$page="cueinfo"; $title = "Cueing: Neither Tongue in Cheek Nor Sleight of Hand"; include "header.txt"; ?>
Cueing Information: Neither Tongue in Cheek Nor Sleight of Hand
Cueing:
Neither Tongue in Cheek Nor Sleight of Hand
It seems fascinating, to say the least, that deaf native
cuers can understand a message even if cued without use of the mouth.
At first, it seems that deaf people who have grown up exposed to a
cued language can perform some type of magical feat, able to hurdle a
seemingly impassable barrier. After all, isn't cueing simply a
system for making lipreading clear? Discussions of cueing have long
assumed that English is on the lips and that cues simply take away
the guesswork. So, this seemingly prestidigious performance of deaf
native cuers provides, to say the least, a nudge, enticing a look
behind a longstanding curtain of assumptions to see wherein the real
magic lives.
Language is a phenomena that most of us take for granted:
we're born without knowing one; we acquire one without trying; and we
use one without analysis or effort. Yet, despite the fact that
knowing a language receives little conscious attention, we tend to
have deeply rooted notions about its use. For example, vocabulary
and pronunciation are constantly scrutinized by fellow language
users. One cannot help but employ a dialect/accent, a word choice
and register (e.g. casual, formal), and, in so doing, reveal
something about upbringing, station in life, and sense of self. Not
surprisingly, our notions about language are more rooted in how
something is phrased or pronounced than in what it is that
distinguishes language as an avenue of communication.
Yet, herein lies the heart of the mystery hiding behind our
curtain of assumptions about language. As native speakers of
English, we had assumed that English is a spoken language that also
has a written representation. Experience can lead to the assumption
that one's ability to speak English correlates with their knowledge
of English and even reveals whether or not they are native users.
Without conscious attention, one easily comes to associate the
ability to speak English with English competence. However, counter
to this deeply rooted notion is the example of a deaf native cuer,
whose speech might not be our match, yet who uses English as a native speaking
peer. It appears that the speech of a native cuer of English is no
more an indicator of English competence than is the cueing of a
native speaker of English. The nature of a mystery is uncovered when
we recognize that how English is expressed and what English is are
not one and the same.
So, what is English - or any language - if not defined in
terms of how it is expressed? English, like any language, is a
system of rules and processes for manipulating meaningless segments
(or bits of data). Speakers represent the segments via speech, cuers
by way of cuem. Nevertheless, manipulation in this instance is not a
function of either speech or cuem (i.e. voice or handshape) - once
again, the speech of a native cuer is no more an indication of
linguistic competence than is the cuem of a native speaker. Instead,
manipulation is a mental process and the segments are mental
realities - independent of expression (i.e. speech, cuem).
Knowledge of a language is, therefore, defined in terms of a
mental blueprint rather than in terms of how that blueprint is
represented. Native English cuers and native English speakers have
internalized the same blueprint and, thus, the same language despite
the fact that the former relies on hand, mouth, light, and vision to
send and receive the blueprint while the latter makes use of voice,
breath stream, sound, and hearing. Native cuers who don't speak and
native speakers who don't cue serve as evidence that each can know
the same language without having the skills of the other in
communicating it. This reality is a far cry from how we tend to
think about a language that we internalized without trying, and use
without analysis or effort. Yet, it is the essence of the magic that
wows a native speaker when a native cuer understands cuem without the
mouth part. In fact, once we understand the implications of this
reality, we find that native speakers are equally competent magicians
in their own right.
Imagine a hearing person trying to learn spoken English when,
for example, every "z" sounds like "s," every "v" sounds like "f,"
every "g" like "k," and every "j" like "ch." In such a condition,
learning English via speech and hearing would be cumbersome if not
fruitless and fleeting; some pieces of the English puzzle would be
duplicates, while others would appear to be missing entirely. Yet,
such is the nature of English when it is whispered. Native speakers
of English understand whispered English because the speech that they
are used to is missing but one component - voice. Native speakers of
English can fill-in this missing component mentally by referring to
the blueprint of English in their heads, mentally recognizing the
linguistic value of each segment (e.g. "s" vs "z") despite the fact
that each segment is not represented discretely. In other words,
understanding a whispered message is a process of mapping what is
heard onto a language blueprint and making discrete in the mind what
is not discrete to the ear. Were native speakers not so
unconsciously adept at this process, they might call it magic.
Likewise, imagine a native cuer trying to learn cued English
if, for example, "m," "f," and "t" look alike, when "h," "s," and "r"
are indistinguishable, and when "ee" and "er" are visibly identical.
It is likely that learning English via cuem and vision would not
succeed given such ambiguity; some pieces of the English puzzle would
be duplicates, while others would appear to be missing entirely.
Yet, such is the nature of English when it is cued without use of the
mouth. Native cuers of English understand cued English without the
mouth because the cuem that they are used to is missing but one
component - the mouth. Native cuers of English can fill-in this
missing component mentally by referring to the blueprint of English
in their heads, mentally recognizing the linguistic value of each
segment (e.g. "m" vs "f") despite the fact that each segment is not
represented discretely. In other words, understanding a message cued
without the mouth is a process of mapping what is seen onto a
language blueprint and making discrete in the mind what is not
discrete to the eye. Native cuers are so unconsciously adept at this
process that a native speaker is awed by what seems a prestigious
performance. (For native speakers and native cuers, the closure
groupings differ while the closure task remains the same.)
Where cueing is concerned, some inaccurate yet deeply held
notions have served as a curtain of misassumption and resulting
misperception. For example, cuem has long been inaccurately
described as a supplement to speechreading/lipreading,
With a bit of conscious reckoning it becomes clear that the
hand is no more a supplement to the mouth of a cuer than the voice is
a supplement to the tongue of a speaker; each is a requisite part of
the user's ability to clearly express and receive language. In fact,
when we examine the nature of language by pulling back our curtain of
linguistic assumptions, we uncover a reality that proves many deeply
held notions false and we unveil a truth which lies at the root of
the native cuer's seemingly mystical powers: language is not on our
hands or in our mouths. Language is the magic of the mind."
|