ASL, SEE, PSE, etc. - Page 3

Cheri · 12-31-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

With no disrespect intended, signing songs in SEE is very awkward coompared to ASL wich is smooth-flowing, concise and graceful.

I respectful disagree, because my sister and I signed and sang Christmas songs in exact English at mainstream school, I wish my dad video taped it because I'll love to show you how beautiful it looks.

Tousi · 12-31-2007, 05:50 PM

Mas oui, mon Cherie but I have seen SEE done to song.

jillio · 12-31-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

Mas oui, mon Cherie but I have seen SEE done to song.

The signing choir at St. Rita did their song-to-sign in ASL.

Tousi · 12-31-2007, 05:58 PM

Yeah, Jillio; btw, how much teaching of SEE is still going on? If I had to guess, I'd venture to say it's almost non-existant....

On that note, I used to mix some SEE in my ASL quite a bit in the 70's and 80's just out of respect to those who signed in SEE and to this day, I still inadvertently use a few SEE based signs; for example, the word, "example", I'll oops and use the "E" instead of the straight index finger, lol....

shel90 · 12-31-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

Yeah, Jillio; btw, how much teaching of SEE is still going on? If I had to guess, I'd venture to say it's almost non-existant....

On that note, I used to mix some SEE in my ASL quite a bit in the 70's and 80's just out of respect to those who signed in SEE and to this day, I still inadvertently use a few SEE based signs; for example, the word, "example", I'll oops and use the "E" instead of the straight index finger, lol....

In the different Deaf schools I have worked or done internships, I dont recall seeing SEE being used by any of the staff. When I worked at the self-contained program at the public school in AZ, it was used by the interpreters.

jillio · 12-31-2007, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

Yeah, Jillio; btw, how much teaching of SEE is still going on? If I had to guess, I'd venture to say it's almost non-existant....

On that note, I used to mix some SEE in my ASL quite a bit in the 70's and 80's just out of respect to those who signed in SEE and to this day, I still inadvertently use a few SEE based signs; for example, the word, "example", I'll oops and use the "E" instead of the straight index finger, lol....

I know of one deaf student aged 22 who is still very English in his signing, and uses many initialized signs,etc, but very few of the word endings or prefixes. Likewise, he doesn't combine signs like butter+fly=butterfly, but uses the ASL concept. But he was mainstreamed all of his educational career. He is now taking ASL courses, and it is amazing to see the influence it has on his signing!

I know of no classes to formally teach SEE. I investigated it in the 1980's and learned enough to know how to adapt my ASL vocab to SEE rules, but never really used it with my son, or with any of the students I work with now.

When I slip into a PSE syntax with my more English signers, I tend to fall into the initialized signs, too.

jillio · 12-31-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

In the different Deaf schools I have worked or done internships, I dont recall seeing SEE being used by any of the staff. When I worked at the self-contained program at the public school in AZ, it was used by the interpreters.

Yeah, I have never seen SEE used consistently. Even the terps will slip into PSE in conversational situations with the students. I have not seen a staff member at a deaf school really using SEE, either.

Reba · 12-31-2007, 06:45 PM

I use both PSE and ASL for songs at church.

PSE for congregational hymns that the Deaf "copy" and sign. They prefer to follow closer to the English word order when signing/signing hymns. I try to keep them conceptually accurate but they are done more like frozen text, just sign-sign-sign. From an interpreter's standpoint, it's not satisfactory but it's the consumers' preference.

ASL for special (solos, duets, ensembles) and choir songs. Those songs are not "copied"; they are watched by the Deaf. Those songs I can interpret with emphasis on meaning and visual flow because the Deaf aren't struggling to "follow" the signs.

For hearing people, it's kind of like this comparison:

Congregational hymn singing:

"In-the-resurrection-morning-when-the-trump-of-God-shall-sound-we-shall-rise-we-shall-rise."

Special song singing:

"In the resurrection morning, when the trump of God shall sound,

We shall rise! We shall rise!"

Same song, different impact. Neither way is "right" or "wrong".

Reba · 12-31-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

...I know of no classes to formally teach SEE....

The courses I took in my ITP were not called "SEE" courses; they were "Transliterating Level 1" and "Transliterating Level 2" but they were essentially about SEE and using it in classroom settings.

Cheri · 12-31-2007, 06:56 PM

SEE is not use in deaf schools But, by public schools, that's maybe why some of you haven't seen it around much.

History of Signed English

Quote:

SEE first appeared in 1972. Its popularity grew as both schools and parents found it a useful tool for instructing deaf children in English

jillio · 12-31-2007, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

The courses I took in my ITP were not called "SEE" courses; they were "Transliterating Level 1" and "Transliterating Level 2" but they were essentially about SEE and using it in classroom settings.

Yes, I have seen the transliterating courses, although I'm not a terp, and haven't taken the coursework. And I know that it was used quite a bit in mainstream educational settings...my son's first 2 terps before being transfered to St. Rita were very much SEE signers. Great for instruction, but for straight interpretation, was very confusing for him.

shel90 · 12-31-2007, 07:03 PM

Interesing info about SEE...

Reba · 12-31-2007, 07:41 PM

One problem with sim-comm is that it usually becomes sign-supported speech rather than true simultaneous communication. Either some signs get "dropped" or used incorrectly, or some English words get dropped. I have heard hearing sim-comm users speaking gloss to hearing people while signing to Deaf people. "If you want work Lowes, must fill-out application form. Must interview. Request your mom drive you Lowes. I will meet you front door, time 3:30. Much important, don't arrive late."

Neither sign-supported speech, nor glossed English is fluent communication for either party. It's an "in a pinch, will make do" compromise. If people want to use it, that's fine as long as they understand its limitations.

Do hearing people try to speak French and English at the same time when chatting with a mixed group of French and English speakers? Or do they try to text in English and speak in French at the same time? No.

A bilingual Spanish/English speaker will use consecutive communication, not simultaneous communication. He or she will speak Spanish to the Spanish group, and then speak English to the English group.

Something to consider.

restless_heart · 12-31-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

The sign language used in total communication is more closely related to English, to sign and speak at the same time, I've learned it when I was in total communication program, It's different because I grew up oral then having to add signs to it, makes it confusing but it works out well at the end.

I am sorry to say but I agree with Cheri in the last three posts.

restless_heart · 12-31-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

SEE is not use in deaf schools But, by public schools, that's maybe why some of you haven't seen it around much.

History of Signed English

Yes, and private schools.

deafskeptic · 12-31-2007, 08:40 PM

SEE is what I learned in public school.

I remember that my resource teacher thought it a great idea to sign the first ward and then move it in a circle in order to teach us how to use captials at the beginning of our sentence.

It's a lot like writing it this way: THE house is on the top of the hill. Or it could be: WE came home today from Cheryl's party. My teacher clearly didn't understand how sign works.

InnocentOdion · 01-01-2008, 06:48 AM

OH, I think you're right. YOUR teacher didn't have much of an idea how sign works. OR at least that's what it appears to be.

Berry · 01-01-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

You've proven my point, Berry, What is it with you, ASLers who have that right to mock SEE signs, just because you do not understand our signs. Both basic signs for words are the same with only a few exceptions, however SEE is a sign executed for every word in a sentence, and ASL does not. What's so great about SEE signs that you could sing and sign, You can talk and sign the same time while you cannot do that with ASL.

Let us go back a bit to when I first learned to sign: This would be when I was about 9 or 10 years old; over 50 years ago. Back then hearing people who were pro deaf, or at least neutral, referred to deaf people as "deaf and dumb" and referred to sign language as "talking with your hands." Hearing people who were unsympathetic to deaf called them "dummies" and called sign language "dummy talk", and if you signed in school you were suspended for three days. Deaf people did NOT sign in public. Oralism was the Holy Grail of those great souls who chose to spend their lives helping deaf to rise above the limits God had imposed upon them.

My best friend was CODA and we spent a lot of time out. His parents were chastized for teaching us that crap. Sign language was viewed at best as a bunch of garbled up gestures that served as a sort of makeshift substitue for English.

Then along came a guy named William Stokoe who proved deaf signers had a real language that was not just a bunch of gestures serving as a substitute English: ASL was born and people, including deaf people, started signing proudly, right out in public.

But wait a minute, some educators were not happy with this so someone came up with SEE, which is a makeshift substitute for English, and now ASL signers are supposed to give up their language for this wonderful improvement.

SEE users got the right to sign proudly in public from the fact ASL is a real language in its own right, even though SEE is not. Riding on our linguistic coat tails, so to speak.

It is sort of like being knocked down, kicked around, then somebody comes along, helps you back on your feet, dusts you off, and as soon as they walk off here comes somebody new who tries to knock you down all over again.

Enough is enough.

That is why ASL users, hearing and deaf alike, are very defensive when they feel the language they love is under attack.

Berry · 01-01-2008, 09:39 AM

PLEASE NOTE:

The point of my last post was not to attack Cheri -- The point is to answer the question from the point of view of someone who loves ASL.

shel90 · 01-01-2008, 10:41 AM

[quote=Berry;891211]Let us go back a bit to when I first learned to sign: This would be when I was about 9 or 10 years old; over 50 years ago. Back then hearing people who were pro deaf, or at least neutral, referred to deaf people as "deaf and dumb" and referred to sign language as "talking with your hands." Hearing people who were unsympathetic to deaf called them "dummies" and called sign language "dummy talk", and if you signed in school you were suspended for three days. Deaf people did NOT sign in public. Oralism was the Holy Grail of those great souls who chose to spend their lives helping deaf to rise above the limits God had imposed upon them.

My best friend was CODA and we spent a lot of time out. His parents were chastized for teaching us that crap. Sign language was viewed at best as a bunch of garbled up gestures that served as a sort of makeshift substitue for English.

Then along came a guy named William Stokoe who proved deaf signers had a real language that was not just a bunch of gestures serving as a substitute English: ASL was born and people, including deaf people, started signing proudly, right out in public.

But wait a minute, some educators were not happy with this so someone came up with SEE, which is a makeshift substitute for English, and now ASL signers are supposed to give up their language for this wonderful improvement.

SEE users got the right to sign proudly in public from the fact ASL is a real language in its own right, even though SEE is not. Riding on our linguistic coat tails, so to speak.

It is sort of like being knocked down, kicked around, then somebody comes along, helps you back on your feet, dusts you off, and as soon as they walk off here comes somebody new who tries to knock you down all over again.

Enough is enough.

That is why ASL users, hearing and deaf alike, are very defensive when they feel the language they love is under attack.[/QUOTE]

I feel you. I didnt grow up with ASL but when I learned it, I felt that was the language I should have grown up with and my rights to have that language were taken away by the Holy Grail oralists.

Yes, I love ASL and I do become defensive when I feel it is under attack especially by the oralists blaming it for poor literacy skills.

Back to your experience...I still reel whenever I read the experiences of deaf people from that time when they were punished for using ASL. That is another reason why I am very opposed to the oralist philosophy. Its history is just too ugly.

Reba · 01-01-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

...What is it with you, ASLers who have that right to mock SEE signs, just because you do not understand our signs....

I agree with you that no one should mock how another person signs. Deaf people use whatever signs they grew up with. Same situation with hearing people. They shouldn't mock each other's speech.

jillio · 01-01-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berry

Let us go back a bit to when I first learned to sign: This would be when I was about 9 or 10 years old; over 50 years ago. Back then hearing people who were pro deaf, or at least neutral, referred to deaf people as "deaf and dumb" and referred to sign language as "talking with your hands." Hearing people who were unsympathetic to deaf called them "dummies" and called sign language "dummy talk", and if you signed in school you were suspended for three days. Deaf people did NOT sign in public. Oralism was the Holy Grail of those great souls who chose to spend their lives helping deaf to rise above the limits God had imposed upon them.

My best friend was CODA and we spent a lot of time out. His parents were chastized for teaching us that crap. Sign language was viewed at best as a bunch of garbled up gestures that served as a sort of makeshift substitue for English.

Then along came a guy named William Stokoe who proved deaf signers had a real language that was not just a bunch of gestures serving as a substitute English: ASL was born and people, including deaf people, started signing proudly, right out in public.

But wait a minute, some educators were not happy with this so someone came up with SEE, which is a makeshift substitute for English, and now ASL signers are supposed to give up their language for this wonderful improvement.

SEE users got the right to sign proudly in public from the fact ASL is a real language in its own right, even though SEE is not. Riding on our linguistic coat tails, so to speak.

It is sort of like being knocked down, kicked around, then somebody comes along, helps you back on your feet, dusts you off, and as soon as they walk off here comes somebody new who tries to knock you down all over again.

Enough is enough.

That is why ASL users, hearing and deaf alike, are very defensive when they feel the language they love is under attack.

Very good explanation.

Cheri · 01-01-2008, 12:08 PM

So basically Berry, You're blaming me for what you "ASLers" went through just because I've learned SEE sign language? There is no "universal sign language" Sign languages develop specific to their communities and is not universal, It's the same as there isn't a universal spoken language if you think ASL is the universal sign language, then you are wrong, When you meet a Deaf person from another country their signs will not be ASL either, their signs would matched up what community they're in. Even though ASL is the most commonly used of sign language in the USA by the deaf culture, it doesn't mean we all uses ASL, It's the same as what method we grew up in, we don't all go to deaf schools, share the same program. There's many and many communication tools for the deaf, parents choose one tool for us or maybe just maybe they'll chosen them all.

We are all deaf, does it matter what signs we uses? Why can't we just all get along and learned from each others signs.

shel90 · 01-01-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

So basically Berry, You're blaming me for what you "ASLers" went through just because I've learned SEE sign language? There is no "universal sign language" Sign languages develop specific to their communities and is not universal, It's the same as there isn't a universal spoken language if you think ASL is the universal sign language, then you are wrong, When you meet a Deaf person from another country their signs will not be ASL either, their signs would matched up what community they're in. Even though ASL is the most commonly used of sign language in the USA by the deaf culture, it doesn't mean we all uses ASL, It's the same as what method we grew up in, we don't all go to deaf schools, share the same program. There's many and many communication tools for the deaf, parents choose one tool for us or maybe just maybe they'll chosen them all.

We are all deaf, does it matter what signs we uses? Why can't we just all get along and learned from each others signs.

That is not what Berry is saying. He is not blaming u...he is explaining why he becomes defensive when the language he loves is being attacked and sharing his experiences during a time when deaf children were punished for using the only language that is fully accessible to them. He made a post emphasizing that he wasnt attacking u.

Cheri · 01-01-2008, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

. Yes, I love ASL and I do become defensive when I feel it is under attack especially by the oralists blaming it for poor literacy skills

I grew up being an oralist, and I never once attacked any ASLers for their poor literacy skills.

and I do not agree who does.

Cheri · 01-01-2008, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

That is not what Berry is saying. He is not blaming u...he is explaining why he becomes defensive when the language he loves is being attacked and sharing his experiences during a time when deaf children were punished for using the only language that is fully accessible to them. He made a post emphasizing that he wasnt attacking u.

<

12-31-2007, 07:03 PM	#72 (permalink)
shel90 Sun Whorshipper Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: A Desert Rat that has found herself in Maryland Posts: 16,155 Blog Entries: 1	Interesing info about SEE... __________________ ~Shel~ "A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

12-31-2007, 08:40 PM	#76 (permalink)
deafskeptic AAACCK! I got BORGED! Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,452	SEE is what I learned in public school. I remember that my resource teacher thought it a great idea to sign the first ward and then move it in a circle in order to teach us how to use captials at the beginning of our sentence. It's a lot like writing it this way: THE house is on the top of the hill. Or it could be: WE came home today from Cheryl's party. My teacher clearly didn't understand how sign works. __________________ Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007. Activated on May 9th.

01-01-2008, 10:41 AM	#80 (permalink)
shel90 Sun Whorshipper Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: A Desert Rat that has found herself in Maryland Posts: 16,155 Blog Entries: 1	[quote=Berry;891211]Let us go back a bit to when I first learned to sign: This would be when I was about 9 or 10 years old; over 50 years ago. Back then hearing people who were pro deaf, or at least neutral, referred to deaf people as "deaf and dumb" and referred to sign language as "talking with your hands." Hearing people who were unsympathetic to deaf called them "dummies" and called sign language "dummy talk", and if you signed in school you were suspended for three days. Deaf people did NOT sign in public. Oralism was the Holy Grail of those great souls who chose to spend their lives helping deaf to rise above the limits God had imposed upon them. My best friend was CODA and we spent a lot of time out. His parents were chastized for teaching us that crap. Sign language was viewed at best as a bunch of garbled up gestures that served as a sort of makeshift substitue for English. Then along came a guy named William Stokoe who proved deaf signers had a real language that was not just a bunch of gestures serving as a substitute English: ASL was born and people, including deaf people, started signing proudly, right out in public. But wait a minute, some educators were not happy with this so someone came up with SEE, which is a makeshift substitute for English, and now ASL signers are supposed to give up their language for this wonderful improvement. SEE users got the right to sign proudly in public from the fact ASL is a real language in its own right, even though SEE is not. Riding on our linguistic coat tails, so to speak. It is sort of like being knocked down, kicked around, then somebody comes along, helps you back on your feet, dusts you off, and as soon as they walk off here comes somebody new who tries to knock you down all over again. Enough is enough. That is why ASL users, hearing and deaf alike, are very defensive when they feel the language they love is under attack.[/QUOTE] I feel you. I didnt grow up with ASL but when I learned it, I felt that was the language I should have grown up with and my rights to have that language were taken away by the Holy Grail oralists. Yes, I love ASL and I do become defensive when I feel it is under attack especially by the oralists blaming it for poor literacy skills. Back to your experience...I still reel whenever I read the experiences of deaf people from that time when they were punished for using ASL. That is another reason why I am very opposed to the oralist philosophy. Its history is just too ugly. __________________ ~Shel~ "A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

01-01-2008, 12:08 PM	#83 (permalink)
Cheri Premium Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,075	So basically Berry, You're blaming me for what you "ASLers" went through just because I've learned SEE sign language? There is no "universal sign language" Sign languages develop specific to their communities and is not universal, It's the same as there isn't a universal spoken language if you think ASL is the universal sign language, then you are wrong, When you meet a Deaf person from another country their signs will not be ASL either, their signs would matched up what community they're in. Even though ASL is the most commonly used of sign language in the USA by the deaf culture, it doesn't mean we all uses ASL, It's the same as what method we grew up in, we don't all go to deaf schools, share the same program. There's many and many communication tools for the deaf, parents choose one tool for us or maybe just maybe they'll chosen them all. We are all deaf, does it matter what signs we uses? Why can't we just all get along and learned from each others signs. __________________

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

12-31-2007, 05:50 PM	#62 (permalink)
Tousi Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 8,249	Mas oui, mon Cherie but I have seen SEE done to song.

12-31-2007, 05:58 PM	#64 (permalink)
Tousi Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 8,249	Yeah, Jillio; btw, how much teaching of SEE is still going on? If I had to guess, I'd venture to say it's almost non-existant.... On that note, I used to mix some SEE in my ASL quite a bit in the 70's and 80's just out of respect to those who signed in SEE and to this day, I still inadvertently use a few SEE based signs; for example, the word, "example", I'll oops and use the "E" instead of the straight index finger, lol....

12-31-2007, 06:45 PM	#68 (permalink)
Reba Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 17,288	I use both PSE and ASL for songs at church. PSE for congregational hymns that the Deaf "copy" and sign. They prefer to follow closer to the English word order when signing/signing hymns. I try to keep them conceptually accurate but they are done more like frozen text, just sign-sign-sign. From an interpreter's standpoint, it's not satisfactory but it's the consumers' preference. ASL for special (solos, duets, ensembles) and choir songs. Those songs are not "copied"; they are watched by the Deaf. Those songs I can interpret with emphasis on meaning and visual flow because the Deaf aren't struggling to "follow" the signs. For hearing people, it's kind of like this comparison: Congregational hymn singing: "In-the-resurrection-morning-when-the-trump-of-God-shall-sound-we-shall-rise-we-shall-rise." Special song singing: "In the resurrection morning, when the trump of God shall sound, We shall rise! We shall rise!" Same song, different impact. Neither way is "right" or "wrong".

12-31-2007, 07:41 PM	#73 (permalink)
Reba Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 17,288	One problem with sim-comm is that it usually becomes sign-supported speech rather than true simultaneous communication. Either some signs get "dropped" or used incorrectly, or some English words get dropped. I have heard hearing sim-comm users speaking gloss to hearing people while signing to Deaf people. "If you want work Lowes, must fill-out application form. Must interview. Request your mom drive you Lowes. I will meet you front door, time 3:30. Much important, don't arrive late." Neither sign-supported speech, nor glossed English is fluent communication for either party. It's an "in a pinch, will make do" compromise. If people want to use it, that's fine as long as they understand its limitations. Do hearing people try to speak French and English at the same time when chatting with a mixed group of French and English speakers? Or do they try to text in English and speak in French at the same time? No. A bilingual Spanish/English speaker will use consecutive communication, not simultaneous communication. He or she will speak Spanish to the Spanish group, and then speak English to the English group. Something to consider.

01-01-2008, 06:48 AM	#77 (permalink)
InnocentOdion HOH and learnin' sign! Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: England, United Kingdom Posts: 180	OH, I think you're right. YOUR teacher didn't have much of an idea how sign works. OR at least that's what it appears to be.

01-01-2008, 09:39 AM	#79 (permalink)
Berry Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Oroville, Ca. Posts: 137	PLEASE NOTE: The point of my last post was not to attack Cheri -- The point is to answer the question from the point of view of someone who loves ASL.