Childs behavior

[faire_jour]

I had to give a speech in another language, one I knew the basics in, pronunciation-wise, but I had very little vocabulary, poor grammar, and could not understand a conversation beyond getting a taxi, a hotel room, ordering food. I practiced the words, by rote, had them down cold, and yet had they not been scripted and had I not been coached on delivery, I could not have put them together myself, and if I were listening, I'd not have made sense of it. And apparently, my speech made sense to the audience. I'm not fluent in the language, but I can speak individual words.

This is exactly how I would describe a deaf person who has "oral skills" (as opposed to one who is fluent in spoken language). That is why I use two different terms. To me, having oral skills is having the ability to speak some words, but not understanding the language you are using or the ability to converse with another in that language.

 

[deafdyke]

Like a tourist with survival language skills You know how they have phrasebooks for tourists?

 

[GrendelQ]

In the case of the above statements, who do you have in mind that speaks well, and is not fluent in the language in they are using?

My daughter, for a time, called all small dogs and cats "Gryphons" and large dogs, horses, and seals (! I think seals somehow looked like black lab heads to her) "Grendels" because these were the names of our cat and one of our dogs. All women were "mama" and all men "daddy." She said these words beautifully, but they made little sense, linguistically she hadn't grasped the difference between personal names and species of animals or how family relationships are expressed.

 

[BecLak]

The part I feel like you guys are missing is that one CAN speak well, and not be fluent in the language they are using. What word would you use for that?

That is termed Articulation.

 

[AlleyCat]

My daughter, pre-CI. As I said, she was being taught a few words to use withhearing people. She was being taught to memorize the sounds, and they were connecting it back to the signs she knew, but she was not learning English. She didn't understand the language. She was being taught how to express a few things orally, (what I would call "oral skills") but she did not understand or use the language.

I had to give a speech in another language, one I knew the basics in, pronunciation-wise, but I had very little vocabulary, poor grammar, and could not understand a conversation beyond getting a taxi, a hotel room, ordering food. I practiced the words, by rote, had them down cold, and yet had they not been scripted and had I not been coached on delivery, I could not have put them together myself, and if I were listening, I'd not have made sense of it. And apparently, my speech made sense to the audience. I'm not fluent in the language, but I can speak individual words.

So does anybody else traveling in another country, as I assume your post was about, Grendel. (Why else would you only know and have to practice taxi, hotel room, ordering food?)

In the case of FJ, if Miss Kat was only being "taught a few words", as she said, nobody should expect her to be fluent in the language at that point.

That is it.

I am done with this ridiculousness. I am among the many that are noticing how few are posting in these threads anymore, and it is the same select few who are. Have fun arguing among yourselves.

 

[faire_jour]

So does anybody else traveling in another country, as I assume your post was about, Grendel. (Why else would you only know and have to practice taxi, hotel room, ordering food?)

In the case of FJ, if Miss Kat was only being "taught a few words", as she said, nobody should expect her to be fluent in the language at that point.

That is it.

I am done with this ridiculousness. I am among the many that are noticing how few are posting in these threads anymore, and it is the same select few who are. Have fun arguing among yourselves.

I have no idea why you are angry. Why can't there be a civil discussion about an area where we disagree?

As for your question about my daughter, no she was not too young to have language. She was 5. She should have already been using complex language (which she was, in her language, ASL) but she was unable to use spoken language, so her therapist was teaching her simple words and phrases to "get along in the hearing world" without being fluent in the language.

 

[GrendelQ]

So does anybody else traveling in another country, as I assume your post was about, Grendel. (Why else would you only know and have to practice taxi, hotel room, ordering food?)

AlleyCat, this is an example of exactly what you asked for: someone who speaks well, but is not fluent. Yes, of course many people do this -- because these are distinct concepts (being able to speak well and knowing the language). But actually, my speech was given in the US to visitors from the German office of the company I worked in at the time. At that point, I knew little more than those tourist phrases I described. Not sure why that matters, though. I have had to do nearly the same thing in others countries, still doesn't make me fluent, sadly.

 

[AlleyCat]

I have no idea why you are angry. Why can't there be a civil discussion about an area where we disagree?

As for your question about my daughter, no she was not too young to have language. She was 5. She should have already been using complex language (which she was, in her language, ASL) but she was unable to use spoken language, so her therapist was teaching her simple words and phrases to "get along in the hearing world" without being fluent in the language.

Did I say anything about her age? No.

I am not angry at the discussion itself. I am sick of this ridiculousness. Grendel already had her oral skills, just as any other hearing person. Trying to learn a few select phrases in another language because of foreign travel is what MANY do. Does it have anything to do with the deaf? No. Neither of you can come up with one deaf person who fully learns oral skills and then doesn't become fluent in the language.

 

[faire_jour]

Did I say anything about her age? No.

I am not angry at the discussion itself. I am sick of this ridiculousness. Grendel already had her oral skills, just as any other hearing person. Trying to learn a few select phrases in another language because of foreign travel is what MANY do. Does it have anything to do with the deaf? No. Neither of you can come up with one deaf person who fully learns oral skills and then doesn't become fluent in the language.

You didn't accept my example. I know several people who are like this. They are able to use rote phrases, to communicate with hearing people (phrases like "I am Deaf") but are not fluent spoken language users. They sign, they read and write but they can not understand or use spoken language.

 

[GrendelQ]

what comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Actually, that's a really good question, deafgal. I think there are some strong arguments for teaching oral skills first, and then developing language. But my own preference is to teach language first, as quickly as possible, and if oral skills are not developed organically in the process, refine those later. But always with an emphasis on language development over delivery skills.

So, my feeling is, if the child is telling a wonderful story and mispronounces words, don't interrupt the use of language to correct pronunciation. If the child shifts to sign a section of the story, don't "correct" that. If a child is in the midst of telling you what her dream was about and her sign is muddy, screw that -- the telling of her dream is what's important. My child says abommabommabomal instead of abominable as she's telling me some Scooby Doo plot. I may say abominable correctly (if I can!) in some response, but my focus isn't on her oral skills right now -- I want her to have full command of language. Two languages now. More some day.

 

[shel90]

Which includes oral knowledge....I am right? Therefore, we stick with 'oral skills'.

I dont mind using either oral skills or spoken English because to me, it means the same...the ability to use the language in the spoken form.

If someone is not fluent in the language, I simply say that person is not fluent int he language whether they can speak some of it or not.

 

[shel90]

Uh oh, now you are adding a new term to the mix: spoken English skills?

By saying one is developing spoken English is like one is learning the language which happens to be English.

For me if one is developing the ability to speak it, that is developing the skills to speak the languuage hence oral or spoken English skills.

If u want to talk about fluency in the language, then simple "English" would do.

Just my two cents.

 

[faire_jour]

By saying one is developing spoken English is like one is learning the language which happens to be English.

For me if one is developing the ability to speak it, that is developing the skills to speak the languuage hence oral or spoken English skills.

If u want to talk about fluency in the language, then simple "English" would do.

Just my two cents.

But if the person can use one mode and not the other, I like to be perfectly clear about what I am saying.

 

[BecLak]

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.

Ok, Because there are differences in the way we view the term 'oral skills' take the term 'oral skills' out of the picture for a moment.

For sake of clarity....How would you 'term' or describe someone like Botts, who are unable to articulate well but has oral knowledge of the language?

I think it is important that proper recognition is given to Botts and people like her. Saying someone has 'bad oral skills' is often wrongly implied or interpreted as the lack of knowledge in how the spoken language works as well as the inability to articulate. I want to do away with this misconception. That is the foundation of my argument with the differences in view of 'oral skills'.

 

[faire_jour]

Ok, Because there are differences in the way we view the term 'oral skills' take the term 'oral skills' out of the picture for a moment.

For sake of clarity....How would you 'term' or describe someone like Botts, who are unable to articulate well but has oral knowledge of the language?

I think it is important that proper recognition is given to Botts and people like her. Saying someone has 'bad oral skills' is often wrongly implied as the lack of knowledge in how the spoken language works as well as the inability to articulate. I want to do away with this misconception. That is the foundation of my argument with the differences in view of 'oral skills'.

I would say that she is a fluent spoken language user, regardless of her articulation.

 

[GrendelQ]

Saying someone has 'bad oral skills' is often wrongly implied as the lack of knowledge in how the spoken language works as well as the inability to articulate.

Yes! Absolutely agree.

 

[BecLak]

I would say that she is a fluent spoken language user, regardless of her articulation.

Good description, but how would you 'term' it - coin a new one shall we?
"fluent spoken language user regardless of articulation" is a bit long.

 

[faire_jour]

Good description, but how would you 'term' it - coin a new one shall we?
"fluent spoken language user regardless of articulation" is a bit long.

I would just say a fluent spoken language user. I don't care about articulation at all.

 

[BecLak]

Yes! Absolutely agree.

I am so glad that you are finally understanding me. I have had difficulties in communicating this in our current discussion it seems.

 

[GrendelQ]

For sake of clarity....How would you 'term' or describe someone like Botts, who are unable to articulate well but has oral knowledge of the language?

I don't know what oral knowledge is, but I'd say Botts is fluent in English, and if you asked me to be specific, written or spoken? I'd say, both. Fluent in written and spoken English.