Talk:Oralism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Geo.grail, Amandapg, Chrisanchezz. Peer reviewers: Structure1019, Nickmillan, LJboston.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

American bias

This page seems to be based completely on the American oralism debate. This is an issue in far more countries than just America- I can state that this also happens in my home country of Australia. I wouldn't be too sure on how to fix this, since I don't know too much about how to edit, and I'm not sure I have enough of the relevant information, but I think this is an issue that needs fixing with this page. 58.172.84.130 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Poorly Researched History

Actually, oral vs. manual debate in the education of the deaf is much older than 1867 as given in the article, even in the U.S. The start of the oral vs. manual debate must be attributed to the exchange of letters between German Samuel Heinicke and French Abbee de l'Epee.

The article needs to be overhauled with more historical data and citations of the proponents of both sides. 71.255.134.188 (talk) Hartmut 71.255.134.188 (talk) 10 September 2013, 18:50 —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree. The oralism debate of today is more based on the late 1800's than on the previous periods, simply because the issues are much different in a world of technology. Sculleywr (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There are no credible professionals using "Oralism" any longer, so there is no longer an "oralism debate". There is a schism between the Deaf community and deaf people who listen and speak without sign language, for sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with oralism, which went out of practice decades ago. —Kerri9494 (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Summarize Kim Baker (2004) + add relevant Deaf Culture info

I think this article would greatly benefit from a good summary of the arguments found in the Kim Baker (2004) reference (I've now replace the dead URL with a live one). She (or he?) basically presents the arguments (with useful references which we can presumably also use) for Oralism (basically best for integrating with the rest of society in education, work, etc), then for ASL (basically best for self-esteem and emotional development), before arguing (with a few references) for a combination of both (on grounds of Aristotle's Golden Mean and offering each individual the right to choose, etc). At present Baker is only cited misleadingly in a purely Pro-Oralism context which misrepresents her/his position. It is also wrong to cite Baker (as is currently done) in support of Oralism providing better social development, as it raises the question of social with who (basically Oralism makes the deaf able to be more social with the hearing, while ASL enables the deaf to be more social with other deaf people). Presumably what is true for ASL is also broadly true for other sign languages such as BSL, etc, though Baker doesn't mention them. I may eventually try to fix all this myself, but it's currently low on my list of interests and priorities (to the point where I could easily forget about it altogether), so perhaps somebody who is more interested than me might get it done a lot quicker and better than me. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

However when summarizing her work, please note that Kim Baker (like Mary Shelley up to a point, I think - I haven't actually read her book Frankenstein) is sympathetic to Frankenstein's Monster as a persecuted outcast, but Hollywood mostly is not, and Baker's deaf readers and their friends and sympathizers may be offended by her problematic analogy.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Relevant info can also be got from Deaf culture, which I've now linked, including the following (which seemingly implies, without explicitly stating, that exclusively teaching Oralism now violates international law):

Deaf culture is recognized under article 30, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which states that "Persons with disabilities shall be entitled, on an equal basis with others, to recognition and support of their specific cultural and linguistic identity, including sign languages and deaf culture." Tlhslobus (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory

(1) Oralists believed that signs were no more than gross holistic gestures, which stood for English words in a one to one correspondence.

I'm sure that various oralists believed one or another of these things, and some may even have believed both, but the beliefs actually contradict each other. It is likely that others had an accurate view of sign language but disapproved for other reasons. So perhaps it would be better to separate the two misunderstandings and attribute them to two different groups.

(Or the phatic-sounding "gross holistic gestures" could be substituted by something quite different but in concurrence with the rest of the sentence like "mere codes".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.38.118.121 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(2) The point is not well explained in this article that sign languages are separate languages from English and other spoken languages, corresponding neither lexically nor grammatically with these, any more than these do with each other. Just pointing out that there is no "one to one correspondence" with English words doesn't go far enough in my view. The point should be made in full.

(3) I found this material in the article on Alexander Graham Bell which could be added to this article (if a citation can be found):

In several schools, children were mistreated, for example by having their hands tied behind their backs so they could not communicate by signing—the only language they knew—in an attempt to force them to attempt oral communication.

(4) The article hints that there was a golden age of deaf teaching deaf by sign language before the 1800s. Is this really true and where is it documented? An alternate possibility is that there was worse conditions, more exclusion, and almost no education, like with the rest of society. 178.38.119.187 (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Modern Usage

Future editors of this page should work to make the Modern Usage section less biased by presenting the pros and cons of Oralism as well as explaining the differences between Oralist and bilingual/bi-cultural programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:18E8:2:28B6:9875:BA8A:12C:E5C8 (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"Oralism" is the definition of a specific manner of teaching deaf children to speak. Oralism is not practiced any longer in any developed nation. Since the advent of high-powered hearing aids and cochlear implants, deaf children who use oral communication focus primarily on listening, and not the mouth movements of others, in order to develop speech. While some deaf children using hearing aids and cochlear implants may undergo speech therapy for basic articulation issues, the methods used in "oralism" and in more modern techniques, such as Listening and Spoken Language and auditory/verbal therapy, are vastly different. For example, auditory/verbal therapists use barriers so that their clients cannot see their mouths. —Kerri9494 (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"They also feel the use of a spoken language will further their child's literacy and written language skills in the classroom. Some researchers believe that the success of the oral approach in a classroom setting had not been fully evaluated" This is an opinion and not a researched fact. This is also scientifically untrue. Consider removing. Friedlandl19 (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Found evidence of this ^^^ "Oralism continued to dominate American deaf education until the second half of the 20th century, when questions were raised about the benefits of teaching deaf students through oral-only instruction and research studies confirmed the status of ASL as a natural language (see Stokoe et al., 1965; Stokoe, 1972; Klima & Bellugi, 1979). After years of consistently poor performance in reading, writing, and academic subjects, some educators realized that deaf students needed to communicate visually in order to learn well. However, after a long period of repeated attempts to supplant ASL, it was difficult for many to embrace ASL as a natural medium of instruction (Lane et al., 1996). Common misconceptions about ASL abounded: ASL is broken English, ASL is a gestural system with a flexible or nonexistent grammar, ASL is too conceptual to be a language, ASL does not have abstract forms, ASL is not a language because it has no written form, and ASL is a crutch for deaf children that hampers their development of written English (Lane et al., 1996; Schein & Stewart, 1995; Wilcox & Wilcox, 1997; Liddell, 2003). These misconceptions fed the skepticism about the linguistic status of ASL." Friedlandl19 (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Additions

Hello there, I am a student at Chapman University working on a project about Oralism. I will be adding about 250+ words about world leaders' perceptions of Oralism in the 20th century over the next week or so. I will be citing multiple sources, including Kim Neilson's book, "A Disability History of the United States". Thank you!