ASL, SEE Sign, & Signed English

[Capmeister]

Thanks and what motivated the oralist movement if you don't mind.

Deaf Education

Early proponents of the Oralist movement in the United States included Horace Mann, Samuel Gridley Howe and Alexander Graham Bell.

Alexander Graham Bell succeeded in teaching his deaf wife to speak and lip read. This success made Bell a vocal proponent of Oralism. Eventually Bell became one of the world's foremost proponents of Deaf speech and the mainstreaming of the Deaf into the hearing world. The Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf spearheaded this movement.


Alexander Graham Bell and his followers maintained several points. These points became the foundation of the Oralist education movement of the 20th century.


1. Sign Language is not a true language.
2. Learning Sign Language impedes the individual's ability to learn speech.
3. All deaf children can be taught to read lips.
4. Mainstreaming is the best way to educate children and adults.

Thanks for the telephone, Mr. Bell. Now STFU.

 

[shel90]

Deaf Education





Thanks for the telephone, Mr. Bell. Now STFU.

I am with u allll the way!!!

 

[rockdrummer]

I am with u allll the way!!!

While I don't personally agree with all of the points AGB made it appears after I have read through the link and others on the history of sign language that it has been an attempt to help the deaf population to assimilate with the majority which is hearing. I'm not sure what the beef is. From my perspective its either assimilation or isolation. I have to imagine that applies not only to deaf but also to hearing that don't learn the native language of whatever country they happen to be in.

Sign language was originated by a hearing person and the motivation was probably to assist. Just as SEE is a means of teaching the native language of english. Just as oralism is another attempt to assist. Then with technology, HA's and CI's are a another means of assisting. I don't view it as domination and each individual has the free will to make their own choices. So I am not really sure what the hoo ha is all about regarding the use of ASL over SEE or the choice of oralism or the use of HA's or CI's. It seems to me that these are meerly tools and everyone has the choice to use whichever suits them the best.

 

[shel90]

While I don't personally agree with all of the points AGB made it appears after I have read through the link and others on the history of sign language that it has been an attempt to help the deaf population to assimilate with the majority which is hearing. I'm not sure what the beef is. From my perspective its either assimilation or isolation. I have to imagine that applies not only to deaf but also to hearing that don't learn the native language of whatever country they happen to be in.

Sign language was originated by a hearing person and the motivation was probably to assist. Just as SEE is a means of teaching the native language of english. Just as oralism is another attempt to assist. Then with technology, HA's and CI's are a another means of assisting. I don't view it as domination and each individual has the free will to make their own choices. So I am not really sure what the hoo ha is all about regarding the use of ASL over SEE or the choice of oralism or the use of HA's or CI's. It seems to me that these are meerly tools and everyone has the choice to use whichever suits them the best.

ASL is a language

SEE and CS and TC r tools

Would u call spoken English, Spanish or other speaking languages as tools? I don't consider them as tools just like I don't consider ASL a tool. They r all languages. ASL is fully accessible to all deaf children unless they have congnitive disabilities while oral language is not fully accessible to all of them.

What do u mean that sign language was orginated by a hearing person to assist with deaf people in education?

 

[rockdrummer]

ASL is fully accessible to all deaf children unless they have congnitive disabilities

How can that be if the schools are not teaching ASL?

 

[Capmeister]

While I don't personally agree with all of the points AGB made it appears after I have read through the link and others on the history of sign language that it has been an attempt to help the deaf population to assimilate with the majority which is hearing. I'm not sure what the beef is.

If one's focus in school is attempting merely to communicate in a language one cannot know well on the verbal/audio level, and denies someone the right to communicate on a far more natural gestural/conceptual level, what happens to teaching them about the world, rather than just how to cope with living with hearies?

 

[rockdrummer]

ASL is a language
SEE and CS and TC r tools
Would u call spoken English, Spanish or other speaking languages as tools? I don't consider them as tools just like I don't consider ASL a tool. They r all languages. ASL is fully accessible to all deaf children unless they have congnitive disabilities while oral language is not fully accessible to all of them.

What do u mean that sign language was orginated by a hearing person to assist with deaf people in education?

I said to assist. Not just for education but for assimilation and to be able to communicate. To my knowledge, Socrates was not deaf. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Brief History of ASL
Despite theories and speculation that all of human language has its roots in signed gestures and hand signals that served as an early form of communication, it is impossible to say for sure whether or not language developed in this manner. The history of sign language cannot therefore claim for itself the origins of all spoken language, but its roots do extend farther back then most people would imagine.

TIMELINE
5th century B.C.-- According to the American Sign Language Dictionary on CD-ROM, the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates thought it perfectly logical for deaf people to communicate using their hands, heads, and other body parts, being naturally deprived of the use of their hearing.

History of ASL

Start of ASL
Together, Gallaudet and Clerc transformed the Old French Sign Language into a sign language that American students would better understand. This system of sign language, much like l'Epee's, had a system of grammar and signs to represent every word. Today this is known as Old Signed English.

In 1817, Gallaudet founded the nation's first school for the deaf. It was called American Asylum and was located in Hartford, Connecticut. Clerc was the first sign language teacher in America. Though the students used Gallaudet's form of sign language, him and Clerc also noticed that they used another form of sign language outside of the classroom. Gallaudet realized that this was there "natural language," and it was free of all grammar and shortened sentences down to key phrases. This "natural language" later became known as American Sign Language

History of ASL

History Of Sign Language

When did Sign Language begin? Who taught the deaf people Sign Language? How did Sign Language begin in America? These questions and others will be answered from our research about the History of Sign Language. It is good to know how and why Sign Language began. Deaf people and workers with the deaf people need to know the origin of their language. -- Researched, edited and written by Ted Camp


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sign language is very old. From earliest recorded history, gestures have been used for communication between groups of different languages and cultures. The use of the formalized language of signs, however, has been gradual, with the first attempt to do so occurring in the latter part of the 16th century. Until the 16th century, the deaf people were considered uneducable. They were scorned, put aside, and even feared. They were thought to be incapable of reasoning or having ideas. Some even thought the deaf people were possessed of demons. Parents were ashamed of their deaf children and hid them from the public.


Spain - In the 16th century, an Italian physician, Girolamo Cardano, stated that the hearing of words was not necessary for the understanding of ideas. He elaborated a method for teaching the deaf, but it was never put into use. However, his ideas paved the way for dispelling the attitude that the deaf were incapable of learning. It was in Spain that the first successful attempts to educate the deaf were made. A Spanish man, Pedro Ponce de Leon, succeeded in educating deaf children of several noble Spanish families who were heirs of family estates. Apparently, Ponce de Leon taught these children to read and write. The first book containing a manual alphabet was published by Juan Pablo de Bonet in 1620.


France - It was in France that the public education of deaf began. Abbe Charles de L'eppe in 1755, founded the first public school for the deaf. Besides being considered the father of public education of the deaf, he is also considered the father of the language of signs. He was convinced that the language of signs was the natural method of deaf people, and their education should be based on it. But he also recognized that the crude signs used by deaf people of that day could not be used as an educational tool. So he set himself to refining and developing this language of signs into a full language. Our present day Sign Language is derived from his system.

Germany - Samuel Heinicke in Germany originated another method to communicate with deaf people. It was the Oral Method of teaching a deaf child through speech and speech-reading. This is known as the German method of teaching deaf children. Sign Language was absolutely forbidden. This started a controversy that persists to this day. What is the best method for teaching deaf children?


America - How did it all begin? Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, a minister, became the developer of American education of the deaf, and founder of the first school for the deaf in America. Why did Gallaudet show an interest in deaf people? One day, Thomas H. Gallaudet was approached by Dr. Mason Cogswell, who had a deaf daughter, Alice. Gallaudet was touched and impressed by a 12 year old deaf girl. He dropped his hat to the ground and had her repeat the word "hat." She tried, and then he knew that deaf people could be taught. Dr. Cogswell asked Gallaudet to journey to Europe and study the methods developed there to teach the deaf. He went to England first to study their methods, meaning to combine the best of both methods, oral and manual, but this was unacceptable to the English educators. They wished him to use only their methods.

History of ASL

 

[shel90]

How can that be if the schools are not teaching ASL?

Apprently u have a different meaning for accesibility than I do! No wonder I felt many of u weren't getting what I meant. For language acquisition, ASL or any other sign language like FSL, SSL, and so many more are fully accessible for deaf children (and hearies too). Most deaf children will use their eyes to get info or language in their surroundings and since ASL is a visual language, therefore making it accessible about 100% of the time while hearies get their info from their ears (can with their eyes too), spoken language is accessible to them about 100% of the time. It is very very difficult to use the eyes to acquire language from spoken language. Try plugging in your ears and try reading everyone's lips and try to imagine not having a strong language foundation to begin with. Pretty tough, wouldn't u think? That's what it is like for most deaf children and people wonder why they become delayed in language. That's my definition of language accessibility.

My school uses ASL and spoken language and if necessary use SEE as a tool.

 

[rockdrummer]

If one's focus in school is attempting merely to communicate in a language one cannot know well on the verbal/audio level, and denies someone the right to communicate on a far more natural gestural/conceptual level, what happens to teaching them about the world, rather than just how to cope with living with hearies?

Is your perception that the educators are only teaching kids how to cope with hearies? Honestly I am not even sure what that means. Do you mean to be able to function in a predominatly hearing society? Please advise

 

[rockdrummer]

Apprently u have a different meaning for accesibility than I do! No wonder I felt many of u weren't getting what I meant. For language acquisition, ASL or any other sign language like FSL, SSL, and so many more are fully accessible for deaf children (and hearies too). Most deaf children will use their eyes to get info or language in their surroundings and since ASL is a visual language, therefore making it accessible about 100% of the time while hearies get their info from their ears (can with their eyes too), spoken language is accessible to them about 100% of the time. It is very very difficult to use the eyes to acquire language from spoken language. Try plugging in your ears and try reading everyone's lips and try to imagine not having a strong language foundation to begin with. Pretty tough, wouldn't u think? That's what it is like for most deaf children and people wonder why they become delayed in language. That's my definition of language accessibility.

My school uses ASL and spoken language and if necessary use SEE as a tool.

I think I understand what you mean. It's like if a deaf kid is blind then obviously visual language would not be accessable. I hope I have that right.

 

[jillio]

Interesting. Do you dream in ASL, or do you just know what people are saying? I had a few ASL dreams and then realized it was very odd for me to really have language per se in my dreams, I think.

I mostly think in English, but it depends on the depth of conversation and what I'm talking about. A story about how the cat barfed on my bedroom floor and I stepped in it in the middle of the night is far more suited to being told in ASL. Last week or the week before my brother and I had been watching Planet Earth on DiscoveryHD theater and I said to him that the persistance of life is amazing. I was talking about it in an email with a friend the next day, and my mind blocked on the word "persistance." All I could think of was the sign. In English all I could muster was "stick-to-it-iveness" which isn't even a word. Made me wonder how often I think in concepts now rather than words. I don't know--who tracks such a thing.

I do know that if someone tells me something in sign or voices it to me gets forgotten so I can't remember who told me what based on how I received the information.

As well, my brother once came into my room for a book while I was sleeping and my door had been closed. Now, I'm a heavy sleeper (which is good because he stomps around) and he tried to close the door on his way out. The old door wouldn't catch so he kept slamming it, trying to get it to stay closed. I woke up and said: "What the f**k are you doing?!?!"

"Trying to close your door," he replied.

I yelled: "Stop it! It doesn't matter!"

The next morning I remembered it but didn't remember signing at all. Nor did I remember talking. I just remembered that I communicated somehow. I asked him if I signed to him, and he said yes.

Signing has become such a part of my mind that I also tend to talk to myself in sign. Hearies probably think I'm nuts.

That makes perfect sense, and is one of the age old arguments against using PSE or SEE in teaching deaf kids English. You can't take the signs from one language, and the syntax from another and just arbitrarily stick them together and come up with anything that makes sense. What makes sense on avisula level does not make sense on a verbal level and vice versa.

 

[jillio]

While I don't personally agree with all of the points AGB made it appears after I have read through the link and others on the history of sign language that it has been an attempt to help the deaf population to assimilate with the majority which is hearing. I'm not sure what the beef is. From my perspective its either assimilation or isolation. I have to imagine that applies not only to deaf but also to hearing that don't learn the native language of whatever country they happen to be in.

Sign language was originated by a hearing person and the motivation was probably to assist. Just as SEE is a means of teaching the native language of english. Just as oralism is another attempt to assist. Then with technology, HA's and CI's are a another means of assisting. I don't view it as domination and each individual has the free will to make their own choices. So I am not really sure what the hoo ha is all about regarding the use of ASL over SEE or the choice of oralism or the use of HA's or CI's. It seems to me that these are meerly tools and everyone has the choice to use whichever suits them the best.

I think the whole point is what perspective you are attempting to assist from. A hearing perspective of what is most useful, or a deaf perspective of what is most useful.

 

[jillio]

Apprently u have a different meaning for accesibility than I do! No wonder I felt many of u weren't getting what I meant. For language acquisition, ASL or any other sign language like FSL, SSL, and so many more are fully accessible for deaf children (and hearies too). Most deaf children will use their eyes to get info or language in their surroundings and since ASL is a visual language, therefore making it accessible about 100% of the time while hearies get their info from their ears (can with their eyes too), spoken language is accessible to them about 100% of the time. It is very very difficult to use the eyes to acquire language from spoken language. Try plugging in your ears and try reading everyone's lips and try to imagine not having a strong language foundation to begin with. Pretty tough, wouldn't u think? That's what it is like for most deaf children and people wonder why they become delayed in language. That's my definition of language accessibility.

My school uses ASL and spoken language and if necessary use SEE as a tool.

Excellent explanation, shel!

 

[shel90]

I think I understand what you mean. It's like if a deaf kid is blind then obviously visual language would not be accessable. I hope I have that right.

Right...sign language without it being tactile would be not accessble to blind people but oral language can be partially accessible to deaf children since lipreading is visual..just very very hard to catch everything especially when it is not completely face to face. That's why I say I get partial access to spoken language meaning I miss out a lot words in sentences but luckily, I love to read and learned the correct grammatical rules from reading. When conversing with hearies, I use my knowledge or the context of the conversation to fill in the gaps that I missed so I am able to do ok. However, for me to learn literacy skills especially grammar from lipreading alone would probably be near impossible, I believe.

 

[jillio]

Is your perception that the educators are only teaching kids how to cope with hearies? Honestly I am not even sure what that means. Do you mean to be able to function in a predominatly hearing society? Please advise

Exactly, rockdrummer. We are currently teaching deaf children how to function as impaired hearing kids, not whole deaf kids. As a result, they are loosingout on such fundamental skills as critical thinking and reading comprehension for the sake of forced language acquisition. I don't think the trade off is worth it.

 

[Capmeister]

Is your perception that the educators are only teaching kids how to cope with hearies? Honestly I am not even sure what that means. Do you mean to be able to function in a predominatly hearing society? Please advise

These days, less so than in the past, but yes--still today. At the height of the AG Bell way, more time was devoted to learning to lip read and speak than to any other subject. Speaking and lipreading is a nice skill if you can do it, but unlike math or science or physics, it cannot be taught to every deaf person who is of normal or better intelligence.

My brother has an IQ in the 150s. He's brilliant. He writes better than most hearing people. He cannot speak. He cannot read lips. Time was wasted attempting to teach him how (even with the help of a cochlear implant he gave up on 18 years ago) when it could have been better spent teaching him more about the world in general. So here's a kid genius, graduating from high school at 16, top of his class, and people are wasting his time tying to get him to read lips and say "cat" by touching someones face when he could be learning trigonometry?

By the way--I once tought him how to say "cat" perfectly--not by having him touch my face for vibration but my explaining--in sign--how the C sound isn't voiced, but breath that's cut off quickly, and the A sound is the only actual sound from the voice box, and the T is another breath sounds with the tongue on the back of the upper teeth. Having seen me explain it that way, he said "cat" as clear as any hearing person. So if we took the time, he probably COULD, after much practice, learn to talk better than he can. But why? Instead he's teaching a class in sign at the college level and finishing up his second BA degree. Then he's going on to get his masters at the same time he teaches, hopefully in a deaf school with a good bi/bi program. Why should he waste his time learning to speak or read lips?

Now I'm not saying no deaf person should--but how about only those with the aptitude to do so? And how about focusing more on learning to read and write better first? And while those of us who're hearing might be able to sound out a new word, English isn't an auditory language for many deaf people. It's just symbols on a page.

My point is that a lot of time is wasted in deaf schools--especially in the past--trying to shoehorn all deaf into one mold: "learn to read lips and to speak." It's not one size fits all. Which is why many are coming to support the bi-lingual/bi-cultural option.

 

[rockdrummer]

These days, less so than in the past, but yes--still today. At the height of the AG Bell way, more time was devoted to learning to lip read and speak than to any other subject. Speaking and lipreading is a nice skill if you can do it, but unlike math or science or physics, it cannot be taught to every deaf person who is of normal or better intelligence.

My brother has an IQ in the 150s. He's brilliant. He writes better than most hearing people. He cannot speak. He cannot read lips. Time was wasted attempting to teach him how (even with the help of a cochlear implant he gave up on 18 years ago) when it could have been better spent teaching him more about the world in general. So here's a kid genius, graduating from high school at 16, top of his class, and people are wasting his time tying to get him to read lips and say "cat" by touching someones face when he could be learning trigonometry?

By the way--I once tought him how to say "cat" perfectly--not by having him touch my face for vibration but my explaining--in sign--how the C sound isn't voiced, but breath that's cut off quickly, and the A sound is the only actual sound from the voice box, and the T is another breath sounds with the tongue on the back of the upper teeth. Having seen me explain it that way, he said "cat" as clear as any hearing person. So if we took the time, he probably COULD, after much practice, learn to talk better than he can. But why? Instead he's teaching a class in sign at the college level and finishing up his second BA degree. Then he's going on to get his masters at the same time he teaches, hopefully in a deaf school with a good bi/bi program. Why should he waste his time learning to speak or read lips?

Now I'm not saying no deaf person should--but how about only those with the aptitude to do so? And how about focusing more on learning to read and write better first? And while those of us who're hearing might be able to sound out a new word, English isn't an auditory language for many deaf people. It's just symbols on a page.

My point is that a lot of time is wasted in deaf schools--especially in the past--trying to shoehorn all deaf into one mold: "learn to read lips and to speak." It's not one size fits all. Which is why many are coming to support the bi-lingual/bi-cultural option.

Thanks for the explanation and I am hopeful (because I see it in practice) that the wasted time on oralism is not taking place as much as in AG's days. I honestly believe that nowadays the educators do recognize that different approaches work for different people. At least that has been my experience in dealing with my son's school. What are your thoughts on curriculum? Do you think that deaf kids should have different curriculum or is it just on the teaching methods

 

[Capmeister]

That makes perfect sense, and is one of the age old arguments against using PSE or SEE in teaching deaf kids English. You can't take the signs from one language, and the syntax from another and just arbitrarily stick them together and come up with anything that makes sense. What makes sense on avisula level does not make sense on a verbal level and vice versa.

Well, English is part Germanic and part Romance language with Latin rules arbitrarly slapped on by monks, but mainly for rules, not syntax.

Yesterday, I went with my brother as he was inducted into this organization: Kappa Delta Pi - Honor Society for Education

I'd not met his interpreters for his MSU classes and as we chatted before the ceremony, I told them upfront to expect me just to sign to them as I don't voice and sign well at the same time. (I can do it, but surely not in ASL, and it's slower even in PSE.) They both said, "oh, yeah--same problem."

I can see using SEE for teaching English grammer or writing, but to use it in Science class? Or Math? DUMB.

I know my brother's sign most of all, more than anyone elses, obviously. He was "interviewed" for an interpreter's test and it was video taped (the student terps are to watch his answers to a variety of questions and interpret what he's saying). So I wanted to try it. At the start of the tape I understand him perfectly and can terp what he's saying (I do it all the time in public). As the tape goes on he's getting more ASL (it's what was called for) and he's using signs he doesn't often use with me (lousy, inept, and a sign that's sort of negotiation but sort of furious back and forth almost begging sort of thing that I'd never seen before and he struggled to explain for a moment)... anyway, I started purely understanding the gist of what he was saying, but losing a word here and there and was unable to really voice what he said quickly. I really need to work on that. And one of his interpreters was excellent at ASL yesterday and I was sometimes clueless. She said something long and I looked to Josh and he said, "did you get that?" And I admitted I really didn't. He told me what she said and I turned to the interpreters and said, indicating him, "MY interpreter."

 

[rockdrummer]

Exactly, rockdrummer. We are currently teaching deaf children how to function as impaired hearing kids, not whole deaf kids. As a result, they are loosingout on such fundamental skills as critical thinking and reading comprehension for the sake of forced language acquisition. I don't think the trade off is worth it.

Thanks Jillio.. What exactly is the "whole deaf kids" approach. Does it include necessary skills to be able to function, communicate and be sucessful in a hearing society or is it an approach that doesn't need anything from the hearing society?

 

[shel90]

These days, less so than in the past, but yes--still today. At the height of the AG Bell way, more time was devoted to learning to lip read and speak than to any other subject. Speaking and lipreading is a nice skill if you can do it, but unlike math or science or physics, it cannot be taught to every deaf person who is of normal or better intelligence.

My brother has an IQ in the 150s. He's brilliant. He writes better than most hearing people. He cannot speak. He cannot read lips. Time was wasted attempting to teach him how (even with the help of a cochlear implant he gave up on 18 years ago) when it could have been better spent teaching him more about the world in general. So here's a kid genius, graduating from high school at 16, top of his class, and people are wasting his time tying to get him to read lips and say "cat" by touching someones face when he could be learning trigonometry?

By the way--I once tought him how to say "cat" perfectly--not by having him touch my face for vibration but my explaining--in sign--how the C sound isn't voiced, but breath that's cut off quickly, and the A sound is the only actual sound from the voice box, and the T is another breath sounds with the tongue on the back of the upper teeth. Having seen me explain it that way, he said "cat" as clear as any hearing person. So if we took the time, he probably COULD, after much practice, learn to talk better than he can. But why? Instead he's teaching a class in sign at the college level and finishing up his second BA degree. Then he's going on to get his masters at the same time he teaches, hopefully in a deaf school with a good bi/bi program. Why should he waste his time learning to speak or read lips?

Now I'm not saying no deaf person should--but how about only those with the aptitude to do so? And how about focusing more on learning to read and write better first? And while those of us who're hearing might be able to sound out a new word, English isn't an auditory language for many deaf people. It's just symbols on a page.

My point is that a lot of time is wasted in deaf schools--especially in the past--trying to shoehorn all deaf into one mold: "learn to read lips and to speak." It's not one size fits all. Which is why many are coming to support the bi-lingual/bi-cultural option.

Just one question..when u say that deaf schools waste time on lipreaching or speech therapy, r u referring to all or the oral only deaf schools? Even mainstreamed schools do waste time (from my experience) cuz I remember I spent 1 hour every day in speech therapy until middle school and then twice a week for 1 hour each in high school. Even in high school, I was practicing how to sound out each letter of the alphabet. Waste of my time..it was ok for me when I was a toddler just to see if I cud develop oral skills but to continue it until I was a senior? I thought that was ridiculous and a huge waste of my time.