Cued Speech: A benefit to deaf and hard of hearing

loml · 02-17-2008, 04:47 PM

This is an outline from a paper for a Linguistitcs Class, at Brigham Young University.

Cued speech: a benefit to deaf and hard of hearing individuals and society

Jennifer Andersen

Brigham Young University Department of Linguistics

Quote:

There are many avenues the hearing family of a deaf child can take to come to terms with their situation and help their child to develop to his or her greatest potential. What is best for one child is not necessarily best for all, though. Depending on how this type of situation is approached, there are a myriad of possibilities to deal with it. The options available include: hearing implants, hearing aids, Total Communication (integrated use of a sign language with other communication methods such as cued speech, signed English, etc.), ASL (or signed languages in other countries), signed English, lip reading, and cued speech. This paper focuses on the pros and cons of one of these methods, cued speech, as a supplement to other methods adopted to help deaf and hard of hearing individuals communicate with and understand society.

Many members of the Deaf community think of cued speech as another futile attempt of the hearing community to deny the deafness of their children. Others see cued speech as not denying a deaf person their identity, but rather expanding it to include the hearing world. Cued speech gets at least some disapproving feelings from both manualists (supporters of sign language as the primary language) and oralists (supporters of a purely oral/spoken method of communication for deaf people), since it uses both mouthed words and signs simultaneously to approximate real speech.

Cued speech can enhance communication in a child’s early years, as well as speed up the acquisition of verbal language. It also allows the individual to think in the target language (be it English or Swahili), and greatly improves reading skills because of clarification of the patterns of spoken language. Another benefit is cued speech is not too difficult to learn, taking only about 8 to 15 hours to understand the basics. Because of all of these benefits, cued speech is able to enhance the experience of the deaf individual (when used in connection with other means of communication) when interacting with both deaf and hearing society.

Outline for my Ling 490 paper

jillio · 02-17-2008, 04:57 PM

Others see cued speech as not denying a deaf person their identity, but rather expanding it to include the hearing world. Cued speech gets at least some disapproving feelings from both manualists (supporters of sign language as the primary language) and oralists (supporters of a purely oral/spoken method of communication for deaf people), since it uses both mouthed words and signs simultaneously to approximate real speech.

That same argument has been used for centuries by the oralists, and is the same argument being used for oralism today.

BTW, this is an outline for an undergraduate paper to be turned in as a classroom assignment, not professional reference.

loml · 02-17-2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

BTW, this is an outline for an undergraduate paper to be turned in as a classroom assignment, not professional reference.

jillio -

Orginally posted by loml

Quote:

This is an outline from a paper for a Linguistitcs Class, at Brigham Young University

loml · 02-17-2008, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Others see cued speech as not denying a deaf person their identity, but rather expanding it to include the hearing world. Cued speech gets at least some disapproving feelings from both manualists (supporters of sign language as the primary language) and oralists (supporters of a purely oral/spoken method of communication for deaf people), since it uses both mouthed words and signs simultaneously to approximate real speech.

That same argument has been used for centuries by the oralists, and is the same argument being used for oralism today.

What "same" arguement is that?

jillio · 02-18-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

jillio -

Orginally posted by loml

Yes, dear, and undergraduate paper. Classroom assignment. So it carries no particular expertise.

jillio · 02-18-2008, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

What "same" arguement is that?

The one I quoted, loml, the one I qouted.

loml · 02-20-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Yes, dear, and undergraduate paper. Classroom assignment. So it carries no particular expertise.

jillio - It was indicated at the beginning of the topic where and what the paper was, an idividual in a 400 level Linguistics class.

lumbingmi · 02-20-2008, 05:01 PM

Cued Speech is considered as "tool" - a method to help deaf student to read and write , to be familiar with phonology. Nothing more. Most of the time, deaf who know cued usually use ASL for socializing anyway.

shel90 · 02-20-2008, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumbingmi

Cued Speech is considered as "tool" - a method to help deaf student to read and write , to be familiar with phonology. Nothing more. Most of the time, deaf who know cued usually use ASL for socializing anyway.

That's how I see CS too.

loml · 02-20-2008, 05:19 PM

originally posted by loml

Quote:

What "same" arguement is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

The one I quoted, loml, the one I qouted.

jillio - You actually do not indicate a quote in your post. However, If you are referring to this:

Quote:

Others see cued speech as not denying a deaf person their identity, but rather expanding it to include the hearing world. Cued speech gets at least some disapproving feelings from both manualists (supporters of sign language as the primary language) and oralists (supporters of a purely oral/spoken method of communication for deaf people), since it uses both mouthed words and signs simultaneously to approximate real speech

with this link: Outline for my Ling 490 paper

Considering you haven't paraphrased this paragraph, to reflect your opinion of what the same old arguement is, lets see if I am following you here.

Memembers of the Deaf community, see Cued Speech as denying the deaf child there identity; other members of the Deaf communitysee Cued Speech as not denying the deaf child their identity, but expanding their world. Sign language Deaf community members and oralist, disapprove because Cued Speech uses mouth words and signs to approximate speech.

Somehow, for you this equals = originally posted by jillio

Quote:

That same argument has been used for centuries by the oralists, and is the same argument being used for oralism today.

loml · 02-20-2008, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumbingmi

Cued Speech is considered as "tool" - a method to help deaf student to read and write , to be familiar with phonology. Nothing more. Most of the time, deaf who know cued usually use ASL for socializing anyway.

lumbingmi - I would add: Cuers cue to communicate, in English, French, Hebrew, etc. (provided of course that they have had the opportunity to learn to cue another language).

jillio · 02-20-2008, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

lumbingmi - I would add: Cuers cue to communicate, in English, French, Hebrew, etc. (provided of course that they have had the opportunity to learn to cue another language).

And provided that there is another cuer available. However, I suggest you take a poll on the number of cuers that use CS as their primary form of communication.

jillio · 02-20-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

originally posted by loml

jillio - You actually do not indicate a quote in your post. However, If you are referring to this:

with this link: Outline for my Ling 490 paper

Considering you haven't paraphrased this paragraph, to reflect your opinion of what the same old arguement is, lets see if I am following you here.

Memembers of the Deaf community, see Cued Speech as denying the deaf child there identity; other members of the Deaf communitysee Cued Speech as not denying the deaf child their identity, but expanding their world. Sign language Deaf community members and oralist, disapprove because Cued Speech uses mouth words and signs to approximate speech.

Somehow, for you this equals = originally posted by jillio

Go back and reread, loml. I am exhausted with trying to point out your errors.

loml · 02-20-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Go back and reread, loml. I am exhausted with trying to point out your errors.

jillio - My errors? I am simply trying to clear this up.

It is safe to say the that the paraphrasing:

Quote:

Memembers of the Deaf community, see Cued Speech as denying the deaf child there identity; other members of the Deaf communitysee Cued Speech as not denying the deaf child their identity, but expanding their world. Sign language Deaf community members and oralist, disapprove because Cued Speech uses mouth words and signs to approximate speech

= this:
Quote:

That same argument has been used for centuries by the oralists, and is the same argument being used for oralism today

Thanks

shel90 · 02-20-2008, 06:51 PM

at Jillo and loml

Seriously..it is becoming confusing what you both are debating about.

loml · 02-20-2008, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

And provided that there is another cuer available.

Not necessarily jillio, a cuer of English, French, Hebrew, etc. can/does engage in communication/discussion/discourse with people who are users of the aformentioned languages (as of course you are familiar with the fact that cueing removes the ambiguity of speech reading.)

jillio · 02-20-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

Not necessarily jillio, a cuer of English, French, Hebrew, etc. can/does engage in communication/discussion/discourse with people who are users of the aformentioned languages (as of course you are familiar with the fact that cueing removes the ambiguity of speech reading.)

Like I said, as long as there is another cuer around to communicate with. If the other person doesn't cue, then communication based on cuing cannot take place. You are trying too hard, loml.

shel90 · 02-20-2008, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Like I said, as long as there is another cuer around to communicate with.

In the link in my thread "A Comprehensive List", that was what was stated as one of the disadvantages for CS...that the deaf cuers are too spread out geographically.

jillio · 02-20-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

In the link in my thread "A Comprehensive List", that was what was stated as one of the disadvantages for CS...that the deaf cuers are too spread out geographically.

Right.

owen06 · 02-20-2008, 08:22 PM

The way that I understood CS was that one of the ways it helps is to remove the ambiguities of lip reading. So the cuer wouldn't have to be communicating with another cuer because the deaf person would be able to read the lips of the speaking person successfully.

jillio · 02-20-2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by owen06

The way that I understood CS was that one of the ways it helps is to remove the ambiguities of lip reading. So the cuer wouldn't have to be communicating with another cuer because the deaf person would be able to read the lips of the speaking person successfully.

Only if that speaker was cuing. Likewise the deaf person could only be understood through cuing if the receiver is also a cuer. And, if you don't know Hebrew, the cues are simply phonetic representations of unknown words. That is not communication.

shel90 · 02-20-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by owen06

The way that I understood CS was that one of the ways it helps is to remove the ambiguities of lip reading. So the cuer wouldn't have to be communicating with another cuer because the deaf person would be able to read the lips of the speaking person successfully.

If I had to choose, I would rather pick CS over lipreading without visual cues. I cant lipread for too long..hurts my eyes. Anything to take the strain off, I would go for it.

jillio · 02-20-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

at Jillo and loml

Seriously..it is becoming confusing what you both are debating about.

I agree. I'm getting off the CS merry-go-round. Circular reasoning makes me dizzy!

owen06 · 02-20-2008, 08:33 PM

Why? There should be no reason that the person can't read lips. If they are familiar with being cued to in that language, they would have been exposed to both the cues and the mouth/lip movements of that language. I wasn't claiming that if you didn't know Hebrew you would understand. I was saying that if you have Hebrew as a language (I guess in this case, via cueing) that there should be no reason that the person needs to be communicating with another cuer (in this case a Hebrew cuer)--they should be able to read lips b/c cueing removes the ambiguities in speech reading. Did I explain my train of thought enough?

Sorry, not the merry-go-round part of the why...

jillio · 02-20-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by owen06

Why? There should be no reason that the person can't read lips. If they are familiar with being cued to in that language, they would have been exposed to both the cues and the mouth/lip movements of that language. I wasn't claiming that if you didn't know Hebrew you would understand. I was saying that if you have Hebrew as a language (I guess in this case, via cueing) that there should be no reason that the person needs to be communicating with another cuer (in this case a Hebrew cuer)--they should be able to read lips b/c cueing removes the ambiguities in speech reading. Did I explain my train of thought enough?

Sorry, not the merry-go-round part of the why...

Because unless the cuing is present, it is not there to removre the ambiguity. Too many sounds look alike on the mouth. That is where the cuing comes in to remove the ambiguity. Without the cues, it goes back to ambiguous, because it is the cuing itself that differentiates between sounds that appear the same on the lips.

No, you aren't part of the merry-go-round....yet! LOL.

02-20-2008, 06:51 PM	#15 (permalink)
shel90 Sun Whorshipper Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: A Desert Rat that has found herself in Maryland Posts: 14,964 Blog Entries: 1	at Jillo and loml Seriously..it is becoming confusing what you both are debating about. __________________ ~Shel~

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

02-17-2008, 04:57 PM	#2 (permalink)
jillio Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 19,307	Others see cued speech as not denying a deaf person their identity, but rather expanding it to include the hearing world. Cued speech gets at least some disapproving feelings from both manualists (supporters of sign language as the primary language) and oralists (supporters of a purely oral/spoken method of communication for deaf people), since it uses both mouthed words and signs simultaneously to approximate real speech. That same argument has been used for centuries by the oralists, and is the same argument being used for oralism today. BTW, this is an outline for an undergraduate paper to be turned in as a classroom assignment, not professional reference.

02-20-2008, 05:01 PM	#8 (permalink)
lumbingmi Invigorated Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 3,610	Cued Speech is considered as "tool" - a method to help deaf student to read and write , to be familiar with phonology. Nothing more. Most of the time, deaf who know cued usually use ASL for socializing anyway.

02-20-2008, 08:22 PM	#20 (permalink)
owen06 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 116	The way that I understood CS was that one of the ways it helps is to remove the ambiguities of lip reading. So the cuer wouldn't have to be communicating with another cuer because the deaf person would be able to read the lips of the speaking person successfully.

02-20-2008, 08:33 PM	#24 (permalink)
owen06 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 116	Why? There should be no reason that the person can't read lips. If they are familiar with being cued to in that language, they would have been exposed to both the cues and the mouth/lip movements of that language. I wasn't claiming that if you didn't know Hebrew you would understand. I was saying that if you have Hebrew as a language (I guess in this case, via cueing) that there should be no reason that the person needs to be communicating with another cuer (in this case a Hebrew cuer)--they should be able to read lips b/c cueing removes the ambiguities in speech reading. Did I explain my train of thought enough? Sorry, not the merry-go-round part of the why...