Explaining Cued Speech - from an expert.

flip said:
You are right I have made this statement earlier once when Cloggy posted another article on Cued Speech that disagree with your viewpoints. You responded to that in a manner that confirmed the message in the post and your not was the same.

This is why it does not make sense at all when you write "I ask simply because it is you have made the statement on more than one occassion". It's like saying "I eat now because my car is red". This got futile faster than I expected.

I find it hard to clarify topics to persons that themselves have a hard time to clarify their own standpoints. That's why I asked you to confirm that you agree totally with the content in Cloggy's post to make this simple as possible. But you have refused to do so, and instead keep on asking me the same question. Interesting. It clarifies enough to me.
Click to expand...

It would appear that it is more about agreement with promotion of a specific philosophy than about consistency in postition.:cool:
 
jillio said:
It would appear that it is more about agreement with promotion of a specific philosophy than about consistency in postition.:cool:
Click to expand...

Indeed. I have nothing against CS but it is getting annoying seeing all these threads on CS. I think certain posters have an agenda to promote oralism and how much better we would be off by not using sign. Oh, they don't always say so in so many words but that's the impression that they're giving many of us.
 
deafskeptic said:
Indeed. I have nothing against CS but it is getting annoying seeing all these threads on CS. I think certain posters have an agenda to promote oralism and how much better we would be off by not using sign. Oh, they don't always say so in so many words but that's the impression that they're giving many of us.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Thinly disquised motivation. Especially given the fact that one of the prolific CS posters does not even have CS available as a system to teach literacy in the school system, or as a communciation mode for native language.
 
jillio said:
Agreed. Thinly disquised motivation. Especially given the fact that one of the prolific CS posters does not even have CS available as a system to teach literacy in the school system, or as a communciation mode for native language.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's very telling that he doesn't have any access to it other than the internet. I seem to recall one post saying that his daughter is doing so well she doesn't need CS.
 
flip
I am a bit curious if loml agree with the article posted by Cloggy in the first post? The article is pretty hard on NCSA and critize the fact that they claim CS is a visual sound and speech system.
Click to expand...


loml
flip - There are portions that I would agree with. There is aslo semantics that come into play. I would be happy to further this discussion in private with you. Your choice.
Click to expand...

flip said:
You are right I have made this statement earlier once when Cloggy posted another article on Cued Speech that disagree with your viewpoints. You responded to that in a manner that confirmed the message in the post and your not was the same.
Click to expand...

flip said:
This is why it does not make sense at all when you write "I ask simply because it is you have made the statement on more than one occassion". It's like saying "I eat now because my car is red". This got futile faster than I expected.
Click to expand...

flip - I asked you to provide the "stuff" from the blog that disagreed with my claims. Apparently you cannot/will not find them. I have invited you to pm to discuss CS with me, you, thus far you have declined the invitation.
flip said:
I find it hard to clarify topics to persons that themselves have a hard time to clarify their own standpoints. That's why I asked you to confirm that you agree totally with the content in Cloggy's post to make this simple as possible. But you have refused to do so, and instead keep on asking me the same question. Interesting. It clarifies enough to me.
Click to expand...

My pm invitation still stands flip. You choose.
 
Last edited:
loml said:
flip - I asked you to provide the "stuff" from the blog that disagreed with my claims. Apparently you cannot/will not find them. I have invited you to pm to discuss CS with me, you, thus far you have declined the invitation.
My pm invitation still stands flip. You choose.
Click to expand...

1. Let me take one example; your position on Cued Speech and speech development appears unclear if you agree both with this blog and the first post you made in the "Stimulation of communication" thread. I am not going to help you further. Now, do you dare to agree totally with this blog?

2. I decline your invitation to dicuss CS with you privately, because I see no reason to do so. But I invite you to dicuss topics in public here. If topics are too personal, you are free to PM me, and I will respect what I am told privately. However, if you give me a good reason to dicuss this over PM and not in public, I will of course consider it.
 
deafskeptic said:
Indeed. I have nothing against CS but it is getting annoying seeing all these threads on CS. I think certain posters have an agenda to promote oralism and how much better we would be off by not using sign. Oh, they don't always say so in so many words but that's the impression that they're giving many of us.
Click to expand...


I second that!
 
deafskeptic said:
Indeed. I have nothing against CS but it is getting annoying seeing all these threads on CS. I think certain posters have an agenda to promote oralism and how much better we would be off by not using sign. Oh, they don't always say so in so many words but that's the impression that they're giving many of us.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no agenda...
But .... "how much better we would be off by not using sign" .... where does that come from? On the contrary. No-one has ever said that sign should not be used.
At times sign is not used. That's different. The information I posted shows that there is no reason why CS and ASL should not be combined. In fact, it shows that ASL and CS is a very good combination.
 
deafskeptic said:
Indeed. I have nothing against CS but it is getting annoying seeing all these threads on CS. I think certain posters have an agenda to promote oralism and how much better we would be off by not using sign. Oh, they don't always say so in so many words but that's the impression that they're giving many of us.
Click to expand...

I fourth that :)

Too much BS going on with two claims used by each other when it suits: "CS is a great tool working togheter with all methods", and "With CS you really do not need other methods". The latter argument is an oral one. What a {deleted by myself to not get banned}.
 
Cloggy said:
Sorry, no agenda...
But .... "how much better we would be off by not using sign" .... where does that come from? On the contrary. No-one has ever said that sign should not be used.
At times sign is not used. That's different. The information I posted shows that there is no reason why CS and ASL should not be combined. In fact, it shows that ASL and CS is a very good combination.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid many of us are rather skeptical of your claims considering all your posts on the wonders of the CI and how your daughter doesn't need sign.

While I agree that CS and ASL can go together, I seem to recall a post where you said that the deaf "feared" CS because it was a threat to ASL. This is the post I have in mind. I think the reason why the majority aren't too keen on it is that it hasn't been effective for most deaf.
 
deafskeptic said:
I'm afraid many of us are rather skeptical of your claims considering all your posts on the wonders of the CI and how your daughter doesn't need sign.

While I agree that CS and ASL can go together, I seem to recall a post where you said that the deaf "feared" CS because it was a threat to ASL. This is the post I have in mind. I think the reason why the majority aren't too keen on it is that it hasn't been effective for most deaf.
Click to expand...
Wonders of CI?? She needs sign??
Glad to see you have your conclusions all ready..

Anyway, I never said "deaf "feared" CS because it was a threat to ASL.", I was referring to the article....

Cueing students who were interviewed expressed amusement that eight hand signs could be viewed as a threat to American Sign Language, which they all use and praise as rich and expressive.
Click to expand...
 
Cloggy said:
Wonders of CI?? She needs sign??
Glad to see you have your conclusions all ready..

Anyway, I never said "deaf "feared" CS because it was a threat to ASL.", I was referring to the article....
Click to expand...

But you did say the fear for CS, which is a concept that was never stated in the article. To assume that a method provokes fear in an entire population is not only presumptuous, but aburd, as well. What causes concern is not the method, nor the technology, but the attitude of oralism that is underlying the large scale push for any method and any devise that will assist in accomplishing the oralist agenda.
 
deafskeptic said:
I'm afraid many of us are rather skeptical of your claims considering all your posts on the wonders of the CI and how your daughter doesn't need sign.

While I agree that CS and ASL can go together, I seem to recall a post where you said that the deaf "feared" CS because it was a threat to ASL. This is the post I have in mind. I think the reason why the majority aren't too keen on it is that it hasn't been effective for most deaf.
Click to expand...

And when it is promoted as a tool to assist in teaching literacy with ASL as the L1 language, as in Bi-Bi programs, then I have no problem with it, either. However, from what I have seen on this board, and in the references cited, and the on the numerous websites visited, is that it is not being promoted as a teaching tool, as it was intended, but as a method for acquiring L1 langauge skills. It is being promoted as a communication choice, not a teaching tool. It is being recommended that it be used for L1 langauge, and that means, and has been stated, that ASL should not be used until English has been learned through CS. In other words, it is being used to promote the oralist agenda, not as a teaching tool. The intent of the original system is being distorted to support the oralist agenda. Just look at the time line. CS all but disappeared for years. With the increased implantation of chidlren, and the oralist move that has coincided with that, CS is suuddenly being revised. Technology is moving forward......thinking is moving backward.
 
Cloggy said:
Sorry, no agenda...
But .... "how much better we would be off by not using sign" .... where does that come from?
Click to expand...

Cloggy - Interesting isn't it how people read into what they need.


Cloggy said:
On the contrary. No-one has ever said that sign should not be used. At times sign is not used. That's different. The information I posted shows that there is no reason why CS and ASL should not be combined. In fact, it shows that ASL and CS is a very good combination.
Click to expand...


Cloggy - Good on you!
 
Cloggy said:
In fact, it shows that ASL and CS is a very good combination.
Click to expand...
How to combine ASL and CS? If I talk to someone and they use English and CS they can't use ASL. So no combine ASL - just one person using ASL and one English/CS, right?
 
deafskeptic said:
While I agree that CS and ASL can go together, I seem to recall a post where you said that the deaf "feared" CS because it was a threat to ASL. This is the post I have in mind. I think the reason why the majority aren't too keen on it is that it hasn't been effective for most deaf.
Click to expand...


deafskeptic - You state "it hasn't been effective for most deaf". Considering the wide range of familial backgrounds and childhood variables, what do you base this statement on?

I continuosly read statements implying that the resurgence of Cued Speech has something to do with oral only approaches. On its own CS it is not a speech tool, nor will using the system improve a deaf child/adults' speech . Considering the heirarchy and politics involved in the field of deaf rehab/education, where is this resurgence happening? How are people coming to this conclussion? It is not clear to me.

There have been numerous postings on this board stating that ASL/oral programs are successful with regards to literacy. I can only imagine adding CS to these programs to removing the ambiguity of speech reading.

The deaf adults who oppose CS, in my experience, are the deaf children whose speech therapy sessions have let them imbittered. Perhaps these same adults would feel differently if they had had the opportunity to add CS to their tool box. It has also been my experience that these same deaf adults do not fully understand what CS and how it feels to use it. Some are willing to explore and learn and some are not, freedom of choice.

Now I could discuss here, my experience with some hearing adults/professional, who have a vested interested in ASL. I will not do so in public, as I do not wish to offend anyone.
 
deafskeptic said:
Indeed. I have nothing against CS but it is getting annoying seeing all these threads on CS. I think certain posters have an agenda to promote oralism and how much better we would be off by not using sign. Oh, they don't always say so in so many words but that's the impression that they're giving many of us.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Back
Top