Vocab limits? - Page 2

Interpretrator · 04-07-2007, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

When I was growing up in mainstream school, my interpreters used MMS. Like I said before, it is based on the system of syllables.

And is not a natural language, and therefore can't be compared with ASL or English.

***VamPyroX*** · 04-07-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interpretrator

And is not a natural language, and therefore can't be compared with ASL or English.

What defines a natural language?

Interpretrator · 04-08-2007, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

What defines a natural language?

That's actually a very good question. There isn't really a good definition of "natural language" but examples would be ASL, English, Japanese, and Latin. They can be contrasted with "constructed languages" such as Esperanto or Gestuno, or language/sign systems such as SEE or MMS.

***VamPyroX*** · 04-08-2007, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interpretrator

That's actually a very good question. There isn't really a good definition of "natural language" but examples would be ASL, English, Japanese, and Latin. They can be contrasted with "constructed languages" such as Esperanto or Gestuno, or language/sign systems such as SEE or MMS.

If we were to follow your definition, then all schools (with deaf students) should use SEE or MMS in order to maintain their English language.

The school system follows standard English. Therefore, sign language should be in English to ensure that the deaf students are getting the full education out of the English system.

If Spanish-speaking students come to our school, they are educated through the English system.

If ASL-signing students come to our school, they should also be educated through the English sign language.

If they want to take foreign language, then they can take ASL as a foreign language option like every other student take French, Spanish, or German as a foreign language option.

Interpretrator · 04-08-2007, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

If we were to follow your definition, then all schools (with deaf students) should use SEE or MMS in order to maintain their English language.

You are extrapolating way too far from what I said. All I was doing was pointing out the difference between a natural language and a sign system.

I completely disagree with you and don't want my comment misinterpreted as supporting your (personal? educated? don't know which) viewpoint on language acquisition.

This is not a flame, this is just a disagreement.

***VamPyroX*** · 04-08-2007, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interpretrator

You are extrapolating way too far from what I said. All I was doing was pointing out the difference between a natural language and a sign system.

I completely disagree with you and don't want my comment misinterpreted as supporting your (personal? educated? don't know which) viewpoint on language acquisition.

This is not a flame, this is just a disagreement.

I understand. I wasn't trying to say what I thought you intended. I was merely interpreting it from my point of view.

If ASL is considered a language, then it should be kept separate from the actual English system.

shel90 · 04-08-2007, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

If we were to follow your definition, then all schools (with deaf students) should use SEE or MMS in order to maintain their English language.

The school system follows standard English. Therefore, sign language should be in English to ensure that the deaf students are getting the full education out of the English system.

If Spanish-speaking students come to our school, they are educated through the English system.

If ASL-signing students come to our school, they should also be educated through the English sign language.

If they want to take foreign language, then they can take ASL as a foreign language option like every other student take French, Spanish, or German as a foreign language option.

The problem is many children enter school with little or a weak language foundation due to not being exposed to language 24/7 during those critical years of language development. To be able to understand SEE, they need a strong foundation of English first due to so many abstract words that r a part of the English language. My 1st graders remember the nouns, adjectives, and verbs so easily but struggle with articles such as for example, the, is, from, for. They need experience with those words for them to have a meaning.

Another problem is that English is meant to be used in the spoken form so Spanish or other language speaking children are getting the natural aspect of English which is through the spoken form. If deaf students must be taught through English then it should be in the spoken form not in the signed form. We already know that the oral-only approach does not work for many deaf children. The problem with SEE is that it is not a language so therefore by teaching children using SEE, they aren't being taught by a real language. The immigrants do so that's puts them at an advantage over deaf students who r taught using a visual code of English.

Besides, it doesn't feel natural to be signing in SEE...too time consuming and the concepts get lost in the translation. Little children will lose interest in the discussion quickly. Even maintaining their attention using ASL is challenging at times cuz they need to keep their eyes on the speaker long enough to get the message and little ones' ability to do that isn't fully developed whether they r deaf or hearing.

Hope this makes sense. If SEE worked for every deaf child, it would be implemented in all deaf programs just like for the oral-only approach. People say TC may be the best. Only problem with TC is that u need to meet each child's communication needs which is impossible to do in a class full of deaf children with different communication needs.

***VamPyroX*** · 04-08-2007, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

The problem is many children enter school with little or a weak language foundation due to not being exposed to language 24/7 during those critical years of language development. To be able to understand SEE, they need a strong foundation of English first due to so many abstract words that r a part of the English language. My 1st graders remember the nouns, adjectives, and verbs so easily but struggle with articles such as for example, the, is, from, for. They need experience with those words for them to have a meaning.

Another problem is that English is meant to be used in the spoken form so Spanish or other language speaking children are getting the natural aspect of English which is through the spoken form. If deaf students must be taught through English then it should be in the spoken form not in the signed form. We already know that the oral-only approach does not work for many deaf children. The problem with SEE is that it is not a language so therefore by teaching children using SEE, they aren't being taught by a real language. The immigrants do so that's puts them at an advantage over deaf students who r taught using a visual code of English.

Besides, it doesn't feel natural to be signing in SEE...too time consuming and the concepts get lost in the translation. Little children will lose interest in the discussion quickly. Even maintaining their attention using ASL is challenging at times cuz they need to keep their eyes on the speaker long enough to get the message and little ones' ability to do that isn't fully developed whether they r deaf or hearing.

Hope this makes sense. If SEE worked for every deaf child, it would be implemented in all deaf programs just like for the oral-only approach. People say TC may be the best. Only problem with TC is that u need to meet each child's communication needs which is impossible to do in a class full of deaf children with different communication needs.

Exactly, you just pointed out that SEE isn't a "language".

That's why I prefer SEE or MMS be used for deaf students learning English. They may not be able to speak it, but they can write and read it. That's certainly better than speaking.

jillio · 04-09-2007, 11:21 AM

Children exposed to SEE make the same errors on a consistent basis that native signers os ASL make in their English writings. Manually coding English does not make it more comprehensible for the visually oriented person. Just because you have invented a sign or a marker to portray an English word or word ending doesn't mean that it makes any sense in the conceptual interpretation. Cognition follows a different pathway for oral/auditory and visual understanding.

jillio · 04-09-2007, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

The problem is many children enter school with little or a weak language foundation due to not being exposed to language 24/7 during those critical years of language development. To be able to understand SEE, they need a strong foundation of English first due to so many abstract words that r a part of the English language. My 1st graders remember the nouns, adjectives, and verbs so easily but struggle with articles such as for example, the, is, from, for. They need experience with those words for them to have a meaning.

Another problem is that English is meant to be used in the spoken form so Spanish or other language speaking children are getting the natural aspect of English which is through the spoken form. If deaf students must be taught through English then it should be in the spoken form not in the signed form. We already know that the oral-only approach does not work for many deaf children. The problem with SEE is that it is not a language so therefore by teaching children using SEE, they aren't being taught by a real language. The immigrants do so that's puts them at an advantage over deaf students who r taught using a visual code of English.

Besides, it doesn't feel natural to be signing in SEE...too time consuming and the concepts get lost in the translation. Little children will lose interest in the discussion quickly. Even maintaining their attention using ASL is challenging at times cuz they need to keep their eyes on the speaker long enough to get the message and little ones' ability to do that isn't fully developed whether they r deaf or hearing.

Hope this makes sense. If SEE worked for every deaf child, it would be implemented in all deaf programs just like for the oral-only approach. People say TC may be the best. Only problem with TC is that u need to meet each child's communication needs which is impossible to do in a class full of deaf children with different communication needs.

***nodding agreement*** Understanding and fluency in English is not dependent upon devising an artificial sign system to make it visual. If the visual cue was all that was needed, it is already available inthe printed form. Fluency in English is dependent upon the deaf child's early language acquisition, in order to have a fluency in an L1 language. That forms the base on which all other language skills are built. If you can't conceptualize in one language, you certainly can't transfer those skills to learning a second language!

shel90 · 04-09-2007, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

Exactly, you just pointed out that SEE isn't a "language".

That's why I prefer SEE or MMS be used for deaf students learning English. They may not be able to speak it, but they can write and read it. That's certainly better than speaking.

They can learn to read and write it just fine if they have a strong L1 language whether it is in spoken English or ASL. I have seen proof of that. If they dont have a language, SEE or MMS wont work well and would make learning more difficult for the children. If they were older and already have an understanding of concepts, then teaching them in SEE and MMS wouldnt be so hard. The children must establish an understanding of how the world works or concepts first.

Oceanblue7 · 04-15-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

ASL is much more limited than the English language. ASL usually has one sign for multiple words.

Yep, Vampy got that right.. so, it looks like I know every sign there is

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

04-09-2007, 11:21 AM	#39 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,197	Children exposed to SEE make the same errors on a consistent basis that native signers os ASL make in their English writings. Manually coding English does not make it more comprehensible for the visually oriented person. Just because you have invented a sign or a marker to portray an English word or word ending doesn't mean that it makes any sense in the conceptual interpretation. Cognition follows a different pathway for oral/auditory and visual understanding.