"CS is not a language. It is an MCE."
MCE means "Manually Coded English" and CS fits that bill well however, you cannot say that SEE/LOVE/PSE is MCE because they don't code English. Studies have shown that deaf students don't learn Engilsh the way they should learn.
SEE and PSE are most definately MCEs. And yes, they do manually code English. And yes, studies have shown that deaf children do not learn language the way they should, and that is the direct result of linguistic deprivation occurring in the home and school environments. Studies also show that these deficits have become more and more pronounced withthe use of systems such as SEE, PSE, and CS. Whent he child is permitted to develop linguistic competence through the use of ASL as the L1 language and English as the L2 language, these deficits are mediated to a larger degree than with any other system.
"CS is not new. It is a system that was developed, and has proven to be generally ineffective in language acquisition. It is useful only if one already knows English, and is an asssistive tool to vacilitate speechreading. Identifying morphemes is not helpful if one does not knowthe differnce inthe concept represented."
You are seriously WRONG! CS was invented for language acquisition. That's the sole reason. You do NOT need to know English in order to know cued English. With your logic, it's like saying that the hearing needs to know English before they use speech to hear and speak English! When a person cues to you, you RECEIVE English and in the process, you learn to express English through cuem. It's the same as kids recieving English through hearing and learning to speak English. Get it?
CS and the Rochester method provide gloss for English. In dealing with very young children, their ability to make the small and precise distinctions in hand and finger movements that are necessary for for differentiating between many similar hand configurations that have the same meaning is limited. This difficulty in expressive formulations (and perhaps in receptive differentiation, as well) make these two approaches less than useful in providing initial linguistic input for the very young child first acquiring language. This means a delay for parents in receiving feedback from the child that serves as reinforcement for their further linguistic productions.
"Howis that they are independent. Cuing is not useful unless it is used in conjuction with speech. The morpheme has to be produced orally for the handshape to have significance."
You seem to hold a belief that anything that moves on lips is speech and it isn't. Speech requires SOUNDS. Moving your lips does not make it "speech" whatsoever. There is NO requirement that you must speak while cueing. If transliterators can mouth words while cueing, then it shows that speech isn't needed.
No, but you must reproduce the word visusally through mouth movements. Once again, without knowledge of the word or the concept it represents, this movement is meaningless. Providing differentiation between morphemes and phonemes does nothing to represent concept. Without conceptual undertanding, knowing what the word looks like through cued speech does not promote the acquisition of language.
"Back that up with studies, please. If this was such a wonderful rtechnique, it would certainly be used. I don't see that happening."
CS helps hearing impaired children to comprehend discourse.
Musgrove, G. N. (1985) "Discourse comprehension by hearing-impaired children who use Cued Speech."
Doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.
This refers to the understanding of the actual English communication in childrenthat have already developed English competence, not to language acquisition.
CS enables deaf children to understand spoken language better than with lipreading alone. With parents cueing, the gain is greater than with cueing only at school. Greatest gain is with cueing both at home and at school.
Once again, this refers to understanding the spoken language in children who already have developed English skills. That is, understanding a concept that they have already internalized, and as an aid to speechg reading. That is a very different situation than a child who is acquiring language.
Perrier, O., Charlier, B., Hage, C., & Alegria, J. (1987)
"Evaluation of the Effects of Prolonged Cued Speech Practice upon the Reception of Spoken Language."
In I. G. Taylor (Ed.) "The Education of the Deaf -- Current Perspectives," Vol. 1, 1985 International Congress on Education of the Deaf. Beckenham, Kent, UK: Croom Helm Ltd. (Reprinted in the Cued Speech Journal, 4, 1990)
Hage, C., Alegria, J., & Perier, O. (1989, July) "Cued Speech and Language Acquisition"
Paper presented at the Second International Symposium on Cognition, Education and Deafness, Washington, D.C. (Reprinted in The Cued Speech Journal, 4, 1990)
This is very old research, and once again, refers to children who have been raised and educated orally, and have acquired some degree of English competency. It supports the fact that English competency is necessary for cuing to be effective in facilitating understanding of English.
CS learners with severe to profound losses averaged better than 92% of hearing impaired children on the Rhode Island Test of Language Structure (RITLS) for receptive language.
Berendt, H., Krupnik-Goldman, B., & Rupp, K. (1990)
"Receptive and expressive language abilities of hearing-impaired children who use Cued Speech." Master's Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
learners with severe to profound hearing losses scored as well as hearing children using the Developmental Sentence Score (DSS) for expressive language. Children introduced to CS before age 2 scored significantly better than those who began later.
And children introduced to sign language before age 2 perform most closely to their hearing peers when matched for age and grade. The control group for this study was deaf children who were exposed to oral language only, and deaf children who were exposed to oral language plus CS. It does not represent all groups, and the deaf exposed to sign prior to age 2 outperform the CS group in study after study.
Berendt, H., Krupnik-Goldman, B., & Rupp, K. (1990) "Receptive and expressive language abilities of hearing-impaired children who use Cued Speech."
Master's Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
enables oral expressive language to develop well in a five-year-old prelingually profoundly deaf child even though his speech was unintelligible.
There it is. Allows oral expressive language to develop. There is the key word...ORAL....and the concern is unintelligble speech.
Kipila, B. (1985) "Analysis of an oral language sample from a prelingually deaf child's Cued Speech: A Case Study."
Cued Speech Annual, 1, 46-59.
CS profoundly deaf children surpass the majority of signing and oral children in verbal language skills.
VERBAL, there it is again. Just provingthat CS is an adjucnt to the oral philosophy, and simply another tool that promotes the oral philospophy....a philosophy which has been proven over time to be detrimental to language acquisition inthe young deaf child.
Peterson, M. (1991) Data on Language of profoundly deaf children with oral, signing and Cued Speech backgrounds.
Data supplied by correspondence to R.O. Cornett and summarized in Cornett & Daisey "The Cued Speech Resource Book" (pp 697-699) 1992. National Cued Speech Association, Raleigh, NC.
develops, in a deaf child, an internal phonological model of the spoken language that can prime the whole process of reading acquisition.
That simply means that the child can recognize what the word looks like in print and can produce a reasonable facsimle through speech. That doesn't mean that a child is literate, becasue conceptual understanding is necessary for literacy. Even hearing children have been taught to sight read for years. That doesn't mean that they can then take what they have read, and explain the meaning.
Alegria, J., Dejean, C., Capouillez, J. M., & Leybaert, J. (1989, May) "Role Played by the Cued Speech in the Identification of Written Words Encountered for the First Time by Deaf Children." Presented at the annual meeting of the Belgian Psychological Society, Louvain-la-Neuve. (Reprinted in the Cued Speech Journal, 4, 1990).
There are plenty of studies showing the positive results of using Cued Spech.
"If you can't hear, you need to have concept represented visually. If you don't have an understanding of the concept, the phonemes ands morphemes are useless."
Huh? Sounds, cues, and signs are meaningless themselves. It's through social interaction that they develop concepts associated with signs or cues or speech. You can read a book written in German and you'll NEVER understand what it's saying unless you INTERACT with Germans.
EXACTLY! And since cues do not represent concepts, but only those phonemes and morphemes that orally represent the symbol, it is not useful for developing conceptual understandingthat is paramount for internalization of language.
"In fact, it is exactly the opposite. CS has been proven to be ineffective in the language acquisition process. "
Show me a study that says that so!
Just paraphrased numerous studies in my replies. If you want to read hard copies of the numerous research that supports this contention, I suggest you try the journals devoted to cognitive psychological research and not CS journals.
"And whatr method of communication did you use prior to cueing?"
Oralism. I didnt' have language at all. Only 20 words and that's it. It was CS that made me acquire English visually.
There you go....yousaid you were 8 years old when you started learing CS. Twenty words for an eight year old is sever language deprivation.
"Phonemic Awareness through Immersion in Cued American English"
"Cueing changes the way we define English phonemes. Phonemes remain the smallest unit of English that distinguishes one word from another, i.e., the consonant and vowel building blocks, but they no longer need be defined by acoustic characteristics or tied to the speech sounds of the language. Through cueing, the phonemes of English become a purely visual event. Cueing allows the deaf child full access to the phonemic code of English through vision alone. As a result, the way we define phonemes must change. English phonemes can be conveyed acoustically through speech or they can be conveyed visually through cueing. (2001, p. 1)"
English is made visual through writing. The wholelinguisitic structure of English is based on auditory percpetion and a linear representation.
"
At a later date, however, when we—my colleagues and I— were faced with the data that deaf children immersed in English via cueing were consistently achieving higher literacy levels in English than deaf children in other programs, we determined that we had to put our attitudes of bias, ridicule, and skepticism aside. If literacy in English was possible as a result of immersion via cued English, we concluded such bias and ridicule was inappropriate and self-serving."
Once again, there is a mountain of educaitonal and psychological research that shows that deaf of deaf who have been exposed to sign as young children achieve the highest reading comrehension scores and perform at a more equal level to their hearing peers than any other group. The deaf children in other programs here refers to chioldren on ORAL ONLY programs.
Phonemic Awareness through Immersion in Cued American English--KidsWorld Deaf Net E-Doc--Gallaudet's Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center
