National Society for the Deaf

[loml]

Indication of your complete lack of understanding of that which you speak. You can't get past the fact that without an oral language to be cued, CS is non-existent. Therefore, it is an oral method.

jillio - We were not discussing oral method, we were discussing whether or not Cued Speech was oralism. This is how I define an oral education (which is also way that oral programs are managed in my area): A method based exclusively on lipreading, speech therapy, and AVT. Cueing does not fall within this defintion.

Ways to convey English can be : orally, fingerspelling, signing or Cued Speech.

Thanks

 

[shel90]

jillio - We were not discussing oral method, we were discussing whether or not Cued Speech was oralism. This is how I define an oral education (which is also way that oral programs are managed in my area): A method based exclusively on lipreading, speech therapy, and AVT. Cueing does not fall within this defintion.

Ways to convey English can be : orally, fingerspelling, signing or Cued Speech.

Thanks

So you are saying you have a separate definition of oral and oralism? Just wanted to make sure I was reading you right.

 

[jillio]

jillio - We were not discussing oral method, we were discussing whether or not Cued Speech was oralism. This is how I define an oral education (which is also way that oral programs are managed in my area): A method based exclusively on lipreading, speech therapy, and AVT. Cueing does not fall within this defintion.

Ways to convey English can be : orally, fingerspelling, signing or Cued Speech.

Thanks

Perhaps that is your definition, but it is not a comprehensive definition. Yes, and as long as they are conveying an orally based language, they are oral in nature. Oralism is defined not by the method, but by the language used (or not used).

 

[loml]

Perhaps that is your definition, but it is not a comprehensive definition.

http://www.raisingdeafkids.org/communicating/choices/ao.pdf This is a definition from "Raising Deaf Kids.org" seemingly parallel to my definition. I cannot find a definition of oralism that states what you are saying the definition is. Please provide us with a link to one.

Yes, and as long as they are conveying an orally based language, they are oral in nature. Oralism is defined not by the method, but by the language used (or not used)

Following you analogy here then, SEE would be oralism, because it is a mode of English, which is oral.

 

[jillio]

http://www.raisingdeafkids.org/communicating/choices/ao.pdf This is a definition from "Raising Deaf Kids.org" seemingly parallel to my definition. I cannot find a definition of oralism that states what you are saying the definition is. Please provide us with a link to one.



Following you analogy here then, SEE would be oralism, because it is a mode of English, which is oral.

Yes it is. It is an MCE, or system for manually coding English, which is an oral language. It was developed when the oral only folks decided that they would give in and offer a few visual additions to oralism. You must stop defining oralism by the ability to produce sound, and define it by the language used. Speaking is but one facet of oralism.

 

[loml]

So let me make sure I am understanding you correctly.

SEE is oralism, meaning it encompasses speech reading, AVT, and speech therapy, along with being a system to convey oral language since that has been the only definition of oralism provided.

I never claimed that oralism was just the ability to produce sound. Once again, could you please provide a link to someone using that definition, as I have been unsuccessful in doing so.

 

[jillio]

So let me make sure I am understanding you correctly.

SEE is oralism, meaning it encompasses speech reading, AVT, and speech therapy, along with being a system to convey oral language since that has been the only definition of oralism provided.

I never claimed that oralism was just the ability to produce sound. Once again, could you please provide a link to someone using that definition, as I have been unsuccessful in doing so.

AVT is used in strict oralism. It does not allow for speech reading, or any other visual cue. It forces the deaf child to rely on audition and speech only.

The MCEs allow for visual cues and speech reading along with speech. The MCEs are most often used in conjunction with speech--simcom. They were designed to follow the syntax and grammar of spoken English. Any system that relies on a spoken language is oral. Simply adding visual cues to a spoken language, be it through adapatation of a signing system, or invented symbols, does not makethe system any less orally based. SEE uses the linear structure of oral language.

 

[owen06]

So anything that doesn't use ASL is oralism?? (Just trying to make sure I'm understanding correctly)

 

[jillio]

So anything that doesn't use ASL is oralism?? (Just trying to make sure I'm understanding correctly)

No, any method that uses an orally based language as the only method of communication/instruction is oralism.

 

[owen06]

So what are the other "sign languages" (I'm quoting this b/c ASL is the only one I know of that is recognized as it's own language) other than ASL? Otherwise, I thought all of the others were replications of English, etc. Which is oral, which would make it oralism...??

 

[jillio]

So what are the other "sign languages" (I'm quoting this b/c ASL is the only one I know of that is recognized as it's own language) other than ASL? Otherwise, I thought all of the others were replications of English, etc. Which is oral, which would make it oralism...??

Well, to start, there is Spanish Sign Language, French Sign Language, Indonesian Sign Language, Swedish Sign Language, Norwegian Sign Language, German Sign Language, and the list goes on and on.

 

[owen06]

So these are all recognized languages like ASL with their own syntax etc.?? Not something like SEE?

 

[owen06]

No, any method that uses an orally based language as the only method of communication/instruction is oralism.

Where did it say that CS had to be the only method of communication?? I've been trying to read everything that has been posted in it's entirety, (by the way, thanks for the articles, I'm slowly working through them too) and I never saw anything that stated that CS should not be used without any other communication method. All that it said was that it could be used as the communication method for english. No where did it say that the people couldn't use ASL as another form of communcation. So I think that saying CS is oralism is wrong because it never says that it should be used as the sole communication method (which is what you say oralism is). I agree it is an oral method but it isn't oralism (at least as you are defining it here).

 

[flip]

Where did it say that CS had to be the only method of communication?? I've been trying to read everything that has been posted in it's entirety, (by the way, thanks for the articles, I'm slowly working through them too) and I never saw anything that stated that CS should not be used without any other communication method. All that it said was that it could be used as the communication method for english. No where did it say that the people couldn't use ASL as another form of communcation. So I think that saying CS is oralism is wrong because it never says that it should be used as the sole communication method (which is what you say oralism is). I agree it is an oral method but it isn't oralism (at least as you are defining it here).

"..by cueing, children who are deaf would have a easily way to acquire the native home language, read and write proficiently, and more easily communicate with hearing family members who cue."

"Cueing enables them to communicate with all members of family simultanleously, without switching between languages."

"Signing does not provide phonemic awareness for spoken languages. Students who use a sign system or ASL struggle with connecting the signs to printed words."

This is from NCSA. As Jillio said, oralists are against sign language to be the first language and want to restrict it's use in education. The spoken language should be the first language, what mode does not matter, even to AG Bell, the mother of oralism in the states.

Below is a link to a AG Bell school, who provide oral education. Check how they seperate their oral methods into two types, auditory-oral and visual-oral(cued speech).

Montessori School for the Deaf in Mt. Prospect Illinois

 

[Bebonang]

"..by cueing, children who are deaf would have a easily way to acquire the native home language, read and write proficiently, and more easily communicate with hearing family members who cue."

"Cueing enables them to communicate with all members of family simultanleously, without switching between languages."

"Signing does not provide phonemic awareness for spoken languages. Students who use a sign system or ASL struggle with connecting the signs to printed words."

This is from NCSA. As Jillio said, oralists are against sign language to be the first language and want to restrict it's use in education. The spoken language should be the first language, what mode does not matter, even to AG Bell, the mother of oralism in the states.

Below is a link to a AG Bell school, who provide oral education. Check how they seperate their oral methods into two types, auditory-oral and visual-oral(cued speech).

Montessori School for the Deaf in Mt. Prospect Illinois

I agree with you 100%. This is why I don't understand the oralists and audists keep pressuring us into oral and speech. Why do we have to get all upset under blood pressure or stress about this oral thing. We, Deafies, just don't like the oral methods or cued speech methods.

 

[owen06]

As Jillio said, oralists are against sign language to be the first language and want to restrict it's use in education. The spoken language should be the first language, what mode does not matter, even to AG Bell, the mother of oralism in the states.

Actually, jillio said:

No, any method that uses an orally based language as the only method of communication/instruction is oralism.

She doesn't say anything about the first language, she said ONLY language. That's why I'm asking questions. There isn't anything that says that CS should not be used with ASL. They are promoting it for the use of communication in a spoken language. There is no reason why the child couldn't use both, depending on the situation.

The quotes also don't say anything about not using ASL at all. They only say that children who rely on only ASL have some difficulties with regards to reading.

 

[shel90]

As Jillio said, oralists are against sign language to be the first language and want to restrict it's use in education. The spoken language should be the first language, what mode does not matter, even to AG Bell, the mother of oralism in the states.

Actually, jillio said:



She doesn't say anything about the first language, she said ONLY language. That's why I'm asking questions. There isn't anything that says that CS should not be used with ASL. They are promoting it for the use of communication in a spoken language. There is no reason why the child couldn't use both, depending on the situation.

The quotes also don't say anything about not using ASL at all. They only say that children who rely on only ASL have some difficulties with regards to reading.

That right there is a false and misleading statement from the NCSA. If the deaf child recieves a strong L1 language foundation using ASL by 5 years old, then learning English is not as difficult as this claim says. The reason many deaf children struggle with English is cuz they have language delays...nothing to do with ASL.

 

[flip]

As Jillio said, oralists are against sign language to be the first language and want to restrict it's use in education. The spoken language should be the first language, what mode does not matter, even to AG Bell, the mother of oralism in the states.

Actually, jillio said:



She doesn't say anything about the first language, she said ONLY language. That's why I'm asking questions. There isn't anything that says that CS should not be used with ASL. They are promoting it for the use of communication in a spoken language. There is no reason why the child couldn't use both, depending on the situation.

The quotes also don't say anything about not using ASL at all. They only say that children who rely on only ASL have some difficulties with regards to reading.

What you are saying here is that it does not matter if deaf children know ASL or not. This correlate with the post Cloggy did on earth, sun and cued speech, where a board member of NCSA was known to state that NAD is irrelevant. Check the post here

http://www.alldeaf.com/hearing-aids-cochlear-implants/47663-sun-earth-cued-speech.html#post883516

You have to understand that what you say here correlate with what the hardcore oralists here, like Jackie and Rick, says when they state they have nothing against ASL as a secondary language or learnt later in life. ASL should not be the language deaf children rely on.

When you state that it's not good to rely on ASL for literacy, what should then deaf children rely on? A spoken language? A visual-oral method, according to AG Bell.

I am curious if you disagree with both NCSA and AG Bell? It looks like that here.

 

[flip]

I agree with you 100%. This is why I don't understand the oralists and audists keep pressuring us into oral and speech. Why do we have to get all upset under blood pressure or stress about this oral thing. We, Deafies, just don't like the oral methods or cued speech methods.

Yeah.. Couldn't they just leave us alone. It's as if they do not belive we know what's best for us.:stupid:

 

[flip]

That right there is a false and misleading statement from the NCSA. If the deaf child recieves a strong L1 language foundation using ASL by 5 years old, then learning English is not as difficult as this claim says. The reason many deaf children struggle with English is cuz they have language delays...nothing to do with ASL.

As long they make lies like that, I find it strange they still want respect and approval from NAD and the deaf community. They might think we can't read?