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

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlleyCat said:
And it's 3 (give or take) hearies versus all the deafies on this forum who actually experienced life with ASL or SEE for themselves. Some of us do know what we're talking about. Apparently life experience isn't enough to give us any credit. I guess we are spouting off nonsense -- that's what I don't get at all. What a not-so-new low. This reminds me of what happened at Office Depot today. I'll post that in another thread.
Click to expand...


dont forget me! Deafies who have experienced oral-only. :)
 
Would it be better for a hearing parent who barely knows ASL to try to use her poor ASL ability with a young child? Is SEE considered easier for a hearing English-speaking person to use? How difficult is it for a child to transition from SEE to ASL?

It might not be an exact analogy, but I'm thinking a bit of my dad's experiences as a child. His parents spoke only Italian at home. So when he started school, he barely knew any English, just a few words that he had picked up from playmates.

He said he had to learn English in a hurry when he was in kindergarten. However, that meant that the English he learned was correct English, not the barely-intelligible bit of English my grandparents knew. By the time he was 7, he was fluent in both languages.

What good would it have done him if his non-English-speaking parents had tried to "speak English" at home when they only knew a few words, and spoke even those with a strong accent?

So - maybe I'm wrong here, but if a hearing parent can use SEE easily, wouldn't that give a young child more access to language than a poorly-done version of ASL? Wouldn't it be better to learn ASL correctly, once the parent learned it better also, or when the child can learn from an ASL-using teacher?
 
I see two issues going on here:

1) SEE vs ASL.

2) How SEE is defined.

Some people here perceive that the debate is about #1 only. Others perceive the debate is about #2 only.

Me? I perceive that people initially argue about #2, and others respond as if they argued about #1.
 
SEE did not work for me that I didn't have any concept for using SEE to apply with school or talk to teachers when I was a kid. SEE is too slow for me. I don't know why it didnt work for me.
 
Frisky Feline said:
SEE did not work for me that I didn't have any concept for using SEE to apply with school or talk to teachers when I was a kid. SEE is too slow for me. I don't know why it didnt work for me.
Click to expand...

I don't think it works for most deaf. I hate signing in SEE and it's painfully exhausting for me to try to follow a signed SEE conservation. I understand it but ... just NO when it comes to SEE.
 
AlleyCat said:
And it's 3 (give or take) hearies versus all the deafies on this forum who actually experienced life with ASL or SEE for themselves. Some of us do know what we're talking about. Apparently life experience isn't enough to give us any credit. I guess we are spouting off nonsense -- that's what I don't get at all. What a not-so-new low. This reminds me of what happened at Office Depot today. I'll post that in another thread.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong: I am solidly on the Deafies' side. I was just bemused at the suddenness of the hearing people banding together in some common cause--telling us that we are wrong.
Okay, okay, maybe that was not your intention, you darn hearies, but that was my impression.
Leave me alone.
*looking around for a hearie face I do not like*
:giggle:
 
Beach girl said:
Would it be better for a hearing parent who barely knows ASL to try to use her poor ASL ability with a young child? Is SEE considered easier for a hearing English-speaking person to use? How difficult is it for a child to transition from SEE to ASL?

It might not be an exact analogy, but I'm thinking a bit of my dad's experiences as a child. His parents spoke only Italian at home. So when he started school, he barely knew any English, just a few words that he had picked up from playmates.

He said he had to learn English in a hurry when he was in kindergarten. However, that meant that the English he learned was correct English, not the barely-intelligible bit of English my grandparents knew. By the time he was 7, he was fluent in both languages.

What good would it have done him if his non-English-speaking parents had tried to "speak English" at home when they only knew a few words, and spoke even those with a strong accent?

So - maybe I'm wrong here, but if a hearing parent can use SEE easily, wouldn't that give a young child more access to language than a poorly-done version of ASL? Wouldn't it be better to learn ASL correctly, once the parent learned it better also, or when the child can learn from an ASL-using teacher?
Click to expand...

I can understand your thinking and it does make sense.

However, I know many hearing parents who have learned ASL the minute they discover their child's deafness. Of course, they will follow English syntax but by 5 years, they are fluent in ASL. Their children become fluent in ASL by the time they are 5 and hit all the language development milestones. They sign like they have Deaf parents.

Yes, it is hard but it is not impossible. To say that it is better to use SEE instead of a poor model of ASL wouldnt be a good excuse as a reason not to learn ASL. That is not directed at CSign.

However, I believe that CSign chose to use SEE rather than ASL at first.
 
I already experience Englsh SEE long time ago! I misunderstand on something SEE reading because English something hard! that is not easy because Reason! if supposed happened fluent English!
 
shel90 said:
I can understand your thinking and it does make sense.

However, I know many hearing parents who have learned ASL the minute they discover their child's deafness. Of course, they will follow English syntax but by 5 years, they are fluent in ASL. Their children become fluent in ASL by the time they are 5 and hit all the language development milestones. They sign like they have Deaf parents.

Yes, it is hard but it is not impossible. To say that it is better to use SEE instead of a poor model of ASL wouldnt be a good excuse as a reason not to learn ASL. That is not directed at CSign.

However, I believe that CSign chose to use SEE rather than ASL at first.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks.
 
I forget remember, I found it many people have reason issues problem tough SEE and ASL learn it oral because already, I Notice oral something pretty aware it! I research lots of study!
 
Beowulf said:
How in the name of God did it become hearies versus deaf?
Click to expand...
I hope not. :(

There are hearies who support ASL, and there are deafies who support oral only, so I don't think it's simply a hearies vs. deafies debate.
 
shel90 said:
I can understand your thinking and it does make sense.

However, I know many hearing parents who have learned ASL the minute they discover their child's deafness. Of course, they will follow English syntax but by 5 years, they are fluent in ASL. Their children become fluent in ASL by the time they are 5 and hit all the language development milestones. They sign like they have Deaf parents.

Yes, it is hard but it is not impossible. To say that it is better to use SEE instead of a poor model of ASL wouldnt be a good excuse as a reason not to learn ASL. That is not directed at CSign.

However, I believe that CSign chose to use SEE rather than ASL at first.
Click to expand...
I love the English language but I consider SEE a poor alternative to ASL.
SEE is a poor alternative for the following reasons: everying that makes English a great spoken language render it an extremely cumbersome in signed form. The English syntax, gerunds and suffixes affixed to ASL signs renders SEE a very awkward signed from. Most SEE users end up using PSE instead due to the awkwardness of SEE and that creates a confusing language model for deaf children. ASL is not a visual form of English.

SEE was not intended as a commincation form. Correct me if I'm wrong but I belive it was intended to demostrate the differece between ASL and English.

But even SEE is preferable to the Rochester method.

Personally, I think the best way to for Deaf is by bi-bi and extensitive reading of books. However, just as not all of the hearing enjoy books, the same thing applies to the d/Deaf as well.

I know one Deaf man who's fourth generation Deaf on WoW (World of Warcraft). When he first started WoW, he wasn't very fluent in English and people thought he was a ten years old due to his use of the English language but as he played WoW more, his English had improved so much that by the time I met him that if he hadn't told me this, I never would have thought he ever was bad at English.

There was no signs of language delays with this guy. When he told me this, I knew at once he had to be Deaf of the Deaf based on the lack of language delays. I didn't find out till later he's fourth generation.
 
Last edited:
deafskeptic said:
I love the English language but I consider SEE a poor alternative to ASL.
SEE is a poor alternative for the following reasons: everying that makes English a great spoken language render it an extremely cumbersome in signed form. The English syntax, gerunds and suffixes affixed to ASL signs renders SEE a very awkward signed from. Most SEE users end up using PSE instead due to the awkwardness of SEE and that creates a confusing language model for deaf children. ASL is not a visual form of English.

SEE was not intended as a commincation form. Correct me if I'm wrong but I belive it was intended to demostrate the differece between ASL and English.

But even SEE is preferable to the Rochester method.

Personally, I think the best way to for Deaf is by bi-bi and extensitive reading of books. However, just as not all of the hearing enjoy books, the same thing applies to the d/Deaf as well.

I know one Deaf man who's fourth generation Deaf on WoW (World of Warcraft). When he first started WoW, he wasn't very fluent in English and people thought he was a ten years old due to his use of the English language but as he played WoW more, his English had improved so much that by the time I met him that if he hadn't told me this, I never would have thought he ever was bad at English.

There was no signs of language delays with this guy. When he told me this, I knew at once he had to be Deaf of the Deaf based on the lack of language delays. I didn't find out till later he's fourth generation.
Click to expand...


This isnt' @ Shel.
 
shel90 said:
Everything you said, I agree and that was what I learned in my linguistics classes at grad school.
Click to expand...

you are good impressive experience research lots of information!
 
Bottesini said:
It matters. I communicated great with my family. After you get out in the world , it matters a lot.
Click to expand...

Communicating with one's family is a great thing, but it is not the only consideration in this topic. One does not remain, at least not in most cases, by their mother's side for their entire life. They grow up to be deaf adults, and they need the language skills, the cognitive development, and the communication skills to live as an independent adult in an adult world.
 
CSign said:
I like how we all seem to forget that on page one I agreed to the fact that SEE in and if itself is not a language, rather another mode of English.

This quote was pulled from page 3.
Click to expand...

So, in using SEE as a communication mode, you place more value on English, which is and always has been, an aurally, orally based language. Naw. Nothing audist in that.:laugh2:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top