Quote:
Originally Posted by jillio
Here is what I don't get. If you go so far as to admit that children implanted with CI still need visual input to develop language skills, why is it necessary to invent a new method of providing that visual input when you already have one? ASL accomplishes that and provides the benefit of bilingualism at the same time. And deaf of deaf still achieve the highest lieracy rates of all the groups. There is an obvious reason for that.
|
Cued speech has been around for awhile. My guess is this is the advantage over ASL.
"Why is Cued Speech so successful? Hearing people use their knowledge of the sounds of English when they learn to cue. Deaf children brought up with Cued Speech work in the opposite way. They acquire an internal model of sound-based English through Cued Speech - even if they can't hear it. Once the implant gives them access to speech sounds these can be plotted onto the model of sound-based English they have already internalised. Belgian research - and many case studies - demonstrates that children brought up with Cued Speech can think in sound-based language.(4)
It is this visual access to sound-based language that enables a deaf child to acquire an understanding of spoken language without delay pre-implant and also uniquely primes the child for the acquisition of spoken language when it becomes available post implant. As Jane Smith, with her 20 years experience, said: `Cued Speech helps clarify and verify what is heard; it actually accelerates the learning of language and listening' "