Explaining Cued Speech - from an expert.

shel90 · Dec 28, 2007

jillio said:
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.

It appears that is what has happened with CS. Now, "experts" are saying that CS is outdated and being replaced with Visual Phonics. Hard to believe anything anymore these days.

jillio · Dec 28, 2007

Kaitin said:
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?

Exactly, Kaitlin. The only way the two could be used in combination is in a Bi-Bi program where ESL is beign taught through ASL,and even then the CS would be redundant. but you are correct....one is English in the mode of CS, the other is American Sign language. Still 2 different langauges.

jillio · Dec 28, 2007

loml said:
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.

Look around you. The push toward oralism as tied to CI is obvious. And oralism does not apply to speech only, but orally based language as the only language for the deaf child, i.e. English as the L1 language because English is the langauge of the majority. As CS is an English mode, and you yourself, have stated that English should always be the L1 language, with ASL learned only as an L2 language, if at all, CS is directly tied to the oral English philosophy. You are attempting to use oralism as applied to speech only, and there is much more to the concept than than.

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.

If one is using ASL, one is not speech reading. Therefore, your remark would apply to the oral programs, and therefore, has supported the connection to oralism.

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.

Which is it loml.....a tool for speech therapy or not? You continually waffle bacvk and forth. First you say it is not a tool to teach speech, and then you connect it to speech therapy. How would speech terapy have been made easier, if CS is not a tool for speech therapy.

And we have heard frommany deaf adults on this board that have been exposed to CS, know how it feels to use it, and say that it is limited in its usefulness and that it is confusing and cumbersome. You continually want to blame the umpopularity of the system, and the fact that it is not,nor has it ever been widely used on the deaf, rather than on the system itself. It is not the deaf perception that has failed CS......it is CS that has failed the deaf.

Like flip, my opinion is if you are unwilling to discuss the subject in a public forum, then you have created the distinct impression that there is something you are attempting to hide and that you are not being up front and above board.

deafskeptic · Dec 28, 2007

jillio said:
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.

You do raise some excellent points there, Jillio.

deafskeptic · Dec 28, 2007

Kaitin said:
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?

You raise an excellent question there. I think it can be used along with ASL but not with ASL at the same time. And like Jillio said, it's only fesiable with a Bi-Bi program. But given the reactions I've seen toward the idea of a Bi-Bi education, it just gives me the impression that many would rather have us be oral only.

deafskeptic · Dec 28, 2007

loml said:
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 base this statement on both my personal experience and my observation of how my class mates reacted to it. I should remind you that the Deaf population come from a wide range of backgrounds and the childhood variables apply to them and that many of them also come from oral backgrounds.

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.

That's because the majority of the CS advocates - if not all - tend to support oralism. Oralism is making a comeback. I have yet to see an ASLer other than Hilary Franklin support CS and certainly none on this forum.

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.

I think it'd be more useful for teaching a basic understanding of phonics as you don't need to lipread when using ASL.

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.
I thought you said that CS doesn't teach speech? What has a bad exerpreince with speech class got to do with CS? I've had a bad experience with a speech teacher but my problems with her isn't the reason for my skepticism toward CS as a communication tool.

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.

Why would they feel threatened by CS as it never really caught on in the Deaf community?

loml · Dec 28, 2007

Originally Posted by loml

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?