Best way to develop oral skills?

Status
Not open for further replies.
deafskeptic said:
And if I'm correct, gaps in grammar and syntax are much harder to overcome than gaps in vob. I recall that when I was in kindergarten I had a a slight language delay but it was in my vob rather than syntax.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And quite often, they are never completely remediated.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Just to clarify, I am not talking about spoken language as a L1/L2 acquistition or anything like that. I think it's safe to say that it's almost impossible for a born deaf person to be able to speak without some sort of therapy or extra help (correct me if I'm wrong). I am just asking for your opinion if we should even bother with speech therapy and if so, do we do it earlier or just wait until after they have a good vocabulary or what?
Click to expand...

So, the focus of your question is just regarding articulation therapy? I want to be clear.
 
naisho said:
The benefit of speech is not that great, I mean, it's just to interact with the hearing with less of a hard time.
Click to expand...

That's why I asked... do we even bother? Some people believe that the benefit of the speech is not that great, and isn't worth the "suffering".
 
jillio said:
So, the focus of your question is just regarding articulation therapy? I want to be clear.
Click to expand...

Also, understanding spoken language such as learning to lipread. I am not too sure about AVT though (at least for those without the CI). I've never really had AVT in its true form (pre-CI), so I can't really say.

Basically just therapy to help you communicate with a hearing person via spoken language.
 
Daredevel7 said:
That's why I asked... do we even bother? Some people believe that the benefit of the speech is not that great, and isn't worth the "suffering".
Click to expand...

Call me ignorant in this subject, as I haven't bothered to read a lot of the oral vs BiBi vs whatnot approaches going on (did not pay attention, it doesn't seem to concern me since it is in the past), but I have this inkling that speech proficiency for those who can still hear might somewhat influence their overall grammar efficiency.

You hear others like a teacher, friends, etc so you get hands on constant influx of linguistics and grammar usage. Speech travels faster than text, that is the key to this assumption.

I have no credentials to back up this opinion, perhaps someone else may shed more in light of this.
 
naisho said:
Call me ignorant in this subject, as I haven't bothered to read a lot of the oral vs BiBi vs whatnot approaches going on (did not pay attention, it doesn't seem to concern me since it is in the past), but I have this inkling that speech proficiency for those who can still hear might somewhat influence their overall grammar efficiency.

You hear others like a teacher, friends, etc so you get hands on constant influx of linguistics and grammar usage. Speech travels faster than text, that is the key to this assumption.

I have no credentials to back up this opinion, perhaps someone else may shed more in light of this.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is quite valid. Much of what a child acquires birth-3 is the intuited grammar and structure of the language they are acquiring. This is where one of the main differences between acquisition and learning lies. Acquisition requires passive exposure and intuited, internal understanding of properties that cannot be properly explained. For instance, as a hearing child why they put -ed on the end of a word, and they cannot give you an explanation about suffixes and tense. They only know when they want to refer to something in the past, they automatically put an -ed ending on a word. They don't even understand that they have altered the root word with the addition of a suffix. They see it as 2 separate words. This is also why a child will overgeneralize a grammatical rule. English grammar rules have many exceptions. A child first learns passively (acquisition) that a word with the suffix -ed means something that happened in the past. They will overgeneralize that to adding -ed to any word they want to indicate past tense. For instance, we have all known children to say "runned" instead of "ran". This is normal during the acquisition phase, and is one of the earlier generalizations kids make in the process of acquiring internalized grammar.

Now, this is not meant to be offensive, but if you will check out some of the writing of some deaf posters, you will see this kind of overgeneralization in word use and grammar. That indicates delays in fluency that are the result of not having acquired those features necessary to be a native user of the language.

So, to get back on topic, more time needs to be spent creating a language rich environment that allows for access to language so that natural acquisition will take place, and less time spent on structured and directive activities such as articulation and auditory rehab.
 
I posted some research on deaf children with less than fluent models of ASL as infants and young children. It is pertinent to the discussion, so bear with me a minute.

Here is the scenario: a deaf child of hearing parents with less than fluent ASL skills. Their syntax is more PSE than ASL. They do not use modifiers consistently and correctly. Their deaf child is acquiring language via their less than fluent ASL model. Tests over time reveal that the child's language has actually surpassed that of the parents in the natural use of syntax and grammatical markers. Why? He acquired ASL, and when he did, the rules that govern it are internalized. He had a better understanding of the syntax and grammar of ASL than did his parents because he intuited it as a natural function of the language. The parents were attempting to learn all that, and never achieved a native fluency. Had this child learned ASL at the age of 10, for example, he would not have surpassed his parent's skill, and would have only increased in vocab over them. Why, because he learned ASL, he did not acquire it.
 
I have another example, but I wanted to get the person's permission before using them as an example. I now have permission.

I think we will all agree that Jiro has a proficient command of the English language. He has a large vocab, he structures his sentences well, on the surface everything looks great. Jiro was raised orally with English as his primary language. Here is how I know, for example, without ever having been told, that Jiro is not a natively fluent user of English, even though it is his primary language. I know that he did not acquire it, but learned it.

Last week Jiro started a thread about officers killed in the line of duty. His thread title said something about "More Police Officers Slained." This is an example of the overgeneralization of grammatical rules that happen when children have not been able to internalize language function. Actually, there is no -ed needed to indicate past tense in the word "slain". That is the past tense. The present tense is "slay". But because Jiro was taught that -ed signifies past tense, he overgeneralized this learned rule, and put an -ed on slain.

This is not to criticise Jiro's language use in any way, and I would never have pointed it out except that it is a perfect example to illustrate what I am talking about.

Thanks for letting me use that, buddy.:wave:
 
interesting! something I learned about myself! :hmm:
 
Jiro said:
interesting! something I learned about myself! :hmm:
Click to expand...

Well, I guess the oralists wouldn't pick up on that, because all they are concerned with is if you could say "slain.":giggle: But seriously, that is why someone's ability to speak can never be equated to their level of language development. When one assesses development, so many things are looked at.
 
deafdyke said:
Rick, you missed my point. You don't reconize "white/class privilage."
I'm not bashing that sort of thing. I'm simply noting it. I grew up in a town and grew up with kids who experianced that (both here at home, and as a teen at summer camp) You really don't have an idea of how much advantages your race and social class has contribuated towards oral deaf sucess. It's hard to tell if it's methodology sucess or simply sucess that can be attribuated towards race and class advantages.
Click to expand...

Please do not patronize me. I understand the point you are making. I just totally reject it as bogus and it has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. You do not know me and/or my background so please do not tell me what you think I do or do not understand.
 
Hmm, that actually kind of did quite make a good amount of sense to me after chugging through all that.

The following is probably an obvious statement, but to prove my devoted attention over the whole ordeal:
It seems to me that the age a child begins learning any form of language, whether of spoken-signed-written-tactile form is crucial for determining their prospective skill in that form overall..

Past a certain "timelimit" or age, we see diminishing returns?
 
naisho said:
Hmm, that actually kind of did quite make a good amount of sense to me after chugging through all that.

The following is probably an obvious statement, but to prove my devoted attention over the whole ordeal:
It seems to me that the age a child begins learning any form of language, whether of spoken-signed-written-tactile form is crucial for determining their prospective skill in that form overall..

Past a certain "timelimit" or age, we see diminishing returns?
Click to expand...

Basically, yes. A child who acquires a language through even a less than fluent model will still have the advantage of having internalized knowledge of function, grammatical rules, and exceptions. Those that do not acquire any language, but rather are taught a language, do not have this advantage.
 
jillio said:
Basically, yes. A child who acquires a language through even a less than fluent model will still have the advantage of having internalized knowledge of function, grammatical rules, and exceptions. Those that do not acquire any language, but rather are taught a language, do not have this advantage.
Click to expand...

I am good at written language although I learned it at an old age of 5 years.

( and not to take the wrong side but Jiro writes much better than many hearing on this forum, who I wil not mention)
 
Bottesini said:
I am good at written language although I learned it at an old age of 5 years.

( and not to take the wrong side but Jiro writes much better than many hearing on this forum, who I wil not mention)
Click to expand...

All of us learn written language past the acquisition period. If I am not mistaken, you were raised by signing parents, weren't you?

And I agree about Jiro. That is why I used him as an example. Just to show that he has excellent use of English, but it still misses what is expected from a native user. It was mostly to illustrate the point that you cannot take an ability to pronounce words well, or even a large vocab, as indcators of fluency. There are many factors that are looked at, as well as many factors examined when assessing for delays.
 
jillio said:
I have another example, but I wanted to get the person's permission before using them as an example. I now have permission.

I think we will all agree that Jiro has a proficient command of the English language. He has a large vocab, he structures his sentences well, on the surface everything looks great. Jiro was raised orally with English as his primary language. Here is how I know, for example, without ever having been told, that Jiro is not a natively fluent user of English, even though it is his primary language. I know that he did not acquire it, but learned it.

Last week Jiro started a thread about officers killed in the line of duty. His thread title said something about "More Police Officers Slained." This is an example of the overgeneralization of grammatical rules that happen when children have not been able to internalize language function. Actually, there is no -ed needed to indicate past tense in the word "slain". That is the past tense. The present tense is "slay". But because Jiro was taught that -ed signifies past tense, he overgeneralized this learned rule, and put an -ed on slain.

This is not to criticise Jiro's language use in any way, and I would never have pointed it out except that it is a perfect example to illustrate what I am talking about.

Thanks for letting me use that, buddy.:wave:
Click to expand...

I notice that I make grammar mistakes that are more typical of deaf than hearing. For example, I'll leave out ings in some words.. I don't make this mistake very often but I do make it.

Here's an example: I am go to the store..

I remember one thread that I started and it had the wrong grammar order: My Bypass Heart Surgery. The correct order should've been My Heart Bypass Surgery. I guess I'm not a navtive fluent user of English either.
 
deafskeptic said:
I notice that I make grammar mistakes that are more typical of deaf than hearing. For example, I'll leave out ings in some words.. I don't make this mistake very often but I do make it.

Here's an example: I am go to the store..

I remember one thread that I started and it had the wrong grammar order: My Bypass Heart Surgery. The correct order should've been My Heart Bypass Surgery. I guess I'm not a navtive fluent user of English either.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you see those subtle differences that I am talking about. And, like Jiro, I admire your command of the English language. It is well above average. Yet, I can still see some patterns that tell me that you did not acquire language appropriately, either in sign or speech. You learned it, and you learned it well.
 
Bottesini said:
I am good at written language although I learned it at an old age of 5 years.

( and not to take the wrong side but Jiro writes much better than many hearing on this forum, who I wil not mention)
Click to expand...

it wasn't by choice. I was intensively disciplined by several Grammar Nazi :(

rr75zp.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top