Childs behavior

jillio said:
Saying someone has poor oral skills, but excellent spoken language is a complete and total contradiction. :roll:
Click to expand...

I agree totally with that. It does not make sense otherwise.
 
AlleyCat said:
I agree totally with that. It does not make sense otherwise.
Click to expand...

This is obviously not your average situation, but this extreme case may help show the difference between developing great oral skills and developing a fluency in language. Stephen Hawking has a brilliant and fluent grasp of English. He uses spoken language to communicate (he hears and comprehends it, he responds in spoken language using a voice synthesizer). But he does not have oral skills (cannot articulate, can't produce speech, can't pronounce sounds required).
 
GrendelQ said:
This is obviously not your average situation, but this extreme case may help show the difference between developing great oral skills and developing a fluency in language. Stephen Hawking has a brilliant and fluent grasp of English. He uses spoken language to communicate (he hears and comprehends it, he responds in spoken language using a voice synthesizer). But he does not have oral skills (cannot articulate, can't produce speech, can't pronounce sounds required).
Click to expand...

However, he is relying on the written version for expressive communication, even though the coded written version keyed in is voice synthesized.
 
jillio said:
However, he is relying on the written version for expressive communication, even though the coded written version keyed in is voice synthesized.
Click to expand...

He spoke until '85, he then used his eyebrows and several other coding approaches. This doesn't detract from the fact that he was and still is using spoken language.

He reads and writes as well.
 
GrendelQ said:
He spoke until '85, he then used his eyebrows and several other coding approaches. This doesn't detract from the fact that he was and still is using spoken language.

He reads and writes as well.
Click to expand...

And he is hearing. He had the opportunity to develop spoken language just as any other hearing person does. In fact, his high intellect gives him a distinct advantage.

His situation cannot be compared to that of the deaf individual in any way other than his ability to articulate at this point in time. And, even then, we must keep in mind that he used speech skills for the majority of his life and therefore has that to rely on.
 
jillio said:
And he is hearing. He had the opportunity to develop spoken language just as any other hearing person does. In fact, his high intellect gives him a distinct advantage.

His situation cannot be compared to that of the deaf individual in any way other than his ability to articulate at this point in time. And, even then, we must keep in mind that he used speech skills for the majority of his life and therefore has that to rely on.
Click to expand...

And I don't understand why she would cite an example that has nothing to do with us as the deaf -- she and other parents hate it when we talk about things that "don't apply to them or don't apply today." It's a moot point that he is an exception to not having oral skills but fluency in language, and even then, he already HAD oral skills.
 
AlleyCat said:
And I don't understand why she would cite an example that has nothing to do with us as the deaf -- she and other parents hate it when we talk about things that "don't apply to them or don't apply today." It's a moot point that he is an exception to not having oral skills but fluency in language, and even then, he already HAD oral skills.
Click to expand...

I don't understand that tendency to use unrelated examples when discussing the situation as it pertains to the deaf. I guess because the deaf examples all support the side they don't agree with.:giggle:
 
Wirelessly posted

bott used herself as an example of a deaf person that understands and is fluent in spoken english but struggles with "oral skills" or the ability to communicate the language she knows well orally.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted

bott used herself as an example of a deaf person that understands and is fluent in spoken english but struggles with "oral skills" or the ability to communicate the language she knows well orally.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the intent of Bott's post. Where was that, since you have used it as an example. I prefer to read the words Bott wrote as compared to your interpretation of what Bott wrote. I have seen far too many distortions in your interpretations.
 
AlleyCat said:
And I don't understand why she would cite an example that has nothing to do with us as the deaf -- she and other parents hate it when we talk about things that "don't apply to them or don't apply today." It's a moot point that he is an exception to not having oral skills but fluency in language, and even then, he already HAD oral skills.
Click to expand...

I've already used deaf examples. My daughter is developing fluency in English, her grasp of the language is excellent for her age. Her oral skills are not excellent for her age. Her articulation needs work, pronunciation is off on some words. Knowing to use abominable in a story -- even if it comes out garbled -- and knowing what it means when someone else uses the word in context is where knowing spoken language comes into play. Knowing how to pronounce the word correctly is having oral skills -- the meaning and use of the word doesn't come into play.

Others have contributed their own personal examples of being fluent in English and yet not having great oral skills (or even having poor oral skills). And of having strong oral skills (one person gave an example of a deaf man with strong oral skills who could say perfectly intelligible phrases and words in English but didn't have a clue what they meant -- his native language was something else entirely) but no understanding of spoken language.
 
jillio said:
And he is hearing. He had the opportunity to develop spoken language just as any other hearing person does. In fact, his high intellect gives him a distinct advantage.

His situation cannot be compared to that of the deaf individual in any way other than his ability to articulate at this point in time. And, even then, we must keep in mind that he used speech skills for the majority of his life and therefore has that to rely on.
Click to expand...

Wow. Hearing people can have issues around developing or maintaining oral skills. The majority of SLP activity involves hearing people.

He had oral skills. He no longer does. And yet he still has a fluent grasp of English (the spoken mode).
 
AlleyCat said:
It's a moot point that he is an exception to not having oral skills but fluency in language, and even then, he already HAD oral skills.
Click to expand...

My point is that these are not the same -- oral skills and language (even spoken mode) -- and the proof lies in examples where they can be unlinked from one another. One is the complex skill in forming individual words, the other involves the complex use of those words to convey and communicate ideas.
 
GrendelQ said:
I've already used deaf examples. My daughter is developing fluency in English, her grasp of the language is excellent for her age. Her oral skills are not excellent for her age. Her articulation needs work, pronunciation is off on some words. Knowing to use abominable in a story -- even if it comes out garbled -- and knowing what it means when someone else uses the word in context is where knowing spoken language comes into play. Knowing how to pronounce the word correctly is having oral skills -- the meaning and use of the word doesn't come into play.

Others have contributed their own personal examples of being fluent in English and yet not having great oral skills (or even having poor oral skills). And of having strong oral skills (one person gave an example of a deaf man with strong oral skills who could say perfectly intelligible phrases and words in English but didn't have a clue what they meant -- his native language was something else entirely) but no understanding of spoken language.
Click to expand...

How is it that you know that she understands and can use contextually in different situations, the word "abominable"? Just curious as to what criteria you use to assess that.

Re: your second example...if he could not undertand what the phrases and words meant, he had no understanding of English, period....either written or spoken. That is an inability to understand the whole language, not just speech.
 
jillio said:
How is it that you know that she understands and can use contextually in different situations, the word "abominable"? Just curious as to what criteria you use to assess that.

Re: your second example...if he could not undertand what the phrases and words meant, he had no understanding of English, period....either written or spoken. That is an inability to understand the whole language, not just speech.
Click to expand...

1. She's used the word when her dog ate her pencil, calling him abominable (in anger), outside the context of the story she heard and later retold.

2. Yes, that's the point of the example, one can have oral skills without having language.
 
GrendelQ said:
1. She's used the word when her dog ate her pencil, calling him abominable (in anger), outside the context of the story she heard and later retold.

2. Yes, that's the point of the example, one can have oral skills without having language.
Click to expand...

That would be a fair assessment. Thanks for answering.
 
GrendelQ said:
This is obviously not your average situation, but this extreme case may help show the difference between developing great oral skills and developing a fluency in language. Stephen Hawking has a brilliant and fluent grasp of English. He uses spoken language to communicate (he hears and comprehends it, he responds in spoken language using a voice synthesizer). But he does not have oral skills (cannot articulate, can't produce speech, can't pronounce sounds required).
Click to expand...

Again, what's the difference between spoken English and English?
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted

bott used herself as an example of a deaf person that understands and is fluent in spoken english but struggles with "oral skills" or the ability to communicate the language she knows well orally.[/quote]

Faire_Jour - This is what I was trying to express all along. 'Yay!!!' Bott still has "oral skills" because she has received the knowledge of how oral skills work, she just can't deliver them (articulation), but in my opinion she still has good oral skills. The differences in opinion here is that people perceive 'articulation' as being oral skills. Articulation is the ability to deliver oral skills not oral skills in itself.

In another thread just a few minutes ago, I was posting about the change in usage of words over the course of time. 'Oral skills' is perhaps one of those unfashioned terms that need to be 'political corrected'. Perhaps we should come up with a term of phrase that embraces people who are in the same predicament as Bott. I know there are many like her.

Botts, I hope you don't mind being an ambassador. :D
Click to expand...
 
BecLak said:
Faire_Jour - This is what I was trying to express all along. 'Yay!!!' Bott still has "oral skills" because she has received the knowledge of how oral skills work, she just can't deliver them (articulation), but in my opinion she still has good oral skills. The differences in opinion here is that people perceive 'articulation' as being oral skills. Articulation is the ability to deliver oral skills not oral skills in itself.

In another thread just a few minutes ago, I was posting about the change in usage of words over the course of time. 'Oral skills' is perhaps one of those unfashioned terms that need to be 'political corrected'. Perhaps we should come up with a term of phrase that embraces people who are in the same predicament as Bott. I know there are many like her.

Botts, I hope you don't mind being an ambassador. :D
Click to expand...

What? :lol: Of course not! The rule is "as long as you spell my name right!"
 
Bottesini said:
What? :lol: Of course not! The rule is "as long as you spell my name right!"
Click to expand...

:lol: ok you're 'officially appointed'. For me, you have 'oral skills' because you already know the language orally. So, it's best we do away with the outdated term 'oral skills' and come up with a more 'politically correct' term. Do you have any suggestions??

(BTW, adding the 's' at the end of an abbreviated name is an Australian habit, sorry. :P)
 
Back
Top