The "Mainstreaming" Experience: "Isolated cases"?

GrendelQ said:
But no big deal. :)
Click to expand...

Out of curiousity, why no big deal?

I can see her point in that if she had to struggle, hearing-wise, with English it wouldn't be a natural language for her.
 
GrendelQ said:
Actually, you did.



But no big deal. :)
Click to expand...

No I didn't. Let me phrase my same response around another way: What you stated was that the language that a child is most exposed to in their formative years is their natural language. I disagree because if that were true, then English would be my natural language as I was raised oral with no access to sign language. I am disagreeing with you. Any form of visual communication is my natural 'language', so now that I am finally learning proper sign language as an adult it is coming naturally to me.
 
BecLak said:
You were saying that whatever language you are most exposed to especially in your formative years is your natural language, I am say plain as day it is not necessarily. A spoken language such as English, most likely would that is if you are hearing, but for deaf certainly not. As someone who is severely-deaf, English or any other spoken language is not my natural language nor will it ever be. Though you can see I have mastered English but that is not the point here. Sign or visual language is the natural language for those who are Deaf. And from my own experience, it doesn't matter what degree of hearing loss one may have, that person still has to rely on some type of visual communication.
Click to expand...

No, you are not understanding me. I have not said that English is your natural language. I said very much the opposite, that if you didn't have access to spoken English, you wouldn't have developed it naturally.

I'm using the term 'natural language' in the way that was established here on this forum some time ago (because it's not a real linguistic term used in this context): as language that a child acquires quickly and efficiently through unconscious learning, usually by simply being immersed in the local everyday language in use by peers and family, in the case of a deaf child, usually through intervention (HAs, CIs, or ASL immersion outside the home). This happens most rapidly during the formative years -- very few people are isolated from language until later and there's a time-limited sensitivity to naturally acquiring and developing proficiency in using language as a native. This is different from a language you teach yourself or are taught later in life, in which you can achieve fluency, but which requires significant and conscious effort.

The point is, ASL feels right to you, but in all these years, you haven't just picked up ASL naturally in your environment, without making an effort to learn it, have you? Because you aren't immersed among native users of ASL in your everyday life, you have to work at it. If you are interested, Mayberry has done some interesting studies of those who learned ASL as teens rather than as toddlers, finding their advancement to be far slower, even in deaf environments (at deaf schools) requiring formal classes and intense practice to build their vocabulary and develop their grasp of the language beyond the level of a 2-3YO deaf child advancing naturally. I think I shared some of those studies with you a few months ago.
 
BecLak said:
No I didn't. Let me phrase my same response around another way: What you stated was that the language that a child is most exposed to in their formative years is their natural language. I disagree because if that were true, then English would be my natural language as I was raised oral with no access to sign language. I am disagreeing with you. Any form of visual communication is my natural 'language', so now that I am finally learning proper sign language as an adult it is coming naturally to me.
Click to expand...

No. I haven't said this. If you read closely, you'll see that it is a bit more complex than that.
 
I tried to find a satisfactory definition for "natural language" but the only thing I found was related to computers. In that field, natural language is defined as human language.

It seems that for a language to be "natural" it would have to be instinctive and not require any modeling, instruction or training. People would be born with a language, and as soon as their fine motor skills allowed, they would be using it.

Language isn't acquired or used in a vacuum; it's a mode of communication used amongst people groups. Even if someone talks or signs to himself, or writes down private thoughts in a diary, the source language is usually one that a group, not an individual, uses. The exception would be a code that one creates for one's own private use but that's not language in the sense of communicating with others.

Just my ramblings. :)

Still, I'm curious as to how others define "natural" language. I've probably overlooked something.
 
Reba said:
I tried to find a satisfactory definition for "natural language" but the only thing I found was related to computers. In that field, natural language is defined as human language.

It seems that for a language to be "natural" it would have to be instinctive and not require any modeling, instruction or training. People would be born with a language, and as soon as their fine motor skills allowed, they would be using it.

Language isn't acquired or used in a vacuum; it's a mode of communication used amongst people groups. Even if someone talks or signs to himself, or writes down private thoughts in a diary, the source language is usually one that a group, not an individual, uses. The exception would be a code that one creates for one's own private use but that's not language in the sense of communicating with others.

Just my ramblings. :)

Still, I'm curious as to how others define "natural" language. I've probably overlooked something.
Click to expand...

It is acquired.
 
AlleyCat said:
Who lives in a vacuum?
Click to expand...

Sorry, that wasn't meant to sound belligerent or anything.

I wonder why we're debating this? I mean, I understand how the topic got started, but in the end, does it matter what language is your natural language? As long as you can communicate, and effectively, and without barriers. And that language is different for everyone.
 
AlleyCat said:
Who lives in a vacuum?
Click to expand...

You were contradicting Reba, but looks like you missed the rest of her sentence: She said that language is not acquired in a vacuum. You have to be exposed, immersed in it to acquire it naturally.
 
AlleyCat said:
Sorry, that wasn't meant to sound belligerent or anything.

I wonder why we're debating this? I mean, I understand how the topic got started, but in the end, does it matter what language is your natural language? As long as you can communicate, and effectively, and without barriers. And that language is different for everyone.
Click to expand...

Agree!
 
Natural language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know, I know...wikipedia?! But I like the definition. "...a natural language (or ordinary language) is any language which arises in an unpremeditated fashion as the result of the innate facility for language possessed by the human intellect. A natural language is typically used for communication, and may be spoken, signed, or written."

If you scroll down further, you will see where it says that natural language is what you use to communicate in. It is NOT standard language, such as using formal syntax of Standard English. Does anyone agree with our friend Wiki? lol
 
I think that we are discussing natural language based on the broad understanding that how the child will acquire language naturally should be a factor to be considered when discussing placement. I guess. :/

I find it really interesting, though. It is kind of confusing, though. :dizzy:
 
deafbajagal said:
Natural language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know, I know...wikipedia?! But I like the definition. "...a natural language (or ordinary language) is any language which arises in an unpremeditated fashion as the result of the innate facility for language possessed by the human intellect. A natural language is typically used for communication, and may be spoken, signed, or written."

If you scroll down further, you will see where it says that natural language is what you use to communicate in. It is NOT standard language, such as using formal syntax of Standard English. Does anyone agree with our friend Wiki? lol
Click to expand...
Then according to what you have posted, written English is our natural language as a group, because that is how we are communicating.

I am not disagreeing, it is my natural language. :)
 
Me too. Natural language development -- in both ASL and English -- is one of the key reasons why we've placed our daughter where we have. If we weren't looking for that, if we only wanted English, we might have chosen a much closer school for the deaf, a highly regarded self-contained deaf program in a fantastic school district not far from my work, or our local school district,which is very thoughtful about addressing her needs.
 
deafbajagal said:
Natural language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know, I know...wikipedia?! But I like the definition. "...a natural language (or ordinary language) is any language which arises in an unpremeditated fashion as the result of the innate facility for language possessed by the human intellect. A natural language is typically used for communication, and may be spoken, signed, or written."

If you scroll down further, you will see where it says that natural language is what you use to communicate in. It is NOT standard language, such as using formal syntax of Standard English. Does anyone agree with our friend Wiki? lol
Click to expand...

I think this definition applies to the natural development of a language over time, such as English vs artificially built programming languages, rather than a person's language dev.
 
GrendelQ said:
I think this definition applies to the natural development of a language over time, such as English vs artificially built programming languages, rather than a person's language dev.
Click to expand...

Well, bummer.
 
Going back to my question about who lives in a vacuum ...

I would be interested in hearing anyone's perspective on who/how you live in a vacuum? Someone that's so sheltered - e.g. not allowed any interaction with anyone else at any time (and thus the lack of opportunity to acquire/learn language) ? How does someone get so sheltered they do not interact? I cannot think of how this could be.

Discussion?
 
Back
Top