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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Like I said before, if it do not work for someone, it doesn't suck, it's just different.

It is like trying to force someone to understand surrealism, not everyone are surrealist.
 
CSign said:
Many people seem to have this preconceived notion about what I am and what I know. The fact is that not a single person on this site has the faintest clue about what I know, where I've been, and where I am going. Just because I am hearing, I am not prevented from making well informed choices. I have not rushed in, "hook line and sinker." I've been immersed in this for the last almost 7 years. I made well informed choices based upon conversations, research, studies and my critical thinking skills.
I am pragmatic, which has allowed for me to weigh out without bias the benefits and challenges of the language modes available. I have also made a point of learning more about Deaf culture, so I can be the best parent I can be for my child. I didn't make choices because I was told it was what to do, I made choices based upon the loads of information I sought out.
If I did what I was "told", I would have put my son in a mainstream environment when he was 3 because he "no longer qualified" because he was "doing too well." Doing so well because he was given complete and meaningful access to language I might add. Instead I fought for my son's right to access language, made a unilateral placement to a school that used TC and SEE and after a year filed for due process. That placement in a Non-Public school was ultimately paid for by the district. It took an extensive amount of time out of my life to fight for my child's best interest but it paid off.
I have been on this forum for over a year so I am familiar with some of the AD'ers and had an idea as to what to expect. I've read the threads. I just don't get why some are so incredibly negative about TC and SEE.
Jillio, you yourself said that you've never actually seen any SEE users or something to that effect. I don't know how to post something from another thread yet otherwise I would. With that being the case, how can you say it is so bad and ineffective if you've never seen an appropriate language model?

I get it. I understand. I want essentially the same things the rest of you want. I am not coming from a place of darkness. I come from a place of light, and I will stay there :)
Click to expand...

You're fitting in here just fine! I'm really glad you're here, and I look forward to hearing more from you and your experiences. Just because research shows it does not work for the majority of the deaf children does not mean it will not work for your child. I've said this a million times, and I'll say it again...you, as a parent, knows what's best for your child. The fact you're on here, willing to listen and learn from different perspectives, shows me that your kid is on the right track. Some us are not going to agree with your methods or your philosophy, but so what. It's your child.

I, personally, cringe when I hear T/C because 1) it is widely misunderstood what T/C really is and how it is supposed to be used, 2) research all over the place has shown it is not effective, and 3) as a teacher who was forced to use it in the classroom setting, I saw how it adversely impacted my students.

Anyone who knows me will tell you I understand just about anybody. I became a certified deaf interpreter, and I learned M.C.E along with other signing systems. But when someone uses his voice and signs at the same time (which is not T/C by the way, it's called Sim-Com), it's like they are juggling balls on fire while riding a unicycle on a tight rope. lol
 
deafbajagal said:
... But when someone uses his voice and signs at the same time (which is not T/C by the way, it's called Sim-Com), it's like they are juggling balls on fire while riding a unicycle on a tight rope. lol
Click to expand...
Too many people confuse T/C with Sim-Com. Thank you for clarifying the difference. :ty:
 
I think the title to this thread got everything off to the wrong start. It became a debate about whether or not SEE is a language. It would have done better if it had been a discussion of what has worked for individuals and their personal experiences. That would have been a more enlightening discussion.

IMO :)
 
Reba said:
I think the title to this thread got everything off to the wrong start. It became a debate about whether or not SEE is a language. It would have done better if it had been a discussion of what has worked for individuals and their personal experiences. That would have been a more enlightening discussion.

IMO :)
Click to expand...

Conflicts in opinion will ALWAYS endure, not how it started off to the wrong start. Like I said before, use what works. Everyone skipped over and got psychobabble with fancy words.
 
I suppose I should say, "don't we always?" I'm guilty of it, too. :/ *psychobabbling now*
 
Reba said:
I think the title to this thread got everything off to the wrong start. It became a debate about whether or not SEE is a language. It would have done better if it had been a discussion of what has worked for individuals and their personal experiences. That would have been a more enlightening discussion.

IMO :)
Click to expand...

I agree. I used to crawl as a baby but I outgrew it. :lol:
 
I didn't realize that expressing my opinion and experience was considered being defensive. I also have never claimed to know it all. I will continue to learn new things until the day I am called from this earth.
Ok Jillio, I agree that without a proper language model a child will not acquire meaningful language ;-) my son acquired meaningful language through the use of SEE and TC. You choose not to believe it is possible, that's your right. I know what I've done over the last 7 years. I have been well aware of PSE/CASE and that is not what we use. The use of PSE/CASE will not enable a child to acquire a complete language as neither of them are representative of a language.
My son acquired English because I made a point of giving him complete and ongoing access to it. His English skills are better than many of his "hearing" counterparts at school. Why? Because I made a point every day to expand on his vocabulary and make sure he was accessing his surroundings.
It seems many of you haven't completely read what I've written. If you had, you would have seen multiple references to the high value I place on ASL. I know, and I understand that is the primary language of those that are Deaf. See, big "D"? I know. I understand, and I whole heartedly accept that. That is why it has always been in the plan to transition to ASL as he got older. He will obtain fluency in ASL, he already has the groundwork laid out for him.
People seem to get pissy that it was not his first language, or any d/Deaf Childs first language. If I couldn't provide a good model for him in day to day interactions then why would I have used that in the beginning? It all goes back to access to complete and meaningful language. I was able to give that to him.
Again, my goal was for my son to obtain a mastery if the English language and to be able to effectively communicate with him. I got that, and I have no regrets. My son will go to college and will be able to read and comprehend college level text books. Now, if we know hearing college students have a hard time with it we can only imagine how it would be for a deaf individual to read and comprehend if they haven't had appropriate access to the language. There are different ways to achieve an end, and I am proud of the road we took. My son makes it worthwhile everyday.
I respect Deaf Culture, every part of me. I respect the challenges and the successes. I respect the evolution and pride that has come to be. I am proud to be a part of it, whether some if you choose to accept me or not. I know what I've done was in my Childs best interest. Not because it's what I think, but because of what I see everyday.
 
Beowulf said:
Never used 'em. I was completely unfettered, and don't you dare criticize my parents, blah blah. :lol:
Click to expand...
Are you still "completely unfettered?"

Never mind--I don't want to know. :giggle:
 
CSign said:
I didn't realize that expressing my opinion and experience was considered being defensive. I also have never claimed to know it all. I will continue to learn new things until the day I am called from this earth.
Ok Jillio, I agree that without a proper language model a child will not acquire meaningful language ;-) my son acquired meaningful language through the use of SEE and TC. You choose not to believe it is possible, that's your right. I know what I've done over the last 7 years. I have been well aware of PSE/CASE and that is not what we use. The use of PSE/CASE will not enable a child to acquire a complete language as neither of them are representative of a language.
My son acquired English because I made a point of giving him complete and ongoing access to it. His English skills are better than many of his "hearing" counterparts at school. Why? Because I made a point every day to expand on his vocabulary and make sure he was accessing his surroundings.
It seems many of you haven't completely read what I've written. If you had, you would have seen multiple references to the high value I place on ASL. I know, and I understand that is the primary language of those that are Deaf. See, big "D"? I know. I understand, and I whole heartedly accept that. That is why it has always been in the plan to transition to ASL as he got older. He will obtain fluency in ASL, he already has the groundwork laid out for him.
People seem to get pissy that it was not his first language, or any d/Deaf Childs first language. If I couldn't provide a good model for him in day to day interactions then why would I have used that in the beginning? It all goes back to access to complete and meaningful language. I was able to give that to him.
Again, my goal was for my son to obtain a mastery if the English language and to be able to effectively communicate with him. I got that, and I have no regrets. My son will go to college and will be able to read and comprehend college level text books. Now, if we know hearing college students have a hard time with it we can only imagine how it would be for a deaf individual to read and comprehend if they haven't had appropriate access to the language. There are different ways to achieve an end, and I am proud of the road we took. My son makes it worthwhile everyday.
I respect Deaf Culture, every part of me. I respect the challenges and the successes. I respect the evolution and pride that has come to be. I am proud to be a part of it, whether some if you choose to accept me or not. I know what I've done was in my Childs best interest. Not because it's what I think, but because of what I see everyday.
Click to expand...

Seems wonderful CSign. I'm very much interested in your process, so thanks for posting -- I've not yet explored using SEE (although as someone learning ASL, I suspect my ASL sometimes approaches SEE more than ASL, unintentionally :) ) -- but am interested in using it as a support tool with my daughter as we encourage English literacy -- I've read some very positive accounts.
 
Interesting thread. I do not see how SEE can help you understand English. When I used SEE as a child, it only reflected what I already knew, and it became too cumbersome.
 
jillio said:
Language is not taught. Language is acquired. Ideally. The fact that we keep trying to teach deaf children English, either spoken or signed, before we give them the opportunity and environment to acquire language and intuitively understand it's function is completely reversed.

Just because a deaf child has English as their and only language does not mean that they have native usage of that language. That is why we continually see delays in the language use of deaf children who were exposed to nothing but English in their earliest years. How can that be remedied by just throwing another, and more confusing mode of the same language at them? It can't.
Click to expand...

That is *so* true! I think of English as my second language. Deafie is my native language. We had this discussion the other day in my thread and it made so, so much sense to me as to why I *still* get confused when communicating in English to hearies.

To me, hearie parents, my own included, seem to think that because we are only Deaf,:roll: but look like hearie kids, that we think the same way. Uhm, no we don't. We were born with a different cognitive process than hearies no matter what the native language of the hearing parent is.
 
CSign said:
Many people seem to have this preconceived notion about what I am and what I know. The fact is that not a single person on this site has the faintest clue about what I know, where I've been, and where I am going. Just because I am hearing, I am not prevented from making well informed choices. I have not rushed in, "hook line and sinker." I've been immersed in this for the last almost 7 years. I made well informed choices based upon conversations, research, studies and my critical thinking skills.
I am pragmatic, which has allowed for me to weigh out without bias the benefits and challenges of the language modes available. I have also made a point of learning more about Deaf culture, so I can be the best parent I can be for my child. I didn't make choices because I was told it was what to do, I made choices based upon the loads of information I sought out.
If I did what I was "told", I would have put my son in a mainstream environment when he was 3 because he "no longer qualified" because he was "doing too well." Doing so well because he was given complete and meaningful access to language I might add. Instead I fought for my son's right to access language, made a unilateral placement to a school that used TC and SEE and after a year filed for due process. That placement in a Non-Public school was ultimately paid for by the district. It took an extensive amount of time out of my life to fight for my child's best interest but it paid off.
I have been on this forum for over a year so I am familiar with some of the AD'ers and had an idea as to what to expect. I've read the threads. I just don't get why some are so incredibly negative about TC and SEE.
Jillio, you yourself said that you've never actually seen any SEE users or something to that effect. I don't know how to post something from another thread yet otherwise I would. With that being the case, how can you say it is so bad and ineffective if you've never seen an appropriate language model?

I get it. I understand. I want essentially the same things the rest of you want. I am not coming from a place of darkness. I come from a place of light, and I will stay there :)
Click to expand...

Actually, a lot of us probably think you are someone else. CNice is a long time user very interested in CI and a deaf person.

When you posted yesterday, I thought that was who you were and had suddenly lost your mind and decided you were a hearing parent. :dunno:
 
jillio said:
That is what makes it so bad. It is a mode that is bastardized for convenience of the hearing speaker. Worse than just asking a deaf kid to speech read. You are asking them to process an oral syntax intended to processed aurally, but giving it to them visually and not even sticking to the grammar that would allow them to properly interpret the message. Especially when we are talking about young children who need to have an environment that allows them to intuit messages.

I don't mean to offend, but I have serious doubts that you are using SEE I or II as an appropriate language model. I have witnessed many parent's attempts to use it. The vast majority don't even understand the premise behind making language visable for the deaf and think that all needs to be done to create language fluency is to give them a picture on the hands of the English word. That is just soooo wrong. I have observed numerous TC programs that claim to use a version of SEE. I have yet to see one that uses SEE as SEE is written in concept. They use SSS. Why? Because of the great difficulty of signing and speaking, and still making the conceptual message clear for the hearing people doing the signing. You are asking a deaf child to sync up and use two different manners of understanding, when they have not even been permitted to acquire the fundamentals that would make that possible for them. If the hearing adult signer can't sign it properly, what makes you think that a deaf child in the process of grasping language function, could possible understand what you are trying to communicate. I have seen SEE used enough in theory to know that rarely, if ever, is it used as intended when it is used as a communication method. When it is used as a teaching tool, in a classroom by a TOD that understands what he/she is doing with that tool it is a different situation. They use it minimally to teach, not to communicate.

I do hope that answers your question. And please understand, I am not criticizing you. I am attempting to provide you with explanations that go beyond the surface. You are looking only at the surface, and are not seeing what us occurring underneath psychologically and cognitively. When it comes to the deaf child and language, I simply don't mince words. I lay it on the line. Beating around the bush only creates situations where the child is left to flounder and the damage is done before the parent actually gets it.

More than worrying about "teaching your son English", it would be beneficial to the both of you to learn the proper way to sign a language and then simply converse with him in that language, spontaneously and naturally. That is what will allow him to properly acquire language the language you are directively teaching. It is an unnatural situation for language acquisition.

You say the Deaf signers are able to understand him. They are code switching in order to do so. That code switching only becomes a useful skill after the fundamentals of language are acquired. I suggest you turn him loose in a group of Deaf ASL signers a couple of times a week. You will be amazed at the way his expressive and receptive language blossoms, and he begins to play with language in the way a hearing child plays with spoken language. He will naturally and easily fall into ASL syntax because it makes sense in his brain.
Click to expand...

Again, I completely agree with you. I do that a lot. :giggle:

The way that I explain my language barrier to hearies is like this:

Born Deaf in Canada but naturally born, say, for argument, with Greek brain

Parents born hearing in Canada and naturally born with English brain

English parents try making me speak English when my brain is naturally wired to speak Greek. I get confused. Mummy, Daddy, "I don't think in English."

If hearing parents understood that Greek was how my brain was wired then they should teach me Greek first and then teach me English as a second language later; once I've mastered Greek and I've been given a chance to succeed in my own natural language.

I hope that makes sense?
 
Reba said:
Too many people confuse T/C with Sim-Com. Thank you for clarifying the difference. :ty:
Click to expand...

I'm one of the old folks. I still say SSS (sign supported speech) instead of Sim-Com.:giggle:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top