Explaining Cued Speech - from an expert. - Page 3

jillio · 12-29-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Ha, ha. I love your analogy.

Thanks. It just seemed quite the appropritate comparison. Of course, I will no doubt be accused of attacking someone.

Kaitin · 12-29-2007, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yiffzer

well, to turn people on through cued speech would be a fetish, now wouldn't it?

Maybe no it wouldn't. There are more definitions for "turn on" than sexual.

From Miriam-Webster: turn on

1: to activate or cause to flow, operate, or function by or as if by turning a control <turn the water on full> <turn on the power>

2
a: to cause to undergo an intense often visionary experience by taking a drug; broadly : to cause to get high
b: to move pleasurably <rock music turns her on>; also : to excite sexually
c: to cause to gain knowledge or appreciation of something specified

---

Even the word "fetish" can mean other than sexual.

From Miriam-Webster: fetish

1 a: an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence

b: an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : prepossession

c: an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression

2: a rite or cult of fetish worshipers

3: fixation

---

So nothing wrong with Deafskeptic's post.

**deafskeptic** · 12-29-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaitin

Maybe no it wouldn't. There are more definitions for "turn on" than sexual.

From Miriam-Webster: turn on

1: to activate or cause to flow, operate, or function by or as if by turning a control <turn the water on full> <turn on the power>

2
a: to cause to undergo an intense often visionary experience by taking a drug; broadly : to cause to get high
b: to move pleasurably <rock music turns her on>; also : to excite sexually
c: to cause to gain knowledge or appreciation of something specified

---

Even the word "fetish" can mean other than sexual.

From Miriam-Webster: fetish

[COLOR="Indigo"]1 a: an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence

b: an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : prepossession

c: an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression

2: a rite or cult of fetish worshipers

3: fixation

---

So nothing wrong with Deafskeptic's post.

Kaitin. Fixiation is what I had mind though now I think I should have put in a defination of fetish. It would seems Loml has a cued speech fixation.

jillio · 12-29-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Kaitin. Fixiation is what I had mind though now I think I should have put in a defination of fetish. It would seems Loml has a cued speech fixation.

And perhaps a fetish, as well.

**deafskeptic** · 12-29-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

And perhaps a fetish, as well.

LOL.

**deafskeptic** · 12-29-2007, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

Originally Posted by loml

Originally Posted by deafskeptic [COLOR="Red"]I never said that I was the only one who was taught it. My classmates were also taught it. Many in the oral program didn't understand it well as they were limited with the language. Now would you propose that you limit their chances to learn a language unless it's English?

deafskeptic - No.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

lomldeafskeptic - Are you saying that there is no problem with children who are deaf, with limited language, understanding the whole message in ASL?

Originally Posted by deafskeptic[.

lomlI am sincerely please to read that you found Cued Speech useful tool for phonics and lipreading.

Originally Posted by loml
deafskeptic - Are you stating here that you have met numerous (more than 2)individuals who advocate for CS? You certainly are not meeting the same Cued Speech advocates that I know. You have made previous statements that your mother cued to you when you misunderstood, are you suggesting then that a tool that removes the ambiguity from spoken word, should not be afforded to furture deaf children?

Originally Posted by deafskepticYES, I have met more than one person who advocate for CS. How else do you think I learned it in 2nd grade. You're the most annoying one by far.

Originally Posted by lomlAgain, are you meaning that children in oral programs should not learn/use a system that removes the ambiguity of speech for them?

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

lomlI did not ask you if they should be in an oral program only.

Originally Posted by lomlIndeed the system of Cued Speech, on its own does not teach speech. As you have some familiarity with Cued Speech, I would not expect you to have the same reaction to the words: Cued Speech.

Originally Posted by deafskepticME:
I see you have not answered my question. If Cued speech has no revealance to speech why even mention bad experience in speech class. I should point out that many have tried it and don't use it.

lomldeafskeptic - What question did I not answer? The simple fact that the system is named "Cued Speech" can/does conjures up all kinds of images fordeaf and hearing people, who do not know what cueing is.

lomldeafskeptic - I do not recall stating that the Deaf community is threatened by Cued Speech.

Originally Posted by deafskepticWhy the comment about the reaction to hearing with vested interest in ASL? Is it because they got annoyed with your "gospel" of CS as the salvation to deaf children's literacy skills? If you want to turn on people to cued speech, you're going about it
exactly the wrong way.

lomldeafskeptic - I find the implied naivity suprising. Your mom choose a path less traveled for a period of time in your childhood. You acredit the system to providing some support for you phonetically and with speech reading.

Originally Posted by deafskepticYou're turning off people to cued speech because you keep going on and on and on and on and on about it. I wonder how long it will be before someone begs Alex for an ignore feature so they can put you and other annoying members on ignore.

I swear your mission is to turn people off on Cued Speech.

Free will.[/QUOTE]

Why do I have the feeling that you'll keep asking me questions until I give you an answer that you want? </ rhetorical question />

loml · 12-29-2007, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by loml:

Quote:

deafskeptic- I understand from your statements regarding your personal experience that you were the one child in the class who had had the opportunity to learn some cueing. Why would you expect your classmates to understand cueing if they themselves had not seen it until they met you? How can a system be effective if "most" deaf children have not had the opportunity to learn and use the system?

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

Quote:

I never said that I was the only one who was taught it. My classmates were also taught it.

deafskeptic - I apologise for my error. Your entire class; I am guessing maybe 30 some years ago, this is indeed a rarity. Are you aware of the level of involvement with cueing, in each childs family. Can you recall the names of the advocates who taught the class, presuming that the class was taught by advocates, fluent in cueing? Do you recall the name of the program and school? Where were you living at the time?

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

Quote:

Many in the oral program didn't understand it well as they were limited with the language. Now would you propose that you limit their chances to learn a language unless it's English?

deafskeptic - No.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

Quote:

All the deaf kids understood that the cued speech meant a certain word but because they were limited in langage, they had some difficulty understanding the whole message. You don't have this problem in ASL.

deafskeptic - Are you saying that there is no problem with children who are deaf (from hearing families), with limited language, understanding the whole message in ASL?

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

Quote:

I should point out that I've tried it and I think it's a useful tool for phonics and lipreading. I only cued to adults and used home made signs to talk to the other kids in the program.

I am sincerely pleased to read that you found Cued Speech useful tool for phonics and lipreading.

Originally Posted by loml:

Quote:

deafskeptic - Are you stating here that you have met numerous (more than 2)individuals who advocate for CS? You certainly are not meeting the same Cued Speech advocates that I know. You have made previous statements that your mother cued to you when you misunderstood, are you suggesting then that a tool that removes the ambiguity from spoken word, should not be afforded to furture deaf children?

deafskeptic - Not going to aswer this one?

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

Quote:

YES, I have met more than one person who advocate for CS. How else do you think I learned it in 2nd grade. You're the most annoying one by far.

Originally Posted by loml:

Quote:

Again, are you meaning that children in oral programs should not learn/use a system that removes the ambiguity of speech for them?

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

Quote:

I don't think they should be in an oral program only.

I did not ask if you think they should be in an oral program only. I aked you: Again, are you meaning that children in oral programs should not learn/use a system that removes the ambiguity of speech for them?

Originally Posted by loml:

Quote:

[COLOR ="Green"] Indeed the system of Cued Speech, on its own does not teach speech. As you have some familiarity and support from using Cued Speech, and I would not expect you to have the same reaction to the words: Cued Speech.[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

Quote:

ME:I see you have not answered my question. If Cued speech has no revealance to speech why even mention bad experience in speech class. I should point out that many have tried it and don't use it.

deafskeptic - What question did I not answer? The simple fact that the system is named "Cued Speech" can/does conjures up all kinds of images for deaf and hearing people, who do not know what cueing is.

Originally Posted by loml:

Quote:

deafskeptic - I do not recall stating that the Deaf community is threatened by Cued Speech.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

Quote:

Why the comment about the reaction to hearing with vested interest in ASL? Is it because they got annoyed with your "gospel" of CS as the salvation to deaf children's literacy skills? If you want to turn on people to cued speech, you're going about it exactly the wrong way.

deafskeptic - I find the implied naivity suprising. Your mom choose a path less traveled for a period of time in your childhood. You acredit the system to providing some support for you phonetically and with speech reading.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

Quote:

You're turning off people to cued speech because you keep going on and on and on and on and on about it. I wonder how long it will be before someone begs Alex for an ignore feature so they can put you and other annoying members on ignore.I swear your mission is to turn people off on Cued Speech.

Free will.

**Cheri** · 12-29-2007, 02:29 PM

loml--

Cued Speech is soley for spoken language, not English Language, it's the same as oralism so therefore it's a speech tool. Cued Speech helps a child to be a better speech reader before being an oralist. Use of Cued Speech in and of itself will not guarantee that a child will have intelligible speech. However, the Cued Speech system is an excellent tool for teaching a deaf child to speak. But, what about the child's language? That's what you need to look into. If a deaf child takes Cued Speech from K to 12, they will not have language, and they can be delay in their language.

Cued Speech can be use to communicate with their hearing friends, hearing world, ASL can be use to communicate in both the deaf and hearing world. Oralism can be use to communicate with the hearing world, hearing friends.

Yiffzer · 12-29-2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

loml--

Cued Speech is soley for spoken language, not English Language, it's the same as oralism so therefore it's a speech tool. Cued Speech helps a child to be a better speech reader before being an oralist. Use of Cued Speech in and of itself will not guarantee that a child will have intelligible speech. However, the Cued Speech system is an excellent tool for teaching a deaf child to speak. But, what about the child's language? That's what you need to look into. If a deaf child takes Cued Speech from K to 12, they will not have language, and they can be delay in their language.

Cued Speech can be use to communicate with their hearing friends, hearing world, ASL can be use to communicate in both the deaf and hearing world. Oralism can be use to communicate with the hearing world, hearing friends.

there you go contradicting yourself a little bit.

according to you: cued speech is a speech tool, designed to help a child be a better speech reader and speaker.

according to you: cued speech can be used to communicate with their hearing peers, which if i understand correctly, the system isn't used directly but it is used through the result of such training.

granted cued speech is a phonetic system, not a language.

here comes the big but: in america, cued speech would be used as an accessory to learning a specific language: english. therefore, a child would master english in an early age. why would this necessarily "delay" its language development? it doesn't!

to compare asl to cs or vice-versa is wrong. they are two completely different things with one being a system and the other being a language. let's quit arguing about cs vs. asl.

**deafskeptic** · 12-29-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yiffzer

there you go contradicting yourself a little bit.

according to you: cued speech is a speech tool, designed to help a child be a better speech reader and speaker.

according to you: cued speech can be used to communicate with their hearing peers, which if i understand correctly, the system isn't used directly but it is used through the result of such training.

granted cued speech is a phonetic system, not a language.

here comes the big but: in america, cued speech would be used as an accessory to learning a specific language: english. therefore, a child would master english in an early age. why would this necessarily "delay" its language development? it doesn't!

to compare asl to cs or vice-versa is wrong. they are two completely different things with one being a system and the other being a language. let's quit arguing about cs vs. asl.

You need a good command of English or another to understand cued speech.

**deafskeptic** · 12-29-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

Originally Posted by loml:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

deafskeptic - I apologise for my error. Your entire class; I am guessing maybe 30 some years ago, this is indeed a rarity. Are you aware of the level of involvement with cueing, in each childs family. Can you recall the names of the advocates who taught the class, presuming that the class was taught by advocates, fluent in cueing? Do you recall the name of the program and school? Where were you living at the time?

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:
[/COLOR]

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts because you'll never be happy with any of my answer unless they're some how suppportive of cued speech

deafskeptic - No.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

deafskeptic - Are you saying that there is no problem with children who are deaf (from hearing families), with limited language, understanding the whole message in ASL?

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

I am sincerely pleased to read that you found Cued Speech useful tool for phonics and lipreading.

Originally Posted by loml:

deafskeptic - Not going to aswer this one?

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

Originally Posted by loml:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

I did not ask if you think they should be in an oral program only. I aked you: Again, are you meaning that children in oral programs should not learn/use a system that removes the ambiguity of speech for them?

Originally Posted by loml:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

deafskeptic - What question did I not answer? The simple fact that the system is named "Cued Speech" can/does conjures up all kinds of images for deaf and hearing people, who do not know what cueing is.

Originally Posted by loml:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

deafskeptic - I find the implied naivity suprising. Your mom choose a path less traveled for a period of time in your childhood. You acredit the system to providing some support for you phonetically and with speech reading.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic:

Free will.

I'm not going to answer any more of your questions as you'll not be happy until I say something that's supportive of cued speech or oralism. Too bad.

jillio · 12-29-2007, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yiffzer

there you go contradicting yourself a little bit.

according to you: cued speech is a speech tool, designed to help a child be a better speech reader and speaker.

according to you: cued speech can be used to communicate with their hearing peers, which if i understand correctly, the system isn't used directly but it is used through the result of such training.

granted cued speech is a phonetic system, not a language.

here comes the big but: in america, cued speech would be used as an accessory to learning a specific language: english. therefore, a child would master english in an early age. why would this necessarily "delay" its language development? it doesn't!

Mastery at an early age does not equate to native fluency. Language delays are the result of early acquisition difficulties. Acquisition and learning are two different processes. In order to prevent dealys, the exposure must be to whole conceptual language to allow for internalization that can be applied to learning an L2 language for which natural exposure is not available. The only langauge that is completely available to the deaf infant and toddler is ASL.

to compare asl to cs or vice-versa is wrong. they are two completely different things with one being a system and the other being a language. let's quit arguing about cs vs. asl.

They must be compared when discussing language acquisition.

jillio · 12-29-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

You need a good command of English or another to understand cued speech.

Exactly.

jillio · 12-29-2007, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

I'm not going to answer any more of your questions as you'll not be happy until I say something that's supportive of cued speech or oralism. Too bad.

Yep. He is attempting to lead you. And yes, children in oral programs should be exposed to a method that removes the ambiguity of speech and also provides the conceptual information that facilitates comprehension and fluidity of langauge use. They should be exposed to ASL. It accomplishes all of that.

**Cheri** · 12-29-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yiffzer

there you go contradicting yourself a little bit.

according to you: cued speech is a speech tool, designed to help a child be a better speech reader and speaker.

according to you: cued speech can be used to communicate with their hearing peers, which if i understand correctly, the system isn't used directly but it is used through the result of such training.

granted cued speech is a phonetic system, not a language.

here comes the big but: in america, cued speech would be used as an accessory to learning a specific language: english. therefore, a child would master english in an early age. why would this necessarily "delay" its language development? it doesn't!

to compare asl to cs or vice-versa is wrong. they are two completely different things with one being a system and the other being a language. let's quit arguing about cs vs. asl.

How am I contradicting myself, I'm pretty sure you are not getting me, What am I saying is speech skills is good to be use in a hearing world. You have language you also have speech, those two are different, children can be significantly behind in language development when they only reply on speech skills, simply because speech is the verbal means of communicating and Language is for reading, spelling, and/or writing.

The only reason I compare asl/cued, I was explaining what it is use for, which world doesn't mean asl is better than cued or cued is better than asl. I don't see what's the fuss over this, Remember I have the right of an opinion, so deal with it.

**deafskeptic** · 12-29-2007, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Yep. He is attempting to lead you. And yes, children in oral programs should be exposed to a method that removes the ambiguity of speech and also provides the conceptual information that facilitates comprehension and fluidity of langauge use. They should be exposed to ASL. It accomplishes all of that.

Yeppers. I don't know of any oral based languages or an oral based method that does that for the deaf. I was going to say something similar to your comment on ASL but I decided it wasn't worth it with Loml.

loml · 12-29-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

You need a good command of English or another to understand cued speech.

deafskeptic - The hearing person who is cueing, does need to be able to provide a accurate, consistent and eventually fluent model of Cued English. This is not the case receptively.

jillio · 12-29-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

deafskeptic - The hearing person who is cueing, does need to be able to provide a accurate, consistent and eventually fluent model of Cued English. This is not the case receptively.

That is ridiculas. If one is unfamiliar with the language, one cannot receive the message.

jillio · 12-29-2007, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Yeppers. I don't know of any oral based languages or an oral based method that does that for the deaf. I was going to say something similar to your comment on ASL but I decided it wasn't worth it with Loml.

You are no doubt correct. I doubt that it will have an impact on loml. I posted it for any hearing parent who might be reading this thread and buying into his misleading claims.

loml · 12-29-2007, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

loml--

Cued Speech is soley for spoken language, not English Language, it's the same as oralism so therefore it's a speech tool. Cued Speech helps a child to be a better speech reader before being an oralist. Use of Cued Speech in and of itself will not guarantee that a child will have intelligible speech. However, the Cued Speech system is an excellent tool for teaching a deaf child to speak. But, what about the child's language? That's what you need to look into. If a deaf child takes Cued Speech from K to 12, they will not have language, and they can be delay in their language.

Cheri- The child learns and aquires, visually via Cued Speech whichever spoken language is being cued. They are not/do not have a language delay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

Cued Speech can be use to communicate with their hearing friends, hearing world, ASL can be use to communicate in both the deaf and hearing world. Oralism can be use to communicate with the hearing world, hearing friends.

jillio · 12-29-2007, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

Cheri- The child learns and aquires, visually via Cued Speech whichever spoken language is being cued. They are not/do not have a language delay.

Cheri,
The child learns English through CS, but they do not acquire langauge via CS.

**shel90** · 12-29-2007, 08:13 PM

Cheri,

Here is a

That was for the heck of it!

Yiffzer · 12-30-2007, 05:34 AM

to be honest, that makes no sense to me. how can one not acquire language through cs (which is english)? english would be developed and it would be the first language.

instead of arguing about this, let's see the results.

jag · 12-30-2007, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Doesn't this belong in the Sign Langage/Oralism forum? It doesn't have anything to do with CI.

Your opinion really . I find these articles and blogs to be a good addition to the use with teh CI, just because CS will help a child struggling to aquire english comprehension. since there have been parents who've said that this is the first they've actually heard of CS I think it is very relevent for them since it gives them a starting point to research exactly what CS is and if it would be a good option for their implanted child.

So to me these discussions in the ci/ha forum is just fine. Not everyone has the time to run from topic to topic trying to find discussion relevant for what they are looking for. This is being discussed in how it can be used with a CI so it's quite relevant to this area.

jillio · 12-30-2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yiffzer

to be honest, that makes no sense to me. how can one not acquire language through cs (which is english)? english would be developed and it would be the first language.

instead of arguing about this, let's see the results.

Because langauge acquisition is a very different process from learning a langauge. Langauge is based on symbols...in sign they are visual symbols, in oral language they are spoken sounds which represent the thing. In order for those symbols to have meaning, they must be understood as being representative of the thing they are meant to represent. In other words, unless one understands that the sound made when saying the word "chair" actually represents the object, then the sound is meaningless for understanding and communication. It has no more meaning than a grunt.

Deaf infants from birth are unable to receive and process the stimuli which allows them to attach meaning to the sounds of spoken language. However, they are able to attach meaning to that which they can perceive visually. They are not hampered in their acquisiton of a visual language, so that the meaning attached to the symbol of a sign is something that occurs naturally through development and peripheral exposure.

CS represents the phonemes and morphemes of spoken language. The gestures used do not represent an object or a concept in the way that a sign and a word represent an object or a concept. Understanding the phoneme does not translate to understanding the concept represented by the symbol. Phonemes in and of themselves are meaningless.

jillio · 12-30-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jag

Your opinion really . I find these articles and blogs to be a good addition to the use with teh CI, just because CS will help a child struggling to aquire english comprehension. since there have been parents who've said that this is the first they've actually heard of CS I think it is very relevent for them since it gives them a starting point to research exactly what CS is and if it would be a good option for their implanted child.

So to me these discussions in the ci/ha forum is just fine. Not everyone has the time to run from topic to topic trying to find discussion relevant for what they are looking for. This is being discussed in how it can be used with a CI so it's quite relevant to this area.

The only relation that CS has to CI is that since the push for early childhood implantation, it has experienced a revival from an almost nonexistent state of being. However, if the goal of CS is to improve the literacy rates of deaf chidlren, and to allow for early language exposure, as has been claimed by the supporter who has begun all of these threads, then it would apply to all deaf children and not just those who are implanted with CIs.

If one is looking for information regarding the decisons they are making for their deaf child, they would do well, to not just run from forum to forum, but to engage in discussion with various others who are not focused solely on one perspective. That is the only way to gain the inforamtion necessary to make a fully informed decision.

The OP was not related to CI at all, and those taking part in discussion are not all CI users. It is being discussed in relation to deafness and language acquisition and development, not specific to CI. I jsut did a quick search of the thread and only found 4 posts out of 85 that even mentioned CI, and those were only in passing. So quite obviously, topic is not Cochlear Implants. The topic is Cued Speech. A discussion of Cued Speech is a discussion of language. Therefore, it belongs in a language forum, i.e. Sign anguage and Oralism.

This is the purpose of the HA/CI forum: Hearing Aids & Cochlear Implants
Opinions and experiences about hearing aid or cochlear implant, and how it affects one's life. (Cut and pasted from the index)

**shel90** · 12-30-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jag

Your opinion really . I find these articles and blogs to be a good addition to the use with teh CI, just because CS will help a child struggling to aquire english comprehension. since there have been parents who've said that this is the first they've actually heard of CS I think it is very relevent for them since it gives them a starting point to research exactly what CS is and if it would be a good option for their implanted child.

So to me these discussions in the ci/ha forum is just fine. Not everyone has the time to run from topic to topic trying to find discussion relevant for what they are looking for. This is being discussed in how it can be used with a CI so it's quite relevant to this area.

Sorry, I disagree. CS is about a teaching tool helping deaf children with reading and writing so it should be in Deaf Education. I just dont see how it belongs in the CI forum unless the orginal post was about Cued Speech and CIs.

jillio · 12-30-2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Sorry, I disagree. CS is about a teaching tool helping deaf children with reading and writing so it should be in Deaf Education. I just dont see how it belongs in the CI forum unless the orginal post was about Cued Speech and CIs.

I agree....as I see CS as a literacy tool, it belongs in deaf ed. However, because there are those that claim that it is also a tool to teach language, and can be used for langauge acquisition, I was going to give them a break and use the language forum!

Roadrunner · 12-30-2007, 01:20 PM

Thread moved here--

~RR

jillio · 12-30-2007, 01:38 PM

Thanks, RR.

12-29-2007, 02:29 PM	#68 (permalink)
Cheri Prayers for my dad. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 22,818	loml-- Cued Speech is soley for spoken language, not English Language, it's the same as oralism so therefore it's a speech tool. Cued Speech helps a child to be a better speech reader before being an oralist. Use of Cued Speech in and of itself will not guarantee that a child will have intelligible speech. However, the Cued Speech system is an excellent tool for teaching a deaf child to speak. But, what about the child's language? That's what you need to look into. If a deaf child takes Cued Speech from K to 12, they will not have language, and they can be delay in their language. Cued Speech can be use to communicate with their hearing friends, hearing world, ASL can be use to communicate in both the deaf and hearing world. Oralism can be use to communicate with the hearing world, hearing friends. __________________ Avoid being a victim of a stroke, a stroke can happen to anyone at anytime. You will never know how devastating this could be until you had live through it. It affects everybody. So Support Stroke Awareness to find a cure and hope.

12-29-2007, 08:13 PM	#82 (permalink)
shel90 Audist are not welcome Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: A place where crabs are popular Posts: 40,504 Blog Entries: 3	Cheri, Here is a That was for the heck of it! __________________ "Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it." --- Anonymous

12-30-2007, 01:20 PM	#89 (permalink)
Roadrunner Registered User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: NY Posts: 7,089	Thread moved here-- ~RR __________________ "Nothing is ever lost by courtesy. It is the cheapest of pleasures, costs nothing, and conveys much." - Erastus Wiman

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

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

12-30-2007, 05:34 AM	#83 (permalink)
Yiffzer Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 791	to be honest, that makes no sense to me. how can one not acquire language through cs (which is english)? english would be developed and it would be the first language. instead of arguing about this, let's see the results.

12-30-2007, 01:38 PM	#90 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	Thanks, RR.