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

Status
Not open for further replies.
GrendelQ said:
In January, or whenever this first hit, I was very much interested in what people had to say about their experiences with SEE, positive or negative. But all constructive discussion about the use of SEE was obliterated by the usual gang bang mocking of the OP for being so positive about it.

The following from Jillio was basically what I took away as a good definitive statement about SEE, one that the OP seemed to agree with, but there's not a lot to back it up here. There are comments here about how SEE is used to teach English to those without access to sound. But, there is no calm and straightforward discussion of why SEE is flawed when used as more than just a bridge from ASL to English. I've seen some very intelligent discussions of that elsewhere. But, if you are a new parent coming here to see what's up with SEE as an option, you won't find an intelligently critical discussion of SEE here, just a heated brawl.
Click to expand...

We provided a perfect example of why it is flawed in a thread where we played a word game yesterday. But some got their panties in a wad over that demonstration.
 
CSign said:
I said people here "seem to dislike English" which was my perception. I was villified because I chose to use English (SEE) instead of ASL. Everyone was all up in arms about the fact that I didn't use ASL first and I must be an "Audist" since I place such "high value on English".

The fact is I was in a much better position to provide my son with access to language through SEE because I was already fluent in English. All I had to do was learn the signs to give him complete access to it.

I think we can all agree that the time for acquiring language is in the first 5 years of life, and I didn't want my son to miss out. I also didn't want to haphazardly provide him with "access" to a language I did not know.

I made a point to work hard, and fully commit to learning the signs to support the spoken language surrounding my son.

It had nothing to do with whether or not I "value ASL". It had everything to do with the fact that in the early years I would have been a poor language model for him. Chances are good had I made a different choice, he wouldn't have done as well as he has.
Click to expand...

Then once again, your perception in incorrect. That nullifies anything else said in the remainder of your thread because it is coming from a distorted perception.

Really! When will you stop trying to read the minds of the Deaf? You can't do it when you are thinking like a hearing person.:cool2:
 
GrendelQ said:
What's going in here? So hard up for something to argue about that people need to dredge up comments from last year's threads that have already been argued to death and start up the argument all over again?
Click to expand...

Last year's thread, but still this year's attitude.:cool2:
 
Jane B. said:
shel90 said:
That was at the very begining of this very thread by the OP. Not from another thread from last year.

Again, if you want to complain about people arguing, then I recommend not to make comments like these. It just judgemental and can lead to more flaming. Not a wise idea.[/QUOTE

This is the thread from last year! Why re-argue it all?
Click to expand...

Sit back and learn.
Click to expand...
 
CSign said:
I do not understand how I am adding fuel to the fire. It is pretty clear that a vocal group of individuals don't like me because of my statements about SEE. At no time did I ever say it was the "best thing" to do, or that it was better than ASL.

If you'll note, I titled the thread with a happy face to show that I had no negative intent.
Click to expand...

I have very little doubt that you will ever understand it. Just accept the fact that you are. Everyone is pointing it out to you. Stop trying so hard to understand it and just accept it. I don't think you have the ability to understand it. You are far too ingrained with your audist beliefs.
 
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...

The short answers:

First question: yes.

Last question: no.
 
I remember I experience communication my friends problem SEE not easy I experience my confdiently evacuation because reading communication ASL buddy, I know something problem frustrated SEE language!
 
Wow, I was busy and hadn't checked in here for a few days...

This is still going!

How can a person ignore the definition given in page one or two?
SEE is not a language
 
ASLGAL said:
Wow, I was busy and hadn't checked in here for a few days...

This is still going!

How can a person ignore the definition given in page one or two?
SEE is not a language
Click to expand...

It's just a long dead zombie thread. Just seems that several posters want to make it appear as though the OP is bringing the topic up again by resurrecting it, and they are stating that the OP insists that SEE is a language in itself -- separate from English, when she isn't saying that at all and has never said that.

The OP explained early on in this thread what might have been clear from the title alone: she was referring to the arguments about what SEE is, defining SEE as NOT being it's own separate language in itself, but stating that it was just a mode of English, an MCE. Early on, she even clarified that she shouldn't have even used the word language in connection with the mode after seeing all the controversy, given that she's not using it as a language, but as a teaching tool.
 
ASLGAL said:
Wow, I was busy and hadn't checked in here for a few days...

This is still going!

How can a person ignore the definition given in page one or two?
SEE is not a language
Click to expand...

Oh, heck, ASL gal! Don't let something like a little fact get in your way!:laugh2:
 
GrendelQ said:
It's just a long dead zombie thread. Just seems that several posters want to make it appear as though the OP is bringing the topic up again by resurrecting it, and they are stating that the OP insists that SEE is a language in itself -- separate from English, when she isn't saying that at all and has never said that.

The OP explained early on in this thread what might have been clear from the title alone: she was referring to the arguments about what SEE is, defining SEE as NOT being it's own separate language in itself, but stating that it was just a mode of English, an MCE. Early on, she even clarified that she shouldn't have even used the word language in connection with the mode after seeing all the controversy, given that she's not using it as a language, but as a teaching tool.
Click to expand...

Nope. It was resurrected as proof of something the OP claimed she never said. She stated that she is using it to communicate with her son. That makes her guilty of using it as a language, not as a teaching tool.
 
GrendelQ said:
It's just a long dead zombie thread. Just seems that several posters want to make it appear as though the OP is bringing the topic up again by resurrecting it, and they are stating that the OP insists that SEE is a language in itself -- separate from English, when she isn't saying that at all and has never said that.

The OP explained early on in this thread what might have been clear from the title alone: she was referring to the arguments about what SEE is, defining SEE as NOT being it's own separate language in itself, but stating that it was just a mode of English, an MCE. Early on, she even clarified that she shouldn't have even used the word language in connection with the mode after seeing all the controversy, given that she's not using it as a language, but as a teaching tool.
Click to expand...

Much as I like to remain everyone's friend, the very title of this thread is combative. It was a poor start for a new member.
 
I still am waiting on Grendel's explanation on what gaps that were covered with her daughter.......
 
CSign said:
I said people here "seem to dislike English" which was my perception. I was villified because I chose to use English (SEE) instead of ASL. Everyone was all up in arms about the fact that I didn't use ASL first and I must be an "Audist" since I place such "high value on English".

The fact is I was in a much better position to provide my son with access to language through SEE because I was already fluent in English. All I had to do was learn the signs to give him complete access to it.

I think we can all agree that the time for acquiring language is in the first 5 years of life, and I didn't want my son to miss out. I also didn't want to haphazardly provide him with "access" to a language I did not know.

I made a point to work hard, and fully commit to learning the signs to support the spoken language surrounding my son.

It had nothing to do with whether or not I "value ASL". It had everything to do with the fact that in the early years I would have been a poor language model for him. Chances are good had I made a different choice, he wouldn't have done as well as he has.
Click to expand...

curious - have you been diagnosed with something? something like OCD or....?
 
posts from hell said:
I still am waiting on Grendel's explanation on what gaps that were covered with her daughter.......
Click to expand...

Didn't realize you were waiting for some explanation. There is a gap in exposure that many deaf kids have when it comes to learning to read and write in English. Unlike typical hearing kids, many deaf kids just starting to learn to read and write have not previously been exposed to the English language -- typical hearing kids are exposed to spoken English: the grammar, the vocabulary, the syntax, etc. for some 4 or 5 years before they begin to write and read in the language. That lack of early exposure to English is what most Deaf ed experts point to as a cause of literacy issues, which they try to fill using various teaching approaches, including visual phonics, speechreading techniques, English-based sign systems, scaffolding approaches.
 
GrendelQ said:
Didn't realize you were waiting for some explanation. There is a gap in exposure that many deaf kids have when it comes to learning to read and write in English. Unlike typical hearing kids, many deaf kids just starting to learn to read and write have not previously been exposed to the English language -- typical hearing kids are exposed to spoken English: the grammar, the vocabulary, the syntax, etc. for some 4 or 5 years before they begin to write and read in the language. That lack of early exposure to English is what most Deaf ed experts point to as a cause of literacy issues, which they try to fill using various teaching approaches, including visual phonics, speechreading techniques, English-based sign systems, scaffolding approaches.
Click to expand...
Are you saying I also had a gap because I can't hear? I see...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top