Cued Speech: your opinion?

jillio said:
BBBBBBB, ddddd, AEAEAEAEAEAE, ssssss, strststr. Is that communication? Does it have any meaning at all? Of course not.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was/did.

My little brother likes to leave the consonants out of his words. It's not gibberish when he says it, but he could use cued speech to indicate his rendition of words, too. And one can also indicate, with cued speech, the difference between different pronunciations of the same word within the same language.
 
:gpost:
And that's the difference the positive view of somebody who uses / used it and sees the benefit of CS compared to the negative view of someone who never used it and thinks knows what it is... but really does not...
 
Cloggy said:
And that's the difference the positive view of somebody who uses / used it and sees the benefit of CS compared to the negative view of someone who never used it and thinks knows what it is... but really does not...
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
RilianSharp said:
My little brother likes to leave the consonants out of his words. It's not gibberish when he says it, but he could use cued speech to indicate his rendition of words, too. And one can also indicate, with cued speech, the difference between different pronunciations of the same word within the same language.
Click to expand...

RilianSharp- Indeed! Cueing would let your brother "see" the sound that he is leaving out.

May I ask, how old is your brother?
 
RilianSharp said:
I didn't say it was/did.

My little brother likes to leave the consonants out of his words. It's not gibberish when he says it, but he could use cued speech to indicate his rendition of words, too. And one can also indicate, with cued speech, the difference between different pronunciations of the same word within the same language.
Click to expand...

No, what you said was cuing could be used for sounds that are not words. I provided you with an example to show you exactly how silly your reasoning is.

Your littler brother, if he is hearing, no doubt will be able to correct his speech difficulties as his development progresses. If he is deaf, he may never correct for absent produced sounds in his speech, and there is a very logical and easily understood reason for this. If he is hearing, he may not automatically correct until he is taught to do so, but this is provided that a neurological connection between what he hears, processes, and then reproduces is weak. This situation is best addressed through speech therapy, not CS.

His use of CS to render the correct pronunciation of word would be effective if, and only if, the receptive party in the exchange was also a cuer.

Different pronunciations of the same word do not alter the symbolic meaning of the thing which the word as symbol represents. The important feature of language is concept. Words are but a symbol to represent that which is referred to. Without concept attached they are meaninless sound. Phonemes in and of themself have no meaning. They are not symbols used to represent concept. They are the smallest spoken unit of a language that can be combined with each other to form morphemes. Morphemes in an of themselves do not convey meaning. It is only when phonemes and morphemes are joined together to construct a symbol that is culturally agreed upon as representation of a thing or an abstract concept that they have meaning.

Therefore, being able to use a handshape to indicate pronunciation does not address the foundations of language acquisition or usage.
 
Cloggy said:
:gpost:
And that's the difference the positive view of somebody who uses / used it and sees the benefit of CS compared to the negative view of someone who never used it and thinks knows what it is... but really does not...
Click to expand...

No, its the difference between someone who has an advanced grasp of language, systems, and the psychological and developmental issues involved vs. someone who has no understanding of such, and based on naivte, accepts less than plausible explanations for that which cannot be substantiated.

BTW, you don't cue.
 
Cheri said:
:gpost:
Click to expand...

See above post. What happened to your claims that you tried cuing, but that it didn't work for you? Or that you find the handshapes being placed so close tothe mouth interfered with your ability to speech read?
 
jillio said:
See above post. What happened to your claims that you tried cuing, but that it didn't work for you? Or that you find the handshapes being placed so close tothe mouth interfered with your ability to speech read?
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with it, I experienced cued speech, You didn't, so it doesn't make you an expert on cued speech, that's what I'm agreeing with Cloggy about.
 
Cheri said:
It has nothing to do with it, I experienced cued speech, You didn't, so it doesn't make you an expert on cued speech, that's what I'm agreeing with Cloggy about.
Click to expand...

Having experienced it hardly confers expert status on you. Especially when the understanding of liguistic and psychologicl issue that determine success of failure if a system is negligible. And, since you found it to be ineffective, and in fact, distracting, it could be wondered why you are so quick to defend it.
 
Boult said:
INDEED!
Click to expand...

And it is superficial comrehension such as this that allows the NCSA to attempt revival of a 40 year old system that has not been shown to be effective in an attempt to prey on the unsuspecting and garner a profit for the organization.

If you were truly concerned regarding communication/educational/literacy issues for deaf children, you would inform yourself completely and then propose that which seeks to increase their capabilities, not that which has already been shown to be ineffecive. There is a reason that CS fell into disuse many years ago.
 
jillio said:
Having experienced it hardly confers expert status on you. Especially when the understanding of liguistic and psychologicl issue that determine success of failure if a system is negligible.
Click to expand...
I didn't see where she claimed to be an expert. :iough:
 
You forgetting one thing Jillio, There are pros and cons to everything! There will be some success stories there will also be unsuccess stories. It doesn't mean cued speech is a failure for the deaf.
 
Cheri said:
You forgetting one thing Jillio, There are pros and cons to everything! There will be some success stories there will also be unsuccess stories. It doesn't mean cued speech is a failure for the deaf.
Click to expand...

Absolutely there will be some successes and some failures with anything. But when evaluating a system, and promoting it for widespread use, however, one looks at overall success and failure rates, and the benefit to the population as a whole. When that has been done with CS inthe past as well as currently, it is determined that it does not provide benefit in increasing literacy for the majority of the population. That is not to say that it can't be used selectively as a supplement for an individual. That is simply to say, that as a widespread and recommeded primary communication tool or as a widespread educational methodology, it is not effective. Some people can beat their children througout their childhood and still manage to end up with a well adjusted and high functioning kid. Does that mean that we should promote this particualr parenting technique for all parents? I think not.
 
rockdrummer said:
I didn't see where she claimed to be an expert. :iough:
Click to expand...

She stated that not having experienced CS equates to not having expertise, which in turn applies the intent of the statement tha having experience with CS as a system, even without additional knowledge required to comprehend the system and why it has not been successful for so many, implies some form of expertise. Please re-read the statement made.

In actuality, the inference of expert status originated with Cloggy's post, a poster who does not use CS, and only became aware of it in the very recent past.
 
jillio said:
She stated that not having experienced CS equates to not having expertise, which in turn applies the intent of the statement tha having experience with CS as a system, even without additional knowledge required to comprehend the system and why it has not been successful for so many, implies some form of expertise. Please re-read the statement made.

In actuality, the inference of expert status originated with Cloggy's post, a poster who does not use CS, and only became aware of it in the very recent past.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping not to get into a pissing contest here but when I re-read the statement she simply said she was agreeing with Cloggy that you are not an expert. I don't see where she said experience=expertise or not having experience equates to not having expertise. Maybe I missed it.
 
rockdrummer said:
Hoping not to get into a pissing contest here but when I re-read the statement she simply said she was agreeing with Cloggy that you are not an expert. I don't see where she said experience=expertise or not having experience equates to not having expertise. Maybe I missed it.
Click to expand...

There is something going on that you are unaware of. But suffice it to say that use was equated to expertise in Cloggy's post, and agreement with that post would indicate same. Actually, expertise is not dependent upon use alone. That would be tatamount to saying that a someone who commits a theft is an expert in all of the underlying nuances and variable that create criminal behavior. Generally, a criminal cannot even apply such to their own behaviors, much less to others. Same with CS.
 
Back
Top