Cued Speech: your opinion?

jillio said:
It was developed to enable hearing parents to communicate with their deaf children in their native spoken language. Cued Speech removes the guesswork from speechreading and makes any spoken language accessible through vision alone.

RIT - NTID - Tipsheet: Cued Speech
Click to expand...
i am located in the US and was wondering if there was a book or a vhs tape or a dvd ..... that i can look into and start maybe learing myself i want to teach in a deaf school and i think it would be very helpful in learing phonetics and the basics of the english language that many school systems are based unfortunatly.
if you or anyone you know of has resources i would be thankful to know!
 
lindsay_f3 said:
i am located in the US and was wondering if there was a book or a vhs tape or a dvd ..... that i can look into and start maybe learing myself i want to teach in a deaf school and i think it would be very helpful in learing phonetics and the basics of the english language that many school systems are based unfortunatly.
if you or anyone you know of has resources i would be thankful to know!
Click to expand...

lindsay_f3: Check out the website of the National Cued Speech Association at: National Cued Speech Association You will find a great deal of information there. If you have any questions about what you read there, I will do my utmost to answer them for you. :)
 
loml said:
There are books available regarding slangs and idioms.:)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they're usually out of date and a bit behind the current teen slang - not that it matters as much to me age 41.
 
loml said:
deafskeptic - I also explained on several occassions that a person does not need a language base prior to cueing. I am simply trying to understand exactly how you come to the conclusions that you do about cueing? Why do you believe that a foundation is necessary? What is it about cueing that leads you to make the statements you do?

There are books available regarding slangs and idioms.:)
Click to expand...

Yes, there are books available regarding slang and idioms. Once again, that is directed learning, and that is exactly what leads to the rigidity and lack of comprehension, as well as the inability to apply the slang and idioms in gerneralized usage. What deafskeptic is referring to is incidental learning through environmental exposure, and it is what is responsible for using a language fluently and in the same way a native user does.

A foundation in concept is necessary to be able to take that concept out of the context it is used and use it in another creative way in a different context. That only comes from a strong foundation and an ability to play with language.
 
lindsay_f3 said:
i am located in the US and was wondering if there was a book or a vhs tape or a dvd ..... that i can look into and start maybe learing myself i want to teach in a deaf school and i think it would be very helpful in learing phonetics and the basics of the english language that many school systems are based unfortunatly.
if you or anyone you know of has resources i would be thankful to know!
Click to expand...

If you want to teach in a deaf school, you would be much better off spending your time becoming fluent in ASL.
 
deafskeptic said:
Yeah, but they're usually out of date and a bit behind the current teen slang - not that it matters as much to me age 41.
Click to expand...

Likewise, learning it from a book enables one to use it as it is shown in the book. It does not provide the ability to use it creatively past that one context in which it was learned. That is the hallmark of whether language has been acquired or learned, and the difference between a native user and someone who is simply capable.

Loml seems to continually idsregard the fact that language is more than repetition. It is the very foundation of cognition and internalized thought and creativity.

You can't use the thing that is responsible for creating the problem to solve the problem.
 
loml said:
deafskeptic - I also explained on several occassions that a person does not need a language base prior to cueing. I am simply trying to understand exactly how you come to the conclusions that you do about cueing? Why do you believe that a foundation is necessary? What is it about cueing that leads you to make the statements you do?

deafskeptic - Would you please answer these questions. :)

Thanks
Click to expand...
 
I showed my mom the cued speech stuff and she was like, "I thought you spelled it out with letters, not sounds." She assumed this was the same as the manual alphabet. ...
 
RilianSharp said:
I showed my mom the cued speech stuff and she was like, "I thought you spelled it out with letters, not sounds." She assumed this was the same as the manual alphabet. ...
Click to expand...

RilianSharp - Assumption about cueing being the same as manual alaphabet, as well as cueing being a MCE system - both popular misconceptions :)

Cueing is all about sound, visually. For example: The letter "A", in my dialect can be produced; as in sound viusually with cueing, three completely different cues, in conjunction with three completely different mouthshapes. Very interesting stuff! :)
 
There is no such thing as "visual sound". And any system which seeks to manually code spoken English is an MCE.
 
RilianSharp said:
Cued speech is manually coded sound, not english.
Click to expand...

If the system is used to cue English, then it is indeed English. English is comprised of sound. Cuing represents the phonemes that are combined to make morphemes, that are responsible for the sound in a spoken language. Therefore, cuing the phonemes to represnet the morphemes that make up the spoken words of English make cuing a mode of the English language. The same would apply if it were used to cue Spanish or French. It is a mode of the spoken language being cued, and the spoken language being cued is made up of sounds and combinations of sounds specific to that language.
 
I could use the cueing for random sounds that aren't words.
That's the difference.
If it were a manually coded language, as opposed to sounds, one could not use it to convey gibberish.
 
RilianSharp said:
I could use the cueing for random sounds that aren't words.
That's the difference.
If it were a manually coded language, as opposed to sounds, one could not use it to convey gibberish.
Click to expand...

And I can use random sounds that don't mean anything, too. Or random gestures that don't mean anything. But that kind of defeats the purpose of communication, now, doesn't it? Cueing was developed to represent the meaningful units of language, i.e. phonemes being the smallest unit of sound that has meaning in the language being cued, and morphemes which are combinations of phonemes that represent meaning as a symbol.

Why would one want to convey gibberish? It has no meaning, and the purpose of making a language visable is to convery meaning via sight.:dunno2: I can speak gibberish, as well, but it doesn't do much to faccillitate dyadic communication. Since the system was designed to remove the ambiguity from speech reading in attempt to increase literacy rates, your cueing of gibberish is a distortion of the system. You are attempting to make a point simply to make a point. It has no logic or thought behind it, and quite frankly, borders on being no more than silly.

BBBBBBB, ddddd, AEAEAEAEAEAE, ssssss, strststr. Is that communication? Does it have any meaning at all? Of course not.
 
Cloggy said:
Very true..
I read about someone cuing the sound of something hitting the floor.. :cool:

Gives a new perspective on sound..
Click to expand...

And ambient noise is conveyed through sign and in written form as well. Terps always interpret ambient noise if they are doing their job properly. Case in point.....cueing music. You cannot cue the sounds of the notes. However, you can cue the spoken phonemes that join together to create morphemes, which in turn become symbols that are the words used in the lyrics. However, you cannot cue the sound of an individual note, or even of a melody line.

So stating that cueing is visual sound is just plain silly.
 
Last edited:
RilianSharp said:
I could use the cueing for random sounds that aren't words.
That's the difference.
If it were a manually coded language, as opposed to sounds, one could not use it to convey gibberish.
Click to expand...

RalianSharp - It is always great to see new cuers, at the end of a weekend workshop, cue Julie Andrews' famous:

"Supercalafragalisticexpialadoshus"
 
Cloggy said:
Very true..
I read about someone cuing the sound of something hitting the floor.. :cool:

Gives a new perspective on sound..
Click to expand...

Cloggy, this is my understanding of what occurred.

There was post secondary student, (a cuer with a CLT), attending a lecture. The CLT was cueing the sound "bang", several times during the lecture (with her non-dominant hand). This student, looked around to "see" where the sound was coming from. Sure enough someone was dropping their text repeatedly on the floor. Looking at who was doing this the student stated: "Would you please stop doing that, that sound is driving me nuts!"

Equal access to the sounds around you! :)
 
Last edited:
loml said:
Cloggy, this is my understanding of what occurred.

There was post secondary student, (a cuer with a CLT), attending a lecture. The CLT was cueing the sound "bang", several times during the lecture (with her non-dominant hand). This student, looked around to "see" where the sound was coming from. Sure enough someone was dropping their text repeatedly on the floor. Looking at who was doing this the student stated: "Would you please stop doing that, that sound is driving me nuts!"

Equal access to the sounds around you! :)
Click to expand...

Much preferable to concentrate on equal access to language rather than simply to sound. But of course, from the ethnocentric perspective taken, sound would be more important than language. Audists!:rl:
 
loml said:
RalianSharp - It is always great to see new cuers, at the end of a weekend workshop, cue Julie Andrews' famous:

"Supercalafragalisticexpialadoshus"
Click to expand...

Better yet, fingerspell it.:giggle:
 
Back
Top