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

Status
Not open for further replies.
naisho said:
Hey shel, what about when it comes to grammar? You are the teacher, so you probably have a better saying in this.

I wonder about the situations VampyroX explained, when it comes to ASL grammar reciprocated into written english, it becomes a touchy subject. Why is it that there are situations where some ASL users are missing a part of the gap into grammar usage, whereas it seems SEE eliminates this?

I haven't seen this large scale outside of AD.. but almost everyone here who learned PSE/SEE, I think their grammar is right on or above the accepted level.

Maybe, I'm taking a guess that it's not actually having to do with learning a single language, (and of course, early on in their life) but actually being flexible and learning more languages to become more proficient - almost all the SEE people who replied in here seem to be well versed on ASL, or even oral skills, hence the multiple languages.
Click to expand...

Remember that 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents so what are the chances that out of the 90% actually got full access to ASL from the beginning? Many of the children learn ASL later on after it was discovered that they were falling behind so they end up with deficits in their cognitive processing skills which translates to their gaps in both languages.
 
Reba said:
Yes, I know what you mean about ASL syntax vs. English syntax.

Even the transcription or captioning of those non-standard English versions would be hard to follow. :)

No, it's not "right" to change ASL syntax in order to fit English. IMO, the two languages need to be kept separate.

My analogy:

A hearing child who is fluent and literate in Spanish can learn to be fluent and literate in English. He will be able to communicate in both worlds. But a child who learns neither language but gets by with blended English and Spanish "Spanglish" and no literacy is stuck.

A deaf child who is fluent and literate in ASL can learn to be fluent and literate in English. He will be able to communicate in both worlds. But a child who learns neither language but gets by with blended English and signs "PSE" and no literacy is stuck.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It is not that ASL has a negative impact on English skills. It is the fact that the child has not acquired any language at all, and therefore, the gaps in one are transferred over to the other. They have no fluency in either language.

Speaking of SEE in the classroom...wouldn't you just love to interpret a day's lessons into SEE? LOL
 
deafbajagal said:
Paul (I cannot remember his first name but he's a big researcher dude for deaf education) said something in one of his books (which are informative but it's a pain to read his stuff because he writes so technical) that stuck with me.

Language cannot be taught. It only can be acquired.
Click to expand...

I believe I used one of his books for that research paper, I recall a quote being similar to the one you provided. If I can find the paper, I can get the name as the bibliography was attached.
 
deafbajagal said:
Paul (I cannot remember his first name but he's a big researcher dude for deaf education) said something in one of his books (which are informative but it's a pain to read his stuff because he writes so technical) that stuck with me.

Language cannot be taught. It only can be acquired.
Click to expand...

Paul Fugate?
 
With my friend Google's help, I'm able to remember the name: Peter Paul...the book is called Language and Deafness.
 
Interpreting SEE for an entire day would drive me batty because we say in a bunch of words in English what it might take 3 motions to say in ASL.

I believe the simplest solution is the best solution. ASL is simpler than SEE, therefore easier to interpret. Also ASL is more widely used than SEE from what I have gathered.
 
Many good points are made by far!

It's best for one to earn ASL in the early age (before age 3) therefore it falls into one's parental responsibility to learn and use for his/her deaf toddler, not the school which come into their age 4 or 5. It's the biggest key of all. IMO

That's PRE-LINGUISTIC!

Yes, we have said it thousand times before yet it's still messy with many others who were unfortunately wasted in their latter lives by learning ASL too late in their ages to develop their English skills in time (grade levels).

My deaf friends and some former classmates at ISD and Gally had deaf parents who used ASL almost right away at their homes when they were toddlers, and they were advanced in English unlike many more others whom had hearing parents who don't know ASL. Even my few deaf friends who are teachers now, and they all said that it's continually a strong evidence.

SEE... is not a great language, really and yes, it's rather cumbersome. lol I would not like it either so are the interpreters too especially. lol But I would say that it could be a secondary language if ASL could not used for some reason. I have met several people who used SEE in the past yet rarer in my world right now.

ASL is still recommended over SEE due to several reasons.
 
but I thought SEE wasn't a language, but an invented mix of code.
 
shel90 said:
U are correct. SEE is not a language.
Click to expand...

Wow, this is crazy! I think that what I do is SEE and not ASL. I had to teach myself sign. I'm so glad I joined here as I'm learning so much. I should have joined years ago.
 
Another quick questions:

Those of you who are sharing opinions about SEE - are you an actual user of SEE? Or did you experience the usage of SEE? Or are you really guessing how SEE is used and viewed upon? If you used, been exposed to, or watched someone use SEE - how much amount of time did you spend time with SEE?

So far, I enjoyed seeing different points about SEE and other languages being acquired by children.

When I have time later and a better computer to type down my view - I will do it here when I can. I plan to answer everyone's question to clarify my meaning of the question and also share my opinions.
 
SilenceGold said:
Another quick questions:

Those of you who are sharing opinions about SEE - are you an actual user of SEE? Or did you experience the usage of SEE? Or are you really guessing how SEE is used and viewed upon? If you used, been exposed to, or watched someone use SEE - how much amount of time did you spend time with SEE?

So far, I enjoyed seeing different points about SEE and other languages being acquired by children.

When I have time later and a better computer to type down my view - I will do it here when I can. I plan to answer everyone's question to clarify my meaning of the question and also share my opinions.
Click to expand...

:) I started off with SEE, and now i'm blessed to be teaching my daughter ASL. I cannot even start bragging on where she is at in "forward thinking" because i don't know where to start.
 
posts from hell said:
:) I started off with SEE, and now i'm blessed to be teaching my daughter ASL. I cannot even start bragging on where she is at in "forward thinking" because i don't know where to start.
Click to expand...

"Forward thinking" would mean that it is a brain processing of you considering all different options or solutions when you are trying to solve a problem or achieve something. You would not just stop thinking of more options if you already found a solution that would achieve what is necessary. You would try to add more options to analyze which option is the best choice to conserve energy, time, money or other resources.

The opposition of being a "forward thinker" is to say, "I don't know" and then give up.

I have noticed A LOT of deaf people who grew up and graduated from Arkansas School of Deaf would usually stay together like a school of sardines while learning the way how world works for the next few years from the time of graduation. They lacked their own "forward thinking" abilities until they learned how to think in that way in later years (range varied between 25 to 35 yrs old for them to begin their development of the "forward thinking" abilities). I am talking about those who never had exposure to public school systems or being involved in the hearing society.

When I went out to other Deaf communities - I did notice that there was certain patterns in their intelligence levels which would determinate who they would "hang out" with. For example, #1 - those who graduated from a state sponsored deaf school, #2 - those who graduated from either RIT/NITD or Gallaudet, or #3 - those who were mainstreamed and became selective with hanging out with their certain Deaf peers which require specific levels of personal attributes.

The most common denominator to determine their intelligence level and "forward thinking" ability was that they had used SEE.

I considered those pro-ASL users who grew up in a Deaf family society and attended a state sponsored deaf school and I could see that they lacked the "forward thinking" ability and also lacking the ability to venture out on their own without being part of this school of sardines.

Hope that gives you and everyone else the idea of what I meant about measurement of those intelligent attributes that is apparent to show the differences between those SEE, ASL, and other sign language users.
 
Then, by your definition, I'm extremely unintelligent and a backward-thinker. Which is fine by me. Luckily I know better than to be defined by numbers and systems. I define myself.

Measuring intelligence with language and/or communication mode isn't advisable. That is exactly how the misconstrued views of what intelligence really means started from. Especially for deaf people.

You can't speak, therefore you are dumb. The more you know English, the smarter you are. Those myths thrive, even today. It's perfectly fine if someone is incompetent in English but is fluent in ASL. English is NOT superior to ASL. It's not a hearing world. It's a world full of many languages. And ASL is one of them. If a deaf person can't read or write at all but is very fluent in ASL, then my hat is off to him/her. Being fluent in one language is better than being "okay" in two languages.
 
By the way, if you are a student in my English classroom, ignore my post above. LOL

You. must. learn. English. I say so! I'm the teacher! ;)
 
SilencGold....it seems like you go out and measure people's intelligence based on your own criteria.
 
deafbajagal said:
Then, by your definition, I'm extremely unintelligent and a backward-thinker. Which is fine by me. Luckily I know better than to be defined by numbers and systems. I define myself.

Measuring intelligence with language and/or communication mode isn't advisable. That is exactly how the misconstrued views of what intelligence really means started from. Especially for deaf people.

You can't speak, therefore you are dumb. The more you know English, the smarter you are. Those myths thrive, even today. It's perfectly fine if someone is incompetent in English but is fluent in ASL. English is NOT superior to ASL. It's not a hearing world. It's a world full of many languages. And ASL is one of them. If a deaf person can't read or write at all but is very fluent in ASL, then my hat is off to him/her. Being fluent in one language is better than being "okay" in two languages.
Click to expand...

No - You are able to obtain knowledge independently because you already was a proficient user of English when you graduated from high school. It is because you're not one of those who has went through a life of using only ASL and went through a state sponsored deaf school the entire time. Therefore, you have been able to master reading a novel, self educational, or any other reading materials at time of graduation. Also you have some education from college that is "different" than most of the college education that other pro-ASL students would acquire - they had more dependency on ASL than you did.

I have been hoping to find SOMEONE who, only used ASL their entire life and never had oral education, had achieved the ability to be a "forward thinker"..it would prove my opinion about the importance of SEE being wrong.
 
shel90 said:
SilencGold....it seems like you go out and measure people's intelligence based on your own criteria.
Click to expand...

Frankly - I am just disappointed that the high number of Deaf people that I have met has somewhat disappointing achievements that isn't really impressive enough to change the "ideology" of Deafness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top