Originally Posted by besemiasno

Oral method does not work for many d/Deaf people! Signs have been used by hearing babies before they could learn to speak! Making deaf babies wear cochlear implants just to learn a language by "hearing" it is ridiculous! There is something wrong with the picture. Hearing sign, deaf speak?

Originally Posted by Cloggy

The US-label is self-inflicted.... The "way to promote and oral philosophy and assimilation into hearing culture." is the way the "deaf community here in the states" is wants to see it...

If USA had the same approach as Sweden, deaf community would still look at it from their own angle....
Main difference between Sweden and USA is how healthcare is set up... That makes the difference, and makes it possible for such a high percentage of deaf children with (bi-lateral) CI....
Same for Norway....

Originally Posted by besemiasno

Oral method does not work for many d/Deaf people! Signs have been used by hearing babies before they could learn to speak! Making deaf babies wear cochlear implants just to learn a language by "hearing" it is ridiculous! There is something wrong with the picture. Hearing sign, deaf speak?

Originally Posted by Cloggy

Great,
Can you send me some articles regarding "Deaf of deaf still achieve the highest literacy rates of all the groups. "
A title and the abstract will be fine as well, but the complete article would be great!
Thanks

Originally Posted by Cloggy

Correct, like in Norway where learning to communicate with your childe and exposure to other deaf people is stimulated... But still, what percentage still choose for CI for their child????

Originally Posted by jag

Cued speech has been around for awhile. My guess is this is the advantage over ASL.

"Why is Cued Speech so successful? Hearing people use their knowledge of the sounds of English when they learn to cue. Deaf children brought up with Cued Speech work in the opposite way. They acquire an internal model of sound-based English through Cued Speech - even if they can't hear it. Once the implant gives them access to speech sounds these can be plotted onto the model of sound-based English they have already internalised. Belgian research - and many case studies - demonstrates that children brought up with Cued Speech can think in sound-based language.(4)

It is this visual access to sound-based language that enables a deaf child to acquire an understanding of spoken language without delay pre-implant and also uniquely primes the child for the acquisition of spoken language when it becomes available post implant. As Jane Smith, with her 20 years experience, said: `Cued Speech helps clarify and verify what is heard; it actually accelerates the learning of language and listening' "

Originally Posted by jillio

Those comparisons have been done, and in fact, control groups of students without CIs were used in several of the studies used by Marshark, et.al. inthe literature review I referenced in another thread.

Originally Posted by jillio

Nope, not bogus at all. Standard for APA. And I told youw here to find the article. That is all that is required. If you wish to read it for yourself, then you will do as all thinking people do. Find it and read it.

Originally Posted by jillio

Some qualifications there...."learning of language".....the implication and unspoken assumption is "oral language" and "listening"....also implies adherence tothe oral philosophy. It is not a useful tool for language acquisition because while it may convey mechanical information, like the difference in the position of the speech producing anatomy in, for example, a "B" and a "P", it does not assist in conveying conceptual information. If a child does not get that conceptual information,they are uinable to internalize language, and therefore, are very mechanical in their usage.

Originally Posted by Cloggy

Not able to find that in any of the articles I found...... I found very positive results, especially when CS is used in combination with other tools and languages....
Can you provide some indication from where that comes from....

Originally Posted by Cloggy

Not able to find that in any of the articles I found...... I found very positive results, especially when CS is used in combination with other tools and languages....
Can you provide some indication from where that comes from....

Originally Posted by jillio

Some qualifications there...."learning of language".....the implication and unspoken assumption is "oral language" and "listening"....also implies adherence tothe oral philosophy. It is not a useful tool for language acquisition because while it may convey mechanical information, like the difference in the position of the speech producing anatomy in, for example, a "B" and a "P", it does not assist in conveying conceptual information. If a child does not get that conceptual information,they are uinable to internalize language, and therefore, are very mechanical in their usage.

Originally Posted by Cloggy

Not able to find that in any of the articles I found...... I found very positive results, especially when CS is used in combination with other tools and languages....
Can you provide some indication from where that comes from....

Originally Posted by jillio

First of all, that is not a direct quote from any article. Did you see " " around it? Secondly, it is a sythesis of numerous articles and books from which I have obtained my information. Once again, go to that book list in the thread you created, and you will possibly be able to do the same.

Originally Posted by jillio

Exactly cloggy...the most positve results in CI students are found when other tools and languages are used. The most poitive results are found in CI students who are educated in a speech and sign environment. That is exactly what we have been saying all along.

Originally Posted by Cloggy

I Thought you said Cued Speech was not a sign language..., and now you agree that CI and Cued Speech is the perfect combination....
I agree with you...
WHen learning cued speech, the child is learning the same language as the parent. Except, visually. Same language, different medium..

So glad we agree on that.

Originally Posted by jillio

Where did you read that? CS is a tool, not a language. And no, I never said that CI and CS are a perfect combination. What I said was that the highest achieving deaf students with CI are those exposed to sign and speech in their academic and social environments.

And admittedly by your own post, CS in unknown in Norway. So how much do you really know about the system, cloggy. If you equate it with sign, you are making afallicious comparison.

Originally Posted by Cloggy

I never said CS is a language,
I never "equate it with sign"

The things you come up with.. the conclusions and assumptions you make.. really impressive.... impressively wrong!

Originally Posted by jillio

Post # 43.

Originally Posted by Cloggy

You mean "When learning cued speech, the child is learning the same language as the parent. Except, visually. Same language, different medium.."

mmmm yeh, perhaps it is a language... makes sense now....
The english language can be spoken, written down, and visualised...

ASL can be..... visualised......

Guess cued speech is a language after all...

Originally Posted by Cloggy

You mean "When learning cued speech, the child is learning the same language as the parent. Except, visually. Same language, different medium.."

mmmm yeh, perhaps it is a language... makes sense now....
The english language can be spoken, written down, and visualised...

ASL can be..... visualised......

Guess cued speech is a language after all...

Originally Posted by shel90

No, it is not a language. Spoken English is. Trust me. 10 years ago, I would have thought the same as u..............

Originally Posted by shel90

It falls in the same category as Morse code. setting.

Originally Posted by shel90

It is a system of making English visual and could be good as a tool in the academic.

Originally Posted by jillio

No. cloggy. Stop being obstinate. CS is not a language, it is a mode of English.

Originally Posted by Cloggy

So when does something qualify to be a language.... ???
Why would signlanguage be a language?

Originally Posted by jillio

Grab a linguistics book, cloggy. Like I said, if you require private tutoring, there will be a charge involved. And regarding your above post....I never made any statement that said that CS would qualify as a language. If you will educate yourself onthe issues, perhaps you will able to stop misinterpreting what is said.

Originally Posted by shel90

No, it is not a language. Spoken English is. Trust me. 10 years ago, I would have thought the same as u but after studying linguistics and language acquisition, I learned why it is not a language.
......

Originally Posted by Cloggy

So, in fact, you are not able to explain to me and other readers why that is...
Difficult to share information - isn't it..


Shel, ...
Can you help us out...

Why is sign-language a language ?

Originally Posted by jillio

Cloggy, shel and I both have explained it numerous times in numerous posts. Like I said, if you require private tutoring,t here will be a charge. Or if you would prefer to actually do a little work for yourself, I once again refer you to that list of books you collected. A little summer reading would be good for your mind.

Originally Posted by Cloggy

So... basically, you are now answering for Shel.....
I would think she could explain it to us....

And... you don't want to explain to others why Cued Speech is not a language..
You can do it so well... Please???

Originally Posted by jillio

I have explained it cloggy. And if I thought you truly wanted to know I would do it again. However, that is not the impression you are giving.

Originally Posted by Cloggy

It's not about me. It's about provinding info to readers of this board...

So, how's shel doing??

Originally Posted by jillio

You are really pitiful, cloggy. So, why don't you explain to everyone why it is a language?

Originally Posted by Cloggy

You would do a much better job, plus, it would all be correct...

go on... give it a try....

SHARE !!! (scary - isn't it.)