Cued Speech for Speech, Language, and Communication

L

loml

New Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
1,645
Reaction score
0
Simply another article of interest. :)

Cued Speech for Speech, Language, and CommunicationCued Speech is an Excellent Alternative to Sign Language for Individuals Whose Goals Include Speech, English Language Fluency and Literacy, and Augmentative Communication


Cued speech is a phonetically based visual communication system where lip reading is combined with simple hand shapes. The movement of the articulators and the hand shapes together form the "cue" and there is one cue for each sound. This makes 100% of spoken language accessible to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, or who may have some diagnosis which makes auditory access to language difficult.

Cued speech is a very versatile system where one can work on speech, language, and communication issues. It can be broken down into cues for individual sounds and blends, or it can be used fluently for language and communication. Unlike sign language, which is often dropped by the user as approximations of words become more intelligible, cued speech can be used to that point and beyond, continuing to work further on speech and language issues.

Dr. R. Orin Cornett of Gallaudet University developed cued speech in 1966 in response to a study done showing deaf students to have very low reading levels, which was surprising because reading is a visual activity. It was believed that these individuals read poorly because they did not have full mastery of English, as it was their second language since American Sign Language was their primary language. It was realized that to read and write proficiently a person must be fluent in the use of the language, which begins with being able to distinguish phonemes. Dr. Cornett invented Cued Speech to assist individuals who cannot clearly hear English to see see each of its phonemic components. With this, they could increase their proficiency and improve their reading skills.

Research has shown that cued speech helps improve auditory discrimination, visual speech reception, speech reading, receptive language, expressive language, and literacy. There have been few studies done where cued speech has been used with other than deaf individuals, but there are more studies being done continually because people are seeing the benefits of cued speech firsthand.

Benefits of cued speech:

·Cues are done with one hand, either one.

·Cues are easier to do fine-motor wise than some signs.

·If unable to cue expressively, a cue chart can be used to allow convenient unlimited vocabulary phonetically.

·Cues are done near the face for better eye contact.

·Mouth shapes are part of the cues, which assists in repetitive visualization of articulators.

·There are a finite number of cues, (44) which in combination allow for an infinite vocabulary.

·Once you learn the system, which usually takes a few hours, you just work on proficiency and fluency.

·Sentences are cued completely, not just nouns and verbs.

·Can cue nonwords and sounds (yeah, wow, moo).

·Cues are made phonetically, which assists auditory understanding and production of sounds.

·Easy and fast system to learn, which allows more family/friends/teachers to use it for better followthrough.

·Cues are consistent. There is one cue for each sound. This also allows for better follow through, since different family/friends/teachers are using the same cues consistently.

Cued speech is not as popular a visual communication tool as sign language at this time because the deaf community has developed a strong culture, which they are very proud of, at the center of which is ASL. Many deaf individuals feel that this culture is threatened by cued speech and other oral or auditory approaches. Because it has not become popular in the deaf community, it has not been studied specifically in the special education community. Most students who receive special education are not part of the deaf community and culture, though, and most students who receive special education have ultimate goals that include hearing and verbalization.

Whether in English word order or not, sign language is a conceptual language that does not use the vocabulary, phonetics, or syntax of English. Therefore, it is worth considering carefully if sign language is really the best available tool for each individual. Systems such as visual phonics or the phonics hand shapes in systems for apraxia are great, although limited since they are primarily for speech and not able to be conveniently used for communication or language.

Reasons cued speech is quickly becoming more popular:

·Technology. Cochlear implants are becoming increasingly popular. They are more reliable and less expensive due to advances in technology. Many implanted individuals use cued speech because they have auditory and oral goals.

·Inclusion. Many people who use cochlear implants choose to be included in local schools and in their communities. Often, they do become bilingual by learning ASL, but that is often so that they can be part of the deaf community for support.

·Cued speech is filtering down to the special education community slowly. There is plenty of subjective evidence for cued speech. People are realizing the benefits of cued speech and using it with success.

The use of cued speech in and of itself will not guarantee that an individual will have intelligible speech. However, the cued speech system is an excellent tool for speech and language therapy as well as augmentative communication.
Click to expand...


Cued Speech for Speech, Language, and Communication - Associated Content
 
loml said:
Simply another article of interest. :)




Cued Speech for Speech, Language, and Communication - Associated Content
Click to expand...

Think about it. In 1966, when Cornett designed CS, oral only education was the norm for deaf students. So to say that English was their L2 language, and ASL was responsible for poor reading scores as their L1 language is to ignore the facts. The reason that reading scores plummeted was the shift to oral education. Schools stopped using ASL as the language of instruction. Therefore, English was the ONLY language these students were exposed to. As it is not 100% conceptually available to a deaf student, it was the restriction of not being permitted bilingualism that caused the drop in literacy. Simply because English is the only language a deaf child isexposed to does not mean that child will ever be able to develop fluency in its usage. In 1966 children were being restricted to oral only environments, were forbidden to use sign, and were, most often diagnosed with a hearing disability sometime after their 3rd birthday. That is called language deprivation, and it has nothing at all to do with ASL, but with the oral environment being forced upon them. Cornett didn't need to invent a system. He needed to learn to use the one that was already available for visual communication....ASL.
 
My thoughts
* (Puzzled) How is "reading a visual activity"? Can someone explain that one to me?

*Using the cue card for communication is an EXCELLENT idea. Why have I never thought of that before?! There was a student who used cueing well, but she had mild CP. She could have used the cue card.

*CS is not popular because of deaf culture? That's bull. CS is not being researched by the special education community because some deaf people feel threatened by it? That's bull. CS is also not viewed highly by the oral deaf education field because they feel it is too much like manual communication and may hinder the goals of speech and speechreading -and THAT is the reason there is lack of fundings to do adequent research on whether or not CS is benefical for deaf and hard of hearing students.

* Children with hearing aids also have speech and auditory training/auditory discrimination goals as well as those with CIs.
 
jillio said:
Think about it. In 1966, when Cornett designed CS, oral only education was the norm for deaf students. So to say that English was their L2 language, and ASL was responsible for poor reading scores as their L1 language is to ignore the facts. The reason that reading scores plummeted was the shift to oral education. Schools stopped using ASL as the language of instruction. Therefore, English was the ONLY language these students were exposed to. As it is not 100% conceptually available to a deaf student, it was the restriction of not being permitted bilingualism that caused the drop in literacy. Simply because English is the only language a deaf child isexposed to does not mean that child will ever be able to develop fluency in its usage. In 1966 children were being restricted to oral only environments, were forbidden to use sign, and were, most often diagnosed with a hearing disability sometime after their 3rd birthday. That is called language deprivation, and it has nothing at all to do with ASL, but with the oral environment being forced upon them. Cornett didn't need to invent a system. He needed to learn to use the one that was already available for visual communication....ASL.
Click to expand...


Language deprivation - yep! Ironcially in the way they were being exposed to English...they were really exposed to nothing. Sad.
 
deafbajagal said:
Language deprivation - yep! Ironcially in the way they were being exposed to English...they were really exposed to nothing. Sad.
Click to expand...

Since loml posted this opinion paper, we will have to wait and see if she can expalin how reading is a visual activity, as claimed in this paper.

Here, however, are some interesting contradictions:


Reasons cued speech is quickly becoming more popular:

·Technology. Cochlear implants are becoming increasingly popular. They are more reliable and less expensive due to advances in technology. Many implanted individuals use cued speech because they have auditory and oral goals.
When I have stated that the resurrgence in the push toward CS by the NCSA was simply an effort to ride the coattails of the the CI movement, I was told I was biased and anti-CI. Looks like my evaluation had merit after all. I would however, question the "many", as I still beleive if looked at proportionately, there are not "many" CS users in any division. Likewise, I would state that the audiotry oral goals spoken about are the goals of parents and mainstream educators, not the deaf individual themselves.
·Inclusion. Many people who use cochlear implants choose to be included in local schools and in their communities. Often, they do become bilingual by learning ASL, but that is often so that they can be part of the deaf community for support.
Again, the use of the word "often" is suspect. This author cannot claim to know the motivation of those who learn sign later. Likewise, as it is also claimed following that CS is not widely used in the educational setting, and has not even b een properly researched for effectiveness in the eductional setting, to say that it will assist with inclusion is contradictory. If no one in the setting is capable of using CS, then the student gains no benefits from knowing CS. Likewise, to make the claim for assistance withth e effort towards inclusion withour having researched properly the claim is nothing more than opinion based on absolutely no fact.
·Cued speech is filtering down to the special education community slowly. There is plenty of subjective evidence for cued speech. People are realizing the benefits of cued speech and using it with success. The use of cued speech in and of itself will not guarantee that an individual will have intelligible speech. However, the cued speech system is an excellent tool for speech and language therapy as well as augmentative communication.

How many times has loml claimed that CS is not a tool for speech? Yet, she posts articles that claim it is. How contradicotry is that?

Research has shown that cued speech helps improve auditory discrimination, visual speech reception, speech reading, receptive language, expressive language, and literacy.
and then:
There is plenty of subjective evidence for cued speech.
These 2 statements are in direct opposition to each other. One says that the research supports, the other says that the research has not been done. Subjective evidence is not empirical, and is nothing more than opinion based on bias.

Many deaf individuals feel that this culture is threatened by cued speech and other oral or auditory approaches.

When I classified CS as an oral audiotry approach, loml accused me of not knowing what I was talking about. Then she turns around and posts an article making the same statement in support of CS. Obviously, someone doesn't know what they are talking about, but I don't think its me.:roll:

Additionally, I have listened to the objections of deaf people regarding CS, and I have yet to have one single deaf individual express fear that CS will destroy Deaf Culture. That is simply a way to minimize the true and valid concerns that the deaf have reagarding the ineffectiveness of CS, and to once again, take away the right to self determination from the deaf by the hearing. Anyone else see the irony of the fact that the most avid supporters of CS are all hearing? And yer they claim to be motivated by improving the education of the deaf. Why is it then, that they don't listen to the deaf when they express their needs?
 
deafbajagal said:
My thoughts
* (Puzzled) How is "reading a visual activity"? Can someone explain that one to me?

*Using the cue card for communication is an EXCELLENT idea. Why have I never thought of that before?! There was a student who used cueing well, but she had mild CP. She could have used the cue card.

*CS is not popular because of deaf culture? That's bull. CS is not being researched by the special education community because some deaf people feel threatened by it? That's bull. CS is also not viewed highly by the oral deaf education field because they feel it is too much like manual communication and may hinder the goals of speech and speechreading -and THAT is the reason there is lack of fundings to do adequent research on whether or not CS is benefical for deaf and hard of hearing students.

* Children with hearing aids also have speech and auditory training/auditory discrimination goals as well as those with CIs.
Click to expand...

:gpost: and thank u about the CS not being popular cuz of Deaf culture. The people in the Deaf community do not make the policies in Deaf education. As for not using CS for communication..why should they when they have ASL? Do hearing people use CS for communication when they have thier spoken language to communicate? No!
 
Thanks loml for the article.

The potential for CS in combination with CI is absolutely there...

Glad Cornett had the insight not to "just" adopt signlanguage but looked further, realising that there is no need for hearing parents to learn a complete new language in order to communicate with their deaf children, but that using one's own language in a different form was much easier and just as effective. Perhaps more..

Obviously, a system developed by a HEARING" person in a time when "ORAL" was the law, is not making Cued Speech popular among the many deaf/Deaf people that suffered from the oral education...
Once one believes that "sign is the only way"... Cued Speech is the enemy.
So, ignoring it, backstabbing and misinformation is then the way to handle Cued Speech.

Ah well...
... still haven't seen any reference to research that showed how Cued Speech is damaging....
... the opposite is readily available... for those who want to find it and read it. And more and more is being published. Especially - again - in combination with CI.

One of the best arguments I heard by a deaf person that grew up with cued speech is "I don't need it any more".... mission accomplished.

Again, thanks loml for presenting positive information here...
.... don't stop..
 
deafbajagal said:
My thoughts
*CS is not popular because of deaf culture? That's bull. CS is not being researched by the special education community because some deaf people feel threatened by it? That's bull. CS is also not viewed highly by the oral deaf education field because they feel it is too much like manual communication and may hinder the goals of speech and speechreading -and THAT is the reason there is lack of fundings to do adequent research on whether or not CS is benefical for deaf and hard of hearing students.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. I would be curious to see actual statistics as far as the real numbers of deaf people that feel threatened by CS. In all my years of school and college, never once I did I encounter another deaf person degrading, making fun of, or whatever, of other deaf people's methods for learning and communication. I think as a general whole, deaf people recognize that each of us are individuals and have different methods that work best for us.

I certainly have nothing against CS, CIs, HAs, sign language, etc. (or lack thereof of any of these), but to be told that we deaf people are actually against CS isn't realistic. There may be a select few deaf people (I'm not referring to anybody here on AD, I'm speaking in general) that don't agree with CS and make their opinions verbally and expressively known, but don't label the deaf community as a whole as being against CS.
 
Last edited:
"Glad Cornett had the insight not to "just" adopt signlanguage but looked further, realising that there is no need for hearing parents to learn a complete new language in order to communicate with their deaf children, but that using one's own language in a different form was much easier and just as effective. Perhaps more.."

Cued speech was developed for students who were fluent in ASL - and CS was intended to accompany ASL in terms of developing literacy skills. ASL does not really work well with phonetics and phonemic awareness (obviously), so therefore CS is supposed to help with literacy in that regard.

It was never intended to be used for communication purposes. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used for communication.

However, you brought up a very excellent point- one of the biggest obstacles of hearing parents of deaf children is that is difficult for many parents to learn a second language OR some parents simply refuse to learn a second language. Some parents want to learn it but lack resources or means to learn (e.g, economic status) and unfortunately, in the United States, the support system for parents of deaf children is very weak (if it exists at all). So therefore, Cued Speech certainly can bridge the gap if parents choose to use it as a communication mode for their child. It is supposed to be easy to learn and use. I learned how to cue fluently in about three days with ongoing practice. I then went to Louisana and got to use it with people who used on a regular basis. Nearly all of them used ASL as well.

It is a shame that there is a severe lacking in research on the effectiveness (or lack of) of using CS whether it be for communication, reading, writing, etc.
 
AlleyCat said:
I have to agree. I would be curious to see actual statistics as far as the real numbers of deaf people that feel threatened by CS. In all my years of school and college, never once I did I encounter another deaf person degrading, making fun of, or whatever, of other deaf people's methods for learning and communication. I think as a general whole, deaf people recognize that each of us are individuals and have different methods that work best for us.

I certainly have nothing against CS, CIs, HAs, sign language, etc. (or lack thereof of any of these), but to be told that we deaf people are actually against CS isn't realistic. There may be a select few deaf people (I'm not referring to anybody here on AD, I'm speaking in general) that don't agree with CS and make their opinions verbally and expressively known, but don't label the deaf community as a whole as being against CS.
Click to expand...

Right. Anytime I read something that generalizes a certain group of people (in this case it would be the deaf community), it really causes me to question the validity of what I'm reading.
 
deafbajagal said:
"Glad Cornett had the insight not to "just" adopt signlanguage but looked further, realising that there is no need for hearing parents to learn a complete new language in order to communicate with their deaf children, but that using one's own language in a different form was much easier and just as effective. Perhaps more.."

Cued speech was developed for students who were fluent in ASL - and CS was intended to accompany ASL in terms of developing literacy skills. ASL does not really work well with phonetics and phonemic awareness (obviously), so therefore CS is supposed to help with literacy in that regard.

It was never intended to be used for communication purposes. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used for communication.

However, you brought up a very excellent point- one of the biggest obstacles of hearing parents of deaf children is that is difficult for many parents to learn a second language OR some parents simply refuse to learn a second language. Some parents want to learn it but lack resources or means to learn (e.g, economic status) and unfortunately, in the United States, the support system for parents of deaf children is very weak (if it exists at all). So therefore, Cued Speech certainly can bridge the gap if parents choose to use it as a communication mode for their child. It is supposed to be easy to learn and use. I learned how to cue fluently in about three days with ongoing practice. I then went to Louisana and got to use it with people who used on a regular basis. Nearly all of them used ASL as well.

It is a shame that there is a severe lacking in research on the effectiveness (or lack of) of using CS whether it be for communication, reading, writing, etc.
Click to expand...

Is the whole post in your words or quoted?
 
deafbajagal said:
Language deprivation - yep! Ironcially in the way they were being exposed to English...they were really exposed to nothing. Sad.
Click to expand...

I did not talk until I was 5. But look how great I turned out. Oral education rules!
 
Bottesini said:
I did not talk until I was 5. But look how great I turned out. Oral education rules!
Click to expand...

Congrats, Bottesini! I'm glad for you.

Yet you're just one of few exceptional oralism students who succeed, however.

Assure you that we acknowledged that there are several ones who did really fine attending the oralism schools, but it doesn't rather represent the many of them out there who failed, considerably.

Oral education rules? Nope... ASL/Bilingualism absolutely RULES! pffft lol
 
web730 said:
Congrats, Bottesini! I'm glad for you.

Yet you're just one of few exceptional oralism students who succeed, however.

Assure you that we acknowledged that there are several ones who did really fine attending the oralism schools, but it doesn't rather represent the many of them out there who failed, considerably.

Oral education rules? Nope... ASL/Bilingualism absolutely RULES! pffft lol
Click to expand...

I think you missed my sarcasm. I really didn't talk til I was 5.

ASL would have been a better option.
 
Bottesini said:
That is true. And I agree ouch!
Click to expand...

I wonder the same thing about myself...I was told that I was able to pick up on oral language but the question is..was that because I could speak so well? What about my recieving end...did I really pick up on that much? We would never know...
 
shel90 said:
I wonder the same thing about myself...I was told that I was able to pick up on oral language but the question is..was that because I could speak so well? What about my recieving end...did I really pick up on that much? We would never know...
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. But I can't really speak that well. People who are not my family don't always understand me.

Plus I don't really sign either.

However, I really like it here. I talk with no difficulty when I type.
 
Back
Top