Why everyone have to hate people with CI?

[Grummer]

Nor is it necessary for receptive ability.

Language, period, is so much more than speech.

speech isn't language even when its articulated right, it is parroting, it doesnt express true Deaf personality.
We all know why the fucked up assumption hearies have, in thinking that speech as synonmoous as language, obviously theres a long history of that, LOTs of evidence of arrogance and warped thinking came not just from Christian churches, but also Eastern religions (which was part of the society's governing hub in cultures (and still is in parts of the middle east is obvious struggling with that right now).

We Deaf people have our own goals, that is ; to articulate our own expressions in sign. The very core of this activity is hard evidence that sign IS language, so Oralist piss off.

It is like, those who are assuming, arrogant and authoritive arent humans, they are animals because they behave like greedy wild animals bent on savagery and lack emphathy just as africian wild animals eat another...oralists cruelity, the way i see it, is no more savage than, even in history they have state signers are 'savages' hypocritical bastards....

 

[GrendelQ]

Speech is a skill that some people use to express English. Same with writing. Signing is a skill some people use to express ASL. Listening, speechreading, reading sign are all skills people use to receive language. It doesn't make sense to dismiss any of these -- signing, speaking or writing -- as meaningless parroting, meaningless gestures, or meaningless scribbling if they are being wielded to convey language. The development of these skills is not something to dismiss, these are important tools that enable people to then comprehend and express meaning in language. I think equal respect should be accorded any of these means of communicating, no one is better or more meaningful than another.

speech isn't language even when its articulated right, it is parroting, it doesnt express true Deaf personality.
We all know why the fucked up assumption hearies have, in thinking that speech as synonmoous as language, obviously theres a long history of that, LOTs of evidence of arrogance and warped thinking came not just from Christian churches, but also Eastern religions (which was part of the society's governing hub in cultures (and still is in parts of the middle east is obvious struggling with that right now).

We Deaf people have our own goals, that is ; to articulate our own expressions in sign. The very core of this activity is hard evidence that sign IS language, so Oralist piss off.

It is like, those who are assuming, arrogant and authoritive arent humans, they are animals because they behave like greedy wild animals bent on savagery and lack emphathy just as africian wild animals eat another...oralists cruelity, the way i see it, is no more savage than, even in history they have state signers are 'savages' hypocritical bastards....

 

[shel90]

Most children with CIs can develop spoken language, by far, but there are so many reasons why some don't, including late implantation, lack of immersion in a spoken language environment, lack of parental commitment to using the CIs, and so on. You'd have to look at each case to determine why that child didn't or couldn't.

As for those without CIs? I don't understand what that question has to do with my statement, since I didn't bring anything up that has to do with whether or not children without CIs can develop spoken language, but I'll give it a shot. You want to know why many without CIs can develop spoken language? So many reasons: great education, language immersion, access to sound via HAs, individual aptitude, etc.

You are saying a CI is needed to develop spoken language. It is not a need, as Jillio said hence my reasons for pointing out that children without CIs do develop spoken skills and children without CIs were unable to do so. Same thing with HA users.

 

[shel90]

Does that mean that with hearing aids, you had access to a useful level of sound?

That would be me, too (although as an adult, not a child). Without them, very little sound, although there is some. With them, very good access to sound and language.

Sounds like that was not the case with Grendel's daughter.

Which is more important? Access to sounds or access to language?

 

[shel90]

Spoken language is much more than "speech." No, access to sound is not necessary for expressive ability, for speaking, though it can make it much, much easier for a child to acquire the language naturally than to have to work at it through the intensive speech therapies throughout their academic lives that so many refer to as being a negative experience. But access to sound is very important to developing receptive skills that are part of spoken language, listening. Speechreading has been shown to provide only a small percentage of meaning for most people.

Again? You know that English is the language itself. It has two modes...spoken and written. We dont need to go through this again.

 

[jillio]

Whether a need or a want, why not give a child something that could help meet their needs? Be it CI, ASL, a speaking language. We can give them the tools when they are to young to be able to choose, then when they can choose they already have the tools they need or want to make the choice that is right for them.

I maybe wrong in my thinking. But as a foster parent who deals with mostly babies who were born addicted to drugs, and being developmentally behind I look for anything to help the child grow physically, mentally, ect. so they can succeed in life. Isn't that what any parent would want for their child.

No reason not to give a child that which will meet their needs. Rarely, however, does that include technology of any form.

My son was never too young to choose. A child will guide you if you will allow them to.

 

[GrendelQ]

Which is more important? Access to sounds or access to language?

? It's not an either / or situation. That's like asking which is more important, sight or language? Sight can make acquiring language easier, especially ASL, but is not necessary for all languages.

Access to sound is what makes acquiring spoken language easier. It doesn't have any bearing on written form of a language or signed languages. Much like vision makes acquiring ASL easier, makes comprehending written languages easier.

 

[GrendelQ]

Again? You know that English is the language itself. It has two modes...spoken and written. We dont need to go through this again.

Again, Jillio was referring to speech, and I was referring specifically to spoken language. Access to sound makes acquiring spoken languages easier. Do you disagree with that?

 

[GrendelQ]

You are saying a CI is needed to develop spoken language. It is not a need, as Jillio said hence my reasons for pointing out that children without CIs do develop spoken skills and children without CIs were unable to do so. Same thing with HA users.

Nope, I never said that. Please read more carefully.

 

[shel90]

Again, Jillio was referring to speech, and I was referring specifically to spoken language. Access to sound makes acquiring spoken languages easier. Do you disagree with that?

Deaf people arent hearing people unless you are saying that they are? They do have access to sounds just like I do have access to sound but it is not perfect. That's why many of us depend on lipreading to help us with speech.

 

[shel90]

Nope, I never said that. Please read more carefully.

Providing a CI can answer that need by giving access to sound and the ability to develop spoken language.

Sounded like that was what you were saying.

 

[sallylou]

Consider this. Learning spoken language with hearing loss is like a person learning to read with some letters cut out of the book.

 

[shel90]

Consider this. Learning spoken language with hearing loss is like a person learning to read with some letters but out of the book.

Right... that's why we are called deaf people not hearing people. We dont have the hearing ability like hearing people do hence our need for visual language.

 

[jillio]

Again, Jillio was referring to speech, and I was referring specifically to spoken language. Access to sound makes acquiring spoken languages easier. Do you disagree with that?

And access to sound is not necessarily the key to developing spoken language. BTW, spoken language is speech.

 

[jillio]

Deaf people arent hearing people unless you are saying that they are? They do have access to sounds just like I do have access to sound but it is not perfect. That's why many of us depend on lipreading to help us with speech.

Bingo!

 

[GrendelQ]

Deaf people arent hearing people unless you are saying that they are? They do have access to sounds just like I do have access to sound but it is not perfect. That's why many of us depend on lipreading to help us with speech.

I don't understand what you are asking here, can you rephrase it?

 

[GrendelQ]

And access to sound is not necessarily the key to developing spoken language. BTW, spoken language is speech.

That's like saying that written language is handwriting.

 

[jillio]

I don't understand what you are asking here, can you rephrase it?

She is saying that developing an ability to use an oral/aural language for a deaf person includes both some access to sound, but a greater degree of visual input.

(Feel free to correct me if I am wrong here, Shel!)

 

[jillio]

That's like saying that written language is handwriting.

No, it is like saying written language is visual through print. Be it handwriting, a typed page, etc.

You certainly don't have spoken language unless it is through speech. And you don't have written language except through writing in some form. Both are nothing more than modes, and the means to make that mode observable in some form.

 

[GrendelQ]

No, it is like saying written language is visual through print. Be it handwriting, a typed page, etc.

You certainly don't have spoken language unless it is through speech. And you don't have written language except through writing in some form. Both are nothing more than modes, and the means to make that mode observable in some form.

There is an expressive component, a receptive component, and a comprehension component to language that applies to each mode. Spoken language does not equal speech, as you say. Expressing it can be accomplished via speaking, observing it via hearing (and some people can observe nearly 30% of meaning by speechreading), although this is all just delivery/ mechanics without the ability to comprehend/form the message.