Should Deaf babies learn just only ASL?

Emerica

Emerica

New Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
Should Deaf babies learn just only ASL? Why or why not? When do you incorporate English?
 
ASL could be incorporated since they can't complete full sentences yet. However, when it's time for them to begin full sentences... then SEE should be used.
 
Actually when a baby is first born, you can sign to your baby no matter if she/he couldn't understand...The earliest you do it the better your baby will grow up to learn it quite quicker than others....

I rather to speak and use ASL ,Not just ASL alone....
 
I agree with VamPyrox--it's a very logical approach. I don't like the idea of ASL alone because of language problems in English. It's a struggle. There must be balance. I am one of the few in support of the oral only approach if used logically and realistically because it worked for me. It's just ASL alone all these years is scary a little because of writing, reading, vocabularies, CC, etc. Everything in life is reading and writing, and I write all the time which writing well is important, especially for job positions I am looking for.
 
My two hearing son used both voice and sign language when they were toddlers. I realized, I should NOT use my voice when I signed to them. They become confuse with two languages speak and sign language.

ASL is priority.

Speak is second, they would pick it up very fast from T.V. and interface with other hearing children. I would not worry about their speech behide in their ages.

I advise you to using ASL to your hearing children. Their communication would be awesome with Deaf parents.

As for Deaf children, of course their ASL are more priority because it is their true language.
 
I am one of the few in support of the oral only approach if used logically and realistically because it worked for me.
Click to expand...
Actucally many if not most oral-only educated dhh kids have significent reading and spoken language concerns. It's not just ASLers who have trouble with reading and writing. The problem is that so many of us approach English as a second language. I know that the use of English here isn't exactly perfect, but if you look at other forums which have a significent percentage of people who use English as a second language, you'll see that the grammartical and syntaxial errors are virtually identical to those that are made by deafies! English is a VERY difficult language.....and I say that as someone who LOVES William Safire and is always reading linguistic texts.
Yes, some oral kids do really well and are high achieving, but quite a few of those kids are products of families who are high-powered and over-programmed, and are the types of families who buy their kids toys that increase their SAT scores. Other kids who excell at oral skills are the type of kids whose facility with English is impressive even for hearing kids! And there are always exceptions. Even many oral sucesses need Sign terps for school and other sitituions! Hey, I know of an ASLer high schooler who has no oral skills, but who got a PERFECT 800 on the Verbal section of his SATs!
I see no evidence that oral-only or auditory-verbal approaches really work for the majority of dhh kids. One of the prime pieces of evidence is that deaf kids have lower verbal IQs then do hearing kids. Far as I know, that stat is universal, and includes oral-only kids.
Besides, educating a dhh kid oral-only is like educating a kid who is gifted at English but defeicent in math, by soley focusing on their defiencies in math.
Yes, our acheivement levels as a group have not been overly impressive....but when you think about it it does make a lot of sense. If I recall correctly, dhh kids' (nonverbal) IQs are higher then hearing kids IQs. Many if not most genius (sp?)/ gifted kids are underacheiving and don't do well in public school. Their school problems are VIRTUALLY identicial to special ed kids!
As for the orginal question. I strongly....and I mean STRONGLY feel that dhh kids need both languages. The debate really is over which language should be a dhh kid's first language. I see no reason why dhh kids cannot learn both English and ASL simulatiously. Hearing kids can pick up two (or more) languages simultanously. Yes, I know it's difficult for hearing parents to pick up Sign....but I think that if they demand that their dhh kid needs to develop oral skills, then hearing parents need to meet their dhh kids halfway and learn Sign!
 
As for the orginal question. I strongly....and I mean STRONGLY feel that dhh kids need both languages. The debate really is over which language should be a dhh kid's first language. I see no reason why dhh kids cannot learn both English and ASL simulatiously. Hearing kids can pick up two (or more) languages simultanously. Yes, I know it's difficult for hearing parents to pick up Sign....but I think that if they demand that their dhh kid needs to develop oral skills, then hearing parents need to meet their dhh kids halfway and learn Sign!


AMEN!!

This is what I agree wholeheartedly to. Every kid should have both choices.
 
I feel that even if they have a little bit of language concern, it is okay. At least they are far more ahead than behind. Sign language interpreter has nothing to do with oralism. Oralism is learning to speak and language being up to par. It's not about hearing people 100 percent. There are many parents who are okay allowing it because of hearing concern, but if these children can write their own papers, read their own books, and speak using high vocabularies that's FAR better than having your interpreter read your tests or help you with homework. It's all about how you practice it everday and balance. ASL is not deaf children's priority. That's BS in my opinion. Where is this engraved? A stone in Malaysia? I am sorry, that's an opinion. If that was made a requirement, I wouldn't be happy as a parent or as a deaf person.

As an oral person, I feel that I was more independent and needed less assistance. There were some things in high school which I could have no control over if I could have my opinion heard and change it because I didn't think was necessary. In my experience, I have seen that this decision was the best for me. I picked sign languag naturally from watching my interpreter and watching orally along. Piece of cake.
 
Personally, (although I would have to do more research on the matter) if I had a deaf infant, I would teach both ASL and English simultaneously. I’ve seen several examples of children with one Spanish parent and one English parent who know both languages equally well. It's easier for young children to learn a language...or two. I think it's very important for a deaf child to know ASL, but I think it's equally important for them to know English since they must live in an English world. As was already stated, everything you do is in English. Reading, writing, working, all requires English.
So to sum up what I didn't mean to go on so long about, I'd say teach both.
 
Yeah, I guess you make sense. Especially if you do your research. I am a believer in oralism too even if it includes sign language SEE which can help some children more.

I guess if you become involved in teaching them daily to read, write, and therapy that could work. It doesn't have to be boring grueling work. Just one hour daily is no big deal. A plan is very good. I don't have any idea how to introduct ASL first then English. I wouldn't know how. It seems very tough, but it sounds like if parents become involved daily, then that will help out tremendously.

I also like Cued Speech, but not many people seem to use it. I know someone who taught her Spanish teacher Cued Speech which can take only one week to learn, so that she could "hear" Spanish pronunciation. Pretty neat, huh?
 
and language being up to par. It's not about hearing people 100 percent. There are many parents who are okay allowing it because of hearing concern, but if these children can write their own papers, read their own books, and speak using high vocabularies that's FAR better than having your interpreter read your tests or help you with homework. It's all about how you practice it everday and balance. ASL is not deaf children's priority. That's BS in my opinion. Where is this engraved? A stone in Malaysia? I am sorry, that's an opinion. If that was made a requirement, I wouldn't be happy as a parent or as a deaf person.
Click to expand...
Yes, but so many oral deaf kids have spoken language skills which are NOT up to par. It's not just ASLers who cannot articulate themselves through writing, or who have poor reading levels. It's great that you did so well through oralism, BUT not all oral deaf are that way. I think if you'd been born deaf or VERY early deafened(and I consider 2.5 years almost postlingal!) you would have had a lot more trouble with becoming fluent in speech. I mean you have an advantage that even someone who has bilateral mild loss from a VERY early age doesn't have. You got almost three years of "normal" hearing.
I just think that if a kid can become fluent in two spoken languages, then there's no reason whatsoever that a dhh kid can't become fluent in both speech and Sign!
As an oral person, I feel that I was more independent and needed less assistance.
Click to expand...
That's your opinon. I am glad I can hear and speak....but why is it that my strengh that is my visual processing was ignored in my education? Oral deaf people are NOT more indepenant..They may not have to depend on Sign 'terps but they still need to depend on other things like FM devices, direct audio input thingys....and there's even something called oral interpreters! They still need to depend on devices. I've seen so many people who grew up oral, that say that Sign helped them become MORE independant!
 
since it worked really well for me-I'd teach then see @ first until they have a grasp on the english language then incorporate asl into their language and let them decide wht they want to use.
 
I used sign languages to my boys since they were babies. I would not change everything because they are hearing.

I remember one who use strong sign language and change everything and learn to speak because her daughter is hearing. She speak with voice to her daughter all the time until she is grow. She didn't know that her mother can't hear. She speak what she likes instead of look up her mother. Her daughter is now 19 years old and has no interest to have a conversation with her mother. She has no patience when her mother ask her to speak again. She's very regret for change everything because her daughter CAN learn to accept what her mother is.

I born and raised in England and see many hearing children and adult use sign languages through their deaf parents. I do the same as them that's why I use sign all the time with my boys.

Germans are surprised after learn through CODA that they can do what they like instead of change anything because their children are hearing.

I has no problem with my sons because they accept what I am as I accept what they are, period.
 
We all know ASL DOES NOT take after English so, just how does one teach both English and ASL SIMULTANEOUSLY? Or did you mean something else?
 
Tousi said:
We all know ASL DOES NOT take after English so, just how does one teach both English and ASL SIMULTANEOUSLY? Or did you mean something else?
Click to expand...
Actually, it's better to teach SEE since it usually helps with syllables. Once they've learned how to use proper grammar and have better understanding of the English language, then... they can move on with ASL.

ASL is considered a second language, but I don't think it should. I think it should be considered as "broken" or "short-hand" language since it is a shorter version of the full language. Other foreign languages also follow their own proper grammar structures. Since they are following specific rules when speaking it, they learn how grammar works and learning a second language doesn't become a problem for them. However, when learning ASL... you aren't exactly learning proper grammar structure because too many words are left out and there is no real rule for the structure either. As a result, the grammar isn't proper and it becomes too confusing when put on paper. In our language, we would say, "I am going to my friend's house for a party." In another language, it would probably be "I am going for a party at the house of my friend." When learning from one language to another, it's a matter of knowing what structure because there are rules. In ASL, it would probably be "Me Go Friend House Party." There are no specific rule so we're screwed.
 
Well, that's all well and good but ASL and English, by definition, aren't even supposed to be compared to one another or to say one takes a back door to the other because they both are separate and distinct languages all onto themselves. Now as for leading children to literacy(which is English) by using ASL, we got ourselves a whole 'nother story here cos it hasn't been proven YET that that method works.
 
VamPyroX said:
ASL is considered a second language, but I don't think it should. I think it should be considered as "broken" or "short-hand" language since it is a shorter version of the full language.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but I must disagree. According to linguists, ASL meets the requirements of a full language. It is not a "broken" or "short-hand" language. It is full and complete within itself, as a visual-gestural language. A sign language (ASL, BSL, whatever national sign language) cannot be compared with an oral/aural language. Even spoken languages are not compared with other spoken languages. You wouldn't call German "broken" English, and you wouldn't call English "broken" French.

Other foreign languages also follow their own proper grammar structures. Since they are following specific rules when speaking it, they learn how grammar works and learning a second language doesn't become a problem for them. However, when learning ASL... you aren't exactly learning proper grammar structure because too many words are left out and there is no real rule for the structure either.
Click to expand...
ASL has its own grammatical structure and syntax. The problem is, ASL linguistics is not taught. Schools teach English grammar; most schools do not teach ASL grammar. It is true that you can't learn English grammar, sentence structure, or punctuation from ASL, because they are two separate languages. If you want to become fluent in Spanish, you don't use English grammar rules. Same thing.

Suppose an English user is learning a foreign language that doesn't use definite articles. You can't say, "oh, that is not a real language because there are too many words left out." No it is a real language, a different language.

If you think that ASL has no structure, just try to have an ASL conversation just using the signs exactly as they look in a dictionary, without any modifications, and in any order. Doesn't work, right? Because you are not following the rules of sign grammar.

There are no specific rule so we're screwed.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing "no" rules with "different" rules. Same as, you can't translate English using Greek rules.
 
Back
Top