SEE is a language... It's English...

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
Those who use SEE do so because it supposedly models spoken language. Therefore the use of SEE indicates a priority in spoken language is inherent in the choice.
Click to expand...

As a SEE user, I would disagree with your statement. I wanted to use a "whole toolbox approach" in order to provide him the opportunity to develop speech if it was going to be a possibility. Not because it was a priority.

The most important years of speech and language acquisition occur from birth to five. By using a "whole tool box approach"/Total Communication he was provided access to English to develop fluency in it. He has developed great speech and language, but speech was not the priority.

Being able to effectively communicate was our number one priority.
 
Wirelessly posted

I can see how SEE is used as a literacy teaching tool...I'm not sure I agree that it'a an effective communication mode...it seems tedious and it seems to be time consuming. The mere thought of using SEE entirely during instruction during the day exhausts me. I've used ASL, contact variety, Signed English, cued speech, and SEE (II)...of all of them, SEE wore me out quickly. Food for thought.
 
CSign said:
Given the comments on the contrary, I called The SEE Center to clarify it's original purpose. The response I got was exactly what I've posted. It was intended as a way to allow DHH children the ability to acquire English naturally.

When it is used properly it does allow for a deaf child to acquire English naturally, as it represents English in it's entirety. It boils down to the ability of the individual expressing the information accurately. If the individual hasn't made a commitment to learning and using SEE, then the Childs acquisition of English will suffer. If used consistently and accurately, the child will acquire English naturally and likely won't have any language delays.
Click to expand...

This is typical hearing-thinking.
 
I wonder if parents do secretly hope for good speech skills because they, as hearing people, know how some hearing people view deaf people in general. They have seen how some (if not most!) hearing people feel sorry for them, especially if they don't speak at all. Even after the parents have learned about the benefits of ASL, I wonder if they think to themselves, "Well, that's great and all, but the idea of my child having to deal with the real world without good speech skills is just depressing because I know how cruel hearing people can be." ASL-users making statements about themselves and how they went far in life and how they learned English and so on falls on deaf ears (har har) because the parents believe that it's easy for an ASL-user to not realize how hearing people really perceive them nor treat them due to the communication barrier, especially if the ASL-user get most of their REAL interactions with only the Deaf community. In other words, "They just don't know better."

I often try to see the world through another person's eyes to see if it explains their actions.

A smart hearing person obviously would never admit to wanting good speech skills because they know it technically has nothing to do with being successful. Sort of like a parent wishing that he had a son because a man "can be" more successful in life than a woman.
 
faire_jour said:
I have FLAT OUT said that it is not spoken language but English that matters.
Click to expand...
Then why the emphasis on mastering face to face communication?

faire_jour said:
first you are saying that i am supporting SEE, and then you say that i am advocating for spoken language for English. Which is it?
Click to expand...
SEE is so closely linked to mastering spoken/face to face English that I can hardly see what difference it makes, but perhaps you didn't advocate SEE. I suppose I was confused by your passionately coming to the defense of spoken/face to face English in a thread titled "SEE is a language... It's English...".

And I've already given you one example of how to teach English using ASL.

faire_jour said:
the research supports that a child needs to be able to use the language with a certain level of fluency
Click to expand...
"Use the language with a certain level of fluency" does not equal "face to face communication" as you've implied. This is the sticking point.
 
CSign said:
He has been exposed to English as his "natural" language, or first language. Whichever you prefer to call it.
Click to expand...

Just because it is the 'first' does not mean it is the 'natural' language - many oral deafies (myself included) can vouch for that - and I am considered 'fluent enough' in English for most people to think that I am hearing instead of severely-deaf, but I can tell you this for certain, it does not come 'naturally' for me. My natural language has always been visual even without an early exposure to sign language. If you want an elaboration, read my numerous posts on the subject on how I learned to read, write and speak English. Do you really want to put your child through what I and many other oral deafies had to endure?
 
Beowulf said:
Oh, it is. Don't kid yourself.
Click to expand...

How can you presume to know what's in my head? Don't speculate as to my intentions, as I made our goal clear.

If spoken language were the priority, we would have gone hardcore Oral/AVT. There would have been intensive speech therapy and no use of sign.
 
CSign said:
As a SEE user, I would disagree with your statement. I wanted to use a "whole toolbox approach" in order to provide him the opportunity to develop speech if it was going to be a possibility. Not because it was a priority.

The most important years of speech and language acquisition occur from birth to five. By using a "whole tool box approach"/Total Communication he was provided access to English to develop fluency in it. He has developed great speech and language, but speech was not the priority.

Being able to effectively communicate was our number one priority.
Click to expand...

uuuummmmmmmmmmmm

CSign said:
SEE (Signing Exact English) was created to allow those who were DHH to acquire English naturally, through face to face interactions both visually and auditorily (for those that have some residual hearing). The purpose was to address the needs of DHH students to acquire English naturally and develop proficiency in it.
Click to expand...

now SSSSHHHHHUUUUUUUTTTTT TTTTTTHHHEEEEE FFFFFFUUUUUUCCCCCCKKKK UUUUUUPPPPPP!!!!!!!!! :wave:
 
CSign said:
How can you presume to know what's in my head? Don't speculate as to my intentions, as I made our goal clear.

If spoken language were the priority, we would have gone hardcore Oral/AVT. There would have been intensive speech therapy and no use of sign.
Click to expand...

why won't you just go away and go to deaf forum that embraces SEE?
 
BecLak said:
Just because it is the 'first' does not mean it is the 'natural' language - many oral deafies (myself included) can vouch for that - and I am considered 'fluent enough' in English for most people to think that I am hearing instead of severely-deaf, but I can tell you this for certain, it does not come 'naturally' for me. My natural language has always been visual even without an early exposure to sign language. If you want an elaboration, read my numerous posts on the subject on how I learned to read, write and speak English. Do you really want to put your child through what I and many other oral deafies had to endure?
Click to expand...

My son is not an Oral deafie.
 
Beowulf said:
That is what I gleaned from my reading as well. One thing, though: they are not taking into consideration that deaf students PROCESS information differently from hearing students. Deaf students are far more visual than the hearing ones, and I wish to goodness someone would consider the fact and make use of it.
Click to expand...

Excellent point Beowulf, I agree.

I would like to ask these hearing parents a question. How on earth would you know how a deaf child or person learns English? I learned English both written and spoken by visual means only, and I didn't even know sign language back then. Boy, it would have been a lot easier had I known sign language as my first language.
 
Jiro said:
why won't you just go away and go to deaf forum that embraces SEE?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to bow down to you and your desires Jiro. Drop it. Other people are entitled to an opinion, and the right to express individual thoughts and experiences.
 
Jiro said:
um.... yes he is.
Click to expand...

He has developed speech and language.

Do you view that as a bad thing?

He is not an "Oral deafie" as we don't line up at all with the Oral Philosophy. Just because he has developed speech doesn't make him an "Oral deafie".
 
Jiro said:
um.... yes he is.
Click to expand...

That's true, though I wasn't actually pinpointing CSign's son. I was referring to myself and other deafies who had been raised oral with English as the only language we consciously knew.
 
CSign said:
I'm not going to bow down to you and your desires Jiro. Drop it. Other people are entitled to an opinion, and the right to express individual thoughts and experiences.
Click to expand...

bow down? no i didn't ask you to bow down. i asked you to SSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHH. and no you do not have the rights to repeat your mickey mouse bs over and over and over and over.

my.... ain't you a socially-awkward penguin?

penguin.jpg
 
CSign said:
He has developed speech and language.

Do you view that as a bad thing?

He is not an "Oral deafie" as we don't line up at all with the Oral Philosophy. Just because he has developed speech doesn't make him an "Oral deafie".
Click to expand...

no no no. don't ask me. I'm going to ask you. Do YOU view that as a bad thing? You said it like it's a negative thing. He can talk "great" as you said. He is deaf. hence.... an Oral Deafie.

Is that a bad thing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top