Is it really so bad to know SEE (Sign Exact English?)

[saywhatkid]

Yet nobody in this thread said it was a "language" in and of itself... So...

I could find such references elsewhere in AD, but I need to wash my hair.

 

[GrendelQ]

Question about SEE/signed English:

English in the oral/aural mode uses voice inflection (variations of pitch, volume, tone) to express the emotions, degree of formality/intimacy, emphasis, and question/declarative form of the discourse.

How does English in signed mode show the aspects that voice inflection would convey?

Reba, I wasn't intending to argue at all -- I'm not a SEE user -- I thought you were sincerely asking this question, which is why I posted the article written by the deaf woman who created SEE addressing exactly what you asked . I'm not contending anything, just pointing to the Gallaudet - related sources and Gustason's description of how emotion and inflection is conveyed in her system.

 

[Reba]

That's the thing Reba, is that SEE does use the same visual elements that ASL does. If you'd had truly studied SEE you would have known that. If you had read the study, you would have known that.

Sigh . . . I have truly studied SEE as part of my transliterating course in my ITP. Note, SEE, et al, is included under transliterating, not interpreting. Interpreting is taking a source language and changing it into the target language.

I have interpreted and transliterated for deaf students in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools.

If any ASL elements are mixed in with SEE it's only when SEE users adopt those elements from their ASL using peers. That is not an intrinsic part of SEE.

If you don't like SEE, that is your prerogative- but don't belittle something that you have clear misconceptions about.

If you care to review my several years' worth of posts, you will notice that I have never said that I don't "like" SEE, nor have I belittled it. I have several times posted that SEE can be useful in certain settings as an educational tool. However, I will not lie and call SEE in any of its versions a language.

Also, as a hearing person, I always defer to those in the Deaf community when an issue pertains to their language. They have lived their language experiences growing up, attending school, socializing with each other, and expressing their daily thoughts and feelings in ASL.

Is there a logical reason for users of ASL to be protective of their language? Absolutely! The Milan oralists tried to destroy it. The Deaf learned from that experience that they must be on guard, whether it's blatant banning of ASL, or subtle chipping away by introducing artificial codes that are deemed superior by the hearing majority.

As Jews worldwide say about the Holocaust, "Never again!"

 

[shel90]

Sigh . . . I have truly studied SEE as part of my transliterating course in my ITP. Note, SEE, et al, is included under transliterating, not interpreting. Interpreting is taking a source language and changing it into the target language.

I have interpreted and transliterated for deaf students in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools.

If any ASL elements are mixed in with SEE it's only when SEE users adopt those elements from their ASL using peers. That is not an intrinsic part of SEE.


If you care to review my several years' worth of posts, you will notice that I have never said that I don't "like" SEE, nor have I belittled it. I have several times posted that SEE can be useful in certain settings as an educational tool. However, I will not lie and call SEE in any of its versions a language.

Also, as a hearing person, I always defer to those in the Deaf community when an issue pertains to their language. They have lived their language experiences growing up, attending school, socializing with each other, and expressing their daily thoughts and feelings in ASL.

Is there a logical reason for users of ASL to be protective of their language? Absolutely! The Milan oralists tried to destroy it. The Deaf learned from that experience that they must be on guard, whether it's blatant banning of ASL, or subtle chipping away by introducing artificial codes that are deemed superior by the hearing majority.

As Jews worldwide say about the Holocaust, "Never again!"

Beautiflly said, Reba.

 

[shel90]

I have nothing against SEE users but have an issue with people claiming it is a language when it is not by lingustic standards.

 

[beachie]

SEE is a tool for English, not a language of its own. ASL has its own grammar and syntax. English is an audiory language. ASL is a visual language. With SEE, the concepts/contexts do not get messages across clearly. If one wants to get the concept/contexts to another person, using ASL will provide that. For example, if you want to say "running" to discuss about a person that is running, with SEE, one would sign "run" and then sign "ing", a young deaf child would interpret "run" and "ing" as two seperate words with "ing" as no concept. But in print, it tells it's in present tense. SEE is hard on the eyes and brain where ASL is pleasing to the eyes and the brain. To teach deaf children to learn English is through reading and writing. English has so many exceptional rules that hardly make sense. ASL rocks!!! By the way, if my English grammer is poor, blame it on the wine.

 

[CrazyPaul]

Questions to Deaf signers:

Do you think by some using SEE and some using ASL that brings Deaf people together or separates them from each other, or is it a neutral influence?

Can SEE users and ASL users communicate comfortably and easily with each other?

If an interpreter is using ASL, and you use SEE, is that a problem? (Suppose it is a group situation, and the majority of the Deaf in the group are ASL users, so they got an ASL terp for the event).

(No, I'm not doing homework or writing a paper on this topic. )

I am a pure ASLer but that doesn't mean I don't use PSE whenever I want to. I use ASL with ASLers, very simple ( it's silly to use PSE or SEE with them). I only use PSE to make an interpreter's job easier. Forget SEE which includes "the", "a", "were" and so on while PSE doesn't.

 

[CSign]

SEE is a tool for English, not a language of its own. ASL has its own grammar and syntax. English is an audiory language. ASL is a visual language. With SEE, the concepts/contexts do not get messages across clearly. If one wants to get the concept/contexts to another person, using ASL will provide that. For example, if you want to say "running" to discuss about a person that is running, with SEE, one would sign "run" and then sign "ing", a young deaf child would interpret "run" and "ing" as two seperate words with "ing" as no concept. But in print, it tells it's in present tense. SEE is hard on the eyes and brain where ASL is pleasing to the eyes and the brain. To teach deaf children to learn English is through reading and writing. English has so many exceptional rules that hardly make sense. ASL rocks!!! By the way, if my English grammer is poor, blame it on the wine.

The bolded above is not accurate. The root word and the ending are perceived as one sign/one word. If a child has consistent exposure to SEE, the rules of English and the syntax of the English language would be internalized, and the child would know and understand the word/concept.

Also, there are different roads that can be taken to achieve an end, no one way can be generalized as better or more appropriate than another. SEE, when used properly can be an effective way to facilitate a deaf child's learning of the English language.

 

[CSign]

Sigh . . . I have truly studied SEE as part of my transliterating course in my ITP. Note, SEE, et al, is included under transliterating, not interpreting. Interpreting is taking a source language and changing it into the target language.

I have interpreted and transliterated for deaf students in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools.

If any ASL elements are mixed in with SEE it's only when SEE users adopt those elements from their ASL using peers. That is not an intrinsic part of SEE.

If you care to review my several years' worth of posts, you will notice that I have never said that I don't "like" SEE, nor have I belittled it. I have several times posted that SEE can be useful in certain settings as an educational tool. However, I will not lie and call SEE in any of its versions a language.

Also, as a hearing person, I always defer to those in the Deaf community when an issue pertains to their language. They have lived their language experiences growing up, attending school, socializing with each other, and expressing their daily thoughts and feelings in ASL.

Is there a logical reason for users of ASL to be protective of their language? Absolutely! The Milan oralists tried to destroy it. The Deaf learned from that experience that they must be on guard, whether it's blatant banning of ASL, or subtle chipping away by introducing artificial codes that are deemed superior by the hearing majority.

As Jews worldwide say about the Holocaust, "Never again!"

I have read your posts over the years. I also know that you must have had a poor instructor if you took a class on Signing Exact English given that your impression is that it doesn't follow the same visual features as in ASL (contrary to what is clearly stated by one of the creators of SEE).

The funny thing about this thread is that no one claimed SEE in and of itself is a language, yet so many are getting all worked up about it.

SEE was not created to replace ASL. That never has been the purpose. The purpose of SEE was to provide visual access to English in an effort to facilitate learning of English, and that's exactly what it's done.

Throwing out statements like,"deemed superior by the hearing majority" is also inaccurate and inflammatory.

The group that created SEE (that consisted of d/Deaf individuals) has not claimed that it's superior. I certainly have never claimed it is superior to ASL. Saying that is just as bad as saying ASL is superior to English, or French is superior to Spanish. That is wrong.

All languages are equally valuable and should be shown the same respect. If one person or family chooses to use SEE as a way to facilitate learning of English, then so be it. It certainly isn't detrimental to the child. If another family chooses to use only books and writing as a way to facilitate learning, then that's fine too. SEE just provides another road to an end- and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being proficient in English.

 

[Bottesini]

I have read your posts over the years. I also know that you must have had a poor instructor if you took a class on Signing Exact English given that your impression is that it doesn't follow the same visual features as in ASL (contrary to what is clearly stated by one of the creators of SEE).

The funny thing about this thread is that no one claimed SEE in and of itself is a language, yet so many are getting all worked up about it.

SEE was not created to replace ASL. That never has been the purpose. The purpose of SEE was to provide visual access to English in an effort to facilitate learning of English, and that's exactly what it's done.

Throwing out statements like,"deemed superior by the hearing majority" is also inaccurate and inflammatory.

The group that created SEE (that consisted of d/Deaf individuals) has not claimed that it's superior. I certainly have never claimed it is superior to ASL. Saying that is just as bad as saying ASL is superior to English, or French is superior to Spanish. That is wrong.

All languages are equally valuable and should be shown the same respect. If one person or family chooses to use SEE as a way to facilitate learning of English, then so be it. It certainly isn't detrimental to the child. If another family chooses to use only books and writing as a way to facilitate learning, then that's fine too. SEE just provides another road to an end- and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being proficient in English.

Where and with whom did you study SEE?

 

[Reba]

I have read your posts over the years. I also know that you must have had a poor instructor if you took a class on Signing Exact English given that your impression is that it doesn't follow the same visual features as in ASL (contrary to what is clearly stated by one of the creators of SEE).

It was more than an "impression."

A sign language using the grammatical visual features of ASL, and the vocabulary of ASL, would . . . ASL. That wouldn't be SEE.

I have observed people of all ages using signed English in the schools and in every day life. I know what I've seen. I've also discussed their schooling experiences with deaf adults, and have learned what was taught to them.

I live and worked in the real world, as did my instructors.

The funny thing about this thread is that no one claimed SEE in and of itself is a language, yet so many are getting all worked up about it.

Since there are deaf people who claim their sign "language" is SEE or signed English, then someone, somewhere is telling them that is what they are using. Where do you think they got that idea from?

SEE was not created to replace ASL. That never has been the purpose. The purpose of SEE was to provide visual access to English in an effort to facilitate learning of English, and that's exactly what it's done.

Perhaps the original intent wasn't to replace ASL but that is how it got implemented in the schools.

BTW, it has NOT in all cases facilitated the learning of English, especially if you mean to include the reading and writing of English. I cannot be specific because I don't want to get personal but I know more than a few deaf adults who had oral/signed English/mainstream educations who are functionally illiterate or barely literate. They are intelligent people who have finished high school. They were woefully short-changed by the public school systems.

It's only been in recent years that we've seen the swing of the pendulum back to ASL instruction. There is still resistance and/or lack of instructor training in some schools.

Throwing out statements like,"deemed superior by the hearing majority" is also inaccurate and inflammatory.

The group that created SEE (that consisted of d/Deaf individuals) has not claimed that it's superior. I certainly have never claimed it is superior to ASL. Saying that is just as bad as saying ASL is superior to English, or French is superior to Spanish. That is wrong.

If it's not superior then why was it necessary to create it? In the case of ASL, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

All languages are equally valuable and should be shown the same respect.

Since you agree that SEE/signed English is not a language, then that's not a problem. It's not a language so it has no respect due it, as a language.

If one person or family chooses to use SEE as a way to facilitate learning of English, then so be it. It certainly isn't detrimental to the child. If another family chooses to use only books and writing as a way to facilitate learning, then that's fine too. SEE just provides another road to an end- and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being proficient in English.

Of course there is nothing wrong with being proficient in English. The point is, using SEE doesn't guarantee proficiency in English.

If a child becomes fluent in ASL, then SEE can be used as a training aid during English literacy classes (not necessary but can be used). That is, the English class lecture and directions are given in ASL but English grammatical terms can be given SEE signs for illustration purposes. However, the way to learn to read and write English is, well, to read and write English. That's what we have white boards, smart boards, books, computer keyboards, paper and pens, for. If success and enjoyment in reading and writing can be instilled in children, then they will do more of it, and become more proficient in it.

Finally, does SEE (in all its incarnations) open doors of communication within the deaf community? Or does ASL open those doors with a common ground of communication?

 

[caz12]

I probably wouldn't be where I am today if I didn't use SEE (or MSS).

I like ASL, but in my opinion... SEE is better in the education environment. I know many argue that it's not a language, but a signed aspect of English.

Yes, ASL is a language. Yes, Spanish is a language. Yes, German is a language. Yes, French is a language. However, those foreign students who come to American schools use English when they're in the education environment. It's English that gets them through spelling and grammar. If those students are expected to use English, then deaf students should be expected to use English as well. Since ASL isn't "English", then what can they use as a sign language system when trying to match their hearing peers? Signed Exact English (or other equivalent sign language).

A hispanic student will speak Spanish when he's at home or with other hispanic friends, but when he's at school... he will speak English with his teachers and in class.

With that logic...

A deaf student will sign ASL when he's at home or with other deaf friends, but when he's at school... he will sign SEE with his teachers and in class.

I grew up using SEE from elementary school to high school until I graduated. When I was out of school, I used ASL (or PSE). I didn't use ASL in the education environment until I went into college. I graduated at high school at grade level.

Almost all of my deaf classmates grew up using ASL from elementary school to high school until they graduated. Even though their teachers used SEE, those deaf students responded in ASL and used ASL everywhere. Those deaf classmates graduated at 3rd grade (to 7th grade) level.

I blame part of it on the flawed education system where some parents and teachers consider their deaf children "special" and require "special attention". As a result, those who don't do well in school are still given passing grades and progressed to the next grade level while getting behind on their actual grade level. For instance, why graduated at 7th grade math? They struggle with word problems, which usually begins in elementary school. Let's say word problems become normal in the 4th grade. They manage to finish 4th grade math during the middle of 5th grade... then finish 5th grade math during the end of 6th grade... then finish 6th grade math during the middle of 8th grade... then finish 7th grade math during the end of 11th grade. The same goes for spelling and grammar.

My parents and teachers treated me like a hearing kid when in school. If I failed a class, I went to summer school. If I got a low test grade, I got a low class grade. What I did, I got.

A lot of my deaf classmates were treated lightly by their parents and teachers. If they chose to have their children treated as "special". As a result, if those deaf students failed a class... they still passed. If they got a low test grade, they still got a passing class grade.

I have friends who are teachers and interpreters in the deaf education system and they say it's still going on today where some are given special treatment by teachers and parents... and the majority of those students prefer ASL over SEE.

he will not think as hearing person so will not waste words

 

[Reba]

I probably wouldn't be where I am today if I didn't use SEE (or MSS).

Maybe . . . maybe not.

I think the real key to your success was parental involvement:

I blame part of it on the flawed education system where some parents and teachers consider their deaf children "special" and require "special attention". As a result, those who don't do well in school are still given passing grades and progressed to the next grade level while getting behind on their actual grade level . . .

My parents and teachers treated me like a hearing kid when in school. If I failed a class, I went to summer school. If I got a low test grade, I got a low class grade. What I did, I got.

A lot of my deaf classmates were treated lightly by their parents and teachers. If they chose to have their children treated as "special". As a result, if those deaf students failed a class... they still passed. If they got a low test grade, they still got a passing class grade.

I have friends who are teachers and interpreters in the deaf education system and they say it's still going on today where some are given special treatment by teachers and parents... and the majority of those students prefer ASL over SEE.

 

[BecLak]

Wirelessly posted

I have read your posts over the years. I also know that you must have had a poor instructor if you took a class on Signing Exact English given that your impression is that it doesn't follow the same visual features as in ASL (contrary to what is clearly stated by one of the creators of SEE).

It was more than an "impression."

A sign language using the grammatical visual features of ASL, and the vocabulary of ASL, would . . . ASL. That wouldn't be SEE.

I have observed people of all ages using signed English in the schools and in every day life. I know what I've seen. I've also discussed their schooling experiences with deaf adults, and have learned what was taught to them.

I live and worked in the real world, as did my instructors.

The funny thing about this thread is that no one claimed SEE in and of itself is a language, yet so many are getting all worked up about it.

Since there are deaf people who claim their sign "language" is SEE or signed English, then someone, somewhere is telling them that is what they are using. Where do you think they got that idea from?

SEE was not created to replace ASL. That never has been the purpose. The purpose of SEE was to provide visual access to English in an effort to facilitate learning of English, and that's exactly what it's done.

Perhaps the original intent wasn't to replace ASL but that is how it got implemented in the schools.

BTW, it has NOT in all cases facilitated the learning of English, especially if you mean to include the reading and writing of English. I cannot be specific because I don't want to get personal but I know more than a few deaf adults who had oral/signed English/mainstream educations who are functionally illiterate or barely literate. They are intelligent people who have finished high school. They were woefully short-changed by the public school systems.

It's only been in recent years that we've seen the swing of the pendulum back to ASL instruction. There is still resistance and/or lack of instructor training in some schools.

Throwing out statements like,"deemed superior by the hearing majority" is also inaccurate and inflammatory.

The group that created SEE (that consisted of d/Deaf individuals) has not claimed that it's superior. I certainly have never claimed it is superior to ASL. Saying that is just as bad as saying ASL is superior to English, or French is superior to Spanish. That is wrong.

If it's not superior then why was it necessary to create it? In the case of ASL, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

All languages are equally valuable and should be shown the same respect.

Since you agree that SEE/signed English is not a language, then that's not a problem. It's not a language so it has no respect due it, as a language.

If one person or family chooses to use SEE as a way to facilitate learning of English, then so be it. It certainly isn't detrimental to the child. If another family chooses to use only books and writing as a way to facilitate learning, then that's fine too. SEE just provides another road to an end- and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being proficient in English.

Of course there is nothing wrong with being proficient in English. The point is, using SEE doesn't guarantee proficiency in English.

If a child becomes fluent in ASL, then SEE can be used as a training aid during English literacy classes (not necessary but can be used). That is, the English class lecture and directions are given in ASL but English grammatical terms can be given SEE signs for illustration purposes. However, the way to learn to read and write English is, well, to read and write English. That's what we have white boards, smart boards, books, computer keyboards, paper and pens, for. If success and enjoyment in reading and writing can be instilled in children, then they will do more of it, and become more proficient in it.

Finally, does SEE (in all its incarnations) open doors of communication within the deaf community? Or does ASL open those doors with a common ground of communication?

Well said yet again Reba.

 

[shel90]

I have read your posts over the years. I also know that you must have had a poor instructor if you took a class on Signing Exact English given that your impression is that it doesn't follow the same visual features as in ASL (contrary to what is clearly stated by one of the creators of SEE).

The funny thing about this thread is that no one claimed SEE in and of itself is a language, yet so many are getting all worked up about it.

SEE was not created to replace ASL. That never has been the purpose. The purpose of SEE was to provide visual access to English in an effort to facilitate learning of English, and that's exactly what it's done.

Throwing out statements like,"deemed superior by the hearing majority" is also inaccurate and inflammatory.

The group that created SEE (that consisted of d/Deaf individuals) has not claimed that it's superior. I certainly have never claimed it is superior to ASL. Saying that is just as bad as saying ASL is superior to English, or French is superior to Spanish. That is wrong.

All languages are equally valuable and should be shown the same respect. If one person or family chooses to use SEE as a way to facilitate learning of English, then so be it. It certainly isn't detrimental to the child. If another family chooses to use only books and writing as a way to facilitate learning, then that's fine too. SEE just provides another road to an end- and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being proficient in English.

Again, I ask...

Do you support spoken ASL?

 

[CrazyPaul]

Many ASLers are proficient in English, it's not from using SEE but doing alot of readings. That's how they improve their writing skills. That's a fact. If you notice any ASLer's poor English grammar in writing, it's because he/she does not do alot of readings.

 

[CSign]

Maybe . . . maybe not.

I think the real key to your success was parental involvement:

Here is a poster attributing some of his success to SEE, yet you discount his statement and experience. Interesting.

 

[CSign]

It was more than an "impression."

A sign language using the grammatical visual features of ASL, and the vocabulary of ASL, would . . . ASL. That wouldn't be SEE.

I have observed people of all ages using signed English in the schools and in every day life. I know what I've seen. I've also discussed their schooling experiences with deaf adults, and have learned what was taught to them.

I live and worked in the real world, as did my instructors.


Since there are deaf people who claim their sign "language" is SEE or signed English, then someone, somewhere is telling them that is what they are using. Where do you think they got that idea from?


Perhaps the original intent wasn't to replace ASL but that is how it got implemented in the schools.

BTW, it has NOT in all cases facilitated the learning of English, especially if you mean to include the reading and writing of English. I cannot be specific because I don't want to get personal but I know more than a few deaf adults who had oral/signed English/mainstream educations who are functionally illiterate or barely literate. They are intelligent people who have finished high school. They were woefully short-changed by the public school systems.

It's only been in recent years that we've seen the swing of the pendulum back to ASL instruction. There is still resistance and/or lack of instructor training in some schools.


If it's not superior then why was it necessary to create it? In the case of ASL, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."


Since you agree that SEE/signed English is not a language, then that's not a problem. It's not a language so it has no respect due it, as a language.


Of course there is nothing wrong with being proficient in English. The point is, using SEE doesn't guarantee proficiency in English.

If a child becomes fluent in ASL, then SEE can be used as a training aid during English literacy classes (not necessary but can be used). That is, the English class lecture and directions are given in ASL but English grammatical terms can be given SEE signs for illustration purposes. However, the way to learn to read and write English is, well, to read and write English. That's what we have white boards, smart boards, books, computer keyboards, paper and pens, for. If success and enjoyment in reading and writing can be instilled in children, then they will do more of it, and become more proficient in it.

Finally, does SEE (in all its incarnations) open doors of communication within the deaf community? Or does ASL open those doors with a common ground of communication?

Sounds like you took a course in Seeing Essential English (SEE 1, which is not really used anymore) rather than Signing Exact English. That would certainly explain the confusion.

When did you become an interpreter?

 

[CSign]

Where and with whom did you study SEE?

Both of the early intervention programs my son was in used SEE, and the itinerant TOD taught me new signs at each session. I also attended several skillshops put on by the SEE center. I was committed to learning, and becoming proficient/fluent, and I achieved that goal by the above as well as taking the time to look up and learn new signs each day. I achieved such a level of fluency that I was asked to teach the SEE class at my son's school.

 

[BecLak]

Wirelessly posted

Many ASLers are proficient in English, it's not from using SEE but doing alot of readings. That's how they improve their writing skills. That's a fact. If you notice any ASLer's poor English grammar in writing, it's because he/she does not do alot of readings.

It is true that a lot of reading of the written mode of English improves literacy. That is also true for those who use English speech, as well as those whose primary language is sign language, or any language other than English for that matter.