What is "cued speech"? - Page 4

Sunshine · 10-25-2011, 02:06 PM

I think my biggest question: why we put so much work try teach deaf people talk instead teach hearing people sign?

Speedy Hawk · 10-25-2011, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

It is hard work. And the only reason to even consider using it in a communication setting is if you are attempting to keep a child in an audtitory/oral environment.

Lots of video, leaflets, website, info saying cued speech easy to learn and use. When I see cued speech in video looks like hard work. It nothing like what info saying. Maybe it is easy to learn (hard for me to learn cos cued speech go through my head!) but it defo not easy to use in conversation.

They make it look better than it really is.

Buffalo · 10-25-2011, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunny_signs

I think my biggest question: why we put so much work try teach deaf people talk instead teach hearing people sign?

Yeah, I had this thought. If Dr. Cornett thinks that the deaf people need to lipread and talk better via cued speech in order to improve their reading skills, what about HEARING people with sub-par reading skills? Do they need cued speech??? I know they would say - no no they need more work, not cued speech. We know that cued speech is not the answer. ASL is the answer.

**Jiro** · 10-25-2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSign

That can be chalked up to "spell check" and me not paying close attention.

I didn't realize it was proper forum etiquette to correct or criticize other posters spelling and grammar. Does this mean I was under the wrong impression and that I too, can correct your spelling and grammar when I notice your errors?

but you've been doing this in nearly every single post which means you've been doing it for a very long time. I'm just puzzled to why is it difficult to discern the difference between "it's" and "its" unconsciously.

You're a hearing person. And you were so concerned about ensuring your deaf son's literacy skill and yet... you still cannot discern the difference between those 2 different words.

CSign · 10-25-2011, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

but you've been doing this in nearly every single post which means you've been doing it for a very long time. I'm just puzzled to why is it difficult to discern the difference between "it's" and "its" unconsciously.

You're a hearing person. And you were so concerned about ensuring your deaf son's literacy skill and yet... you still cannot discern the difference between those 2 different words.

***naisho*** · 10-25-2011, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunny_signs

I think my biggest question: why we put so much work try teach deaf people talk instead teach hearing people sign?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffalo

Yeah, I had this thought. If Dr. Cornett thinks that the deaf people need to lipread and talk better via cued speech in order to improve their reading skills, what about HEARING people with sub-par reading skills? Do they need cued speech??? I know they would say - no no they need more work, not cued speech. We know that cued speech is not the answer. ASL is the answer.

Yeah, true, Sign Language helps deaf people more than it does for being able to speak and oral better, but I think it has to do with a bigger problem. It may be more about 'unifying' Americans the simpler way possible.

Look at America's society, they want green card and VISA immigrants and citizens to at least learn to speak the english language if they intend to stay here. American's aren't interested in learning Vietnamese or Spanish to accommodate the new language, they want people to speak their language.

When you have a sign language, it has no real 'bridge' to the spoken english used by Americans, as it is just another language that exist and doesn't help them unless they learn it. So, the concept may have been seen as to patch up something between hearing and deaf so at least the people who have no knowledge of the language can at least understand some of it.

It's sorta like SimCom, if you use SimCom to teach ASL to a group of hearing students, it seems to be a lot easier than it is to go total voice off and teach them ASL. They would have a hard time adapting.

***naisho*** · 10-25-2011, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSign

That can be chalked up to "spell check" and me not paying close attention.

I didn't realize it was proper forum etiquette to correct or criticize other posters spelling and grammar. Does this mean I was under the wrong impression and that I too, can correct your spelling and grammar when I notice your errors?

Ehh, just take it easy and take it like a champ. The forum here is a lot like a place for nitpickers and pot shots, so you gotta keep up with it or slide out the back door. We get nitpicked all the time in other topics too, same for me.

I used to have a problem with contractions in grammar too when I was younger. Its and It's were no exception. There's an easier way to know what format to use.

Think of it's, the ['s] as substitute words: it['s] - it [is, has, was]. If what you're saying doesn't fit with one of the words after the [ ], then that's where its is used. Hope that helps.

faire_jour · 10-25-2011, 02:50 PM

Wirelessly posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffalo

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunny_signs

I think my biggest question: why we put so much work try teach deaf people talk instead teach hearing people sign?

Yeah, I had this thought. If Dr. Cornett thinks that the deaf people need to lipread and talk better via cued speech in order to improve their reading skills, what about HEARING people with sub-par reading skills? Do they need cued speech??? I know they would say - no no they need more work, not cued speech. We know that cued speech is not the answer. ASL is the answer.

how is learning one language that is completely different in grammar, syntax and mode "the answer" for learning to read and write another language?

and so the answer for hearing kids who are struggling to learn to read and write english is....greek!

seriously, i support asl for deaf kids, but it isn't a cure-all for literacy issues. They still need a working knowledge of english to learn to read and write, and that is where things get sticky.

**Jiro** · 10-25-2011, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

seriously, i support asl for deaf kids, but it isn't a cure-all for literacy issues. They still need a working knowledge of english to learn to read and write, and that is where things get sticky.

what method do you believe is effective to a working knowledge of English to deaf kids? List few if you like.

Buffalo · 10-25-2011, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

how is learning one language that is completely different in grammar, syntax and mode "the answer" for learning to read and write another language?

and so the answer for hearing kids who are struggling to learn to read and write english is....greek!

seriously, i support asl for deaf kids, but it isn't a cure-all for literacy issues. They still need a working knowledge of english to learn to read and write, and that is where things get sticky.

Spanish-Speaking Children in American Schools: The Story of an Educational Crime. this link says that spanish-speaking kids should be in spanish speaking classes along with a intensive English course until they get to the point where they can take math and science in English. Also it says that the kids should continue throughout the school years as bilingual kids.

How do you know that ASL is not a cure-all for literacy issues? What if the teacher is really signing in PSE or even SEE and tells you that he uses ASL??? I don't like it when they use PSE/SEE then announce that ASL is not helping the deaf kids with their English.

faire_jour · 10-25-2011, 03:46 PM

Wirelessly posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

seriously, i support asl for deaf kids, but it isn't a cure-all for literacy issues. They still need a working knowledge of english to learn to read and write, and that is where things get sticky.

what method do you believe is effective to a working knowledge of English to deaf kids? List few if you like.

depends on the kid, of course. The problem is that a child needs to have a working knowledge of the language they are learning to read before they start to learn to read. SEE might work for some (i'm not sure, i have no experience with it at all). I have met some very successful cuers (kids and adults). And some kids do well with learning english through listening.

i don't claim to have the answer, i never have. I am just pointing out that it is naive to say that ASL is the answer to english literacy.

faire_jour · 10-25-2011, 03:50 PM

Wirelessly posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffalo

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

how is learning one language that is completely different in grammar, syntax and mode "the answer" for learning to read and write another language?

and so the answer for hearing kids who are struggling to learn to read and write english is....greek!

seriously, i support asl for deaf kids, but it isn't a cure-all for literacy issues. They still need a working knowledge of english to learn to read and write, and that is where things get sticky.

Spanish-Speaking Children in American Schools: The Story of an Educational Crime. this link says that spanish-speaking kids should be in spanish speaking classes along with a intensive English course until they get to the point where they can take math and science in English. Also it says that the kids should continue throughout the school years as bilingual kids.

How do you know that ASL is not a cure-all for literacy issues? What if the teacher is really signing in PSE or even SEE and tells you that he uses ASL??? I don't like it when they use PSE/SEE then announce that ASL is not helping the deaf kids with their English.

ummm, i'm "getting it" from the leading researchers in deaf ed today...

CSign · 10-25-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naisho

Ehh, just take it easy and take it like a champ. The forum here is a lot like a place for nitpickers and pot shots, so you gotta keep up with it or slide out the back door. We get nitpicked all the time in other topics too, same for me.

I used to have a problem with contractions in grammar too when I was younger. Its and It's were no exception. There's an easier way to know what format to use.

Think of it's, the ['s] as substitute words: it['s] - it [is, has, was]. If what you're saying doesn't fit with one of the words after the [ ], then that's where its is used. Hope that helps.

but I already knew the difference. Like I said, I don't always pay attention to my automatic "spell check". Jiro just likes to play with me. I was just clarifying that I had the right to play just like him.

I do appreciate the way in which you conveyed your intent. I mean that in all sincerity too.

**Jiro** · 10-25-2011, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

depends on the kid, of course. The problem is that a child needs to have a working knowledge of the language they are learning to read before they start to learn to read. SEE might work for some (i'm not sure, i have no experience with it at all). I have met some very successful cuers (kids and adults). And some kids do well with learning english through listening.

i don't claim to have the answer, i never have. I am just pointing out that it is naive to say that ASL is the answer to english literacy.

huh? who said that? I think you're confusing yourself. We are saying SEE, Cued Speech, etc. are not the answer to English literacy skill. Don't you think it is naive to say that SEE is the answer to English literacy too?

and..... I know the answer to my question. The most effective and simplest solution is...... um.... read books. lol!!! It's basically nearly fail-proof!

I don't know if you realize this but if there are several "methods" for same thing.... don't you think there's something wrong with this picture?

deafbajagal · 10-25-2011, 04:01 PM

Cue speech should be called Phonetic Cues. In fact, I'm going to start calling it that. I will make lots of money some day for that name. Hmm.

*ego big head me (ASL sign)*

Cloggy · 10-25-2011, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

?...... And the only reason to even consider using it in a communication setting is if you are attempting to keep a child in an audtitory/oral environment.

Such paranoia.. Parents do not choose it to keep a child in an audtitory/oral environment. It is chosen to start communication as soon as possible. And it works well.

jillio · 10-25-2011, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

how is learning one language that is completely different in grammar, syntax and mode "the answer" for learning to read and write another language?

and so the answer for hearing kids who are struggling to learn to read and write english is....greek!

seriously, i support asl for deaf kids, but it isn't a cure-all for literacy issues. They still need a working knowledge of english to learn to read and write, and that is where things get sticky.

Transference of like skills. It has to do with the way the brain works. I think we have explained this in the past.

**Jiro** · 10-25-2011, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSign

but I already knew the difference. Like I said, I don't always pay attention to my automatic "spell check". Jiro just likes to play with me. I was just clarifying that I had the right to play just like him.

I do appreciate the way in which you conveyed your intent. I mean that in all sincerity too.

Play? We're not in kindergarten.

You're a mother who was deeply concerned with your deaf son's English literacy skill so I'm just puzzled to why you are not able to discern the difference with 2 completely different words in dozens of your posts. I mean dozens and dozens and dozens.

It's easy. Its easy. Impossible for me to make that kind of confusion even if I'm heavily inebriated like PFH.

jillio · 10-25-2011, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

depends on the kid, of course. The problem is that a child needs to have a working knowledge of the language they are learning to read before they start to learn to read. SEE might work for some (i'm not sure, i have no experience with it at all). I have met some very successful cuers (kids and adults). And some kids do well with learning english through listening.

i don't claim to have the answer, i never have. I am just pointing out that it is naive to say that ASL is the answer to english literacy.

No they don't. A child can learn to read in a foreign or different language from beginning with one word. They do not have to have a working knowledge of the language prior to learning to read in that language. They simply need to have A LANGUAGE...which can and should be ASL for deaf kids.

deafbajagal · 10-25-2011, 04:06 PM

AKA "Cross Modality"...the ability to transfer from one language to another, fluently.

jillio · 10-25-2011, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

ummm, i'm "getting it" from the leading researchers in deaf ed today...

What leading researchers? And what are you getting?

jillio · 10-25-2011, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloggy

Such paranoia.. Parents do not choose it to keep a child in an audtitory/oral environment. It is chosen to start communication as soon as possible. And it works well.

Paranoia? No, the truth. Why would you even attempt to use CS as a communication modality if your child was not in an auditory oral envirnment? It would be of no use otherwise. Think, Cloggy.

jillio · 10-25-2011, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

depends on the kid, of course. The problem is that a child needs to have a working knowledge of the language they are learning to read before they start to learn to read. SEE might work for some (i'm not sure, i have no experience with it at all). I have met some very successful cuers (kids and adults). And some kids do well with learning english through listening.

i don't claim to have the answer, i never have. I am just pointing out that it is naive to say that ASL is the answer to english literacy.

Some kids learn it well through listening...hearing kids. We are, however, discussing deaf kids. And if deaf kids learned English well through listening, oralism would have been successful. Instead, it is responsible for all of the ills we see in deaf ed today.

CSign · 10-25-2011, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Play? We're not in kindergarten.
Yes, I'm aware. Haven't been in kindergarten for quite some time. I chose that language for a specific reason. I could have worded it differently, I chose not to.

You're a mother who was deeply concerned with your deaf son's English literacy skill so I'm just puzzled to why you are not able to discern the difference with 2 completely different words in dozens of your posts. I mean dozens and dozens and dozens.

Literacy skills are important, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm, "deeply concerned" with his literacy skills. I have a number of things that I think about in regards to my son, literacy skills are not something I'm "deeply concerned" about. His literacy skills are A OK.

Also, I rarely read over what I post at the time. Most often I'm posting on my phone which has it's own spelling and grammar. For example, when I try to type, "has" it's replaced with ,"HA's". That is something I'm readily aware of and I often correct it when I see it.

for bringing my attention to this pressing issue. I'll be sure to pay closer attention going forward.

It's easy. Its easy. Impossible for me to make that kind of confusion even if
I'm heavily inebriated like PFH.

jillio · 10-25-2011, 05:14 PM

Leading by example is the most effective. Just saying.

Lily7 · 10-25-2011, 05:40 PM

I credit reading with teaching me English. I am told I taught myself to read at the age of 3 all on my own, and I was always an avid reader. Then again I didn't start losing my hearing until age 4, so maybe those first 4 years of being exposed to spoke English had a lot to do with being able to read in the first place, I don't know.

But will say that I am living proof that it is possible for a child to learn English spelling and grammar solely from reading. I far surpassed all of my hearing classmates in reading, spelling and grammar for pretty much all of my school years.

I didn't need Cued Speech or even sign language to learn literacy in and of itself. However, I wonder if I had been born with my hearing loss instead of not losing it until age 4, if Cued Speech would have helped me learn to read, or if I still would have found a way to teach myself to read even without it. I mean, I WAS only 3, it's not like that much spoken English was accessible to me to use for that purpose, just on the basis of my age, you know? I wasn't even alive long enough to have heard much beyond what my mother and grandparents spoke to me, and we all know that 3 year olds don't hear that large of a vocabulary from their parents yet.

So, I guess my point is, maybe it is possible a child can learn to read without needing that much language, and as was the case with me, reading TEACHES them the language. I have no way of knowing, but it is definitely food for thought, no?

**deafskeptic** · 10-25-2011, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lily7

I credit reading with teaching me English. I am told I taught myself to read at the age of 3 all on my own, and I was always an avid reader. Then again I didn't start losing my hearing until age 4, so maybe those first 4 years of being exposed to spoke English had a lot to do with being able to read in the first place, I don't know.

But will say that I am living proof that it is possible for a child to learn English spelling and grammar solely from reading. I far surpassed all of my hearing classmates in reading, spelling and grammar for pretty much all of my school years.

I didn't need Cued Speech or even sign language to learn literacy in and of itself. However, I wonder if I had been born with my hearing loss instead of not losing it until age 4, if Cued Speech would have helped me learn to read, or if I still would have found a way to teach myself to read even without it. I mean, I WAS only 3, it's not like that much spoken English was accessible to me to use for that purpose, just on the basis of my age, you know? I wasn't even alive long enough to have heard much beyond what my mother and grandparents spoke to me, and we all know that 3 year olds don't hear that large of a vocabulary from their parents yet.

So, I guess my point is, maybe it is possible a child can learn to read without needing that much language, and as was the case with me, reading TEACHES them the language. I have no way of knowing, but it is definitely food for thought, no?

I was born deaf. I did not learn cued speech till I was in the second grade. According to my first grade report, my sentence structures were nearly faultless and my first grade teacher reported that I always had my nose in a book. So Cued Speech can not have been the reason that I am able to read and write well.

jillio · 10-25-2011, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lily7

I credit reading with teaching me English. I am told I taught myself to read at the age of 3 all on my own, and I was always an avid reader. Then again I didn't start losing my hearing until age 4, so maybe those first 4 years of being exposed to spoke English had a lot to do with being able to read in the first place, I don't know.

But will say that I am living proof that it is possible for a child to learn English spelling and grammar solely from reading. I far surpassed all of my hearing classmates in reading, spelling and grammar for pretty much all of my school years.

I didn't need Cued Speech or even sign language to learn literacy in and of itself. However, I wonder if I had been born with my hearing loss instead of not losing it until age 4, if Cued Speech would have helped me learn to read, or if I still would have found a way to teach myself to read even without it. I mean, I WAS only 3, it's not like that much spoken English was accessible to me to use for that purpose, just on the basis of my age, you know? I wasn't even alive long enough to have heard much beyond what my mother and grandparents spoke to me, and we all know that 3 year olds don't hear that large of a vocabulary from their parents yet.

So, I guess my point is, maybe it is possible a child can learn to read without needing that much language, and as was the case with me, reading TEACHES them the language. I have no way of knowing, but it is definitely food for thought, no?

My son was reading at the age of 3 1/2. He was deaf from birth. He was never exposed to CS. He was, however, raised in a language (bilingual) and literacy enriched environment.

**Jiro** · 10-25-2011, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSign

His literacy skills are A OK.

oh my... now I am deeply concerned... My literacy skill was 2 grades ahead of my peers just from reading books at around your son's age.

looks like SEE method wasn't working out well as you'd hoped....

Journey · 10-25-2011, 06:44 PM

Reading is indeed an excellent way to gain literacy skills. However, not all children learn by the same methods ... some have difficulty gaining proficiency by 'visual' alone. Seems to me that cued speech not only compliments the visual but could also be good reinforcement for more kinesthetic-based learners.

10-25-2011, 02:06 PM	#91 (permalink)
Sunshine Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Home of Canucks! Posts: 3,269 Blog Entries: 2	I think my biggest question: why we put so much work try teach deaf people talk instead teach hearing people sign? posts from hell, shel90, KristinaB and 3 others like this.

10-25-2011, 04:01 PM	#105 (permalink)
deafbajagal Registered User Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,171	Cue speech should be called Phonetic Cues. In fact, I'm going to start calling it that. I will make lots of money some day for that name. Hmm. ego big head me (ASL sign) jillio, deafskeptic, KristinaB and 2 others like this.

10-25-2011, 04:06 PM	#110 (permalink)
deafbajagal Registered User Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,171	AKA "Cross Modality"...the ability to transfer from one language to another, fluently. jillio, shel90 and KristinaB like this.

10-25-2011, 05:14 PM	#115 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	Leading by example is the most effective. Just saying. KristinaB likes this.

10-25-2011, 05:40 PM	#116 (permalink)
Lily7 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Norman, OK Posts: 326	I credit reading with teaching me English. I am told I taught myself to read at the age of 3 all on my own, and I was always an avid reader. Then again I didn't start losing my hearing until age 4, so maybe those first 4 years of being exposed to spoke English had a lot to do with being able to read in the first place, I don't know. But will say that I am living proof that it is possible for a child to learn English spelling and grammar solely from reading. I far surpassed all of my hearing classmates in reading, spelling and grammar for pretty much all of my school years. I didn't need Cued Speech or even sign language to learn literacy in and of itself. However, I wonder if I had been born with my hearing loss instead of not losing it until age 4, if Cued Speech would have helped me learn to read, or if I still would have found a way to teach myself to read even without it. I mean, I WAS only 3, it's not like that much spoken English was accessible to me to use for that purpose, just on the basis of my age, you know? I wasn't even alive long enough to have heard much beyond what my mother and grandparents spoke to me, and we all know that 3 year olds don't hear that large of a vocabulary from their parents yet. So, I guess my point is, maybe it is possible a child can learn to read without needing that much language, and as was the case with me, reading TEACHES them the language. I have no way of knowing, but it is definitely food for thought, no? __________________ Twitter Goodreads Facebook available - send PM

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

10-25-2011, 06:44 PM	#120 (permalink)
Journey Registered User Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 989	Reading is indeed an excellent way to gain literacy skills. However, not all children learn by the same methods ... some have difficulty gaining proficiency by 'visual' alone. Seems to me that cued speech not only compliments the visual but could also be good reinforcement for more kinesthetic-based learners.

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