The new deaf generation....speaking and listening

[Smithtr]

I already oral and Deaf both I speaking and deaf not believe it
asl and ESL mixising on confused misunderstand on hear, I can hear or not hear I am accept to Deaf exactly It is very not easy because tough education cultures!

 

[deafdyke]

Too often, the focus is on speech and listening to the point that education was not a top priority for the parents.

Not quite. The thing is with AVT, they portray it to make it seem like AVT will automaticly allow access to the Hearing World, and that their kids will be like the superstars from the '80s, the ones who were sucessful AVT wise with HAs.

I know some families who use it, but many CI families I know -- even those who don't use sign -- don't use AVT . I don't see much difference at all in how they communicate with and educate their children.

My understanding is that AVT is usually conducted for ~3 years during the infant / toddler stage and no longer needed once schooling begins, and can involve visiting an AVT professional anywhere from twice a month (for an hour) up to once or twice a week hour-long sessions.

well then there you have it. AVT mentality has pretty much infested oral deaf education. Ie " Kids must be in the hearing and speaking world, b/c it's the world's best place.
I don't think a lot of people have any issues with AVT if it was pursued as a supplemental option. Like basicly auditory training etc..... BUT, auditory verbal is basicly a lifestyle...It expects dhh kids to live an eternal speech therapy session.

 

[deafdyke]

From ads here on alldeaf i thought clarke is AVT school now.

Huh? where'd you get that? I think you're mixed up....there is a Clark School being advertised on here, but that's an LD school rather then the one in Noho. It is not a philsophy of classroom management. Meaning there are no auditory verbal classrooms. It actually goes against the philsophy that hearing and talking and the hearing world is the best thing in the world. Auditory verbal insists that dhh kids do not need seperate deaf ed, as it "stunts" spoken language It is and always has been an auditory oral school. Heck they're even OK with ASL being used off campus. I even used fingerspelling on my soundbooth test the last time I was there.
That said. The thing that really irritates me about the auditory verbal philosophy is that it acts like it's the Be All And End All of a dhh kid's existance. It does not acknowledge that even hoh kids have a lot of issues with fitting in, and that educational placement/communication methodology can change. It also seems to be very clueless about what the real world is like for a dhh kid. Just b/c a dhh kid has decent speaking abilty, it doesn't mean that they will automaticly fit into the hearing world.

 

[inmate23]

Huh? where'd you get that? I think you're mixed up....there is a Clark School being advertised on here, but that's an LD school rather then the one in Noho. It is not a philsophy of classroom management. Meaning there are no auditory verbal classrooms. It actually goes against the philsophy that hearing and talking and the hearing world is the best thing in the world. Auditory verbal insists that dhh kids do not need seperate deaf ed, as it "stunts" spoken language .

the catch line was "experts in auditory verbal education"

 

[GrendelQ]

Not quite. The thing is with AVT, they portray it to make it seem like AVT will automaticly allow access to the Hearing World, and that their kids will be like the superstars from the '80s, the ones who were sucessful AVT wise with HAs.
well then there you have it. AVT mentality has pretty much infested oral deaf education. Ie " Kids must be in the hearing and speaking world, b/c it's the world's best place.
I don't think a lot of people have any issues with AVT if it was pursued as a supplemental option. Like basicly auditory training etc..... BUT, auditory verbal is basicly a lifestyle...It expects dhh kids to live an eternal speech therapy session.

There's no question that the focus in AVT is on listening and speaking, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say it expects kids to live in an eternal speech therapy session, DD. Are you equating the way hearing families in general use spoken language with kids all the time with speech therapy? Because that's what AVT becomes in everyday life -- a deluge of language, in this case, spoken language, in particular. We, too, intentionally surround Li with language, but in our case, it's both sign and spoken language. There's no "therapy" or drilling involved, we just do a lot of communicating, story-telling, reading aloud, interacting, sharing. I think that's what AVT is supposed to be, too. Just without sign, sadly.

 

[flip]

There's no question that the focus in AVT is on listening and speaking, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say it expects kids to live in an eternal speech therapy session, DD. Are you equating the way hearing families in general use spoken language with kids all the time with speech therapy? Because that's what AVT becomes in everyday life -- a deluge of language, in this case, spoken language, in particular. We, too, intentionally surround Li with language, but in our case, it's both sign and spoken language. There's no "therapy" or drilling involved, we just do a lot of communicating, story-telling, reading aloud, interacting, sharing. I think that's what AVT is supposed to be, too. Just without sign, sadly.

Ah.. cute strawman

Like kokonut do, you try to disort the position of a poster with a "clarifying" question:
"Are you equating the way hearing families in general use spoken language with kids all the time with speech therapy?"

Then you comment the disorted position, created by you.

To me, it looks like DD is refering to the therapy part, not speech, even if she use the word "speech". AVT origins from the science of speech therapy, and is one of various tools found in that basket. By reading your comment to DD, it looks like AVT(Auditory Verbal THERAPY) becomes eternal therapy, if it's a kind of therapy that use a deluge of spoken language in daily life for a specific purpose.

AVT is so audist, isn't it?

 

[GrendelQ]

(your usual nonsense) ...
AVT is so audist, isn't it?

I think deafdyke is a whole lot smarter than to think that I'm posing a strawman, Flip. I was asking her a straightforward question, because it's quite possible that what she's seen in practice is not how AVT appears on paper, or as practiced by those I've met have done it or are doing it. Or, it may be that she's proposing that the usual barrage of spoken language that a hearing family uses would be perceived as an endless speech therapy session by a deaf child. But again, I'm not assuming I know all, and I respect her perspective, so I'm engaging deafdyke in conversation to find out more. DD knows I'm not defending AVT, she knows how very far it is from the path we've chosen.

But as usual, you pull out your flimsy little sword and are so bizarrely obsessed with dueling with me.

The principles behind AVT foster spoken language development to the exclusion of other means of communication -- I'm not going to support anything that limits options in this way, and for my family, the development of my daughter's language abilities in sign language are as critical as and equal to the development of her abilities in spoken language.

As to your question, if you want to start ascribing the audist label and motivations to inanimate concepts, that's up to you. Why don't you go duel AVT instead of irresponsibly accusing me of distorting something.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Grendel, you're probably the exception to the norm in that you're not restricting anything to your child and that's fabulous. Unfortunately, that's not the case for many parents of mainstreamed deaf kids.

 

[inmate23]

mainstreamed deaf kids.

shes not mainstreamed shes at bibi school

 

[DeafCaroline]

Ok...nonetheless, Grendel is the exception from the norm.

 

[inmate23]

Ok...nonetheless, Grendel is the exception from the norm.

agreed

 

[kokonut]

Are you playing the strawman game? Oh, wait, isn't that me doing the strawman, too, by asking that question? OMG! People can't put out a question without being accused of playing the strawman! Are you serious? OMG! I did it again!!

 

[flip]

I think deafdyke is a whole lot smarter than to think that I'm posing a strawman, Flip. I was asking her a straightforward question, because it's quite possible that what she's seen in practice is not how AVT appears on paper, or as practiced by those I've met have done it or are doing it. Or, it may be that she's proposing that the usual barrage of spoken language that a hearing family uses would be perceived as an endless speech therapy session by a deaf child. But again, I'm not assuming I know all, and I respect her perspective, so I'm engaging deafdyke in conversation to find out more. DD knows I'm not defending AVT, she knows how very far it is from the path we've chosen.

But as usual, you pull out your flimsy little sword and are so bizarrely obsessed with dueling with me.

The principles behind AVT foster spoken language development to the exclusion of other means of communication -- I'm not going to support anything that limits options in this way, and for my family, the development of my daughter's language abilities in sign language are as critical as and equal to the development of her abilities in spoken language.

As to your question, if you want to start ascribing the audist label and motivations to inanimate concepts, that's up to you. Why don't you go duel AVT instead of irresponsibly accusing me of distorting something.

Interesting that you think DD don't know much about AVT on paper, or how it's practiced by different families, just because she said something you appear to feel uncomfortable with.

Didn't expect you already make another new strawman, like you did in this reply by telling everyone how you don't support AVT, as if anyone accused you of defending AVT.

The term "audism" sucks, don't it?

 

[flip]

Are you playing the strawman game? Oh, wait, isn't that me doing the strawman, too, by asking that question? OMG! People can't put out a question without being accused of playing the strawman! Are you serious? OMG! I did it again!!

Relax, no strawmen in that post. I'll help you spot them if they show up later.

 

[jillio]

I hate to say it, but we are kidding ourselves in saying that a person with long-term profound hearing loss can speak as fluently as a hearing person. The differences are subtle but there. Okay, tar and feather me now.

No tar and feathers from me. I have posted several times on the "deaf accent" and my ability to recognize it in strangers.

Then, there are the verbal communiication patterns and use of spoken language that, upon talking with someone for a short length of time, I recognize. It is no co-incidence that these are consistent in that population.

 

[jillio]

my thoughts exactly, it IS'NT new.
I too have SEEN First hand of this repeat, right here in New Zealand, that is a country of one of the kind in the world to have a NZSL (Sign Language) recognised as a third (yes, THIRD) offical language of this nation, yet it doesnt mean SHIT, it doesnt even have commission. No protection, more so, with CI-Hearing aids methods still rampant in Deaf education, there is no protection for should d/Deaf student falls behind due to an extraordinary amount of ignorance on just how hard it is for d/Deaf children struggles to assimilate to speech. It FAILED and STILL CONTINUES to FAIL. ALL to do with keeping parents happy with the 'lingustically crippled child/children, THE Ironic part is that (id add to Jill's comment) the speech,oralism is in FACT, (remember Facts are NEVER neutral, as a sociologist would maintain) in my way of using Fact, is this, it is undeniable but it is never recorded by authority, simply because 'authority' is those in the hands of the hearing educators, we Deaf people dont have commission to counter balance this findings to deem another 'facts'..
So in this line of thinking, fact is that oralised d/Deaf children are just getting MORE fucked up especially now that the demands for highly literated up comers in the future workforce is simply NOT going to be met by CI/audism/oralism approaches , NO WAY!!
ALSO the crass lack of accommodation deemed by ADA and such like isnt going to do much without a means for Deaf people having an offical place to authorise the obligation to provide d/Deaf workers at free of charge to companies/small business/partnership/sold owners to employ or self-employ would be fantastic workers/leaders/business entreperurers...

Accommodation and recognition of alternatives to fit d/Deaf people is actually the FREEDOM which d/Deaf people rightly deserves AND are rightly to be in legal obligation. They already gave ramps to wheelchairs user (but they are Hearing -remember they speak the language of the majority) So its another thing altogether if not UNrelated...it is all related nevertheless!

There are a few members here who remember me predicting that with the reduction in age and criteria for implantation we would see exactly this repeat of history playing out in deaf children's lives.

 

[jillio]

Well, technology is definitely tipping the scale.

No it isn't. It is serving to maintain the status quo. What a shame that some are satisfied with that.

 

[flip]

No tar and feathers from me. I have posted several times on the "deaf accent" and my ability to recognize it in strangers.

Then, there are the verbal communiication patterns and use of spoken language that, upon talking with someone for a short length of time, I recognize. It is no co-incidence that these are consistent in that population.

When I talk with hearing people who know sign language, most of them use signs differently from deaf people. The use their eyes different, the breaks are different. Starting and ending chats also seems to be different. I sometimes enjoy to act like a hearie using sign language, and also love parodies on how deaf people use sign language in a "relaxing" way.

Is that what you mean with verbal communicating patterns in spoken languages? If I got this right, do you have any examples of patterns that differ either among hearing or deaf people? I've never spoken, only signed, to other deaf people, so curious.

 

[jillio]

When I talk with hearing people who know sign language, most of them use signs differently from deaf people. The use their eyes different, the breaks are different. I sometimes enjoy to act like a hearie using sign language, and also love parodies on how deaf people use sign language in a "relaxing" way.

Is that what you mean with verbal communicating patterns in spoken languages? If I got this right, do you have any examples of patterns that differ either among hearing or deaf people? I've never spoken, only signed, to other deaf people, so curious.

Exactly what I mean. Hearing signers generally "use" ASL differently than a native signer, and deaf speakers "use" the language differently than native speakers.

A lot of deaf people that consider themselves to be very fluent in the use of spoken English never play with the language or use it in creative ways. If they learned an expression in one context, that is the only context they will use it in. They won't play with it and use it in unexpected ways. Their use of speech is never really relaxed. Same thing with hearing signers and ASL.

An example would be the use of the term "strawman" but limiting the understanding of the definition to the concrete definition only, and being unable to recognize when it is being used or not used in another context.

The biggest complement I ever had came from a client a while back. She (obviously knew I wasn't Deaf) asked me if I was a CODA. I said "No" and asked her why she asked. She said "Sign same as grow up in Deaf home."

 

[DeafCaroline]

Exactly what I mean. Hearing signers generally "use" ASL differently than a native signer, and deaf speakers "use" the language differently than native speakers.

A lot of deaf people that consider themselves to be very fluent in the use of spoken English never play with the language or use it in creative ways. If they learned an expression in one context, that is the only context they will use it in. They won't play with it and use it in unexpected ways. Their use of speech is never really relaxed. Same thing with hearing signers and ASL.

An example would be the use of the term "strawman" but limiting the understanding of the definition to the concrete definition only, and being unable to recognize when it is being used or not used in another context.

The biggest complement I ever had came from a client a while back. She (obviously knew I wasn't Deaf) asked me if I was a CODA. I said "No" and asked her why she asked. She said "Sign same as grow up in Deaf home."

That's really interesting. I am very good at writing and creative writing and was in advanced classes but there was one thing I had serious struggles with which was symbolism in literature. In grade nine, we were studying Old Man and the Sea and the teacher was saying that the boat represented a journey and that the horizon represented the end of life and I was like "where did it say that in the book?"

That was when I realized I was very literal that way. And continued to have problems writing papers on symbolism. I'm better at it now and better at picking it up in books.

The other thing I noticed is how stiff and linear hearing ASL students (beginners) are with signing, their grasp of facial expressions and classifiers were pretty limited. They weren't very creative in showing multiple meanings or inflection or tone.

I think you're pretty bang on there jillio. And by the way, that's a nice compliment!