Bottesini

Deaf Canadian isn't she? Writing about the employability of young Deaf people?

__________________

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

DeafCaroline

No idea. Can't find anything that states she is deaf, just that she's a database administrator for a deaf women's org. And what publications I did find, she seems to be very pro- deaf community, recognizing their needs and advocating for their rights on their behalf. Can't find a single reference to her writing about anything relating to "Deaf Militants". I am going to email her and ask her.

StSapphire

Huh?

As far as I was aware, the concept of "oralism" doesn't refer exclusively to teaching speech, but to the focus on the usage of sound for communication exclusively, which covers both oral and aural, and ignores (or even represses) other simultaneous or alternative methods of communication, such as sign.

He said that because your response didn't address anything in his post. He didn't say anything to the effect that you cannot be Deaf and have a CI. He said that using a CI in the method that they occasionally are used (as tools to "cure" deafness and make the user "Hearing") is anti-Deaf.

DeafCaroline

He's being obtuse on purpose. No point in arguing with him. What you're telling him, has been said to him a thousand times in a thousand different ways and he still evidently seem incapable of understanding what our point is. Like drphil. It's intentional "misinterpretation" on his part.

kokonut

..

__________________
Before AD.

After AD.

"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
-Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice


"... turns out they are telling the truth."

StSapphire

Ah, I thought the usage on these forums in general was quite clear. I didn't know there were any people who tried to teach an "oral-only" method without trying to use or provide access to aural aspects as well. From what I've read and seen of almost everyone talking about it, there is no difference between your "Auditory-Oral" and "Oral-only" and "oralism", since the distinction is almost always made between the focus on sound-based communication, rather than visual/manual communication (ie sign), generally with a strong implication of focusing on sound-based to the detriment is visual-based communication (ie oral-only vs bi-bi).

You just now is literally the first time I've seen anyone on these forums talking about Oralism/Oral-only meaning "ignoring any available auditory input".

kokonut

Deafcaroline, instead of being snotty about it ever consider the fact that people do have opinions and sometimes responses to comments or how one expresses him/herself may become unclear to others, or that others may come in with a preconceived bias against a person (for whatever reason) and whatever he or she says will instantly conjure up thoughts of conspiracy? After all this is a forum and people express themselves differently. I have my own perspectives based on my knowledge, experience and understanding. I do see people points yet I see things differently, and so I respond. You and others also see things differently as well. No point in bemoaning the differences.

__________________
Before AD.

After AD.

"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
-Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice


"... turns out they are telling the truth."

kokonut

To me, the word "oralism" has always been vague in this forum. It's a word that was used back in the days when hearing aids didn't exist. Audition wasn't just possible for those with worse hearing loss.

__________________
Before AD.

After AD.

"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
-Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice


"... turns out they are telling the truth."

Beach girl

I think that's an important distinction. Back in the days when AG Bell was alive,
"oralism" really meant something very different than it does today. Those children were being forced into something for which they had no auditory support; today's kids (and adults) with HAs and/or CIs have a very different experience, as they can hear (not as a normal person does, I agree, but still, they DO hear), and thus have the aural support for oral production.

Beowulf

And? Was there something wrong with the children in the old days?

Beach girl

They weren't going to benefit much from an oral approach - as many, many people have mentioned on this forum.

Beowulf

Bingo! You pass the test.
The oral approach still blows.

drphil

Deaf Caroline: I have the article-that is why I mentioned it, Whether Deaf Canada Today-still exists today-no idea. Deaf community-approved? Note: presumably the editors noticed the content of Heather Marsden's article .

Obtuse writing-amusing! Even been accused of not being able to read as well. It has noted before is this the "welcome" committee of "deaf militants"?

For your "thousands of comments" interesting above post #394- says only 644 since July 2007. I have here almost a year.


Implanted Sunnybrook Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07

__________________
Get Real:Implanted Sunnybrook/Toronto -Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07

Bottesini

Plenty of people still don't , whether with HA or CI. I grew up in the days of hearing aids, and I can't produce speech understandable to most people aside from my own family.

A bi/bi approach is going to be a lot more beneficial for most people born deaf.

__________________

DeafCaroline

Oralism still means the same thing today as it did back in the 1900s. It means to teach the Deaf how to speak. As GrendelQ said, her daughter didn't need to be taught how to speak for she's learning it naturally. So, she's not subjected to it.

Oralism is directed to those who do not have enough hearing, with or without auditory devices, to acquire speech, in part or full, on their own. And USUALLY, not always, this approach includes keeping the deaf child apart from non-oral Deafs and deaf community. It fails to address their psychosocial needs. Journey into the Deaf World explains this very well.

shel90

Many children today are still being forced into oral-only method without any exposure to sign language.

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

Bottesini

I'm glad you are here! And about the glasses hearing aids, I remember adults having those when I was a kid! I think those were just transistors and amazing then to fit them in a glasses bow.

__________________

DeafCaroline

Between you and Kokonut - it amounts to thousands. I don't care if you implanted yourself. I never did. Never said anything even close to my having an issue with YOU getting a CI.

It's you who thinks I do because you make everything be about you and your implants. If I post that I think the sky is blue, you are going to somehow find a way to make it seem like an attack against your CIs then call me the welcoming committee of Deaf Militants and wonder if my perception of the sky being blue is one of those secretive "deaf values". you're deaf too buddy. Accept it, live it, breathe it.

Get over it already.

StSapphire

Might simply be because I'm newer, but like I said, I wasn't aware of any confusion over that until today.

Do you think with a CI or HA someone is going to benefit much from an oral-only approach? Note - I'm pretty sure (and correct me if I'm wrong, any of the people who initially brought up issues with oralism) that the issue was with oral only, not with a bi-bi approach that allows for acquisition of sound-based languages in concurrently with visual-based languages.

Nobody else has a copy of this article. Would you mind sharing so others can read it as well? If it's a physical paper article, I'm sure we could find someone who is willing to help you figure out how to scan it in and post it.

Nope, that's the warm welcome of the "internet community".

StSapphire

Also, of note - she didn't say that she has responded to you thousands of times, but that many people on these forums have responded to you thousands of times, collectively. Which, I'm sure, we have.

Beach girl

[QUOTE=StSapphire;1851513]

Do you think with a CI or HA someone is going to benefit much from an oral-only approach? Note - I'm pretty sure (and correct me if I'm wrong, any of the people who initially brought up issues with oralism) that the issue was with oral only, not with a bi-bi approach that allows for acquisition of sound-based languages in concurrently with visual-based languages. [QUOTE]

As a late-deafened adult, I guess I qualify as having an "oral-only" approach to life, as I've never learned sign language. I began to lose my hearing around age 30 - 31. HAs were (and are) the wonderful tools that made it possible for me to continue in my chosen career, my chosen life, in many, many ways. With all due respect, sign language would have done nothing for me in the environment I was in. With my HAs, I learned four other languages, lived in various countries using those languages, had English-speaking and non-English speaking friends, and of course my family, and I was able to speak with them and understand them due to my HAs. Without them, it would have been impossible. Even if I had been a whiz at sign language, that wouldn't have helped me one bit.

So - IF a person gets good enough hearing from HAs and/or CIs (and since I don't have one, I admit I don't know that much about how well someone with a CI can hear language) - sure, using oral language, and teaching children how to read and write, might be enough. (Big "IF" there, and I appreciate that for some, HAs and/or CIs might not get people to that point.)

I realize them's fightin' words 'round here. Sorry 'bout that.

Since there are often threads on here about "How do I find the deaf community in such-and-such place?" or "How can I find someone to practice ASL with?", it doesn't look to me like knowing ASL necessarily makes someone's life easier, or allows them to communicate very freely with people around them, unless they live and work very closely with a deaf community. That is not the case for most people.

DeafCaroline

BG - oralism is about manually teaching the deaf how to speak and how to "listen". Did you have to be manually taught how to speak after becoming late-deafened?

I grew up oral only and no, it was not very beneficial because even though I can speak freely with the hearing, I still cannot hear them fluently. I was left out of everything from family meals to schools and even if I was the most perfect speaker on this planet, I still struggle with comprehending what hearing people say. Advocates of the oral-only approach don't get this or they just ignore this as irrelevant.

kokonut

[quote=Beach girl;1851527][QUOTE=StSapphire;1851513]

Do you think with a CI or HA someone is going to benefit much from an oral-only approach? Note - I'm pretty sure (and correct me if I'm wrong, any of the people who initially brought up issues with oralism) that the issue was with oral only, not with a bi-bi approach that allows for acquisition of sound-based languages in concurrently with visual-based languages. I remind myself that there is no one size shoe fits all here and the fact that hearing loss varies along with the constantly improving technology that make access to sound and language increasingly easier.

__________________
Before AD.

After AD.

"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
-Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice


"... turns out they are telling the truth."

Bottesini

[quote=Beach girl;1851527][QUOTE=StSapphire;1851513]

Do you think with a CI or HA someone is going to benefit much from an oral-only approach? Note - I'm pretty sure (and correct me if I'm wrong, any of the people who initially brought up issues with oralism) that the issue was with oral only, not with a bi-bi approach that allows for acquisition of sound-based languages in concurrently with visual-based languages. I think those people wanting to find people and practice are usually hearing students.

__________________

Beach girl

Yes, particularly in Portuguese, and to some extent in Serbo-Croatian. I was able to have one-on-one language instruction, and if I was not pronouncing a sound correctly, I would ask the instructor things like "where is the tongue when you make this sound? How do you shape the lips? Is this a sound coming from the throat?" and so on, in order to pronounce things correctly.

I did get "good enough" hearing from my HAs to be able to mimic most sounds, but not always. It helped a lot that I had already studied two or three languages, and knew that the phonics would be different from English phonics. I wasn't shy about asking for help.

I'm not ignoring this at all. An oral approach only works if someone can have reasonably good hearing, be it by nature or by the wonderful world of modern technology.

Beach girl

[quote=Bottesini;1851542][quote=Beach girl;1851527]Sometimes, but sometimes those requests are coming from late-deafened teens or adults who don't know anyone else who uses sign language.

Don't get me wrong: as someone who loves languages, I think it's always great to learn new ones, including ASL (or BSL, or whatever is appropriate). I'm interested in learning it myself. But it's clear that for me, knowing ASL might expand my circle of friends, but it's not going to do anything for me in terms of communicating with friends, neighbors, the average person I meet, that I have in my life right now. I would guess that might be true for a lot of people.

DeafCaroline

There you go, how you learned those foreign languages would be through the oral approach.

you were saying the oral approach only works if someone can have reasonably good hearing? I speak very well and enjoy music and can hear my cat meowing with my hearing aids and I still think the oral only approach is not right for deaf children but then again, I was born deaf, you were deafened in your 30s so we come from two very different realities.

What works for you as a late-deafened may not work for someone born deaf and vice versa.

kokonut

It worked quite well with me.

__________________
Before AD.

After AD.

"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
-Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice


"... turns out they are telling the truth."

StSapphire

As a late-deafened adult, you received a hearing education. You learned language the way most hearing children did. That was neither oral-only nor anything else. Those terms relate to language acquisition of prelingually deaf children. You learned language, then lost your hearing, which has a whole other host of difficulties presented, but doesn't particularly give much insight into the language acquisition process of a prelingually deaf child, which is what oral-only, ASL-only, and bi-bi approaches are designed to help with.

As for the usage of ASL, I'd be much more interested in hearing from someone who either has used ASL since birth, or who now exclusively communicates via sign to see how that has (or hasn't) impacted/shaped their lives. As Bottesini pointed out, lots of the people who ask "WHERE DOES I FIND DEAF PEOPLES TO SIGN WITH!?" are newer ASL students or others who are new to ASL, which doesn't say much about providing access to ASL at a prelingual level.

Beach girl

I'm confused. Do you think the oral method worked for you or did not work? You often complain about it and think you were mistreated through it, but here you seem to be saying it did work ok, because you "speak very well and enjoy music," etc. Nevertheless, you don't think it's right for deaf children.

I would agree it's not right as the only method for deaf children, particularly deaf children who are not helped with HAs and/or CIs.