Some children who are born deaf recover from their deafness

First time I heard of a first, only language is not a native language.

I agree. I am deaf and was born that way, so does that mean that English is not my native language?

I find it too extreme when people suggest that sign is THE native language of all deaf people. I don't have a problem when someone says that sign is a more natural language for a deaf person to use and I'd agree but THE native language? No. There is a difference. Just like black people around the world speak different languages so we deaf people are the same.
 
Doesnt mean that I am saying CIs are worthless but just that like with HAs or even oral-only approach, it works for some and doesnt work for others.
Exactly................and the end results are pretty much the same for CI as with HAs! There are some kids who are functionally hoh with CI, but there are also some kids who are functionally hoh (with severe and profound losses) with HAs. There's a WHOLE spectrum of listening abilty with the CI, just as there was with HAs.
LTHAdvocate, that's exactly what I was saying. I know its no longer that unusual to see 'terps at AG Bell conferences. That's b/c the gross majority of oral first kids, do eventually pick up Sign as a second language. I know even a significent number of kids with decent oral skills, need 'terps in the classroom or beyond one on one consevrations.
 
I agree. I am deaf and was born that way, so does that mean that English is not my native language?

I find it too extreme when people suggest that sign is THE native language of all deaf people. I don't have a problem when someone says that sign is a more natural language for a deaf person to use and I'd agree but THE native language? No. There is a difference. Just like black people around the world speak different languages so we deaf people are the same.

I concur and agree. English is my "native" language for what it is worth and it matters not a whit what I went through to achieve such fluency. Even if I ever learn sign, I will always think in English first especially now that I'm nearly at the half century mark.

The thing that gets me about such a statement (i.e., regarding native languages) is that people forget that language is a "tool" for communication pure and simple. In the context of the wider world (not just from a deaf perspective), whatever language is available for use is the "native" language. Now if one is speaking of a more natural language, then of course for the deaf it would be sign.
 
On the other hand there are a lot of oral firsters who think that although they learned speech first, Sign is their "real" language.
 
On the other hand there are a lot of oral firsters who think that although they learned speech first, Sign is their "real" language.

To each, his own. What feels right for one person, doesn't necessarily fall true for another person. As I've said before, we are a diverse group.
 
First time I heard of a first, only language is not a native language.

Well, obviously you must be a foreigner and English is not your first language because (just like me) otherwise you would have understood what DD is saying..

But Jillio...
How am I "misinterpreting" that DD is using tautology??
Can you explain?
 
I agree. I am deaf and was born that way, so does that mean that English is not my native language?

I find it too extreme when people suggest that sign is THE native language of all deaf people. I don't have a problem when someone says that sign is a more natural language for a deaf person to use and I'd agree but THE native language? No. There is a difference. Just like black people around the world speak different languages so we deaf people are the same.

What I refer to, in a linguistic and psychological frame, is the fact that even though English may be the first and only language of an oral deaf individual, it was not acquired in a native way as a mother tongue in the way that spoken English is acquired from home envionment of a hearing child. I did not say that sign was hte native language of a deaf individual, unless of course, we are speaking of deaf of deaf who have acquired language from the home environment. I am refering to the fact that spoken English must be taught to the deaf child, thus interfring with acquisition process. This in turn, affects the way language is used. A child who is taught any language, even a hearing child, in this way does not use language in the same way that a native speaker uses it. For instance, a child who is taught Spanish at pre-school, and speaks English at home may have as great a command of the Spanish language as of the English. That child will not, however, ever use Spanish in the same way that he uses English. This has a huge effect on issues such as reading and writing.
 
I concur and agree. English is my "native" language for what it is worth and it matters not a whit what I went through to achieve such fluency. Even if I ever learn sign, I will always think in English first especially now that I'm nearly at the half century mark.

The thing that gets me about such a statement (i.e., regarding native languages) is that people forget that language is a "tool" for communication pure and simple. In the context of the wider world (not just from a deaf perspective), whatever language is available for use is the "native" language. Now if one is speaking of a more natural language, then of course for the deaf it would be sign.

In a linguistic and psychological sense, there is a disticnt difference between native language and first language. This distinction refers to acquisition, and has an effect on the issues we are all concerned about in regard to deaf children, and that would be literacy skills.
 
What I refer to, in a linguistic and psychological frame, is the fact that even though English may be the first and only language of an oral deaf individual, it was not acquired in a native way as a mother tongue in the way that spoken English is acquired from home envionment of a hearing child. I did not say that sign was hte native language of a deaf individual, unless of course, we are speaking of deaf of deaf who have acquired language from the home environment. I am refering to the fact that spoken English must be taught to the deaf child, thus interfring with acquisition process. This in turn, affects the way language is used. A child who is taught any language, even a hearing child, in this way does not use language in the same way that a native speaker uses it. For instance, a child who is taught Spanish at pre-school, and speaks English at home may have as great a command of the Spanish language as of the English. That child will not, however, ever use Spanish in the same way that he uses English. This has a huge effect on issues such as reading and writing.
That was what I thought but wasnt sure but now that u have confirmed what u meant, I agree with u. We studied that in my linguistics and language aquistition classes. Basically the same thing was said about oral deaf children being taught English rather than acquiring it in the natural way.
 
That was what I thought but wasnt sure but now that u have confirmed what u meant, I agree with u. We studied that in my linguistics and language aquistition classes. Basically the same thing was said about oral deaf children being taught English rather than acquiring it in the natural way.

Right. And it is these issues that need to be addressed, and of which parents and educators need to be aware, if we are ever to make any progress in raising the literacy rates of def students. Otherwise, we are not looking beyond the surface, and will continue to repeat those methods that are not effective.
 
Right. And it is these issues that need to be addressed, and of which parents and educators need to be aware, if we are ever to make any progress in raising the literacy rates of def students. Otherwise, we are not looking beyond the surface, and will continue to repeat those methods that are not effective.

I know..see what happens in the future.
 
On the other hand there are a lot of oral firsters who think that although they learned speech first, Sign is their "real" language.

For some that may be true but not for this guy. My quote "real" unquote language is English no ifs whats or buts.
 
In a linguistic and psychological sense, there is a disticnt difference between native language and first language. This distinction refers to acquisition, and has an effect on the issues we are all concerned about in regard to deaf children, and that would be literacy skills.

Splitting hairs aren't we? I was "acquiring" English both written and spoken all along. Perhaps this idea you mentioned applies to most deaf children but I know it doesn't apply to all of the deaf. I have a real issue on the concept of "native" language in the context you paint. When one has enough ability to "wing" it in the hearing world it sort of becomes a moot point.

From my viewpoint, English is both my native and first language with no distinction between them. If I were to learn sign, it could never be my "native" language no matter what how good I was with it (truth be told I would always fall back to English). There has to be an allowance for the fact that some of us could make the shift from a linguistic standpoint.

It is extremely dangerous to have a "one size fits all" theory on the total population. There will always be exceptions to the rule...always...
 
Splitting hairs aren't we? I was "acquiring" English both written and spoken all along. Perhaps this idea you mentioned applies to most deaf children but I know it doesn't apply to all of the deaf. I have a real issue on the concept of "native" language in the context you paint. When one has enough ability to "wing" it in the hearing world it sort of becomes a moot point.

From my viewpoint, English is both my native and first language with no distinction between them. If I were to learn sign, it could never be my "native" language no matter what how good I was with it (truth be told I would always fall back to English). There has to be an allowance for the fact that some of us could make the shift from a linguistic standpoint.

It is extremely dangerous to have a "one size fits all" theory on the total population. There will always be exceptions to the rule...always...

:gpost:
 
We taught English to both of our children directly through speaking to them, reading aloud, nursery rhymes, singing, word songs and games, etc. They also learned English through watching TV, videos and indirectly from hearing other people's conversations etc. With my oldest daughter who is deaf, she also did get s&l therapy. However, a large part of that was learning to listen to and for specific phonemes (sp?) as well as pronouncing them.

I guess because I am not big into semantics and distinctions without any real differences, as far as I am concerned both my daughters were taught to speak English and it is their language.

Did one learn it faster, yes my younger daughter did. Was one more verbal, yes my older daughter was.

Rick
 
am refering to the fact that spoken English must be taught to the deaf child, thus interfring with acquisition process. This in turn, affects the way language is used. A child who is taught any language, even a hearing child, in this way does not use language in the same way that a native speaker uses it
Excellent point jillo. So what you're saying is that your native language is the one you can pick up easiest? GOOD point! Most hearing kids don't need special instruction to pick up language.
Rick, it sounds like your daughter was indeed one of the lucky ones. I'm NOT denigating your hard work, but there's a HUGE difference between normal parental involvement......(and there is a dhh population for whom English can be aquirred pretty much nautrally) and some of the hyperintensive overprogramming that the experts promote as oral parenting. I mean did you even do the John Tracy clinic course? Did she have language therapy outside of the normal language stimulation techniques? Did she have to attend a oral program for preschool/kindergarten? All I can say is that you were incredibly lucky that it worked out that way.
Did you do anything BEYOND normal involved parenting in raising your deaf daughter? It really does sound like she simply responded well to normal language stimulation.
 
Gee a lot of arguments on why the first and only language can not be a native language.
Statements like methods of language acquisition, home environment settings, easiest language is the native language. This all seems quite pointless and nonsense.
The impression that I am getting here is that with a hearing person everthing is automatically easy to pick up like grammer and reading without requiring training. I do not see the argument of a hearing child that knows two spoken languages have anything to do with a first and only language.
 
Gee a lot of arguments on why the first and only language can not be a native language.
Statements like methods of language acquisition, home environment settings, easiest language is the native language. This all seems quite pointless and nonsense.
The impression that I am getting here is that with a hearing person everthing is automatically easy to pick up like grammer and reading without requiring training. I do not see the argument of a hearing child that knows two spoken languages have anything to do with a first and only language.

Sorry that you don't understand it, but there is empirical proof to support it.
 
Sorry that you don't understand it, but there is empirical proof to support it.

Many people here havent taken linquistics classes so it is hard for them to understand where we are coming from. Before I took those classes, I had no idea and I probably wouldnt understand what u are saying so I can understand why they are confused.
 
Rick, it sounds like your daughter was indeed one of the lucky ones. I'm NOT denigating your hard work, but there's a HUGE difference between normal parental involvement......(and there is a dhh population for whom English can be aquirred pretty much nautrally) and some of the hyperintensive overprogramming that the experts promote as oral parenting. I mean did you even do the John Tracy clinic course? Did she have language therapy outside of the normal language stimulation techniques? Did she have to attend a oral program for preschool/kindergarten? All I can say is that you were incredibly lucky that it worked out that way.
Did you do anything BEYOND normal involved parenting in raising your deaf daughter? It really does sound like she simply responded well to normal language stimulation.

Luck, if it had any role, was an extremely minor one at best. That you continue to play the "luck card" and to harp on it and use it as the focal point of your responses demonstrates that your agenda is not to engage in a meaningful discussion but to continue to attempt to marginalize the thousands of ci children who have benefited from the ci and to disrespect them and their parents as well.

Accordingly, I am not going to engage in further discussion with you on this topic as it is pointless and a waste of my time.
 
Back
Top