James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack) (01/26/91)
Index Number: 13245
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Lipreading skills can be taught, yes. But theindividual being taught
determines the degree and indeed the failure or success of theteaching.
Now you take a born deaf person. This person will never really develop
a fullmastery of the broad variety of phonetic properties inherit in
English. Consequently, that person is not normally going to be such
a good lipreader. Now frankly there are exceptions to this. I know
at least one such person who is a direct contradiction of what I just
said. However, she is a rarity. She is oneof those people who ha that
special aptitude for learning languages. As you may know, some people
seem to learn languages very easily, while others struggle to no end
and practically their efforts are futile. I believe those few (and
they are few compared to the general population of deaf people) who
are extraordinary lipreaders, are people with that special aptitude
for language. Theyhave that talent, just as some people have a talent
for math or music whilethe rest of us poor souls just shake our heads
and wonder how they do it.
I think that a deaf child or persons (should be the same thing though
someparents might disagree about kids being people) should be allowed
to have alanguage that is more readily mastered before having lipreading
or anything else crammed down their throats (or eyes in this case).
However, those who do display an aptitude for lipreading or speech
training, should by all means received the highest possible focus in
this area. The bottom line continues tobe that the MAJORITY of deaf
people do not master English. And that majority won't unless they have
a primary language to begin with, to use as a reference, to allow them
to develop environmental awareness at a rate comparable tohearing kids.
ASL is the logical answer for this primary language as it fits the
needs of the deaf person. Itis not phonetic ( the deaf person cn't
hear teh phonetics anyway or only marginally so) andit makes full use
of the primary input instrument, namely the eye. Moreover, it provides
a background for a structured language model and exposes the child
to a means of easily understood communication to learn thos ethings
most people simply take for granted. Hopefully, educators will recognize
this fact and stop wasting so many deaf people's lives and times by
stressing English to people who can't hear what is regarded by hearing
people in many countries as thehardest language to learn and the most
mixed up and warped one to boot.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!14!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.orgAnn.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Stalnaker) (02/05/91)
Index Number: 13505
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Whoa! Whoa! Let's discuss this a bit more logically and rationally,
James.
First of all, let me point out this - there are a lot of born deaf
persons who actually can lipread and speak as well as learn English
as their first language. I am one of them and so are my two siblings.
I learned out to read using the phonetic method and I can't hear
a thing as I'm profoundly deaf. There are ways to teach lipreading,
speech and reading by phonetics. I tend to believe there just aren't
enough qualified speech therapists as well as teachers in our education
system.
I'm not saying all deaf persons are as proficient at speechreading
and oral communication but it is possible for them to learn. It
doesn't have to be their first mode of communication but I honestly
believe they benefit more if they learn at an early age.
Many young deaf adults visit my home and knowing that I do not use
sign, they try to speak and lipread. We have a good time and they
enjoy coming over as they've often mentioned they learn a lot from
me. I'm not trying to boast about this, just trying to get across
that this mode of communication really can work.
I realize that it is not easy and there is a great deal of stress
involved (who said none of us didn't live without stress?) and
can often be frustrating but in the long run, it's worthwhile.
I feel it is time for the majority of the deaf population to get
off their duffs and try to meet others halfway rather than expecting
everything to be handled to them on a platter.
Deafness is a very misunderstood condition as well as an invisible
one. So many have been told they CAN'T do this and I disagree with
that fully. I hate to see people tell anyone that and I also abhor
it when someone tells one they should say "I'm sorry, forgive me"
when they accidentally bump into someone simply because they didn't
see them. Sheesh! That's ridiculous.
It is true some individuals have a special aptitude for learning
languages but gee, English is our language, not ASL or SEE, so why
not try to teach the younger generation English first and go from
there. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
But...I don't think we should rule out the possibilities for the
future of oral communication.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!385!14.0!Ann.Stalnaker
Internet: Ann.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.orgJames.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack) (02/09/91)
Index Number: 13646
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Anne, I didn't say lipreading or speechreading can't work. It is a
waste of time for most truly deaf people. English by its nature is
rarely mastered by a profoundly deaf person. Such a person from childhood
should have a mastered language so the second language can be learned.
You get children in school who don't even know the word "cup" or much
of anything else. Here in Arizona, we keep getting high school kids
from mainstreaming programs. Their parents grew frightened when they
saw their children approaching graduation and lacked very fundamental
skills or knowledge. They send them to ASDB. Needless to say, there
isn't a great deal we can do for them by that time. However,parents
often do say they see a big change inthose kids level of confidence,
willingness-watch carefully now-willingness to go to school and see
them beginnng to pick up on some of the things they just didn;t get
academically in the public school system. Masny of those parents begin
going to the local community college to take sign language so they
can be a part of their child's life in the communicative sense that
they wer enot before. I see this over and over. In enough numbers for
me to say that this emphasis on speech while stubbornly disregarding
the child's need for a visually based non-phonetic language is costingthe
child dearly.
Itis always interesting for me to meet these kids and realize yet again
that the interaction I have with our regular deaf kids can't happen
with the mainstreamed one (except in special cases). You can't tell
a joke, you can't give basic instructions (I speak rather well as I
became deaf at age 13) and their frustration level is so low that they
give up almost readily when faced wih academic challenges.
Anne, there are lots of exceptions, I am sure. However, hearing people
and hearing minded people who insist on emphasizing speech , esecially
from the early age of the deaf child are doing that child a disservice.
Recentl research by people like Dr. Supalla and others is showing that
after the first 4-5 years, the mind seems to lose some of its unique
and accelerated ability to absorb language. In short, by failing to
provide the young child with a language that fits the need (visually
based and unburdened by intangibles such as phonetics) denies the child
a fully mastered and masterable language on which to build a knowledge
base to bring to school and build on. Strictly oral methods are robing
deaf children. I would not suggest dumping oral eductaion wholeheartedly.
Thee are deafened people whodo benefit from such instruction. Therefore
they should have access to it.
Rather recently, i have become acquainted with a strikingly beautiful
young lady at the University of Arizona. She is a lot like you. She
is prfoundly deaf, orally educated, very smart, very articulate and
a lot of other things. She is also in awe of what she is learning about
herself as a deaf person and of ASL. She seems to be almost starved
for it. She talks about what she has missed and want to make up for
and all that. Tome, it is just one more of many cases like that. I
have met so many people like this over the years that I feel it is
just demonstrated proof that deaf kids are being robbed of knowledge
and education. By the way, she is a darn good writer. She is also so
good at lipreading that I and hearing people thought she was hearing.
i got tipped off when I watched her , really watched her for the first
time. Her slightly exaggerated mouth movements tipped me off.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!14!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.orgJay.Croft@p0.f147.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Jay Croft) (02/09/91)
Index Number: 13663
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Thanks for another good post, James! What you say is not unique in
Arizona. It happens all over. Some of the types of people you
mentioned--people who are starved for a better understanding of
themselves--we see at Gallaudet University, where I am Episcopal
chaplain.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!109!147.0!Jay.Croft
Internet: Jay.Croft@p0.f147.n109.z1.fidonet.orgVerna.Forristal@f71.n343.z1.fidonet.org (Verna Forristal) (05/30/91)
Index Number: 15841
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
ST> Just express my viewpoint. Lipreading is not 100% accurate. With my
ST> hearing aid and watch people's lips closely, I can understand about 80%.
Oh, I definitely agree. The amount you are able to read depends on who you
are reading, and will be much higher if it is someone you are familiar with.
I feel that lipreading is very useful, and I do encourage it, but for most it
is not as reliable as signing. It is, however, a viable method of
communicating with hearies who don't sign. I guess all of that is pretty self-
evident, isnt it?
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!343!71!Verna.Forristal
Internet: Verna.Forristal@f71.n343.z1.fidonet.orgJames.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack) (05/30/91)
Index Number: 15844
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
What you say is true about the need for time and patience with lipreading.
It simply isn't as simple for a lot of people as some people try to
make it sound. The bottomline is that lipreading is more an art than
a skill. Some have the aptitude for it, some don't ( a lot don't.).
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!14!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.orgSusanna.Tam@f3.n157.z1.fidonet.org (Susanna Tam) (05/30/91)
Index Number: 15852
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
-> Oh, I definitely agree. The amount you are able to read depends on
-> who you are reading, and will be much higher if it is someone you
-> are familiar with. I feel that lipreading is very useful, and I do
-> encourage it, but for most it is not as reliable as
-> signing. It is, however, a viable method of communicating with
-> hearies who don't sign. I guess all of that is pretty self-
-> evident, isnt it?
Hi, Verna,
I can't express it better. For example, I can read my sister's
lip correctly 100% because I am use to her lip movement. I took
my ASL classes in college. And the instructor said it is better
to sign and speak, along with the right expression. That way, it
is easier to get the messages across. All in all, communciation with
heaing imparied or hearies are same in one thing. It required
ATTENTION....Pay attention to the speaker or signer.
-Susanna
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!157!3!Susanna.Tam
Internet: Susanna.Tam@f3.n157.z1.fidonet.orgJessica.Ostrow@f337.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Jessica Ostrow) (05/30/91)
Index Number: 15859
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
* In a message originally to Susanna Tam, James Womack typed:
JW> What you say is true about the need for time and patience
JW> with lipreading. It simply isn't as simple for a lot of
JW> people as some people try to make it sound. The bottomline
JW> is that lipreading is more an art than a skill. Some have
JW> the aptitude for it, some don't ( a lot don't.).
Just wondering, do you think that experience with the spoken English
language might also have something to do with learning how to lipread? I
would be curious about whether postlingually deaf people learn lipreading
better than prelingually deaf people?
With me, I find that it just depends on the person...sometimes I just cannot
understand a person by just watching them, but need some additional feedback
besides just their mouth movements, or extra work on their part...to slow
down or speak slower or louder (which enhances their lip movements). I have
one friend who I have to pester to speak up/speak clearly and I still have a
hard time understanding him...
With the stats as they are, wouldn't it be better for educators to focus on
sign language with deaf children so that they miss a lot less? I don't know
what the situation is now, but from what I've read, and experienced, there
has been TOO much focus on speech in the past to the detriment of other
things the students need to learn...I hope that's changing now though...
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!109!337!Jessica.Ostrow
Internet: Jessica.Ostrow@f337.n109.z1.fidonet.orgAnn.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Stalnaker) (06/17/91)
Index Number: 16050 [This is from the Silent Talk Conference] > What you say is true about the need for time and patience > with lipreading. It simply isn't as simple for a lot of > people as some people try to make it sound. The bottomline > is that lipreading is more an art than a skill. Some have > the aptitude for it, some don't ( a lot don't.). Yes, it does take practice and time with lipreading - but then like a lot of other good things, that's the way it should be. I never said it was easy - even though it's always been easy for me because I was never taught lipreading skills. However, I still think it's the best route to go to learn English. Regardless of the controversy over ASL/Oralism - I think there are a lot on both sides of the fence, James. I think you'll find those who are oral more acceptive of those who use ASL than the other way around. This is something I've noticed and I think it's really sad that the Deaf who use ASL snub those who are deaf and are oral. -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!385!14.0!Ann.Stalnaker Internet: Ann.Stalnaker@p0.f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org