What is "cued speech"?

Not all hearing people have phonic awareness. Even if Deaf/hoh people can develop some phonic awareness, it's not playing to their strengths. Whole word works better for both groups of people.

Isn't this an evil system of torture invented to torment grammar students?
 
Wirelessly posted

it is an attempt to make the english language less ambiguous when lipreading. It isn't sign. It is to help deaf kids learn english.
 
PopcornCat.gif
 
That's what it's called? I clearly don't have it! :lol:
 
Correct. It is an oralist invention that attempts to keep deaf kids oral...despite the fact that the very invention of the system admits to the flaws in their reasoning.

BTW welcome back!
 
Not all hearing people have phonic awareness. Even if Deaf/hoh people can develop some phonic awareness, it's not playing to their strengths. Whole word works better for both groups of people.

Isn't this an evil system of torture invented to torment grammar students?

:laugh2: i never thought of it that way.. but i think you're right.
 
Wirelessly posted

it is an attempt to make the english language less ambiguous when lipreading. It isn't sign. It is to help deaf kids learn english.

Well, in that case, it has not been shown, on any level, to be effective. So why is all of a sudden being resurrected?
 
I know several Deaf people who are strong ASL supporters but who still like to use cued speech at times and attend cued speech events. They would never think of it as a main form of communication or a language. It was a tool for them, and they appreciated it.

The demonizing of cued speech really gets old after a while.
 
I know several Deaf people who are strong ASL supporters but who still like to use cued speech at times and attend cued speech events. They would never think of it as a main form of communication or a language. It was a tool for them, and they appreciated it.

The demonizing of cued speech really gets old after a while.

That makes sense, I guess.

And maybe it wouldn't be demonized if it were widely known and accepted as an additional tool to sign language and NOT an option to substitute it. Unfortunately most of the videos I watched played the "we chose this instead of sign language" angle and not the "we chose tthis in addition to sign language" angle. Also it was fairly obvious a lot of parents chose CS to make their children function as hearing as possible. It is totally understandable why it is demonized.
 
Also it was fairly obvious a lot of parents chose CS to make their children function as hearing as possible. It is totally understandable why it is demonized.

Can you elaborate on that statement? In what ways do you mean, "function as hearing as possible"?
 
I know several Deaf people who are strong ASL supporters but who still like to use cued speech at times and attend cued speech events. They would never think of it as a main form of communication or a language. It was a tool for them, and they appreciated it.

The demonizing of cued speech really gets old after a while.

I don't think anyone is demonizing it as long as it is presented as a tool for oral cimmunication. After all, the purpose is to make the phonemes of spoken language more understandable. There really isn't even empirical support for using it as a tool for supporting literacy. Visual phonics has been found to be better. The system is not nearly as complicated. My only problem is when it gets represented as something it isn't and promoted for a use of which it was never intended.
 
Can you elaborate on that statement? In what ways do you mean, "function as hearing as possible"?

Ummm....making the phonemes of speech visable? Relying on audition? Spoken English bias?
 
Maybe I not understand this so well...hold hand shape or whatever for mean certain sound not make know what sounds like. Not understand purpose.
 
Back
Top