Cued Speech: Breaking the Paradigm

B

Boult

Active Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2003
Messages
4,424
Reaction score
0
A good article by Sarina Roffé
http://www.cuedspeech.org/sub/viewpoints/B...he_Paradigm.asp

For many years, traditional auditory/oral education was the standard for use with deaf children in America. It made perfect sense that deaf children be taught to speak and use hearing aids to maximize the use of residual hearing. To be sure, the standards of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf can be linked to the excellent speech we see in so many deaf adults today.

The 1970s brought about a drastic change in deaf education. Deaf adults denounced oral education, saying that they found it frustrating and that sign was their native language. Many complained bitterly about the lack of communication in the home and that they often felt left out. They demanded the use of sign language in deaf education. Urged by deaf adults coming out of schools for the deaf, many educators turned to total communication, the combined use of lip-reading, hearing aids, and sign language in English word order. There was a push toward sign language in the name of communication in the home and an increase in deaf culture.
Click to expand...
 
Boult -

Thanks for the article. Sarina has personal experience with raising a child, who is deaf, in the 70's and choosing the "road least travelled."

Cued Speech has remained constant throught out the years and the changing views on raising a child who is deaf.
 
loml said:
Boult -

Thanks for the article. Sarina has personal experience with raising a child, who is deaf, in the 70's and choosing the "road least travelled."

Cued Speech has remained constant throught out the years and the changing views on raising a child who is deaf.
Click to expand...

Yes, CS has consistently remained the "road least traveled." There is a valid reason for that.
 
jillio said:
Yes, CS has consistently remained the "road least traveled." There is a valid reason for that.
Click to expand...


If there is I would like to know it for it is certainly not the results of the cuers or their personal experiences. I have never read nor heard someone who had used cued speech have anything negative to say about it.

Perhaps it is because of the people who know nothing about it but who feel a compelling need to constantly put it down.
Rick
 
rick48 said:
If there is I would like to know it for it is certainly not the results of the cuers or their personal experiences. I have never read nor heard someone who had used cued speech have anything negative to say about it.

Perhaps it is because of the people who know nothing about it but who feel a compelling need to constantly put it down.
Rick
Click to expand...

Hmmm......guess you didn't read the posts of some of the posters around here who were exposed to CS, huh?

Perhaps it is because, rather than reading that which provides a clear picture and looks at all variables, you tend to limit yourself to a few anecdotal stories.
 
jillio said:
Hmmm......guess you didn't read the posts of some of the posters around here who were exposed to CS, huh?

Perhaps it is because, rather than reading that which provides a clear picture and looks at all variables, you tend to limit yourself to a few anecdotal stories.
Click to expand...

HI Jillio, hate to break in here, but I have a question. Is cued speech focused on total English and oralism? I need to do a little research about how it works. I have heard the term in school, but my teacher doesn't have a very high opinion of it. We didn't have any real in-depth discussions on it.

I think I got the impression somewhere that it is aimed at promoting oralism, thus I thought it might be linked to encouraging implants and such...
 
jillio said:
Hmmm......guess you didn't read the posts of some of the posters around here who were exposed to CS, huh?

Perhaps it is because, rather than reading that which provides a clear picture and looks at all variables, you tend to limit yourself to a few anecdotal stories.
Click to expand...

I have here and elsewhere and still do not recall anyone relating a negative experience so it does raise a question to me as to why it is not utilized more frequently.

I then see someone like you who is determined at every step of the way to constantly put down CS and to belittle those who advocate its use and wonder whether, in addition to your demonstrated compelling need to argue every point, no matter how minor and insignificant it is, there is some irrational prejudice against a method that apparently benefits those who have used it.


Rick
 
dreamchaser said:
HI Jillio, hate to break in here, but I have a question. Is cued speech focused on total English and oralism? I need to do a little research about how it works. I have heard the term in school, but my teacher doesn't have a very high opinion of it. We didn't have any real in-depth discussions on it.

I think I got the impression somewhere that it is aimed at promoting oralism, thus I thought it might be linked to encouraging implants and such...
Click to expand...

No problem with breaking in. Yes, CS is focused on English, or whatever spoken language is being used. It was origninally designed 40 years ago by a mathemetician to remove the ambiguities in speech reading, so yes, it can be considered to be a facet of oralism. It doesn't surprise me that your instructor was less than enthusiastic about the method, for reasons I have already cited in numeorus other CS threads.
 
rick48 said:
I have here and elsewhere and still do not recall anyone relating a negative experience so it does raise a question to me as to why it is not utilized more frequently.

I then see someone like you who is determined at every step of the way to constantly put down CS and to belittle those who advocate its use and wonder whether, in addition to your demonstrated compelling need to argue every point, no matter how minor and insignificant it is, there is some irrational prejudice against a method that apparently benefits those who have used it.


Rick
Click to expand...

I suggest you go back and refresh your memory on those posts. Not only have there been negative experiences related, there have been almost nonexistent reports of benefit by the deaf individuals exposed to CS. The reason that it has not been used more frequently is obvious.

I argue the points made about CS because there appears to be a renewed effort by members of the NCSA to present CS as a panacea to the literacy issues, as well as the communication difficulties of the deaf. It has never been shown to increase literacy skills, and in fact, fell out of use due to this ineffectiveness. We are seeing a renewed push for the method that directly correlates with a renewed push toward total oralism.
 
jillio said:
I suggest you go back and refresh your memory on those posts.
... We are seeing a renewed push for the method that directly correlates with a renewed push toward total oralism.
Click to expand...

I suggest you produce those posts if they are so compelling, or is it that anecdotal posts are only legitimate when they agree with your position?

"We"??? There is no "we" only the very singular "you".

No one else seems particularly bothered by cued speech other than you. I would hazard a guess that many share the opinion that while it may not have been a method they used, if it works for others then it should remain a viable option for those who do choose it for themselves or for their child.
 
rick48 said:
I suggest you produce those posts if they are so compelling, or is it that anecdotal posts are only legitimate when they agree with your position?

"We"??? There is no "we" only the very singular "you".

No one else seems particularly bothered by cued speech other than you. I would hazard a guess that many share the opinion that while it may not have been a method they used, if it works for others then it should remain a viable option for those who do choose it for themselves or for their child.
Click to expand...

http://www.alldeaf.com/sign-language-oralism/74-cued-speech.html

You can start with the above link. Then, if you still require additional posts, just go back and search any of the numerous threads that loml has started about CS and read what the deaf/Deaf members of the board have to say.

And by "we", I am referring to "we" as a society. If you disagree, please provide evidence to the contrary.
 
dreamchaser said:
HI Jillio, hate to break in here, but I have a question. Is cued speech focused on total English and oralism? I need to do a little research about how it works. I have heard the term in school, but my teacher doesn't have a very high opinion of it. We didn't have any real in-depth discussions on it.

I think I got the impression somewhere that it is aimed at promoting oralism, thus I thought it might be linked to encouraging implants and such...
Click to expand...

dreamchaser - CS is not focused on oralism, CS is focused on improving the education of deaf children, by providing themand their families with an early intervention system, for inclusion and access to the familial language. Home is the richest enviroemnt for language. CS is a system that provides them visually the "sounds" (phonemes), of a spoken language, transferring this skill to printed word. It is not a speech tool,it does not teach you how to speck, it does not improve articulation and it is not a language.

One of the best sources of information regarding CS, is the NCSA. the original organization, established with Dr. Cornett. at: National Cued Speech Association There are also blogs of young adults, who are deaf that are cuers.

In my experience with cueing, there is plenty of misinformation "out there." An example of one in your own post.

Cueing is best learned from by doing, allowing yourself to feeling, absorbing and seeing the system of CS.

This is not ASL, nor should it be compared to ASL. Something some people like to do on a regular bases.
 
rick48 said:
I suggest you produce those posts if they are so compelling, or is it that anecdotal posts are only legitimate when they agree with your position?

"We"??? There is no "we" only the very singular "you".

No one else seems particularly bothered by cued speech other than you. I would hazard a guess that many share the opinion that while it may not have been a method they used, if it works for others then it should remain a viable option for those who do choose it for themselves or for their child.
Click to expand...

rick48 - It is sad to see that some continue to remain closed. It is these some of these same minds, with THEIR already firm grasp of English, that continue on insisting that CS is about oralism. IF it is used in conjunction with a speech program, then this is a good thing, as removing the ambiguity of speech reading is an added bonus. :dunno:

I have explained this on serveral occassions, CS is not about oralism, it is about improving the lives of deaf children, by providing them and their families an early intervention system, that supports the language of their home. CS is about providing deaf children a tool to improve literacy and education. Some people refuse to "hear" , and profess to be knowlegable about CS. This is really, imo, a disservice to the other individuals who are actually trying to learn what CS is. However, having said that, these same professed "all knowing" individuals, who have never bothered to learn CS, are the same individuals who keep the topics about CS alive!
:)
 
rick48 said:
I have here and elsewhere and still do not recall anyone relating a negative experience so it does raise a question to me as to why it is not utilized more frequently.

I then see someone like you who is determined at every step of the way to constantly put down CS and to belittle those who advocate its use and wonder whether, in addition to your demonstrated compelling need to argue every point, no matter how minor and insignificant it is, there is some irrational prejudice against a method that apparently benefits those who have used it.


Rick
Click to expand...

rick48 - Good post!

There are a handful of people on this board that state that they have experienced CS. The tone of this board regarding CS, imo, would not lend itself to people freely expressing anything positive.
 
loml said:
dreamchaser - CS is not focused on oralism, CS is focused on improving the education of deaf children, by providing themand their families with an early intervention system, for inclusion and access to the familial language. Home is the richest enviroemnt for language. CS is a system that provides them visually the "sounds" (phonemes), of a spoken language, transferring this skill to printed word. It is not a speech tool,it does not teach you how to speck, it does not improve articulation and it is not a language.

One of the best sources of information regarding CS, is the NCSA. the original organization, established with Dr. Cornett. at: National Cued Speech Association There are also blogs of young adults, who are deaf that are cuers.

In my experience with cueing, there is plenty of misinformation "out there." An example of one in your own post.

Cueing is best learned from by doing, allowing yourself to feeling, absorbing and seeing the system of CS.

This is not ASL, nor should it be compared to ASL. Something some people like to do on a regular bases.
Click to expand...

The bolded is another piece of misinformation. CS is intended to visually represent phonemes of a spoken language, but simply representing the phonemes of a spokenb language does not automatically transfer to the printed word. Reading skills must be taught, and even with hearing children, the phonetic approach is not the only avenue to reading and literacy skills.

And still, you seem to be ignoring the fact that CS concentrates on an oral language only, and therefore is a tool to oralism.
 
loml said:
rick48 - Good post!

There are a handful of people on this board that state that they have experienced CS. The tone of this board regarding CS, imo, would not lend itself to people freely expressing anything positive.
Click to expand...

Again with the discounting of experience of the very population you claim CS is supposed to serve. :eek2: How very paternalistic.
 
Back
Top