SEE (Signing Exact English) is the best sign language for a child to start with..

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bottesini said:
Obviously not. I am just one of those poor uneducated deaf people with no degree.

So I guess I have to leave the debate to you higher functioning people.
Click to expand...

Yes, clearly you are not very intelligent and incapable of debate! :lol:

I'll see if I can find anything that isn't locked out to the public. I actually wrote a 21 page research paper about this back as an undergrad, which has all my citations and references listed in it. Unfortunately, the hard drive that paper was stored on got wiped, and now I've lost it forever, along with a lot of my early writing. :(
 
Here's something to get started, from research perspective.

Linky
 
SilenceGold said:
Every time I met an intelligent Deaf person either during or before the middle age - I have always asked whether this person has started with ASL, SEE or any other sign language..

I haven't encountered any of them saying ASL.

When I say intelligent - I mean those who are capable of logical and forward thinkings. I do not mean being highly educated such as finishing many years of college.

I think that SEE is an established foundation of providing this person the ability to use the English language as their ways to learn how to think logically.

Let's keep it a friendly debate!
Click to expand...
First of all, you need to keep in mind: how many people were given the access to ASL at first?
 
SEE attempts to put visual language that is processed spatially into the syntax for a language that is processed linerally. It simply does not work.

I have seen no actual SEE users in my time. They are ususally more PSE users with some of the initialized signs of SEE thrown in. SEE is just too cumbersome to be practical.

You are correct, PFH. Most had exposure to SEE as the first and only manual language available to them. It was better than nothing because it at least had some visual cues.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Yes, clearly you are not very intelligent and incapable of debate! :lol:

I'll see if I can find anything that isn't locked out to the public. I actually wrote a 21 page research paper about this back as an undergrad, which has all my citations and references listed in it. Unfortunately, the hard drive that paper was stored on got wiped, and now I've lost it forever, along with a lot of my early writing. :(
Click to expand...

I want to read whatever you can provide, please.
 
jillio said:
SEE attempts to put visual language that is processed spatially into the syntax for a language that is processed linerally. It simply does not work.

I have seen no actual SEE users in my time. They are ususally more PSE users with some of the initialized signs of SEE thrown in. SEE is just too cumbersome to be practical.

You are correct, PFH. Most had exposure to SEE as the first and only manual language available to them. It was better than nothing because it at least had some visual cues.
Click to expand...

Yes, and then I learned ASL in the fourth grade. My parents sign with me all of the times. Thank God for that. Did I ever mention that one of my sisters is an ASL interpreter?
 
Banjo said:
Yes, and then I learned ASL in the fourth grade. My parents sign with me all of the times. Thank God for that. Did I ever mention that one of my sisters is an ASL interpreter?
Click to expand...

No, I didn't know that. That is cool. My son has no sibs, but all of his cousins sign, so I'm hoping maybe one of them will go into the field.

When you learned ASL, didn't it make so much more sense to you visually than SEE?
 
naisho said:
It goes both ways, I was merely thinking of an immediate method to disprove the statement, which is why it's a debate in the first place..

In science, we refer to this as a null hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Right. The experiment or study either supports the hypothesis or supports the null hypothesis.

You know, I'm wondering how the OP is judging whether the individual is intelligent or not? Based on spoken language? I know the OP said "capable of forward thinking" but that is too vague a description.
 
jillio said:
Right. The experiment or study either supports the hypothesis or supports the null hypothesis.

You know, I'm wondering how the OP is judging whether the individual is intelligent or not? Based on spoken language? I know the OP said "capable of forward thinking" but that is too vague a description.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the OP's criteria for intelligence must be flawed: the people I meet who use SEE tend to be more socially isolated and inept than their ASL counterparts. Who is truly more intelligent?
 
Beowulf said:
It seems to me that the OP's criteria for intelligence must be flawed: the people I meet who use SEE tend to be more socially isolated and inept than their ASL counterparts. Who is truly more intelligent?
Click to expand...

Agreed. That is why I was questioning his criteria for defining intelligence.
 
Bottesini said:
Then why do you constantly bitch about AGBell controlling your childhood if you were really ASL and not oral?
Click to expand...

I said that ASL was my first language. I didn't say I used it all through my childhood. My mother was approached by a woman who told her that by using sign language, I was never going to learn how to talk like a "normal person." So my parents made me stop using signs and gestures, and from 1st grade on out, I was oral until I rebelled in high school.

Controlling my childhood? Thanks to AGBell, I didn't have a childhood.
 
shel90 said:
The data strongly supported that if children develop higher critical thinking skills in ASL, they are more likely to achieve English literacy.
Click to expand...

Yeppers. And that is from a meta analysis.
 
jillio said:
No, I didn't know that. That is cool. My son has no sibs, but all of his cousins sign, so I'm hoping maybe one of them will go into the field.

When you learned ASL, didn't it make so much more sense to you visually than SEE?
Click to expand...

Yes, it took a while for me to get the hang of it though.
 
I did a research paper on deaf education vs. hearing education for a comp class a couple of semesters ago and in when I found was that no matter if it was ASL or SEE if deaf children had a full access to language by the time they begin kindergarten then they usually were on par with their hearing peers in terms of intellectual development. What I concluded was that deaf children do best by having a signed language then when they enter school that is where they begin to learn English. Deaf five year olds have the same signed vocabulary range as hearing 5 year olds with the same amount of spoken vocabulary range. (meaning they know the same amount of words whether it is signed or spoken.) I believe I had intended to post that paper here in this forum but I never did. I need to dig it up and post it here.

I think we can all agree that deaf children need a full access to a language when they enter school so that further learning can take place. Language is the foundation for all further learning. If a child has no language which they can use or find useful they cannot be expected to learn. Just my two cents on the subject.
 
jillio said:
Yeppers. And that is from a meta analysis.
Click to expand...

what the research has shown, I have seen in real life hence my reason for my strong beliefs in the bilingual approach instead of oral-only, using MCEs or any other invented systems.

ASL and English both are languages.
 
shel90 said:
what the research has shown, I have seen in real life hence my reason for my strong beliefs in the bilingual approach instead of oral-only, using MCEs or any other invented systems.

ASL and English both are languages.
Click to expand...

For me, as well. In fact, when I first started reading the research, it was like, "Yes! I knew that was true!!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top