language skills, research, CS (long)

[Carolyn L. Ostrander]

Please indulge me in this open reply, that is relevant to language
acquisition, I promise!
 On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Mary Arliskas wrote:
> The thing that scares me, as a practiving teacher, is the increase in
> oral/cued speech programs in my district.
Mary,
As a person who is involved in Cued Speech, as well as a student of
linguistics, I have many concerns that parallel yours.

To let others understand the background of our references:
Cued Speech was invented as a tool for visual representation of spoken
language at or about the phoneme level. It is about 30 years old, and is
considered to be an oral method by some, a visual method by others.

CS has a secondary claim of being relatively easy to learn at a level of
minimum proficiency, due to the fact that the number of phonemes in a
language comprise a closed set (In English, under 50 items).

> I teach high school, and it is sad to see some of my kids with little to no
> language, probably because they were in an environment where they could not
> meaningfully communicate.

Yes, and unfortunately the debate over choosing modalities and languages
for instruction is only a part of the problem. Choosing the right approach
for schools can't erase the effects of language delay and lack of
access to language input in the home, in early childhood. In addition, the
difficulty of recruiting highly trained, qualified staff in schools
compounds the problems that develop in living situations where language is
not clearly, fluently presented to the child in a way they can't access.


> I have attended workshops in cued
> speech/oral training and have asked about "early intervention in the most
> natural language possibile" as per commission on ed of Deaf, and presenters
> have actually told me the most natural language for even a profoundly deaf
> child is the spoken language of the child's parents!

Let me make a clear distinction between the most natural language for
native acquisition and the most effective language of instruction, and
talk about each in turn.
Natural language
1) In the unmarked case,  the most natural language(s) for
native acquisition for any child would be the language spoken in the home.
If there were multiple languages spoken in the home, we would expect the
child to be bilingual at least to some extent. This is the case in many
DCDP homes, where ASL and (written) English coexist.
2) In the case of children who are deaf with hearing parents (DCHP), it is
presumed that lack of access to parental utterances creates a barrier to
that naturalness, with the result that the parents' language is no longer
by itself the natural language for native acquisition.
3) In the absence of parental language access, the next most natural
language for acquisition is one that can be fully accessed by the child.
How best and most quickly to provide that access, given the mismatch
between parental language and natural language?

Alternative A: provide access to a new language by any means possible
We could say that orphans who are adopted by parents from another country
are in the same situation; the parents' language still exists but the
child has no access to it; instead there is a new language to learn.
        This is the proposed solution behind offering sign languge classes
to hearing parents.

Alternative B: provide access to the same language in a new way, so that
parental language becomes a natural language for acquisition again.
        This is the proposed solution behind offering cued speech classes
to parents.In this line of reasoning, parents are already fluent in the
language and have only to learn a new delivery method, shortening the
learning curve.

NB: nothing in either alternative  suggests that bilingualism is not
possible and desirable. Both alternatives leave open the question of
necessity for bilingual instruction for children who, as adults, may
 reasonably want skills that allow them to express themselves fluently as
they move between language communities.
This leads to a proposed Alternative C, bilingual access to two languages.

 In all cases, the naturalness of the language acquisition is going
to depend on the richness of input received by the child, a notoriously
difficult thing to guarantee for DCHP when parents are not already fluent
in a visual system.

        Fortunately language input can also come from the surrounding
community, so if peers, family members, and teachers can use the same
language and modality, the child's chances for successful acquisition are
somewhat improved.

This brings the second issue to the fore:

 Language of instruction: (early intervention in the most natural language
possible)
1. the best language of instruction is ideally the native language of both
student and teacher.

2.Since all the components above apply, you might instead

A) Assume that the teacher should provide instruction in the language the
child can best understand, (taking that as L1), to support the solid
acquisition of a language. If the child is bilingual, this is the
assumption behind a supported L1 instruction system.

B. An opposite assumption:
Where there is a mismatch between child's language and teacher's
languge, you could assume that the teacher, as input device, will be more
efficient by  providing instruction in the language of the teacher, so
that that teacher would be a fluent model. This is sort of the
English-Only point of view on bilingualism, if you take away the ideology
and jingoism. It probably also is the point of view of many oral
educators, and a few rigid "ASL - as - the only L1" supporters.

All three of those are possible readings for "the most natural language
possible" in the instructional setting.

Most proponents of CS see ASL as a valid language of instruction, either
as a partner with English in a bilingual setting or as a preferred
monolingual option if the child already knows or is learning ASL at home.

English via Cued Speech
 *could also be*
a language of instruction in any three of the  cases above.
However,
Most proponents of cueing see case 1 as being the situation when a child
has been regularly and accurately  receiving language from parents, either
through ASL or through CS, provided the teacher is *fluent* and the
parents are *fluent*.

They see case 2A as being the situation when the parents do communicate
with the child and the parents are *fluent* and the teacher is *working on
fluency with good training and support*.

They see case 3A as a description of the situation when the child's needs
are (depressingly) secondary to the demands of the classroom, and/or when
the parent does not provide input.
So the same questions and problems need to be addressed by everyone in
deaf ed.

I note that you come from Chicago.

CS in Chicago:
1) There is a pilot program in a Chicago public school program to attempt
introduction of Cued Speech into a bilingual-bicultural program, with the
hope of providing clear input to both ASL and English for language
acquisition and instruction.
The majority of teachers were trained in Signed English rather than ASL;
though given initial instruction in Cued Speech, they were not fluent
cuers either. The proposers preferred ASL over MCEs but in a public school
system this is what they got. This program's odds for success are severely
decreased by the unavailability of highly trained, motivated staffing.

My understanding is that there is in fact one classroom where the teacher
both signs and cues lesson materials (the program is voluntary, and the
other volunteers who began the program have moved on in the course of
their careers); however the parents in that program neither sign nor cue
for the most part.
2) There is also a public (I think) preschool where the teacher(s) in some
classrooms sign and cue (I believe more successfully); however, the
children are predominantly from low SES bilingual or EFL (English as a
Foreign Language) homes. Few parents are involved in the school program,
and a goal of the teachers is to get parents involved in language
enrichment for the children, in any way they can, in any language they
can.

3)  In addition, AEHI, an oral organization, has added Cued Speech to some
parts of their menu of programs, including in some classes at a private
school. There too, many of the parents do not cue.

This is just background - to say that the range of potential outcomes for
CS in Chicago just about covers the range of exposures that any modality
or language study might need to account for in its research.
I have been to all three programs, talked to the teachers, and seen the
children in their classrooms.

I would suggest that Cued Speech, ASL, even oralism have less in
themselves to do with the success of instruction than the quality of
language input from parents, peers and teachers. It is the need for
qualified, fluent adults we need to concentrate on, and the lack of them
that we need to fear.

Carolyn Ostrander
Syracuse New York
clostran at syr.edu