlessly. That's a very naive, and myopic view. I already provided at least one video that proved that idea false deaf/hh people cannot speak effortlessly. They can. Many do. And they're certainly not struggling to speak as you can see in those videos.

My assessment is quite different than yours. In fact, I was directed to a video you have on your blog yesterday. Your deaf accent is obvious, despite your pretense that it doesn't exist. The naive, myopic view is that it does not require effort for a deaf individual to speak. If it did not require effort,, speech therapists would be put out of business.

 

[TheOracle]

It's kind of sad that people let this thread get so personal that we can't even talk about science.

 

[jillio]

Oracle, I agree with you. I was just addressing the definition of fluency that Kokonut put forward and giving the stark reality of that very definition. The definition he gave is a definition that is only possible for those who are hearing. Other definitions of fluency like that which you decribe, by all means I agree, I would be considered fluent both in speech and in written too. If you read all my posts in this thread you will see that I too mention the same thing.

Exactly. This whole discussion has become quite twisted. In effect, I think we are all saying the same thing. "Effortlessly" is not a criterion appropriate to determine fluency, and must be altered to address the deaf population, the population who stutters, the population who has a speech impediment, the aphasic population, and the population with apraxia. Kokonut has simply posted a definition that does not apply to many, given the inclusion of "effortlessly" as a criterion for fluency. Yet he continues to argue that "effortlessly" is appropriate, even for the deaf population, and is attempting to come up with examples to support his refusal to admit that even he has to exert a degree of effort in his speech.

 

[jillio]

Like I said, one example is all it takes.

Incorrect. One example is nothing more than an outlier; an exception to the rule. It does not speak to the majority in any way.

 

[jillio]

It's kind of sad that people let this thread get so personal that we can't even talk about science.

Koko makes everything personal. It is expected.

 

[posts from hell]

Incorrect. One example is nothing more than an outlier; an exception to the rule. It does not speak to the majority in any way.

Exactly, and while we're looking over there, lets also look here. I see several people in my personal circle of friends, and more on the internet saying they're going voice of because it's a lot less effort to make.

So for 1 cerf, we have many more going voice off. That's fine with me.

 

[jillio]

Exactly, and while we're looking over there, lets also look here. I see several people in my personal circle of friends, and more on the internet saying they're going voice of because it's a lot less effort to make.

So for 1 cerf, we have many more going voice off. That's fine with me.

Exactly. Perhaps "effortlessly" would be a more appropriate criterion to use for ASL fluency in the deaf.

 

[posts from hell]

Exactly. Perhaps "effortlessly" would be a more appropriate criterion to use for ASL fluency in the deaf.

True that.

 

[jillio]

No, that was never the point. The argument was whether or not a d/Deaf or HOH person could be fluent in spoken language. That's it. Some are now trying to say that to be fluent your speaking must be absolutely perfect and that's far from true.

The caption on the OP's video on pg 1 of this thread described the scene as "Deaf children learn to listen and speak fluently." Some contested that this was not possible (e.g., Beclak's "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."). And Beclak later expanded that to included any d/Deaf, or HOH person, even late-deafened over time. And several challenged the OP to provide one example of a fluent deaf or HOH person.

I think his name was brought up just because he's really well-known, so people could easily confirm that he's deaf and not age-deafened with pre-existing speech.

There are many examples out there, and a few ADers also said they considered themselves fluent in spoken languages or knew of others who consider themselves fluent.

I don't know what accent has to do with this, though -- such things don't have a bearing on fluency as long as you can express yourself and use the language with ease, speed, and flow/smoothness.

I'm not going to post someone's home video of their child speaking, but you can find many on YouTube. This one, however, is designed for public use.

Hear and Say - Liam Radio

This 11YYO child has an accent, I'd guess NZ, but that doesn't mean he isn't speaking beautifully, and it doesn't mean he can't be fluent just because he has an accent. I've seen videos of him joking around with radio djs, too -- he's a bit shy, but doesn't seem to have any difficulty conversing like a typical hearing kid might.

I'd hate to think that having an accent disqualifies you from being fluent. Despite some careful masking with a painstakingly acquired Virginia drawl, I'd be willing to bet that anyone studying linguistics or accents would quickly pick out my guttural Long Island roots and note that I was raised in a household where English was a second language for a large number of my family members. My speech is far from perfect, but I feel that I am fluent in English. My Deaf daughter's speech is far from perfect, but I think she expresses herself fluently in spoken language.

Then you agree that koko's definition is in error by including "effortlessly" in the criteria for fluency.