CueSign Inc.

[jillio]

shel90 - The statement: "Please cue to me. When you sign, I cant hear what you say,", I can see how you would view this statement is misleading, but in all reality it is true. You have not experienced how Cued Speech teaches the visual representation of sound to deaf people, and how the brain processes the "visual sound". A deaf person who cues, developes an "inner voice", similiar to that of a hearing person who is for example reading silently to themselves. It is not ASL it is Cued Speech.

That is absurd. Cueing does not allow one to hear sound. Visual representation of sound is not hearing. The brain processes visual information as visual information, period. And a deaf person who is unable to hear the sound, and only has a visual representation of that sound develops an inner voice based on visual information, not sound. The phonetic loop in ASL users adapts to the phonemes and morphemes of ASL, and their inner voice is dependent upon that. And the phonetic loop is tied to memory, not inner voice.

The brain in a deaf ASL user adapts to process visual information as language, and therefore, visual langauge is processed as visual linguistic input. The brain recognizes the phonemes and morphemes of ASL as linguistic input just as a hearing person recognizes the phonemes and morphemes of their native language as liguistic input. The brain of the ASL user sees handshapes (phonemes) and the combinations of phonemes and placement and movement as linguistic components and they are processed as language; i.e. the brain recognizes these handshapes, movements, and placements as linguistic components and automatically processes them as language, whereas gestures not specifiically related to ASL are not processed as linguistic input. The same with a hearing individual. They process the phonemes and morphemes specific to the language spoken in the environment are processed in the brain as linguistic input, while sounds unrelated to that langauge are not processed as linguistic input. The brain easily discerns nonsense syllables and environmental noises as nonlinguistic input. This is dependent upon a fully functioning auditory system, and begins at birth. Infants as young as a few weeks will attend to auditory input that contains the phonemes of their mother tongue, and will not respond to phonemes of another language. The same is true of ASL, only in a visual mode.

 

[jillio]

I have an inner voice from being raised orally..however, the writer of the article needs to clarify that statement cuz people who have no knowledge of deafness or ASL will more likely take it that way. ASL continues to be portrayed as a language detrimental to literacy skills.

And your inner voice is dependent upon what you have been able to perceive auditorily. In other words, if you hear a sound in a distorted way, your inner voice replicates that sound in a distorted way. What I'm trying to say, is one cannot internalize what one is unable to perceive. The statement you referred to is extremely misleading, and it is unethical to attempt to portray CS as a way to hear.

Do children exposed to ASL from infancy develop an inner "voice". Of course they do. Voice is not a word that applies simply to using the vocal chords to produce sound, but is also used to apply to that which allows a person to communcicate. Therefore, an inner "voice" can be sign or speech, or a combination thereof.

 

[shel90]

And your inner voice is dependent upon what you have been able to perceive auditorily. In other words, if you hear a sound in a distorted way, your inner voice replicates that sound in a distorted way. What I'm trying to say, is one cannot internalize what one is unable to perceive. The statement you referred to is extremely misleading, and it is unethical to attempt to portray CS as a way to hear.

Do children exposed to ASL from infancy develop an inner "voice". Of course they do. Voice is not a word that applies simply to using the vocal chords to produce sound, but is also used to apply to that which allows a person to communcicate. Therefore, an inner "voice" can be sign or speech, or a combination thereof.

If my inner voice is dependent upon on what I have been able to perceive auditorily, then how is it that I am able to speak well enough for most hearing people to understand me? I rely on it when speaking and my speech definitely DOES not match what I can hear. Know what I mean?

 

[deafskeptic]

If my inner voice is dependent upon on what I have been able to perceive auditorily, then how is it that I am able to speak well enough for most hearing people to understand me? I rely on it when speaking and my speech definitely DOES not match what I can hear. Know what I mean?

You raise a very good question there.

 

[jillio]

If my inner voice is dependent upon on what I have been able to perceive auditorily, then how is it that I am able to speak well enough for most hearing people to understand me? I rely on it when speaking and my speech definitely DOES not match what I can hear. Know what I mean?

Yes I know exactly what you mean. That is why speech therapy is used to correct the errors. You are adding additional information to what you can hear. But prior to being corrected, your inner voice did not have that information.

For instance, my son used to say "figer" for spider. That is what he perceived through auditory channels and lip reading. When he read the word "spider", his inner voice said "figer". With speech therapy, he was taught that the word he was hearing from his inner voice was not "figer" but "spider". With practice, he was able to correct the errors in perception, and his memory taught him that what he heard as "figer" was really pronounced "spider". But he had to be taught to combine auditoy, kinesthetic, and visual information to make the corrections to his inner voice. The inner voice relies on memory.

BTW, he also pronounced "button" as "fuckit". That was one we really had to work on correcting with his inner voice!

 

[jillio]

If my inner voice is dependent upon on what I have been able to perceive auditorily, then how is it that I am able to speak well enough for most hearing people to understand me? I rely on it when speaking and my speech definitely DOES not match what I can hear. Know what I mean?

Yes I know exactly what you mean. That is why speech therapy is used to correct the errors. You are adding additional information to what you can hear. But prior to being corrected, your inner voice did not have that information.

For instance, my son used to say "figer" for spider. That is what he perceived through auditory channels and lip reading. When he read the word "spider", his inner voice said "figer". With speech therapy, he was taught that the word he was hearing from his inner voice was not "figer" but "spider". With practice, he was able to correct the errors in perception, and his memory taught him that what he heard as "figer" was really pronounced "spider". But he had to be taught to combine auditoy, kinesthetic, and visual information to make the corrections to his inner voice. The inner voice relies on memory. He still hears "figer", but the combination of other information and practice has revised his inner voice (memory) so that he knows that what he hears as "figer" is actually what hearing people hear as "spider", and his brain makes the correction from auditory input to processing.

BTW, he also pronounced "button" as "fuckit". That was one we really had to work on correcting with his inner voice!
I hope that explanation made sense.

 

[shel90]

Yes I know exactly what you mean. That is why speech therapy is used to correct the errors. You are adding additional information to what you can hear. But prior to being corrected, your inner voice did not have that information.

For instance, my son used to say "figer" for spider. That is what he perceived through auditory channels and lip reading. When he read the word "spider", his inner voice said "figer". With speech therapy, he was taught that the word he was hearing from his inner voice was not "figer" but "spider". With practice, he was able to correct the errors in perception, and his memory taught him that what he heard as "figer" was really pronounced "spider". But he had to be taught to combine auditoy, kinesthetic, and visual information to make the corrections to his inner voice. The inner voice relies on memory. He still hears "figer", but the combination of other information and practice has revised his inner voice (memory) so that he knows that what he hears as "figer" is actually what hearing people hear as "spider", and his brain makes the correction from auditory input to processing.

BTW, he also pronounced "button" as "fuckit". That was one we really had to work on correcting with his inner voice!
I hope that explanation made sense.

It does to some degree. It is just a very complex concept for me to process now. I guess I am brain dead from a busy week.

 

[jillio]

It does to some degree. It is just a very complex concept for me to process now. I guess I am brain dead from a busy week.

I understand. Holiday hangover! That's why I wasn't sure if it made sense. I went back to edit and add another couple of comments, and ended up posting a whole new post!

Basically, your inner voice is nothing more than memory.

 

[shel90]

I understand. Holiday hangover! That's why I wasn't sure if it made sense. I went back to edit and add another couple of comments, and ended up posting a whole new post!

Basically, your inner voice is nothing more than memory.

There is still more holiday hangover to come..my dad is flying from AZ on New Year's.

That is so weird that my inner voice is a memory. I guess my speech therapists did a good job.

 

[jillio]

There is still more holiday hangover to come..my dad is flying from AZ on New Year's.

That is so weird that my inner voice is a memory. I guess my speech therapists did a good job.

Oh, boy! I hope the visit isn't too stressful! But if he's coming to your house, you have the advantage......your world, your way of doing things!

Yep, your speech therapists did a good job, but also, you were simply one of those people that was able to benefit from it. And no one can explain that one, as you know from the experience of your brother.

 

[flip]

Yes I know exactly what you mean. That is why speech therapy is used to correct the errors. You are adding additional information to what you can hear. But prior to being corrected, your inner voice did not have that information.

For instance, my son used to say "figer" for spider. That is what he perceived through auditory channels and lip reading. When he read the word "spider", his inner voice said "figer". With speech therapy, he was taught that the word he was hearing from his inner voice was not "figer" but "spider". With practice, he was able to correct the errors in perception, and his memory taught him that what he heard as "figer" was really pronounced "spider". But he had to be taught to combine auditoy, kinesthetic, and visual information to make the corrections to his inner voice. The inner voice relies on memory. He still hears "figer", but the combination of other information and practice has revised his inner voice (memory) so that he knows that what he hears as "figer" is actually what hearing people hear as "spider", and his brain makes the correction from auditory input to processing.

BTW, he also pronounced "button" as "fuckit". That was one we really had to work on correcting with his inner voice!
I hope that explanation made sense.

Interesting. This is not known to many people, and I think I only have heard about this once before.

I have seen the argument from loml used before from oralist, that ASL is useless in literacy if we follow the Vygotsky model of inner speech. To me, it's somewhat limited and does not take in account how ASL works in the brain. From wikipedia on "Vygotsky":

"Language starts as a tool external to the child used for social interaction. The child guides personal behavior by using this tool in a kind of self-talk or "thinking out loud". Initially, self-talk is very much a tool of social interaction and it tapers to negligible levels when the child is alone or with deaf children. Gradually self-talk is used more as a tool for self-directed and self-regulating behavior. Then, because speaking has been appropriated and internalized, self-talk is no longer present around the time the child starts school. Self-talk "develops along a rising not a declining, curve; it goes through an evolution, not an involution. In the end, it becomes inner speech” (Vygotsky, 1987). pg 57 Inner speech develops through its differentiation from social speech."

Maybe someone should correct this article to "deaf children deprived of language, either by oralism or isolation"?

Another thing is that according to Vygotsky, writing is a very good way to train our inner speech. I guess it's here deaf vlogs and videotape comes into mind, if the children still are too young to express themselves effective in written english. Looks like all aspect of Vygotsky can be used in a bi-bi setting if one know what ASL is.

But after all, remember this is just theory!

 

[jillio]

Interesting. This is not known to many people, and I think I only have heard about this once before.

I have seen the argument from loml used before from oralist, that ASL is useless in literacy if we follow the Vygotsky model of inner speech. To me, it's somewhat limited and does not take in account how ASL works in the brain. From wikipedia on "Vygotsky":

"Language starts as a tool external to the child used for social interaction. The child guides personal behavior by using this tool in a kind of self-talk or "thinking out loud". Initially, self-talk is very much a tool of social interaction and it tapers to negligible levels when the child is alone or with deaf children. Gradually self-talk is used more as a tool for self-directed and self-regulating behavior. Then, because speaking has been appropriated and internalized, self-talk is no longer present around the time the child starts school. Self-talk "develops along a rising not a declining, curve; it goes through an evolution, not an involution. In the end, it becomes inner speech” (Vygotsky, 1987). pg 57 Inner speech develops through its differentiation from social speech."

Maybe someone should correct this article to "deaf children deprived of language, either by oralism or isolation"?

Another thing is that according to Vygotsky, writing is a very good way to train our inner speech. I guess it's here deaf vlogs and videotape comes into mind, if the children still are too young to express themselves effective in written english. Looks like all aspect of Vygotsky can be used in a bi-bi setting if one know what ASL is.

But after all, remember this is just theory!

Absolutely. Vygotsky's theory is a theory, but it is the basis for much of what we know and practice in child development. And remember, a theory is a hypothesis that has been subjected to rigorous scientific investigation and found to be valid. And when Vygotsky, or Piaget, or Bronfenbrenner, ort Erikson, or any of the other developmental theorists speak of "language" they are not referring to "spoken language" specifically, but the term is inclusive of signed languages as well. And the term "inner voice" is used to describe a mental and cognitive process, and is a process that is not dependent upon spoken language.

So yes, when one understands langauge, and not just that which is spoken, and the ways in which language is acquired and internalized, and the cognitive and developmental implications, then all of the developmental theories would be effectively applied to a Bi-Bi approach. In fact, the very concept of L1 language being used to teach L2 language is based on what developmental pshychologists such as Vygotsky, Piaget, Bronfrenbrenner, and Erikson have taught, and that which has been supported through research and has held consistent over time.

 

[loml]

Removal of Lip/Speech Reading Ambiguities

Cued speech used in conjunction with speech therapy, could/would provide a visual representation of the correct consonant and vowel for pronuciation, via hand shapes and hand placements, removing the ambiguity of speech/lip reading.

Cue Script which is the written format of the system of Cued Speech can/does indicate the correct consonant and vowel for pronunciation. The numbers are the correlating hand shape, the letters are the correlating hand placement/position.

Examples of Cue Script are as follow:

fi ger =
5t 7m

spi der =
3s1s5t 1m

fu kit =
5s/d 2t5s

but ton =
4s/d 5s4s


The visual representations of the consonant and vowel is very clear, removing the ambiguity of speech/lip reading. The written supports the the hand shapes and placements, and can/is used as a supplement to learning Cued Speech.

 

[jillio]

Cued speech used in conjunction with speech therapy, could/would provide a visual representation of the correct consonant and vowel for pronuciation, via hand shapes and hand placements, removing the ambiguity of speech/lip reading.

Cue Script which is the written format of the system of Cued Speech can/does indicate the correct consonant and vowel for pronunciation. The numbers are the correlating hand shape, the letters are the correlating hand placement/position.

Examples of Cue Script are as follow:

fi ger =
5t 7m

spi der =
3s1s5t 1m

fu kit =
5s/d 2t5s

but ton =
4s/d 5s4s


The visual representations of the consonant and vowel is very clear, removing the ambiguity of speech/lip reading. The written supports the the hand shapes and placements, and can/is used as a supplement to learning Cued Speech.

Exactly what is your point? You are going incircles again with your constant contradictions of yourself. And why in the world would one need to write Cued Speech? If it is intended to produce literacy, English language already has a written mode. What you have posted here is no more than a system of notation, and one that is not even as phonetically representative as the system of notation used by professional speech therapists. 4s/d5s4s is meaningless to a 3 year old attempting to correct pronunciation. Cued Script does not play a role in the internalization of language and the development of the inner voice. And your response in no way addresses shel's question or my response. You are like a parrot. You reply CS, CS, CS, CS whether it is pertinent to the discussion or not. You have been trained well. You repeat what you ahve been told, but are completely incapable if discussing the use of CS in any other context other than the one you have been trained to use. We are now discussing CS from the standpoint of cognitive and developmental psychology. Join in if you can break out of your rote.

 

[Kaitin]

kaitin - My intent with this bolding is to affirm that for Dr. Cornett, Cued Speech is not about the deaf child learning to speak. This is also the position of the Cued Speech advocates that I am familiar with.

Ok. but probably many including Dr. Cornett use CS to help with speech and also with reading.

Example - the Northern Virginia Cued Speech Association Mission Statement also have a "cue camp." They say -

Cued Speech Has Come To Be Recognized As An Amazing Tool That Provides Many Benefits:
Use of Cued Speech in and of itself will not guarantee that a child will have intelligible speech. However, the Cued Speech system is an excellent tool for teaching a deaf child to speak. A speech clinician can use cues to identify the sounds she wants a child to produce. She can use cues to identify the sounds the child actually did make and show the difference between the sound she asked for and the sound that was produced. She can clearly explain how to make the desired sound. Once it is mastered, the cue provides a clear and distinct label for that sound. Because it is the same cue that is used to represent part of the parent or the teacher's speech, the child will recognize that cue each time he sees it and recognize how it fits in to the language that he receives and uses every day. In this way the deaf child can learn to combine speech and language through use of cues, and eventually develop more natural sounding speech by observing the (cued) speech of hearing models.

Dealing directly with CueSign.Inc is an opportunity to discuss exactly how these deaf people incorporate both systems. It is really a great opportunity!

I don't argue against this. And if people use CueSign and have a great opportunity I am happy for them.

Also - I don't "oppose" CS. I don't care if CS is used as part of ST or just reading or to make deaf/HoH fly, but I care if people argue in a forum hearing parents maybe read and are not accurate about things they argue. I am sincere and try to think of the polite way to say this - I am not against CS but I don't think some posts are accurate about "combining" CS and ASL or CS not used for speech also. Everyone makes mistakes - no problem. Each day I make many, many mistakes. But if information shows the mistake...........This is why I post again and again.

In another thread you say, Loml:

The deaf adults who oppose CS, in my experience, are the deaf children whose speech therapy sessions have let them imbittered. Perhaps these same adults would feel differently if they had had the opportunity to add CS to their tool box. It has also been my experience that these same deaf adults do not fully understand what CS and how it feels to use it. Some are willing to explore and learn and some are not, freedom of choice.

Please understand - I hate ST. Am I bitter about ST? No. I know when I was a kid I needed ST and now I need ST still (I stopped ST and now restart). It is terrible when you talk and people don't understand - very frustrating, tiring, and sometimes embarassing. Or always to think about how to say something or not say anything because worries you say it wrong or someone misunderstand. And lipreading also is tiring, always hard, and sometime impossible. So anything that makes ST and speech easier for a person who decides to use voice is great to me. Anything. Exact opposite of bitter.

Last point - you write

kaitin - Are you excluding the deaf individuals, who use ASL and Cued Speech from deaf cutlure and the deaf world?

No. I ask if this thread should be in other area of AD because your first post is just a link to the Cue Sign Committee email (they say "we agreed to not proceed with the conference in Rochester, NY this month" so just email). People who use CS (deaf, HoH, hearing) maybe are part of deaf culture and world (depends on each person - same with ASL or anything) but I don't see a link to any organization email is part of deaf culture and world.

 

[loml]

Originally Posted by loml

kaitin - My intent with this bolding is to affirm that for Dr. Cornett, Cued Speech is not about the deaf child learning to speak. This is also the position of the Cued Speech advocates that I am familiar with.

Ok. but probably many including Dr. Cornett use CS to help with speech and also with reading.

Kaitin - Alright. Thanks.

I do find the second statement misleading. Basically because:

1. you are including Dr. Cornett, in for this satement, and unfortunately, he is no longer with us to verify.

2. people will interpret "probably many" differently.

Example - the Northern Virginia Cued Speech Association Mission Statement also have a "cue camp." They say -

Cued Speech Has Come To Be Recognized As An Amazing Tool That Provides Many Benefits:
Use of Cued Speech in and of itself will not guarantee that a child will have intelligible speech. However, the Cued Speech system is an excellent tool for teaching a deaf child to speak. A speech clinician can use cues to identify the sounds she wants a child to produce. She can use cues to identify the sounds the child actually did make and show the difference between the sound she asked for and the sound that was produced. She can clearly explain how to make the desired sound. Once it is mastered, the cue provides a clear and distinct label for that sound. Because it is the same cue that is used to represent part of the parent or the teacher's speech, the child will recognize that cue each time he sees it and recognize how it fits in to the language that he receives and uses every day. In this way the deaf child can learn to combine speech and language through use of cues, and eventually develop more natural sounding speech by observing the (cued) speech of hearing models.

Kaitin - This is where I feel there needs to be a very clear distinction. I do not promote Cued Speech as a speech tool, can it be used to compliment a program such a NVCSA, yes.

Originally Posted by loml
Dealing directly with CueSign.Inc is an opportunity to discuss exactly how these deaf people incorporate both systems. It is really a great opportunity!

I don't argue against this. And if people use CueSign and have a great opportunity I am happy for them.

Kaitin - I agree.

Also - I don't "oppose" CS. I don't care if CS is used as part of ST or just reading or to make deaf/HoH fly, but I care if people argue in a forum hearing parents maybe read and are not accurate about things they argue. I am sincere and try to think of the polite way to say this - I am not against CS but I don't think some posts are accurate about "combining" CS and ASL or CS not used for speech also. Everyone makes mistakes - no problem. Each day I make many, many mistakes. But if information shows the mistake...........This is why I post again and again.

I too wish for parents to read accurate information. Are you able to provide links to postings where you beleive that the information posted regarding Cued Speech is inaccurate? I myself are unable to locate any and I would appreciate the opportunity to review them. I also believe in providing/sharing information to assist in parents making informed decisions.

With regards to CS and ASL, you do think some posts are accurate, and were provided with contact info. Have you taken the opportunity to contact the adults of CueSignInc. who do combine ASL and Cued Speech for clarification? If you have not then, then you have nothing factual to base your position on.

In another thread you say, Loml:

Originally Posted by loml
The deaf adults who oppose CS, in my experience, are the deaf children whose speech therapy sessions have let them imbittered. Perhaps these same adults would feel differently if they had had the opportunity to add CS to their tool box. It has also been my experience that these same deaf adults do not fully understand what CS and how it feels to use it. Some are willing to explore and learn and some are not, freedom of choice.

Please understand - I hate ST. Am I bitter about ST? No. I know when I was a kid I needed ST and now I need ST still (I stopped ST and now restart). It is terrible when you talk and people don't understand - very frustrating, tiring, and sometimes embarassing. Or always to think about how to say something or not say anything because worries you say it wrong or someone misunderstand. And lipreading also is tiring, always hard, and sometime impossible. So anything that makes ST and speech easier for a person who decides to use voice is great to me. Anything. Exact opposite of bitter.

Kaitin - I was not suggesting that you feel imbittered. My statement is based on my experience. I will add that these same deaf people refuse to consider anything but ASL for young deaf children of hearing families.

Last point - you write

Originally Posted by loml
kaitin - Are you excluding the deaf individuals, who use ASL and Cued Speech from deaf cutlure and the deaf world?

No. I ask if this thread should be in other area of AD because your first post is just a link to the Cue Sign Committee email (they say "we agreed to not proceed with the conference in Rochester, NY this month" so just email). People who use CS (deaf, HoH, hearing) maybe are part of deaf culture and world (depends on each person - same with ASL or anything) but I don't see a link to any organization email is part of deaf culture and world.

Kaitin - I see that we are looking at this differently. I posted this here based on the people of CueSign.Inc., being a part of deaf culture and world.

 

[jillio]

Oh, please, loml. Kaitlin included Dr. Cornett as one of those indiviuals who use CS to promote speech because he directly stated such in his 2000 revision of his statement regarding CS. The words are straight from Dr. Cornett, therefore, it is already verified. His being dead has nothing to do with it, because the wording is very straight forward and clear, and therefore, does not leave room for alternate interpretation.:roll:

 

[Kaitin]

Oh, please, loml. Kaitlin included Dr. Cornett as one of those indiviuals who use CS to promote speech because he directly stated such in his 2000 revision of his statement regarding CS. The words are straight from Dr. Cornett, therefore, it is already verified. His being dead has nothing to do with it, because the wording is very straight forward and clear, and therefore, does not leave room for alternate interpretation.:roll:

Yes. Exactly right, Jillio.

Loml - tomorrow I will try to answer more. I need to go to bed.

 

[Kaitin]

I wrote a reply for every point. Now I delete it. I don't fight online and I don't think "Our World, Our Culture" is about CS argument so I don't add to the argument. I don't think I was unclear in my replies in the thread, so I don't need more replies. If I was unclear, I'm sorry and PM me about this.

 

[jillio]

I wrote a reply for every point. Now I delete it. I don't fight online and I don't think "Our World, Our Culture" is about CS argument so I don't add to the argument. I don't think I was unclear in my replies in the thread, so I don't need more replies. If I was unclear, I'm sorry and PM me about this.

You weren't unclear at all, Kaitlin, and you have very aptly pointed out the inconsistencies in loml numerous posts. The fact is, this is not an attempt to diseminate information on loml's part, but a shameless advertisement for NCSA, which is an organization which makes a profit selling things associated with CS. He is no more than a NCSA puppet.