Explaining Cued Speech - from an expert.

And when it is promoted as a tool to assist in teaching literacy with ASL as the L1 language, as in Bi-Bi programs, then I have no problem with it, either. However, from what I have seen on this board, and in the references cited, and the on the numerous websites visited, is that it is not being promoted as a teaching tool, as it was intended, but as a method for acquiring L1 langauge skills. It is being promoted as a communication choice, not a teaching tool. It is being recommended that it be used for L1 langauge, and that means, and has been stated, that ASL should not be used until English has been learned through CS. In other words, it is being used to promote the oralist agenda, not as a teaching tool. The intent of the original system is being distorted to support the oralist agenda. Just look at the time line. CS all but disappeared for years. With the increased implantation of chidlren, and the oralist move that has coincided with that, CS is suuddenly being revised. Technology is moving forward......thinking is moving backward.

It appears that is what has happened with CS. Now, "experts" are saying that CS is outdated and being replaced with Visual Phonics. Hard to believe anything anymore these days.
 
How to combine ASL and CS? If I talk to someone and they use English and CS they can't use ASL. So no combine ASL - just one person using ASL and one English/CS, right?

Exactly, Kaitlin. The only way the two could be used in combination is in a Bi-Bi program where ESL is beign taught through ASL,and even then the CS would be redundant. but you are correct....one is English in the mode of CS, the other is American Sign language. Still 2 different langauges.
 
deafskeptic - You state "it hasn't been effective for most deaf". Considering the wide range of familial backgrounds and childhood variables, what do you base this statement on?

I continuosly read statements implying that the resurgence of Cued Speech has something to do with oral only approaches. On its own CS it is not a speech tool, nor will using the system improve a deaf child/adults' speech . Considering the heirarchy and politics involved in the field of deaf rehab/education, where is this resurgence happening? How are people coming to this conclussion? It is not clear to me.

Look around you. The push toward oralism as tied to CI is obvious. And oralism does not apply to speech only, but orally based language as the only language for the deaf child, i.e. English as the L1 language because English is the langauge of the majority. As CS is an English mode, and you yourself, have stated that English should always be the L1 language, with ASL learned only as an L2 language, if at all, CS is directly tied to the oral English philosophy. You are attempting to use oralism as applied to speech only, and there is much more to the concept than than.


There have been numerous postings on this board stating that ASL/oral programs are successful with regards to literacy. I can only imagine adding CS to these programs to removing the ambiguity of speech reading.

If one is using ASL, one is not speech reading. Therefore, your remark would apply to the oral programs, and therefore, has supported the connection to oralism.

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.

Which is it loml.....a tool for speech therapy or not? You continually waffle bacvk and forth. First you say it is not a tool to teach speech, and then you connect it to speech therapy. How would speech terapy have been made easier, if CS is not a tool for speech therapy.

And we have heard frommany deaf adults on this board that have been exposed to CS, know how it feels to use it, and say that it is limited in its usefulness and that it is confusing and cumbersome. You continually want to blame the umpopularity of the system, and the fact that it is not,nor has it ever been widely used on the deaf, rather than on the system itself. It is not the deaf perception that has failed CS......it is CS that has failed the deaf.

Like flip, my opinion is if you are unwilling to discuss the subject in a public forum, then you have created the distinct impression that there is something you are attempting to hide and that you are not being up front and above board.
 
And when it is promoted as a tool to assist in teaching literacy with ASL as the L1 language, as in Bi-Bi programs, then I have no problem with it, either. However, from what I have seen on this board, and in the references cited, and the on the numerous websites visited, is that it is not being promoted as a teaching tool, as it was intended, but as a method for acquiring L1 langauge skills. It is being promoted as a communication choice, not a teaching tool. It is being recommended that it be used for L1 langauge, and that means, and has been stated, that ASL should not be used until English has been learned through CS. In other words, it is being used to promote the oralist agenda, not as a teaching tool. The intent of the original system is being distorted to support the oralist agenda. Just look at the time line. CS all but disappeared for years. With the increased implantation of chidlren, and the oralist move that has coincided with that, CS is suuddenly being revised. Technology is moving forward......thinking is moving backward.

You do raise some excellent points there, Jillio.
 
How to combine ASL and CS? If I talk to someone and they use English and CS they can't use ASL. So no combine ASL - just one person using ASL and one English/CS, right?

You raise an excellent question there. I think it can be used along with ASL but not with ASL at the same time. And like Jillio said, it's only fesiable with a Bi-Bi program. But given the reactions I've seen toward the idea of a Bi-Bi education, it just gives me the impression that many would rather have us be oral only.
 
deafskeptic - You state "it hasn't been effective for most deaf". Considering the wide range of familial backgrounds and childhood variables, what do you base this statement on?

I base this statement on both my personal experience and my observation of how my class mates reacted to it. I should remind you that the Deaf population come from a wide range of backgrounds and the childhood variables apply to them and that many of them also come from oral backgrounds.

I continuosly read statements implying that the resurgence of Cued Speech has something to do with oral only approaches. On its own CS it is not a speech tool, nor will using the system improve a deaf child/adults' speech . Considering the heirarchy and politics involved in the field of deaf rehab/education, where is this resurgence happening? How are people coming to this conclussion? It is not clear to me.

That's because the majority of the CS advocates - if not all - tend to support oralism. Oralism is making a comeback. I have yet to see an ASLer other than Hilary Franklin support CS and certainly none on this forum.

There have been numerous postings on this board stating that ASL/oral programs are successful with regards to literacy. I can only imagine adding CS to these programs to removing the ambiguity of speech reading.

I think it'd be more useful for teaching a basic understanding of phonics as you don't need to lipread when using ASL.

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.
I thought you said that CS doesn't teach speech? What has a bad exerpreince with speech class got to do with CS? I've had a bad experience with a speech teacher but my problems with her isn't the reason for my skepticism toward CS as a communication tool.

Now I could discuss here, my experience with some hearing adults/professional, who have a vested interested in ASL. I will not do so in public, as I do not wish to offend anyone.

Why would they feel threatened by CS as it never really caught on in the Deaf community?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by loml
deafskeptic - You state "it hasn't been effective for most deaf". Considering the wide range of familial backgrounds and childhood variables, what do you base this statement on?

Originally Posted by deafskeptic
I base this statement on both my personal experience and my observation of how my class mates reacted to it. I should remind you that the Deaf population come from a wide range of backgrounds and the childhood variables apply to them and that many of them also come from oral backgrounds.

deafskeptic- I understand from your statements regarding your personal experience that you were the one child in the class who had had the opportunity to learn some cueing. Why would you expect your classmates to understand cueing if they themselves had not seen it until they met you? How can a system be effective if "most" deaf children have not had the opportunity to learn and use the system?

Originally Posted by loml
I continuosly read statements implying that the resurgence of Cued Speech has something to do with oral only approaches. On its own CS it is not a speech tool, nor will using the system improve a deaf child/adults' speech . Considering the heirarchy and politics involved in the field of deaf rehab/education, where is this resurgence happening? How are people coming to this conclussion? It is not clear to me.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic
That's because the majority of the CS advocates - if not all - tend to support oralism. Oralism is making a comeback. I have yet to see an ASLer other than Hilary Franklin support CS and certainly none on this forum.

deafskeptic - Are you stating here that you have met numerous (more than 2)individuals who advocate for CS? You certainly are not meeting the same Cued Speech advocates that I know. You have made previous statements that your mother cued to you when you misunderstood, are you suggesting then that a tool that removes the ambiguity from spoken word, should not be afforded to furture deaf children?

Originally Posted by loml
There have been numerous postings on this board stating that ASL/oral programs are successful with regards to literacy. I can only imagine adding CS to these programs to removing the ambiguity of speech reading.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic
I think it'd be more useful for teaching a basic understanding of phonics as you don't need to lipread when using ASL.

Again, are you meaning that children in oral programs should not learn/use a system that removes the ambiguity of speech for them?

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..


Originally Posted by deafskeptic
I thought you said that CS doesn't teach speech? What has a bad exerpreince with speech class got to do with CS? I've had a bad experience with a speech teacher but my problems with her isn't the reason for my skepticism toward CS as a communication tool.

Indeed the system of Cued Speech, on its own does not teach speech. As you have some familiarity with Cued Speech, I would not expect you to have the same reaction to the words: Cued Speech.

Originally Posted by loml
Now I could discuss here, my experience with some hearing adults/professional, who have a vested interested in ASL. I will not do so in public, as I do not wish to offend anyone

Originally Posted by deafskeptic
Why would they feel threatened by CS as it never really caught on in the Deaf community?

deafskeptic - I do not recall stating that the Deaf community is threatened by Cued Speech.
 
1. Let me take one example; your position on Cued Speech and speech development appears unclear if you agree both with this blog and the first post you made in the "Stimulation of communication" thread. I am not going to help you further. Now, do you dare to agree totally with this blog?

flip - My first post in that topic was:

Cued speech in the stimulation of communication: an advantagein cochlear implantation

Ch. Descourtieux *, V. Groh, A. Rusterholtz, I. Simoulin, D. Busquet
Codali, 47 rue de ja6el, Paris, 75015, France
Accepted 2 September 1998

Iternational Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology
Volume 47, Issue 2
Pages 205-207

It is unclear to me where you have read my position in this first post. You claim you are not going to "help" me further. That is the end of that then.

Do I dare? Dare I?


2. I decline your invitation to dicuss CS with you privately, because I see no reason to do so. But I invite you to dicuss topics in public here. If topics are too personal, you are free to PM me, and I will respect what I am told privately. However, if you give me a good reason to dicuss this over PM and not in public, I will of course consider it.

flip - Would you please define a good reason?
 
Originally Posted by loml


Originally Posted by deafskeptic
[color]
deafskeptic- I understand from your statements regarding your personal experience that you were the one child in the class who had had the opportunity to learn some cueing. Why would you expect your classmates to understand cueing if they themselves had not seen it until they met you? How can a system be effective if "most" deaf children have not had the opportunity to learn and use the system?

Me:
:roll: I never said that I was the only one who was taught it. My classmates were also taught it. Many in the oral program didn't understand it well as they were limited with the language. Now would you propose that you limit their chances to learn a language unless it's English?

All the deaf kids understood that the cued speech meant a certain word but because they were limited in langage, they had some difficulty understanding the whole message. You don't have this problem in ASL. I should point out that I've tried it and I think it's a useful tool for phonics and lipreading. I only cued to adults and used home made signs to talk to the other kids in the program.


Originally Posted by loml

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

deafskeptic - Are you stating here that you have met numerous (more than 2)individuals who advocate for CS? You certainly are not meeting the same Cued Speech advocates that I know. You have made previous statements that your mother cued to you when you misunderstood, are you suggesting then that a tool that removes the ambiguity from spoken word, should not be afforded to furture deaf children?

ME:
YES, I have met more than one person who advocate for CS. How else do you think I learned it in 2nd grade. You're the most annoying one by far.
Originally Posted by loml

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Again, are you meaning that children in oral programs should not learn/use a system that removes the ambiguity of speech for them?
I don't think they should be in an oral program only.
Originally Posted by loml [/COLOR]

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Indeed the system of Cued Speech, on its own does not teach speech. As you have some familiarity with Cued Speech, I would not expect you to have the same reaction to the words: Cued Speech.

Originally Posted by loml

ME:
I see you have not answered my question. If Cued speech has no revealance to speech why even mention bad experience in speech class. I should point out that many have tried it and don't use it.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

deafskeptic - I do not recall stating that the Deaf community is threatened by Cued Speech.

Why the comment about the reaction to hearing with vested interest in ASL? Is it because they got annoyed with your "gospel" of CS as the salvation to deaf children's literacy skills?

If you want to turn on people to cued speech, you're going about it exactly the wrong way.

You're turning off people to cued speech because you keep going on and on and on and on and on about it. I wonder how long it will be before someone begs Alex for an ignore feature so they can put you and other annoying members on ignore.

I swear your mission is to turn people off on Cued Speech.
 
flip - My first post in that topic was:
It is unclear to me where you have read my position in this first post. You claim you are not going to "help" me further. That is the end of that then.
Do I dare? Dare I?
flip - Would you please define a good reason?

I wish I could reply, but it's not possible because none of this makes any sense.
 
Why the comment about the reaction to hearing with vested interest in ASL? Is it because they got annoyed with your "gospel" of CS as the salvation to deaf children's literacy skills?

If you want to turn on people to cued speech, you're going about it exactly the wrong way.

You're turning off people to cued speech because you keep going on and on and on and on and on about it. I wonder how long it will be before someone begs Alex for an ignore feature so they can put you and other annoying members on ignore.

I swear your mission is to turn people off on Cued Speech.

:gpost::gpost::gpost:

Its like a used car salesman following you all over the car lot assaulting your senses with their sales speech. Even if they have the car you want. you go to another dealer because the salesman is so freakin' annoying!
 
Its like a used car salesman following you all over the car lot assaulting your senses with their sales speech. Even if they have the car you want. you go to another dealer because the salesman is so freakin' annoying!

:giggle:
 
Why the comment about the reaction to hearing with vested interest in ASL? Is it because they got annoyed with your "gospel" of CS as the salvation to deaf children's literacy skills?

If you want to turn on people to cued speech, you're going about it exactly the wrong way.

You're turning off people to cued speech because you keep going on and on and on and on and on about it. I wonder how long it will be before someone begs Alex for an ignore feature so they can put you and other annoying members on ignore.

I swear your mission is to turn people off on Cued Speech.

Amen to that!
 
:gpost::gpost::gpost:

Its like a used car salesman following you all over the car lot assaulting your senses with their sales speech. Even if they have the car you want. you go to another dealer because the salesman is so freakin' annoying!

Good analogy!
 
well, to turn people on through cued speech would be a fetish, now wouldn't it?

It could be argued that Loml has a cued speech fetish. He reminds me of Captain Ahab who was obsessed with Moby Dick. They both strike me as monomaniacs.
 
:gpost::gpost::gpost:

Its like a used car salesman following you all over the car lot assaulting your senses with their sales speech. Even if they have the car you want. you go to another dealer because the salesman is so freakin' annoying!

Ha, ha. I love your analogy.
 
Back
Top