The new deaf generation....speaking and listening

Status
Not open for further replies.
So funny that two hearing people are getting into a heated debate over what constitutes fluency for deaf speech. :)

Ok, guys, we could be totally fluent in our minds and express the words with correct grammar, volume, etc. But nevertheless, it's the deaf accent with its monotonous slurs and unnatural tones that implies the deaf is slow-minded and yes, hearing people are often too nice to say anything but the ones who are not nice? They're the ones being openly honest about it. In fact, my boyfriend, when he first told his dad on the phone that I'm deaf, the very first thing his dad did was an imitation of how a deaf person speaks. And unfortunately, that always seems to be the case, that that is the first thing that comes to their mind. They don't make fun of signing, they make fun of deaf speech.

There was a survey done by a product designer in which she would ask women to anonymously give their feedback on a recording of a deaf person speaking. Majority admitted that had they not already known the person was deaf, they would have thought she was "retarded" or "slow".

So, bicker away if you must on what fluency means, what really matters in the end is that we learn speech to communicate with the hearing who then turns around and assumes we're slow, not because of signing but because of the "deaf accent". Makes one wonder why the hell they are trying to hard to learn to speak when it works against them more than for them.
 
DeafCaroline said:
So funny that two hearing people are getting into a heated debate over what constitutes fluency for deaf speech. :)

Ok, guys, we could be totally fluent in our minds and express the words with correct grammar, volume, etc. But nevertheless, it's the deaf accent with its monotonous slurs and unnatural tones that implies the deaf is slow-minded and yes, hearing people are often too nice to say anything but the ones who are not nice? They're the ones being openly honest about it. In fact, my boyfriend, when he first told his dad on the phone that I'm deaf, the very first thing his dad did was an imitation of how a deaf person speaks. And unfortunately, that always seems to be the case, that that is the first thing that comes to their mind. They don't make fun of signing, they make fun of deaf speech.

There was a survey done by a product designer in which she would ask women to anonymously give their feedback on a recording of a deaf person speaking. Majority admitted that had they not already known the person was deaf, they would have thought she was "retarded" or "slow".

So, bicker away if you must on what fluency means, what really matters in the end is that we learn speech to communicate with the hearing who then turns around and assumes we're slow, not because of signing but because of the "deaf accent". Makes one wonder why the hell they are trying to hard to learn to speak when it works against them more than for them.
Click to expand...
mmmmmmm :)
 
DeafCaroline said:
So funny that two hearing people are getting into a heated debate over what constitutes fluency for deaf speech. :)

Ok, guys, we could be totally fluent in our minds and express the words with correct grammar, volume, etc. But nevertheless, it's the deaf accent with its monotonous slurs and unnatural tones that implies the deaf is slow-minded and yes, hearing people are often too nice to say anything but the ones who are not nice? They're the ones being openly honest about it. In fact, my boyfriend, when he first told his dad on the phone that I'm deaf, the very first thing his dad did was an imitation of how a deaf person speaks. And unfortunately, that always seems to be the case, that that is the first thing that comes to their mind. They don't make fun of signing, they make fun of deaf speech.

There was a survey done by a product designer in which she would ask women to anonymously give their feedback on a recording of a deaf person speaking. Majority admitted that had they not already known the person was deaf, they would have thought she was "retarded" or "slow".

So, bicker away if you must on what fluency means, what really matters in the end is that we learn speech to communicate with the hearing who then turns around and assumes we're slow, not because of signing but because of the "deaf accent". Makes one wonder why the hell they are trying to hard to learn to speak when it works against them more than for them.
Click to expand...

I don't see the need to bicker. I have stated unequivocally that "effortlessly" should not be a part of the criteria used to define fluency. I've been pretty consistent in that in all my posts. As far as I see it, there is no argument.

And yes, it has long been known that good speech skills are a blessing in disquise in a number of situations. But only because of the way the majority of hearing society defines fluency. Their definition, unfortunately, is founded on superficial factors.
 
GrendelQ said:
Please provide two conflicting statements from me.
Click to expand...

They are all over the forum. Pick one.

I am currently in the middle of a PM exchange and assisting another member of AD in dealing what is an emergency situation. Once that has been resolved, I will have the time and the inclination to play these silly games. Currently, my concern is the other person's safety, and I see that as a priority over your request. I am not the only one who has told you that you are being inconsistent and confusing. Perhaps you could take the time to figure out for yourself why so many have stated such.
 
jillio said:
They are all over the forum. Pick one.

I am currently in the middle of a PM exchange and assisting another member of AD in dealing what is an emergency situation. Once that has been resolved, I will have the time and the inclination to play these silly games. Currently, my concern is the other person's safety, and I see that as a priority over your request. I am not the only one who has told you that you are being inconsistent and confusing. Perhaps you could take the time to figure out for yourself why so many have stated such.
Click to expand...

Mmm hmmm.

You know, I was willing to consider something I might not have been aware of, which is why I asked, but apparently it's just more of your usual nonsense.

If you had just said that you would provide it momentarily after you resolved a situation, or simply not responded until you were ready, I'd have thought you were sincere. But by starting off with "They are all over the forum. Pick one." -- it's obvious you have realized your statement was baseless and are just being offensive. Grow up.
 
GrendelQ said:
Mmm hmmm.

You know, I was willing to consider something I might not have been aware of, which is why I asked, but apparently it's just more of your usual nonsense.

If you had just said that you would provide it momentarily after you resolved a situation, or simply not responded until you were ready, I'd have thought you were sincere. But by starting off with "They are all over the forum. Pick one." -- it's obvious you have realized your statement was baseless and are just being offensive. Grow up.
Click to expand...

Not nonsense at all. I will comply with your request when I have the time to go back and search through all your posts. But since it does not involve a matter of your personaly safety, I find the other situation I am dealing with to be more of a priorty on the demand for my time. Personal safety vs silly games. Which would you choose?
 
jillio said:
Not nonsense at all. I will comply with your request when I have the time to go back and search through all your posts. But since it does not involve a matter of your personaly safety, I find the other situation I am dealing with to be more of a priorty on the demand for my time. Personal safety vs silly games. Which would you choose?
Click to expand...

I see you've made your decision already and choose instead to play games. I feel for The Other Situation.
 
GrendelQ said:
Mmm hmmm.

You know, I was willing to consider something I might not have been aware of, which is why I asked, but apparently it's just more of your usual nonsense.

If you had just said that you would provide it momentarily after you resolved a situation, or simply not responded until you were ready, I'd have thought you were sincere. But by starting off with "They are all over the forum. Pick one." -- it's obvious you have realized your statement was baseless and are just being offensive. Grow up.
Click to expand...

ok, in for 3rd person for all the confusion coming from you, Grendel.
 
GrendelQ said:
I see you've made your decision already and choose instead to play games. I feel for The Other Situation.
Click to expand...

How very empathic of you.:roll: Yep, I made my decision. You can wait for my response or you can not wait. Really makes no difference to me one way or the other. I have more important things to deal with at the moment than in proving your inconsistencies. Especially when others have told you the same thing.:roll:
 
Banjo said:
Regardless, it's wrong to humiliate a deaf child and punish them in such a manner. Just wrong!
Click to expand...

Of course it is....so was that 30-35 years ago for you, deafskeptic? What was done about it? Did you tell ur parents? Was the principal informed about this? I've never heard of anything as drastic as this! The only thing done to me was that I was not allowed to sign and had to sit in front of the class to lipread, all of my teachers were hearing.....And I understood the reason behind it....And it's the reason my speech is still intact to this day.

I went to school at NCSD, for 2 years there and never did I see any abuse of the students such as this. Even at public schools, before I lost my hearing, I sat in front of the class, right beside the teacher so I could hear more clearly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top