A Law Review of Cued Speech in Educational Settings

flip said:
This post by loml is telling.
http://www.alldeaf.com/hearing-aids...earing-parents-positive-story.html#post546404

"I struggle with the entire "ASL natural language" business, it is "natural" for humans to voice. The "deaf culture stuff": children belong with their family culture."
Click to expand...

Please notice loml said it is "natural" for humans to voice.

Which is very very true. I find people born Deaf to be very vocal and noisy when they sign. It is only late deafened and hearing people who sign silently.

But by leaving out that "It is equally natural" for humans to gesture the implication is that gestural languages may not be natural.

Berry said:
Is it now?

I would say it is natural for humans to do what children do naturally.

One thing children do naturally is verbalize in "non acceptable" childish ways. For instance they will say "He gone a loooooooooooong time." when they mean he was gone for an extremely long period of time. It is considered cute but children are discouraged from doing this as hearing people make the words do the work, not the tone of voice, expressions, or other vocal trick.

Another is to use their face, hands, body, and movement to express things. Once again this is considered cute when children are young, but this natural tendency is discouraged because in the hearing culture words, not actions, are expected to carry the entire weight of the communication, not "body language."

Having watched a lot of hearing children grow up I would say the precepts ASL is built on is just as natural to humans as the precepts spoken language is built upon.

The difference is speaking people often reject nonverbal communication for lousy reasons making it unnecessarily difficult for deaf people who find verbalizing difficult to begin with.

If ASL precepts are as natural to hearing children as speaking, then how can ASL not be the "natural language" of Deaf Americans?
Click to expand...

Here I present examples to indicate that gestural languages are just as natural to humanity as verbal languages using my past experiences.

faire_jour said:
I don't believe there is "a natural language" for anyone. My native language is English, because I was raised in a home that used English. If I had been kidnapped and raised in Germany, my "natural language" would have been German. There is no such thing as a "natural language".
Click to expand...

Here you change the definition of the naturalness of verbal languages and gestural languages and use a highly restricted definition comparing two verbal languages to prove there is no "natural language."

Within your definition you are correct, but only when deciding whether ASL is more natural than BSL or English is more natural than German. Though I do question why you mention only spoken languages when we are discussing signed languages as well.

Spoken language is not more natural to hearing children than gestural language. Until a child is conditioned they use both.

If hearing people stop conditioning their children to limit their communication tendencies Deaf children won't be all that different. They will have a huge common ground to start with.
 
flip said:
Koknut, READ THE LINK I GAVE YOU. Everything is there, all you want to know, all my opinions. If that's too hard for you, then I can't imagine how I can help you.
Click to expand...

Very convenient in avoiding simple questions here. You've made several comments in that link mostly in the going back and forth game with Cloggy but nothing declarative in the sense explaining whether you are against NCSA as a whole (or in parts). The same goes with cued speech. Nothing declarative in support of Cued Speech as a whole or in part. Which is why I am asking clarification here. Why are you avoiding this?
 
Well, Cued English is a language according to one native C.S. user.
 
Berry said:
Please notice loml said it is "natural" for humans to voice.

Which is very very true. I find people born Deaf to be very vocal and noisy when they sign. It is only late deafened and hearing people who sign silently.

But by leaving out that "It is equally natural" for humans to gesture the implication is that gestural languages may not be natural.



Here I present examples to indicate that gestural languages are just as natural to humanity as verbal languages using my past experiences.



Here you change the definition of the naturalness of verbal languages and gestural languages and use a highly restricted definition comparing two verbal languages to prove there is no "natural language."

Within your definition you are correct, but only when deciding whether ASL is more natural than BSL or English is more natural than German. Though I do question why you mention only spoken languages when we are discussing signed languages as well.

Spoken language is not more natural to hearing children than gestural language. Until a child is conditioned they use both.

If hearing people stop conditioning their children to limit their communication tendencies Deaf children won't be all that different. They will have a huge common ground to start with.
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose I could have said "if I'd been kidnapped my Deaf people", but I didn't! Yes, if I had been raised in an ASL family my natural language would have been ASL as well. My point was that I do not believe that the human mind has any natural inclination to one language or another. We are equipped to process them all in the same way.
 
faire_jour said:
Well, I suppose I could have said "if I'd been kidnapped my Deaf people", but I didn't! Yes, if I had been raised in an ASL family my natural language would have been ASL as well. My point was that I do not believe that the human mind has any natural inclination to one language or another. We are equipped to process them all in the same way.
Click to expand...

Correct. Your point is what we agree upon.

What I'm saying is that it is as natural to children - and therefore humans in general - to gesture to communicate as well as to speak to communicate.

Hearing people tend to kill all gestural forms of communication in their children - and then believe that verbal communication is "the natural" form of communication.

BTW Broca's area has been shown to play the same role in signed languages as it does in spoken languages. Without getting too complex here is a quote from Wikipedia:

Functions

[edit]Language comprehension
For a long time, it was assumed that the role of Broca's area was more devoted to language production than language comprehension. However, recent evidence demonstrates that Broca's area also plays a significant role in language comprehension. Patients with lesions in Broca's area who exhibit agrammatical speech production also show inability to use syntactic information to determine the meaning of sentences.[6] Also, a number of neuroimaging studies have implicated an involvement of Broca's area, particularly of the pars opercularis of the left inferior frontal gyrus, during the processing of complex sentences.[7] Further, it has recently been found in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiments involving highly ambiguous sentences result in a more activated inferior frontal gyrus.[5] Therefore, the activity level in the inferior frontal gyrus and the level of lexical ambiguity are directly proportional to each other, because of the increased retrieval demands associated with highly ambiguous content.
[edit]Action recognition and production
Recent experiments have indicated that Broca's area is involved in various cognitive and perceptual tasks. One important contribution of Brodmann's area 44 is also found in the motor-related processes. Observation of meaningful hand shadows resembling moving animals activates frontal language area, demonstrating that Broca's area indeed plays a role in interpreting action of others.[8] An activation of BA 44 was also reported during execution of grasping and manipulation.[9]
[edit]Speech-associated gestures
It has been speculated that because speech-associated gestures could possibly reduce lexical or sentential ambiguity, comprehension should improve in the presence of speech-associated gestures. As a result of improved comprehension, the involvement of Broca's area should be reduced.[5]
Many neuroimaging studies have also shown activation of Broca's area when representing meaningful arm gestures. A recent study has shown evidence that word and gesture are related at the level of translation of particular gesture aspects such as goal and intention.[10] This finding that aspects of gestures are translated in words within Broca's area also explains language development in terms of evolution. Indeed, many authors have proposed that speech evolved from a primitive communication that arose from gestures
Click to expand...

If you read the last sentence you will notice it has a very audist bent to it.

And this explains to me why most hearing people are against their children gesturing as they naturally do and why many of them are audists in the first place. They are under the belief that gestural communication is primitive.

As I say people born Deaf make all kinds of verbal sounds when signing. Why? Because both verbal communication and gestural communication are natural to humans.
 
I have never know a hearing person to discourage gestures in their children (other than pointing in a way that is considered rude). What exactly are you talking about in that regard?
 
kokonut said:
Very convenient in avoiding simple questions here. You've made several comments in that link mostly in the going back and forth game with Cloggy but nothing declarative in the sense explaining whether you are against NCSA as a whole (or in parts). The same goes with cued speech. Nothing declarative in support of Cued Speech as a whole or in part. Which is why I am asking clarification here. Why are you avoiding this?
Click to expand...

If you had some more knowledge on this, or took the time to read through the threads, or came up with something new, I could consider a reply. Your questions and accusations reveals a total lack of knowledge, and that's not my problem, dear Kokonut.
 
flip said:
If you had some more knowledge on this, or took the time to read through the threads, or came up with something new, I could consider a reply. Your questions and accusations reveals a total lack of knowledge, and that's not my problem, dear Koknut.
Click to expand...

Again, you've not made clear on your stance on what you opposed. You choose to dance around the question instead of making it short and succinct here on clarifying your stance. I've made no accusations which is why I've asked the questions.
 
faire_jour said:
I have never know a hearing person to discourage gestures in their children (other than pointing in a way that is considered rude). What exactly are you talking about in that regard?
Click to expand...

As a hearing child I can remember walking to show how someone walked. The responses ranged from "Can't you just sit down and talk?" and "You can knock off the histrionics you you have a voice, use it." to "It is rude to make fun of people." etc.

"Can't you sit down and be still? Do you have to talk with your hands? You are not (pick one: Italian and Jewish were the most popular) you know."

If your first reaction is as most people's to this it is to make a comment about my mother and my upbringing at home, but her reaction was simple: "Honey, they are white people, they feel they have to tell everybody how to act and what to think. It's their nature."

Edit: Maybe this is the reason I felt so at home in the Deaf World. It was the only place I could act natural and be accepted.
 
Berry said:
As a hearing child I can remember walking to show how someone walked. The responses ranged from "Can't you just sit down and talk?" and "You can knock off the histrionics you you have a voice, use it." to "It is rude to make fun of people." etc.

"Can't you sit down and be still? Do you have to talk with your hands? You are not (pick one: Italian and Jewish were the most popular) you know."

If your first reaction is as most people's to this it is to make a comment about my mother and my upbringing at home, but her reaction was simple: "Honey, they are white people, they feel they have to tell everybody how to act and what to think. It's their nature."
Click to expand...

I really have never had or seen those kinds of reactions. Maybe it is cultural?
 
kokonut said:
Again, you've not made clear on your stance on what you opposed. You choose to dance around the question instead of making it short and succinct here on clarifying your stance. I've made no accusations which is why I've asked the questions.
Click to expand...

ok
 
faire_jour said:
I really have never had or seen those kinds of reactions. Maybe it is cultural?
Click to expand...

I would say most anyone who uses ASL has met those reactions. Among adults it is usually in the form of saying the signer is "overly dramatic" or "exaggerates everything." etc.

I believe you use ASL. Have you never been asked, "Do you have to make all those faces?"
 
flip said:
You just love to reject the views and the lived experiences of other people? You never stop to amaze us with your arrogance. What I know is from listening to grown ups with personal experience with cued speech, with CI and withouth, and thats a source of knowledge I, deafdyke and souggy have vast more access to than you. I know the ups and downs, the possibilities and the limits of cued speech, but I am not gonna tell that to someone like you as your agenda comes before anything else.

The victimization of yourself is just getting tiresome.
Click to expand...

"vast more access."

Not really. Not any more than any other person on this forums.
 
souggy said:
Actually... I grew up with SEE and cued speech in the school system; ASL at home.

I believe jillio and shel90 know how I was raised. :cool2:
Click to expand...

Not interested in them which is why I asked you that question.

So, you began using ASL at home when? Sounds like your parents are hearing.
 
kokonut said:
Well, Cued English is a language according to one native C.S. user.
Click to expand...

Ok then, let's take ASL and change it to in the spoken form.

Would that make sense? Would that make spoken ASL a language?
 
kokonut said:
Ask a native cuer that question. Ask Netrox.
Click to expand...

So, I can decide that spoken ASL is a language? That would be a personal insult to linguistics like William Stokes, for one, who spent years studying language and understanding the critera what makes a language. We cant go around deciding what is a language and what is not.

English is a language. Cued speech is not..it was designed as a teaching tool.
 
shel90 said:
So, I can decide that spoken ASL is a language? That would be a personal insult to linguistics like William Stokes, for one, who spent years studying language and understanding the critera what makes a language. We cant go around deciding what is a language and what is not.

English is a language. Cued speech is not..it was designed as a teaching tool.
Click to expand...

I haven't commented on that. I didn't say cued speech is a language. Again, ask Netrox about "Cued English" since he is a native cuer.
 
kokonut said:
I haven't commented on that. I didn't say cued speech is a language. Again, ask Netrox about "Cued English" since he is a native cuer.
Click to expand...

No? then what was that in post #63?
 
Back
Top