ASL, SEE, PSE, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tousi said:
With no disrespect intended, signing songs in SEE is very awkward coompared to ASL wich is smooth-flowing, concise and graceful.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mas oui, mon Cherie but I have seen SEE done to song.
 
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....
 
Tousi said:
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....
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tousi said:
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....
Click to expand...

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.
 
shel90 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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".
 
jillio said:
...I know of no classes to formally teach SEE....
Click to expand...
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.
 
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

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

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.
 
Interesing info about SEE...
 
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.
 
Cheri said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am sorry to say but I agree with Cheri in the last three posts.
 
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.
 
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. :)
 
Cheri said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Berry said:
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]

:gpost:


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.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top