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

[Berry]

Simple, nothing and everything.
To start with you oppressed 99% of the world's population which can not be true. That percent, is how the world communicates...oralism.

They do NOT communicate with or using ORALISM. They communicate ORALLY. There is a huge difference. It requires both the ability to speak and the ability to hear to accomplish it.

Oralism is the requirement that people who cannot hear should adjust without using alternative methods that are not used by oral people -- Such as signing.

Simple, nothing and everything.

Perhaps you wish your post to apply only to the born deaf. Again you would be wrong since myself and many others I personally know are oral bad we are certainly not oppressed.
The way I see it is, the only folks oppressed are those who did not learn to read/write, be they hearing or deaf. Some have a serious problem learning, others choice not to pay attention in school and the last group is those who never got the chance to learn.
Regardless of the reason, these folks will always suffer until they are able to read/write.

Let me see. I am looking over the people who replied to, and disagreed with, you... Shel, DeafCaroline, and Grendel...

If they are having a problem reading and writing properly I am having a hard time finding it.

Will you please point it out to me?

 

[StSapphire]

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

Yeah, and you can't do advanced calculus with classical literature, so clearly the teaching of literature hinders the development of calculus skills. You're just wrong.

Case to point. I often get together with a bunch of deaf guys to watch sports. The C.C. is on the entire game but several of the guys are always asking "what was that call" because the ref/umpire uses general hand signs for calls. So I explain to the guys what the call is BUT if they could read the C.C. they would not need to ask.

...or it means that there's poor captioning (as is extremely often the case) or the calls weren't captioned.

Here in Houston we have an ABC broadcast of the news that uses ASL in a PIP and many deaf watch it because they can not read C.C. This short broadcast is usually all the news that these deaf get from television and, of course, the hearing get day long information. Don't get me started on how terrible ADA is went it comes to the news, there is a whole section elsewhere on AD about that.

Uh... it's not because they can't read CC, it's because it's far more likely to be accurate if someone is interpreting than if they have someone trying to type that fast. They're likely to have a more accurate translation/interpretation of the broadcast with a professional interpreter than they are with CC.

Seriously have you ever tried to read the CC on TV? It's almost always completely horrid quality. The problems people have with CC has nothing to do with their ability to read and write, and much more to do with the fact that the CC on TV is very often extremely poor quality.

 

[Hohtopics]

In another word, those with a little better hearing may not know what is it like to originally not have better speech only to have it improved after it was worked on, at least probably not to the extent one with a profound would.

 

[drphil]

Berry: the statement I asked can't be true in contradiction-can it? How can it be? The discussion of this specific topic will be "parallel" with no resolution-reality counts?
This has duly noted here before: "cultural vs oral" deaf -ongoing intermural exercise.

Implanted A B Harmony Activated Aug/07

 

[Bottesini]

Yeah, and you can't do advanced calculus with classical literature, so clearly the teaching of literature hinders the development of calculus skills. You're just wrong.



...or it means that there's poor captioning (as is extremely often the case) or the calls weren't captioned.



Uh... it's not because they can't read CC, it's because it's far more likely to be accurate if someone is interpreting than if they have someone trying to type that fast. They're likely to have a more accurate translation/interpretation of the broadcast with a professional interpreter than they are with CC.

Seriously have you ever tried to read the CC on TV? It's almost always completely horrid quality. The problems people have with CC has nothing to do with their ability to read and write, and much more to do with the fact that the CC on TV is very often extremely poor quality.

You are not right about this.

 

[kokonut]

...or it means that there's poor captioning (as is extremely often the case) or the calls weren't captioned.

Uh... it's not because they can't read CC, it's because it's far more likely to be accurate if someone is interpreting than if they have someone trying to type that fast. They're likely to have a more accurate translation/interpretation of the broadcast with a professional interpreter than they are with CC.

Seriously have you ever tried to read the CC on TV? It's almost always completely horrid quality. The problems people have with CC has nothing to do with their ability to read and write, and much more to do with the fact that the CC on TV is very often extremely poor quality.

I'd have to disagree with you on that. The quality of CC is very good. Both live and recorded for the most part. I don't know what shows you watch but the CC quality has been quite good save a few quirky and unreadable moments.

 

[Bottesini]

Uh... it's not because they can't read CC, it's because it's far more likely to be accurate if someone is interpreting than if they have someone trying to type that fast. They're likely to have a more accurate translation/interpretation of the broadcast with a professional interpreter than they are with CC.

Seriously have you ever tried to read the CC on TV? It's almost always completely horrid quality. The problems people have with CC has nothing to do with their ability to read and write, and much more to do with the fact that the CC on TV is very often extremely poor quality.

You see a very small sampling of deaf people here. What rolling7 describes with his sports buddies is not uncommon, and that is why there is demand for an onscreen interpreter.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Where in the US are Deaf people being raised not to know how to read and write? Isn't it mandatory for everyone to go to school? How does one graduate school without knowing how to read and write? ASL has nothing to do with this, it's the failure of the education system, not ASL.

 

[StSapphire]

You are not right about this.

Okay, I stand corrected.

I'd have to disagree with you on that. The quality of CC is very good. Both live and recorded for the most part. I don't know what shows you watch but the CC quality has been quite good save a few quirky and unreadable moments.

The few times I've seen any form of live TV with CC (news, sports shows) the CC was very often garbled or unreadable. Admittedly, I've not seen much, because most shows I watch I download or watch on Hulu, rather than live TV, so it's usually the CC that's turned on when at a restaurant with a TV playing. Could be a sampling bias, I simply thought the CC quality was poor.

You see a very small sampling of deaf people here. What rolling7 describes with his sports buddies is not uncommon, and that is why there is demand for an onscreen interpreter.

That's unfortunate, then. I didn't realize that was an issue.

 

[shel90]

Where in the US are Deaf people being raised not to know how to read and write? Isn't it mandatory for everyone to go to school? How does one graduate school without knowing how to read and write? ASL has nothing to do with this, it's the failure of the education system, not ASL.

Pardon my language, but no shit!

 

[shel90]

Okay, I stand corrected.



The few times I've seen any form of live TV with CC (news, sports shows) the CC was very often garbled or unreadable. Admittedly, I've not seen much, because most shows I watch I download or watch on Hulu, rather than live TV, so it's usually the CC that's turned on when at a restaurant with a TV playing. Could be a sampling bias, I simply thought the CC quality was poor.



That's unfortunate, then. I didn't realize that was an issue.

I agree with you about the captioning...my hearing husband and my brother's hearing girlfriend have commented that the captioning is off in many cases and even omit a lot of the dialogue being said on TV.

 

[Beach girl]

You see a very small sampling of deaf people here. What rolling7 describes with his sports buddies is not uncommon, and that is why there is demand for an onscreen interpreter.

Honestly I'm a little confused by this. The refs are already using sign language. Granted if you can't read the CCs fast enough (and usually those are fine, given the proper connection to make them work - St. Sapphire, there are threads here that talk about the problems with HDMI cables, etc., which is what you might have seen on the public TVs at bars, etc.) you won't get all the commentary about a given call, but since the calls themselves are already in sign language, how could a good sports fan not understand them?

I don't have to read CCs to know the call for "out" or "safe" or "tossed out of the game" and so forth in baseball, and I think I'm reasonably safe in knowing most of the signs in football.

 

[StSapphire]

Honestly I'm a little confused by this. The refs are already using sign language. Granted if you can't read the CCs fast enough (and usually those are fine, given the proper connection to make them work - St. Sapphire, there are threads here that talk about the problems with HDMI cables, etc., which is what you might have seen on the public TVs at bars, etc.) you won't get all the commentary about a given call, but since the calls themselves are already in sign language, how could a good sports fan not understand them?

Could be, dunno. Like I said, most shows I watch I download. For most shows where it's not the current season, they tend to be converted from DVDs, with the subs included in the video container. I don't actually have a TV itself, I have a computer hooked up to a TV.

I just remember that when I'm at a restaurant/bar and they've got a TV on with CC, it almost always looks terrible, so I just sorta assumed that was the quality of the broadcasted CC.

 

[GrendelQ]

Where in the US are Deaf people being raised not to know how to read and write? Isn't it mandatory for everyone to go to school? How does one graduate school without knowing how to read and write? ASL has nothing to do with this, it's the failure of the education system, not ASL.

Accurate figures are rough and difficult to obtain -- and interpretations can be wildly misused -- and that's acknowledged by most researchers themselves. But Gallaudet and NTID both put forth some really truly damning comparisons of deaf literacy vs. hearing in 1996. Gallaudet's dated results show that in testing literacy of 17-18 year old students -- based on median scores -- a typical deaf kid's scores correspond to that of a typical hearing 4th grader in the Reading Comprehension subtest. Again, though, these are median results, so of course 50% of deaf individuals outperform that 4th grade level and 50% underperform 4th grade levels.

NTID's Educating Deaf Children site has some more recent discussion of literacy and the Journal of Deaf Studies and Education shows that Deaf and Hearing can have the same learning trajectory for the first 2 years but then experience a significant divergence in the literacy outcomes in years following. There's also a fair bit of promising work being done in determining whether or not the use of SEE might bridge the gap in learning to read for ASL students.

 

[Beach girl]

Usually the quality itself is fine. If it's not, it's nearly always a connection issue involving HDMI cables, most of which will not transmit CCs correctly.

I agree that sometimes things are dropped out, and that is true in fast-moving sports, where the typist can't quite keep up. But as far as the calls themselves, if I'm watching the game - not just watching it half-way while reading or something, which I do sometimes - it's rare that there's a problem figuring out the ref's call.

 

[AlleyCat]

A lot of the time, live captioning is a little delayed or an occasional word misspelled (but then usually corrected immediately). But for pre-programmed shows, I think they're entirely correct, or just about.

 

[kokonut]

Okay, I stand corrected.

The few times I've seen any form of live TV with CC (news, sports shows) the CC was very often garbled or unreadable. Admittedly, I've not seen much, because most shows I watch I download or watch on Hulu, rather than live TV, so it's usually the CC that's turned on when at a restaurant with a TV playing. Could be a sampling bias, I simply thought the CC quality was poor.

That's unfortunate, then. I didn't realize that was an issue.

You don't have a TV at home with captioning capability on it?

 

[rolling7]

Honestly I'm a little confused by this. The refs are already using sign language. Granted if you can't read the CCs fast enough (and usually those are fine, given the proper connection to make them work - St. Sapphire, there are threads here that talk about the problems with HDMI cables, etc., which is what you might have seen on the public TVs at bars, etc.) you won't get all the commentary about a given call, but since the calls themselves are already in sign language, how could a good sports fan not understand them?

I don't have to read CCs to know the call for "out" or "safe" or "tossed out of the game" and so forth in baseball, and I think I'm reasonably safe in knowing most of the signs in football.

I'll help you out just as I've done for my buddies.
Say in the NFL the ref signals "encroachment", my buddies have no idea what that signal is nor who it was called on nor the results of the call. They are totally confused. But, and listen up StSapphire, they could use the C.C. and get the same information from C.C. For the NFL games they usually have the best and most complete C.C.
As far as "good sport fans" automatically knowing the call, they usually do but any "good sport fan" will certainly admit that at times there need to be clarification. And that clarification come over-the-air and on C.C.
Now moving on to the reason my buddies need help, and pay attention her DC everyone has heard of hearing students graduating from H.S.and even some attending college all the while unable to read and/or write. A student, hearing our deaf, can be giving all the necessary lessons and totally be unable to read/write. I should say it happens with math., etc. also.
Going back, and to re-hash but to clarify, being oral is being able to speak spoken words, but does not apply necessarily by definition to a sentence. That is what oralism is. The ability to use individual words to form a commendable, understandable sentence.
An example of this would be saying out load "Dog" as opposed to saying "There is a strange dog on your patio".

 

[DeafCaroline]

Accurate figures are rough and difficult to obtain -- and interpretations can be wildly misused -- and that's acknowledged by most researchers themselves. But Gallaudet and NTID both put forth some really truly damning comparisons of deaf literacy vs. hearing in 1996. Gallaudet's dated results show that in testing literacy of 17-18 year old students -- based on median scores -- a typical deaf kid's scores correspond to that of a typical hearing 4th grader in the Reading Comprehension subtest. Again, though, these are median results, so of course 50% of deaf individuals outperform that 4th grade level and 50% underperform 4th grade levels.

NTID's Educating Deaf Children site has some more recent discussion of literacy and the Journal of Deaf Studies and Education shows that Deaf and Hearing can have the same learning trajectory for the first 2 years but then experience a significant divergence in the literacy outcomes in years following. There's also a fair bit of promising work being done in determining whether or not the use of SEE might bridge the gap in learning to read for ASL students.

I am wondering if the fact the ASL students were performing more poorly has to do with the education they were receiving. For example, I would learn that at Deaf schools, there would be some hearing teachers who don't sign very well which would making teaching and learning more difficult, no?

When I was a camp counselor at a daycamp for the deaf, I did notice that 8 to 12 year olds were not up to par with their reading and writing and I never thought it was because of ASL, but because their school was so crappy and the administration of the school had very low expectations of deaf students' capability to learn as well as their hearing peers.

 

[DeafCaroline]

I just finished my weekly lesson with my ASL teacher and I asked her if there was such a school for the deaf in which there are only deaf teachers teaching deaf students and she said yes, there is a French deaf school in which all the teachers are deaf and they would teach in FSQ. I asked how the students were doing academically and she said they were doing very well and many had won scholarships to very good universities based on their grades.