Learning pace of Deaf vs. Hearing kids

[jillio]

Also, if its determined that deaf kids do in fact process information differently, then what is the best approach in teaching them.

The way they learn best, which would also be the way they most naturally perceive, process and interpret the information in their environment in order to make sense of their world. For the deaf child, that would be a visually based language such as ASL, and not a form of oral language made visable.

 

[jillio]

Got another book for you rockdrummer! Cultural and Language Diversity and the Deaf Experience, edited by Ila Prasnis. And for all those who continue to refuse to accept that there is no link between language and cognitive process,(not you rd ) this book was was edited by a professor in the Dept. of Applied Language and Cognition Research at NTID.

 

[rockdrummer]

The way they learn best, which would also be the way they most naturally perceive, process and interpret the information in their environment in order to make sense of their world. For the deaf child, that would be a visually based language such as ASL, and not a form of oral language made visable.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I have been doing some research on the origins of sign language and from what I have read thus far, it seems that ASL (as many things) has evolved over time.

American Sign Language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The origin of modern ASL is ultimately tied to the confluence of many events and circumstances, including historical attempts at deaf education; possibly the sign used by the indigenous nations of North America; the unique situation present on a small island in Massachusetts; the attempts of a father to enlist a local minister to help educate his deaf daughter; and in no small part the ingenuity and genius of people (in this case deaf people) for language itself.

Deafness has been around since the begining of time and way back then deafies would sign to each other and those signs and meanings we passed on but never really documented. The result would have to be different signs being used by different families and in different regions and I would guess those signs don't resemble anything that is used today. The fact that they wern't documented would make it hard to prove one way or the other. As I understand it ASL was derived from old signed english which was based on OFSL brought to this country by Gallaudet. He is the one that recognized deafies using a different form of sign language out of class and it was he that refered to it as their natural language. I understand that ASL is considered a language whereas SEE is a manual means of signing english but wouldn't one consider them both to be visual?

American Sign Language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

visual language: information is expressed not with combinations of sounds but with combinations of handshapes, palm orientations, movements of the hands, arms and body, location in relation to your body, and facial expressions.

I am also stuck a bit on the term "natural language". Is it only considered natural because of its time in existance? How does that stack up against other indigenous sign languages or are they not considered natural? Wouldn't something truly natural be common. Regardless of where anyone is from they squint their eyes when looking at the sun because it's a natural thing to do. Probably not the best comparison but it's all I can think of off the bat.

 

[jillio]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I have been doing some research on the origins of sign language and from what I have read thus far, it seems that ASL (as many things) has evolved over time.

American Sign Language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Deafness has been around since the begining of time and way back then deafies would sign to each other and those signs and meanings we passed on but never really documented. The result would have to be different signs being used by different families and in different regions and I would guess those signs don't resemble anything that is used today. The fact that they wern't documented would make it hard to prove one way or the other. As I understand it ASL was derived from old signed english which was based on OFSL brought to this country by Gallaudet. He is the one that recognized deafies using a different form of sign language out of class and it was he that refered to it as their natural language. I understand that ASL is considered a language whereas SEE is a manual means of signing english but wouldn't one consider them both to be visual?

American Sign Language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I am also stuck a bit on the term "natural language". Is it only considered natural because of its time in existance? How does that stack up against other indigenous sign languages or are they not considered natural? Wouldn't something truly natural be common. Regardless of where anyone is from they squint their eyes when looking at the sun because it's a natural thing to do. Probably not the best comparison but it's all I can think of off the bat.

A natural language is one that evolves strictly on the communication needs of a given population, by that population. It will change and evolve, just as oral languages do, but remains fundamentally the same. Other indigineous sign languages are considered natural, because they evelved out a deaf populations need to communicate the concepts specific to that culture.

One is a visual/spatial context and it syntax and grammar are based on the foundation of visual/spatial representation by symbol.. SEE, while visual, lacks the spatial quality that guides syntax, and has, as it's guiding rules for sytax, an oral/ auditory base. So, why both can be seen, both incorporate handshapes and gestures, both are not visual langauges.

 

[shel90]

To it this way...both AS and SEE r visual but SEE is not a language itself and it can be confusing to many deaf children. It would be like telling hearing people to speak change their sentence structure to follow the structure of ASL like saying to another hearing person "Hi..me, store go." The other person will not really understand the context of it and it wouldn't feel natural for u, Rockdrummer, to talk like that. That's what SEE does to many deaf children. While it is visual, the ideas and thought orgination feels wrong. It works for some as an educational tool for while conversing...it will disrupt the flow of exchanging messages just like it would for people who r speaking English but using ASL's structure.

 

[rockdrummer]

A natural language is one that evolves strictly on the communication needs of a given population, by that population. It will change and evolve, just as oral languages do, but remains fundamentally the same. Other indigineous sign languages are considered natural, because they evelved out a deaf populations need to communicate the concepts specific to that culture.

One is a visual/spatial context and it syntax and grammar are based on the foundation of visual/spatial representation by symbol.. SEE, while visual, lacks the spatial quality that guides syntax, and has, as it's guiding rules for sytax, an oral/ auditory base. So, why both can be seen, both incorporate handshapes and gestures, both are not visual langauges.

Great explanation. Thank you. It raises another question for me though. When you say “A natural language is one that evolves strictly on the communication needs of a given population” are you separating deaf and hearing communication needs?

 

[rockdrummer]

To it this way...both AS and SEE r visual but SEE is not a language itself and it can be confusing to many deaf children.

Do you believe that would be true if the child learned another form of sign as their first language?

It would be like telling hearing people to speak change their sentence structure to follow the structure of ASL like saying to another hearing person "Hi..me, store go." The other person will not really understand the context of it and it wouldn't feel natural for u, Rockdrummer, to talk like that.

I understand they have different syntax.

That's what SEE does to many deaf children. While it is visual, the ideas and thought orgination feels wrong.

Do you mean it feels wrong for someone that has learned ASL first? Wouldn’t the opposite apply if the child learned another form of sign as their first language?

 

[shel90]

Do you believe that would be true if the child learned another form of sign as their first language?

I understand they have different syntax.

Do you mean it feels wrong for someone that has learned ASL first? Wouldn’t the opposite apply if the child learned another form of sign as their first language?

It is very hard to explain...are u fluent in ASL?

I started out signing in SEE because I hadnt aquired ASL and it felt like it would take forever to get my messages across because I had to sign every word, every past tense verbs and blah blah..when I finally became fluent in ASL, it was like my signing was more fluid and I could express my ideas easier. Many deaf people learned SEE as their first language but eventually, the "ings" and "is" and all those little words got dropped. To sign SEE, u would have to sign EVERY word. Maybe for some, they can do it but I rarely see anyone in the deaf community really signing in full SEE...more like PSE or ASL.

 

[webexplorer]

I started out signing in SEE because I hadn't aquired ASL and it felt like it would take forever to get my messages across because I had to sign every word, every past tense verbs and blah blah..when I finally became fluent in ASL, it was like my signing was more fluid and I could express my ideas easier. Many deaf people learned SEE as their first language but eventually, the "ings" and "is" and all those little words got dropped. To sign SEE, u would have to sign EVERY word. Maybe for some, they can do it but I rarely see anyone in the deaf community really signing in full SEE...more like PSE or ASL.

Yeah, I notice that. I think that it is probably a bad idea to lose the verbs and the ings. Although, ASL is easy and short hand, and it saves their energy. I don't mind to use ASL or SEE - it depends on the communication between us or group.

 

[shel90]

Yeah, I notice that. I think that it is probably a bad idea to lose the verbs and the ings. Although, ASL is easy and short hand, and it saves their energy. I don't mind to use ASL or SEE - it depends on the communication between us or group.

What do u mean a bad idea to lose the ings and present/past verbs? They are already included in ASL in the context of the signs. Are u saying that everyone should start adding the "ings" and "eds" to the verbs while conversing? It is like telling Spanish people to change the way they structure their languages.. u have to let language happen naturally not consicously adding different rules to it.

 

[rockdrummer]

It is very hard to explain...are u fluent in ASL?

I started out signing in SEE because I hadnt aquired ASL and it felt like it would take forever to get my messages across because I had to sign every word, every past tense verbs and blah blah..when I finally became fluent in ASL, it was like my signing was more fluid and I could express my ideas easier. Many deaf people learned SEE as their first language but eventually, the "ings" and "is" and all those little words got dropped. To sign SEE, u would have to sign EVERY word. Maybe for some, they can do it but I rarely see anyone in the deaf community really signing in full SEE...more like PSE or ASL.

Shel. One is clearly more efficient for personal communication than the other. You said it didn't "feel" natural. Perhaps you are trying to say SEE is more cumbersome. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[rockdrummer]

What do u mean a bad idea to lose the ings and present/past verbs? They are already included in ASL in the context of the signs. Are u saying that everyone should start adding the "ings" and "eds" to the verbs while conversing? It is like telling Spanish people to change the way they structure their languages.. u have to let language happen naturally not consicously adding different rules to it.

I think he means its a bad idea of one is interested in learning english. I would defer to Web to confirm.

 

[shel90]

Shel. One is clearly more efficient for personal communication than the other. You said it didn't "feel" natural. Perhaps you are trying to say SEE is more cumbersome. Please correct me if I am wrong.

It is, otherwise, all deaf people would be using SEE while conversing. I just cant imagine that happening but if some peope want to change ASL to SEE, by all means go for it. I will just continue with ASL cuz I understand it much better than SEE and my friends and co workers (both hearing and deaf) say the same about SEE. PSE is much more common than SEE and it follows English more closely than ASL does. If u feel more comfortable signing in SEE, who am I to tell u what to do. I prefer deaf children acquire their language through the appropriate languages not thru a visual code of a language and then use whatever tools they feel they can benefit from to help them with reading and writing.

 

[shel90]

I think he means its a bad idea of one is interested in learning english. I would defer to Web to confirm.

Right..that's why I use SEE to model reading and writing to my students but when we discuss the plot, the sequence of events, the characters and cause/effect of the stories, we use ASL.

I am curious..do u believe that if deaf children should be exposed to sign language, they should sign or be taught in SEE at all times?

 

[rockdrummer]

Right..that's why I use SEE to model reading and writing to my students but when we discuss the plot, the sequence of events, the characters and cause/effect of the stories, we use ASL.

I am curious..do u believe that if deaf children should be exposed to sign language, they should sign or be taught in SEE at all times?

I believe that ASL is a more efficient effective means for interpersonal communication and SEE teaches english literacy. I think they are both equally important and should both be taught. I can't form any opinions on other forms of sign vs. ASL due to ignorance.

 

[shel90]

I believe that ASL is a more efficient effective means for interpersonal communication and SEE teaches english literacy. I think they are both equally important and should both be taught. I can't form any opinions on other forms of sign vs. ASL due to ignorance.

What do u believe what shoudl be used for language development in deaf children other than oral languages? ASL or SEE? I dont want to make any wrong assumptions later.

 

[rockdrummer]

What do u believe what shoudl be used for language development in deaf children other than oral languages? ASL or SEE? I dont want to make any wrong assumptions later.

Interestnigly enough I have not formed an opinion on that topic and it's part of the line of questioning I ask in this and other threads. I think both are important but I am not convinced that which one is learned first matters other than the efficiency of communicating. One could argue that ease of communication would enable faster learning therefore ASL should be the first language. On the other side of the coin SEE could be efficient if mastered. For me the jury is still out on that one.

 

[webexplorer]

What do u mean a bad idea to lose the ings and present/past verbs? They are already included in ASL in the context of the signs. Are u saying that everyone should start adding the "ings" and "eds" to the verbs while conversing? It is like telling Spanish people to change the way they structure their languages.. u have to let language happen naturally not consicously adding different rules to it.

Oh, I see. I noticed that ASL users do not use the verbs. I was thinking of the general verbs such as "is", "are", "go", "went", etc. How they can improve their grammar on the paper if they do not use the verbs in ASL? You mentioned that the verbs already included in ASL. I am pretty lost about it.

 

[jillio]

Great explanation. Thank you. It raises another question for me though. When you say “A natural language is one that evolves strictly on the communication needs of a given population” are you separating deaf and hearing communication needs?

Yep. Because deaf inherently have a visual communication need, and hearing have a oral/auditory communication need. That is why, the world over, even in remote areas, deaf populations have devised a sign language for communcation.

 

[jillio]

To it this way...both AS and SEE r visual but SEE is not a language itself and it can be confusing to many deaf children. It would be like telling hearing people to speak change their sentence structure to follow the structure of ASL like saying to another hearing person "Hi..me, store go." The other person will not really understand the context of it and it wouldn't feel natural for u, Rockdrummer, to talk like that. That's what SEE does to many deaf children. While it is visual, the ideas and thought orgination feels wrong. It works for some as an educational tool for while conversing...it will disrupt the flow of exchanging messages just like it would for people who r speaking English but using ASL's structure.

Exactly. Just try voicing a conversation in ASL syntax. What works visually does not work auditorily.