Is ASL Fading Away or Not? - Page 2

jillio · 12-23-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloggy

Allready now there are fewer children that will grow up with ASL. Older people that become deaf and previously might have needed ASL, now can choose for CI.
With that, there will be less need for ASL. Fewer deaf (and hearing) people will depend on it.

The increase in people studying it is wonderful.
Signlanguage will allways be the natural language for deaf people, so with that it will never disapear. But, I think that in the long run ASL will be used by only a few people.

ASL is the third most learned second langauge in the U.S. Evidently, there are quite a few still using it. And in those still using it, CI users are among the numbers.

Late deafened individuals have, historically, never relied on ASL as a group.

Cheri · 12-23-2007, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

The no-CI no-speech stuff does not make sense to me. The best speechers are often those raised bilingual from what I have seen, and I know deaf people that are too deaf for HA and CI that can speak and lipread ok..

Agreed! It doesn't make no sense to me either about no-CI no-speech. I don't have CI but I can speak and lip-reading with and without the use of hearing aids.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloggy

Allready now there are fewer children that will grow up with ASL. Older people that become deaf and previously might have needed ASL, now can choose for CI.
With that, there will be less need for ASL. Fewer deaf (and hearing) people will depend on it.

The increase in people studying it is wonderful.
Signlanguage will allways be the natural language for deaf people, so with that it will never disapear. But, I think that in the long run ASL will be used by only a few people

That is because the majority of deaf children over 90% are born to hearing parents, that explains why the use of signs are lesser and that many of these deaf children grow up in a hearing environment, and not half/half hearing/deaf-culture environment.

jillio · 12-23-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloggy

Flip,

But OK, I'll join you for a little longer..... it's good info..

The way you are reading it, the child has to sleep with the CI on. Do you really think this is the intention of the doctor?

It's all relative... isn't it. It's not as ridget as you make it out to be..

If the childs wants to take it off within the hour, I would not allow it. At the end of a day filled with sound, I would.

Now, with a child that signs as well; in order to benefit from CI, it is important that the child learns to listen to speech as much as possible. In the beginning this might be a problem since the child knows to communicate with sign.
When CI is taken off a lot, and sign is used, learning to hear and understand speech is delayed. My guess is that the comment has to be seen in that light.

Does that make sense?

What's ridget?

The use of CI does not prohibit listening or the use of oral skills. In fact, the use af ASL facilitates such, as has been shown in the voluminous research that indicates that the children with the best oral skills are also the children with the best signing skills.

jillio · 12-23-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

Agreed! It doesn't make no sense to me either about no-CI no-speech. I don't have CI but I can speak and lip-reading with and without the use of hearing aids.

That is because the majority of deaf children over 90% are born to hearing parents, that explains why the use of signs are lesser and that many of these deaf children grow up in a hearing environment, and not half/half hearing/deaf-culture environment.

And historically, deaf children of hearing parents have not had the advantage of sign. Hearing parents have always been reluctant to use sign. That is why so many deaf children grow up to learn sign as adults, once their communication method is no longer under their parent's control. And I don't see the population of deaf adults using sign decreasing. In fact, ASL is the third most learned language in the United States. So, if deaf children raised orally are growing up to learn sign because they find it an advantage in their communication, it tells me that the oral environment us leaving something out that deaf individuals find valuable.

shel90 · 12-23-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

I don't know this kid very well, but noticed he said he did not want to wear it because the batteries was empty, but they was measured to be ok. My mistake I did not mention he was nine years old before!

The no-CI no-speech stuff does not make sense to me. The best speechers are often those raised bilingual from what I have seen, and I know deaf people that are too deaf for HA and CI that can speak and lipread ok.

But agree that CI can help with speech and listening in the early years if the child is comfortable with the device and enjoy the skills.

I know! That does not make sense but that seems to be the new view these days. Parents are being told that if they want their child to develop speech skills, get them implanted. They are forgetting the fact that numerous of deaf people without CIs were able to develop speech skills. I think it is a ploy by the audis and doctors and just continue to give parents more false information.

jillio · 12-23-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloggy

Great - we're on-topic.... I'll take your word for it.

Now you throw in 9 years old... ask him/her why he/she wants to take it off...

That's a first...... what's holding you back? - I'll reply anyway...
Remember that exposure to signlanguage is the best way to learn signlanguage?
The same for speech. When the someone takes off the CI, exposure to speech stops....

Makes sense?

Yeah, it makes a lot of sense. That's because they are STILL DEAF. And restricted from oral information, which means that, in order to communicate effectively AT ALL TIMES, sign needs to be included in their communication tools.

Likewise, not every child or adult with CI is able to access communication through speech.

shel90 · 12-23-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

And historically, deaf children of hearing parents have not had the advantage of sign. Hearing parents have always been reluctant to use sign. That is why so many deaf children grow up to learn sign as adults, once their communication method is no longer under their parent's control. And I don't see the population of deaf adults using sign decreasing. In fact, ASL is the third most learned language in the United States. So, if deaf children raised orally are growing up to learn sign because they find it an advantage in their communication, it tells me that the oral environment us leaving something out that deaf individuals find valuable.

and u know what is so sad? That hearing kids are being enrolled in signing classes cuz their hearing parents see the value of communicating with their children before they start talking. Many parents of deaf kids seem to be more in denial or brainwashed by the oralists.

loml · 12-23-2007, 01:50 PM

Tousi

Quote:

Just out of curiosity, did anyone click on the URL I provided way back in post # 8?

Cloggy

Quote:

I did but I don't know ASL.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

A little cultural shock?

Is it necessary to be counterprodutive?

jillio · 12-23-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

and u know what is so sad? That hearing kids are being enrolled in signing classes cuz their hearing parents see the value of communicating with their children before they start talking. Many parents of deaf kids seem to be more in denial or brainwashed by the oralists.

Exactly. The hearing parents of hearing children are not biased against sign because they have not been subjected to the professionals who try to scare them away from ASL. But the hearing parents of deaf children have been told the opposite. That signing will actually enhance the communcation and linguistic development of their children. Since my thread on information to parents has been locked thanks to certain posters inability to remain civil and on topic, I can't go back there to pull posts, but this is exactly what I was illustrating in that OP.

loml · 12-23-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

ASL is the third most learned second langauge in the U.S.

Learning and using do not necessarily equate to the same thing.

jillio · 12-23-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

Tousi

Cloggy

Is it necessary to be counterprodutive?

How is that counterproductive? It is an illustration of experiencing, in reverse, what the deaf individual who has been unable to develop oral skills experiences every day of their life. That isn't counter-productive at all. In fact, culture shock is a well accepted technique for increasing understanding and empathy.

jillio · 12-23-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

Learning and using do not necessarily equate to the same thing.

Nothey don't. But in this case, the correlation is there. Likewise with learning CS. Learning and using to not mean the same thing. And the ASL users in this country far outumber the CS users. So what's your point, exactly?

loml · 12-23-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

and u know what is so sad? That hearing kids are being enrolled in signing classes cuz their hearing parents see the value of communicating with their children before they start talking.

One of the variables being that the hearing parents children are hearing. They are not relying on sign as their childs only form of communication and inclusion.

loml · 12-23-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Nothey don't. But in this case, the correlation is there. Likewise with learning CS. Learning and using to not mean the same thing. And the ASL users in this country far outumber the CS users. So what's your point, exactly?

Learning and using do not necessarily equate to the same thing.

jillio · 12-23-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

One of the variables being that the hearing parents children are hearing. They are not relying on sign as their childs only form of communication and inclusion.

The most important variable is that they have not been exposed to the professionals who portray sign language as detrimental to the development of oral skills. If hearing children shold not relay on sign as their only means of communication and inclusion, why is it that a deaf child should rely on oral communication as their only means of communication and inclusion?

jillio · 12-23-2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

Learning and using do not necessarily equate to the same thing.

And the use of ASL is on the rise, not the decline.

shel90 · 12-23-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

One of the variables being that the hearing parents children are hearing. They are not relying on sign as their childs only form of communication and inclusion.

Right but yet it is ok for deaf children to rely on the very language that is not fully accessible to them?

jillio · 12-23-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Right but yet it is ok for deaf children to rely on the very language that is not fully accessible to them?

Exactly.

loml · 12-23-2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

The most important variable is that they have not been exposed to the professionals who portray sign language as detrimental to the development of oral skills.If hearing children shold not relay on sign as their only means of communication and inclusion, why is it that a deaf child should rely on oral communication as their only means of communication and inclusion?

Of course they have not exposed to the same professionals. The "baby sign professional programs" that I am familiar with, do not entail learning from a deaf person, fluent in ASL, not exactly an optimum learning program of ASL, imo.

As far as the second questions, I cannot answer it as I do not subscribe to that philosophy.

loml · 12-23-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Right but yet it is ok for deaf children to rely on the very language that is not fully accessible to them?

English language can and is fully accessible to deaf children via the system of Cued Speech.

shel90 · 12-23-2007, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

English language can and is fully accessible to deaf children via the system of Cued Speech.

If that's so, then why didnt it work for all then?

jillio · 12-23-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

Of course they have not exposed to the same professionals. The "baby sign professional programs" that I am familiar with, do not entail learning from a deaf person, fluent in ASL, not exactly an optimum learning program of ASL, imo.

As far as the second questions, I cannot answer it as I do not subscribe to that philosophy.

Since when are hearing parents of hearing chidlren exposed to audiologists, and deaf ed specialists? Not to mention, implant clinics?

CS is a manual code for oral language. You have stated that deaf children should not be exposed to ASL until they have developed a strong foundation in oral language. Therefore, you obviously do subscribe to that philosophy.

jillio · 12-23-2007, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

English language can and is fully accessible to deaf children via the system of Cued Speech.

What happened to your affirmation that CS is a tool to develop literacy, and those using it as a communication system and to develop speech are presecribing off label, so to speak? We are taliking about full communciatiaon, not literacy tools, in this thread.

In addition, you claim that CS is not intended to replace ASL. You're going in circles again.

loml · 12-23-2007, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

If that's so, then why didnt it work for all then?

Sorry cannot answer that one, I have not met anyone who has not been successful with learning English or French for that matter, via Cued Speech.

It is unrealistics to ask me the causation of another individuals lack of success.

loml · 12-23-2007, 02:48 PM

loml

Quote:

Of course they have not exposed to the same professionals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Since when are hearing parents of hearing chidlren exposed to audiologists, and deaf ed specialists? Not to mention, implant clinics?

I do not know, nor did I state that they did.

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