We Need Current Info Before Writing Off Cochlear Implants

[ismi]

If she didn't need a visual language, she would not be using sign to cover the gaps in fluency. She would simply use her knowlege of oral language to explain for which she had no word. A child who is hearing and relies solely on oral language will simply substitute a word, or combine words to cover those gaps, not revert to a differennt language. It also indicates that she possesses understanding on a visual level that she does not possess on an auditory verbal level.

If you read the post you quoted, I gave you an example of a child (me) who relied entirely on oral language, who 'reverted', as you put it, to a different language rather than explaining in his preferred language. It's quite common among hearing children who are bilingual.

 

[Cloggy]

Come on Cloggy--you just said that she prefers to communicate orally and only uses sign when she doesn't know a word. You can't reverse the process now.

Reversing the process is what it is about.

When the child is fully communicating with speech, there is no need for sign. At times sign will come in. The Italians do the same..
(What do you call an Italian without arms ...... A mute..)

She stopped using sign, and therefore learning sign, when she started to "get" speech, and hearing.
That mode of communication is far easier for her than sign. Obviously, because in our family we all speak, in the kindergarten they all speak, on the street they all speak..

Think of the little girl, adopted from china....
She speaks chinese, and then comes to the USA....
Would you really want her to continue learning chinese because that's where she comes from.... Shouldn't she learn English?
And when she's speaking english after a couple of years, would you be surprised when a chinese word would pop up.??

Children will choose the easiest means of communication available, and for some that might be sign. For my daughter it's speech...

 

[jillio]

If you read the post you quoted, I gave you an example of a child (me) who relied entirely on oral language, who 'reverted', as you put it, to a different language rather than explaining in his preferred language. It's quite common among hearing children who are bilingual.

It's still a case of L1 langauge and L2 language. In your case 2 oral languages, in the case of Cloggy's daughter, oral language, visual language.

 

[jillio]

Right..deaf people have that risk of not developing a full language if not exposed to a visual language which is a completely different situation than hearing people who switches from one language to another when they don't know a word or a phrase. I don't think they really get it. Hearing people don't have that risk of being delayed in language development so I do not really understand the comparision between deaf and hearing children when it comes to access to language unless they see those kids as hearing themselves? I don't even feel like debating nor sharing my experiences with people who are admadant with their beliefs. If they don't want to take deaf people's experiences or hearing people who have deaf relative's experiences whether positive or negative to help them be aware of any situations or issues that can pop up with their children, I don't see the point. I will just continue my work with those who are language delayed and hope they will find the same success as their children. They think we keep talking about their children but we r talking about the significant risk for any deaf children. If their children are perfectly happy having no ties to the deaf community and not needing sign, then I would think they have nothing to worry about, right?

Right! The closest one can compare hearing and deaf children in terms of language development would only be betwen hearing children/hearing parents and deaf children/deaf parents. Those are the two situations which allow for full access, and that is why deaf of deaf test out comparable to hearing children.

And I agree--I will continue my efforts to advocate for those deaf children at risk, and to ensure that the educational services needed are provided for those kids I have contact with. And, if others truly feel that contact with the Deaf Community is not necessary, I don't understand either why they keep posting to a message board designed for deaf and hearing involved with deaf.

 

[shel90]

Reversing the process is what it is about.

When the child is fully communicating with speech, there is no need for sign. At times sign will come in. The Italians do the same..
(What do you call an Italian without arms ...... A mute..)

She stopped using sign, and therefore learning sign, when she started to "get" speech, and hearing.
That mode of communication is far easier for her than sign. Obviously, because in our family we all speak, in the kindergarten they all speak, on the street they all speak..

Think of the little girl, adopted from china....
She speaks chinese, and then comes to the USA....
Would you really want her to continue learning chinese because that's where she comes from.... Shouldn't she learn English?
And when she's speaking english after a couple of years, would you be surprised when a chinese word would pop up.??

Children will choose the easiest means of communication available, and for some that might be sign. For my daughter it's speech...

yea, of course cuz u all are not fluent in sign language..which is why I wish the schools dont have oral-only programs. I think the parents should be the models for spoken language while the schools provide both visual and spoken languages. I dont expect parents who have never learned sign to be sign language models for their children.

 

[shel90]

Right! The closest one can compare hearing and deaf children in terms of language development would only be betwen hearing children/hearing parents and deaf children/deaf parents. Those are the two situations which allow for full access, and that is why deaf of deaf test out comparable to hearing children.

And I agree--I will continue my efforts to advocate for those deaf children at risk, and to ensure that the educational services needed are provided for those kids I have contact with. And, if others truly feel that contact with the Deaf Community is not necessary, I don't understand either why they keep posting to a message board designed for deaf and hearing involved with deaf.[/QUOTE]

Yea, I know..I am here to post about my experiences as a child growing up in an oral only enviornment and my experiences working with children who are delayed in language and yet, I get called negative, biased or whatever. It just makes me more angry cuz I am not here to bash on anyone or force anyone to change their minds..just to be "AWARE" of any potential situations and know how to adress them and why I feel that providing a visual language is important.
I thought people come here to understand more about deaf culture and deaf people needs?

 

[deafdyke]

Is it really necessary to be able to sign. ?????
Many deaf people never learned, and they do well.

Cloggy, actually that's inaccurate. Some of them are "almost hearing" but there are MANY "oral" people (including oral sucesses) who really experiance the inequalities of not being able to sign. (like not sophsitcated language, social-emotional issues etc etc) Besides, there have ALWAYS been kids who do well oral only. That doesn't mean the whole dhh population will do well. Why back in the '60's there was a kid who spoke seven languages....doesn't mean all dhh kids will do that well.

But the real need is not there any more.

It might come back again, when she does some "soul-searching" and we will welcome it.

And she's not special. She's just like any other kid with CI.. They can communicate without sign..

So why is it dependant on "need?" Why do hearing people view ASL/Sign languages as something "speshal needs" equalivant to a wheelchair or other "disablity crutch" ? Why can't they view it as just another cool language? I mean being bilingal in Sign and spoken language, confers ALL the advantages of being bilinagal in two spoken languages.
Kids who use Sign, aren't "speshal" either...........They are just like any other kid, except that they Sign instead of speak! And yes, oral kids can communicate without sign, but on the other hand, they are technology dependant. They cannot function without technology! Whereas a bilingal dhh kid, could function both with and without their hearing aids/ CIs!

 

[Drew's Dad]

I don't read her post as contradictory at all.

Not knowing a word, or not knowing how to say a word does not mean that "oral communication fails her".

Similarly, just because I don't know 99% of ASL does not mean that communication through sign "fails" me. It only means that I don't know ASL.

And you are not deaf, so the issue is moot whether or not you use sign. You are able to gain all the information you need auditorily.

The issue is not "moot". I gave an analogy of why Cloggy's daughter not knowing a word and using a sign does not mean that oral communication has "failed her". The fact that I hear does not render that analogy worthless.

Children who don't know words to express themselves might point, squeal, stomp their feet, pantomime, hold up an object rather than use the word, or any other multitude of strategies to communicate when they otherwise can't.

It is truly a reach to say that when a person engages in this type of communication that oral language has failed that child. Cloggy's girl may very well be recieving all the auditory information she needs but either can't process it yet, or simply does not know the words to communicate her thought. That in itself does not indicate a failure of the oral language.

If we could look at how often this happens, and compare it to others then we might be able to determine whether there is a deficiency. Otherwise all Cloggy's story means is that sometimes her daughter doesn't know a certain word.

 

[rick48]

Why do hearing people view ASL/Sign languages as something "speshal needs" equalivant to a wheelchair or other "disablity crutch" ?

DD,

You frequently state that opinion as if it is a fact, what exactly is your basis for that opinion?
Rick

 

[rick48]

Excellent point jillo!
Yes, there are kids who are doing REALLY well speechwise........but I mean....how many kids graduate from (as in don't need it any more) speech therapy? "


DD,

Are you saying that kids continue on with their s&l therapy even after they become adults? If so, then one of us is way-off because only one kid I know continued it after HS, and that was just for a few sessions in the summer, but then she was an oral deaf kid going to Harvard so who am I to question!


"In addition, I think that part of the reason why CIs might appear to be more sucessful is b/c, the research indicates that kids who heard for a time, (even as babies) tend to be better CI users, then do kids who never were able to hear. "

Aren't you contradicting yourself? If kids with cis do well, then what is wrong with them having a ci? Also, I do not know what research you are referring to because in most of what I have read over the years, the biggest variable in terms of how a person performs with a ci is the time frame between onset of deafness and implantation.
Rick

 

[rick48]

I don't read her post as contradictory at all.

Not knowing a word, or not knowing how to say a word does not mean that "oral communication fails her".

Similarly, just because I don't know 99% of ASL does not mean that communication through sign "fails" me. It only means that I don't know ASL.

Neither do I.

 

[Drew's Dad]

So why is it dependant on "need?" Why do hearing people view ASL/Sign languages as something "speshal needs" equalivant to a wheelchair or other "disablity crutch" ? Why can't they view it as just another cool language? I mean being bilingal in Sign and spoken language, confers ALL the advantages of being bilinagal in two spoken languages.

I actually think that being bilingual in sign and any spoken language is more valuable than having two spoken languages. There is a greater likelihood of me being able to communicate english with a spaniard verbally as opposed to communicating orally with a totally deaf person who only signs.

I think signing is becoming viewed as "cool" much more than in the past. The baby signing classes that have sprouted up are probably part of the reason.

On the other hand, you know why many hearing people view sign language as a disability crutch. It's because the majority of people don't use sign, at least a good many of hearing people view being deaf as a disability at least to some degree, and many would compare the use of sign to "speak" to the amputee using a wheelchair to "walk", or the blind person using a dog to "see", both of which have been labeled "disabled persons". That's just the way many people see it at this time, right or wrong.

By the way, I don't want anyone feeling sorry for my son because he's deaf, and I certainly am not going to promote the idea that he is "disabled". While many would consider deafness a disability, out of all the "disabilities" one could work through in thier life, being deaf would be the one you'd want (for me at least). You're just like any other person, without the ability to hear (to varying degrees). Physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually you are like any other person - and there's a lot to be thankful for right there, and an open road in front of you.

 

[rick48]

DD,

You frequently state that opinion as if it is a fact, what exactly is your basis for that opinion?
Rick

Meant to add that I do not think parents view it as a crutch but rather they view oral language as more important and useful in the long run.
Rick

 

[rick48]

I actually think that being bilingual in sign and any spoken language is more valuable than having two spoken languages. There is a greater likelihood of me being able to communicate english with a spaniard verbally as opposed to communicating orally with a totally deaf person who only signs.

I think signing is becoming viewed as "cool" much more than in the past. The baby signing classes that have sprouted up are probably part of the reason.

On the other hand, you know why many hearing people view sign language as a disability crutch. It's because the majority of people don't use sign, at least a good many of hearing people view being deaf as a disability at least to some degree, and many would compare the use of sign to "speak" to the amputee using a wheelchair to "walk", or the blind person using a dog to "see", both of which have been labeled "disabled persons". That's just the way many people see it at this time, right or wrong.

By the way, I don't want anyone feeling sorry for my son because he's deaf, and I certainly am not going to promote the idea that he is "disabled". While many would consider deafness a disability, out of all the "disabilities" one could work through in thier life, being deaf would be the one you'd want (for me at least). You're just like any other person, without the ability to hear (to varying degrees). Physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually you are like any other person - and there's a lot to be thankful for right there, and an open road in front of you.

Drew'sDad,

I understand what you are saying but on the other hand, I have seen deaf people treated by mainstream hearing society in ways that would be unthinkable to any other group of people they consider "disabled". First, the mental abilities of deaf people are often questioned because hearing people cannot communicate effectively with some deaf people. Also, the lack of patience is amazing. Watch how they blow off a deaf person asking for directions but walk a blind person across the street! Or the best (actually the worst) blame a deaf person for not hearing what was said or some announcement and try to imagine them saying to a blind person "Well its right on that big sign right over there!"

I just think that there is a lack of tolerance, patience and respect shown to deaf people in ways not shown to others.

Stepping off my soapbox,
Rick

 

[Boult]

Cloggy, tell me Lotte is bilingual in spoken languages right? I recall that she can speak norwegian and dutch whenever you all are in either country.

 

[ismi]

I understand what you are saying but on the other hand, I have seen deaf people treated by mainstream hearing society in ways that would be unthinkable to any other group of people they consider "disabled". First, the mental abilities of deaf people are often questioned because hearing people cannot communicate effectively with some deaf people. Also, the lack of patience is amazing. Watch how they blow off a deaf person asking for directions but walk a blind person across the street! Or the best (actually the worst) blame a deaf person for not hearing what was said or some announcement and try to imagine them saying to a blind person "Well its right on that big sign right over there!"

I am physically disabled in addition to being HOH. We, the physically disabled, are often treated as though our mental capacity is in question, and there is often little patience for us. Your last point, re: blame, is more complicated, and it would be quite a lengthy post, but suffice it to say that this does exist. It's quite similar, actually, which is why the Deaf and disabled communities have often worked together in the past.

 

[Cloggy]

Cloggy, tell me Lotte is bilingual in spoken languages right? I recall that she can speak norwegian and dutch whenever you all are in either country.

Actually, she does speak Dutch at home and Norwegian outside.

I wanted to mention that but hell, why complicate matters.
But you're right.

Like the other two children we have, Lotte has a sign, dutch and norwegian vocabulary, of which the sign is the smallest..
She will use norwegian at home... hava a look here...

 

[jillio]

The issue is not "moot". I gave an analogy of why Cloggy's daughter not knowing a word and using a sign does not mean that oral communication has "failed her". The fact that I hear does not render that analogy worthless.

Children who don't know words to express themselves might point, squeal, stomp their feet, pantomime, hold up an object rather than use the word, or any other multitude of strategies to communicate when they otherwise can't.

It is truly a reach to say that when a person engages in this type of communication that oral language has failed that child. Cloggy's girl may very well be recieving all the auditory information she needs but either can't process it yet, or simply does not know the words to communicate her thought. That in itself does not indicate a failure of the oral language.

If we could look at how often this happens, and compare it to others then we might be able to determine whether there is a deficiency. Otherwise all Cloggy's story means is that sometimes her daughter doesn't know a certain word.

Actually, it does render your analogy worthless, as you are comparing apples to oranges. Too many variables that will not stnd up to scrutiny.

 

[jillio]

DD,

You frequently state that opinion as if it is a fact, what exactly is your basis for that opinion?
Rick

Because when sign interpretation is provided under the public hearing schools system it is listed as such, and when employers, higher education, or government agencies are required to prvide interpretation it is listed as such. Anything that is a slight deviation of the norm is considered as such.
And,no I am not dd, but I do understand exactly where she is coming from.

 

[jillio]

Excellent point jillo!
Yes, there are kids who are doing REALLY well speechwise........but I mean....how many kids graduate from (as in don't need it any more) speech therapy? "


DD,

Are you saying that kids continue on with their s&l therapy even after they become adults? If so, then one of us is way-off because only one kid I know continued it after HS, and that was just for a few sessions in the summer, but then she was an oral deaf kid going to Harvard so who am I to question!


"In addition, I think that part of the reason why CIs might appear to be more sucessful is b/c, the research indicates that kids who heard for a time, (even as babies) tend to be better CI users, then do kids who never were able to hear. "

Aren't you contradicting yourself? If kids with cis do well, then what is wrong with them having a ci? Also, I do not know what research you are referring to because in most of what I have read over the years, the biggest variable in terms of how a person performs with a ci is the time frame between onset of deafness and implantation.
Rick

That's jsut the problem. You know only one kid..... DD has never said, nor have any of the other posters you missread, said that having a CI is "wrong". And the same thing can be said about language acquisition in a child who does not have a CI. Age of onset is always bears a direct correlation on the development of oral skills.