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

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.
Who's confused? Not me.

Actually, in our transliterating course, we studied them all, with the emphasis on signed English.

When did you become an interpreter?
It was before the turn of the century.
 
Who's confused? Not me.

Actually, in our transliterating course, we studied them all, with the emphasis on signed English.


It was before the turn of the century.

" Before the turn of the century" makes me think the 1800s until I reminded myself it is actually the 1900s. Geez, now I feel old!
 
I have never heard of spoken ASL and am having a hard time imagining how that is expressed. Could you explain it a little for me please?

Do you understand the term oxymoron?

Signing English

Speaking ASL :aw:
 
Again, I ask...

Do you support spoken ASL?

I thought I posted a question before, but was likely all iphone thumbs :) .

I know there are spoken, written, and several signed modes of English, but I thought ASL existed only in a signed mode. Is there really a spoken mode of ASL?

I was surprised to find last year that my daughter's ASL-based school for the deaf incorporates SEE into its reading program to some degree. Suddenly my daughter came home using a few SEE signs that I'd never encountered before. I asked her teachers about it, and apparently it's considered SOP for teaching reading English to deaf kids, not by them -- they were using Fundations, a phonics-based system with my daughter's class -- but some of the voices off classes use SEE signs here and there and the librarians would use them when reading to the kids. These are ASL-using deaf educators with graduate degrees from Gallaudet, McDaniel, and BU, and they don't seem to approach using SEE with the same hostility I often see here. Sign-supported English and use of MCEs seems to be "approved" for teaching English by the Deaf community at this school, which is one of the very first ASL-based bi-bi schools in the nation.
 
Last edited:
...I know there are spoken, written, and several signed modes of English, but I thought ASL existed only in a signed mode. Is there really a spoken mode of ASL?
If there can be a "signed mode" of English, then why not a "spoken mode" of ASL? If all kinds of "modes" can be invented for languages, then I guess anything goes.
 
If there can be a "signed mode" of English, then why not a "spoken mode" of ASL? If all kinds of "modes" can be invented for languages, then I guess anything goes.

Do you think there should NOT be a signed mode of English used to teach literacy to deaf kids?
 
Do you think there should NOT be a signed mode of English used to teach literacy to deaf kids?

English teachers at my old deaf school didn't use SEE and rather fingerspelled some words like "the" "were" and so on when they taught us grammar rules. In other classes, we used ASL.
 
English teachers at my old deaf school didn't use SEE and rather fingerspelled some words like "the" "were" and so on when they taught us grammar rules. In other classes, we used ASL.

That's all well and good, but it didn't answer the question.
 
Do you think there should NOT be a signed mode of English used to teach literacy to deaf kids?
I don't think it's necessary. That's my opinion, for whatever it's worth :)2c:).
 
Sigh...seems like my question didn't get answered by the SEE supporters. I had a feeling that would happen.

To answer the question if SEE is necessary...like Reba and CrazyPaul said, no..it is not necessary. I used to use SEE to teach English in LA class but things have changed.
 
English teachers at my old deaf school didn't use SEE and rather fingerspelled some words like "the" "were" and so on when they taught us grammar rules. In other classes, we used ASL.

Are you opposed to use of such a tool, that can make the acquisition of English easier and perhaps more natural in DHH children?
 
Wirelessly posted

CSign said:
CrazyPaul said:
English teachers at my old deaf school didn't use SEE and rather fingerspelled some words like "the" "were" and so on when they taught us grammar rules. In other classes, we used ASL.

Are you opposed to use of such a tool, that can make the acquisition of English easier and perhaps more natural in DHH children?

How can it be natural when it is a code that has to be taught in addition to the native sign language in order to teach English. Why not like Reba and Shel say use the native sign language to teach English, in this case fingerspelling? If you use SEE it is like asking a Deaf student to learn the Chinese script in order to learn how English is formulated.
 
Last edited:
Are you opposed to use of such a tool, that can make the acquisition of English easier and perhaps more natural in DHH children?
If you are talking about DHH children using SEE to communicate with each other to develop their English skills, it will never happen.

If any ASLer wants to improve it, he/she can take English classes and/or read some books. Don't forget about helpful online tutoring. Therefore, SEE is not necessary. ASLers hate SEE because it takes much longer. ASL is like a shortcut so what's wrong with that? What's more, ASL is beautiful.
 
If you are talking about DHH children using SEE to communicate with each other to develop their English skills, it will never happen.

If any ASLer wants to improve it, he/she can take English classes and/or read some books. Don't forget about helpful online tutoring. Therefore, SEE is not necessary. ASLers hate SEE because it takes much longer. ASL is like a shortcut so what's wrong with that? What's more, ASL is beautiful.

I wasn't asking if it was necessary. My question is are you opposed to the use of a tool (in this case SEE) that can make the acquisition of language (English) easier?

This question isn't about the merits of ASL.

There are many roads to an end.
 
I wasn't asking if it was necessary. My question is are you opposed to the use of a tool (in this case SEE) that can make the acquisition of language (English) easier?

This question isn't about the merits of ASL.

There are many roads to an end.
Yes
 
I wasn't asking if it was necessary. My question is are you opposed to the use of a tool (in this case SEE) that can make the acquisition of language (English) easier?
You're presuming that SEE makes it easier to learn English. Not everyone agrees with that presumption.

If SEE makes learning English more confusing, then that makes SEE a monkey wrench, not a useful tool.

There are many roads to an end.
Not always. Sometimes those "roads" are actually detours away from the end, or routes to washed out bridges.
 
Back
Top