Childs behavior

[GrendelQ]

So, what you are saying is that you cannot acquire fluent language unless, as you mentioned in another post, that you listen (with aid of CIs) and use speech?

No, I don't think anyone has said that. Perhaps you are misreading something? Show me the statement and I'll be happy to clarify if something I wrote.

Are you then saying we do not have fluency in English because we were raised with 'oral skills' without CIs?

? No, where is that being said?

How then, are we able to contribute to a forum such as this?

I'm happy to answer reasonable questions, but isn't this kind of over the top? OK, sure, my answer would be: most of us either use written English or transcribe ASL.

 

[GrendelQ]

Have you forgotten that our whole argument is: Oral skills = spoken English
and before you say more, in other words in our case: oral was English, not Chinese or any other language. Because I would have to acquire different oral skills for spoken Thai for example.

That statement is saying that our argument is invalid?

Yes, I believe your argument is invalid.

I've answered your list, please answer my question: Do you believe that having the ability to form handshapes = knowing ASL?

 

[AlleyCat]

I believe that Shel, Beclak and Alleycat are saying that "oral skills" are not the same as having excellent English skills. Until you have to deal with a deaf child who has excellent oral skill but poor English writing skills, you may have a hard time understanding this concept.

Actually, no. That is not what I was saying.

I was saying that, in at least my case, I needed to learn oral skills - the ability for me to articuate words - first before I could speak English fluently.

It seems to me that, for me, it was a case of "learn this first, then do this." All while learning ASL at the same time.

 

[deafskeptic]

Ah ok I stand corrected.

 

[deafskeptic]

I had to do the same thing as well. I'm told that my first words was ball and mama. My mother says I pronounced mama "uma" I had to be taught to say the words correctly. I have dim memories of my speech teacher teaching me how to say ball.

 

[BecLak]

If I'm not mistaken, many of the Asian languages are much more pitch dependent than English. So we would have to master pitch to a much greater degree than we do with English.

Yes, you are right DS, therefore you would need a different set of oral skills to acquire an Asian language.

 

[Daredevel7]

Based on my speech therapy tapes starting from when I was 2-3 years old, I can tell you definitely that I did not articulate words well before I "spoke" English fluently. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. Maybe some people are thinking "articulating words" as in speaking a word well. I spoke unintelligibly (but consistently) for a while in order to build up my vocabulary before my speech therapist corrected me (when I was 5-6 years old)

Perhaps we get a better idea of everyone's speech therapy if they told us how old were they when they started? I suspect some people started when they were older. When starting older, then it makes sense to go ahead and start correcting before learning a new word.

 

[BecLak]

Yes, I believe your argument is invalid.

I've answered your list, please answer my question: Do you believe that having the ability to form handshapes = knowing ASL?

Forming handshapes is in the same category as learning the English alphabet - not relevant to the argument. Oral skills is in the same category as phonics which is the foundation on which you build fluency of spoken English language.

 

[AlleyCat]

Yes, you are right DS, therefore you would need a different set of oral skills to acquire an Asian language.

I agree, and I disagree

I see oral skills as the ability to articulate -- to pronounce sounds and the like. Once I knew how to say my "a" (like a long and short "a") then I could pronounce a word correctly -- I did have to be told what kind of an "a", in that case. Like how the "a" in "wave" is said differently than the "a" in "apple".

Having said that, I would have to learn how all the Asian words are pronounced before I could begin to become fluent in speaking that language.

I'm learning Swedish. "Good Morning" is "God Morgan" in Swedish. I had, at first, said "God" as in how we know how to pronounce "God". I was corrected and told "God" in Swedish sounds like "goot-en". So I need to say it as "Goot-en Morgan" when saying Good Morning in Swedish. That is a different set of pronunciation, but not a different ability to pronounce sounds.

 

[Beowulf]

Based on my speech therapy tapes starting from when I was 2-3 years old, I can tell you definitely that I did not articulate words well before I "spoke" English fluently. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. Maybe some people are thinking "articulating words" as in speaking a word well. I spoke unintelligibly (but consistently) for a while in order to build up my vocabulary before my speech therapist corrected me (when I was 5-6 years old)

Perhaps we get a better idea of everyone's speech therapy if they told us how old were they when they started? I suspect some people started when they were older. When starting older, then it makes sense to go ahead and start correcting before learning a new word.

I would be interested in knowing as well. Plus I would like to know if hearing was actually required in order to be trained to articulate correctly. From my experiences, I don't think so. Sure, we spoke better, but most of us are not good enough for public speaking circuits.

 

[GrendelQ]

Wirelessly posted

Yes, I believe your argument is invalid.

I've answered your list, please answer my question: Do you believe that having the ability to form handshapes = knowing ASL?

Forming handshapes is in the same category as learning the English alphabet - not relevant to the argument. Oral skills is in the same category as phonics which is the foundation of spoken English language.

Forming handshapes, writing the alphabet, and oral skills are analogous skills -- developed and put to use for various languages. They are not language in themselves. Language is made up of so much more than the mechanics involved in delivering it.

 

[Beowulf]

Wirelessly posted



Forming handshapes, writing the alphabet, and oral skills are analogous skills -- developed and put to use for various languages. They are not language in themselves. Language is made up of so much more than the mechanics involved in delivering it.

Is it the force that drives the green fuse, as the poet said?

 

[Daredevel7]

I would be interested in knowing as well. Plus I would like to know if hearing was actually required in order to be trained to articulate correctly. From my experiences, I don't think so. Sure, we spoke better, but most of us are not good enough for public speaking circuits.

I'm not sure because I did have hearing aids during my speech therapy. I would imagine it's harder without any sound whatsoever. Although, the only sounds my hearing aids gave me were vowel sounds like ah, ooh, eee. etc. I can see how someone can repeat it without being able to hear it. After all, how did I repeat /b/ without hearing it? I just watched how the /b/ sound is being made. Simple! For the more complex sounds, such as /r/, I had therapists to explain to me exactly how it's made. So I would think hearing sounds are not required whatsoever for articulation. Hearing just makes it easier for self-feedback.

 

[GrendelQ]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Forming handshapes, writing the alphabet, and oral skills are analogous skills -- developed and put to use for various languages. They are not language in themselves. Language is made up of so much more than the mechanics involved in delivering it.

Is it the force that drives the green fuse, as the poet said?

force, fuse, flower.
Connected, maybe necessary, but one is not the other.

 

[BecLak]

I'm bowing out of this thread, not because I think that my argument has been invalidated or defeated. On the contrary, I am bowing out because I believe it is a lost cause due to the manipulation of the usage of words.

 

[Beowulf]

I'm not sure because I did have hearing aids during my speech therapy. I would imagine it's harder without any sound whatsoever. Although, the only sounds my hearing aids gave me were vowel sounds like ah, ooh, eee. etc. I can see how someone can repeat it without being able to hear it. After all, how did I repeat /b/ without hearing it? I just watched how the /b/ sound is being made. Simple! For the more complex sounds, such as /r/, I had therapists to explain to me exactly how it's made. So I would think hearing sounds are not required whatsoever for articulation. Hearing just makes it easier for self-feedback.

I agree. For the life of me, I do not think my speech today would be any worse if I went through all the years of speech training totally without hearing. It is the indefinable quality within oneself that enables the power of language. Of course I could be wrong.

 

[faire_jour]

Oh really, this is unbelievable. We are not talking about Chinese or Japanese, Thai or any other language here. You are barking up the wrong tree. Alleycat, Shel and myself were all raised oral speaking ENGLISH. So the oral-skills we are referring to = spoken English.

But it is not the same. You can have oral skills, the ability to say a few thosand English words, but NOT be fluent in English. You may have merely memorized and been taught those words. That is not someone who is using language, that is someone who knows words.

The same thing happens in ASL all the time. Just because someone knows a few thosand signs and signs while they speak, they do NOT know or use ASL. They know some signs, so perhaps you could say they have "manual skills", but they are not using language.

 

[faire_jour]

I'm guessing you've never met a deaf person who could speak well but couldn't speak English well?

I used to think, well if a person could speak, surely he knows English!

I met someone who proved me wrong. They spoke common sentences well, but you cannot engage into conversation with them.

EXACTLY!!!!

Just because they can speak words doesn't mean they understand and use the language.

(And this would be what I would use the term "oral skills" to describe, and this is not my aim for my child and that is why I am offended when someone describes my child as having that, or that it is my focus or goal. Absolutely not. My goal is for my child to use, understand, communicate with spoken English.)

 

[faire_jour]

So does that mean many of us who learned oral skills weren't in essence learning the spoken language as well which was English, in our case? We developed fluency in English just like today deaf children who have good oral skills.

I honestly do not see what the big fuss is here. It is the same to me.

There r many children with CIs who don't have good oral skills so therefore, they can't use English in the spoken form.

I am sure it is like that in French, Spanish, Chinese, and other speaking countries with some deaf children being able to develop good oral skills to speak the language being spoken at their home and some who weren't able to.

Again, they very well could have good "oral skills" if they had delayed language but the words that they did use sounded good. But, if they had wonderful spoken language, (the ability to understand the language, use it, tel jokes, riddles, age appropriate vocab, syntax, grammar) but "sloppy speech", they would have good spoken language but poor "oral skills".

 

[BecLak]

But it is not the same. You can have oral skills, the ability to say a few thosand English words, but NOT be fluent in English. You may have merely memorized and been taught those words. That is not someone who is using language, that is someone who knows words.

The same thing happens in ASL all the time. Just because someone knows a few thosand signs and signs while they speak, they do NOT know or use ASL. They know some signs, so perhaps you could say they have "manual skills", but they are not using language.

I feel I need to reply here because perhaps you may see the whole point of our argument. Shel, AlleyCat and I, to name a few, having been raised oral, acquiring oral skills, are the evidence that it has everything to do with fluency in the spoken language. You can't argue that we are not fluent in spoken language.