Prelingually Deaf

W

Waxy

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
115
Reaction score
0
Hey dear fellas,

Ryan Commerson, in his FB wall posted this:

""Prelingually deaf" ... I suddenly realized how offensive this phrase is.. it suggests that language development and deafness are related. They're not. The message behind the wording is this: if you're born deaf, you're bound to develop poor language skills."

Beyond the fact that you might agree with his ideas or not, I always read what he has to say since he stands in a position of influence into the Deaf community.
Personally, I mostly agree. But I'm not sure about that statement, I feel is a bit of an overreaction. But then again, I'm not a linguist, nor a deaf, nor a native english reader, so *I* might be wrong.
I asked him to elaborate, but he didn't. Most ppl agreed with that in his post. I think I was the only one doubting of this.

What do think?
 
Waxy said:
Hey dear fellas,

Ryan Commerson, in his FB wall posted this:

""Prelingually deaf" ... I suddenly realized how offensive this phrase is.. it suggests that language development and deafness are related. They're not. The message behind the wording is this: if you're born deaf, you're bound to develop poor language skills."

Beyond the fact that you might agree with his ideas or not, I always read what he has to say since he stands in a position of influence into the Deaf community.
Personally, I mostly agree. But I'm not sure about that statement, I feel is a bit of an overreaction. But then again, I'm not a linguist, nor a deaf, nor a native english reader, so *I* might be wrong.
I asked him to elaborate, but he didn't. Most ppl agreed with that in his post. I think I was the only one doubting of this.

What do think?
Click to expand...

I clearly see your point. I can see how the term focuses the attention on a person's ability to learn a language even though it's really describing a persons exposure to spoken language. I think when we are talking about educating a deaf person, we should focus on the individual needs rather than putting them into a predefined category. This phrase might encourage professionals to wrongly make assumptions about the deaf child's ability to communicate with a natural language.

In my time at Gallaudet, I met other students that were either prelingually or postlingually deaf and although that label might indicate their potential ability to speak clearly, it said nothing of their intelligence and ability to communicate. In fact, a couple of my friends that I still keep in touch with were born deaf and I know that both of them are way smarter than me. (scary smart - they see connections that the rest of us miss).
 
Cheetah said:
I clearly see your point. I can see how the term focuses the attention on a person's ability to learn a language even though it's really describing a persons exposure to spoken language. I think when we are talking about educating a deaf person, we should focus on the individual needs rather than putting them into a predefined category. This phrase might encourage professionals to wrongly make assumptions about the deaf child's ability to communicate with a natural language.

In my time at Gallaudet, I met other students that were either prelingually or postlingually deaf and although that label might indicate their potential ability to speak clearly, it said nothing of their intelligence and ability to communicate. In fact, a couple of my friends that I still keep in touch with were born deaf and I know that both of them are way smarter than me. (scary smart - they see connections that the rest of us miss).
Click to expand...

I think my point is that prelingual is a state that we all had/have no matter you're deaf or hearing. Although you might agree with Piaget or Vigotsky, it's well understood that we've a phase. And once we pass that phase, it might become difficult to acquire language, no matter what is... I think that Ryan is overanalizing the concept and twisting it. I think he might be wrong on this one.
 
Waxy said:
Hey dear fellas,

Ryan Commerson, in his FB wall posted this:

""Prelingually deaf" ... I suddenly realized how offensive this phrase is.. it suggests that language development and deafness are related. They're not. The message behind the wording is this: if you're born deaf, you're bound to develop poor language skills."

Beyond the fact that you might agree with his ideas or not, I always read what he has to say since he stands in a position of influence into the Deaf community.
Personally, I mostly agree. But I'm not sure about that statement, I feel is a bit of an overreaction. But then again, I'm not a linguist, nor a deaf, nor a native english reader, so *I* might be wrong.
I asked him to elaborate, but he didn't. Most ppl agreed with that in his post. I think I was the only one doubting of this.

What do think?
Click to expand...

Hmm.... well I don't know about lumping prelingually deaf and hearing children together. Considering that 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, so they are already at a disadvantage due to communication barriers. So language development and deafness IS a factor in this case, not because of the deafness itself but the situation it brings. Early intervention is key to prelingually deaf. Assuming that prelingually deaf and hearing children to be "equal" (or same footing) seems to be only valid when deaf children are born into deaf parents (or hearing parents who happen to be fluent in ASL).

Edit: When I say "equal", I meant the level of effort or additional services for that child.
 
It's a label that is used often once a person sees bad english skills "Oh he's prelingually deaf"...

It's insulting, alright.
 
posts from hell said:
I do see what Ryan means.

Do you even coin hearing people "Prelingually Hearing"??
Click to expand...

no.
the point then is with the word DEAF (the condition)?
what about prelingually signer (the language)?
I think that I can be hearing, but not being in contact with a specific language at all, the years can pass and I can "learn" a language (even a sign one) and be a postlingually... what? "communicator"?

I see the point of your question, but still don't invalidate the fact that we had a phase pre/post.
 
posts from hell said:
It's a label that is used often once a person sees bad english skills "Oh he's prelingually deaf"...

It's insulting, alright.
Click to expand...

Oh sure, when he says it like that.

Any label can be insulting if the context makes it so.

Sort of like:

"Why didn't he leave a tip?"
"He's Deaf"
"Ooooohhh... yea...."
 
posts from hell said:
It's a label that is used often once a person sees bad english skills "Oh he's prelingually deaf"...

It's insulting, alright.
Click to expand...

i think it's insulting if you don't know what prelingual means/implies.
again. the problem is that we read "deaf" in the sentence/concept?
 
posts from hell said:
The point I was getting at is.. It is never used elsewhere.
Click to expand...

prelingual? of course it is. there exists several language acquisition pontential problems, not only due deafness.
what you're saying is that deaf has not that phase pre/post... wich is inaccurate
 
posts from hell said:
Now you're agreeing with me. It's not deaf related. So why toss 'deaf' in that statement?
Click to expand...

i agreed before. when I said "then the problem is with the word DEAF"...

Fact: there are prelingual deafs.
Fact: the acquisition of language postlingal, it's difficult for anyone
Fact: if you're a prelingual deaf, you have high rate to acquire language withing the correct enviroment. i.e. a signing enviroment.
Fact: If you're privated of language since you've been born, and try to acquire it in the postlingual phase, it will be difficult for you, either you're deaf or hearing.

The problem here is not the concept of "prelingual deaf", but not to know what prelingual means.

I must state that I'm anti-hearing colony/imperialism. You can see that from my previous posts.
But that doesn't mean that *every* concept that a deaf attacks because it was "invented" by hearings, is right. the opposite of that, is true also.
 
Waxy said:
Hey dear fellas,

Ryan Commerson, in his FB wall posted this:

""Prelingually deaf" ... I suddenly realized how offensive this phrase is.. it suggests that language development and deafness are related. They're not. The message behind the wording is this: if you're born deaf, you're bound to develop poor language skills."

Beyond the fact that you might agree with his ideas or not, I always read what he has to say since he stands in a position of influence into the Deaf community.
Personally, I mostly agree. But I'm not sure about that statement, I feel is a bit of an overreaction. But then again, I'm not a linguist, nor a deaf, nor a native english reader, so *I* might be wrong.
I asked him to elaborate, but he didn't. Most ppl agreed with that in his post. I think I was the only one doubting of this.

What do think?
Click to expand...

Prelingually deaf simply designates that deafness occurred before language was acquired. There is a definate connection between deafness and language acquisition when the child is in an oral, hearing environment from birth. Language acquisition can occur in a Deaf of Deaf child, however.

If language acquisition and development were not connected to prelingual deafness, there would be no language delays evident in deaf children.
 
Cheetah said:
I clearly see your point. I can see how the term focuses the attention on a person's ability to learn a language even though it's really describing a persons exposure to spoken language. I think when we are talking about educating a deaf person, we should focus on the individual needs rather than putting them into a predefined category. This phrase might encourage professionals to wrongly make assumptions about the deaf child's ability to communicate with a natural language.

In my time at Gallaudet, I met other students that were either prelingually or postlingually deaf and although that label might indicate their potential ability to speak clearly, it said nothing of their intelligence and ability to communicate. In fact, a couple of my friends that I still keep in touch with were born deaf and I know that both of them are way smarter than me. (scary smart - they see connections that the rest of us miss).
Click to expand...

Those categories are indicative of needs. A postlingually deafened person does not have the same needs that a prelingually deafened person does, nor does a late deafened person have the same needs that a prelingually deafened person does. Not just language needs, but, as one can see from so many of the posts here, cultural needs, psycho-social needs, and educational needs.

If we are going to attend to the needs of the individual, we need to have all the circumstances surrounding that individual known.
 
posts from hell said:
It's a label that is used often once a person sees bad english skills "Oh he's prelingually deaf"...

It's insulting, alright.
Click to expand...

No, it is generally used from the time of diagnosis foward. As is congentially deafened, acquired deafness,etc. etc.
 
posts from hell said:
How would you describe a person in this situation with all these terms if they were hearing?
Click to expand...

Since we live in a society where the majority are hearing, and the language of the majority is an aural/orally based language, there is no need to describe a hearing person in terms that would be prior to language acquisition. The exception would be, for instance, a brain injury that occured prior to language acquisition. In that case, the hearing person would be described as "prelingual TBI".

There is no effect on language acquisition when a hearing child is in a hearing environment. However, when a deaf child is in a hearing environment, there are problems with being able to access the language so that it can be acquired. Since 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, many are not diagnosed until the age of 1.5-2 years, and only a handful of hearing parents use sign during the acquisition phase, it is necessary to use a category that describes the problems that child is experiencing based on the fact that they were in an environment that did not meet their needs.

More than describing "deafness", it is describing the environment that deaf child was in during formative language periods...most often, a hearing, aural/oral environment. That environment creates problems that would not be there with deafness otherwise.
 
Back
Top