Phonemic Spelling GuidePhonemic spelling, used throughout this manual, is a re-spelling system revised by Beaupre and Cornett from Dr. Cornett's "Foenetic Spelling" system published in 1971. For readers familiar with the earlier system a table of differences appears at the end of this guide. Phonemic spelling is compatible with Cued Speech and delineates actual pronunciations and variations of pronunciation of English words. It requires no diacritics nor exotic forms of letters other than those which appear in the regular 26-letter alphabet. Wherever possible, Phonemic Spelling follows common spellings of spoken phonemes. However, words are deliberately included for each phoneme which show the variations in English spelling for that phoneme. Words listed in regular English spelling which differ from Phonemic Spelling are enclosed in quotation marks (ex., "father" fahthur). Certain diphthongs marked with an asterisk (*) are shown at the end of this Guide n further re-spellings which match Cue positions (ex., ay* = e [chin] + i [throat]).
a [throat] = at sat man strap pal hand glad
ah [side/forward] = Ah!Shah "father" fahthur "army"
ahrmi "farm" fahrm "car" kahr
"calm" kahm
aw [chin] = saw lawn dawn awful awning jaw
"short" shawrt "fall" fawl
"sauce" saws "thought" xhawt
"George" Jawrj "broad" brawd
ay*[chin+throat] = day say play bluejay may away
"male" mayl "eight" ayt "they"
thay "great" grayt "neighbor"
naybur "Amy" Aymi "wait" wayt
b [handshape 4] = bed jib bring lab habit "rabbit"
rabit
ch [handshape 8] = chin church which branch "latch"
lach "witch" wich
d [handshape 1] = day dad led lid held "daddy" dadi
e [chin] = Ed met bed let set get elm self
rest "deaf" def "says" sez
"leopard" lepurd "said" sed
"Thames" temz "measure" mezhur
ee [mouth] = see tree bee deep seen seed
"secret" seekrit "sea" see
"Leigh" Lee "leisure" leezhur
"yield" yeeld "receive" riseev
"phoneme" fohneem
er [chin+3-side] = "there" ther "bare" ber "stair"
ster
f [handshape 5] = fat fee if fling shelf "laugh"
laf "enough" inuhf "photograph"
fohtugraf
g [handshape 7] = good gab wig flag green "ghost"
gohst "exact" igzakt
h [handshape 3] = how help hat hit haw hay "who"
hue "whose" huez "here" hir
"hair" her "light-house"
liet-hows
i [throat] = it sit film Jim skin fist
fishing himself "busy" bizi
"myth" mixh "behind" bihiend
"luggage" luhgij "goodness"
goodnis "mountain" mowntin
"women" wimin "added" adid
"tallest" tawlist
ie* {side+throat]= tie pie tried fried die dried
"tide" tied "aisle" iel "height"
hiet "night" niet "type" tiep
"idle" iedul "buy" bie "cyclone"
sieklohn "idea" iediu (or)iedeeu
j [handshape 7] = jib join jaw jay jam "George"
jawrj "judge" juhj "region"
reejun "courageous" kurayjus
k [handshape 2] = kit book look skeet "cow" kow
"car" kahr "school" skuel
"lacquer" lakur "conquor"
kawngkur "quick" kwik "knock"
nahk
l [handshape 6] = lie lay oil flue shelf pal
"Sally" sali "bell" bel
m [handshape 5] = may murmur film elm "Jimmy"
jimi "lamb" lam "damn" dam
"home" hohm
n [handshape 4] = now ant tan turn "knee" nee
"pneumonia" numohnya
ng [handshape 8] = sing sang rang spring "anger"
anggur "single" singgul
"singer" singur "ink" ingk
"longer" lawnggur "bingo"
binggoh
oh [side/forward]= Oh! "go" goh "slow" sloh
"soul" sohl "boat" boht
"beau" boh "home" hohm
"hotel" hohtel "though" thoh
oi*[chin+throat] = oil join boil foil toil soil
"boy" boi "loyal" loiul
"Joyce" jois "noise" noiz
"oyster" oistur
oo [throat] = foot wood good stood book
"pull" pool "wolf" woolf
"could" kood
ow*[side+throat] = how now brown down town "out"
owt "about" ubowt "sauerkraut"
sowurkrowt "bough" bow
p [handshape 1] = pan pal tip plow spring "happy"
hapi
r [handshape 3] = red raw tree print "farm" fahrm
"very" veri draw prow "car"
kahr "here" hir "hair" her
poor "pore" pawr
s [handshape 3] = see saw say Sue sweets tasks
"sister" sistur "peace" pees
"city" siti "mice" mies "pencil"
pensul
sh [handshape 6] = shin wish sheet fishing "nation"
nayshun "session" seshun
"special" speshul "sugar" shoogur
t [handshape 5] = tap stand string set slept twin
tempt hurt "pretty" priti "debt"
det "Thames" Temz "taught" tawt
th [handshape 2] = then that than this with "either"
(voiced) eethur "the" thu (or)thi (or when
stressed!) thee
xh [handshape 7] = "teeth" teexh "tooth" tuexh
"thick" xhick "thin" xhin "bath"
baxh "thought" xhawt "faithful"
fayxhful
u [side/down] = submit subdue surplus suspend
(unstressed) "sofa" sohfu "final" fienul
"porous" pawrus "porpoise" pawrpus
"national" nashunul (or) nashnul
"Paula" Pawlu
ue [chin] = blue gluetrue subdue Sue "rule"
ruel "pool" puel "do" due "soup"
suep "Reuben" Ruebun "flew" flue
"shoe" shue "new" nue "cue" kyue
"few" fyue
uh [side/down] = "mother" muhthur "brother" bruhthur
"cup" kuhp "supper" suhpur "oven"
uhvun "sulfur" suhlfur "adult"
uduhlt "button" buhtun "suburb"
suhburb
ur [mouth] = hurt turn burn fur furnish burp urn
"fern" furn "sir" sur "attorney"
uturni "Myrtle" Murtul "earnest"
urnist "connoisseur" kahnusur; (the
following are unstressed examples
of the same phoneme in Cued Speech)
pursue "pursuit" pursuet "pertain"
purtayn "mother" muhthur "later"
laytur "either" eethur "water" wahtur
v [handshape 2] = vat vow "of" uv vie vest "love"
luhv
"live" liv
w [handshape 6] = wet way twin win "queen" kween
"one"
wuhn "was" wuhz
wh [handshape 4] = wheel which when "what" whuht
"where"
wher "why" whie
y [handshape 8] = yes yet "yellow" yeloh "Sawyer"
sawyur "William" Wilyum "few" fyue
"use" yues (or) yuez "senior"
seenyur "onion" uhnyun
z [handshape 2] = zed Zeb zap zest "zoo" zue "his"
hiz "prism" prizum "pigs" pigz "legs"
legz "season" seezun
zh [handshape 1] = "Zhivago Zhivahgoh "Asia" Ayzhu
"leisure" leezhur "television"
teluvizhun "measure" mezhur "beige"
bayzh
*These diphthongs are sometimes re-spelled as follows to clarify precise Cue positions in practice sessions and in the "Cued Speech Guide to American Pronunciation of Common Words":
e-i [chin+throat] = /ay/ as in "day (1-c,5-t) and "late" (5-c,5-t,5-s)
ah-i [side+throat]= /ie/ as in "tie" (5-s,5-t) and "type" (5-s,5-t,5-s)
aw-i [chin+throat]= /oi/ as in "oil" (5-t,5-c,6-s) and "boy" (4-c,5-t)
ah-oo [side+throat] = /ow/ as in "now" (4-s,5-t0 and "out" (5-s,5-t,5-s)
Differences Between "Phonemic Spelling"
and "Foenetik Speling"
Phonemic Spelling (1983) Foenetik Spelling (1971)
/ay/ /ae/
[None. Speaker selects /o/
/ah/ or /aw/ depending
upon dialect.]
/oh/ /oe/
/ow/ /ou/
/th/ (voiced) /tH/
/xh/ (voiceless) /th/
/u/ (unstressed neutral /u/ [No distinction between
vowel) stressed and unstressed
/uh/ (stressed neutral neutral vowel]
vowel)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phonemic Spelling Guide
- Thread starter loml
- Start date
R
rockdrummer
Guest
Why do you do that?
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
Do what? Point out the obvious?
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 79
- Reaction score
- 0
I came back from Canada to UK when I was 6 so I missed a year of school. I went to St.Lukes School Chadderton Oldham, Where I was taught phonetic alphabet a=ah b=buh c=cuh etc. My English is pretty good years later, I recommend it because you see words in your head (like up on a blackboard)
I started going Deaf when a boy perforated my ears in playground so I learned fingerspelling (Dad helped cos he'd been to Deaf School). Recently I learned British Sign Language..as its visual I find its similar logic to phonetics so easier to pick up? Do u agree?
I started going Deaf when a boy perforated my ears in playground so I learned fingerspelling (Dad helped cos he'd been to Deaf School). Recently I learned British Sign Language..as its visual I find its similar logic to phonetics so easier to pick up? Do u agree?
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
How old were you when your eardrums were perforated?
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
Has anyone stopped to cinsider that the English language is phonetically inconsistent in spelling? Just because one can be shown a difference between two sounds on the mouth by addinga andshape, does not necessarily mean that the child will be able to recognize the phonetic combination in written form. That recognition is necessary for developing literacy skills. There are numerous hearing children who are able to distinguish the differences in phonetic combinations via hearing the, but cannot recognize them in written form. Ever heard a first grader learning to read? Because the phonetic combinations are not consistent visually and aurally.
i can see that you do know what you're talking about. i suppose thus explains why asl-hating, self-hating people had tried to twist your statements or pummel you with brutal backhand comments.
keep fighting the good fight.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
That would be the fight against oralism when applied to language acquisition issues, deaf education, and literacy concerns.
Show Me the Sound.
Cueing puts deaf childrens comprehension of the printed word equal to that of hearing children. Do you see a problem with that?
Deaf children who cue understand that people have different dialects, because they see the difference.
Cueing puts deaf childrens comprehension of the printed word equal to that of hearing children. Do you see a problem with that?
Deaf children who cue understand that people have different dialects, because they see the difference.
Jillio, why not restrict your fighting the good fight to places where it's actually relevant? A post about cued speech is not always about oralism, childhood education, or literacy, loml's politics/pedagogical philosophy notwithstanding.
As an adult who's playing with CS, this list is quite useful for practicing cues! Nothing at all to do with "the fight against oralism when applied to language acquisition issues, deaf education, and literacy concerns." After all, I think you would take a similar opposition to Deaf children being taught PSE (rather than ASL) as a native language - but I doubt you'd reply with this much zeal to posts about adult use of PSE (hearing people, late/progressive deaf, etc) .
I guess what I'm saying here is this: there are political posts about CS, and their are posts about the mechanics of it. While the latter may be motivated by the former, that doesn't mean that they're not interesting in their own right, and it would be nice if people could read them without having to wade through the same damn arguments that are endlessly rehashed in the political posts, regardless of how they feel about the merits of those arguments. I - and I suspect I'm not alone in this - avoid those, because I know what the discussion will be. But these other posts still have the potential to be interesting. So unless cued speech itself is inherently flawed in ways that have nothing to do with oralism, language acquisition, and literacy ... please.
As an adult who's playing with CS, this list is quite useful for practicing cues! Nothing at all to do with "the fight against oralism when applied to language acquisition issues, deaf education, and literacy concerns." After all, I think you would take a similar opposition to Deaf children being taught PSE (rather than ASL) as a native language - but I doubt you'd reply with this much zeal to posts about adult use of PSE (hearing people, late/progressive deaf, etc) .
I guess what I'm saying here is this: there are political posts about CS, and their are posts about the mechanics of it. While the latter may be motivated by the former, that doesn't mean that they're not interesting in their own right, and it would be nice if people could read them without having to wade through the same damn arguments that are endlessly rehashed in the political posts, regardless of how they feel about the merits of those arguments. I - and I suspect I'm not alone in this - avoid those, because I know what the discussion will be. But these other posts still have the potential to be interesting. So unless cued speech itself is inherently flawed in ways that have nothing to do with oralism, language acquisition, and literacy ... please.
R
rockdrummer
Guest
And what about those that it works for who are now able to communicate with their children. What about those that have tried other methods without success and CS is what is working for them. Life is not lived in a vaccum where one size fits all. I don't see where CS has anything to do with oralism. Seems to me it's more about the ability to communicate and is just another method when others may fail.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
Becasue CS is an adjuct to speech reading and nothing more. It is being presented in this forum as a tool for language acquisition, and people need to know the difference. I have never said that it wasn't a useful tool, when used as appropriate. However, the implication that all one needs to do is to start cueing children and literacy rates will improve is totally innaccurate, and is a message that needs to be corrected.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
Okay, here is how it applies to oralism. It is adding a visual component to oral language, preseumably for the assistance in removing the descrepancies in lip reading. Although there are those that are now attempting to promote it as a tool for developing speech skills, and for increasing literacy rates, and improving the language acquisition situations of deaf children. There is already a system that permits that, and offers advantages of giving a child conceptual information in a way that the eye is prepared to receive it and process it. It is called sign language.
Yes, it is about the ability to communicate. But CS users can communicate with other CS users, and their numbers are extremely limited.
And unless one has tried to incorporate sign into a child's environment they ahve not tried all of the methods available. They have only tried the oral methods available. Which goes back to how CS relates to oralism.
CS is also promoted as a quick and easy method to learn, one that requires much less effort for the parent than learning signed language. I object to this, as well, because the issue is not about what is easiest for the parent, it is about what is most beneficial for the child.
jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
Do you read any of the articles that you post? It all inthere...all you have to do is read it.