The sun and the earth... on cued speech

Cloggy

New Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,703
Reaction score
0
Would Galileo Have Cued? (or html)
by Earl Fleetwood, M.A. & Melanie Metzger, Ph.D.

Are you ever amazed at the lengths to which some people will go in order to defend their perspective on a particular matter? To these people, it is as if common sense and research are simply inconsequential. To them the earth is the center of the universe because someone once said that it was. They interpret the sun's movement from a singular point of view and use this as evidence to support their perspective. In essence, they declare, "The earth does not circle the sun because it does not appear to." Their logic is cyclical rather than factual. Their approach is self-reinforcing rather than curious and seeking. It is as if they believe that the only knowledge to be had is that which they have. Consequently, they fail to progress beyond what they already know.

After spending a greater portion of the past dozen years examining Cued Speech from a linguistic perspective, we have become astounded at the lengths to which many hearing cuers will go in order to continue to live in an 'Earth Centered' universe. The following example is almost humorous with regard to the common sense that it shuns, let alone the research. Unfortunately, this example is real and is not isolated. Here are paraphrased highlights of a typical conversation between the Sun Centrists and the Earth Centrists.

SUN: Cued Speech is a visual system. It is accessed through the eyes.

EARTH: Cued Speech includes speech, you know, the information on the mouth.

SUN: The information on the mouth isn't speech to the D/deaf receiver.

EARTH: How do you know?

SUN: Speech is something that is heard. By definition, deaf people do not hear.

EARTH: But I produce information on my mouth when I talk and use Cued Speech.

SUN: Yes, but the fact that you are talking is incidental to the deaf person. The sounds that you utter are invisible.

EARTH: But I am cueing sounds. Through Cued Speech, the deaf person can see every sound that I speak.

SUN: By definition, sound cannot be seen.

EARTH: But Cued Speech is processed in the Auditory Processing Center. The deaf person encodes Cued Speech as sound.

SUN: Auditory Processing is only one function of that part of the brain.

EARTH: How do you know?

SUN: Because Cued Speech is received through the eyes; it is not auditory input.

EARTH: But it is processed by the Auditory Processing Center. Therefore, it is encoded as auditory information.

SUN: The term Auditory Processing Center was assigned to that part of the brain before it was known that certain visual information of a linguistic nature is also processed there. Research now shows us that the name of that part of the brain needs to be changed.

EARTH: Well, I've read studies which say that blind people process braille in the Visual Cortex of the brain.

SUN: Perhaps that is because the term Visual Cortex was assigned to that part of the brain before it was known that certain tactile information of a linguistic nature is processed there. Research shows us that the name of that part of the brain needs to be changed. Tea poured into a coffee cup doesn't suddenly become java.

In order to defend their position that cueing is somehow sound-based, speech-equated, and auditorily processed, the Earth Centrists are willing to say that eyes can hear and that fingers can see. To these people, it is as if common sense and research are simply inconsequential. Their logic is cyclical rather than factual. Their approach is self-reinforcing rather than curious and seeking. It is as if they believe that the only knowledge to be had is that which they have. Consequently, they fail to progress beyond what they already know.

Cued Speech is designed to by-pass the requirement that the receiver's ears be involved in the exchange of linguistic information. Without involvement of the receiver's ears, the sender need not include sound. In other words, because sound is not visible and because speech is the act of producing sound in meaningful ways, from the D/deaf receiver's perspective, speech is not a part of the cued message. This is a piece of common sense information that is currently ignored by a great many hearing cuers.

Do research findings (Fleetwood and Metzger 1997, Hauser and Klossner 1998) that are in keeping with the Sun Centered view give credence to common sense? History shows that before progress can be made people must first be willing to venture outside that with which they have become comfortable. They must see the value in something new before they are willing to step beyond their entrenchment. Often, they will first look to the Church to tell them that it is okay to glean from common sense and research. After all, it took a thousand years before scientists overcame condemnation for countering the Church's position on the center of the universe.

The use of cued English in the United States stands at a crossroads. Those who recognize that cueing isn't speech and that speech and auditory skills don't define cued English do so through the employment of common sense and research. In fact, they have paved a path upon which 25,000 members of the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) might be willing to venture. However, as long as the National Cued Speech Association (NCSA) in its definition of Cued Speech equates a visual system with sound, some will not even BEGIN the journey -- and possibilities beyond the horizon will never be seen. At least one Earth Centrist and prominent member of the NCSA Board has declared, "The NAD is irrelevant." Yes, it is amazing the lengths to which some people will go in order to defend their perspective on a particular matter.

Common sense and research beckon change. They allow us to progress beyond what we already know. They steer us beyond mere perception, helping us venture outside of an otherwise isolated, self-centered, and self-perpetuating universe. They lead us out of the Dark Ages. Unfortunately, history has shown that common sense and research are more likely burned at the stake.

It is unfortunate that even today history is being written with a lighted match as some are willing to forego common sense, research, and 25,000 new followers in order to maintain their perspective. It is at least ironic that the NCSA Board asks others to venture beyond their experiences, beyond their horizons, beyond their self-centered worlds, and adopt cueing, while the Board continues to shun that which in essence says the Earth circles the Sun.

The universe that we live in is given form by what we believe. Its value is given substance by that which we cherish. But eyes do not hear and fingers do not see, regardless of traditional doctrine. The universe is not Earth-Centered.

The sun is now poised to shine on a new day in the cueing community, ready to give substance to a new perspective, ready to shine on a more expansive and inclusive universe. But make no mistake about it -- traditional doctrine tends to be most fervently defended during the dawn of change.

Perhaps Schopenhauer says it best:
All truth passes through three stages:
1. First, it is ridiculed,
2. Second, it is violently opposed,
3. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.


Is the cueing community ready to see the universe in a new light? Certainly not those who are waiting to HEAR the sunrise. With common sense, research findings, and 25,000 souls at (the) stake, the time has come to ask, "Which universal perspective do I defend?"

Fleetwood, E. and M. Metzger. 1997. Does Cued Speech Entail Speech: A Comparison of Cued and Spoken Information in Terms of Distinctive Features. unpublished manuscript. Washington, D.C.:Gallaudet University.

Hauser, P. and C. Klossner. 1998. Prosody in Cued English. unpublished manuscript. Washington, D.C.:Gallaudet University.
 
CS is not new. It is a 40 year old technique. And the empirical evidence simply isn't there. If it were so widely successful, it would most certainly be supported through empirical evidence and be in widespread use in deaf ed.
 
Deaf people's language has been either sign language or spoken/written languages for centuries...why develop a system for the acquirement of language? CS is good as a teaching tool.
 
Deaf people's language has been either sign language or spoken/written languages for centuries...why develop a system for the acquirement of language? CS is good as a teaching tool.


This is what I do not uderstand shel90. How can you make this statement IF you yourself have never used the system?
 
This is what I do not uderstand shel90. How can you make this statement IF you yourself have never used the system?

I'll answer that one and shel can correct me if I am wrong.....historical data and empirical evidence.

How can youcontinue to make such claims about CS without empirical evidence and historical data to support your position?
 
em·pir·i·cal (ěm-pîr'ĭ-kəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.


da·ta (dā'tə, dāt'ə, dä'tə) Pronunciation Key
pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

emphirical - Definitions from Dictionary.com

jillio - Once again I direct you to the profecient search engine provided for you on AllDeaf.

Unfortunate that you have no experience with cueing to guide you with your analysis.
 
emphirical - Definitions from Dictionary.com

jillio - Once again I direct you to the profecient search engine provided for you on AllDeaf.

Unfortunate that you have no experience with cueing to guide you with your analysis.

I don't need definitions of empirical or of data. I know exactly what empirical evidence is, and I know what data is. And you have provided neither to support your position. BTW, the OP was referenced by unpublished manuscripts, and therefore is nothing more than an opinion paper.
 
Last edited:
I don't need definitions of empirical or of data. I know exactly what empirical evidence is, and I know what data is. And you have provided neither to support your position. BTW, the OP was referenced by unpublished manuscripts, and therefore is nothing more than an opinion paper.


loml funny how in another thread she was touting a newspaper article as "research", she just makes it up as she goes along and never lets the truth get in the way of her bias.
 
loml funny how in another thread she was touting a newspaper article as "research", she just makes it up as she goes along and never lets the truth get in the way of her bias.

The very fact that you have shown up to post in the threads about CS supports the claim that CS is oralism in disguise.

BTW...if you are such a supporter, I will ask for the third time, why didn't you use it with your own daughter?
 
I don't need definitions of empirical or of data. I know exactly what empirical evidence is, and I know what data is. And you have provided neither to support your position. BTW, the OP was referenced by unpublished manuscripts, and therefore is nothing more than an opinion paper.

jillio- Again I am not doing it for you. I see no need to repost information, unlike you, who has the need to re-post an article interviewing Daniel Koo, discussing Cued Speech and ASL, that was orginally posted by me in May of 2006.
 
The very fact that you have shown up to post in the threads about CS supports the claim that CS is oralism in disguise.



Is this an educated guess by you regarding CS? You certainly can't base it on your experience with CS.
 
jillio- Again I am not doing it for you. I see no need to repost information, unlike you, who has the need to re-post an article interviewing Daniel Koo, discussing Cued Speech and ASL, that was orginally posted by me in May of 2006.

Yep, it was posted by you originally and I reposted it because it contains several items that discount your use of the article. If you will read it entirely, Koo supports ASL as the primary language. It also has quotes from Robert Davilla that supports what shel and I are saying. BTW, that is an article, not empirical evidence.

Aren't doing what? You have posted so many threads about CS that you can't even keep your replies straight. Wrong thread, loml.
 
Is this an educated guess by you regarding CS? You certainly can't base it on your experience with CS.

Go back and read some of your own posts, loml. Used to teach spoken language and to remove the ambiguity of lipreading.
 
The very fact that you have shown up to post in the threads about CS supports the claim that CS is oralism in disguise.

BTW...if you are such a supporter, I will ask for the third time, why didn't you use it with your own daughter?

The very fact that you are against CS demonstrates that it is a useful method that should be available to all if they opt to use it for themselves or for their children.

I know the concept that one can support a method for others even though it was not chosen for either one's self or for one's child is beyond your limited abilities but you will just have to deal with your shortcomings.

JT from L you can ask three, four or a hundred times but I have no desire to answer your questions for you are not worth the explanation.
 
The very fact that you are against CS demonstrates that it is a useful method that should be available to all if they opt to use it for themselves or for their children.

I know the concept that one can support a method for others even though it was not chosen for either one's self or for one's child is beyond your limited abilities but you will just have to deal with your shortcomings.

JT from L you can ask three, four or a hundred times but I have no desire to answer your questions for you are not worth the explanation.

Avoiding the questions again. That gives everyone here the only answer they need.

I have already stated that CS can possibly be a useful tool in teaching speech and pronunciation. There is no empirical evidence to support that it is useful in teaching literacy. Forty years in existence, and no empirical evidence to support its use.
 
Avoiding the questions again. That gives everyone here the only answer they need.

I have already stated that CS can possibly be a useful tool in teaching speech and pronunciation. There is no empirical evidence to support that it is useful in teaching literacy. Forty years in existence, and no empirical evidence to support its use.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


Come back when you have a point that anyone actually cares about. Its a big deaf community out there jilly and some have benefited from cued speech but you just cannot accept that instead you know only one mode: attack and argue against anything that is not ASL.
 
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


Come back when you have a point that anyone actually cares about. Its a big deaf community out there jilly and some have benefited from cued speech but you just cannot accept that instead you know only one mode: attack and argue against anything that is not ASL.


Unlike you who attacks anything that is not associated with oralism? Once again, show me some empirical evidence, ricky boy.
 
There is no empirical evidence to support that it is useful in teaching literacy. Forty years in existence, and no empirical evidence to support its use.

jillio - The system was created specifically for literacy. Seek and ye shall find.
 
jillio - The system was created specifically for literacy. Seek and ye shall find.

And it hasn't worked, now, has it? Perhaps Dr. Cornett's intent was to improve literacy, but CS is designed to remove the ambiguity from speech reading. It is a tool to improve understanding of the spoken word. And, you yourself, promote it as a communication mode.
 
Isn't Cued Speech basicly a hand signal form of the pronounciation guides like you see for words in dictionaries? Basicly hooked on phonics for dhh folks.
 
Back
Top