Explaining Cued Speech - from an expert.

loml said:
Cheri- The child learns and aquires, visually via Cued Speech whichever spoken language is being cued. They are not/do not have a language delay.
Click to expand...

Cheri,
The child learns English through CS, but they do not acquire langauge via CS.
 
Cheri,

Here is a :slap:


That was for the heck of it! :giggle:
 
to be honest, that makes no sense to me. how can one not acquire language through cs (which is english)? english would be developed and it would be the first language.

instead of arguing about this, let's see the results.
 
jillio said:
Doesn't this belong in the Sign Langage/Oralism forum? It doesn't have anything to do with CI.
Click to expand...

Your opinion really . I find these articles and blogs to be a good addition to the use with teh CI, just because CS will help a child struggling to aquire english comprehension. since there have been parents who've said that this is the first they've actually heard of CS I think it is very relevent for them since it gives them a starting point to research exactly what CS is and if it would be a good option for their implanted child.

So to me these discussions in the ci/ha forum is just fine. Not everyone has the time to run from topic to topic trying to find discussion relevant for what they are looking for. This is being discussed in how it can be used with a CI so it's quite relevant to this area.
 
Last edited:
Yiffzer said:
to be honest, that makes no sense to me. how can one not acquire language through cs (which is english)? english would be developed and it would be the first language.

instead of arguing about this, let's see the results.
Click to expand...

Because langauge acquisition is a very different process from learning a langauge. Langauge is based on symbols...in sign they are visual symbols, in oral language they are spoken sounds which represent the thing. In order for those symbols to have meaning, they must be understood as being representative of the thing they are meant to represent. In other words, unless one understands that the sound made when saying the word "chair" actually represents the object, then the sound is meaningless for understanding and communication. It has no more meaning than a grunt.

Deaf infants from birth are unable to receive and process the stimuli which allows them to attach meaning to the sounds of spoken language. However, they are able to attach meaning to that which they can perceive visually. They are not hampered in their acquisiton of a visual language, so that the meaning attached to the symbol of a sign is something that occurs naturally through development and peripheral exposure.

CS represents the phonemes and morphemes of spoken language. The gestures used do not represent an object or a concept in the way that a sign and a word represent an object or a concept. Understanding the phoneme does not translate to understanding the concept represented by the symbol. Phonemes in and of themselves are meaningless.
 
jag said:
Your opinion really . I find these articles and blogs to be a good addition to the use with teh CI, just because CS will help a child struggling to aquire english comprehension. since there have been parents who've said that this is the first they've actually heard of CS I think it is very relevent for them since it gives them a starting point to research exactly what CS is and if it would be a good option for their implanted child.

So to me these discussions in the ci/ha forum is just fine. Not everyone has the time to run from topic to topic trying to find discussion relevant for what they are looking for. This is being discussed in how it can be used with a CI so it's quite relevant to this area.
Click to expand...

The only relation that CS has to CI is that since the push for early childhood implantation, it has experienced a revival from an almost nonexistent state of being. However, if the goal of CS is to improve the literacy rates of deaf chidlren, and to allow for early language exposure, as has been claimed by the supporter who has begun all of these threads, then it would apply to all deaf children and not just those who are implanted with CIs.

If one is looking for information regarding the decisons they are making for their deaf child, they would do well, to not just run from forum to forum, but to engage in discussion with various others who are not focused solely on one perspective. That is the only way to gain the inforamtion necessary to make a fully informed decision.

The OP was not related to CI at all, and those taking part in discussion are not all CI users. It is being discussed in relation to deafness and language acquisition and development, not specific to CI. I jsut did a quick search of the thread and only found 4 posts out of 85 that even mentioned CI, and those were only in passing. So quite obviously, topic is not Cochlear Implants. The topic is Cued Speech. A discussion of Cued Speech is a discussion of language. Therefore, it belongs in a language forum, i.e. Sign anguage and Oralism.

This is the purpose of the HA/CI forum: Hearing Aids & Cochlear Implants
Opinions and experiences about hearing aid or cochlear implant, and how it affects one's life. (Cut and pasted from the index)
 
jag said:
Your opinion really . I find these articles and blogs to be a good addition to the use with teh CI, just because CS will help a child struggling to aquire english comprehension. since there have been parents who've said that this is the first they've actually heard of CS I think it is very relevent for them since it gives them a starting point to research exactly what CS is and if it would be a good option for their implanted child.

So to me these discussions in the ci/ha forum is just fine. Not everyone has the time to run from topic to topic trying to find discussion relevant for what they are looking for. This is being discussed in how it can be used with a CI so it's quite relevant to this area.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I disagree. CS is about a teaching tool helping deaf children with reading and writing so it should be in Deaf Education. I just dont see how it belongs in the CI forum unless the orginal post was about Cued Speech and CIs.
 
shel90 said:
Sorry, I disagree. CS is about a teaching tool helping deaf children with reading and writing so it should be in Deaf Education. I just dont see how it belongs in the CI forum unless the orginal post was about Cued Speech and CIs.
Click to expand...

I agree....as I see CS as a literacy tool, it belongs in deaf ed. However, because there are those that claim that it is also a tool to teach language, and can be used for langauge acquisition, I was going to give them a break and use the language forum!:giggle:
 
Roadrunner said:
:bump:

Thread moved here-- ;)




~RR
Click to expand...

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. :giggle:
 
jillio said:
Because langauge acquisition is a very different process from learning a langauge. Langauge is based on symbols...in sign they are visual symbols, in oral language they are spoken sounds which represent the thing. In order for those symbols to have meaning, they must be understood as being representative of the thing they are meant to represent. In other words, unless one understands that the sound made when saying the word "chair" actually represents the object, then the sound is meaningless for understanding and communication. It has no more meaning than a grunt.

Deaf infants from birth are unable to receive and process the stimuli which allows them to attach meaning to the sounds of spoken language. However, they are able to attach meaning to that which they can perceive visually. They are not hampered in their acquisiton of a visual language, so that the meaning attached to the symbol of a sign is something that occurs naturally through development and peripheral exposure.

CS represents the phonemes and morphemes of spoken language. The gestures used do not represent an object or a concept in the way that a sign and a word represent an object or a concept. Understanding the phoneme does not translate to understanding the concept represented by the symbol. Phonemes in and of themselves are meaningless.
Click to expand...

haha, i gotcha. totally understand much better now. thanks for the patience and willingness to respond with greater detail.
 
jillio said:
Because langauge acquisition is a very different process from learning a langauge. Langauge is based on symbols...in sign they are visual symbols, in oral language they are spoken sounds which represent the thing. In order for those symbols to have meaning, they must be understood as being representative of the thing they are meant to represent. In other words, unless one understands that the sound made when saying the word "chair" actually represents the object, then the sound is meaningless for understanding and communication. It has no more meaning than a grunt.

Deaf infants from birth are unable to receive and process the stimuli which allows them to attach meaning to the sounds of spoken language. However, they are able to attach meaning to that which they can perceive visually. They are not hampered in their acquisiton of a visual language, so that the meaning attached to the symbol of a sign is something that occurs naturally through development and peripheral exposure.

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?

CS represents the phonemes and morphemes of spoken language. The gestures used do not represent an object or a concept in the way that a sign and a word represent an object or a concept. Understanding the phoneme does not translate to understanding the concept represented by the symbol. Phonemes in and of themselves are meaningless.
Click to expand...

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?
 
owen06 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Few questions for u...are u deaf? Do u work in the field of deaf education? What's your experience with CS?
 
owen06 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
shel90 said:
Few questions for u...are u deaf? Do u work in the field of deaf education? What's your experience with CS?
Click to expand...

I'm a psychology student and am interested in different modes of language aquisition.
 
owen06 said:
I'm a psychology student and am interested in different modes of language aquisition.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
jillio said:
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?
Click to expand...

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