Is it worth to be "oral"?

[ambrosia]

"perfect" enough for hearing people to understand. don't be so literal.

I don't think that's what deafdyke is talking about, she really does mean that literally. Perfect speech, speaking like a hearing person, no deaf accent.

She must have never heard Fran Drescher talk

 

[Jiro]

I don't think that's what deafdyke is talking about, she really does mean that literally. Perfect speech, speaking like a hearing person, no deaf accent.

She must have never heard Fran Drescher talk

oh please.... for the love of god... please don't remind me of Fran Drescher again

 

[kokonut]

Think outside of the box.

Always. One must consider also the vast array of diversity, abilities and experiences of people with their hearing loss and their ultimate capability in life. I am a part of the open society who sees things as possibilities.

 

[kokonut]

I don't think that's what deafdyke is talking about, she really does mean that literally. Perfect speech, speaking like a hearing person, no deaf accent.

She must have never heard Fran Drescher talk

That's what I have been pointing out. The Nanny? oh yeah, good example of that actor. Again, no such thing as "perfect speech." Among the many deaf and hh people they do talk with all of the nuances, voice inflection, style, quirks, regional accent and so on like anybody else would. Anybody ever watch the show Yee Haw?

 

[BecLak]

"perfect" enough for hearing people to understand. don't be so literal.

I totally agree Jiro, I was just about to post pretty much the same thing. IMO, Kokonut is making argument for argument sake in reference to the term 'perfect speech'. If there is no such thing then why is there diction training for people who don't need speech therapy - such as people in Public media, actors and news presentators? We have them in Australia and other Commonwealth countries, at least.

 

[kokonut]

I totally agree Jiro, I was just about to post pretty much the same thing. IMO, Kokonut is making argument for argument sake in reference to the term 'perfect speech'. If there is no such thing then why is there diction training for people who don't need speech therapy - such as people in Public media, actors and news presentators? We have them in Australia and other Commonwealth countries, at least.

"Perfect speech" has always been said and framed with the context of not having that deaf voice (monotone voice, lack of inflection and sometimes weak diction) or in other words "speak like a hearing person." But that does not mean a deaf person's speech is an unintelligible speech. This discussion and past discussions have been constantly in the context of speaking like "hearing person" or "perfect speech" for years Iin AD! This wasnt about speech intelligibility but having that "perfect speech" much like that of a hearing person. Which was why I, Ambrosia and others kept saying it is nonsense to say "perfect speech." Instead this all about speech intelligibility which means people can understand a person speaking regardless of any impediments or accents/dialects.

As for actors, news presenters, etc its all about having that smooth delivery style without all of the "uhs" and "ums", the shaky talking, the pauses and lack of voice projection with strong enunciation of words. I take it you have never heard of toastmasters?

"PErfect speech"? Please! *smh*

 

[Jiro]

ever heard of backpedaling? and quibbling?

 

[Angel1989]

Is "perfect speech" one without accent, deaf or otherwise?

 

[deafdyke]

No such thing as "perfect speech." And now, "hearing person good"?? Why are you so hung up on the so-called the "perfection of speech" when speech intelligibility is the heart of the matter?

I'm not....BUT it's people like you who assume that speech should be a be all and end all,and that the majority of dhh kids can acheive "like hearing" speech....Look at the language used on oral deaf sites............the unspoken implication is that those programs turn out kids with "like hearing" speech.
Heck AVT sites obess over how their kids do not have "deaf accents"
On this VERY site I got crapped on by a hearing parent who got all huffy b/c I said that her anxiety about her son's articulation was unwarrented b/c even the SCHOOL said he was doing well enough to be signed off!
Your problem dear Kokonut, is that you're assuming that oral training/oral education means on par with hearing children. You don't understand that just b/c a dhh kid can speak,it does not mean they will be on par with a hearing child,spoken language-wise.You're basicly saying you're fine with dhh children being 10 years old and having the recepitive and expressive spoken langauge skills of a five year old.

 

[kokonut]

I'm not....BUT it's people like you who assume that speech should be a be all and end all,and that the majority of dhh kids can acheive "like hearing" speech....Look at the language used on oral deaf sites............the unspoken implication is that those programs turn out kids with "like hearing" speech.
Heck AVT sites obess over how their kids do not have "deaf accents"
On this VERY site I got crapped on by a hearing parent who got all huffy b/c I said that her anxiety about her son's articulation was unwarrented b/c even the SCHOOL said he was doing well enough to be signed off!
Your problem dear Kokonut, is that you're assuming that oral training/oral education means on par with hearing children. You don't understand that just b/c a dhh kid can speak,it does not mean they will be on par with a hearing child,spoken language-wise.You're basicly saying you're fine with dhh children being 10 years old and having the recepitive and expressive spoken langauge skills of a five year old.

Wrong assumption. There's potential in the language and communication department for each child depending on the circumstances, timing, contribution of parents, upbringing, and if technology will be used to make it work whether it's speech (oral/aural), signing (ASL, PSE, or SEE), or cued speech to make it happen. You've misconstrued and misunderstood my argument. What my contention in this thread has been the fact that there are deaf/hh people who do speak just like any other hearing people whether one has a regional accent/dialect or not. Nothing about speech as the "be all and end all." That was your doing, not mine. I've also made no mention about oral/aural training will mean kids will speak the same as hearing kids, either. That was your doing, not mine. I've repeatedly explained that there are factors involved to ensure speech intelligibility whether with a deaf voice or not.

You just made it clear to everybody when you said "perfect speech" is to mean "like hearing" speech...speech with no "deaf accents" and not simply about speech intelligibility whether one has a deaf voice or not. Your focus is literally about achieving perfect speech of which I contended there is no such thing as having "perfect speech." There are plenty of deaf/hh people that talk with a "deaf accent" but so what? Yet, just as well, there are plenty more that talk just like any other hearing people but so what? As long as people have intelligible speech then that all it matters for other people to understand what's being said. But that does not mean other forms of communication methods are excluded or considered as the primary language and preferred communication method.

 

[BecLak]

"Perfect speech" has always been said and framed with the context of not having that deaf voice (monotone voice, lack of inflection and sometimes weak diction) or in other words "speak like a hearing person." But that does not mean a deaf person's speech is an unintelligible speech. This discussion and past discussions have been constantly in the context of speaking like "hearing person" or "perfect speech" for years Iin AD! This wasnt about speech intelligibility but having that "perfect speech" much like that of a hearing person. Which was why I, Ambrosia and others kept saying it is nonsense to say "perfect speech." Instead this all about speech intelligibility which means people can understand a person speaking regardless of any impediments or accents/dialects.

As for actors, news presenters, etc its all about having that smooth delivery style without all of the "uhs" and "ums", the shaky talking, the pauses and lack of voice projection with strong enunciation of words. I take it you have never heard of toastmasters?

"PErfect speech"? Please! *smh*

I will not be patronized by the likes of you Kokonut. If there is no perfect speech or let's say even the effort to maintain comprehendable speech which is the minimal goal, then what's the use of speech therapy if there is no means to an end? So in the end, you are totally defeating your own argument with your own words. It all amounts to.....being oral is NOT worth it after all.

 

[kokonut]

I will not be patronized by the likes of you Kokonut. If there is no perfect speech or let's say even the effort to maintain comprehendable speech which is the minimal goal, then what's the use of speech therapy if there is no means to an end? So in the end, you are totally defeating your own argument with your own words. It all amounts to.....being oral is NOT worth it after all.

I have stated repeatedly in the context of intelligible speech. Speech therapy is the pathway to attain at a minimum intelligible speech, even with some some poor diction, and beyond. As long as people can understand the spoken words speech intelligibility is maintained. Speech intelligibility isnt just for deaf people but even among hearing people. There are hearing people whose accent is so thick it blurs over the spoken English language making it nearly impossible to follow even by hearing people. The goal of speech therapy is to attain speech intelligibility.....not perfect speech because there is no such thing. Speech intelligibilty means comprehensable speech! How far one can go with his or her speech when it comes to improving it depends on a few things. I have been quite clear on this.

Whether or not "being oral" is worth it is relative and subjective. Clearly there are deaf and hh people who have obviously benefitted from developing their oral skills, and to them they'd say that it was worth it.

 

[tuatara]

I have extremely sensitive hearing, and I'm an extremely sensitive person. Most hearing people relate to me the way most deaf people relate to hearing people. So I've probably got a different perspective on the idea of perfect speech.

It was brought up that people go through speech training for jobs like reading the news on TV - they work on their diction and tone and other aspects of their speech. I happen to find most of those people's speaking styles unbearably abrasive. It's overly polished, I feel like they're shouting at me, and there's something really ugly about their voices: it's as though all the humanity has been sucked out of them.

So I think that the training for those jobs is directed at a specific goal, but that goal does not equate to any sort of perfection, because there are so many different contexts for the use of speech, so many different people with different needs and preferences. It's just a very subjective area, and commercial standards are only one of many possible perspectives on what's desirable.

I should add that I generally find public television announcers' speech to be much easier to listen to than those on network tv, and even better than that is a quiet, respectfully toned conversation, one on one, in real life. (Best of all for me and my sensitivities is often a voice-off conversation, but this is a thread about oral stuff, so, getting back on track...)

And speech is so intertwined with voice, which is a more natural personal thing than the stuff you can more easily train, like diction. And it's not hearing vs deaf. I know hearing people with voices that are so awful that if they start talking it becomes physically urgent for me to leave the room. And others I could happily listen to all day. Same with deaf people, at all different levels of clarity. I can think of one deaf person with a voice so beautiful I just want to shut my eyes and listen. He doesn't voice much, and when he does it's just a word here and there, that I wouldn't be able to understand if he weren't signing. Then I know deaf/hh people with all different levels of clarity in their speech and different degrees of deaf voice, and they vary wildly too, independently of how close they are to sounding like a hearing person.

There are just so many factors, and so many different people out there, different in so many ways. You can talk about clarity (which is also somewhat subjective, because people's listening skills massively vary too. Some can't understand anything that's remotely different from what they're used to, and others are much better at stretching themselves and catching what's being said) and you can talk about perfection, but I doubt everyone will ever agree on just what that word means.

I once heard a CODA say that deaf voice is one of the most beautiful things in the world to her. She sometimes uses it when socializing with her CODA friends. She doesn't do that as ridicule. It's like the aural equivalent of a hug from her mother.

 

[kokonut]

I have extremely sensitive hearing, and I'm an extremely sensitive person. Most hearing people relate to me the way most deaf people relate to hearing people. So I've probably got a different perspective on the idea of perfect speech.

It was brought up that people go through speech training for jobs like reading the news on TV - they work on their diction and tone and other aspects of their speech. I happen to find most of those people's speaking styles unbearably abrasive. It's overly polished, I feel like they're shouting at me, and there's something really ugly about their voices: it's as though all the humanity has been sucked out of them.

So I think that the training for those jobs is directed at a specific goal, but that goal does not equate to any sort of perfection, because there are so many different contexts for the use of speech, so many different people with different needs and preferences. It's just a very subjective area, and commercial standards are only one of many possible perspectives on what's desirable.

I should add that I generally find public television announcers' speech to be much easier to listen to than those on network tv, and even better than that is a quiet, respectfully toned conversation, one on one, in real life. (Best of all for me and my sensitivities is often a voice-off conversation, but this is a thread about oral stuff, so, getting back on track...)

And speech is so intertwined with voice, which is a more natural personal thing than the stuff you can more easily train, like diction. And it's not hearing vs deaf. I know hearing people with voices that are so awful that if they start talking it becomes physically urgent for me to leave the room. And others I could happily listen to all day. Same with deaf people, at all different levels of clarity. I can think of one deaf person with a voice so beautiful I just want to shut my eyes and listen. He doesn't voice much, and when he does it's just a word here and there, that I wouldn't be able to understand if he weren't signing. Then I know deaf/hh people with all different levels of clarity in their speech and different degrees of deaf voice, and they vary wildly too, independently of how close they are to sounding like a hearing person.

There are just so many factors, and so many different people out there, different in so many ways. You can talk about clarity (which is also somewhat subjective, because people's listening skills massively vary too. Some can't understand anything that's remotely different from what they're used to, and others are much better at stretching themselves and catching what's being said) and you can talk about perfection, but I doubt everyone will ever agree on just what that word means.

I once heard a CODA say that deaf voice is one of the most beautiful things in the world to her. She sometimes uses it when socializing with her CODA friends. She doesn't do that as ridicule. It's like the aural equivalent of a hug from her mother.

Interesting perspective.

 

[deafdyke]

I will not be patronized by the likes of you Kokonut. If there is no perfect speech or let's say even the effort to maintain comprehendable speech which is the minimal goal, then what's the use of speech therapy if there is no means to an end? So in the end, you are totally defeating your own argument with your own words. It all amounts to.....being oral is NOT worth it after all.

Right on! I support speech training but more as a valuable/useful skill...Like the way it is done at Maryland School for the Deaf with voice on periods.I know of a parent of a HOH kid who has their kid enrolled in a Sign using program and then once a week she goes to the preschool at John Tracy.
I even somewhat approve of sending kids to speech school (the oral preschools) if the purpose is to improve their speech and GIVE them an additional tool...Sometimes the speech resources at deaf schools REALLY suck.......heck, as long as a kid gets good quality spoken language training they will develop good speech. That's actually a REALLY offensive thing....you support auditory-oral/verbal b/c you subscribe to the hearing thinking that dhh kids are so low functioning they can't learn to speak without it being an eternal speech therapy session......

 

[Mewtilation]

I refuse to believe the hearing think dhh kids are low functioning..... I'm sure there's some, but I'm pretty sure the number of hearing people that think deaf are low functioning is not as high as you're playing it off to be. 7 billion people in the world, I'm sure not even the majority of that believes dhh kids are low functioning.... Seriously... :roll:

 

[ambrosia]

I will not be patronized by the likes of you Kokonut. If there is no perfect speech or let's say even the effort to maintain comprehendable speech which is the minimal goal, then what's the use of speech therapy if there is no means to an end? So in the end, you are totally defeating your own argument with your own words. It all amounts to.....being oral is NOT worth it after all.

You forgot to add "for me" at the end of that. I'm just saying.

It's not patronizing that others would feel differently than you, or that your hung up on "perfection". This is a very subjective topic. If a deaf person cannot achieve intelligible speech, meaning it's not understandable, then no I doubt that person wouldn't think its worth it to be oral. But for the many deaf and HoH that DO they may feel differently.

Edited to add:

There isn't an argument here, whether or not it's worth it to be oral. This isn't a true or false subject, it's a matter of opinion~ not fact, and since everyone's experience is different, it's extremely subjective. Just because it wasn't worth it for you, doesn't mean someone else won't feel it's worth it for them. Their opinion is just as valid as yours.

 

[kokonut]

Right on! I support speech training but more as a valuable/useful skill...Like the way it is done at Maryland School for the Deaf with voice on periods.I know of a parent of a HOH kid who has their kid enrolled in a Sign using program and then once a week she goes to the preschool at John Tracy.
I even somewhat approve of sending kids to speech school (the oral preschools) if the purpose is to improve their speech and GIVE them an additional tool...Sometimes the speech resources at deaf schools REALLY suck.......heck, as long as a kid gets good quality spoken language training they will develop good speech. That's actually a REALLY offensive thing....you support auditory-oral/verbal b/c you subscribe to the hearing thinking that dhh kids are so low functioning they can't learn to speak without it being an eternal speech therapy session......

Who?

Speech therapy is an aid to help develop intelligible speech. It has nothing to do with a child's intelligence. It doesn't say anything about the child's intelligence. The amount of speech sessions varies from person to person depending on a variety of factors. Some acquire speech skills easily while others struggle but that also depends on a variety of factors on why that is the case.

 

[tomm]

Tom are you positive you're not just parroting the "OMG it's SO wonderful to be able to hear and function as a "healthy normal" person that so many oral deaf kids get? I have hearing friends who are very professionally involved in the D/deaf communties.......They say even the best sucesses still struggle..When the kids are given the addition of ASL/Deaf culture.my friends descbe it as them being let out of a cage.Yes,it's not as bad as the old days when a powerful CI/HA only gave a small percentage of what was said.....but there is a REASON why CI/HA folks are described as HARD of hearing.....it's HARD for us to hear.
I say this as someone who is an EXCELLENT hearing aid user. I get told that I don't talk like a deaf person,I am GUESS WHAT....an AURAL learner.....Guess what? Even with all those advantages, I still have issues....I'm still using my weakest sense.It takes a LOT of energy for HOH people to "hear"....it's never going to be as good as hearing person hearing.....That's a FACT....why does that make you angry?
CIs and hearing aids do not make a dhh person hearing......Are you perfectly well functioning in every and any hearing sitution?I doubt it...Research has indicated that virtually ALL CI people still use the whole spectrum of dhh accomondations.....there are CIers who use 'terps,there are CIers who use the whole spectrum of HOH style accomondations....Very few (including ex hearing implantees) function as hearing..................and here's a thought....you may function very well with your CI, but auditory oral/auditory verbal trains a dhh kid to not be able to function without hearing devices...
How can a dhh kid function if their aid breaks or if their CI malfunctions or if they're in less then prime listening situtions? A/O,AV kids are LOST in that sitution......Not to mention...what about when you enter the dating world? Are you really going to ask your date to use an FM device?

Sorry for the late reply.

Hey guess what? I'm not 'parroting' the "OMG it's so wonderful..." line. I'm saying that it's what it is - being oral has allowed me to live life, to make friends and flat with other hearing people, to have better job prospects, heck to even bitch and yell at one of my five bloody sisters when they've done some shite again.

There isn't a reason why CI folks are described as "hard of hearing" - do you know why? Because they aren't. It's only you on here saying shite like that, and you ain't doing anyone any favours. I would thank you to cut it out.
There is a scale yes of how well people do with their CIs and HAs. I for example do fantastically well with them, enjoying music and conversation. There are times where it can be hard to concentrate but I get enjoyment out of listening and talking to others. Most of the others with CIs I know are exactly the same. I get angry because you're sweeping the rest of us under the umbrella of your own experiences and that is patently wrong. Your experiences may have been bad but don't presume to think that you can speak for all people who are oral and use HAs and CIs. That is just incredibly arrogant, shown in the way you started off by pronouncing that I am "parroting" some 'corporate' line.

And I don't use FM systems, destroyed them too often for my parents to keep at it. Moreover, at the young age of 22, I've already done quite a bit of dating. And quite a bit of ******* as well. That seems to be the only situation where the Snugfit accessory for my CI to make sure it stays on seem to be useful. Annoying.

 

[tomm]

How do you know it is a shit school with shit teachers and staff? Been there personally?

Yep I have. Shite school. Shite staff. You were a bloody lucky kids if you got accepted to the mainstream program at a city high school, as several of my friends were.

Tomm,

My piano piece to you...and yes, that's me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZRV-xqKEoU

Thanks bro. You play pretty well, how long have you been playing? Can you play other instruments?
I also feel fortunate to be in this time, not only because of the bloody awesome technology I've gained so much from, but from attitudes in general today.