Explaining Cued Speech - from an expert.

[owen06]

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?

I see the difference. I thought that this thread was dicussing aquisition of the English language and therefore, wasn't considering ASL (because ASL is a different language).

I agree that the whole word is the symbol but when a hearing child is learning a language, they start with the morphemes and phonemes. It only when they begin to string those sounds together are they able to put the sounds to the concept. As long as the deafness is because of something in the ear and not something in the brain, the learning pattern should be the same. So breaking the word into the different sounds visually would give the same effect would it not?


Oh and I have taken adavanced classes. Including learning, child development, and cognition.

 

[owen06]

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?

I see the difference. I thought that this thread was dicussing aquisition of the English language and therefore, wasn't considering ASL (because ASL is a different language).

I agree that the whole word is the symbol but when a hearing child is learning a language but, they start with the morphemes and phonemes. It only when they begin to string those sounds together are they able to put the sounds to the concept. As long as the deafness is because of something in the ear and not something in the brain, the learning pattern should be the same. So breaking the word into the different sounds visually would give the same effect would it not? And if not why not?


Oh and I have taken advanced classes. Including learning, child development, and cognition.

 

[deafskeptic]

You have to know the spoken language first in order to understand Cued Speech. It's not a language but rather a mode of spoken language - just as the printed word is a mode of the spoken language. If you have a limited knowledge of a certain spoken language, cued speech would be meaningless to you. If I relearned cued speech and it's cued in English, it'd be understandable to me. However if Spanish is being cued to me, it will have no meaning to me.

If I were to rely only on spoken Spanish around me, I would have limited access to spoken Spanish and I may not be able to figure out how to write a proper sentence in Spanish. Spoken languages have to be taught to deaf children as we can't pick it up just by hearing it. Few use cued speech. I'd have a much easier time learning Mexican Sign as it's much more accessable to me than spoken language despite my implant.

Language delays is very common in deaf children if they have limited access to the language around them and it's hard to overcome.

 

[rockdrummer]

Seems to me that no matter what country you live in, as a deaf person, at some point, you would want to become literate in the native language around you. Otherwise you are somewhat isolating yourself. It also occurs to me that being able to speech read would have some benefit. It's not realistic to expect the entire hearing population to learn sign language. Either that or get out your pencil and paper and expect to do a lot of writing. There doesnt seem to be many choices if you choose to assimilate. As I understand it CS is a good means of learning to speech read and speak, and it's working in many different languages as well.

 

[deafskeptic]

Seems to me that no matter what country you live in, as a deaf person, at some point, you would want to become literate in the native language around you. Otherwise you are somewhat isolating yourself. It also occurs to me that being able to speech read would have some benefit. It's not realistic to expect the entire hearing population to learn sign language. Either that or get out your pencil and paper and expect to do a lot of writing. There doesnt seem to be many choices if you choose to assimilate. As I understand it CS is a good means of learning to speech read and speak, and it's working in many different languages as well.

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.

 

[rockdrummer]

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.

I don't exactly agree with that. I think that a deaf person is capable of anything except hearing. To suggest that just because they are delayed they can't become literate is (I believe) inaccurate. I'ts just going to take more time and effort.

Many deaf don't like to write notes to the hearing as they know they don't write well.

That would not be the case if they became literate.

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 completly agree with you on that. If they either choose not to or can't speak then that will limit their options in communicating with the hearing world.

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.

With regards to communication, I agree. For the record what you are calling constant chattering is how we communicate.

 

[deafskeptic]

I don't exactly agree with that. I think that a deaf person is capable of anything except hearing.

To suggest that just because they are delayed they can't become literate is (I believe) inaccurate. I'ts just going to take more time and effort.

It will take a great deal of effort and many become burnt out struggling with overcoming language delays. Yes, it can be done but it will be much much harder once delays set in. I believe Shel has mentioned that in one of her posts. The question here is how many deaf manage to overcome delays.

Prevention is better than having to work with language delays once they start. Based on what I've seen, most never overcome it. I happen to be one of those rare cases that overcame my delays. I should have been at least 2 years behind in language delays given my background; my first grade report indicates that I was a year behind in vocabulary but on par with my hearing peers grammar wise. Most people - hearing or deaf - do not have my desire to master English. I think that is why I overcame my delays.

That would not be the case if they became literate.
Yes, that would be helpful. Now, how do you help them become literate? English is very frustrating for many deaf and it doesn't help that English is one of the most difficult languages to learn in the world.

As far as I can tell, the only way is to read and read and most people do not like to read that much. It also took far more effort and work on my part than most hearing ever put into reading just to catch up with them.

I completly agree with you on that. If they either choose not to or can't speak then that will limit their options in communicating with the hearing world.

Yes, it'd be better if they can speak. Even with excellent speech, it's hard to keep up with hearing people as it's harder for me to understand them when they talk to me. Good speech won't make it easier for me to understand others speaking to me.

You need to devise different strategies if you can't speak or if you can't hear well enough to follow the converstion. I've learned a great deal about how to talk to the hearing if you have no speech from my deaf friends and classmates with no speech skills at all.

With regards to communication, I agree. For the record what you are calling constant chattering is how we communicate.

Yes, and signing is how we communicate the best.

 

[loml]

The fact is......

deafskeptic

You have to know the spoken language first in order to understand Cued Speech.

deafskeptic - The deaf/hoh child/infant does not have to know the spoken language first in order to understand Cued Speech.

Does the deaf/hoh infant/child have to know ASL first in order to understand ASL?

 

[jillio]

deafskeptic


deafskeptic - The deaf/hoh child/infant does not have to know the spoken language first in order to understand Cued Speech.

Does the deaf/hoh infant/child have to know ASL first in order to understand ASL?

The difference is that ASL provides conceptual information in a whole language approach, and conceptual meaning can be acquired through peripheral exposure. CS does not do that, and provides only phonemic information, not conceptual information. Therefore, conceptual must be a directed activity.

 

[owen06]

You have to know the spoken language first in order to understand Cued Speech. It's not a language but rather a mode of spoken language - just as the printed word is a mode of the spoken language. If you have a limited knowledge of a certain spoken language, cued speech would be meaningless to you. If I relearned cued speech and it's cued in English, it'd be understandable to me. However if Spanish is being cued to me, it will have no meaning to me.

If I were to rely only on spoken Spanish around me, I would have limited access to spoken Spanish and I may not be able to figure out how to write a proper sentence in Spanish. Spoken languages have to be taught to deaf children as we can't pick it up just by hearing it. Few use cued speech. I'd have a much easier time learning Mexican Sign as it's much more accessable to me than spoken language despite my implant.

There are still similarities between Spanish and English that you would be able to pick up on and at least paritally understand. The syntax isn't completly different. But that's beside the point.

I agree that the whole word is the symbol but when a hearing child is learning a language but, they start with the morphemes and phonemes. These basic sounds produced by babies are produced whether the baby is deaf or hearing. It's only when they begin to string those sounds together are they able to put the sounds to the concept. As long as the deafness is because of something in the ear and not something in the brain, the learning pattern should be the same. The child would begin to string the visual "sounds" together to create the concept just like a hearing child would. So breaking the word into the different sounds visually would give the same effect would it not? And if not why not?

As far as a child having to have the peripheral exposure...most deaf children have hearing parents. In saying that ASL gives this extra exposure it would also mean that these hearing parents would have to learn a new language and along with it syntax (from what I remember about ASL the syntax is completely different from English). So this child will be getting this periphreal exposure only when it's hearing parents sign. It highly unlikely that English speaking parent's will suddenly switch to ASL as their primary mode of communication with each other and others. Thus, the children still wouldn't be getting this periphreal exposure with ASL either. 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.

 

[shel90]

I don't exactly agree with that. I think that a deaf person is capable of anything except hearing. To suggest that just because they are delayed they can't become literate is (I believe) inaccurate. I'ts just going to take more time and effort.

That would not be the case if they became literate.

I completly agree with you on that. If they either choose not to or can't speak then that will limit their options in communicating with the hearing world.

With regards to communication, I agree. For the record what you are calling constant chattering is how we communicate.

I can hear some with my HAs and speak fairly well but I feel more limited when communicating with the hearing world despite growing up with only hearing peers and adults around me.

My brother has no oral skills and he interacts with the hearing world just as much I do but in a different way.

I would rather see my students become literate than develop speech skills. I think literacy comes first but too often it is the speech or oral skills that take predendence.

 

[shel90]

There are still similarities between Spanish and English that you would be able to pick up on and at least paritally understand. The syntax isn't completly different. But that's beside the point.

I agree that the whole word is the symbol but when a hearing child is learning a language but, they start with the morphemes and phonemes. These basic sounds produced by babies are produced whether the baby is deaf or hearing. It's only when they begin to string those sounds together are they able to put the sounds to the concept. As long as the deafness is because of something in the ear and not something in the brain, the learning pattern should be the same. The child would begin to string the visual "sounds" together to create the concept just like a hearing child would. So breaking the word into the different sounds visually would give the same effect would it not? And if not why not?

As far as a child having to have the peripheral exposure...most deaf children have hearing parents. In saying that ASL gives this extra exposure it would also mean that these hearing parents would have to learn a new language and along with it syntax (from what I remember about ASL the syntax is completely different from English). So this child will be getting this periphreal exposure only when it's hearing parents sign. It highly unlikely that English speaking parent's will suddenly switch to ASL as their primary mode of communication with each other and others. Thus, the children still wouldn't be getting this periphreal exposure with ASL either. 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.

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.

 

[shel90]

The difference is that ASL provides conceptual information in a whole language approach, and conceptual meaning can be acquired through peripheral exposure. CS does not do that, and provides only phonemic information, not conceptual information. Therefore, conceptual must be a directed activity.

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.

 

[shel90]

Yes, and signing is how we communicate the best.

I am with u on that 100%.

 

[shel90]

Seems to me that no matter what country you live in, as a deaf person, at some point, you would want to become literate in the native language around you. Otherwise you are somewhat isolating yourself. It also occurs to me that being able to speech read would have some benefit. It's not realistic to expect the entire hearing population to learn sign language. Either that or get out your pencil and paper and expect to do a lot of writing. There doesnt seem to be many choices if you choose to assimilate. As I understand it CS is a good means of learning to speech read and speak, and it's working in many different languages as well.

Based on what statistics?

I am curious...u keep bringing up about deaf people isolating themselves. How is that? If deaf people can communicate with other deaf people or hearing signers, what's wrong with that?

 

[deafskeptic]

I'm quoting owen06 here.

I agree that the whole word is the symbol but when a hearing child is learning a language but, they start with the morphemes and phonemes. These basic sounds produced by babies are produced whether the baby is deaf or hearing. It's only when they begin to string those sounds together are they able to put the sounds to the concept. As long as the deafness is because of something in the ear and not something in the brain, the learning pattern should be the same. The child would begin to string the visual "sounds" together to create the concept just like a hearing child would. So breaking the word into the different sounds visually would give the same effect would it not? And if not why not?

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.

As far as a child having to have the peripheral exposure...most deaf children have hearing parents. In saying that ASL gives this extra exposure it would also mean that these hearing parents would have to learn a new language and along with it syntax (from what I remember about ASL the syntax is completely different from English). So this child will be getting this periphreal exposure only when it's hearing parents sign. It highly unlikely that English speaking parent's will suddenly switch to ASL as their primary mode of communication with each other and others. Thus, the children still wouldn't be getting this periphreal exposure with ASL either. 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.
Yesterday 09:37 PM

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.

 

[deafskeptic]

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.

Heh, you beat me to it. I said the same thing but you're much more concise than me. lol.

 

[rockdrummer]

Based on what statistics?

I am curious...u keep bringing up about deaf people isolating themselves. How is that? If deaf people can communicate with other deaf people or hearing signers, what's wrong with that?

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.

 

[jillio]

There are still similarities between Spanish and English that you would be able to pick up on and at least paritally understand. The syntax isn't completly different. But that's beside the point.

I agree that the whole word is the symbol but when a hearing child is learning a language but, they start with the morphemes and phonemes. These basic sounds produced by babies are produced whether the baby is deaf or hearing. It's only when they begin to string those sounds together are they able to put the sounds to the concept. As long as the deafness is because of something in the ear and not something in the brain, the learning pattern should be the same. The child would begin to string the visual "sounds" together to create the concept just like a hearing child would. So breaking the word into the different sounds visually would give the same effect would it not? And if not why not?

This is quite acurrate when you are talking about deaf chidlren learning sign langauge. Handshapes, postions, and the combination of those are, in effect, the phonemes and morphemes of sign. A deaf child babbles in sign long before they begin to approximate signs. However, sign is not based on sound in any way. Signs do not represent the sounds of a language, they represent the concept.

With CS, you are not providing a visual concept. You are providing a visual cue to a phonemene produced in sound, which is then combined to another phoneme produced in sound, and another and another. All of this must be processed before ever getting to concept. When you hear a sord spoken,. you do not process it phoneme by phoneme, but employ top down processing and auditory look memory function. The same when you read a word. If it is a word you have been exposed to, you do not perceive it as letter by letter, or phoneme by phoneme. To ask a deaf child to process langauge phoneme by phoneme overloads the cognitive process., makes comprehension more difficult and much slower, and in effect, impedes language comprehesion.
As far as a child having to have the peripheral exposure...most deaf children have hearing parents. In saying that ASL gives this extra exposure it would also mean that these hearing parents would have to learn a new language and along with it syntax (from what I remember about ASL the syntax is completely different from English). So this child will be getting this periphreal exposure only when it's hearing parents sign. It highly unlikely that English speaking parent's will suddenly switch to ASL as their primary mode of communication with each other and others. Thus, the children still wouldn't be getting this periphreal exposure with ASL either. 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.

It is far easier for a hearing parent to learn sign than it is for a deaf child to learn spoken language. And there are other ways in which a deaf child can be provided with peripheral exposure. It is obvious that you are attempting to support an artificial system before you have a complete understanding of the issues here. The hearing parents' needs are not the primary concern here. What is optimal for the dea child is what is optimal. If you look at it from a hearing person's perspective, the deaf will always have theior needs addressed improperly.

 

[jillio]

I see the difference. I thought that this thread was dicussing aquisition of the English language and therefore, wasn't considering ASL (because ASL is a different language).

I agree that the whole word is the symbol but when a hearing child is learning a language, they start with the morphemes and phonemes. It only when they begin to string those sounds together are they able to put the sounds to the concept. As long as the deafness is because of something in the ear and not something in the brain, the learning pattern should be the same. So breaking the word into the different sounds visually would give the same effect would it not?


Oh and I have taken adavanced classes. Including learning, child development, and cognition.

At what level? I ask because I am seeing responses from you that do not go beyond an introductory level of the subject matter.

And as I asked prior, what year are you in? I have addressed the issue of phoneme morpheme representation in the other post I just responded to.

Learning patterns are the same provided the input can be processed. Quite obviously, even though you say you have had adbanced classes, your comprehension of the differences in cognitive processing and the perception of stimuliu between the deaf and the hearing individual is quite lacking. You are looking at deafness, as does most of the ill informed and inexperienced population, as being ONLY the inability to perceive auditory stimuli. It iis much, much more than that. You need to learn quite a bit more about deafness, and how the little bit of information you have learned applies specifically. I will be glad to refer you to several volumes that can provide you with this specific application.