loml

__________________
- Dr. Edward C. Merrill, Jr. past president of Gallaudet

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

jillio

More Hooked on Phonics.

rockdrummer

Why do you do that?

jillio

Do what? Point out the obvious?

DeafboyOne

I came back from Canada to UK when I was 6 so I missed a year of school. I went to St.Lukes School Chadderton Oldham, Where I was taught phonetic alphabet a=ah b=buh c=cuh etc. My English is pretty good years later, I recommend it because you see words in your head (like up on a blackboard)
I started going Deaf when a boy perforated my ears in playground so I learned fingerspelling (Dad helped cos he'd been to Deaf School). Recently I learned British Sign Language..as its visual I find its similar logic to phonetics so easier to pick up? Do u agree?

jillio

How old were you when your eardrums were perforated?

jillio

Has anyone stopped to cinsider that the English language is phonetically inconsistent in spelling? Just because one can be shown a difference between two sounds on the mouth by addinga andshape, does not necessarily mean that the child will be able to recognize the phonetic combination in written form. That recognition is necessary for developing literacy skills. There are numerous hearing children who are able to distinguish the differences in phonetic combinations via hearing the, but cannot recognize them in written form. Ever heard a first grader learning to read? Because the phonetic combinations are not consistent visually and aurally.

Gamer12

i can see that you do know what you're talking about. i suppose thus explains why asl-hating, self-hating people had tried to twist your statements or pummel you with brutal backhand comments.

keep fighting the good fight.

jillio

Thank you, gamer12. I will. It is a fight worth fighting!

Jasper

What fight is that?

__________________

jillio

That would be the fight against oralism when applied to language acquisition issues, deaf education, and literacy concerns.

loml

Cueing puts deaf childrens comprehension of the printed word equal to that of hearing children. Do you see a problem with that?

Deaf children who cue understand that people have different dialects, because they see the difference.

__________________
- Dr. Edward C. Merrill, Jr. past president of Gallaudet

ismi

Jillio, why not restrict your fighting the good fight to places where it's actually relevant? A post about cued speech is not always about oralism, childhood education, or literacy, loml's politics/pedagogical philosophy notwithstanding.

As an adult who's playing with CS, this list is quite useful for practicing cues! Nothing at all to do with "the fight against oralism when applied to language acquisition issues, deaf education, and literacy concerns." After all, I think you would take a similar opposition to Deaf children being taught PSE (rather than ASL) as a native language - but I doubt you'd reply with this much zeal to posts about adult use of PSE (hearing people, late/progressive deaf, etc) .

I guess what I'm saying here is this: there are political posts about CS, and their are posts about the mechanics of it. While the latter may be motivated by the former, that doesn't mean that they're not interesting in their own right, and it would be nice if people could read them without having to wade through the same damn arguments that are endlessly rehashed in the political posts, regardless of how they feel about the merits of those arguments. I - and I suspect I'm not alone in this - avoid those, because I know what the discussion will be. But these other posts still have the potential to be interesting. So unless cued speech itself is inherently flawed in ways that have nothing to do with oralism, language acquisition, and literacy ... please.

rockdrummer

And what about those that it works for who are now able to communicate with their children. What about those that have tried other methods without success and CS is what is working for them. Life is not lived in a vaccum where one size fits all. I don't see where CS has anything to do with oralism. Seems to me it's more about the ability to communicate and is just another method when others may fail.

jillio

[quote=loml;825284]Cueing puts deaf childrens comprehension of the printed word equal to that of hearing children. Do you see a problem with that?

Yes, I do have a problem with that becasue none of the research I have seen and read on CS has come to that conclusion. And, as I said, you are not accounting for the linguistic factors, nor the cognitive factors that translate to literacy skills. Visual phonetics on the mouth is not the same as word recognition in print. For one thing, as I have previously mentioned, words in print are not spelled phonetically. So if you are providing a phonetic representation through speech, it is inconsistent with the same wymbolic representation in print.

Deaf children who cue understand that people have different dialects, because they see the difference.[/QUO

And deaf children who sign understand the same thing through regionality. The point is?

jillio

Becasue CS is an adjuct to speech reading and nothing more. It is being presented in this forum as a tool for language acquisition, and people need to know the difference. I have never said that it wasn't a useful tool, when used as appropriate. However, the implication that all one needs to do is to start cueing children and literacy rates will improve is totally innaccurate, and is a message that needs to be corrected.

jillio

Okay, here is how it applies to oralism. It is adding a visual component to oral language, preseumably for the assistance in removing the descrepancies in lip reading. Although there are those that are now attempting to promote it as a tool for developing speech skills, and for increasing literacy rates, and improving the language acquisition situations of deaf children. There is already a system that permits that, and offers advantages of giving a child conceptual information in a way that the eye is prepared to receive it and process it. It is called sign language.

Yes, it is about the ability to communicate. But CS users can communicate with other CS users, and their numbers are extremely limited.

And unless one has tried to incorporate sign into a child's environment they ahve not tried all of the methods available. They have only tried the oral methods available. Which goes back to how CS relates to oralism.

CS is also promoted as a quick and easy method to learn, one that requires much less effort for the parent than learning signed language. I object to this, as well, because the issue is not about what is easiest for the parent, it is about what is most beneficial for the child.

loml

jillio. Completely inaccuarate statement.

,Which it does.

.Which they do This was never implied. , According to you

__________________
- Dr. Edward C. Merrill, Jr. past president of Gallaudet

loml

CS is about communicating. not true This is changing as CS continues to grow and branch out to more special needs groups

,Yes indeed it is For you this is a bad thing?.

CS is beneficial to the child.

__________________
- Dr. Edward C. Merrill, Jr. past president of Gallaudet

jillio

Do you read any of the articles that you post? It all inthere...all you have to do is read it.

Jasper

Oralism does have its advantages.. I can talk while eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.. although I would get jelly.. or peanut butter.. or maybe even both all over my mouth if I cued too..

hmm.. its almost as if they both have their disadvantages..

Maybe the US should change the national language to something a bit less difficult to learn and write.. how about Esperanto? Lots of studies about that!!

__________________

ismi

I agree with you that there's more to language and literacy than just cueing, although I do think that cueing can be a useful tool if "part of this complete breakfast". But that's not my point. There are a lot of posts on AllDeaf about CS in that context; the "this doesn't work for language acquisition" posts should go there, so that those of us who don't have a horse in that race can pay attention to the posts that are relevant to us. Otherwise, the argument overshadows the information - throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There are adult cuers who are late deaf, or progressively deaf;there are adult cuers who grew up cueing (and whether or not you feel that CS is good pedagogical practice, I don't see that it hurts your cause to have an adult choose to seek out cued speech transliteration if it works for them). The flaws that cued speech has that you bring up do not apply to us. All I'm asking here is that you not tear down other people's linguistic choices simply because you disagree with one application of the methods involved. (Heck, there's at least one poster here who grew up with SEE and is still more comfortable with it than ASL - yet for all of SEE's flaws as an educational method, it has its uses, and it's a valid choice for an adult to make for themselves.)

jillio

I don't have a problem with those subpopulations you have noted making the choice for themselves that CS is a useful tool for them to have, either. However, when posted in the Education forum, I am assuming it is being applied to deaf children, who as a group, are language delayed and thus, have a problem with literacy.

I am not "tearing down" another's choices. Simply pointing out that while that choice may be approriate in the instances that you have cited...all of which involve individuals who have already acquired language skills prior to hearing loss and therefore are exempt from acquisition issues, it is not appropriate, and therefore cannot be applied to the population of prelingually deafened children for whom acquisition is the primary issue.

If you limited your posts to those as you have described above, I would not have an issue