question about deaf people's writing skill

[Craziebabe]

I am wondering for deaf people who write in asl do they really understand english? I know one guy who cant understand written english has to be sign in asl. My bestfriend has few deaf friends. She told me that she had to write in asl to them cause that how they sign and if she write in english then her friend won't understand her. I dont like how asl form of commuication cause easy to get mess up with english writing. I wish I didnt learn asl because it mess up my grammar. if I didnt learn sign languagae at all then I wouldnt have struggled with english. I think deaf peoople should sign in SEE cause that is how english people speak.

Lisa

 

[Yiffzer]

I advocate learning how to write/speak first then sign. The reason is simple: It is easier to eliminate than to add things. When a child is accustomed to English and is expected to use ASL, all the child has to do is eliminate words and change its order to some extent. When that skill is mastered, it becomes easier to translate ASL into English.

Because of that, I learned to have a "switch" that enabled me to switch from English to ASL and vice versa. Others have lost out on an opportunity to master English from their infant years but it's never too late!

 

[shel90]

Are u all teachers working with deaf children?

 

[jillio]

I am wondering for deaf people who write in asl do they really understand english? I know one guy who cant understand written english has to be sign in asl. My bestfriend has few deaf friends. She told me that she had to write in asl to them cause that how they sign and if she write in english then her friend won't understand her. I dont like how asl form of commuication cause easy to get mess up with english writing. I wish I didnt learn asl because it mess up my grammar. if I didnt learn sign languagae at all then I wouldnt have struggled with english. I think deaf peoople should sign in SEE cause that is how english people speak.

Lisa

Its not the fact that you sign in ASL that causes the difficulties with English. Its the switch from a visual language to an auditory/oral language. What is correct in syntax and grammar for a language that is perceived through sounds doesn"t make sense when perceived visually. Written English is still an auditory/verbal language; it has simply been placed in a written form. Even oral kids have difficulty with grammar and syntax in English, because they are also visually dependant to some extent. English must be learned as a second language, not as a language that is and oral representation of a visual language, or vice versa.

 

[jillio]

I advocate learning how to write/speak first then sign. The reason is simple: It is easier to eliminate than to add things. When a child is accustomed to English and is expected to use ASL, all the child has to do is eliminate words and change its order to some extent. When that skill is mastered, it becomes easier to translate ASL into English.

Because of that, I learned to have a "switch" that enabled me to switch from English to ASL and vice versa. Others have lost out on an opportunity to master English from their infant years but it's never too late!

And in the process, you will be limiting the opportunity to become natively fluent in either language. So you end up with a child that is less than proficient in 2 languages rather than being fluent in one, and profiecient in the other. You have also way oversimplified the linguistic composition of ASL. Effective code switching between English and ASL is not dependant upon learning English first. My son has ASL as his native language, his oral skills developed only later in childhood. He easily code switches between ASL, SPE, and English, sometimes all in the same conversation.

 

[Interpretrator]

English must be learned as a second language, not as a language that is and oral representation of a visual language, or vice versa.

I totally agree. This is the basis on which I will be developing my curriculum for teaching English to deaf college students. There will be a lot of comparison between ASL and English to show that they are different languages and must be treated as such.

 

[Yiffzer]

And in the process, you will be limiting the opportunity to become natively fluent in either language. So you end up with a child that is less than proficient in 2 languages rather than being fluent in one, and profiecient in the other. You have also way oversimplified the linguistic composition of ASL. Effective code switching between English and ASL is not dependant upon learning English first. My son has ASL as his native language, his oral skills developed only later in childhood. He easily code switches between ASL, SPE, and English, sometimes all in the same conversation.

How is it an oversimplification of ASL?

I am aware that signing is pretty much the first language to teach infants since naturally, they are more receptive for visual clues than auditory clues. I have been raised to learn sign first, then speech later, then finally writing. However, none of these even limit the proficiency of mastering the language.

This may not be viewed positively by some capital Deaf people but teaching the deaf child how to speak would be an excellent asset for his later writing skills. Sounding out of what you write is the easiest way to determine your grammar.

You say your son is fluent with all three. How old is he and how do you know for sure that he is absolutely fluent?

 

[BearBeauty]

Personally, I learned English and SEE before I learned ASL.. ANd even today I sometimes have problems switching between the two. English was my first language.. ASL was my second. But the problem for me is that I'm so used to english, having spoken it at home most of my life and been part of the hearing world for so long..
I've had deaf friends who grew up using ASL and they understand written english just fine. I think you should. in my personal opinon, think of which one you learned first, and the language you learned 2nd, see it as a second language, not as a variation of English. That's the mistake I think most people make, they assume ASL is a variation of English. it's not a variation of English, it is it's own language, has it's own structure. So you've got to come at it as a different language.. similar to how people percieve Spanish, french, or latin being a different language.

 

[jillio]

How is it an oversimplification of ASL?

I am aware that signing is pretty much the first language to teach infants since naturally, they are more receptive for visual clues than auditory clues. I have been raised to learn sign first, then speech later, then finally writing. However, none of these even limit the proficiency of mastering the language.

This may not be viewed positively by some capital Deaf people but teaching the deaf child how to speak would be an excellent asset for his later writing skills. Sounding out of what you write is the easiest way to determine your grammar.

You say your son is fluent with all three. How old is he and how do you know for sure that he is absolutely fluent?

First question: You stated that "all the child has to do is eliminate some words and change the order to some extent". That is an oversimplification of the linguistic features of ASL, as well as interpretation from English to ASL. ASL is as sophisticated and complicated as any other language.

My son is 21 years old, attends a hearing college, and carries a GPA of 3.5. His friends are mostly peers within the Deaf community, and ASL is his preferred mode of communication. As a hearing parent, I feel I am qualified to assess his English skills. Observation of his communication with hearing people, Deaf peers and others within the community, and observation of his communication with hearing signers who use a PSE syntax have all convinced me of his fluency. As I have been signing (and learned ASL within the Deaf community from native signers) for most of his 21 years, I am qualified to assess his skills.

 

[jillio]

I totally agree. This is the basis on which I will be developing my curriculum for teaching English to deaf college students. There will be a lot of comparison between ASL and English to show that they are different languages and must be treated as such.

Yeah, it seems like such a simple concept. I can't for the life of me figure out why it is so difficult for so many educators to grasp!

 

[Yiffzer]

First question: You stated that "all the child has to do is eliminate some words and change the order to some extent". That is an oversimplification of the linguistic features of ASL, as well as interpretation from English to ASL. ASL is as sophisticated and complicated as any other language.

Perhaps I said it in a simplified/basic way (no effort from me to explain what I really meant). To be honest, I don't consider ASL to be at all complicated. It's very easy to learn. But learning the style of signing (which can make or break your image as "Hearing" vs. "Deaf") takes time to attain. I'll have you know that several people identify me as someone from Gallaudet when I've never been there for longer than a day. ;D Obviously with my method, I'm fluent with ASL as well. It goes to show that neither way is better or worse.

 

[jillio]

Perhaps I said it in a simplified/basic way (no effort from me to explain what I really meant). To be honest, I don't consider ASL to be at all complicated. It's very easy to learn. But learning the style of signing (which can make or break your image as "Hearing" vs. "Deaf") takes time to attain. I'll have you know that several people identify me as someone from Gallaudet when I've never been there for longer than a day. ;D Obviously with my method, I'm fluent with ASL as well. It goes to show that neither way is better or worse.

Perhaps you don't consider ASL to be all that complicated, but the linguists would disagree with you. Gallaudet is not the only environment where one finds native signers. And, most CODAs are identified as native signers despite their hearing status. Native fluency isn't dependant upon hearing status.

 

[Yiffzer]

Native fluency isn't dependent upon hearing status.

Did I say that...? ASL is probably my third language, ma'am.
Considering half of ASL's vocabulary is directly derived from English, it certainly isn't that complicated. The only two things that are complicated are the visual signing and style.

 

[jillio]

Did I say that...? ASL is probably my third language, ma'am.
Considering half of ASL's vocabulary is directly derived from English, it certainly isn't that complicated. The only two things that are complicated are the visual signing and style.

Probably, or is? Vocabulary is not derived from English, concept is. Very different. Also, what, may I ask are your first two languages, as it would apprear that you have a very shallow understanding of language acquisition and linguistic features of various languages.

 

[Banjo]

Native fluency isn't dependant upon hearing status.

Native fluency isn't dependent upon hearing status.

Neither examples are misspelled. In American English, it is 'dependent' with the letter 'E'. In both Canadian and British English, it's 'dependant' with the letter 'A'.

 

[Yiffzer]

Probably, or is? Vocabulary is not derived from English, concept is. Very different. Also, what, may I ask are your first two languages, as it would apprear that you have a very shallow understanding of language acquisition and linguistic features of various languages.

I never went to linguistics class so I would not know much. However, I did enough freelance observations of English and ASL to tell that signing vocabulary (or concepts as you would like to call it; a matter of semantics) are literally derived from the English language.

For example, signing the words: no, yes, haha, happy, sad, etc. can be seen as literal vocabulary. One sign meaning one word. If it were SEE, it would be considered a third extension of the English language. One being spoken, another written, and finally sign.

ASL attempts to separate itself from the English language by establishing its own "conceptual" signing which I call "visual arts" and that is all it has going for it. I may be naive but ASL doesn't have its own alphabet letters. It uses the English A, B, and C. It is not entirely a standalone language. If you taught someone signing and writing, it would literally be the same way: A, B, C.

Despite of all that, ASL still abides by the linguistics rules, enough to be qualified as a language.

My other languages are English (spoken and written and signing) and Polish (spoken and sign language).

 

[jasin]

We don't write asl we sign asl!! Its actually impossible to have a written form of asl. Anyone who thinks they can write asl knows nothing about the grammar of asl and is most likely very uneducated in the linguistics of sign language.

 

[shel90]

I advocate learning how to write/speak first then sign. The reason is simple: It is easier to eliminate than to add things. When a child is accustomed to English and is expected to use ASL, all the child has to do is eliminate words and change its order to some extent. When that skill is mastered, it becomes easier to translate ASL into English.

Because of that, I learned to have a "switch" that enabled me to switch from English to ASL and vice versa. Others have lost out on an opportunity to master English from their infant years but it's never too late!

I advocate the opposite due to what I have studied in grad school,what I have seen in my teaching job, and in my personal experiences.

I have seen too many deaf kids being referred to my school from the public schools cuz they didnt succeed from being taught through the oral-only approach. At an older age, they have to start at square one when they should be learning how to read and write. A lot of time has been wasted on trying to get them to speak. If both were used to expose them to language development, the chances of them being proficient in at least 1 language whether it is spoken or in signing would have been greater. My deaf brother was one of them cuz what worked for me didnt work for him so as a result, he suffered through school trying to learn how to read and write proficiently.That's why many deaf people enter adulthood with poor English skills.

If learning how to speak first was the only way for all deaf kids to master proficiency in English, then why are there many deaf people from deaf families able to do just fine with being able to read and write?

I am not a scholar in linguistics but I do see what happens when deaf children do not have full access to language during the critical years of language development. It is really a tragedy.

 

[jasin]

I advocate the opposite due to what I have studied in grad school,what I have seen in my teaching job, and in my personal experiences.

I have seen too many deaf kids being referred to my school from the public schools cuz they didnt succeed from being taught through the oral-only approach. At an older age, they have to start at square one when they should be learning how to read and write. A lot of time has been wasted on trying to get them to speak. If both were used to expose them to language development, the chances of them being proficient in at least 1 language whether it is spoken or in signing would have been greater. My deaf brother was one of them cuz what worked for me didnt work for him so as a result, he suffered through school trying to learn how to read and write proficiently.That's why many deaf people enter adulthood with poor English skills.

If learning how to speak first was the only way for all deaf kids to master proficiency in English, then why are there many deaf people from deaf families able to do just fine with being able to read and write?

I am not a scholar in linguistics but I do see what happens when deaf children do not have full access to language during the critical years of language development. It is really a tragedy.

English is not the offical language of the USA. Therefore, No one is obligated to learn specifically English only. Furthermore, sign language is the native language of the deaf, so forcing a deaf person to learn English can be a bit insultive. The only reason a deaf person should learn written and spoken English is to have an advantage in the hearing world, academia, or they feel they cannot get by without knowing English.

 

[Yiffzer]

We don't write asl we sign asl!! Its actually impossible to have a written form of asl. Anyone who thinks they can write asl knows nothing about the grammar of asl and is most likely very uneducated in the linguistics of sign language.

I... know... that.