In the Hands of the Interpreter

[rockdrummer]

While I have not yet looked into CS for my child I may do that not as a single method but more as another tool in the toolbox. I do agree that CS has it's place and based on what I have read it's helpful to some. As far as high pressure advocates, I see it in CS and other methods as well. I guess it's how passionate we are about what we support and believe that drives the pressure tactics. I am a firm believer that not every method is the best for every child. I also believe that's partially why so many different methods have evolved over time.

Sorry... I meant to say I am a firm believer that not any single method is the best for every child.

 

[Interpretrator]

Interpretrator - This is an OP, and not the research paper.

:roll:

Fine. Nitpick my point to death while avoiding the real issue. Defend the poor research you use to try and convince people of your position.

I don't disagree that CS is useful -- I firmly believe ANY AND ALL methods that 1) work and 2) are not upsetting to a deaf child should be used -- but the way you go about presenting this knowledge is so incredibly off-putting that I'm done with this debate. I'll be ignoring any further threads or posts from you on this topic. Good luck.

 

[loml]

Cueing is funny in that regard. I have no problem with cued speech, personally. I think it benefits many of the kids who use it. I think more parents need to be aware of cueing, it is not that well-known, and some families might benefit greatly from being able to communicate easily with their deaf children. It's not for everybody, but it helps some people, and anything that helps can't be all bad.

However...I have noticed an extreme tendency for cueing advocates to be REALLY strong pushers for cueing. And like you noted, it's not just motivated by finding the best solution for deaf students...it's because she thinks cueing is the best method and wants to develop research to support that.

Again: cueing can be great. Cueing advocates, though, can be a little too high-pressure.

Etoile - I am a firm believer in the sharing of information, this sharing has always been my intention on boards that I participate on. People have a choice to engage or not regarding the topic of Cued Speech. As I have mentioned in other posts, I cannot lay idle when the system is misrepresented. If anyone is feeling "high pressure" from the discussion, that has nawt to do with the topic, as it does with how they are choosing to react to the topic.

 

[deafskeptic]

Thank you deafskeptic.

You have stated that you were raised oral for the first thirteen years, during this time, you mother ventured into cueing, albeit briefly, did your mother implement cueing into your oral practice?

Please correct me if I have made any errors.

No. She cued only when I had trouble understanding her.

 

[jillio]

Etoile - I am a firm believer in the sharing of information, this sharing has always been my intention on boards that I participate on. People have a choice to engage or not regarding the topic of Cued Speech. As I have mentioned in other posts, I cannot lay idle when the system is misrepresented. If anyone is feeling "high pressure" from the discussion, that has nawt to do with the topic, as it does with how they are choosing to react to the topic.

What is nawt? Do you mean naught?

Sharing information and sharing accurate information are two entirly different concepts. See post 62.

 

[loml]

:roll:

Fine. Nitpick my point to death while avoiding the real issue. Defend the poor research you use to try and convince people of your position.

I don't disagree that CS is useful -- I firmly believe ANY AND ALL methods that 1) work and 2) are not upsetting to a deaf child should be used -- but the way you go about presenting this knowledge is so incredibly off-putting that I'm done with this debate. I'll be ignoring any further threads or posts from you on this topic. Good luck.

I do not have to convince people of anything Interperator.

 

[loml]

What is nawt? Do you mean naught?

Sharing information and sharing accurate information are two entirly different concepts. See post 62.

Ahhhh thanks for catching that. Thinking in sound again, oops!

 

[jillio]

I do not have to convince people of anything Interperator.

No, we are all well aware of your position. However, you are attempting to convince many of the validity of your position.

 

[jillio]

Ahhhh thanks for catching that. Thinking in sound again, oops!

So much for the accuracy in phonetic spelling!

 

[deafskeptic]

:roll:

Fine. Nitpick my point to death while avoiding the real issue. Defend the poor research you use to try and convince people of your position.

I don't disagree that CS is useful -- I firmly believe ANY AND ALL methods that 1) work and 2) are not upsetting to a deaf child should be used -- but the way you go about presenting this knowledge is so incredibly off-putting that I'm done with this debate. I'll be ignoring any further threads or posts from you on this topic. Good luck.

While I agree that CS is useful, its' application is rather limited. Personally, I think it can help with the understanding of phonics and lipreading; I think CS is the reason why I have some understanding of phonics. I also must admit that I never really mastered phonics.

I do not think CS is the reason why I've good English skills though. I already had that before I started on CS. I should have had serious language delays given my background; I didn't wear a hearing aid till i was 2 1/2 years old. My mother says I didn't talk till I was 3 years old. My mother says my first word was Mama only it came out Umma. I have dim memories of my speech teacher teaching me how to say ball to her when I was three but I have no memory of using CS before 2nd grade.

I must confess everytime I see one of these cued speech threads, I feel like rolling my eyes. I don't hate CS. I just think it's limited in its' applications. Cloggy thinks it's because we feel threatened. Hah. It's highly unlikely it'll replace ASL as some ASLers use cued speech as well.

 

[loml]

No. She cued only when I had trouble understanding her.

deafskeptic - On these occassions, did the cueing in fact clear the misunderstanding of what was said?

If I may also ask deafskeptic, when you read do you have an "inner voice"?

I sincerely appreciate you sharing with me deafskeptic.

 

[loml]

While I agree that CS is useful, its' application is rather limited. Personally, I think it can help with the understanding of phonics and lipreading; I think CS is the reason why I have some understanding of phonics. I also must admit that I never really mastered phonics.

I do not think CS is the reason why I've good English skills though. I already had that before I started on CS. I should have had serious language delays given my background; I didn't wear a hearing aid till i was 2 1/2 years old. My mother says I didn't talk till I was 3 years old. My mother says my first word was Mama only it came out Umma. I have dim memories of my speech teacher teaching me how to say ball to her when I was three but I have no memory of using CS before 2nd grade.

I must confess everytime I see one of these cued speech threads, I feel like rolling my eyes. I don't hate CS. I just think it's limited in its' applications. Cloggy thinks it's because we feel threatened. Hah. It's highly unlikely it'll replace ASL as some ASLers use cued speech as well.

deafskeptic - We all come from varying backgrounds, none of us being the same, if we were life would indeed be boring.

Would you mind expanding on "limited in its' applications?"

I, myself cannot imagine ASL being replaced by Cued Speech.

 

[loml]

So much for the accuracy in phonetic spelling!

More like spelled pronunciation.

 

[deafskeptic]

deafskeptic - We all come from varying backgrounds, none of us being the same, if we were life would indeed be boring.

Would you mind expanding on "limited in its' applications?"

I, myself cannot imagine ASL being replaced by Cued Speech.

While I agree that we all come from varying backgrounds; it's getting annoying seeing all these threads on cued speech as the same ol' thing keep getting rehashed over and over.

Very well, It's quite useful for gaining an understanding of phonics or with lipreading. That's about it. It's not so useful as a language and it wasn't meant to be a language. In order to really benefit from it, you'd need to know the spoken langauge first. This is where my some of my classmates ran into trouble.

I can't imagine it replacing ASL either despite what Cloggy thinks.

 

[jillio]

More like spelled pronunciation.

Whatever. You were basing your spelling on phonetic pronunciation (i.e. "thinking in sound again") and it was an excellent example of the inconsistencies of English phonics and the errors that are made when relying on this method. Pronunciation is based on phonics. You spelled it as you would have pronounced it...and it was in error. It shows the restrictions of any phonetic method. And spelling is directly tied to literacy. While "nawt" is phonetically correct in pronunciation, it is hardly the correct spelling, which is "naught". Knowing how the word is pronounced, therefore, does not necessarily carry over into reading and writing skill.

 

[jillio]

While I agree that we all come from varying backgrounds; it's getting annoying seeing all these threads on cued speech as the same ol' thing keep getting rehashed over and over.

Very well, It's quite useful for gaining an understanding of phonics or with lipreading. That's about it. It's not so useful as a language and it wasn't meant to be a language. In order to really benefit from it, you'd need to know the spoken langauge first. This is where my some of my classmates ran into trouble.

I can't imagine it replacing ASL either despite what Cloggy thinks.

 

[loml]

Whatever. You were basing your spelling on phonetic pronunciation (i.e. "thinking in sound again") and it was an excellent example of the inconsistencies of English phonics and the errors that are made when relying on this method. Pronunciation is based on phonics. You spelled it as you would have pronounced it...and it was in error. It shows the restrictions of any phonetic method. And spelling is directly tied to literacy. While "nawt" is phonetically correct in pronunciation, it is hardly the correct spelling, which is "naught". Knowing how the word is pronounced, therefore, does not necessarily carry over into reading and writing skill.

And somehow people learn how to read and write!

 

[jillio]

And somehow people learn how to read and write!

And your point is? People learn to read and write in many ways. More often, a whole langauge approach is more effective than a phonetic approach. And there are those with ASL as L1 langauge that have the highest English literacy skills across the board as applied to a subset in population....those would be deaf of deaf. Reason? Strong L1 langauge that can be applied to learning the L2 langauge (English) in its written (visual) form.

And, an error made when relying on phonics is still an error made from relying on phonics, and illustrates one of the pitfalls of the method.

But we digress....we are off topic, as this has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, but has simply been led into yet another discussion of CS.