Deaf children and hearing parents...why don't the parents learn sl?

[jillio]

Parents are the best role models? Sometimes not always.

Couldn't agree with you more there, shel. Loml is proficient at regurgitating the rhewtoric spoon fed her byt he NCSA. However, comprehension of the issues underneath all that pretty rhetoric is lacking.

The fact still remains, CS is a 40 year old system that has not succeeded in raising literacy scores overall. It is rarely used, and nearly died out until implantation of children became widespread. When so many of these children were still unable to function in a strictly oral atmosphere, they began conceding to the use of visual cues in systems like the MCEs, of which CS is one. It is nothing more than a repeat of history. They keep hanging their hopes on the fact that technology will advance to the point that a deaf child will become hearing, and it simply hasn't happened yet. In the meantime, deaf children's liguistic needs are not being met, just as they were not met in the past.

 

[jillio]

parents of deaf children need to read this and realize that deaf people are the best source of information on how to raise your deaf children.

From the perspective of a hearing parent of a deaf child, you have hit the nail on the head, my friend! It is such a simple and logical concept, but one that so many simply refuse to grasp.

 

[loml]

It is the only system whose syntax and vocabulary are designed to address the needs of visually perceived communication.

jillio - ASL meets the visual needs for ASL. Cued English meets the visual needs of English.

The visual system and the auditory system perceive stimuli in very different ways, and process it to comprehension in very different ways. Spoken langauge is linear in construction, visual language is time oriented and spatial in construction.

jillio - Cueing does not need to be process auditorally. What is confusing you here? Why do you insist on comparing the two? One is ASL, one is cued English, cued French, cued Spanish, in fact 60 languages so far can be learned/aquired via the system of Cued Speech. Again, where does your confusion lie?

Simply adding visual cues to a language meant to be processed through the auditory system does not make it any easier to comprehend. The brain still has to gothrough a translation process, and much is meaning is lost.

jillio - It is not "simply adding visual cues", cueing is visual processing, kinesthetic processing, tactile processing and only if it is spoken and only if there is some level of hearing available. Again, what is confusing you here?

There is absolutely no meaning lost as the deaf person receives the exact word, verbatim.

Unfortunate that you choose not to learn the system; to experience the system; to feel the system, and see the system.

Your explanations regarding CS are flawed at this most basic cognitive level.

jillio - It is not my explanation regarding Cued Speech that is flawed, it is yours.

 

[loml]

originally posted by loml

Holly - Are you familiar with Cued Speech?

originally posted by Holly

yes I am. While I don't know a ton about it, I know it can be used in conjuntion with many other communication methods (including signed). I know it also helps with literacy.

With Holly's grasp of the issues we are discussing, I would say that she is, indeed, familiar with CS. She seems to understand that MCE's still present information in a way that is intended for the ear, and not the eye.

"We are, always and forever, a people of the eye." George Veditz, 1920.

You need to get a grasp on cognitive processing issues, loml. That is where your precious CS is full of holes.

jillio - Cued Speech is visual phonemes, MCE systems are not.

 

[jillio]

It is not I that is confused, loml. You are still, even with visual cues provided through CS, SEE, or any of the other MCEs, providing a language in a sytnax and with vocabulary meant to be processed auditorily. That is why these systems lead to confusion. Just because it is not heard does not mean that the arrangement of said language is not intended to be processed auditorily. It is still a linear arrangement meant for the auditory system. Simply adding a few cues not does change the basic structure of the language to spatial and time oriented. The eye does not recieve or process information in a linear fashion. So adding the visual does not change the way the eye is processing. You are still asking the individual to process that which is intended to be auditory.

Please, please, do yourself the favor of informing yourself on these issues before attempting to discuss them.

CS is not visual phonemes. CS is a cue added to an auditory/oral phoneme. You can feed a dog cat food, too, but it doesn't make it a cat.

 

[jillio]

Nonsense..

A little evidence that Deaf Culture is available world wide:

http://www.alldeaf.com/general-chat...ed-meeting-some-deaf-hoh-people-mongolia.html

 

[flip]

A little evidence that Deaf Culture is available world wide:

http://www.alldeaf.com/general-chat...ed-meeting-some-deaf-hoh-people-mongolia.html

Remember I had a long dicussion with Cloggy here about deaf culture, and it ended with him making up that a city in norway did not have deaf culture, when it did actually have by information provided on internet. He even claimed that Alaska did not have deaf culture.

 

[jillio]

Remember I had a long dicussion with Cloggy here about deaf culture, and it ended with him making up that a city in norway did not have deaf culture, when it did actually have by information provided on internet. He even claimed that Alaska did not have deaf culture.

Funny, he expects everyone else to support their claims, yet he continues to make these unsubstantiated claims based on nothing

 

[shel90]

Remember I had a long dicussion with Cloggy here about deaf culture, and it ended with him making up that a city in norway did not have deaf culture, when it did actually have by information provided on internet. He even claimed that Alaska did not have deaf culture.

Oh geez and he doesnt want people spreading lies or misconceptions about CIs? Well, the same goes for spreading lies and misconceptions about Deaf culture and sign language too! :roll:

 

[loml]

It is not I that is confused, loml. You are still, even with visual cues provided through CS, SEE, or any of the other MCEs, providing a language in a sytnax and with vocabulary meant to be processed auditorily. That is why these systems lead to confusion.

jillio - You are incorrect. Please realize that you are trying to compare signing of English to the sound of English. Cued Speech is about visual presentation of phonemes, processing of phonemes kinesthetically and through touch (tactile). It does not lead to confusion. Learn the system, you will be pleasantly surprised. .

Just because it is not heard does not mean that the arrangement of said language is not intended to be processed auditorily. It is still a linear arrangement meant for the auditory system. Simply adding a few cues not does change the basic structure of the language to spatial and time oriented. The eye does not recieve or process information in a linear fashion. So adding the visual does not change the way the eye is processing. You are still asking the individual to process that which is intended to be auditory.

Jillio - As I have mentioned Cued Speech is multisensory and multi-modal. It is not dependant on visuals alone.

Please, please, do yourself the favor of informing yourself on these issues before attempting to discuss them.

CS is not visual phonemes. CS is a cue added to an auditory/oral phoneme. You can feed a dog cat food, too, but it doesn't make it a cat.

jillio - For clarification, let me see if you and I are viewing oral/auditory the same. I would use these two words in reference to actually speaking/hearing When you cue English you do not need to speak, thus making cueing a "visual phoneme".

 

[loml]

Holly - Do you seriously think that sign language in a hearing family, is fool proof?
_____
Isn't it better than watching someone's mouth move and never being sure if you caught everything they said?

Holly - In all likelyhood, a families, who has/had choosen the system of Cued Speech to aquire/learn the familial language, would/could be quite profrecient at speech reading.

_____
Holly -I do not doubt that this has been the experience for some strictly oral children, in hearing families, but certainly not all. Each family deserves respect for the agonizing decisions that they have to make in the name of their family, in meeting the needs of their family.
_____
I never said families didn't deserve respect did I? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including you and I.
_____
Holly - The universal language for each family is whatever language is their familial language.
_____
yes...and when you have a child whose language skills need to be adapted, the new language skills should become the family language, at least in the home. Of course it will not be easy, and you may have siblings that don't want to learn these new skills, but there are good ways of introducing it that make it fun so it doesn't appear to be a chore.
Let me put it this way, if you adopted a child from another country who only spoke that foreign language when they first came to your home (in other words, they had no real "usable" language skills in the family) wouldn't it be in your best interest to learn some of their language so communication is still possible while they are learning yours?

Holly- Please understand that I am not suggesting that the family never learn sign language. I have mentioned before, but will post it again, that it would be optimum for the deaf child and their family to learn ASL from a native Deaf signer, preferably as soon as possible, if at all possible. Again, as I mentioned in previous posts, the family is the best model for familial language, through the system of Cued Speech, as soon as possible.

I understand that it is a little different with a child who was born deaf, as ideally the training would've started as soon as the parent found out. Since sign language is the natural language of the deaf (most deaf people will tell you that) why isn't it a good idea to reach a happy medium and meet eachother in the middle by incorporating sign with oral training? Why is incorporation of sign such a big no no?

Holly - Incorporating sign with oral training? Not sure what you are really trying to say here. You are using two differnt language and two different modes, so.........??

Have you had a chance to find that "natural language" article yet? It would be great if you would share.

Because it makes it harder for the parent because they have to learn something new? Children have a world of new things to learn from the senses they have, why force them to rely completely on learning from a sense that has been diminished?

Holly - How many deaf/hoh children and their families have you met? You make such broad sweeping statments regarding communication choices, each deaf/hoh/hearing child is different. It is the families decision, not yours or mine. Parents who have choosen oral only paths for their children are your best source for understanding how they cam to the decsions that they did.

When you have a child it isn't about what's easiest for you anymore. I understand that many parents are told that oral is the best way and choose that because it seemed the only option. But if you look at it from a childs perspective...its a big scary world out there, they are going to have a tough life anyway (hearing or not), as parents our goal should be to make sure our child can use all of their skills to understand their world.

Holly - How many deaf/hoh children and their families have you met? You make such broad sweeping statements regarding communication choices; each deaf/hoh/hearing child is different. It is the families’ decision, not yours or mine. Parents have the right to choose what they believe is right for their child. Parents who have chosen oral only paths for their children are your best source for understanding how they came to the decisions that they did.
_____
Holly - In an emergency, you may have time for nothing.
_____
Right, in that case no one would've talked and the lack of communication would be equal. At least then the deaf person wouldn't be any less understanding of the situation than others were.

But if I could also point out the obvious...in many emergencies you do have time to talk...

Holly - Wouldn't it be fantastic to have all communication options available to everyone then.

 

[Holly]

Holly - Incorporating sign with oral training? Not sure what you are really trying to say here. You are using two differnt language and two different modes, so.........??
_____
I think what I meant is called signed english, each spoken word has a specific visual representation (its like ASL except some signs are different and the sentences are of course structured differently). You can use signed english while you are talking since it matches up. I was simply stating that at the very least it might be possible to do that. Between the signs and the lip reading more might be understood.

I haven't had much of a chance to look for that article on natural language, but I will find it and post it asap

 

[rick48]

"And what the select few are failing to recognize, that by following this advice...we end up with children that are language delayed and have been denied the opportunity to develop fluency in any language. These few also seem to fail to recognize that just because spoken language may be the child's only language does not mean that they are fluent in that language. Nor do they think about the years missed in interacting with their child and the child with their parents, or the interaction that is missed with the rest of the world. They fail to recognize the psychological impact of language delays as well as the social impact. All in the name of making a child appear to be more like a hearing child. While they may accomplish their goal to some extent with these methods (i.e. end up with a child that can speak well) the negative impact of such a practice is disregarded."

Interesting, who are these "select few" you are referencing?

Are they on this forum? Because I have not seen them in the cochlear implant section?

 

[jillio]

Holly - Incorporating sign with oral training? Not sure what you are really trying to say here. You are using two differnt language and two different modes, so.........??
_____
I think what I meant is called signed english, each spoken word has a specific visual representation (its like ASL except some signs are different and the sentences are of course structured differently). You can use signed english while you are talking since it matches up. I was simply stating that at the very least it might be possible to do that. Between the signs and the lip reading more might be understood.

I haven't had much of a chance to look for that article on natural language, but I will find it and post it asap

That's what bi-bi is all about.

 

[loml]

Holly - Incorporating sign with oral training? Not sure what you are really trying to say here. You are using two differnt language and two different modes, so.........??
_____
I think what I meant is called signed english, each spoken word has a specific visual representation (its like ASL except some signs are different and the sentences are of course structured differently). You can use signed english while you are talking since it matches up. I was simply stating that at the very least it might be possible to do that. Between the signs and the lip reading more might be understood.

Holly - I am familiar with Signed English. As you may be aware Signed English is not a language. As there is not a sign for every word in English, then you may inadvertently simplify your spoken vocabulary as a means of making up for the short comings of the sign system.

I haven't had much of a chance to look for that article on natural language, but I will find it and post it asap

Thank you.

 

[jillio]

Thank you.

Nor is your precious CS a language. And there is a sign to represent every concept. A word is no more than a repsentation of a concept. The fact that you reduce it to word equivilent rather than concept equivilent is indicative of your superficial understanding.

 

[loml]

It is not a matter of sound, loml, it is a matter of syntax and the way in which the brain processes the visual and the auditory. Visual information is processed in a spatial, time oriented fashion. That is how the brain comprehends the information being processed. Auditory information is processed in a linear fashion. Hence, the syntax of a visual language is spatial and time oriented and the sytax of an orally based language is linear. Adding cues to a linear syntax does not change the sytactical structure of that language. I have explained this on numerous occasions. Either comprehension of such is beyond your abilities, or you are simply being obtuse. No matter what picture you try to paint, CS is still an orally based system, and is dependent upon orally based syntax. Please do find the time to educate yourself on the issues of cognitive processing rather than continually spouting the rhetoric of the NCSA. It is obvious that your understanding of that which you promote is superficial to say the least. You replies are always the same....pat answers supplied from the NCSA website. Try some thinking on your own for a change. Explain your answers with a little cross discipline application. Show me that you have some understanding of linguistics and cognitive psychology, not to mention language acquisition and developmental psychology. To date, all you have been able to do is repeat what you have been told. And it is in error on many levels.

jillio - It is not I that need to be educated regarding Cued Speech. As I mentioned to you earlier, cueing is multi-modal, perhaps there in lies your confusion.

 

[loml]

Nor is your precious CS a language.

jillio - I have never said that Cued Speech was a language.

There is a phrase used, more oft than not, in the realms of Deaf education and early intervention programs, in my experience; that being Signed English is equal to English on the hands, an extremely misleading statement, imo. Holly and I have been discussing the use of English orally (as in spoken) simultaneously with Signed English. We are not discussing conceptualizations. Obviously your train of thought is, well on a different train. You are aware ASL and English are two different languages. Best to keep them separate..

And there is a sign to represent every concept. A word is no more than a repsentation of a concept. The fact that you reduce it to word equivilent rather than concept equivilent is indicative of your superficial understanding.


I am not reducing anything jillio, in fact I am strongly in favour of the building of extensive vocabularies. I do not agree with that as you state: "A word is not more than a representation of a concept". I define word as a unit of language, with one or more spoken sounds or these same sounds presented in their written symbols, carrying meaning. If you wish we carry this discussion of words to encompass, morphemes, phonemes, allophones, dialects/accents etc., all visible via cueing, etc. if you wish

 

[jillio]

And your definition is nothing more that a symbol for a concept.

You cannot discuss langauge without discussing conceptualizations. A word is not the thing in and of itself, but a symbol for the thing it represents. All languages are based on concpetualiztions, English included.

All MCEs are misleading, for the very reasons I have cited previously.

While you have strung together some very nice words you discovered in a dictionary, it is still nothing more than a symbol that represents a concept. And a sign is not the actual concpet, but a symbol that represents the concept.

Nice try, but no prize.

 

[jillio]

jillio - It is not I that need to be educated regarding Cued Speech. As I mentioned to you earlier, cueing is multi-modal, perhaps there in lies your confusion.

No, you need to be educated regarding the issues of language acquisition and cognitive psychology to which you attempt to apply CS. You've got the rhetoric memorized well. What you are lacking is knowledge that allows you to effectively apply such with any degree of credibility.

You continue to refer to cueing as multi-modal. Explain, please, from a linguistic perspective exactly how cueing is multi-modal. You have also claimed that it is kinesthetic. So, please, from a linguistic standpoint, please explain to us the foundation for these claims. Likewise, please explain how it is that CS changes the syntax of a language, thus making it a suitable representation for visual processing. I anxiously await your reply.