SEE is a language... It's English...

Status
Not open for further replies.
SEE first appeared in 1972. Its popularity grew as both schools and parents found it a useful tool for instructing deaf children in English. An article, "A history of seeing essential english (SEE I)" in the American Annals of the Deaf, vol 141 No. 1, pp. 29-33, gives more background.

Hmm, never intended as a communication method.

Support for Signed English
The only organization promoting SEE is the SEE Center.

Compared to the many organizations that support ASL.

Signing Exact English - Sign Language in English Syntax Through Signing Exact English
 
Guess no one is really interesting in discussing SEE.
 
Bottesini said:
I have enough problems with ASL. But I could give it a try if you are lonely and bored. :hmm:
Click to expand...

Nah, that's okay. I'd rather it go back into Neverland where it went before, to be honest.:giggle:
 
Wirelessly posted

I was taught SEE is a sign mode not really a language like ASL.
 
Oceanblue7 said:
Wirelessly posted

I was taught SEE is a sign mode not really a language like ASL.
Click to expand...

You are correct. A mode of language has a specific purpose. That is why it is creates difficulties for a child when you use a mode intended for one purpose as an overall communication method.
 
Oceanblue7 said:
Wirelessly posted

I was taught SEE is a sign mode not really a language like ASL.
Click to expand...

That's how I understand it too, Oceanblue7 -- like spoken English, written English, signed English -- it's one mode used for expressing the language, which is English. I think that's what the OP was getting across, that SEE is not a different language in itself, it's a representation of English.
 
An artificially designed representation of English, not a naturally evolved one as the English or ASL are. Artificially designed by English users who gave no consideration to difference in processing the two modes, nor the naturally evolving syntactical differences between a signed language and a spoken language that address those needs.

Nor was it ever intended as a mode of English used for everyday communication. It was intended for a very limited purpose...teaching the technical aspects of the English language. When it is used as a communication method, it is a misuse, and creates huge problems for the receiver.
 
jillio said:
An artificially designed representation of English, not a naturally evolved one as the English or ASL are. Artificially designed by English users who gave no consideration to difference in processing the two modes, nor the naturally evolving syntactical differences between a signed language and a spoken language that address those needs.

Nor was it ever intended as a mode of English used for everyday communication. It was intended for a very limited purpose...teaching the technical aspects of the English language. When it is used as a communication method, it is a misuse, and creates huge problems for the receiver.
Click to expand...

I think it's useful for this purpose but for every day conservation? Forget it. :P
 
Banjo said:
Imagine a kid listening to one of the Harry Potter novels in morse code. That'll be one long read.
Click to expand...
It appears that fluent users of morse code can comprehend 40 WPM(words per minute). The average Harry Potter novel beeing at around 80.000 words, that makes 80.000/40= 2000 minutes.

2000 minutes/60= 33 hours.

With SEE, one can perhaps read 100 WPM, making it double as fast, around 15 hours.

The choice of watching morse code in clear words or clumsy SEE for 15 freaking hours is a hard one. Of course, if the reader is a cute blonde, I'll go for SEE, no doubt, though I'll sure miss out the whole story.
 
From what I am reading on here (not whole thread cos it too long), there is no way you are using SEE. It is impossible to use SEE same time as speech because in SEE you have to add in every single bit of English like: the, to, in, a, an, is, it, as, of, be and end of the words with ed, ing, s and more.

Also SEE is not language, I use one exmaple I see so many people use. How you sign this below in SEE? It not easy to do.

My nose is running.

In BSL (my language) or ASL or other signed language it very simple to say this.

That why SEE takes 3 times as long to use and they are usually use in classroom to teach Deaf kids English to explain English rules and grammar, etc in SSE as example.

It sounds like your signing in English order but without all bits and pieces like I said above, only sign key words, in UK that would be called SSE (Sign Support English). I am not sure what USA version of SSE is called.
 
Speedy Hawk said:
From what I am reading on here (not whole thread cos it too long), there is no way you are using SEE. It is impossible to use SEE same time as speech because in SEE you have to add in every single bit of English like: the, to, in, a, an, is, it, as, of, be and end of the words with ed, ing, s and more.

Also SEE is not language, I use one exmaple I see so many people use. How you sign this below in SEE? It not easy to do.

My nose is running.

In BSL (my language) or ASL or other signed language it very simple to say this.

That why SEE takes 3 times as long to use and they are usually use in classroom to teach Deaf kids English to explain English rules and grammar, etc in SSE as example.

It sounds like your signing in English order but without all bits and pieces like I said above, only sign key words, in UK that would be called SSE (Sign Support English). I am not sure what USA version of SSE is called.
Click to expand...

Wow! Great job of condensing the thread to one post!:lol:

We use SSS (sign supported speech) as the term in the U.S. Some will also refer to it as Sim-Com or simultaneous communication.
 
jillio said:
Wow! Great job of condensing the thread to one post!:lol:

We use SSS (sign supported speech) as the term in the U.S. Some will also refer to it as Sim-Com or simultaneous communication.
Click to expand...

Thanks! :D

Must remember USA versions names for next time.
 
jillio said:
SEE first appeared in 1972. Its popularity grew as both schools and parents found it a useful tool for instructing deaf children in English. An article, "A history of seeing essential english (SEE I)" in the American Annals of the Deaf, vol 141 No. 1, pp. 29-33, gives more background.

Hmm, never intended as a communication method.

Support for Signed English
The only organization promoting SEE is the SEE Center.

Compared to the many organizations that support ASL.

Signing Exact English - Sign Language in English Syntax Through Signing Exact English
Click to expand...

Note "Seeing Essential English" Not Signing Exact English which is what was being discussed in this thread. Signing Exact English is also different from Signed English... SEE 1 which I think is rarely used these days only has twelve markers.

Signing Exact English contains all the markers necessary to make English visible to those that cannot access it auditorily.

"Basic Principles of Signing Exact English

Sign what you say The most important principle of Signing Exact English is that English should be signed as consistently as possible with how it is spoken or written to provide the deaf child a clear model of English. Idioms such as, "dry up" are signed verbatim and inflections such as past tense, -ing, -s, are important."

That was from page 9 of the binder you get from the SEE Center when you attend a skillshop. So it would seem that some of us may have been a bit confused when they "did their research" about SEE. I don't know why one would have gotten the impression that using SEE and TC/sim-com was not how it was intended. It was, in fact intended to be used in whatever manner is appropriate including the use of sign and voice.
 
GrendelQ said:
That's how I understand it too, Oceanblue7 -- like spoken English, written English, signed English -- it's one mode used for expressing the language, which is English. I think that's what the OP was getting across, that SEE is not a different language in itself, it's a representation of English.
Click to expand...

That was exactly my point, thank you.
 
"Wall, After Wall, After Wall" by Gerilee Gustason

"It's amazing to me how much anger and bitterness seems to be coming out of deaf persons... and some hearing persons who've taken up the 'cause.' these days. For several years I've been trying to explain to parents where some of this comes from, to help them understand the frustrations that many deaf adults grew up with. I tell them, for example:
not to expect that all deaf adult will be pleased to see them signing with their deaf child. If their own parents did not sign to them- we must remember that hearing parents who signed were very, very rare even fifteen years ago- you would think they would be delighted to see hearing parents now signing to their children, whether they were signing ASL, SEE or the sign language of Mars. But this is often not the case, and hearing parents are attacked for signing anything except ASL...
Why are not more deaf adults delighted to see parents signing, no matter what? Could it be that seeing deaf children communicating with their parents, their family, brings back too many bitter memories of their own childhood where they could not communicate freely? Does that hurt so much that they strike out against the parents they see today? Are they taking out their anger and bitterness against their own family against these families? This could be understandable, but hardly fair..and very, very confusing to present day families who are doing well to sign anything, given the incredible number of pressures in modern day America. But it is, to me inexcusable for anyone to stand in front of a group of deaf students and tell them they cannot communicate with their parents, or to tell parents what a disservice they are doing to their children to sign English to them...
It would be foolish and dishonest to deny that many deaf adults have major problems with English. Of course they do. They couldn't hear it. They couldn't lipread it- it's a horrible language to lipread! Everything seems to look like something else.
But I wonder if there may not be more to it than that? For some adults, I wonder if they look at todays deaf students and feel jealous? For someone whose English papers bled, from someone who didn't want to go home from a residential school because there was no one to communicate with. I wonder if it doesn't make them even more bitter to look at some of todays deaf students? These kids have excellent English. They can communicate with their families...over half the families of profoundly deaf children at least try to sign. These kids can communicate effectively with hearing people...and deaf people too!...
....
Let's get the focus back on the uniqueness of each child, and on each and every deaf and hard of hearing child. Let's stop teaching intolerance of differences. Hearing people are not the enemy.
Deaf and hard of hearing people who sign English are not the enemy. As far as our field is concerned right now, I think Pogo was right when he said, 'We have met the enemy, and he is us.'"

Lots more to the article, just pulled a few pieces that I thought were relevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top