deafskeptic

Yeah, about time too! Thanks. I have just one small request: Would it be possible to move all threads started by Loml to this forum? He never posts anything unless it's about Cued Speech.

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.
Upgraded to Opus 2 9/10/2010
Think Pink.
FREE JILLIO!

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

Yiffzer

haha, i gotcha. totally understand much better now. thanks for the patience and willingness to respond with greater detail.

jillio

Not a problem. YW.

owen06

I understand what you are saying here. However, I don't see how you couldn't say that CS could do the same thing. If the child sees the cues, and they are related to a visual object such as a chair, wouldn't the same process occur? I would think that you would begin to cue to a deaf child the meanings of different things the same way you would teach a hearing child. I.e. saying or in the case of a deaf child using CS, cueing the word "nose" and then pointing to a nose. Wouldn't the same neural processes would occur in this instance whether the child was deaf or hearing?

shel90

Few questions for u...are u deaf? Do u work in the field of deaf education? What's your experience with CS?

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

jillio

No, because CS provides only phonemic information. It does not provide conceptual information. Acquiring language at the conceptual level involves quite a bit of periphereal learning. CS is directed, and therefore, provides information only in a directed situation.

For instance, a hearing child does not need to be taught the difference between the concept of a beach and a peach. They learn the difference between the concept represented by the two spoken symbols peripherally, through non-participatory exposure to context. Unless everyone around the child at all times is cueing every word said, that peripheral learning is not possible, and must be directed. The very fact that it must be directed results in delays in acquisition. Additionally, cues are not a linguistic symbol. They don't represent a concept or an object. They are a visual cue to a phoneme. The phoneme, in and of itself is not a symbol. The whole spoken word is the symbol that represents the concept or the object. The word chair is an English symbol for the thing. The cues used to represent pronunciation are not linguistic symbols for a chair. The ASL sign for chair is a linguistic symbol for the object. Do you see the difference?

owen06

I'm a psychology student and am interested in different modes of language aquisition.

jillio

What year? When it comes to CS, you won't find anything in the psych text books. And langauge acquisition is only addressed in depth in the advanced developmental and cognitive courses. However, the texts used in the lower level courses will tell you that a deaf child of deaf signing parents acquires language in the same way that a hearing child of hearing parents acquires language...through peripheral exposure, and does not experience the same delays that a deaf child not exposed to sign experiences.

If you truly want to understand language acquisition differences between deaf and hearing, you will need to add some studies that address deafness, linguistics, and cognitive psychology as applied to deafness. And some psychological anthropology wouldn't hurt, either.

deafskeptic

No wonder that cued speech had little meaning for my classmates.

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.
Upgraded to Opus 2 9/10/2010
Think Pink.
FREE JILLIO!

owen06

I see the difference. I thought that this thread was dicussing aquisition of the English language and therefore, wasn't considering ASL (because ASL is a different language).

I agree that the whole word is the symbol but when a hearing child is learning a language, they start with the morphemes and phonemes. It only when they begin to string those sounds together are they able to put the sounds to the concept. As long as the deafness is because of something in the ear and not something in the brain, the learning pattern should be the same. So breaking the word into the different sounds visually would give the same effect would it not?


Oh and I have taken adavanced classes. Including learning, child development, and cognition.

owen06

I see the difference. I thought that this thread was dicussing aquisition of the English language and therefore, wasn't considering ASL (because ASL is a different language).

I agree that the whole word is the symbol but when a hearing child is learning a language but, they start with the morphemes and phonemes. It only when they begin to string those sounds together are they able to put the sounds to the concept. As long as the deafness is because of something in the ear and not something in the brain, the learning pattern should be the same. So breaking the word into the different sounds visually would give the same effect would it not? And if not why not?


Oh and I have taken advanced classes. Including learning, child development, and cognition.

deafskeptic

You have to know the spoken language first in order to understand Cued Speech. It's not a language but rather a mode of spoken language - just as the printed word is a mode of the spoken language. If you have a limited knowledge of a certain spoken language, cued speech would be meaningless to you. If I relearned cued speech and it's cued in English, it'd be understandable to me. However if Spanish is being cued to me, it will have no meaning to me.

If I were to rely only on spoken Spanish around me, I would have limited access to spoken Spanish and I may not be able to figure out how to write a proper sentence in Spanish. Spoken languages have to be taught to deaf children as we can't pick it up just by hearing it. Few use cued speech. I'd have a much easier time learning Mexican Sign as it's much more accessable to me than spoken language despite my implant.

Language delays is very common in deaf children if they have limited access to the language around them and it's hard to overcome.

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.
Upgraded to Opus 2 9/10/2010
Think Pink.
FREE JILLIO!

rockdrummer

Seems to me that no matter what country you live in, as a deaf person, at some point, you would want to become literate in the native language around you. Otherwise you are somewhat isolating yourself. It also occurs to me that being able to speech read would have some benefit. It's not realistic to expect the entire hearing population to learn sign language. Either that or get out your pencil and paper and expect to do a lot of writing. There doesnt seem to be many choices if you choose to assimilate. As I understand it CS is a good means of learning to speech read and speak, and it's working in many different languages as well.

deafskeptic

I agree with with the part about learning the native spoken language around you and I do think that cued speech is useful as an lipreading aid and as an aid for understanding phonics. Personally, I think it'd be more useful for postlingual deaf children though I do not know of any research pertaining to cued speech and postlingual deaf children. I also should point out most hearing don't know cued speech.

However, it's also not realistic for someone who has language delays to gain native fluency in spoken language, it is realistic for them to gain enough fluency to be understood by others. Many deaf don't like to write notes to the hearing as they know they don't write well. Nor is it realistic to expect all deaf to develop good speech. My ex bf is quite literate but he has no oral skills at all.

I also should point out we can't completely assimilated even if we don't know sign because it is harder for many of us to keep up with the hearing's constant chattering.

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.
Upgraded to Opus 2 9/10/2010
Think Pink.
FREE JILLIO!

rockdrummer

I don't exactly agree with that. I think that a deaf person is capable of anything except hearing. To suggest that just because they are delayed they can't become literate is (I believe) inaccurate. I'ts just going to take more time and effort.

That would not be the case if they became literate.

I completly agree with you on that. If they either choose not to or can't speak then that will limit their options in communicating with the hearing world.

With regards to communication, I agree. For the record what you are calling constant chattering is how we communicate.

deafskeptic

Yes, and signing is how we communicate the best.

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.
Upgraded to Opus 2 9/10/2010
Think Pink.
FREE JILLIO!

loml

deafskeptic
deafskeptic - The deaf/hoh child/infant does not have to know the spoken language first in order to understand Cued Speech.

Does the deaf/hoh infant/child have to know ASL first in order to understand ASL?

__________________
- Yogi Bhajan-

jillio

The difference is that ASL provides conceptual information in a whole language approach, and conceptual meaning can be acquired through peripheral exposure. CS does not do that, and provides only phonemic information, not conceptual information. Therefore, conceptual must be a directed activity.

owen06

There are still similarities between Spanish and English that you would be able to pick up on and at least paritally understand. The syntax isn't completly different. But that's beside the point.

I agree that the whole word is the symbol but when a hearing child is learning a language but, they start with the morphemes and phonemes. These basic sounds produced by babies are produced whether the baby is deaf or hearing. It's only when they begin to string those sounds together are they able to put the sounds to the concept. As long as the deafness is because of something in the ear and not something in the brain, the learning pattern should be the same. The child would begin to string the visual "sounds" together to create the concept just like a hearing child would. So breaking the word into the different sounds visually would give the same effect would it not? And if not why not?

As far as a child having to have the peripheral exposure...most deaf children have hearing parents. In saying that ASL gives this extra exposure it would also mean that these hearing parents would have to learn a new language and along with it syntax (from what I remember about ASL the syntax is completely different from English). So this child will be getting this periphreal exposure only when it's hearing parents sign. It highly unlikely that English speaking parent's will suddenly switch to ASL as their primary mode of communication with each other and others. Thus, the children still wouldn't be getting this periphreal exposure with ASL either. It would make alot more sense I would think, from a hearing parent's perspective to communicate with their child in the language that they would normally communicate with and have the greatest fluency in- English.

shel90

I can hear some with my HAs and speak fairly well but I feel more limited when communicating with the hearing world despite growing up with only hearing peers and adults around me.

My brother has no oral skills and he interacts with the hearing world just as much I do but in a different way.

I would rather see my students become literate than develop speech skills. I think literacy comes first but too often it is the speech or oral skills that take predendence.

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

shel90

That's a good reason to put deaf children in signing programs in the academic setting. That way the child has full access to language some time in their lives.

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

shel90

It seems like no matter how much we explain how ASL gives children full access to language, some people will find one reason or another not to use ASL. It is tiring.

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

shel90

I am with u on that 100%.

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

shel90

Based on what statistics?

I am curious...u keep bringing up about deaf people isolating themselves. How is that? If deaf people can communicate with other deaf people or hearing signers, what's wrong with that?

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

deafskeptic

that's quite true for hearing babies. For deaf babies, being able to learn spoken morphemes and phonemes is much more diffiult. ASL has morphemes and phonmes. I must confess here that I've forgotten what they are but I recall it was much easier for me to understand what ASL morphemes and phonemes are than what the English ones are and I'm more fluent in English than ASL.

Phonics have never worked well for the majority of deaf - myself included. Speaking for myself, I must have a visual symbol for a spoken sound otherwise the sound will have no meaning to me. Other deaf don't even use sounds.


that's where the language delays can start because the parent is trying to make the child fit the mode when they should be much more concerned about being able to communicate with the child; communication is vital for the deaf.

However, no one here expects the parents to be native ASL speakers and most never become very fluent. As for periphreal exposure, a partial soultion is to enroll the child in a signing program (preferably local but this isn't always feasiable) with deaf adults and children. Even if the parents aren't as fluent in sign as the child, the child will be able to pick up on the differnces between the signing parents and the native signers and they'll do as the native signers do and when they're at home, they'll sign differetly.

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.
Upgraded to Opus 2 9/10/2010
Think Pink.
FREE JILLIO!

deafskeptic

Heh, you beat me to it. I said the same thing but you're much more concise than me. lol.

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.
Upgraded to Opus 2 9/10/2010
Think Pink.
FREE JILLIO!

rockdrummer

That statement is not based on statistics. It's based on my opinion which comes from what I understand the objectives of CS are and what I have read and heard from those that have used it.

As far as isolation, I am talking about isolation from communicating with the majority. The non-signing hearing population. If you can only sign and are not literate then you have isolated yourself from communicating with the non-signing hearing population. If you want to communicate with non-signing hearing people (the vast majority of the pouplation) then you either need to be able to speak and speechread, or you need to have enough literacy to read and write. How else would you communicate with them? And if you can't communicate with them, that, to me is isolating yourself from them.

jillio

It is far easier for a hearing parent to learn sign than it is for a deaf child to learn spoken language. And there are other ways in which a deaf child can be provided with peripheral exposure. It is obvious that you are attempting to support an artificial system before you have a complete understanding of the issues here. The hearing parents' needs are not the primary concern here. What is optimal for the dea child is what is optimal. If you look at it from a hearing person's perspective, the deaf will always have theior needs addressed improperly.

jillio

At what level? I ask because I am seeing responses from you that do not go beyond an introductory level of the subject matter.

And as I asked prior, what year are you in? I have addressed the issue of phoneme morpheme representation in the other post I just responded to.

Learning patterns are the same provided the input can be processed. Quite obviously, even though you say you have had adbanced classes, your comprehension of the differences in cognitive processing and the perception of stimuliu between the deaf and the hearing individual is quite lacking. You are looking at deafness, as does most of the ill informed and inexperienced population, as being ONLY the inability to perceive auditory stimuli. It iis much, much more than that. You need to learn quite a bit more about deafness, and how the little bit of information you have learned applies specifically. I will be glad to refer you to several volumes that can provide you with this specific application.