Supporting deaf children in schools and teaching English as a second language to deaf

shel90 said:
Jillio doesnt care what method of communication adults use. She doesnt believe in using MCEs for language development in children.

That is no secret.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And it appears that FJ, and perhaps one or two other oralists are the only ones who don't understand that.:roll:
 
jillio said:
Exactly. And it appears that FJ, and perhaps one or two other oralists are the only ones who don't understand that.:roll:
Click to expand...

In this context, what do you mean by "oralist"? Does that cover anyone who uses any kind of hearing aid and/or voices words in conversation and/or employs speechreading either in addition to or excluding ASL or signed communication methods? Or are you referring narrowly to those who support a specific method of learning instruction (oral/auditory-oral vs. auditory-verbal vs. cued speech vs. ASL / SEE vs. TC) or broadly to all of the hearing people who speak as oralists?

I've been reading AD for years and am never certain who is being referred to each time you use the term "oralist", as it seems that most everyone on this forum signs (to some degree) or supports signing methodologies even if he or she grew up an oral learning environment and still uses voice/speechreading/hearing aid today as a primary means of communicating.
 
GrendelQ said:
In this context, what do you mean by "oralist"? Does that cover anyone who uses any kind of hearing aid and/or voices words in conversation and/or employs speechreading either in addition to or excluding ASL or signed communication methods? Or are you referring narrowly to those who support a specific method of learning instruction (oral/auditory-oral vs. auditory-verbal vs. cued speech vs. ASL / SEE vs. TC) or broadly to all of the hearing people who speak as oralists?

I've been reading AD for years and am never certain who is being referred to each time you use the term "oralist", as it seems that most everyone on this forum signs (to some degree) or supports signing methodologies even if he or she grew up an oral learning environment and still uses voice/speechreading/hearing aid today as a primary means of communicating.
Click to expand...

In this instance, and in the vast majority of instances, I am referring to one who places higher value and importance on spoken language than on kinesthetic language. One, if you will, who believes that one must speak in order to have opportunity for optimal success and functioning. "Oralist" is much nicer, according to many on this forum, than "audist." But, in reality, an audist is simply one who places spoken language higher in value than signed language. I use it to describe attitude and belief, manifested by action, than about use of a modality. There are those who are oral in every day life that do not see the value or spoken language as being greater than signed languages.
 
Wirelessly posted

Thanks Jillio!

Is there analogous term for those who value manual or kinesthetic language over spoken language? And is there a similar term for those who assign equal value to both modalities, to multiple languages or means of communicating? "linguaphile" doesn't seem to get at the same sense of value.
 
GrendelQ said:
Wirelessly posted

Thanks Jillio!

Is there analogous term for those who value manual or kinesthetic language over spoken language? And is there a similar term for those who assign equal value to both modalities, to multiple languages or means of communicating? "linguaphile" doesn't seem to get at the same sense of value.
Click to expand...

I don't know about a generally accepted terminology, but Bi-Bi would apply to those that assign equal value to both. Equal value to both languages, and equal value to the cultures that are created by those languages. One used to facilitate the other.

As far as one who values kinesthetic language over oral...I'll have to think about that. Most would call them a "Deaf militant.":giggle:
 
Grendel, Agreed with jillo 100%!!!! She's not using oralist to describe anyone with oral skills/oral abilty. She is NOT a "Sign chaunavist" ......Maybe that might be a good way to describe the type of mentality jillo is trying to describe.....an Oral chaunavist.
Many of us here have decent oral skills, and we appreciate them. We however believe that ASL is quite important too. We think a full toolbox is important, since while quite a few kids can master oral abilty, oral abilty really doesn't capitalize on a dhh kid's nautral visual processing strengh. Also, the question is whether or not kids can develop sophisticated spoken language, that they can use in any and every sitution. Some kids can and do (and some kids even take foriegn languages!) But, to think that oral only will be sufficent for acheivement is like thinking that if a person is a good driver with optimal driving conditons, they will be a good driver in a raging blizzard. Heck even many hoh kids (who tend to be very oral and not have a lot of exposure to Deaf culture) have difficulty with language and don't perform on par in school.
Make sense now?
 
deafdyke said:
Grendel, Agreed with jillo 100%!!!! She's not using oralist to describe anyone with oral skills/oral abilty. She is NOT a "Sign chaunavist" ......Maybe that might be a good way to describe the type of mentality jillo is trying to describe.....an Oral chaunavist.
Many of us here have decent oral skills, and we appreciate them. We however believe that ASL is quite important too. We think a full toolbox is important, since while quite a few kids can master oral abilty, oral abilty really doesn't capitalize on a dhh kid's nautral visual processing strengh. Also, the question is whether or not kids can develop sophisticated spoken language, that they can use in any and every sitution. Some kids can and do (and some kids even take foriegn languages!) But, to think that oral only will be sufficent for acheivement is like thinking that if a person is a good driver with optimal driving conditons, they will be a good driver in a raging blizzard. Heck even many hoh kids (who tend to be very oral and not have a lot of exposure to Deaf culture) have difficulty with language and don't perform on par in school.
Make sense now?
Click to expand...

But I don't think there is a soul on this board that doesn't think that ASL is great for deaf kids. Who are these oralists that don't value ASL?

Also, I disagree with the definition of bi-bi. Bi-bi teaches ASL as the first and prinary language, and teaches written English as a second language. (And audition and spoken language is not valued as an important piece. It is seen as "extra")
 
faire_jour said:
But I don't think there is a soul on this board that doesn't think that ASL is great for deaf kids. Who are these oralists that don't value ASL?

Also, I disagree with the definition of bi-bi. Bi-bi teaches ASL as the first and prinary language, and teaches written English as a second language. (And audition and spoken language is not valued as an important piece. It is seen as "extra")
Click to expand...

BiBi does treat both ASL and English as equals.
 
Back
Top