Through our consultants, researchers, clinicians, interpreters, transliterators and programs, VLA aims to apply evidence-based research to advancing the right and opportunity for those who are deaf or hard-of-hearing to access, process, acquire, and use visual language.
WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CUED SPEECH, CUEM, CUED ENGLISH, AND CUED LANGUAGE?
Earl Fleetwood, M.A. and Melanie Metzger, Ph.D.
During the course of the past 2 decades, the terms cuem, cued English, and cued language have been used with increasing frequency. In 1998, our book Cued Language Structure: An Analysis of Cued American English Based on Linguistic Principles became the first publication to formally define and use these terms in referring to particular phenomena. Because that publication serves to formalize the use of these terms, we as the authors would like to provide clarification with the hope of minimizing their misuse. Such is a goal of this writing.
Productive philosophical, academic, and practical discussions are dependent on a common understanding of the terminology that they employ. However, because research findings drive a continually evolving body of knowledge, it can be difficult to realize such a shared understanding. While new knowledge often requires the reformulating of definitions1, the adoption of new definitions happens neither spontaneously nor simultaneously among the populous. Nevertheless, an evolving understanding of reality creates the need for meanings ascribed terminology to evolve as well. The point here is that reality is not a means of justifying definitions ascribed terminology. Definitions are a means by which reality is discussed. Underscoring the nature and value of evolving definitions is another goal of this writing.
CUED SPEECH
As defined and described by its inventor Dr. R. Orin Cornett, Cued Speech is system consisting of visual and acoustic symbols that are co-produced. Definitionally, Cued Speech is bimodal. Functionally, Cued Speech is a visual articulatory system characterized by a set of visibly discrete symbols. Each symbol is the result of pairing a mouthshape with either a handshape or a hand placement, the former to distinguish among consonant phonemes and the latter to distinguish among vowel phonemes. All pairs are unique. As such, the phonemic inventory of a consonant-vowel language is presented autonomously in the visible mode via cueing analogous to how the phonemic inventory of a consonant-vowel language is presented autonomously in the acoustic mode via speaking.
CUEM
Recognizing that traditional definitions of Cued Speech are bimodal in nature and include reference to sound, speech, and/or speechreading, and wanting to refer strictly to a phenomena accessible entirely in the visible medium, the authors coined a term that refers solely to the visible products of cueing: handshape, hand placement, mouthshape. The term cuem is used to refer to these visible products and is not equivalent to, a replacement for, nor interchangeable with, the term Cued Speech.
CUED LANGUAGE
The term cued language refers to a group of languages just as the terms spoken language and signed language each refer to a group languages. The need to distinguish between cued, spoken, and signed languages was incidently created as a result of (1) R. Orin Cornett developing Cued Speech and (2) people using Cued Speech to communicate linguistically. Cued languages employ the visibly discrete attributes of Cued Speech (i.e. handshape, hand placement/movement, and mouthshape). However, cued languages also employ visibly discrete non-manual features, including, but not limited to, brow-movement and head-thrust. These visibly discrete symbols and non-manual features are combined and modulated following a hierarchy of rules and processes which constitute the phonology, morphology, and syntax of a given consonant-vowel language. As such, a cued language is any consonant-vowel language in which cuem (the visibly discrete symbols of Cued Speech), serves as the foundation for conveying wholly in the visible medium all of the features that constitute a language. Visibly accessible behaviors associated with the linguistic application of Cued Speech are characteristic of cued language. The terms Cued Speech and cued language are not interchangeable; the former refers to an articulatory system that produces visibly discrete symbols (cuem); the latter refers to the linguistic employment of that system.
CUED ENGLISH
With regard to the term cued language, ‘cued’ identifies the articulatory system employed; ‘language’ refers to the hierarchy of symbols, structures, and rules conveyed by that system. The terms signed language and spoken language are similarly descriptive. Thus, cued English simply refers to one member of the class of cued languages.
DIFFERENT PHONETIC FEATURES
Cueing produces a different set of symbols than does speaking; cueing produces a visible set and speaking produces an acoustic one. The functionally relevant symbols produced by cueing are bipartite (2-part) in nature: a visible symbol is uniquely identifiable as the product of combining (a) handshape and mouthshape or (b) hand placement and mouthshape. The functionally relevant symbols produced by speaking are tripartite (3-part) in nature: an acoustic symbol is uniquely identifiable as the product of combining (a) voice+ (i.e. voiced/voiceless attribute), (b) manner (e.g. plosive, nasalized), and (c) place (e.g. bilabial, interdental). Thus, a cued symbol is described by a set of phonetic features different from the set of phonetic features describing spoken symbols. Because cueing is a bipartite system and speaking is tripartite in nature, and because the relevant symbols (visible vs acoustic) and medium (light vs sound) differ, cued languages exhibit phonological processes distinct from those characteristic of spoken languages.
CUEING IS NOT THE SAME AS SPEAKING
Spoken English users who learn to cue English, thereby, learn to produce a set of visible symbols that represent the phonemes of English. Cued English users who learn to speak English learn to produce a set of acoustic symbols that represent the same phonemes. Each set of symbols — visible and acoustic — targets the same linguistic values (i.e. phonemes). However, because one set of symbols does not entail the other set, exposure to cueing does not entail learning to speak just as exposure to speaking does not entail learning to cue. Cueing is not a representation of speech sounds and speaking is not a representation of cued symbols. Thus, while both know English, an individual can know cued English without knowing spoken English, and vice versa.
KNOWING A CUED LANGUAGE IS NOT THE SAME AS KNOWING CUED SPEECH
Cued Speech has been adapted to approximately 60 languages and dialects. The need for this adaptation is motivated by the fact that the phonemic inventory of one language does not correspond exactly with that of another language. In light of this difference, the visibly discrete Cued Speech symbols (i.e. cuem) can differ across consonant-vowel languages. For example, cued French employs five (5) hand placements while cued English employs four (4). The additional hand placement (at the cheek) found in cued French is a visibly discrete way of representing vowel phonemes, such as that found in the French word “peu,” while visibly distinguishing it from vowel phonemes of other languages, such as that represented at the mouth placement (e.g. /ur/) in cued English Additionally, the linguistic values (phonemic) ascribed the symbols (phonetic), the combination and sequence of those symbols (phonotactic and phonologic processes), the meanings ascribed the symbol combinations and sequences (morphologic), and the grammatical (syntactic) rules are language-specific. Thus, by only establishing that two individuals know Cued Speech, it is impossible to determine whether or not they will be able to communicate linguistically. If one is an English monolingual and the other a French monolingual, the fact that both cue does not resolve the fact that they know different languages. Although the individuals share an articulatory system contained wholly in the visible medium, they do not share knowledge of the values ascribed the symbols nor the rules for applying them. Thus, the authors propose that, when describing an individual’s avenue for communicating, it is more productive to specify mode (e.g. cued, spoken) and language (i.e. English, French) than to describe the individual as knowing Cued Speech.
CONCLUSION
The terms Cued Speech, cuem, cued English, and cued language have specific meanings. A better understanding of these terms can serve to facilitate a better understanding of language and the nature of communication. As lifelong students of linguistics, we hope that the preceding points of clarification help contribute to that outcome.
1For example, the term phoneme is commonly defined in terms of the sound-units of a language. Such a definition is at odds with the reality that signed languages and cued languages make use of phonemes as structural components. In order to accurately address the reality that signed languages and cued languages are NOT based in sound, definitions of the term phoneme have had to evolve so that they include reference to visible-units.
Cueing: Neither tongue in cheek nor slight of hand
Earl Fleetwood, M.A. & Melanie Metzger, Ph.D.
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 see what, in fact, does not appear. After all, cueing is often described simply as 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 tend to assume 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 spoken pronunciations might be considered an uncommon dialect, yet who uses English as a native speaking hearing 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,
as if English lives on the tongue rather than in the head
as if speech and, therefore, speechreading, is the purveyor of language
as if a mental blueprint is more a product of the ear than of the eye
as if the native cuer perceives the hand supplementing the mouth more than the mouth supplementing the hand
as if handshape/hand-placement and mouthshape can be separated when defining cuem
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."
English
English is one of many traditionally spoken languages used throughout the world. Acoustic symbols are sequenced and combined in rule-governed patterns to convey the lexicon and grammar of spoken English. But English is not restricted to the acoustic mode. Via what is called Cued American English, the lexicon and grammar of traditionally spoken English can be conveyed entirely in the visual mode as well.
Spoken american english
Spoken American English sentences are rule-governed sequences of English words. The words, themselves, are sequences of smaller units known as phonemes. The 43 phonemes of American English are represented by acoustic symbols. Generated via the process of producing these acoustic symbols (i.e. speaking) the lexicon and grammar of American English is conveyed. Hearing people employ their (clear and consistent) access to this set of acoustic symbols in order to acquire competency in American English.
These rules constitute the grammar or syntax of English.
cued American English
As is true of its acoustic counterpart, Cued American English (CAE) sentences are rule-governed sequences of English words. Again, the words are sequences of smaller units known as phonemes. But more like visual ASL than spoken American English, Cued American English employs visible symbols. CAE utilizes combinations of handshapes, hand locations, and non-manual information to represent the 43 phonemes of American English. Generated via the process of cueing these visual symbols, the lexicon and grammar of English are conveyed. Deaf people employ their (clear and consistent) access to this set of acoustic symbols in order to acquire competency in American English.
Thus, spoken and cued American English share linguistic structures without sharing the mode via which those structures are conveyed.