Do we have a challenge ahead of us to avoid becoming Hearing?

GrendelQ said:
I think he was referencing -- as those who were harmed by the system -- a population of ASL users who are not literate in English, and used as an example some of his friends who aren't comfortable reading captions. We know this is true for both hearing and deaf. And we know that the levels of deaf without the ability to read and write well are terribly high. Some people have slipped through the system without being taught to read -- or at least not taught well enough to be fluent.
Click to expand...

We all know that but his sentence "ASL hinders the language development of Deaf children." is what I am objecting to because it is a very dangerous false statement.
"
It is like you would immediately correct anyone who says CI surgery is brain surgery", right?


I dont accept any excuses for that statement.
 
jillio said:
And he is blaming ASL for this deficiency. Assumption of cause and effect that is false.
Click to expand...

I didn't read his statement as blaming ASL -- I thought his objection was to the teaching of either spoken English-only OR ASL-only. Not that spoken English harms full language development or ASL harms full language development, but that either ALONE is not sufficient and when taught in isolation -- whether intentionally (rare) or because of poor teaching methods or environment -- is harmful.

I could be wrong, that's just how I was reading it. I thought that Botti took it the same way. He was challenged on the ASL part of his statement, so later posts focused just on ASL. Maybe rolling7 could explain which he meant.
 
shel90 said:
We all know that but his sentence "ASL hinders the language development of Deaf children." is what I am objecting to because it is a very dangerous false statement.
"
It is like you would immediately correct anyone who says CI surgery is brain surgery", right?


I dont accept any excuses for that statement.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me, too. No excuses for such a false statement.
 
GrendelQ said:
I didn't read his statement as blaming ASL -- I thought his objection was to the teaching of either spoken English-only OR ASL-only. Not that spoken English harms full language development or ASL harms full language development, but that either ALONE is not sufficient and when taught in isolation -- whether intentionally (rare) or because of poor teaching methods or environment -- is harmful.

I could be wrong, that's just how I was reading it. I thought that Botti took it the same way. He was challenged on the ASL part of his statement, so later posts focused just on ASL. Maybe rolling7 could explain which he meant.
Click to expand...

He stated it was a hindrance...that is assigning cause and effect. And in this case, because there is actual scientific evidence that supports just the opposite, and incorrect assumption of cause and effect.

Again, I ask...who teaches using ASL only? That is not a situation you will ever encounter, nor one that has ever been encountered, so it is impossible to say what would occur in that situation.
 
shel90 said:
We all know that but his sentence "ASL hinders the language development of Deaf children." is what I am objecting to because it is a very dangerous false statement.
"
It is like you would immediately correct anyone who says CI surgery is brain surgery", right?


I dont accept any excuses for that statement.
Click to expand...

I think his quote was:

rolling7 said:
You and DC can safely assume that ASL can NOT be spoken nor written. This alone hinders the complete language development in deaf children.
Click to expand...

You could interpret that in one of two ways: in the context of his whole quote including his friends who cannot read, as meaning 'ASL-alone, without literacy hinders ...' or you could read it out of context as 'the fact that ASL has no written component can harm ... '
 
GrendelQ said:
I think his quote was:
Click to expand...

I not only quoted that in my response, I also copied it to another response to another poster. I have difficulty understanding how it is that you do not see that his statement is saying that because ASL is not written or spoken, it is a hindrance to language development. In fact, he makes it very clear by saying "for this reason alone". No matter how you attempt to twist to come up with a "what he really meant" the fact is, this is what he really said. It is there in black and white. If he misspoke, it is up to him to say, "That is not what I meant." He has yet to do so.

Additionally, concerning his friends who cannot read: this is a statement regarding literacy, not language development.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. CI advocates consistently misuse the concepts of brain development and plasticity in an attempt to promote early implantation. The very fact that they attempt to use it to this purpose is evidence of their lack of understanding of the concepts and the facts.
Click to expand...

Over use of plasticity in young diffident children is scary. And there has been little research into the long term effects on the whole body.
 
jillio said:
He just enjoys throwing the term "Deaf Militant" around. :cool2: Most of the time, it isn't in context, or accurate, either one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, after he mentioned some Deaf Militant article written by Heather Marsden, I googled her and guess where it took me? Back here to AD but in year 2007 0r 2008 and there was a thread with jillio, deafdyke, shel90 all amicably agreeing that it's not the CIs that's the biggest concern but the oralist-only education associated with it that's the most concerning and drphil was on that thread mentioning Heather Marsden's article written back in 1996.

so, I am not understanding why three years later, he's still so upset about it when it's already been said by "Deaf Militants" that CIs is not the threat but the audist oral-only education associated with it and now that sign language is recognized as a vital part of an implanted baby's life and is introduced into their development and education, the Deaf are calming down.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Yeah, after he mentioned some Deaf Militant article written by Heather Marsden, I googled her and guess where it took me? Back here to AD but in year 2007 0r 2008 and there was a thread with jillio, deafdyke, shel90 all amicably agreeing that it's not the CIs that's the biggest concern but the oralist-only education associated with it that's the most concerning and drphil was on that thread mentioning Heather Marsden's article written back in 1996.

so, I am not understanding why three years later, he's still so upset about it when it's already been said by "Deaf Militants" that CIs is not the threat but the audist oral-only education associated with it and now that sign language is recognized as a vital part of an implanted baby's life and is introduced into their development and education, the Deaf are calming down.
Click to expand...

:laugh2:

This is priceless!
 
DeafCaroline said:
Yeah, after he mentioned some Deaf Militant article written by Heather Marsden, I googled her and guess where it took me? Back here to AD but in year 2007 0r 2008 and there was a thread with jillio, deafdyke, shel90 all amicably agreeing that it's not the CIs that's the biggest concern but the oralist-only education associated with it that's the most concerning and drphil was on that thread mentioning Heather Marsden's article written back in 1996.

so, I am not understanding why three years later, he's still so upset about it when it's already been said by "Deaf Militants" that CIs is not the threat but the audist oral-only education associated with it and now that sign language is recognized as a vital part of an implanted baby's life and is introduced into their development and education, the Deaf are calming down.
Click to expand...
a sign that he's unable to move on
 
DeafCaroline said:
Yeah, after he mentioned some Deaf Militant article written by Heather Marsden, I googled her and guess where it took me? Back here to AD but in year 2007 0r 2008 and there was a thread with jillio, deafdyke, shel90 all amicably agreeing that it's not the CIs that's the biggest concern but the oralist-only education associated with it that's the most concerning and drphil was on that thread mentioning Heather Marsden's article written back in 1996.

so, I am not understanding why three years later, he's still so upset about it when it's already been said by "Deaf Militants" that CIs is not the threat but the audist oral-only education associated with it and now that sign language is recognized as a vital part of an implanted baby's life and is introduced into their development and education, the Deaf are calming down.
Click to expand...


:laugh2: Deaf Caroline, are you considering Jillio, Shel90 and Deafdyke "Deaf Militants" ?
 
AD lacks any member who would known as an expert in the fields of structural anthropology, ethnolinguistics and/or anthropological linguistics. However, it has been held by these experts that ancient civilizations without any written language, and therefore no reading, were restricted in their culture development due to the ability to mass communicate. This simple means that until written language came about one generation could not share learned ideas with a future generation. Recognized are cave drawings and picture writing, which in themselves lead to a written language. Even today there are civilizations without a written language, and we all know how oppressed these are compared to others in the United Nations. Those who are experts in the fields always say that the more developed a language is, and they do include reading and writing into their equation, the more advance the civilization.
Jillio ask the question: "Who teaches ASL only?" To me that is beside the point here, as you can go back and read that I'm focus on those who communicate in ASL-only. This seems to be a difficult idea for most to understand. However, I'm not "picking on" ASL-only deaf. I'm only acknowledging they exist. Here in Houston with its large deaf population, I would say 15% of the deaf I socialize with are ASL-only. One of the ways I know is because our monthly ASL social, Latino social and other socials are held at sit down restaurants. You can identify the ASL-only deaf by the fact there can not read the menu and need help, which I among others provide.
Within the U.S.A.hearing population would you be willing to agree with me that 15% can not read nor write? I think the percent is close but can offer no proof.
Now moving on to fault. Yes, it can be said for both deaf and hearing that the education system is lacking, however, I live in a "no excuse" world that I set my responsibility on ME. If for some reason I'm lacking in any area, I get busy and do what is necessary.
Which, once again, brings me back to fault. Granted young children, hearing and deaf, were deprived but in the U.S.A. today there are many rectifications (I'll quickly admit more for the hearing than for the deaf) and those who choose to ignore the rectifications are at fault and have only themself to blame.
 
rolling7 said:
AD lacks any member who would known as an expert in the fields of structural anthropology, ethnolinguistics and/or anthropological linguistics. However, it has been held by these experts that ancient civilizations without any written language, and therefore no reading, were restricted in their culture development due to the ability to mass communicate. This simple means that until written language came about one generation could not share learned ideas with a future generation. Recognized are cave drawings and picture writing, which in themselves lead to a written language. Even today there are civilizations without a written language, and we all know how oppressed these are compared to others in the United Nations. Those who are experts in the fields always say that the more developed a language is, and they do include reading and writing into their equation, the more advance the civilization.
Jillio ask the question: "Who teaches ASL only?" To me that is beside the point here, as you can go back and read that I'm focus on those who communicate in ASL-only. This seems to be a difficult idea for most to understand. However, I'm not "picking on" ASL-only deaf. I'm only acknowledging they exist. Here in Houston with its large deaf population, I would say 15% of the deaf I socialize with are ASL-only. One of the ways I know is because our monthly ASL social, Latino social and other socials are held at sit down restaurants. You can identify the ASL-only deaf by the fact there can not read the menu and need help, which I among others provide.
Within the U.S.A.hearing population would you be willing to agree with me that 15% can not read nor write? I think the percent is close but can offer no proof.
Now moving on to fault. Yes, it can be said for both deaf and hearing that the education system is lacking, however, I live in a "no excuse" world that I set my responsibility on ME. If for some reason I'm lacking in any area, I get busy and do what is necessary.
Which, once again, brings me back to fault. Granted young children, hearing and deaf, were deprived but in the U.S.A. today there are many rectifications (I'll quickly admit more for the hearing than for the deaf) and those who choose to ignore the rectifications are at fault and have only themself to blame.
Click to expand...

In the first paragraph, you are referring to cultural transmission and cultural contact. That is irrelevent to the topic of a deaf child's language development.

Okay then, who communicates in ASL only? I know of no one.

So, you expect a 7 year old child to take the bull by the horns and make up for the deficits in his/her educational system?

What rectifications are those?

The fact still stands that ASL is not a hindrance to a deaf child's language development.
 
Looks like I got the year wrong as to when drphil was on the same thread as deafdyke, shel90 and jillio talking about CIs not being the main threat. The search function on this site is not working so great so i can't find that thread anymore. Argh. Oh well, doesn't matter.
 
Back
Top