Language and Literacy

B

bwright6

New Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
I'm going to ask a very complicated question. The basic building blocks of LANGUAGE are phonemes, and according to research, sign systems have not been extremely successful at teaching our children the English language. With attempts to simcom, or speak and sign simultaneously, we attempt to show them some of the phonemes associated with each word. Is this beneficial? What about those that can't lip read?
 
bwright6 said:
I'm going to ask a very complicated question. The basic building blocks of LANGUAGE are phonemes, and according to research, sign systems have not been extremely successful at teaching our children the English language. With attempts to simcom, or speak and sign simultaneously, we attempt to show them some of the phonemes associated with each word. Is this beneficial? What about those that can't lip read?
Click to expand...

I am fluent in english, and am rapidly becoming fluent in Auslan, however, I can not do "simcom" - the grammatical structures of both languages are just far too different!

Even when there are "compatible signs/words", they have nuances that can be quite different.

Every attempt to try to "match up" the signs effectively produces an artificial transliteration that becomes inferiour to english. None of those systems will capture:

1) Puns.
2) Alliteration, rhythm, and the "flow" of english.
3) Implied meanings.
4) Etymologies.
5) Rhymes.

Not to mention that english has a VAST number of "expressions", which just don't make sense unless you hear them and are familiar with them. Coming up with a system of sign substitutions is far from being a "piece of cake".

As for your claim that the basic building blocks of language are phonemes, that's ridiculous to the extreme - I don't even know if this is true across all spoken languages, for instance, Mandarin has an emphasis on tone and pitch, and sign languages often don't even have sounds at all!
 
If I remember correctly...

An example of an existing language that is used primarily by hearing people that is not based on phonemes, is classical chinese.

Classical Chinese is said to be incomprehensible if spoken - it can only be understood if left in its written form, and read from the page.
 
SimComing compromises both languages. It is best to keep them separate hence the reason I strongly believe in BiBi education for deaf children. I dont believe in the TC philosophy.
 
This is from a textbook, a reading and language textbook: "Phonology is often considered the building blocks to language"-- I'm pretty much assuming that they mean the English language and not any form of sign, except for cued speech which they might argue includes phonemes.

Shel, could you explain more about the BiBi communication?
 
BiBi is when students build a foundation of language via ASL and then learning English as a 2nd language but now, it is learning both at the same time but keeping them separate.
 
shel90 said:
SimComing compromises both languages. It is best to keep them separate hence the reason I strongly believe in BiBi education for deaf children. I dont believe in the TC philosophy.
Click to expand...
Sim-Com and Total Communication are not the same thing.

Many people call Sim-Com TC but it's not. The Total Communication philosophy is to use any means or combination of means to make clear communication possible. That can include sign language, voice, fingerspelling, lipreading, amplification, writing, gesture, miming, or visual imagery (pictures).

Over the years, some people have erroneously labeled Sim-Com as TC, or considered TC to mean Sim-Com. That's not accurate but it's a common practice.

The correct way to use TC is to use as many methods as possible but not to mix the signing and speaking together.

Sim-Com has become so prevalent that trying to maintain the original integrity of TC is probably a lost cause.
 
bwright6 said:
I'm going to ask a very complicated question. The basic building blocks of LANGUAGE are phonemes, and according to research, sign systems have not been extremely successful at teaching our children the English language. With attempts to simcom, or speak and sign simultaneously, we attempt to show them some of the phonemes associated with each word. Is this beneficial? What about those that can't lip read?
Click to expand...

It is not complicated: It is simple.

First you have to realize that you are looking at the tail of a snake and thinking it is the trunk of an elephant. It will never make sense until you realize you are asking and answering the wrong questions.

It is not according to research. It is ancient garbage posited by people before the study of linguistics, which is the study of language. They thought English and language were one and the same and they tried to make sense of English from the wrong end. Sort of like trying to understand water by starting with the equation H2O.

Phonemes are the building blocks of words -- Not language.

Hydrogen is one thing. Oxygen is another. They are not water until they come together in the right combination. And when you split them up they are no longer water.

The first building blocks of language are nouns. Those things we talk about. The first nouns are Mommy, Daddy, and MINE!

Next we work on the qualities of things and the relationships between them. Milk hot, water cold, dog bite. Mommy loves you.

It doesn't really matter whether the nouns are expressed as signs, written symbols, or spoken sounds. They are all models of the nouns they represent. You can make the sign of a whisker, the written symbol, show a picture, a hieroglyph, finger spell, or speak the word. A cat is a cat is a cat.

Where languages really diverge is in describing the relationships between nouns. Spanish and English handle indirect objects vastly different and ASL has the most straight forward approach.

Teaching phonemes to anyone, Deaf or hearing, can only have one purpose -- To help them master speech.

Who benefits from this? How? and Why?
 
Berry said:
It is not complicated: It is simple.

First you have to realize that you are looking at the tail of a snake and thinking it is the trunk of an elephant. It will never make sense until you realize you are asking and answering the wrong questions.

It is not according to research. It is ancient garbage posited by people before the study of linguistics, which is the study of language. They thought English and language were one and the same and they tried to make sense of English from the wrong end. Sort of like trying to understand water by starting with the equation H2O.

Phonemes are the building blocks of words -- Not language.

Hydrogen is one thing. Oxygen is another. They are not water until they come together in the right combination. And when you split them up they are no longer water.

The first building blocks of language are nouns. Those things we talk about. The first nouns are Mommy, Daddy, and MINE!

Next we work on the qualities of things and the relationships between them. Milk hot, water cold, dog bite. Mommy loves you.

It doesn't really matter whether the nouns are expressed as signs, written symbols, or spoken sounds. They are all models of the nouns they represent. You can make the sign of a whisker, the written symbol, show a picture, a hieroglyph, finger spell, or speak the word. A cat is a cat is a cat.

Where languages really diverge is in describing the relationships between nouns. Spanish and English handle indirect objects vastly different and ASL has the most straight forward approach.

Teaching phonemes to anyone, Deaf or hearing, can only have one purpose -- To help them master speech.

Who benefits from this? How? and Why?
Click to expand...

very cool description, thanks Berry!
 
bwright6 said:
I'm going to ask a very complicated question. The basic building blocks of LANGUAGE are phonemes, and according to research, sign systems have not been extremely successful at teaching our children the English language. With attempts to simcom, or speak and sign simultaneously, we attempt to show them some of the phonemes associated with each word. Is this beneficial? What about those that can't lip read?
Click to expand...

In short, no. SimCom and the MCE's are the basic reason that using sign systems to teach English are unsucessful.
 
bwright6 said:
This is from a textbook, a reading and language textbook: "Phonology is often considered the building blocks to language"-- I'm pretty much assuming that they mean the English language and not any form of sign, except for cued speech which they might argue includes phonemes.

Shel, could you explain more about the BiBi communication?
Click to expand...

That is a bit incorrect. ASL contains morphemes and phonemes as well. It is just that they are kinesthetic, rather than auditory.
 
Reba said:
Sim-Com and Total Communication are not the same thing.

Many people call Sim-Com TC but it's not. The Total Communication philosophy is to use any means or combination of means to make clear communication possible. That can include sign language, voice, fingerspelling, lipreading, amplification, writing, gesture, miming, or visual imagery (pictures).

Over the years, some people have erroneously labeled Sim-Com as TC, or considered TC to mean Sim-Com. That's not accurate but it's a common practice.

The correct way to use TC is to use as many methods as possible but not to mix the signing and speaking together.

Sim-Com has become so prevalent that trying to maintain the original integrity of TC is probably a lost cause.
Click to expand...

I know that SimCom is not TC and vice versa but with the history of TC programs trying to use whatever method in the classroom, the teachers usually end up SimComming due to the impossibility of using all methods in one lesson.
 
shel90 said:
I know that SimCom is not TC and vice versa but with the history of TC programs trying to use whatever method in the classroom, the teachers usually end up SimComming due to the impossibility of using all methods in one lesson.
Click to expand...

Agreed. All the TC programs I have seen are basically Sim-Comming for the simple reasons you have stated.
 
I can't see Sim-Com as a teaching tool.

Sim-Com serves one purpose and one purpose only: Inclusion.

It includes Deaf people in conversations with hearing nonsigners and it includes hearing people in signed conversations.

When non-signers are not involved in a public conversation Sim-Com sends the message to signers in the area they are welcome. Step up and introduce yourself.
 
Berry said:
I can't see Sim-Com as a teaching tool.

Sim-Com serves one purpose and one purpose only: Inclusion.

It includes Deaf people in conversations with hearing nonsigners and it includes hearing people in signed conversations.

When non-signers are not involved in a public conversation Sim-Com sends the message to signers in the area they are welcome. Step up and introduce yourself.
Click to expand...
Yes, Sim-Com can be used as a social bridge.
 
jillio said:
That is a bit incorrect. ASL contains morphemes and phonemes as well. It is just that they are kinesthetic, rather than auditory.
Click to expand...

Great point, Jillio. I also think that it's important to unpack what "literacy" actually means. Just my 2 cents. :)
 
aladinhislamp said:
Great point, Jillio. I also think that it's important to unpack what "literacy" actually means. Just my 2 cents. :)
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I have found in discussions on this forum the definition of literacy is far less than consistent.
 
I dont even use sim-com trying to converse with hearing people. I sign to them in pure ASL and they understand me.
 
Back
Top