Cued Speech: A benefit to deaf and hard of hearing

L

loml

New Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
1,645
Reaction score
0
This is an outline from a paper for a Linguistitcs Class, at Brigham Young University.

Cued speech: a benefit to deaf and hard of hearing individuals and society

Jennifer Andersen

Brigham Young University Department of Linguistics​


There are many avenues the hearing family of a deaf child can take to come to terms with their situation and help their child to develop to his or her greatest potential. What is best for one child is not necessarily best for all, though. Depending on how this type of situation is approached, there are a myriad of possibilities to deal with it. The options available include: hearing implants, hearing aids, Total Communication (integrated use of a sign language with other communication methods such as cued speech, signed English, etc.), ASL (or signed languages in other countries), signed English, lip reading, and cued speech. This paper focuses on the pros and cons of one of these methods, cued speech, as a supplement to other methods adopted to help deaf and hard of hearing individuals communicate with and understand society.

Many members of the Deaf community think of cued speech as another futile attempt of the hearing community to deny the deafness of their children. Others see cued speech as not denying a deaf person their identity, but rather expanding it to include the hearing world. Cued speech gets at least some disapproving feelings from both manualists (supporters of sign language as the primary language) and oralists (supporters of a purely oral/spoken method of communication for deaf people), since it uses both mouthed words and signs simultaneously to approximate real speech.

Cued speech can enhance communication in a child’s early years, as well as speed up the acquisition of verbal language. It also allows the individual to think in the target language (be it English or Swahili), and greatly improves reading skills because of clarification of the patterns of spoken language. Another benefit is cued speech is not too difficult to learn, taking only about 8 to 15 hours to understand the basics. Because of all of these benefits, cued speech is able to enhance the experience of the deaf individual (when used in connection with other means of communication) when interacting with both deaf and hearing society.
Click to expand...

Outline for my Ling 490 paper
 
Others see cued speech as not denying a deaf person their identity, but rather expanding it to include the hearing world. Cued speech gets at least some disapproving feelings from both manualists (supporters of sign language as the primary language) and oralists (supporters of a purely oral/spoken method of communication for deaf people), since it uses both mouthed words and signs simultaneously to approximate real speech.


That same argument has been used for centuries by the oralists, and is the same argument being used for oralism today.

BTW, this is an outline for an undergraduate paper to be turned in as a classroom assignment, not professional reference.
 
jillio said:
Others see cued speech as not denying a deaf person their identity, but rather expanding it to include the hearing world. Cued speech gets at least some disapproving feelings from both manualists (supporters of sign language as the primary language) and oralists (supporters of a purely oral/spoken method of communication for deaf people), since it uses both mouthed words and signs simultaneously to approximate real speech.


That same argument has been used for centuries by the oralists, and is the same argument being used for oralism today.
Click to expand...

What "same" arguement is that?
 
jillio said:
Yes, dear, and undergraduate paper. Classroom assignment. So it carries no particular expertise.
Click to expand...

jillio - It was indicated at the beginning of the topic where and what the paper was, an idividual in a 400 level Linguistics class.
 
Cued Speech is considered as "tool" - a method to help deaf student to read and write , to be familiar with phonology. Nothing more. Most of the time, deaf who know cued usually use ASL for socializing anyway.
 
lumbingmi said:
Cued Speech is considered as "tool" - a method to help deaf student to read and write , to be familiar with phonology. Nothing more. Most of the time, deaf who know cued usually use ASL for socializing anyway.
Click to expand...

That's how I see CS too.
 
originally posted by loml
What "same" arguement is that?
Click to expand...

jillio said:
The one I quoted, loml, the one I qouted.
Click to expand...

jillio - You actually do not indicate a quote in your post. However, If you are referring to this:

Others see cued speech as not denying a deaf person their identity, but rather expanding it to include the hearing world. Cued speech gets at least some disapproving feelings from both manualists (supporters of sign language as the primary language) and oralists (supporters of a purely oral/spoken method of communication for deaf people), since it uses both mouthed words and signs simultaneously to approximate real speech
Click to expand...
with this link: Outline for my Ling 490 paper

Considering you haven't paraphrased this paragraph, to reflect your opinion of what the same old arguement is, lets see if I am following you here.

Memembers of the Deaf community, see Cued Speech as denying the deaf child there identity; other members of the Deaf communitysee Cued Speech as not denying the deaf child their identity, but expanding their world. Sign language Deaf community members and oralist, disapprove because Cued Speech uses mouth words and signs to approximate speech.

Somehow, for you this equals = originally posted by jillio
That same argument has been used for centuries by the oralists, and is the same argument being used for oralism today.
Click to expand...

:dunno:
 
lumbingmi said:
Cued Speech is considered as "tool" - a method to help deaf student to read and write , to be familiar with phonology. Nothing more. Most of the time, deaf who know cued usually use ASL for socializing anyway.
Click to expand...

lumbingmi - I would add: Cuers cue to communicate, in English, French, Hebrew, etc. (provided of course that they have had the opportunity to learn to cue another language).
 
loml said:
lumbingmi - I would add: Cuers cue to communicate, in English, French, Hebrew, etc. (provided of course that they have had the opportunity to learn to cue another language).
Click to expand...

And provided that there is another cuer available. However, I suggest you take a poll on the number of cuers that use CS as their primary form of communication.
 
loml said:
originally posted by loml




jillio - You actually do not indicate a quote in your post. However, If you are referring to this:

with this link: Outline for my Ling 490 paper

Considering you haven't paraphrased this paragraph, to reflect your opinion of what the same old arguement is, lets see if I am following you here.

Memembers of the Deaf community, see Cued Speech as denying the deaf child there identity; other members of the Deaf communitysee Cued Speech as not denying the deaf child their identity, but expanding their world. Sign language Deaf community members and oralist, disapprove because Cued Speech uses mouth words and signs to approximate speech.

Somehow, for you this equals = originally posted by jillio

:dunno:
Click to expand...

Go back and reread, loml. I am exhausted with trying to point out your errors.
 
jillio said:
Go back and reread, loml. I am exhausted with trying to point out your errors.
Click to expand...

jillio - My errors? I am simply trying to clear this up.

It is safe to say the that the paraphrasing:
Memembers of the Deaf community, see Cued Speech as denying the deaf child there identity; other members of the Deaf communitysee Cued Speech as not denying the deaf child their identity, but expanding their world. Sign language Deaf community members and oralist, disapprove because Cued Speech uses mouth words and signs to approximate speech
Click to expand...
= this:
That same argument has been used for centuries by the oralists, and is the same argument being used for oralism today
Click to expand...

Thanks
 
:dizzy: at Jillo and loml

Seriously..it is becoming confusing what you both are debating about. :giggle:
 
jillio said:
And provided that there is another cuer available.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily jillio, a cuer of English, French, Hebrew, etc. can/does engage in communication/discussion/discourse with people who are users of the aformentioned languages (as of course you are familiar with the fact that cueing removes the ambiguity of speech reading.)
 
loml said:
Not necessarily jillio, a cuer of English, French, Hebrew, etc. can/does engage in communication/discussion/discourse with people who are users of the aformentioned languages (as of course you are familiar with the fact that cueing removes the ambiguity of speech reading.)
Click to expand...

Like I said, as long as there is another cuer around to communicate with. If the other person doesn't cue, then communication based on cuing cannot take place. You are trying too hard, loml.
 
jillio said:
Like I said, as long as there is another cuer around to communicate with.
Click to expand...

In the link in my thread "A Comprehensive List", that was what was stated as one of the disadvantages for CS...that the deaf cuers are too spread out geographically.
 
The way that I understood CS was that one of the ways it helps is to remove the ambiguities of lip reading. So the cuer wouldn't have to be communicating with another cuer because the deaf person would be able to read the lips of the speaking person successfully.
 
Back
Top