Hubbry Logo
Cued speechCued speechMain
Open search
Cued speech
Community hub
Cued speech
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Cued speech
Cued speech
Cued speech
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Cued speech
Kinemes used in Cued Speech.
Created byR. Orin Cornett
Date1966
Setting and usageDeaf or hard-of-hearing people
Purpose
Adds information about the phonology of the word that is not visible on the lips
Language codes
ISO 639-3–
This article contains IPA phonetic symbols. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Unicode characters. For an introductory guide on IPA symbols, see Help:IPA.

Cued speech is a visual system of communication used with and among deaf or hard-of-hearing people. It is a phonemic-based system which makes traditionally spoken languages accessible by using a small number of handshapes, known as cues (representing consonants), in different locations near the mouth (representing vowels) to convey spoken language in a visual format. The National Cued Speech Association defines cued speech as "a visual mode of communication that uses hand shapes and placements in combination with the mouth movements and speech to make the phonemes of spoken language look different from each other." It adds information about the phonology of the word that is not visible on the lips. This allows people with hearing or language difficulties to visually access the fundamental properties of language. It is now used with people with a variety of language, speech, communication, and learning needs. It is not a sign language such as American Sign Language (ASL), which is a separate language from English. Cued speech is considered a communication modality but can be used as a strategy to support auditory rehabilitation, speech articulation, and literacy development.

History

[edit]

Cued speech was invented in 1966 by R. Orin Cornett at Gallaudet College, Washington, D.C.[1] After discovering that children with prelingual and profound hearing impairments typically have poor reading comprehension, he developed the system with the aim of improving the reading abilities of such children through better comprehension of the phonemes of English. At the time, some were arguing that deaf children were earning these lower marks because they had to learn two different systems: American Sign Language (ASL) for person-to-person communication and English for reading and writing.[2] As many sounds look identical on the lips (such as /p/ and /b/), the hand signals introduce a visual contrast in place of the formerly acoustic contrast. Cued Speech may also help people hearing incomplete or distorted sound—according to the National Cued Speech Association at cuedspeech.org, "cochlear implants and Cued Speech are perfect partners".[3]

Since cued speech is based on making sounds visible to the hearing impaired, it is not limited to use in English-speaking nations. Because of the demand for use in other languages/countries, by 1994 Cornett had adapted cueing to 25 other languages and dialects.[1] Originally designed to represent American English, the system was adapted to French in 1977. As of 2005, Cued speech has been adapted to approximately 60 languages and dialects, including six dialects of English. For tonal languages such as Thai, the tone is indicated by inclination and movement of the hand. For English, cued speech uses eight different hand shapes and four different positions around the mouth.[citation needed]

Nature and use

[edit]

Though to a hearing person, cued speech may look similar to signing, it is not a sign language; nor is it a manually coded sign system for a spoken language. Rather, it is a manual modality of communication for representing any language at the phonological level (phonetics).

A manual cue in cued speech consists of two components: hand shape and hand position relative to the face. Hand shapes distinguish consonants and hand positions distinguish vowel. A hand shape and a hand position (a "cue") together with the accompanying mouth shape, makes up a CV unit - a basic syllable.[4]

Cuedspeech.org lists 64 different dialects to which CS has been adapted.[5] Each language takes on CS by looking through the catalog of the language's phonemes and distinguishing which phonemes appear similar when pronounced and thus need a hand sign to differentiate them.[citation needed]

Literacy

[edit]

Cued speech is based on the hypothesis that if all the sounds in the spoken language looked clearly different from each other on the lips of the speaker, people with a hearing loss would learn a language in much the same way as a hearing person, but through vision rather than audition.[6][7]

Literacy is the ability to read and write proficiently, which allows one to understand and communicate ideas so as to participate in a literate society.

Cued speech was designed to help eliminate the difficulties of English language acquisition and literacy development in children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Results of research show that accurate and consistent cueing with a child can help in the development of language, communication and literacy but its importance and use is debated. Studies address the issues behind literacy development,[8] traditional deaf education, and how using cued speech affects the lives of deaf and HOH children.

Cued speech does indeed achieve its goal of distinguishing phonemes received by the learner, but there is some question of whether it is as helpful to expression as it is to reception. An article by Jacqueline Leybaert and Jesús Alegría discusses how children who are introduced to cued speech before the age of one are up-to-speed with their hearing peers on receptive vocabulary, though expressive vocabulary lags behind.[9] The writers suggest additional and separate training to teach oral expression if such is desired, but more importantly this reflects the nature of cued speech; to adapt children who are deaf and hard-of-hearing to a hearing world, as such discontinuities of expression and reception are not as commonly found for children with a hearing loss who are learning sign language.[9]

In her paper "The Relationship Between Phonological Coding And Reading Achievement In Deaf Children: Is Cued Speech A Special Case?" (1998), Ostrander notes, "Research has consistently shown a link between lack of phonological awareness and reading disorders (Jenkins & Bowen, 1994)" and discusses the research basis for teaching cued speech as an aid to phonological awareness and literacy.[10] Ostrander concludes that further research into these areas is needed and well justified.[11]

The editor of the Cued Speech Journal (currently sought but not discovered) reports that "Research indicating that Cued Speech does greatly improve the reception of spoken language by profoundly deaf children was reported in 1979 by Gaye Nicholls, and in 1982 by Nicholls and Ling."[12]

In the book Choices in Deafness: A Parents' Guide to Communication Options, Sue Schwartz writes on how cued speech helps a deaf child recognize pronunciation. The child can learn how to pronounce words such as "hors d'oeuvre" or "tamale" or "Hermione" that have pronunciations different from how they are spelled. A child can learn about accents and dialects. In New York, coffee may be pronounced "caw fee"; in the South, the word friend ("fray-end") can be a two-syllable word.[13]

Debate over cued speech vs. sign language

[edit]

The topic of deaf education has long been filled with controversy. Two strategies for teaching the deaf exist: an aural/oral approach and a manual approach. Those who use aural-oralism believe that children who are deaf or hard of hearing should be taught through the use of residual hearing, speech and speechreading. Those promoting a manual approach believe the deaf should be taught through the use of signed languages, such as American Sign Language (ASL).[14]

Within the United States, proponents of cued speech often discuss the system as an alternative to ASL and similar sign languages, although others note that it can be learned in addition to such languages.[15] For the ASL-using community, cued speech is a unique potential component for learning English as a second language. Within bilingual-bicultural models, cued speech does not borrow or invent signs from ASL, nor does CS attempt to change ASL syntax or grammar. Rather, CS provides an unambiguous model for language learning that leaves ASL intact.[16]

Languages

[edit]

Cued speech has been adapted to more than 50 languages and dialects. However, it is not clear in how many of them it is actually in use.[17]

Similar systems have been used for other languages, such as the Assisted Kinemes Alphabet in Belgium and the Baghcheban phonetic hand alphabet for Persian.[19]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Cued speech

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Cued Speech is a phonemic visual communication system developed in 1966 by Dr. R. Orin Cornett, a research professor at Gallaudet College, to make the phonemes of spoken English fully visible to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals by supplementing lip movements with specific hand shapes and positions. The system employs eight distinct hand configurations representing consonant phonemes and four locations near the face indicating vowels, allowing cueing of any spoken language through unambiguous visual representation of sounds that are homophenous on the lips. Intended primarily to enhance , , and access to spoken language for deaf children, Cued Speech has been adapted for multiple languages worldwide and integrated into educational programs, family communication, and professional interpreting settings. indicates that consistent exposure to Cued Speech improves phonemic awareness, , and in deaf users, with studies showing superior outcomes compared to reliance on alone or certain other visual modalities. Despite these documented benefits, Cued Speech has encountered resistance within segments of the deaf community, where proponents of American Sign Language and Deaf cultural identity view it as an imposition of oralist methodologies that prioritize assimilation into hearing norms over sign-based autonomy, sparking debates over its role relative to established signing systems. Such opposition persists even as evidence from longitudinal studies underscores Cued Speech's causal efficacy in fostering bilingualism and phonological skills without supplanting sign language use.

Origins and Development

Invention and Initial Motivation

Cued Speech was developed in 1966 by Dr. R. Orin Cornett, a and at Gallaudet College (now ), as a visual system to represent the phonemes of spoken English through handshapes and positions combined with lip movements. Cornett devised the system over approximately three months, drawing on principles from and to address limitations in lip-reading alone, where many consonant sounds appear identical visually. The primary motivation stemmed from 's observation of persistently low literacy rates among deaf children, who typically reached only a fourth-grade reading level by age 18 despite various educational interventions. At the time, often emphasized manual sign languages or , which Cornett viewed as insufficient for full acquisition of and , leading to barriers in and development. He aimed to create a tool that would make all English sounds fully visible, enabling deaf individuals to perceive as clearly as hearing people do aurally, thereby facilitating direct access to oral English without reliance on auditory input. Cornett's approach prioritized phonological clarity over independent manual communication, positioning Cued Speech explicitly as a supplement to lip-reading rather than a replacement for or a standalone code. This invention reflected a causal focus on resolving ambiguities in visual —such as distinguishing /p/ from /b/ or /m/—to support empirical improvements in processing, with initial testing conducted at Gallaudet to verify cue distinguishability.

Early Implementation and Expansion

Following its invention in 1966 by R. Orin at Gallaudet College, Cued Speech underwent initial testing with select families to verify its efficacy in enabling deaf children to access spoken language visually. The first implementation occurred with the Henegar family in , where two-year-old Henegar, a profoundly deaf child, became the inaugural user. Her parents learned the system through brief instruction from Cornett and began cueing daily speech at home, allowing Leah to acquire a receptive vocabulary of 50 words within the first 16 weeks; the subsequent 50 words followed in just seven weeks, demonstrating rapid phonological comprehension when combined with lip-reading. Her four hearing siblings also adopted cueing spontaneously via observation, facilitating seamless family communication without reliance on written notes or gestures. Cornett promoted early adoption through demonstrations at Gallaudet and publications in professional journals, targeting parents and educators of deaf children to address persistent gaps, where deaf students' average reading levels stalled at . By 1967, informal training sessions expanded to additional families near Gallaudet, emphasizing home-based use to maximize incidental exposure akin to hearing peers. This grassroots approach yielded anecdotal reports of improved speech intelligibility, with early adopters noting reduced frustration in parent-child interactions compared to unaided oral methods. Into the , implementation broadened to al settings amid growing interest from oral advocates, though uptake remained limited due to resistance from proponents who viewed it as undermining . Pilot programs emerged in public schools, such as a initiative at Ruby Thomas Elementary School in , designated as an oral program incorporating Cued Speech for deaf students' primary communication. Newsletters from Gallaudet's Cued Speech programs documented training for teachers and families, with seminars held nationwide to certify cuers; by mid-decade, dozens of families and small cohorts in states like and reported sustained use, correlating with advanced language milestones in longitudinal observations of early learners like Leah Henegar, who progressed to high school graduation by 1982. Expansion accelerated via parent-led groups sharing resources, laying groundwork for formalized organizations despite sporadic opposition in deaf communities favoring .

Core Mechanics

Phonetic Principles and Cue System

Cued Speech is a phonemic system designed to render the of fully distinguishable through the integration of lip movements with manual cues, addressing the limitations of lip-reading alone, where multiple map to the same (visually identical mouth shape). Invented by R. Orin in 1966, the system targets consonant-vowel languages by providing unambiguous visual encoding of each , enabling deaf individuals to perceive with near-perfect accuracy when cues are produced clearly. This phonetic foundation relies on the principle that lip-readable information, which conveys about 30-40% of distinctly, can be supplemented to achieve 100% disambiguation without altering the spoken utterance. The cue system employs eight distinct handshapes to represent consonant phonemes and four locations relative to the mouth to represent vowel phonemes, with cues synchronized to the articulation of speech. Consonant handshapes are held in the position corresponding to the immediately following vowel, forming consonant-vowel (CV) syllables that align temporally with spoken rhythm; for initial vowels, a neutral handshape or position adjustment is used. This configuration ensures that phonemes confusable via lips—such as /p/, /b/, and /m/ (all bilabial)—are differentiated by unique handshapes, while vowel positions (chin, mouth corner, cheek, and temple) separate monophthongs like /æ/, /ɪ/, /ʌ/, and /i/. Diphthongs and consonant clusters are cued sequentially within syllables, maintaining phonological integrity. In , the handshapes are phonetically motivated to group consonants by manner or where possible, minimizing : for instance, one handshape denotes /p b m/ (sharing bilabial closure), distinguished contextually by cues, while others cover affricates (/tʃ dʒ/), fricatives (/f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ/), and so on across the of approximately 24 consonants. positions similarly cluster phonemes by height and backness, with the four locations accommodating the 15-18 vowel phonemes through transitional cues. This economy—eight shapes and four positions yielding over 100 unique CV combinations—allows the system to encode any spoken sequence without redundancy, promoting direct mapping to . Adaptations exist for other languages, adjusting shapes and positions to their phonemic inventories, as in over 60 languages documented by 2006.

Handshapes, Positions, and Integration with Lip-Reading

Cued Speech employs eight distinct handshapes to represent groups of phonemes, with each handshape assigned to that are visually confusable during lip-reading, such as /p/, /b/, and /m/ sharing one shape. These handshapes are formed using the non-dominant hand, typically positioned palm facing the recipient, and include configurations like an with fingers extended for certain fricatives or a for stops. The system groups phonemes strategically: for , handshape 1 cues /p, b, m/; handshape 2 cues /sh, ch, j, dg/; and so on across eight shapes covering all 21-25 English phonemes depending on . Vowel phonemes are indicated by one of four locations near the speaker's face: the (for vowels like /æ/ as in "" or /ʌ/ as in ""), the (for /i/ as in "see" or /ɛ/ as in "bed"), the side of the (for /aɪ/ diphthongs or /ɔ/ as in "thought"), and the (for /u/ as in "" or /ʊ/ as in "book"). Each location accommodates 3-4 vowel sounds, with diphthongs cued by transitional movements between positions. To produce a cue, the handshape is held statically in the position of the subsequent , forming consonant-vowel (CV) or consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) syllables in synchrony with natural mouth movements. This integration with lip-reading resolves phonetic ambiguities inherent in visible oral articulations, where up to 70% of English are either invisible or confusable (e.g., /k/ and /g/ both appear as closed and throat movement). Lip patterns provide primary for bilabial and labiodental sounds, while hand cues supply manual phonemic supplements for velars, glottals, and other obscured articulations, enabling the recipient to reconstruct the full spoken message visually without redundancy—each phoneme combination yields a unique cue-lip configuration. Empirical studies confirm that proficient cue recipients process these cues and lip movements in parallel, with neural activation in auditory and visual cortices facilitating phonological decoding akin to hearing speakers. The system's stems from its : only 12 cue elements (8 shapes + 4 positions) plus lip-reading suffice for unambiguous reception, outperforming lip-reading alone in speech intelligibility tests.

Practical Applications

Family and Home Use

In family settings, Cued Speech is primarily adopted by hearing parents of deaf or hard-of-hearing children to provide visual access to from infancy, enabling clear communication during daily interactions such as conversations, mealtimes, and routines. Hearing parents typically learn the cueing system through structured training, which emphasizes handshapes and positions to disambiguate lip movements, allowing them to convey their native visually without requiring the child to master a separate . This approach facilitates incidental language exposure at home, where parents can cue stories, instructions, or casual dialogue, fostering through repeated visual representation of phonemes indistinguishable by lip-reading alone. Training resources for families include free online programs, such as the Cue Family Program offered by Cue College in partnership with the National Cued Speech Association (NCSA), which provides introductory classes, parent kits, and one-year memberships to support home implementation. Similarly, the American Society for Deaf Children offers accessible online materials tailored for parents, focusing on practical cueing skills to integrate into household routines. These initiatives aim to empower families to maintain consistent cueing, with parents reporting rapid proficiency—often within weeks—due to the system's reliance on familiar spoken language structures rather than abstract symbols. Adoption rates remain modest, with a 2019 National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management (NCHAM) survey indicating that approximately 12% of families with deaf children use Cued Speech as their primary communication mode, often alongside auditory technologies like cochlear implants to enhance home-based . In practice, family cueing extends to siblings and extended relatives, promoting inclusive household dynamics where deaf children can participate fully in spoken exchanges, though sustained use requires ongoing parental commitment amid competing communication options like signing or . Early implementation, as tested in pilot families since , has demonstrated feasibility for home environments by clarifying ambiguous visual phonemes, thereby supporting modeling without specialized equipment.

Educational Settings and Training

Cued Speech is implemented in diverse educational environments for deaf and hard-of-hearing students, including mainstream classrooms where cuers or transliterators provide real-time support to facilitate access to spoken instruction. The majority of children using Cued Speech are educated in mainstream settings, often with individualized programs (IEPs) incorporating cueing for and reading instruction. It has also been integrated into specialized schools for the deaf, such as bilingual English/ASL programs, and used by regular teachers for lessons and speech therapists for articulation therapy. Training for educators and support personnel emphasizes certification and professional development to ensure proficiency in cueing. The National Cued Speech Association (NCSA) certifies Teachers of Cued Speech, standardizing methods for instruction and requiring demonstrated competence in handshapes, positions, and integration with lip-reading. Programs like those at Cue College offer self-study and instructor-led courses, one-on-one tutoring, and resources tailored for speech-language pathologists to apply Cued Speech in addressing speech, language, and goals. University-level preparation includes dedicated coursework, such as Teachers College, Columbia University's HBSE 4863 on Cued Speech, language, and multisensory approaches, combined with observation and in settings. Regional affiliates like the Cued Speech Association of provide online classes for teachers of the deaf and speech-language pathologists, focusing on practical implementation in school environments. These training modalities support cueing's role in enhancing and spoken language comprehension within formal education.

Empirical Evidence of Effectiveness

Speech Perception and Phonological Awareness

Cued Speech significantly improves among deaf individuals by disambiguating visually similar phonemes through hand cues combined with lip-reading. In a study of 19 users (mean age 8.8 years), word repetition accuracy reached 99% under conditions supplemented with Cued Speech, compared to 66% with auditory input alone; repetition improved to 86.4% versus 53%. Similarly, deaf adults using Cued Speech identified 70% of spoken language elements correctly, versus 30% without cues. These gains extend to challenging environments, with Cued Speech enhancing speech-in-noise perception and outperforming users in and identification post-implantation. Phonological awareness, the ability to recognize and manipulate , is also bolstered by Cued Speech exposure, enabling deaf children to access phonemic structures visually. Deaf children raised with Cued Speech demonstrated judgment and generation skills comparable to hearing peers, relying on phonological representations rather than orthographic cues. In a of a 9-year-old deaf with a exposed to English Cued Speech from age 1, non-word dictation accuracy was 100% with cues versus 50% without, alongside scores in the 50th–98th percentile. Early onset of Cued Speech use strongly predicts phonological skill development, with proficient cuers showing advanced segment and cluster identification akin to auditory processing in hearing individuals. Such outcomes suggest Cued Speech fosters inner phonological coding, correlating with superior performance in tasks like and reading that demand phonemic sensitivity.

Language Acquisition and Literacy Outcomes

Deaf children exposed to Cued Speech from infancy demonstrate trajectories approaching those of hearing peers, with receptive vocabulary development occurring at comparable rates when implementation begins before age one. Empirical studies indicate enhanced morphosyntactic skills, including longer (MLU), in Cued Speech users compared to those relying solely on oral methods or . Case evidence from prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants shows progression from single-word to multi-word utterances facilitated by Cued Speech integration with auditory input post-implantation. Cued Speech promotes by providing unambiguous visual access to phonemes, which correlates with superior reading and proficiency in deaf children. Among recipients aged 60-140 months, those receiving Cued Speech (CF+) exhibited significantly better sensitivity (d' distance to typically hearing norms: 0.25) than non-Cued Speech implant users (0.75; p < 0.001 for non-Cued vs. hearing), alongside advantages in tasks. Longitudinal data reveal that Cued Speech-exposed deaf students achieve scores 1.5-2.5 years advanced relative to non-users, attributable to robust assembled phonological coding for grapheme-phoneme conversion. In English-speaking contexts, reviews of available research affirm Cued Speech's role in fostering by clarifying parent-child communication and bolstering phonological skills essential for alphabetic decoding. Early and consistent exposure mitigates delays in segmentation and discrimination, enabling reading procedures akin to those in hearing children, though outcomes vary with implementation fidelity and co-occurring auditory access.

Outcomes with Cochlear Implants and Auditory Technologies

Cued speech, when combined with cochlear implants, provides supplementary visual phonemic cues that disambiguate the often incomplete auditory signals from implants, facilitating improved and processing in deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Studies indicate that this integration enhances the mapping of auditory input to phonological representations, particularly in pediatric populations where early intervention is critical. For instance, children implanted later who had prior exposure to cued speech demonstrated higher rates of transitioning to exclusive oral use, with four out of six such users achieving this after a mean of 4.5 years of implant experience, compared to only one out of seven in non-cued groups. Empirical data from longitudinal assessments show marked improvements in and outcomes. In a 2023 study of French-speaking children with cochlear implants, intensive early use of Cued French led to significant gains in scores, outperforming auditory-verbal alone in certain phonological tasks. Similarly, after 36 months of implant use, children previously exposed to cued speech exhibited the greatest progress in reading-related skills, with mean score improvements of 44.3%, attributed to enhanced derived from the visual cues. Continued cued language input post-implantation supports auditory skill development by reinforcing consistent phoneme-visual associations, reducing reliance on residual vision alone and promoting natural acquisition. Regarding broader auditory technologies like hearing aids, cued speech similarly augments limited acoustic fidelity by clarifying lip-reading ambiguities, though research is sparser compared to cochlear implants. Evidence from cross-modal plasticity studies suggests that pre-implant cued speech exposure preserves neural pathways conducive to post-implant auditory rehabilitation, with users showing superior first-language development and speech intelligibility. However, outcomes vary by implantation age and cueing proficiency; early, consistent exposure yields the most robust benefits, as delayed or inconsistent use may limit auditory-visual integration. Overall, these findings position cued speech as a complementary tool that leverages auditory technologies' strengths while mitigating their perceptual limitations through precise visual supplementation.

Comparisons with Alternative Methods

Relation to Sign Languages

Cued Speech is fundamentally distinct from sign languages, serving as a visual phonemic supplement to rather than an independent linguistic system with its own grammar and syntax. Whereas sign languages like (ASL) constitute complete languages with unique morphological and syntactic structures evolved within deaf communities, Cued Speech encodes the phonemes of an oral language—such as English—through handshapes and positions integrated with visible mouth movements, thereby facilitating unambiguous reception of spoken content via lip-reading. This distinction positions Cued Speech as a tool for accessing the phonological and orthographic features of spoken languages, which sign languages do not inherently provide, as signing typically bypasses direct phonemic representation in favor of conceptual or lexical signs. In practice, Cued Speech and sign languages are not mutually intelligible, requiring users to possess prior knowledge of the target 's structure, unlike sign languages which can be acquired naturalistically as first languages. Proponents argue that this enables bilingualism, where Cued Speech supports development of fluency alongside proficiency, allowing sign languages to remain intact as cultural vehicles without dilution by artificial sign systems like Signed Exact English. Empirical comparisons indicate that Cued Speech users often demonstrate superior access to oral language elements post-cochlear implantation compared to those relying primarily on s, potentially due to its explicit phonological mapping. Within deaf communities, the relation evokes debate, with some viewing Cued Speech as complementary for and integration into hearing-dominant societies, while others perceive it as reinforcing oralist priorities that marginalize sign languages' role in deaf . Learning trajectories further highlight differences: Cued Speech can be mastered by hearing adults in approximately 20 hours, contrasting with the multi-year immersion typically required for fluency. Despite these variances, hybrid approaches exist, such as sequential bilingualism where early exposure transitions to Cued Speech for enhanced spoken language acquisition.

Distinctions from Pure Oralism and Other Visual Supplements

Pure , a historical approach in emphasizing speech production and lip-reading without manual aids, leaves approximately 70% of English phonemes visually ambiguous due to similarities in mouth movements, such as the indistinguishability of /p/, /b/, and /m/. Cued Speech addresses this limitation by integrating eight handshapes for consonants and four positions near the for vowels with natural lip movements, rendering all phonemes distinctly visible and enabling near-perfect reception of in optimal conditions. Unlike pure , which prohibits any visual manual support to prioritize auditory-oral skills, Cued Speech functions as a phonemic supplement that enhances rather than replaces speech, facilitating phonological access without introducing a separate linguistic structure. In contrast to manual codes of English, such as (SEE), which assign lexical signs or to morphemes and words—resulting in slower production due to hundreds of signs and sequential spelling—Cued Speech operates at the level with a compact inventory of 12 cue formations to represent 44+ English sounds syllabically, allowing fluid, real-time transmission of spoken discourse at near-normal speaking rates. This phonetic focus distinguishes it from morpheme-based systems, which prioritize grammatical fidelity over spoken and often diverge from natural speech rhythms. Cued Speech also differs from instructional tools like Visual Phonics, which employs hand or body gestures to depict individual phonemes primarily for teaching and drills, rather than as a comprehensive communication mode for ongoing conversation or narrative. While both provide visual phonemic cues, Visual Phonics isolates sounds for explicit instruction and lacks the positional vowel coding that enables Cued Speech's seamless integration with lip-reading for whole-language comprehension. Similarly, , an alphabetic supplement used sporadically in sign languages or oral contexts, requires spelling out each word letter-by-letter, rendering it inefficient for casual or extended interaction compared to Cued Speech's direct phonetic encoding. These distinctions position Cued Speech as a bridge between oralism's speech-centric goals and the need for unambiguous visual , without the lexical overhead of sign-based alternatives.

Controversies and Challenges

Barriers to Widespread Adoption

Despite its demonstrated efficacy in enhancing for deaf individuals, Cued Speech's adoption remains constrained by the intensive required for both cueing and decoding, which demands consistent practice to achieve proficiency—typically 20-30 hours for basic certification, with fluency requiring ongoing exposure. This creates a barrier for families and educators, particularly when implementation is delayed beyond , as studies show optimal outcomes when exposure begins before age 2, with later starts correlating to diminished phonological and gains. A primary limitation stems from its dependency on a shared : communication via Cued Speech is ineffective with individuals untrained in the system, restricting its utility outside specialized environments like family homes or cue-enabled classrooms, where hearing interlocutors or broader society lack cueing skills. This insularity contrasts with sign languages' wider communal acceptance, contributing to its niche status despite availability since 1966. Opposition within deaf communities and groups, often rooted in a preference for sign languages as preservers of , has historically impeded integration; for instance, in 2015, the introduction of Cued Speech alongside at the Illinois School for the Deaf elicited protests from deaf organizations viewing it as undermining bilingual approaches. Such resistance reflects broader ideological divides, with proponents of total communication or facing pushback from institutions prioritizing sign-based , even as empirical data supports Cued Speech's role in auditory-spoken language access. Institutional inertia in systems exacerbates these issues, as administrators and teachers encounter professional polarization—described as early as as a field divided between oralists and manualists—with few programs incorporating it due to fears of disrupting established curricula or necessitating retraining. Enrollment in U.S. Cued Speech programs has declined since the peak, partly from limited funding and transliterator availability, where accuracy drops with speaking rate mismatches or fatigue. While peer-reviewed evidence affirms benefits, gaps in large-scale, longitudinal studies on reading outcomes have sustained , hindering policy-level endorsement.

Cultural and Ideological Debates in Deaf Communities

In Deaf communities, where (ASL) serves as the cornerstone of cultural identity and social cohesion, Cued Speech has faced ideological opposition for prioritizing the visualization of spoken language over signing, which some view as an endorsement of historical that suppressed ASL and marginalized Deaf autonomy. This resistance stems from perceptions that Cued Speech, invented by hearing developer R. Orin Cornett in 1966, imposes hearing-centric norms by aiming to make deaf individuals function primarily within spoken English frameworks, thereby undermining the cultural-linguistic model of as a valid difference rather than a deficit requiring remediation. Critics within Deaf advocacy circles, including those aligned with organizations like the National Association of the Deaf, argue that promoting Cued Speech fosters assimilation into hearing society at the expense of Deaf pride and community solidarity, equating it to a "lazy" shortcut for hearing parents avoiding full fluency in ASL. They contend it revives audist practices—privileging auditory norms—and risks eroding intergenerational transmission of , especially since fewer than 10% of deaf children have Deaf signing parents, leaving most vulnerable to hearing-driven interventions. Proponents of this view attribute any reported successes in or speech to intensive parental involvement rather than the method itself, warning that widespread adoption could marginalize ASL users and reinforce systemic biases in favoring hearing outcomes. Conversely, supporters of Cued Speech, including some deaf users and linguists, frame the debates as a false , asserting that it enables bilingual proficiency in spoken English alongside ASL without necessitating cultural erasure, and that ASL exclusivity can perpetuate a "false pride in deaf " by limiting access to broader societal resources like and media. They highlight its role as a phonemically precise tool for deaf children of hearing parents—comprising over 90% of cases—to achieve native-like , challenging cultural as ideologically driven rather than evidence-based. Tensions have manifested in specific conflicts, such as 2015 protests at the Illinois School for the Deaf against integrating Cued Speech with ASL, where demonstrators decried it as linguicism and , prioritizing spoken language over established signing practices despite school assurances of bilingual balance. These episodes underscore broader schisms: empirical data on Cued Speech's phonological benefits clashes with cultural imperatives for ASL primacy, revealing how Deaf gatekeeping, influenced by post-1960s cultural movements, often resists hybrid approaches despite their potential for individual empowerment.

Linguistic Adaptations

Adaptations to Non-English Languages

Cued Speech adaptations for non-English languages involve reconfiguring the standard eight handshapes and four positions to align with each target language's distinct phonemic inventory, ensuring unambiguous visual representation of and vowels through integration with lip movements. These modifications account for variations in , such as additional nasals, fricatives, or tones, while preserving the system's core principle of phonemic transparency. The on the Adaptations of Cued Speech (AISAC) oversees this process, certifying adaptations using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) and prioritizing phonological fidelity over direct English mappings. As of recent assessments, Cued Speech has been adapted to approximately 65 languages and dialects worldwide, enabling visual access to spoken forms in diverse linguistic contexts. For French, designated as Langue Française Parlée Complétée (LPC), the system incorporates cues for phonemes like /ʒ/, /ɥ/, /œ/, and nasal vowels (/œ̃/) that lack English equivalents, facilitating speech perception and language acquisition distinct from the American English baseline. In Spanish, known as La Palabra Complementada, adaptations support phonological development, including preposition mastery in prelingually deaf children, by visually disambiguating syllable contrasts through tailored hand configurations. Adaptations for languages like Welsh involve custom phoneme-to-cue assignments to handle Celtic-specific sounds, such as mutated consonants, developed through systematic analysis of the language's orthography and acoustics. For tonal languages including Mandarin, cues extend to represent pitch contours alongside segmental phonemes, maintaining syllabic integrity. Russian and Amharic adaptations similarly adjust for unique vowel harmonies and consonant clusters, with AISAC ensuring cross-linguistic consistency in cueing efficiency. These tailored systems promote equivalent literacy and oral proficiency outcomes to those observed in English, contingent on consistent exposure.

International Variations and Support Systems

Cued Speech has been adapted to 73 languages and dialects worldwide, with systems tailored to the unique phonemic inventories and structures of each, often using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) for standardized cue charts. These adaptations include dialect-specific variations, such as , , Southern British English, , , , and tonal languages like and . The on the Adaptations of Cued Speech (AISAC) certifies these systems according to principles established by originator R. Orin , reviews new proposals, publishes updated charts, and preserves historical archives to ensure fidelity to phonemes. In , adaptations bear localized names reflecting national phonologies and receive dedicated support through initiatives like the CUED Speech Europa project, which promotes cueing in French (as Langue Française Parlée Complétée in ), Polish (Fonogesty), and Italian (Parola Italiana Totalmente Accessibile). This project targets deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, families, educators, and therapists, offering training to synchronize hand cues with speech for enhanced , with studies indicating over 95% utterance perception accuracy in trained users. National organizations provide further infrastructure, including the Association La Parole Complétée (ALPC) in for French adaptations, A Capella in for , and Cued Speech for dialects. Global support systems emphasize accessibility via online platforms, with AISAC facilitating connections among cuers, tracking usage through collaborations with national groups, and enabling multilingual instruction by visualizing home languages. The National Cued Speech Association (NCSA) in the United States partners with international counterparts to disseminate materials, programs, and resources for families and educators across borders. These efforts prioritize empirical validation of adaptations, such as downloadable cue charts for instructional use, while maintaining adaptations distinct from signed languages to support spoken language fluency.

Recent Developments

Ongoing Research and Longitudinal Studies

A longitudinal study tracking prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants from pre-implantation to five years post-implantation demonstrated that exposure to Cued Speech contributed to enhanced audiovisual comprehension skills, with participants showing progressive improvements in perceiving phonemes and syllables through combined lipreading and cues. This research highlighted sustained gains in over time, particularly when Cued Speech was integrated early in rehabilitation protocols. More recent investigations have focused on the long-term impacts of Cued Speech on phonological processing and literacy. A 2023 study involving children with cochlear implants found that higher proficiency in Cued Speech production correlated with improved segment and cluster perception, suggesting potential for ongoing longitudinal tracking to assess durability of these effects into . Similarly, analyses of reading development in English-using Cued Speech groups, drawing from longitudinal comparisons with hearing peers, indicate persistent advantages in and word recognition, though calls persist for extended follow-ups to evaluate adult outcomes. Current research represents an emerging longitudinal dimension, with a December 2024 examining neural activation patterns in prelingually deaf users during Cued Speech , aiming to map language-related brain adaptations over repeated exposures. Complementary 2023 work on speech rehabilitation in implant users reported that Cued Speech training yielded measurable phonological and reading improvements, with researchers advocating for multi-year cohorts to quantify retention and integration with advancing implant technology. These efforts underscore a shift toward interdisciplinary, tech-augmented studies to address gaps in long-term efficacy data.

Technological and Methodological Innovations

Advancements in have facilitated the development of automatic Cued Speech recognition (ACSR) and generation systems, aiming to translate spoken or textual input into visual cues without human intervention. A 2025 multi-agent framework, Cued-Agent, employs four specialized sub-agents for phoneme-to-cue mapping, handshape rendering, and synchronization with lip movements, achieving improved accuracy in real-time applications through collaborative processing. Earlier efforts, such as models for recognizing and generating Cued Speech gestures from video or audio, demonstrated feasibility by 2020 but required enhancements in gesture detection for practical deployment. Software tools have emerged to support learning and practice, including the SPPAS platform, which introduced a Cued Speech keys generator in August 2021 and a proof-of-concept system for overlaying cues on live video feeds. Online 3D animation systems, developed around 2010, enable interactive of hand positions and mouth shapes to aid cue acquisition, with users practicing via virtual avatars that provide feedback on accuracy. For French Cued Speech, automated pipelines corpora to estimate phonemic complexity, supporting dataset creation for machine learning models as of 2024. Methodological innovations include hybrid approaches integrating Cued Speech with cochlear implants, where longitudinal studies from the early 2010s onward show enhanced through combined visual cueing and auditory input, informing updated protocols that prioritize disambiguation in noisy environments. Recent protocols emphasize multi-modal , such as pairing cue practice with automated textual complexity metrics to tailor difficulty levels, as explored in 2023-2024 on cue production fidelity. These methods leverage kinematic aids like Kinemas devices, which visualize hand trajectories for precise cue formation during instruction. Challenges persist in scaling automatic systems due to limitations in current automatic for accented or degraded inputs, necessitating ongoing refinements in cue synchronization algorithms.

References

  1. https://cuedspeech.org/timeline/dr-orin-cornett-develops-the-cued-speech-system/
  2. https://cuedspeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Understanding_Cueing_NCSA_April-2022.pdf
  3. https://www.agbms.org/about-cued-speech.html
  4. https://cuedspeech.eu/en/a-short-history-of-cued-speech/
  5. https://logopsycom.com/cued-speech-europa-history-and-advantages/
  6. https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/22/4/349/4079921
  7. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/2372/
  8. https://hal.science/hal-04341864v1/document
  9. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/22/us/among-the-deaf-ubiquitous-sign-language-faces-a-challenge.html
  10. https://www.accreditedlanguage.com/interpreting/setting-cued-speech-apart-from-sign-language/
  11. https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/pacs_capstones/315/
  12. https://gaarchives.gallaudet.edu/repositories/2/resources/218
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4111351/
  14. https://cuedspeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/On_Cue_January_2016.pdf
  15. https://www.cuedspeech.info/
  16. https://successforkidswithhearingloss.com/cued-speech-information-2/
  17. https://cuecollege.org/new-cue-library-page/new-info-about-cued-speech/
  18. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/download/the-sage-deaf-studies-encyclopedia/chpt/sign-systems-cued-speech.pdf
  19. https://www.cuedspeech.eu/en/a-short-history-of-cued-speech/
  20. https://ida.gallaudet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=csn
  21. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/01/31/cued-speech-keeps-deaf-pupils-ahead/5f75f9e5-16b5-4bb8-b91f-9d3408bffc98/
  22. https://ida.gallaudet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=csn
  23. https://ida.gallaudet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=csn
  24. https://www.facebook.com/groups/cuedspeech/posts/10162570391893578/
  25. https://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/an-outline-of-cued-speech-1264
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ewa-Domagala-Zysk/publication/352064525_The_Cued_Speech_system_and_its_practice/links/60b7d7bc4585159354cad86a/The-Cued-Speech-system-and-its-practice.pdf
  27. https://alpc.ch/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Cued_Speech_Chart.pdf
  28. https://www.ksha.org/docs/AUD8_Cued_Speech_Handout_1.pdf
  29. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1180355.pdf
  30. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/glossary/cued-speech
  31. https://www.readingrockets.org/sites/default/files/migrated/content/pdfs/CueChart.pdf
  32. https://www.handyhandouts.com/Handout/572/what-is-cued-speech
  33. https://hal.science/hal-00535533/document
  34. https://direct.mit.edu/imag/article/doi/10.1162/IMAG.a.53/131218/Seeing-speech-Neural-mechanisms-of-cued-speech
  35. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/095414499382255
  36. https://cuedspeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NCSA_Position_Statements_2007-04-15_Adopted.pdf
  37. https://dscc.uic.edu/dscc_resource/cued-speach-program-for-families-of-deaf-and-hard-of-hearing-children/
  38. https://deafchildren.org/2020/12/cued-speech/
  39. https://cuedspeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/on_cue_winter_2019.pdf
  40. https://www.monroe.edu/deaf-ed-audiology-vision-services/deaf-educationasl-resources
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2429984/
  42. https://cuedspeech.org/learn/professional-development/
  43. https://www.hoagiesgifted.org/eric/e555.html
  44. https://cuecollege.org/
  45. https://cuecollege.org/store/slp100-using-cued-speech-in-speech-language-therapy-self-study/
  46. https://www.tc.columbia.edu/catalog/academics/departments/health-and-behavior-studies/deaf-and-hard-of-hearing/
  47. https://cuedspeech.org/our-network/csane/
  48. https://www.theonlineitinerant.com/Cued_Speech
  49. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2502.262
  50. https://comm4child.ulb.be/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Bayard-et-al-2019.pdf
  51. https://cuedspeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Research-Findings-Booklet-102019-11x17-1.pdf
  52. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1037880
  53. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17300552/
  54. https://cuedspeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CS_Journal_Volume4_pp24-38_Leybaert-Alegria.pdf
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10219235/
  56. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-00215-025
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165587608004850
  58. https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/16/4/458/550472
  59. https://cuedspeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2019_PS_CS_Cochlear_Implants.pdf
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413002017
  61. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1152516/full
  62. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271074672_Cued_speech_and_cochlear_implants
  63. https://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-layout/cuedspeech.htm
  64. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/context/theses/article/3371/viewcontent/32211131796088.pdf
  65. https://cuedspeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2019_PS_Bilingualism_ASL_Cued_English.pdf
  66. https://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1127&context=honors
  67. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44389105
  68. https://scispace.com/pdf/cued-speech-and-the-reception-of-spoken-language-1ca8ws3m6k.pdf
  69. https://signlanguageco.com/sign-languages-asl-see-pse-cued-speech/
  70. https://www.meshguides.org/guides/node/794
  71. https://seethesound.org/faqs.html
  72. https://www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/Teaching-Phonological-Awareness-Deaf-Hard-of-Hearing-Students.pdf
  73. https://cuedspeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CS_Journal_Volume4_pp10-23_Alegria-et-al_2.pdf
  74. https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-cued-speech-not-practical-as-communication-method-for-deaf/1982/12
  75. https://www.myjournalcourier.com/news/article/Cued-speech-program-brings-protest-from-deaf-12573368.php
  76. https://www.edweek.org/education/a-way-to-make-the-spoken-language-clear/1982/11
  77. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_cued_speech_a_popular_mode_of_communication_with_deaf_or_hard_of_hearing_people_in_your_countries
  78. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/09/deafness-as-culture/668630/
  79. https://www.nydailynews.com/2000/06/11/hearing-by-cue-for-the-deaf-an-alternative-to-signing/
  80. https://www.academieinternationale.org/
  81. https://www.signwriting.org/archive/docs13/sw1297_Cued_Speech_Adaptations_for_Multiple_Languages_Alexandra_Racek_06242022.pdf
  82. https://cuedspeech.org/learn/find-your-cued-language/
  83. https://dailycues.com/learn/iqpedia/pages/french-cued-speech-la-langue-francaise-parlee-completee/
  84. https://cuedspeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CS_Journal_Vol6_Cued_Speech_Practical_Approach_Teaching_Spanish_DHH-1.pdf
  85. https://ncrtm.ed.gov/sites/default/files/library/895/J305.1484.01F.pdf
  86. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17549500802624370
  87. https://www.academieinternationale.org/list-of-cued-languages
  88. https://cuedspeech.eu/en/about/
  89. https://www.academieinternationale.org/our-patrons
  90. https://cuedspeech.org/about-us/who-we-support/
  91. https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1175&context=ccom_papers
  92. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.12.06.626971v1.full-text
  93. https://arxiv.org/html/2508.00391v1
  94. https://comm4child.ulb.be/2020/07/10/10-automatic-recognition-and-generation-of-cued-speech-using-deep-learning/
  95. https://sppas.org/
  96. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-10781-8_33
  97. https://aclanthology.org/2025.icnlsp-1.2.pdf
  98. https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.162.pdf
  99. https://cuedspeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CS_Journal_Vol6_Toward_Automatic_Generation_of_Cued_Speech.pdf
  100. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KINEMAS.jpg
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.