Dislike my cochlear device after 3 years using it...??
- Thread starter Danb
- Start date
- Status
Um HELLO!
We live in an English speaking country. Most hoh kids are immersed in spoken English.
Yes, they need language therapy, BUT with the fact that many hoh kids (including CI kids) can access spoken English with their HAs/CIs, they can take the 20 mintues of spoken language instruction, and APPLY it to the real world. You must think that dhh kids are intellectucally handicapped, if they cannot apply what they've learned in oracy classes to the real world.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 3,418
- Reaction score
- 7
From what I've seen after visiting a few schools and reading accounts on this and other forums, FJ is right. I think the world of TLC's bilingual approach and wish it were more widespread.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 45,079
- Reaction score
- 322
20 minutes of pull out a day will not teach a person an entire language. How could it? No matter how skilled an slp is, you must have exposure to the language to learn it.
that right there is an insult to many deaf people who mastered English without having CIs or being in an oral only program.
Really!
that right there is an insult to many deaf people who mastered English without having CIs or being in an oral only program.
Really!
BecLak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,372
- Reaction score
- 59
In school a child is taught to read. It opens up a whole world of literature. It depends on how much a child desires to read as to how well read they become. Whether a child reads up on Shakespeare and other literacy classics for example, is up to them. This has nothing to do with whether a child is hearing or not. A child who is deaf can master language just as much as a hearing child. And any child who is in school has just as much 'exposure' to language as the other. There are many different methods to obtain language. Anyone who learns to reads knows the mechanics of the spoken language, therefore whether a deaf child speaks aloud or not is irrelevant. They still know and have mastered the entire language.
My husband has mastered several languages and I know others also who have done the same. They all have accents, does this mean they have not mastered fluency in those languages? I think not. (And they are all hearing....so this defutes your argument that you need to hear and have access to sound to master language)
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 3,418
- Reaction score
- 7
I don't believe anyone has made the argument that having an accent means you haven't mastered a language.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 45,079
- Reaction score
- 322
If her claims were so true then my brother and many others wouldnt be able to master English. :roll:
BecLak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,372
- Reaction score
- 59
Many dhh have 'deaf accents' because they do not have 'access to sound'. This does not mean they have not mastered the entire language (In this case, English). Access to sound is irrevelent to mastery of the entire language. Whether you have access to sound or not there will always be 'accents' deaf or hearing both. People who have the Queen of England's English (which is the 'perfect' spoken English because that is where English originated - from England) are now narrowed down to a minority. So, my point is, speech therapy is of use to some but not necessarily the only way to master the entire English language or any other entire language for that matter.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 3,418
- Reaction score
- 7
If you are referring to what FJ wrote (20 minutes of pull out a day will not teach a person an entire language ... you need exposure, etc.) -- I agree with her. I don't think that a small child can become fluent in ASL, spoken/written English, written English, Spanish, Mandarin, whatever the language -- with such limited access. Language acquisition requires the use of and exposure to that language.
Did your brother really become fluent in ASL at the age of 4, 5, or 6 through only 20 minutes of pull-out learning in the language, with no other input in the language during the entire school day (no access to peers signing, to teachers using ASL, no expressive use of ASL during the day outside that 20 minute session?)
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 3,418
- Reaction score
- 7
But Beclak, who are you arguing with? I don't think anyone has claimed that having an accent means you haven't mastered a language.
BecLak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,372
- Reaction score
- 59
I am referring to FJ, saying that a child needs access to sound to master the entire (in this case, English) language. I have argued this before. There are many other methods of mastering an entire language other than speech therapy. Perfecting spoken speech skills in English? The only way to obtain perfection is to have Professor Higgins as your therapist. There are many hearing people who speak English and have mastered the language but still have 'accents'. Many Deaf have definitely mastered the entire English language without speaking a word, because they have mastered the mechanics of the spoken language, otherwise they would not be literate in the language at all. Just because a deaf person has a 'deaf accent' does not mean they haven't mastered the English language. Writing on this forum in itself defutes that.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,335
- Reaction score
- 5
But.. Beklak.. where are you getting "deaf accent" from? No one is talking about it except you.
Are you saying lack of speech skills = deaf accent?
To me, those things are very very different. One can have great speech skills and still have a deaf accent.
I know a few deaf people who couldn't say more than a few phrases. I think this is what FJ meant by a lack of speech skills.
Are you saying lack of speech skills = deaf accent?
To me, those things are very very different. One can have great speech skills and still have a deaf accent.
I know a few deaf people who couldn't say more than a few phrases. I think this is what FJ meant by a lack of speech skills.
BecLak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,372
- Reaction score
- 59
The 'deaf accent' is just one example. The point here is not whether it is a 'deaf accent' or just a saying a few phrases. The point here is FJ often posts that to master the entire English language or master acquisition of the English language you need access to sound and be able to speak well. I am arguing now, as I have previously, that mastery of the entire language (in this case, English) can be done by various visual methods not necessarily only by speech therapy. Deaf can master and know the mechanics of the spoken language without the need for speech. Otherwise, they would not be literate in the written language either. Speech is not necessary to master a language. It can be helpful, but it is not primary first and foremost the only way to master a language. Some examples I have already posted in my previous posts.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 3,418
- Reaction score
- 7
Beclak, I don't think anyone here would argue that language in general or written English specifically is not attainable without access to sound and the ability to speak well. You make an important point but not one that I see FJ at odds with you on.
You might have misinterpreted her posts in this thread. In one, she states that TLC's auditory access program provides access to spoken language on an equal basis with ASL at a deaf school, an approach that differs from that of many deaf schools that teach ASL as the first language with written english as a second language. She also says that speech therapy is not the same as what TLC is doing with this program.
My daughter is in that program at TLC she was referring to, and what she has said in both posts is accurate: the children who have access to sound via CIs and HAs and their teachers learn and communicate with one another using spoken language for a designated part of each day. At other times, the children and teachers -- regardless of access to sound or aids/CIs -- share an ASL-only, voices-off academic environment. It is a less common type of bilingual program (ASL + spoken/written English), but one that could provide access to ASL to a whole lot of deaf/HOH kids with auditory access without requiring them to trade off spoken English.
BecLak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,372
- Reaction score
- 59
Grendel, it is this post from FJ that I am referring to, and the many posts previously in other threads where she has stated that to master the entire English language you need access to sound, and she is stating it yet again. I am stating on the contrary yet again.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 3,418
- Reaction score
- 7
In the quote you pulled, FJ was responding directly to DD's post about speech therapy, saying that those 20 minute pull-outs are not the same as full language exposure: DD wrote: "if you'd moved to a state that has a really good Deaf School, Kat would have gotten really good speech therapies by qualified talented speech therapists."
Last edited:
BecLak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,372
- Reaction score
- 59
To clarify.....here is the first part of my original response....
"In school a child is taught to read. It opens up a whole world of literature. It depends on how much a child desires to read as to how well read they become. Whether a child reads up on Shakespeare and other literacy classics for example, is up to them. This has nothing to do with whether a child is hearing or not. A child who is deaf can master language just as much as a hearing child. And any child who is in school has just as much 'exposure' to language as the other. There are many different methods to obtain language. Anyone who learns to reads knows the mechanics of the spoken language, therefore whether a deaf child speaks aloud or not is irrelevant. They still know and have mastered the entire language. "
.....in short, speech therapy.....whether 20 minutes a day 'pull out' or not is irrelevent to mastering the entire language. Speech therapy helps for some but it is not the only way.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 3,418
- Reaction score
- 7
That was exactly FJ's point. Looks like you two are in complete agreement. DD was pointing out that Kat could have obtained language via speech therapy at a better school. FJ's quote you used was in answer to this, basically stating that she doesn't equate speech therapy with acquiring a language.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
I'm new to the forums and figured i'd just post right away.
Lately i've been thinking that I don't really like my cochlear device anymore. I've had it for 3 years. Its seems like the device is not really something that helps me but is something more to make other people feel better.
At first it was amazing. I could hear as soon as they turned it on, which they said doesn't happen very often. I can hear with it very well, almost %85 of my hearing has been restored in one ear. I'm deaf in both ears. I was deaf for only 4 years.
So i guess i'm posting because i don't really understand what the heck is going on with me. Why don't i like using it anymore? Does this happen?
Maybe your opinions can help me figure it out?
It would appear that you are just beginning to realize that deafness is so much more than lack of sound. It is a part of your identity and way of understanding and responding to the world around you. You are discovering that sound input does not change the basic way you understand and respond to the world.
Seems as if you are at the point of embarking on some self exploration and investigation of the deaf community and what it means to ID as Deaf. Good luck on that journey. Many here have made it and can be of help to you.
- Status