While revisiting "Breaking the Code," an educational video on Cued Speech produced by Jennifer Bien, I went through the recent comments on the YouTube page and realized just how much negative comments there were in comparison to the positive ones. I wasn't surprised at the fact that there were negative comments, after all Cued Speech was created at Gallaudet University by Dr. Orin Cornett in the middle of a bastion of ASL Culture.
What's interesting though is the content of those negative comments. None of these comments indicate that Cued Speech has had a harmful impact on any of the commenter's lives, yet all these comments are derogatory in that ignorance allows them to claim Cued Speech is not an "official language" or that it is an "oppressive method." Another claim made was that Cued Speech and ASL "cannot exist in harmony."
I'll just quote the most recent comment, made by Tar2006.
"If I were Board of Education for that school. I will throw Cued Speech program out of the window in big time. I DEMAND put ASL in that program period! This is just disgusted me to see how much you abused their Deaf children's education by using Cued Speech which is unofficial recognized as language. Someone please delete this video.."
This comment reeks of ignorance and extreme prejudice. Unfortunately, this is a common theme that repeats throughout most of the negative comments posted over the course of the past year. Jennifer Bien, the producer and director of the video, responds to those comments in a polite manner, indicating that in the video an ASL interpreter is visible for those who prefer sign over captioning. Also, quite a number of the individuals in the video know ASL.
I have observed a pattern in the negative comments. A large number of these comments seem to be ridden with grammatical errors, suggesting that those detractors could have had an arduous academic experience, harboring resentments against those who had a role in their education. On the other hand, they may have deep roots in the ASL culture and resent any thing that might seem to present a threat to their culture. Either way their comments reiterate the need to improve the literacy levels of deaf and hard of hearing children, which Cued Speech addresses specifically.
Myths:
1. "Gallaudet does not support Cued Speech."
Cued Speech classes are offered each semester, with the primary audience being speech language pathology students (HSL 690 Introduction to Cued Speech and HSL 712 Cued Speech Seminar). Dr. Carol LaSasso, a faculty member of the Hearing, Speech, and Language Sciences department, leads the research on Cued Speech with published articles in various journals related to deaf education. There is also a virtual library of bibliographies hosted by Gallaudet's library with a link to the R. Orin Cornett Memorial Cued Speech Collection.
2. "Cued Speech and ASL cannot exist in harmony."
At each board meeting for the National Cued Speech Association, both transliterators and interpreters are provided for the deaf board members. Quite a number of native cuers also know ASL. In fact, at the last board meeting three other deaf board members and I went out to eat at a nice Italian restaurant. We all switched between signing and cueing, often cueing a word that we didn't know the sign for (or didn't want to fingerspell). At Cue Camp New England, I saw a native cuer interpreting Cued American English into ASL for a child who did not know Cued Speech. Native cuers that also sign learned ASL in different ways. Some chose to go to Gallaudet or RIT, while others grew up in a large community of signers. The rest learned ASL either in the classroom or through later exposure in the community (like me).
3. "Cued Speech is torture."
Where this came from, I do not know. Growing up, I don't remember feeling tortured. Waterboarding is torture in my opinion, but that's a debate for Congress to take up. Speech therapy can be troublesome for children who have therapists that focus on negative reinforcement instead of positive. Yet, Cued Speech is something to be learned for parents and something to be absorbed for young children. Torture is defined as "infliction of severe pain as a means of punishment or coercion" or "excruciating physical or mental pain." Doesn't seem like a definition that could be applied to Cued Speech.
4. Cued speech is "one of the most oppressive teaching methods."
Unlike AVT, where children are urged to utilize their speech to the fullest and communicate verbally, Cued Speech doesn't require a child to utilize his speech. It is simply a visual mode of expressing spoken language. At the same time, cuers can utilize their speech while cueing simultaneously. I cannot recall a case where a native cuer was admonished for using sign language or refusing to cue. Another point to make is that Cued Speech certainly isn't a widespread method like AVT and ASL are. In Minnesota, there are a few programs that incorporate both Cued Speech AND ASL together, as showcased in an episode of Reading Rockets, titled "Signs of Literacy."
5. Cued Speech is "not a language."
Well, Cued Speech is not a language, but a visual communication system that expresses spoken language verbatim. Instead, we refer to "cued languages" as the visual languages that native cuers are exposed to. Consider cued languages as a visual mirror of spoken languages. The concept of Cued Speech is to break down spoken language at the phonemic level so that each phoneme is visualized consecutively as a "cuem" to create a cued language. My first language was Cued American English in a Southern Dialect (i.e. my parents were from the South so they would cue to me the way they pronounce it in their distinct accent).
In the end, there'll always be animosity from people who don't understand or fear Cued Speech. The reality is there's no excuse to leave unsubstantiated derogatory remarks for people to see. These negative comments are a reflection on the detractors' character, and everyone can see plain and clear that those individuals are ignorant and prejudiced.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance" - Socrates
Cued Speech on YouTube
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
It's apparent I won't change your mind on the nature of Cued Speech.
It seems you're so intent on making the distinction between artificial and natural languages. I'll leave it up to the professionals to decide whether cued languages are natural or not.
Come to a cue camp or cue social and you will see how Cued Speech works.
If you must insist that cued languages are a "secondary code," I must insist that Cued Speech is a primary method for deaf/hoh children to absorb English (not learn it).
American Sign Language is a language in its own right, so it seems prudent to state that it could be more difficult to convey English verbatim. One would have to "teach" English to a native signer, while a native cuer merely absorbs it.
Let's just agree to disagree that a deaf child's first language should be sign language, since there are a large number of cases where deaf individuals have grown up to have strong language and literacy, yet they did not learn ASL until later in life, if at all (such as myself).
From a linguistics point of view, do you agree that a deaf child should learn its home language (i.e. the language the parents speak or sign?).
It seems that you're arguing that a deaf child should be exposed to sign language, yet at the same time assuming that child's parents are fluent. There will be complications for deaf children who don't have real "models" to help them absorb that language at the same rate that hearing children do with spoken language.
It may not make sense for you to use a "secondary code" to convey spoken language, yet I'm sure as a linguist you know the large role that reception of spoken language has in the development of reading and writing.
If a deaf child can cue expressively as early as 1-2 years old (if not earlier), do you think the child seems it natural to think in English (a natural language) while cueing (a secondary coding)?
Well... I am still not familiar with the concept of cued speech... the messages saying that the posts had been removed by the author is not helping much... makes me wonder if we all really understand the concept? If the posts were hostile, yeah, I understand for the removal...
I find a little irony that Gallaudet U. invented cued speech. Whatever.
To me, comparing Cued Speech to pen and paper is absurd.
While I respect everyone's opinion regarding how to raise a deaf/hard of hearing child, it gets tiring after a period of time when there are comments out there that are uncalled for. Smack talking other people is childish and can be hurtful to others. We all live on the same planet and while no human being is compelled to agree with other human beings, can we at least disagree in an appropriate adult like manner?
This is a blog I had been waiting for a long time for someone to post. There are so many misconceptions when it comes to Cued Speech and I like how you laid out a few of the myths one by one and explained in depth.
I know Aaron is a tireless advocate of Cued Speech. I look forward to many more blogs. These are the type I can read because the auther displays no prejudice against other methodologies. I am educated each and every time I read a blog about Cued Speech (and other topics) even though I grew up a native cuer and also learned sign language at a later age.
*author (oops, typo)
Well, cued English is kind of interesting. My background: profoundly deaf, NO ASL, and NO cued English (only heard about the latter a few months ago). So what was my first reaction to the concept? It struck me as an interesting way to basically make English visible on the lips.
My only objections to it are how I see proponents describing it, which is fairly inaccurate. It's not a language. It is a way of transcribing English, just as writing English down on pen and paper is. That's all. It is not some amazing, revolutionary process, any more than the manual alphabet was. I've seen many cued English proponents get really carried away with inaccurate descriptions of the process, up to and including neologisms such as "cuem" which are simply unhelpful and obfuscatory. In fact the language used to promote cued English is remarkably like early oralism tracts from the end of the 19th century, which tends to put my guard up.
It *does* strike me as possibly extremely useful, and especially for late deafened adults. Also, an intermediary (not really an interpreter because there is no translation involved) who cues the English for the deaf client doesn't have to translate the concepts, merely pass the shape of the sounds along. And the late deafened don't always want to learn another language.
For the record, I do think every deaf child should be exposed both to ASL and to other deaf children while growing up. No, not all parents of deaf children are fluent signers. So? Not all parents are parents of a deaf child. Everyone gets something different, and has to accomodate to each child. It's a huge pity that so many think it's okay to ignore a deaf child's needs in favor of the "needs" of the hearing and will so advise other parents (as mine were) to do so.
I am late-deafened. I know nothing about cued-speech. I already speak fine and speech read pretty well. Do you think cued speech could help the late-deafened in some way, Aaron?
I'm Hearing, but I can see that pitting Cued Speech AGAINST ASL is USELESS and OPPRESSIVE to Deaf People. Why not BOTH???
Cued Speech is clearly easier for Hearing people to learn, thus giving Deaf children of Hearing parents an easier way of communicating with their child, ESSENTIAL for language development.
But learning ASL gives Deaf individuals access to the entire Deaf Community and gives them a STRONG sense of IDENTITY.
Why is it ONE AGAINST the OTHER? Why NOT BOTH??? BOTH communication access to Hearing people AND connection to the Deaf Community??? The same with AVT and Coclear Implants.
The objective evidence seems to show that Cued Speech promotes Deaf Literacy, which clearly OPPRESSES Deaf people. But why must that be held AGAINST the benefits to Deaf Identity that ASL provides?
Learning a SECOND LANGUAGE is the STANDARD in most European countries. NOTHING promotes better understanding of Grammar than learning a second language.
Cued Speech gives Deaf people an intuitive, visual way of learning English. And ASL is a language Deaf people can easily learn. That should give Deaf people an ADVANTAGE over Hearing people in America, most of whom won't BOTHER to learn a second language.
BEG - Linguistically speaking, Cued Speech is the system of coding spoken language, while cued language is the actual visual language that is produced as a result of applying Cued Speech.
There are some people who don't agree with this, and consider it an MCE system. Yet, Cued Speech is the only system that has been able to break down many (not just one) languages at the phonemic level and express those languages visually.
I'm glad you think there are benefits to be derived from Cued Speech.
KW - I am not sure of the progress that Gallaudet has made in terms of research on late-deafened adults (LDAs) and Cued Speech, but we have had LDAs learn how to cue. It takes a different approach, since an adult must learn how to cue read (receptive cueing).
From what I've been told, these adults chose Cued Speech was because they wanted an avenue of clear communication with their family.
I'm a good speech-reader myself, but we both know that there's times where we miss something, whether it's because someone has a thick mustache or has small lip movements.
Cueing adds that needed additional information we need to distinguish between similar lip movements such as /b/, /p/, and /m/.
If you speech-read well, you're already halfway there in terms of learning to cue read. It's a matter of connecting the cuems (hand shapes and movements) to the lip movements.
For more information on this aspect, email info@cuedspeech.org
Sunsawed - I disagree with your opinion that promoting deaf literacy oppresses deaf people, but I thank you for promoting the idea that Cued Speech and ASL can be used together. It is already a practice, as seen in that episode of Reading Rockets that I posted a link to.
I'm learning ASL and plan to continue. I have deaf friends who ASL and I'm picking it up quickly and easily. That said, my husband is also losing his hearing and he is not a "visual" learner. He's having a real hard time with ASL. I am wondering if cued speech would be a better way to go in our household for HIM. We need a better approach for the two of us to communicate. We're in our fifties. Realistically the ASL isn't working for us. He has known me as a hearing person for most of our marriage. I am happily learning ASL, but he's not transitioning there as easily as me. I went to that website. This seems like the perfect answer for us, as it looks much easier to learn? I could do both, while he could learn this simple way of communicating with me, and I could communicate to him too. :-)
I'm also thinking that maybe once he becomes confident using his hands signing "phenomes" he'll branch out with simple signs and what-not. ASL is such a foreign concept for a 56-year-old man to suddenly pick up --especially and auditory learner.
I'm super excited about this!! Thanks!! :-)
Post a Comment