What is a negative aspect of Cued Speech ???

Cloggy

New Member
I'm wondering...

Researching cued speech I found only positive experiences and conclusions.
It's hard, so far impossible to find some negative experiences by people that are using cued speech or have used it.

Of course there are "negative" reactions like "Very few people use it", but that could also be said for rockets... That's not a negative thing.

Anyway,

To the users and/or experts and/or critics and/or promoters of Cued Speech..

Tell me...

What is a negative aspect of Cued Speech ???
 
Cued Speech is only good in classrooms and was invented to only be used in classrooms.

Cued Speech is not a language and doesn't follow any rules of language. The same idea of using cue cards to catch bit's and pieces' of a sentence/conversation. The few people I know who use cued speech as a daily communication tool , have limited skills in the english language, similar to the cultural deaf people from residential deaf schools.

Hope that helps ya Cloggy Woggy..
Smile
 

faire_jour

New Member
Cued Speech is only good in classrooms and was invented to only be used in classrooms.
The same idea of using cue cards to catch bit's and pieces' of a sentence/conversation.

Even if you held up cue card with every single word on it. They express the sounds of the words, not the inflection, meaning or structure of the sentence.
 
R

rockdrummer

Guest
Cued Speech is only good in classrooms and was invented to only be used in classrooms.

Cued Speech is not a language and doesn't follow any rules of language. The same idea of using cue cards to catch bit's and pieces' of a sentence/conversation. The few people I know who use cued speech as a daily communication tool , have limited skills in the english language, similar to the cultural deaf people from residential deaf schools.

Hope that helps ya Cloggy Woggy..
Smile
I don't think it's intended to teach language. That said would you consider those things you mentioned to be negative aspects?
 

VamPyroX

bloody phreak from hell
Cued Speech is only good in classrooms and was invented to only be used in classrooms.

Cued Speech is not a language and doesn't follow any rules of language. The same idea of using cue cards to catch bit's and pieces' of a sentence/conversation. The few people I know who use cued speech as a daily communication tool , have limited skills in the english language, similar to the cultural deaf people from residential deaf schools.

Hope that helps ya Cloggy Woggy..
Smile
Yeah... when I was in elementary school, the only person I saw that used cued speech was my speech teacher.

Using cued speech is sorta like a court reporter. Each sign represents a part of a word... ch, sh, etc... like a court reporter keyboard.
 

LadySekhmet

New Member
I've learned cued speech to help myself breakdown works and learned how to speak. Mind you, this was when I was 4 to 7. I never used it since.

Negative aspect? Probably if you go to RIT or at a deaf club, or anything like that, I would almost guarantee you that 99.9% of the time, no one knows cue speech.

That's the only thing I can kind of think of right now.
 

Cloggy

New Member
Cued Speech is only good in classrooms and was invented to only be used in classrooms.
I have read about many family-settings where it was used with a lot of succes.
And invented for classrooms... Where did you get that. And if so... why is that a negative aspect?

Cued Speech is not a language and doesn't follow any rules of language.
CS never claimed it is a language... so that's not a negative.
The same idea of using cue cards to catch bit's and pieces' of a sentence/conversation.
CS is intended to be used with the lips. That's not a negative.. That's just how it is.
The few people I know who use cued speech as a daily communication tool , have limited skills in the english language, similar to the cultural deaf people from residential deaf schools.
I know people that speak bad Dutch... doesn't make Dutch bad..

Hope that helps ya Cloggy Woggy..
Smile
Sorry Fella Bella...

Not really.... actually.... really not, except that I haven't seen a negative aspect of Cued Speech... that could be a good thing.

Fella Bella..... have you used Cued Speech. Still using it?
 

jillio

New Member
First off, this belongs in the sign language and oralism forum, not in the CI and HA forum.

The negatives: CS is a phonetically based system intended to represent the phonemes and morphemes of a spoken language. A phoneme and a morpheme are, in and of themselves, free of meaning. CS does nothing toconvey contextual information, such as is conveyed in a whole language approach. Whole language approaches have been shown to provide greater reading comprehension and language fluency in both hearing and deaf children.

CS, like any other MCE, attempts to make visual that which is intended to be perceived auditorily. The auditory system processes information in a linear manner. The visual system processes information in a spatial and time oriented manner. Therefore, adding visual cues to a spoken language confuses the two linguistic systems. While individual words may be better lip read using CS, contextual comprehension is not improved due to the confusing linguisitic environment.

Few people using it is a negative, as it cannot sustain itself as a communication system unless many people use it.
 

Buffalo

Active Member
So is speaking Dutch when you're in USA... That is not something negative about Dutch...

There is nothing negative about ASL (& sign languages of the world) but hearing people managed to find it negative.

The only thing I can guess one negative thing about Cued Speech is people don't want to learn anything that might remotely look like sign language.
 

deafbajagal

New Member
Cloggy, you pose a great question that needed to be asked.

I learned how to cue (though it's been such a long time since I've used it - I've forgotten most of it by now). The negative aspects in my experience is that there are not really that many instructors who know how to use cueing. In the state of Arkansas (where I'm orginally from) there was only ONE teacher in the entire state who knew how to cue. There was not one single person that we could find who could teach the cueing process. Believe me, I turned over every stone there was. So basically - no support system. I learned how to cue by going to another state.

*Another negative aspect is that there isn't really that much research on its effectiveness for learning language - which is a shame because I have this hutch in my gut...that cueing just might be the key to closing the gaps of learning the English language (as much as I hate to admit it)

*Cueing is meant for literacy - not for communication - yet a lot of people get this mixed up.

Cloggy - have you ever heard of Visual Phonics, by the way? It is not the same thing as CS, but it is similar...
 

deafdyke

Well-Known Member
Cloggy, that's simple. The downside of using Cued Speech is basicly akin to using Hooked on Phonics for everything. It's a good tool, but shouldn't be the primary tool.
 

shel90

Audist are not welcome
Premium Member
Cloggy, that's simple. The downside of using Cued Speech is basicly akin to using Hooked on Phonics for everything. It's a good tool, but shouldn't be the primary tool.

That's the negative aspect of it..if it is used as the primary and only tool.
 

Cloggy

New Member
First off, this belongs in the sign language and oralism forum, not in the CI and HA forum....
Traditionally perhaps. Nowadays the combination of CI and CS is showing tremendous potential.

The negatives: CS is a phonetically based system intended to represent the phonemes and morphemes of a spoken language. A phoneme and a morpheme are, in and of themselves, free of meaning. CS does nothing toconvey contextual information, such as is conveyed in a whole language approach. Whole language approaches have been shown to provide greater reading comprehension and language fluency in both hearing and deaf children.
CS never claimed it stood by itself.

CS, like any other MCE, attempts to make visual that which is intended to be perceived auditorily. The auditory system processes information in a linear manner. The visual system processes information in a spatial and time oriented manner. Therefore, adding visual cues to a spoken language confuses the two linguistic systems. While individual words may be better lip read using CS, contextual comprehension is not improved due to the confusing linguisitic environment.
Intention is not being better lipreaders. Lipreading is part of the CS "system".

Few people using it is a negative, as it cannot sustain itself as a communication system unless many people use it.
That's not the fault of CS. Few people here are using Sign. That's not a fault of signlanguage.

Its negative if you are attemtping to integrate into a group of English speaking people who don't speak any Dutch. Likewise with a cuer.
Again... that's not a negative. Sign has the same problem
 

Cloggy

New Member
There is nothing negative about ASL (& sign languages of the world) but hearing people managed to find it negative.
.......
Exactly the same can be said about Cued Speech....
There is nothing negative about Cued Speech (& cued codes of the world) but some people managed to find it negative.
 

deafdyke

Well-Known Member
Nowadays the combination of CI and CS is showing tremendous potential
. You could say the same thing about HA and CS. What you don't understand Cloggy is that your experiance with CI making your daughter functionally hoh, is NOT NEW. Even back in the old days (ie when hearing aids were first introduced) there were significent numbers of deaf kids who were functionally hoh with HA.
 
Top