Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

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

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by owen06

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.

Originally Posted by Kaitin

So you think oral-only at home?

Originally Posted by jillio

Exactly. When the spoken word is processed to meaning in the brain, it is not processed phoneme by phoneme, but employs bottom up processing. It is perceived as a whole sound. Like wise with the written word. When we look at a written word, it is not processed letter by letter, or syllable by syllable, but as a shape made up of the different letters. When we process a sign, we do not break it down into each individual handshape, placement, and movement, but pprocess it in its entirety. When we force a child to process phoneme by phoneme, we impede not only speed of comprehension, but overall comprehension as well by overloading the system.

Originally Posted by flip

Yeah, that's why cued speech is like watching a horror movie to me. Imagine hearing children speak out "handspell-i-handshape hitting the forehead once" instead of just signing it in ASL

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by flip

Yeah, that's why cued speech is like watching a horror movie to me. Imagine hearing children speak out "handspell-i-handshape hitting the forehead once" instead of just signing it in ASL

Originally Posted by jillio

Let's not confuse one's native langauge with the langauge used by the majority. Just because spoken language is the langauge used by the majority population does not mean that it is any given individual's native language. Dominant and native are two very different concepts. It is through gaining fluency in one's native language (in the case of the deaf, ASL) that one is able to transfer that fluency to gaining profieciency in the dominant langauage...i.e. spoken English. I think you already have an understanding of this, deafskeptic, so I wasn't correcting you. Just elaborating for others.

And you are so right on the assimilation point. A deaf indiviual assimilated into hearing society through oral only is more evident as having a disability.

Originally Posted by flip

Yeah, that's why cued speech is like watching a horror movie to me. Imagine hearing children speak out "handspell-i-handshape hitting the forehead once" instead of just signing it in ASL

Originally Posted by shel90

Some deaf people are happy with just interacting with signers only. I interact with signers only about 90% of the time. I dont feel like I am isolated.

Originally Posted by shel90

I am with u on that 100%.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by shel90

Or imagine hearing children talking like this "I A-M G-O-I-N-G T-O T-H-E S-T-O-R-E" instead of saying "I am going to the store." That is what is happening to deaf children when they are acquiring language via phonemes rather than the concepts.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by flip

Yeah, that's why cued speech is like watching a horror movie to me. Imagine hearing children speak out "handspell-i-handshape hitting the forehead once" instead of just signing it in ASL

Originally Posted by loml

Originally Posted by deafskeptic



deafskeptic -Why do you insist on comparing Cued Speech and ASL? What is the point?

If you wanted to communicate in English, what could/would you use? I am not referring to pen, paper and key board.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

My point is that deaf communicate best via sign. My point should have been very clear to you.

Why I'd use speech in spoken English. I thought you said cued speech had nothing to do with speech development? You don't need cued speech to speak, BTW.

Originally Posted by loml

loml




deafskeptic - You didn't answer the question. I asked you why do you insist on comparing Cued Speech to ASL? What is the point? Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
My answer was to RD in my orginal post and if you don't like my answer, deal with it.
Not all deaf communicate with sign. Stop making such blanket statements.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Originally Posted by loml

Originally Posted by deafskeptic



deafskeptic -Why do you insist on comparing Cued Speech and ASL? What is the point?

If you wanted to communicate in English, what could/would you use? I am not referring to pen, paper and key board.

Originally Posted by loml

shel90- Some hearing families of deaf children cannot provide an accurate fluent model for the child to learn, for many reasons. You wish to continue to pressure hearing families into a situation where optimum learning may not result. Why do you do that?

First statement is entirely incorrect. The richest linguistic environment is quite often NOT the home,and this applies to both hearing and deaf children. My statement is even more true today than it was 10 years ago, or quite frankly at any other point in history. For the deaf child, the home is quite often the most impoverished linguistic environment because it is an oral only environment. Even with the addition of CS, you are still referringto an oral environment. A bilingual home is by far the richest environment, and a bilingual preschool and educational setting increases the level of enrichment. Your statement is not based on fact, but on another bit of propaganda designed to hook hearing parents. Shel is promoting the environment that will lead to optimal learning. It is you that continues to push a system that further restricts.

Providing a deaf child the opportunity aquire their familial language through Cued Speech, and the family can/does provide a deaf individual for ASL, and the child/family aquires ASL, isn't that the best of both worlds?

Originally Posted by loml

loml




deafskeptic - You didn't answer the question. I asked you why do you insist on comparing Cued Speech to ASL? What is the point? Perhaps you didn't understand the question.

Not all deaf communicate with sign. Stop making such blanket statements.

Originally Posted by loml

Deafskeptic - This was my question: I asked you why do you insist on comparing Cued Speech to ASL? What is the point?

This is your answer: most profoundly [B]prelingually/b] deaf find sign easier to use. Most reject cued speech because it doesn't fit their communication needs

So, you keep comparing CS and ASL becuse you believe most profoundly prelingually deaf find sign easier. Hmmm... okay then.

CS is about literacy in English, first and foremost. This is not about communicating with ASL.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

My point is that deaf communicate best via sign. My point should have been very clear to you.

Why I'd use speech in spoken English. I thought you said cued speech had nothing to do with speech development? You don't need cued speech to speak, BTW.

Originally Posted by jillio

Good catch on the contradiciton. It would appear that loml expects the deaf posters on this board who do not use CS to be so illiterate as to not be capable of seeing the contradiciton and fallacy in his posts. If there are any problems with comprehension going on in this thread, it is loml's difficulty in comprehending very straight forward and well formed statements. Could this perhaps be an example of inadequate L1 language acquistion as the direct result of an oral only environment?

Originally Posted by loml

flip- You are displaying your lack of understanding regarding cueing. Once again cueing is NOT about ASL, nor is it conceptual. Conceptualization is not the only way that deaf/hoh children to aquire language.