Learning pace of Deaf vs. Hearing kids

shel90 said:
It is, otherwise, all deaf people would be using SEE while conversing. I just cant imagine that happening but if some peope want to change ASL to SEE, by all means go for it. I will just continue with ASL cuz I understand it much better than SEE and my friends and co workers (both hearing and deaf) say the same about SEE. PSE is much more common than SEE and it follows English more closely than ASL does. If u feel more comfortable signing in SEE, who am I to tell u what to do. I prefer deaf children acquire their language through the appropriate languages not thru a visual code of a language and then use whatever tools they feel they can benefit from to help them with reading and writing.
Click to expand...

PSE incorporates some of the features of ASL and therefore translates to the visual much better than SEE, but is stillnot as comprehensible--on a visual/spatial level as ASL. Think of it this way and see if you argree with me shel...you can understand and converse in ASL without ever actually putting anything into an English word, and still have full undertanding of the communication. It doesn't require an English word symbol to be understood, you can undertand the messange in its own right on a visual spatiallevel.
 
webexplorer said:
Oh, I see. I noticed that ASL users do not use the verbs. I was thinking of the general verbs such as "is", "are", "go", "went", etc. How they can improve their grammar on the paper if they do not use the verbs in ASL? You mentioned that the verbs already included in ASL. I am pretty lost about it.
Click to expand...

They improve by being taught English as a second language.
 
jillio said:
Yep. Because deaf inherently have a visual communication need, and hearing have a oral/auditory communication need. That is why, the world over, even in remote areas, deaf populations have devised a sign language for communcation.
Click to expand...
What about the need for deaf and hearing to communicate with eachother? Does that constitute a language need?
 
rockdrummer said:
What about the need for deaf and hearing to communicate with eachother? Does that constitute a language need?
Click to expand...

Hearing can learn to sign can they? They have eyes and can learn sign language but deaf people don't have "ears" so depending on them, they may or may not learn spoken language.

Guess it is all about deaf people learning how to communicate with hearing people rather making sure they develop critical thinking, literacy, or problem solving skills?
 
rockdrummer said:
What about the need for deaf and hearing to communicate with eachother? Does that constitute a language need?
Click to expand...

Yes, andhearing can switch to a visual mode of communication much easier than deaf can switch to an auditory/oral form.
 
shel90 said:
Hearing can learn to sign can they? They have eyes and can learn sign language but deaf people don't have "ears" so depending on them, they may or may not learn spoken language.
Click to expand...
So you are saying the owness is on the hearing population to accomidate the deaf population? How about meeting half way? As I said in another post; the entire hearing population will never learn to sign because of the fact that many will never encounter deafness in any form for their entire life. What would motivate them to learn to sign? And even if they did take a class, it's like anything; if you don't use it you loose it. So if you are waiting around for the entire hearing pouplation to learn sign you will be waiting forever. What would be more productive is to accept that fact and move on to other solutions. I'm sure that it doesnt seem fair and probably feels like the deaf are accomidating the hearing in most cases but you have to consider what I said above about the hearing encountering deafness.
shel90 said:
Guess it is all about deaf people learning how to communicate with hearing people rather making sure they develop critical thinking, literacy, or problem solving skills?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where that is comming from. Those are not my thoughts. The question was based on what constitutes a natural language. Perhaps you are venting? :dunno:
 
jillio said:
A natural language is one that evolves strictly on the communication needs of a given population,
Click to expand...

rockdrummer said:
What about the need for deaf and hearing to communicate with eachother? Does that constitute a language need?
Click to expand...

jillio said:
Yes,
Click to expand...
Based on that criteria wouldn't any means of communication be considered a natural language?

jillio said:
andhearing can switch to a visual mode of communication much easier than deaf can switch to an auditory/oral form
Click to expand...
That is subjective to me but I am not an expert and can only speak from my own experience.
 
rockdrummer said:
Based on that criteria wouldn't any means of communication be considered a natural language?

That is subjective to me but I am not an expert and can only speak from my own experience.
Click to expand...

It's really pretty objective if you look at it this way: The deaf do not possess the auditory function that allows for easy switch to oral/auditory forms of communication. However, the hearing posess the necessary sensory function (sight, provided they are not blind) that allows them to switch from auditory to visual communication. The deaf are attempting to switch with limited natural resources.

No, all languages are not natural languages, and even many of the oldest languages in the world are the result of diffusion.
 
jillio said:
It's really pretty objective if you look at it this way: The deaf do not possess the auditory function that allows for easy switch to oral/auditory forms of communication. However, the hearing posess the necessary sensory function (sight, provided they are not blind) that allows them to switch from auditory to visual communication. The deaf are attempting to switch with limited natural resources.

No, all languages are not natural languages, and even many of the oldest languages in the world are the result of diffusion.
Click to expand...
Agree. My comment on subjectivity was based on the switch being easy. I know for me it's not easy. Hopefully it will get easier in time.
 
Gotcha! Misread what you were saying. The switch gets easier with use of the langauge.
 
rockdrummer said:
So you are saying the owness is on the hearing population to accomidate the deaf population? How about meeting half way? As I said in another post; the entire hearing population will never learn to sign because of the fact that many will never encounter deafness in any form for their entire life. What would motivate them to learn to sign? And even if they did take a class, it's like anything; if you don't use it you loose it. So if you are waiting around for the entire hearing pouplation to learn sign you will be waiting forever. What would be more productive is to accept that fact and move on to other solutions. I'm sure that it doesnt seem fair and probably feels like the deaf are accomidating the hearing in most cases but you have to consider what I said above about the hearing encountering deafness.
I'm not sure where that is comming from. Those are not my thoughts. The question was based on what constitutes a natural language. Perhaps you are venting? :dunno:
Click to expand...

*sighs*...to the first one..my point about hearing can be able to learn sign..it is easier cuz they have eyes. That's all. Jillo already provided the info about being able to switch so that was what I meant. Nothing more than that.

No, I am not venting. I don't see any questions nor comments or curiousity about the deaf child's language development...just mostly related to the ability for deaf children/people to communicate with hearing people. I do not really care about that as much as most of u do. I care mostly about literacy, critical thinking skills, and problem solving skills whether it is in sign or oral languages. CIs have nothing to do with my concerns. I am not here to debate about CIs..in fact I don't care about them..I believe it is a personal choice for the individual or the families. All I CARE about is language development and acquisition for ALL deaf children. I don't believe in introducing oral only and then maybe having the child learn sign later. I believe in introducing BOTH at the same time.

Has nothing to do with deaf culture so pls don't say that I have those beliefs because I want to preserve deaf culture and ASL. It is all about education and social/emotional for these children.
 
rockdrummer said:
So you are saying the owness is on the hearing population to accomidate the deaf population? How about meeting half way? As I said in another post; the entire hearing population will never learn to sign because of the fact that many will never encounter deafness in any form for their entire life. What would motivate them to learn to sign? And even if they did take a class, it's like anything; if you don't use it you loose it. So if you are waiting around for the entire hearing pouplation to learn sign you will be waiting forever. What would be more productive is to accept that fact and move on to other solutions. I'm sure that it doesnt seem fair and probably feels like the deaf are accomidating the hearing in most cases but you have to consider what I said above about the hearing encountering deafness.
I'm not sure where that is comming from. Those are not my thoughts. The question was based on what constitutes a natural language. Perhaps you are venting? :dunno:
Click to expand...

*sighs*...to the first one..my point about hearing can be able to learn sign..it is easier cuz they have eyes. That's all. Jillo already provided the info about being able to switch so that was what I meant. Nothing more than that.

No, I am not venting. I don't see any questions nor comments or curiousity about the deaf child's language development...just mostly related to the ability for deaf children/people to communicate with hearing people. I do not really care about that as much as most of u do. I care mostly about literacy, critical thinking skills, and problem solving skills whether it is in sign or oral languages. CIs have nothing to do with my concerns. I am not here to debate about CIs..in fact I don't care about them..I believe it is a personal choice for the individual or the families. All I CARE about is language development and acquisition for ALL deaf children. I don't believe in introducing oral only and then maybe having the child learn sign later. I believe in introducing BOTH at the same time.

Has nothing to do with deaf culture so pls don't say that I have those beliefs because I want to preserve deaf culture and ASL. It is all about education and social/emotional for these children.
 
rockdrummer said:
So you are saying the owness is on the hearing population to accomidate the deaf population? How about meeting half way? As I said in another post; the entire hearing population will never learn to sign because of the fact that many will never encounter deafness in any form for their entire life. What would motivate them to learn to sign? And even if they did take a class, it's like anything; if you don't use it you loose it. So if you are waiting around for the entire hearing pouplation to learn sign you will be waiting forever. What would be more productive is to accept that fact and move on to other solutions. I'm sure that it doesnt seem fair and probably feels like the deaf are accomidating the hearing in most cases but you have to consider what I said above about the hearing encountering deafness.
I'm not sure where that is comming from. Those are not my thoughts. The question was based on what constitutes a natural language. Perhaps you are venting? :dunno:
Click to expand...

*sighs*...to the first one..my point about hearing can be able to learn sign..it is easier cuz they have eyes. That's all. Jillo already provided the info about being able to switch so that was what I meant. Nothing more than that.

No, I am not venting. I don't see any questions nor comments or curiousity about the deaf child's language development...just mostly related to the ability for deaf children/people to communicate with hearing people. I do not really care about that as much as most of u do. I care mostly about literacy, critical thinking skills, and problem solving skills whether it is in sign or oral languages. CIs have nothing to do with my concerns. I am not here to debate about CIs..in fact I don't care about them..I believe it is a personal choice for the individual or the families. All I CARE about is language development and acquisition for ALL deaf children. I don't believe in introducing oral only and then maybe having the child learn sign later. I believe in introducing BOTH at the same time.

Has nothing to do with deaf culture so pls don't say that I have those beliefs because I want to preserve deaf culture and ASL. It is all about education and social/emotional for these children.
 
shel90 said:
sighs*...to the first one..my point about hearing can be able to learn sign..it is easier cuz they have eyes. That's all. Jillo already provided the info about being able to switch so that was what I meant. Nothing more than that.
Click to expand...
Just because we have eyes doesn't make it eaiser to aquire sign language. While it may be eaiser for a hearing person to sign than a deaf person to speak it doesn't mean mastering the language is easy. I can tell you from personal experience it's not. I believe it was yourself that stated it takes 4 or 5 years to become proficient in ASL. I'm still not sure what your solution is.
shel90 said:
No, I am not venting. I don't see any questions nor comments or curiousity about the deaf child's language development...just mostly related to the ability for deaf children/people to communicate with hearing people. I do not really care about that as much as most of u do. I care mostly about literacy, critical thinking skills, and problem solving skills whether it is in sign or oral languages.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but if you read through this thread there is all kinds of discussion on educational needs and very much of what has been discussed here is about language development. There has been little if any discussion on deaf/hearing communication issues.

shel90 said:
CIs have nothing to do with my concerns. I am not here to debate about CIs..in fact I don't care about them..I believe it is a personal choice for the individual or the families. All I CARE about is language development and acquisition for ALL deaf children. I don't believe in introducing oral only and then maybe having the child learn sign later. I believe in introducing BOTH at the same time.
Click to expand...
Nobody has said anything about a CI. In fact I believe you just now are the first to bring that up in this thread.

shel90 said:
Has nothing to do with deaf culture so pls don't say that I have those beliefs because I want to preserve deaf culture and ASL. It is all about education and social/emotional for these children.
Click to expand...
Where did I ever say that? I would never make assumptions about yours or anybodys beliefs. I would ask a question if I am looking for what motivates someone. Never assume.
 
jillio said:
Yes, and hearing can switch to a visual mode of communication much easier than deaf can switch to an auditory/oral form.
Click to expand...

shel90 said:
*sighs*...to the first one..my point about hearing can be able to learn sign..it is easier cuz they have eyes. That's all. Jillo already provided the info about being able to switch so that was what I meant. Nothing more than that.
Click to expand...

None sense. Do deafies are better drivers than hearing? That is the most strange thing I ever read.
 
rockdrummer said:
Just because we have eyes doesn't make it eaiser to aquire sign language. While it may be eaiser for a hearing person to sign than a deaf person to speak it doesn't mean mastering the language is easy. I can tell you from personal experience it's not. I believe it was yourself that stated it takes 4 or 5 years to become proficient in ASL. I'm still not sure what your solution is.
I'm sorry but if you read through this thread there is all kinds of discussion on educational needs and very much of what has been discussed here is about language development. There has been little if any discussion on deaf/hearing communication issues.

Nobody has said anything about a CI. In fact I believe you just now are the first to bring that up in this thread.

Where did I ever say that? I would never make assumptions about yours or anybodys beliefs. I would ask a question if I am looking for what motivates someone. Never assume.
Click to expand...

Yes, having eyes does increase the possibility of acquiring information visually. Likewise, not having an auditory function greatly decreases the probability of acquiring information auditorily. That is just an accepted fact. And the fact that the probability is increased, means that less effort is required, which translates to ease of accomplishment. Just as someone with an innate sense of rhythm has an easier time learning to keep a beat on a drum kit than someone who has no sense of rhythm.
 
rockdrummer said:
Just because we have eyes doesn't make it eaiser to aquire sign language. While it may be eaiser for a hearing person to sign than a deaf person to speak it doesn't mean mastering the language is easy. I can tell you from personal experience it's not. I believe it was yourself that stated it takes 4 or 5 years to become proficient in ASL. I'm still not sure what your solution is.
I'm sorry but if you read through this thread there is all kinds of discussion on educational needs and very much of what has been discussed here is about language development. There has been little if any discussion on deaf/hearing communication issues.

Nobody has said anything about a CI. In fact I believe you just now are the first to bring that up in this thread.

Where did I ever say that? I would never make assumptions about yours or anybodys beliefs. I would ask a question if I am looking for what motivates someone. Never assume.
Click to expand...


Some people PMed me asking me why I am debating about CIs in this thread. Oh well..I was just trying to clarify myself that I am not debating about CIs here to everyone. No biggie.


U kept asking me questions if I believed in this or that because I was afraid of the demise of ASL or wanted to preserve deaf culture.

Yes, having eyes does increase the possibility of acquiring information visually. Likewise, not having an auditory function greatly decreases the probability of acquiring information auditorily. That is just an accepted fact. And the fact that the probability is increased, means that less effort is required, which translates to ease of accomplishment. Just as someone with an innate sense of rhythm has an easier time learning to keep a beat on a drum kit than someone who has no sense of rhythm.

Jillo already answered the question about the issue of hearing people having eyes.

U take two babies..one is hearing and one is deaf..u exposed them to both. The deaf and hearing child (if no other cognitive nor vision disabilities) will have full and equal access to ASL cuz they both have vision but the hearing child will have full access to spoken language while the deaf child doesnt due to not having a "normal" auditority function.
 
That is the most ridiculous that I ever read your posts. You absolutely have no sense at all. Guess what? Get a life!
 
Back
Top