Breaking the Code

I SAID--CS represents the phonetic structure and ASL represents the concept.
Click to expand...
Wait..........in other words you're saying that CS is basicly Hooked on Phonics, whereas ASL represents the actual CONTENT of the language, right?
I think the CS vs. ASL debate is exactly like the phonetics vs. whole language debate.
 
deafdyke said:
Wait..........in other words you're saying that CS is basicly Hooked on Phonics, whereas ASL represents the actual CONTENT of the language, right?
I think the CS vs. ASL debate is exactly like the phonetics vs. whole language debate.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!
 
shel90 said:
Yea, it makes sense cuz I teach first grade and my student's ASL development are that of a 3 to 4 year old and I have to teach them English in print in which they are not ready to make that transition but by law, I have to follow the 1st grade curriculm. I do make several modification to meet their language needs but the state and the laws dont recongize the need for a specialized curriculm. Most of my students came to my school at the age of 3 to 4 with no language. I asked the speech specialist at my school about cued speech and they said the students' L1 languages is not strong enough for cued speech. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot of it has to do with developmental issues. And if your 3 or 4 year old hasn't fot language at all, then they couldn't possible be ready to make that shift. However, if the same 3 or 4 year old had been exposed to sign fromthe time they were say, 9 months old, they would be ready to make that shift because they have an understanding of language as symbols.
 
For those who know ASL, please visit this ASL vlog by Carl:

ASL Essentialism

He talks about Cued English, dismissing it as not a real communications method. Given his propensity for disallowing translations of his ASL vlogs, I will not translate his vlog.
 
DeafDC Blog » Cued Speech: Your Unasked Questions Answered

Now, a major reason for the confusion about what Cued Speech is results from the second word in the name of the system, “speech.” Dr. Cornett was a physicist and mathematician, not a linguist or speech therapist, and liked to solve logic puzzles. Additionally, Cued Speech was developed in the mid-1960s, when many people thought that phonics and speech and language were intimately linked and could not be separated. We now know that’s not true. It is possible to have phonemic awareness without speaking. I know quite a few cuers who do not use their voices. Therefore, the name “Cued Speech” was perfectly agreeable at that time. The name of the system has been, and will continue to be known as Cued Speech. It’s not going to change.
Click to expand...
 
Intruging. I heard about Cue Speech. I've never been taught or seen one. I was oral for 12 years then learned signlanguage when I entered 6th grade at different school. I personally never met ANYbody who use Cued Speech!! wow. Seem that it is kinda well hidden from me. Saw the Youtube showing video back in 50's and 60's. I was in kindergarten back in 70's. Interesting.
Catty
 
ismi said:
This is true, as far as it goes; a family that randomly starts cueing around a deaf child is not that far different from a family that suddenly starts speaking Hungarian (to use your example) around a hearing child who doesn't speak English.

But how, then, does a hearing child gain the conceptual knowledge of what a beach and a peach are? They don't have any inherent advantage w.r.t. conceptual knowledge over a deaf child; their only advantage is that they have a tool (namely, the ability to recognize phonemes) that a deaf child does not. So, given a deaf child in the language acquisition phase, cued speech provides that tool.

Again, whether or not cued speech is the best language choice is debatable. But there is no inherent conceptual linkage - even for a hearing child - between the sound "beach" and the concept beach, or the sound "peach" and the concept peach. Language consists of a set of socialized representations of ideas, and a conceptual linkage is not required - look at all the false cognates in the world, for instance (English 'gift' versus the German 'Gift'), or the existence of constructed languages.
Click to expand...

Ok so does that mean everyone who is around the deaf children would have to use CS at all times for the child to acquire language from it?
 
shel90 said:
Ok so does that mean everyone who is around the deaf children would have to use CS at all times for the child to acquire language from it?
Click to expand...

There's two issues here. One is language acquisition. I don't know what studies are done, but the anecdotal evidence I've seen all says that if the family cues, the child can learn to cue natively. (Still not without speech/language therapy, but it makes things quite a bit easier by extending the child's language exposure outside of speech therapy.)

Issue two is post-acquisition language. My understanding there is that the CS is not critical. That is, it's still useful in the sense that cues make lip reading easier by disambiguating the mouth shapes; but take away the cues, and the cuer at least still has a phonemic background for their language, which makes it easier to learn to lip read. Rather than try to learn to understand language by lip reading from scratch, CS gives a foundation for lip reading to operate on top of.
 
ismi said:
There's two issues here. One is language acquisition. I don't know what studies are done, but the anecdotal evidence I've seen all says that if the family cues, the child can learn to cue natively. (Still not without speech/language therapy, but it makes things quite a bit easier by extending the child's language exposure outside of speech therapy.)

Issue two is post-acquisition language. My understanding there is that the CS is not critical. That is, it's still useful in the sense that cues make lip reading easier by disambiguating the mouth shapes; but take away the cues, and the cuer at least still has a phonemic background for their language, which makes it easier to learn to lip read. Rather than try to learn to understand language by lip reading from scratch, CS gives a foundation for lip reading to operate on top of.
Click to expand...

Ok got it! Thanks for the explaination. :)
 
Hi... thanks for the link.

I grew up with cued English. My parents used cued speech.

To be honest, cued speech is a misnomer as it doesn't really show speech sounds but rather it shows phonemes of languages. In the old days, many people thought phonemes and speech sounds were the same but linguists now agree that they're not the same. That's why I like "cuem" better - CUEs plus Mouthshapes. I think it should be changed. Just my opinion.

My speech isn't that great. It doesn't mean I can't cue. I cue very well therefore it shows that speech and cuem aren't the same thing. People say that I cue so clearly.

In order to acquire English fluently, deaf children need consistent exposure to cued English... as much as they can. The application of using cued speech to teach speech sounds or to "read" is not effective. They may think "see they understand this word or that word!" but they're not teaching them LANGUAGE.

Ideally, people should cue as much as they can. They can make it half the day in CS and half in ASL... and let them ACQUIRE the English language NATURALLY. Do NOT teach them to read or write. They don't need them at that stage. Just let the kids ACQUIRE the English language naturally through cuem. They will get it. Give them a year of cued English exposure. Don't worry if you think they don't get it. They're a lot smarter than you think. :)

A year later, teach them how to read by using phonics approach. You'll be amazed how quickly they learn to read since they already internalized the phonological model of English through cuem and they can quickly see the relationship between written English and cued English.

Most deaf cuers love to read. It just comes naturally to them.
 
Back
Top