Phonemic Spelling Guide

Oralism does have its advantages.. I can talk while eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.. although I would get jelly.. or peanut butter.. or maybe even both all over my mouth if I cued too..

hmm.. its almost as if they both have their disadvantages..

Maybe the US should change the national language to something a bit less difficult to learn and write.. how about Esperanto? Lots of studies about that!!

:)
 
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that there's more to language and literacy than just cueing, although I do think that cueing can be a useful tool if "part of this complete breakfast". But that's not my point. There are a lot of posts on AllDeaf about CS in that context; the "this doesn't work for language acquisition" posts should go there, so that those of us who don't have a horse in that race can pay attention to the posts that are relevant to us. Otherwise, the argument overshadows the information - throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There are adult cuers who are late deaf, or progressively deaf;there are adult cuers who grew up cueing (and whether or not you feel that CS is good pedagogical practice, I don't see that it hurts your cause to have an adult choose to seek out cued speech transliteration if it works for them). The flaws that cued speech has that you bring up do not apply to us. All I'm asking here is that you not tear down other people's linguistic choices simply because you disagree with one application of the methods involved. (Heck, there's at least one poster here who grew up with SEE and is still more comfortable with it than ASL - yet for all of SEE's flaws as an educational method, it has its uses, and it's a valid choice for an adult to make for themselves.)
 
ismi said:
I agree with you that there's more to language and literacy than just cueing, although I do think that cueing can be a useful tool if "part of this complete breakfast". But that's not my point. There are a lot of posts on AllDeaf about CS in that context; the "this doesn't work for language acquisition" posts should go there, so that those of us who don't have a horse in that race can pay attention to the posts that are relevant to us. Otherwise, the argument overshadows the information - throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There are adult cuers who are late deaf, or progressively deaf;there are adult cuers who grew up cueing (and whether or not you feel that CS is good pedagogical practice, I don't see that it hurts your cause to have an adult choose to seek out cued speech transliteration if it works for them). The flaws that cued speech has that you bring up do not apply to us. All I'm asking here is that you not tear down other people's linguistic choices simply because you disagree with one application of the methods involved. (Heck, there's at least one poster here who grew up with SEE and is still more comfortable with it than ASL - yet for all of SEE's flaws as an educational method, it has its uses, and it's a valid choice for an adult to make for themselves.)
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with those subpopulations you have noted making the choice for themselves that CS is a useful tool for them to have, either. However, when posted in the Education forum, I am assuming it is being applied to deaf children, who as a group, are language delayed and thus, have a problem with literacy.

I am not "tearing down" another's choices. Simply pointing out that while that choice may be approriate in the instances that you have cited...all of which involve individuals who have already acquired language skills prior to hearing loss and therefore are exempt from acquisition issues, it is not appropriate, and therefore cannot be applied to the population of prelingually deafened children for whom acquisition is the primary issue.

If you limited your posts to those as you have described above, I would not have an issue at all. Where my concern comes in is that many of your posts have stated outright that CS is a useful tool for language acquisition, and that it is easily applied to literacy concerns in the prelingually deafened child.
 
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...
Facinating!!
 
Boult, No I have not seen that but just read through it and find it interesting. Thanks for the resource.
 
Back
Top