Originally Posted by GrendelQ
I don't know which "koko's definition" is -- he posted about 3 or 4 different definitions for fluent at the start of this conversation. Do you think he doctored the definitions he posted to slip in the word "effortlessly"? I'll grab one from the web and post it, below -- effortless appears, but maybe Koko got to them, too.
Now, Beclak said, after reviewing those 3-4 definitions,
"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."
It's that comment and several others she repeated, very much like that one, which which I disagree, not with the dictionary definitions of fluency or with Koko's ability to cut and paste them from the source.
If your issue is with the word effortlessly, to use spoken language effortlessly means to do so "without difficulty, with little or no effort" (acc to the definition of "effortlessly). Whether you are signing or speaking or breathing, deaf or hearing, your body is expending a bit of effort, yes? So we're not looking at 'no effort' as a possibility no matter what language you are using. Think about whether or not you are fluent in ASL or English, or any other language -- can you express yourself and use the language with ease, speed and does it flow for you? That's using the language effortlessly.
Where did I even imply that Koko had inserted the word "effortlessly" into his definition?
Again, you are flip flopping. First you say that whether someone has to exert greater effort in English usage does not impact fluency, now you are saying it does, then again you say it doesn't.
And I agree with Beclak's assessment. That is why effortlessly does not need to be a criterion for fluency for the deaf, or for any population that has to exert greater effort in the use of English than does the general population.