Seeing Voices

[jillio]

So I followed this and you guys are just splitting hairs. Get a room and get over it already. Hears alot is not saying hearing just as Hard of hearing is not saying hears alot but they both mean that there is some hearing. Geeze!!!

No, rd, I am not splitting hairs. This is not about CI implantation. That is a personal decision. This is about what to do with that child following implantation, or with the child that is not implanted educationally. And so far, to date, the research shows that CI implanted children perform more closely to their hearing peers when they are exposed to sign and speech becaus e they do not function as hearing , but as HOH.

And that is exactly what I am talking about. Cloggy is saying a CI child doesn't need sign because they hear a lot. Research says different. And hearing alot is not the same as hearing what a hearing child hears. And until you are able to understand that, it will continue to appear to be splitting hairs, I suppose. But it is a hari that needs to be split because these kids' educational accommodations hang on that hair.

 

[yo2345678]

i agree very much. I know that I missed alot of information durring my childhood, such as what my parents did for a living and such. Deaf children of deaf parents i don't think would miss out as much because they can see hands. my parents signing was very minimal and my vocal ability sounds like a bunch of grunt noises so i have been told.

 

[Cloggy]

...................... Cloggy is saying a CI child doesn't need sign because they hear a lot.

I did? I recall saying that communication is the most important thing. And if there is no need for sign, that's fine. If there is a communication problem, other techniques should be used to improve on communication of course. Cued speech, signlanguage....

So, Jillio, stop putting statements in my mouth that are false... Everytime you read something, you twist it into something to accomodate your view, at the expense of the other person.

Research says different.

Some research, especially what you read.

And hearing alot is not the same as hearing what a hearing child hears. And until you are able to understand that, it will continue to appear to be splitting hairs, I suppose. But it is a hari that needs to be split because these kids' educational accommodations hang on that hair.

Splitting hairs will reduce carrying capacity !
Perhaps, if required, adding more hairs might be a better solution...

 

[deafdyke]

Cloggy, what a hoh kid hears is basicly a two dimensional version of what hearing people hear.
That's what you don't understand. You insistutite that hoh kids are closer to being hearing then deaf. That is wrong. I've never heard normally, but my idea of hearing isn't the same as hearing people's idear of hearing.
Even a unilaterally dhh kid is pretty much hoh.(localizing sound and difficulty in noisy situtions that hearies don't) Hoh kids have SOME access to sound and speech, but that doesn't make them hearing. If they were pretty much hearing, they wouldn't require special edcucational interventions, and therapy and things like that.
Even with bilateral implants Lotte's idear of hearing isn't the same as yours.

 

[rockdrummer]

No, rd, I am not splitting hairs. This is not about CI implantation. That is a personal decision. This is about what to do with that child following implantation, or with the child that is not implanted educationally. And so far, to date, the research shows that CI implanted children perform more closely to their hearing peers when they are exposed to sign and speech becaus e they do not function as hearing , but as HOH.

And that is exactly what I am talking about. Cloggy is saying a CI child doesn't need sign because they hear a lot. Research says different. And hearing alot is not the same as hearing what a hearing child hears. And until you are able to understand that, it will continue to appear to be splitting hairs, I suppose. But it is a hari that needs to be split because these kids' educational accommodations hang on that hair.

Oh Lord!!! you guys started out playing nice until the terms hear's some and hears alot came up. Does a child with a CI hear some or do they hear alot. Hmmmm... I would say that is subjective and probably covers a broad spectrum from no benefit to being able to hear quite a bit. From my perspective, the conversation went south because you and cloggy are in dis-agreement on how much a child can hear with a CI. I'm no expert but I am quite sure that as I mentioned, that is highly subjective with many variables that will determine just how much someone with a CI can hear.

 

[rockdrummer]

Everytime you read something, you twist it into something to accomodate your view,

I am starting to see that trend and have seen it with another member here as well. the response to my post is a case in point.

 

[jillio]

I did? I recall saying that communication is the most important thing. And if there is no need for sign, that's fine. If there is a communication problem, other techniques should be used to improve on communication of course. Cued speech, signlanguage....

So, Jillio, stop putting statements in my mouth that are false... Everytime you read something, you twist it into something to accomodate your view, at the expense of the other person.Some research, especially what you read.
Splitting hairs will reduce carrying capacity !
Perhaps, if required, adding more hairs might be a better solution...

So what would you consider to be a difficulty in communication, cloggy? And that would be a preponderance of the research.

I am not twisting your words, cloggy, merely repeating them. Perhaps you should make an attempt to be more concise and clear in what you mean to say.

 

[Cloggy]

So what would you consider to be a difficulty in communication, cloggy? And that would be a preponderance of the research.

I am not twisting your words, cloggy, merely repeating them. Perhaps you should make an attempt to be more concise and clear in what you mean to say.

Sure..... Du hast recht und ich meine ruhe..

 

[jillio]

Sure..... Du hast recht und ich meine ruhe..

Come on, cloggy...do you want to discuss the issues or do you want to engage in childish games?

 

[Cloggy]

.................
More support and evidence for the use of early sign in the intellectual and cognitive development of profoundly deaf children. Any thoughts?

That has been shown before, for example in the study quoted below. (25 years ago)
However, one also has to realise that those times are quite different compared to the current age.
Nowadays, with CI, the average results are probably still in in favour for oral in combination, but there is a growing population of people (now children) that grow up with CI, that will quite likely not need sign. (Examples are on AllDeaf..) Sign as in sign-language of sign as in cued speech.

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.25 262-269 June 1982.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

Cued Speech and the Reception of Spoken Language
Gaye H. Nicholls 1
Daniel Ling Mcgill 1
1 McGill University, Montreal, Quebec


This study was designed to investigate the effect of Cued Speech on the speech reception abilities of profoundly hearing-impaired children under seven conditions of presentation: audition; lipreading: audition and lipreading; cues; audition and cues; lipreading and cues; and audition, lipreading, and cues. The 18 subjects had been taught through the use of Cued Speech for at least 4 years. The subjects were presented with specially designed speech tests (syllables and key words in sentences) which had been recorded on color videotape, and they responded in writing. Speech reception scores of over 95% with the key word in sentence materials and over 80% with the syllables were obtained with lipreading plus cues, and with audition, lipreading plus cues. Equally high levels of accuracy in speech reception by such children have not previously been reported. The subjects also demonstrated the ability: to use audition with the sentence materials, both in combination with lipreading and with cues, though there were large individual differences under these conditions. Speech reception abilities in the lipreading-plus-audition condition were highly correlated with scores for speech production, whereas language attainments were correlated with reception through Cued Speech. The implications of these findings to the field of aural rehabilitation are discussed.

Submitted on November 24, 1980
Accepted on March 27, 1981

Title: Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Linguistic Input Support to a Prelingually Deaf Child with Cued Speech: A Case Study
Authors: Torres, Santiago; Moreno-Torres, Ignacio; Santana, Rafael
Descriptors: Evaluation Methods; Linguistic Input; Deafness; Cued Speech; Case Studies; Children; Mothers; Allied Health Personnel; Language Acquisition; Oral Language
Source: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, v11 n4 p438-448 2006
Peer-Reviewed: Yes
Publisher: Oxford University Press. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK. Tel: +44 1865-353907; Fax: +44 1865-353485; e-mail: jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org; Web site: Oxford Journals | Medicine | Jnl. of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education.
Publication Date: 2006-00-00
Pages: 11
Pub Types: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Abstract: This paper studies the linguistic input attended by a deaf child exposed to cued speech (CS) in the final part of her prelinguistic period (18-24 months). Subjects are the child, her mother, and her therapist. Analyses have provided data about the quantity of input directed to the child (oral input, more than 1,000 words per half-an-hour session; cued ratio, more than 60% of oral input; and attended ratio, more than 55% of oral input), its linguistic quality (lexical variety, grammatical complexity, etc.), and other properties of interaction (child attention and use of spontaneous gestures). Results show that both adults provided a rich linguistic input to the child and that the child attended most of the input that the adults cued. These results might explain the positive linguistic development of children exposed early to CS.
Abstractor: Author
ISSN: ISSN-1081-4159

 

[Cloggy]

..........And to answer the question regarding CS...first, it is not a language. Second, it does nothing to increase those incidental learning situations that are critical.

On the contrairy....

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 1:4 1996
© 1996 Oxford University Press


Visual Speech in the Head: The Effect of Cued-Speech on Rhyming, Remembering, and Spelling
Jacqueline Leybaert and Brigitte Charlier
Université Libre de Bruxelles

Deaf children rely mainly on lipreading to understand spoken language. The phonological representations they develop from the lipread signal are underspecified, leading to poor performances in all mental activities relying on such representations. To overcome these difficulties, systems have been designed that deliver entirely visually specified information about the phonological contrasts of spoken language. The paper explores the consequences of exposure to one of such systems, namely cued-speech (CS) on the development of phonological representations. Deaf children exposed early to CS at home show a reliance on inner speech for rhyming, remembering, and spelling similar to that displayed by hearing children but different from that of deaf children not exposed early to CS. We argue that the degree of specificity of phonological information delivered to the deaf children is more important than the modality though which they perceive speech for the development of phonological abilities.

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.25 262-269 June 1982.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

Cued Speech and the Reception of Spoken Language
Gaye H. Nicholls 1
Daniel Ling Mcgill 1
1 McGill University, Montreal, Quebec


This study was designed to investigate the effect of Cued Speech on the speech reception abilities of profoundly hearing-impaired children under seven conditions of presentation: audition; lipreading: audition and lipreading; cues; audition and cues; lipreading and cues; and audition, lipreading, and cues. The 18 subjects had been taught through the use of Cued Speech for at least 4 years. The subjects were presented with specially designed speech tests (syllables and key words in sentences) which had been recorded on color videotape, and they responded in writing. Speech reception scores of over 95% with the key word in sentence materials and over 80% with the syllables were obtained with lipreading plus cues, and with audition, lipreading plus cues. Equally high levels of accuracy in speech reception by such children have not previously been reported. The subjects also demonstrated the ability: to use audition with the sentence materials, both in combination with lipreading and with cues, though there were large individual differences under these conditions. Speech reception abilities in the lipreading-plus-audition condition were highly correlated with scores for speech production, whereas language attainments were correlated with reception through Cued Speech. The implications of these findings to the field of aural rehabilitation are discussed.

Submitted on November 24, 1980
Accepted on March 27, 1981

Title: Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Linguistic Input Support to a Prelingually Deaf Child with Cued Speech: A Case Study
Authors: Torres, Santiago; Moreno-Torres, Ignacio; Santana, Rafael
Descriptors: Evaluation Methods; Linguistic Input; Deafness; Cued Speech; Case Studies; Children; Mothers; Allied Health Personnel; Language Acquisition; Oral Language
Source: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, v11 n4 p438-448 2006
Peer-Reviewed: Yes
Publisher: Oxford University Press. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK. Tel: +44 1865-353907; Fax: +44 1865-353485; e-mail: jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org; Web site: Oxford Journals | Medicine | Jnl. of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education.
Publication Date: 2006-00-00
Pages: 11
Pub Types: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Abstract: This paper studies the linguistic input attended by a deaf child exposed to cued speech (CS) in the final part of her prelinguistic period (18-24 months). Subjects are the child, her mother, and her therapist. Analyses have provided data about the quantity of input directed to the child (oral input, more than 1,000 words per half-an-hour session; cued ratio, more than 60% of oral input; and attended ratio, more than 55% of oral input), its linguistic quality (lexical variety, grammatical complexity, etc.), and other properties of interaction (child attention and use of spontaneous gestures). Results show that both adults provided a rich linguistic input to the child and that the child attended most of the input that the adults cued. These results might explain the positive linguistic development of children exposed early to CS.
Abstractor: Author
ISSN: ISSN-1081-4159

 

[jillio]

On the contrary....

You have supported nothing through these abstracts. CS does nothing to increase the incidental learning that is necessary for language acquisition and fluency. And these abstracts support that. CS makes oral language less ambiguous when being speech read. It does not address the issues of language acquisition. I keep arguing this point with loml as well. She keeps posting articles that she thinks prove me wrong, when in fact, they support everything I say about CS.

And if you need to make language visable, what the heck is wrong with the use of sign? Give the kid the whole concept, and not just a broken down phoneme. That would lead to greater comprehension and ability to think critically.

And did you bother to check the dates on those abstracts?

 

[loml]

She keeps posting articles that she thinks prove me wrong, when in fact, they support everything I say about CS.

Posting of the articles are for people to read.

What your postings do support is that YOU do not GET CS.

If you GOT CS, your energies for bilingual deaf ed. could be used at the NCSA.

 

[jillio]

Posting of the articles are for people to read.

What your postings do support is that YOU do not GET CS.

If you GOT CS, your energies for bilingual deaf ed. could be used at the NCSA.

I get CS. It is not a language, and can be used in conjuction with oral language. It is not, however a replacement for a visual language. Bilingual edcuation for the deaf is a concept based on the use of ASL and English. If you use ASL inconjuctionwith English, you are already givign visual cues necessary to transmit conceptual inforamtion, and therefore, the use of CS is not necessary and, in fact creates a linguistically confusing environment. CS is useful as an adjunct to lipreading.

 

[jillio]

Almost forgot. Why would I want to support NCSA when their mission statement and goals are all about promoting the use of oral language through CS?

 

[Cloggy]

..............
And did you bother to check the dates on those abstracts?

What's wrong with older articles. Does it suddenly become "wrong"..
I chose one of the oldest one I could find because that reflects CS used in a deaf/hoh environment.
When it works there... it would certainly work in the CI-environment. (Yes, I am still separating in deaf/hoh/CI)

And if ASL is so great and wonderful.. why is it that hearing families have such a hard time learning it.

I have a feeling that with CS it's different for parents. As with sign (not ASL), they can start using it straight away, and the children can pick it up straight away. The CS sign for "car" in combination with the mouth will be just as clear for the child as the sign for "car". In that sense, both CS and ASl will be as easy to use. But later on, a different grammar will have to be used, and in effect, a new language.
With CS, there is no need for a new grammar. The grammer is allready known.. and for the child to convert CS to writing and reading - well, that's just a 1 to 1 relationship - unlike with ASL.

From ASl to english writing would be for hearing people to speak English and to write it down in French...
Sure, it can be done, but it's not easy.. or "natural".

 

[Cloggy]

Almost forgot. Why would I want to support NCSA when their mission statement and goals are all about promoting the use of oral language through CS?

Because - like you, they are working FOR deaf children and parents... The one does not exclude the other..
Black and white are the extremes. In between, there's lot's of colours...

 

[jillio]

What's wrong with older articles. Does it suddenly become "wrong"..
I chose one of the oldest one I could find because that reflects CS used in a deaf/hoh environment.
When it works there... it would certainly work in the CI-environment. (Yes, I am still separating in deaf/hoh/CI)

And if ASL is so great and wonderful.. why is it that hearing families have such a hard time learning it.

I have a feeling that with CS it's different for parents. As with sign (not ASL), they can start using it straight away, and the children can pick it up straight away. The CS sign for "car" in combination with the mouth will be just as clear for the child as the sign for "car". In that sense, both CS and ASl will be as easy to use. But later on, a different grammar will have to be used, and in effect, a new language.
With CS, there is no need for a new grammar. The grammer is allready known.. and for the child to convert CS to writing and reading - well, that's just a 1 to 1 relationship - unlike with ASL.

From ASl to english writing would be for hearing people to speak English and to write it down in French...
Sure, it can be done, but it's not easy.. or "natural".

Well, cloggy, the problem with older articles is the fact that there is quite often more recent research that qualifies, or even proves wrong, the conclusions reached inthe older research. That is why one of the principles of valid research is replication. And assuming that because something works in one environment means it will work in another environment in fallicious.

Why do hhearing families have such a hard time learning ASL....gee I don't know. My family certainly didn't have that difficult a time with it....but then they were willing to make the effort.

But once again, the CS handshpare (not a sign) communicates phonological information, not conceptual inforamtion. You seem to continually overlook the difference between the two.

And once again, you cannot compare a hearing populations use of two different oral languages to a deaf persons use of a visual language and and oral language.

Once again, you are attempting to take this discussion off topic by responding to issues that are not relevent. Please stick to the topic.

 

[jillio]

Because - like you, they are working FOR deaf children and parents... The one does not exclude the other..
Black and white are the extremes. In between, there's lot's of colours...

Familiarize yourself with the difference in philosophy and then perhaps you will understand. You seem to have a tendency to jump to conclusions from an emotional base rather than from an informed one.

 

[Cloggy]

...........But once again, the CS handshpare (not a sign) communicates phonological information, not conceptual inforamtion. You seem to continually overlook the difference between the two.....

Gee, you know all about cued speech, but don't realise that in cued speech is the combination of handshape and lipreading.....
Yep.... tunnelvision!