question about deaf people's writing skill

[Yiffzer]

English is not the offical language of the USA. Therefore, No one is obligated to learn specifically English only. Furthermore, sign language is the native language of the deaf, so forcing a deaf person to learn English can be a bit insultive. The only reason a deaf person should learn written and spoken English is to have an advantage in the hearing world, academia, or they feel they cannot get by without knowing English.

Any foreigner, deaf or not, who lives in the USA, should know English. Anywhere you go, you see things in English. I'd say English is the most popular or common language. If you go to any college, they would expect you to write in English. There are no justifications for not learning English. It's funny you call it "forcing" when it's absolutely beneficial for a deaf person (or any person).

 

[jasin]

Any foreigner, deaf or not, who lives in the USA, should know English. Anywhere you go, you see things in English. I'd say English is the most popular or common language. If you go to any college, they would expect you to write in English. There are no justifications for not learning English. It's funny you call it "forcing" when it's absolutely beneficial for a deaf person (or any person).

Most deaf people when they go to college go to deaf colleges, colleges like Gallaudet University, RIT, southwest collegiate institute, etc... And you do not need to know English to attend those colleges you actually have to know sign, every class is in sign. Also, in hearing colleges that the deaf have attended there is always interpreters. Under the ada they have to accommodate the deaf, deafness is considered a disability.

 

[shel90]

Most deaf people when they go to college go to deaf colleges, colleges like Gallaudet University, RIT, southwest collegiate institute, etc... And you do not need to know English to attend those colleges you actually have to know sign, every class is in sign. Also, in hearing colleges that the deaf have attended there is always interpreters. Under the ada they have to accommodate the deaf, deafness is considered a disability.

Based on what sources? My brother went to Gally for 5 years as an undergrad student and for him to pass his classes, he must be able to read and write in English. I went to Gallaudet for grad school..all my written papers and readings were in English. Gallaudet offers English 050 classes for those who are weak in English and they must pass those classes to get into English 101 and 102. Those classes are required for getting a BA degree.

Also, what about jobs? If deaf people arent proficient in English, they will be stuck with low paying jobs or no jobs at all UNLESS they are lucky to start their own businesses without needing to read or write in English. The job market is extremely competive so it will just make it worse if Deaf people arent proficient in English.

I believe in deaf children acquiring a strong L1 language during their first 5 years rather than spending so much time on learning how to speak and listen only. That's why I advocate for all deaf children to be exposed to both ASL and spoken language instead of just spoken language only.

 

[Yiffzer]

Most deaf people when they go to college go to deaf colleges, colleges like Gallaudet University, RIT, southwest collegiate institute, etc... And you do not need to know English to attend those colleges you actually have to know sign, every class is in sign. Also, in hearing colleges that the deaf have attended there is always interpreters. Under the ada they have to accommodate the deaf, deafness is considered a disability.

And what's your point? Are you trying to argue that you do not need to know English? They still have to write papers. No one will write for them. And it is still beneficial outside of academia. :roll:

 

[Yiffzer]

Based on what sources? My brother went to Gally for 5 years as an undergrad student and for him to pass his classes, he must be able to read and write in English. I went to Gallaudet for grad school..all my written papers and readings were in English. Gallaudet offers English 050 classes for those who are weak in English and they must pass those classes to get into English 101 and 102. Those classes are required for getting a BA degree.

Also, what about jobs? If deaf people arent proficient in English, they will be stuck with low paying jobs or no jobs at all UNLESS they are lucky to start their own businesses without needing to read or write in English. The job market is extremely competive so it will just make it worse if Deaf people arent proficient in English.

I believe in deaf children acquiring a strong L1 language during their first 5 years rather than spending so much time on learning how to speak and listen only. That's why I advocate for all deaf children to be exposed to both ASL and spoken language instead of just spoken language only.

QFT.

 

[VamPyroX]

I understand your frustration.

I grew up using MMS. MMS is a more complex version of SEE. Instead of signing only word-for-word like SEE, you also sign syllables as well... that's MMS.

I didn't even know what ASL was until I came to RIT.

While growing up in mainstream school, there were a lot of other deaf students who grew up with ASL. When they transferred to my mainstream school, they were so behind in everything that it took them 2 years to complete almost 1 year worth of education. By the time they graduated, they had the knowledge of 3rd to 7th grade Math/English.

I never used sign language until I entered mainstream school. That was my first experience... which was MMS. I had all deaf classes for kindergarten, 1st grade, and 2nd grade. By the 3rd grade, I was taking 1 or 2 classes with hearing students. By the 8th grade, I was taking all my classes with hearing students.

Even though I grew up using MMS, I was already accustomed to understanding what other deaf students were saying (even though I didn't know it was ASL).

When I finally came to RIT, I finally realized what ASL meant. From that point on, I looked back and realized what was really going on.

If I could go back, I would have worked harder with those deaf students by encouraging SEE instead of ASL (of course, ASL can be done at home).

 

[Craziebabe]

Most deaf people when they go to college go to deaf colleges, colleges like Gallaudet University, RIT, southwest collegiate institute, etc... And you do not need to know English to attend those colleges you actually have to know sign, every class is in sign. Also, in hearing colleges that the deaf have attended there is always interpreters. Under the ada they have to accommodate the deaf, deafness is considered a disability.

what you are saying is BS cause deaf people have to know english otheriwise how do they get by.

 

[shel90]

I understand your frustration.

I grew up using MMS. MMS is a more complex version of SEE. Instead of signing only word-for-word like SEE, you also sign syllables as well... that's MMS.

I didn't even know what ASL was until I came to RIT.

While growing up in mainstream school, there were a lot of other deaf students who grew up with ASL. When they transferred to my mainstream school, they were so behind in everything that it took them 2 years to complete almost 1 year worth of education. By the time they graduated, they had the knowledge of 3rd to 7th grade Math/English.

I never used sign language until I entered mainstream school. That was my first experience... which was MMS. I had all deaf classes for kindergarten, 1st grade, and 2nd grade. By the 3rd grade, I was taking 1 or 2 classes with hearing students. By the 8th grade, I was taking all my classes with hearing students.

Even though I grew up using MMS, I was already accustomed to understanding what other deaf students were saying (even though I didn't know it was ASL).

When I finally came to RIT, I finally realized what ASL meant. From that point on, I looked back and realized what was really going on.

If I could go back, I would have worked harder with those deaf students by encouraging SEE instead of ASL (of course, ASL can be done at home).

That's strange cuz the regular ed students at my work have been using ASL since birth and their parents have learned ASL or have deaf parents. They are the ones who are ahead in reading/writing and math than those deaf who have been referred from mainstreamed programs using oral or SEE. I have one student who just came from the public school. She signs in exact English and she cant even read more than 80 words!

I think we all have to look at what happened with the children during their first 5 years of life. Did they have full access to language 24/7? I think that is the key...I honestly dont know why I am able to read and write this well (I wish I was better) considering I missed out soooo much growing up being in an oral-only mainstreamed program. Honestly, that scares the shit out of me cuz if I didnt have the motivation to learn, I sure would be in a fucked up situation now.

 

[jillio]

I never went to linguistics class so I would not know much. However, I did enough freelance observations of English and ASL to tell that signing vocabulary (or concepts as you would like to call it; a matter of semantics) are literally derived from the English language.

For example, signing the words: no, yes, haha, happy, sad, etc. can be seen as literal vocabulary. One sign meaning one word. If it were SEE, it would be considered a third extension of the English language. One being spoken, another written, and finally sign.

ASL attempts to separate itself from the English language by establishing its own "conceptual" signing which I call "visual arts" and that is all it has going for it. I may be naive but ASL doesn't have its own alphabet letters. It uses the English A, B, and C. It is not entirely a standalone language. If you taught someone signing and writing, it would literally be the same way: A, B, C.

Despite of all that, ASL still abides by the linguistics rules, enough to be qualified as a language.

My other languages are English (spoken and written and signing) and Polish (spoken and sign language).

Once again, you misunderstand. All languages borrow concept. It is the symbol that varies. The concept is happy, the English symbol used to represent that concept is the word "happy", eoither produced orally, or in written form. The ASL symbol is the manually produced sign. They represent the same concept, but are not the same word. The same argument can be made for the concept "happy" in another one of your "fluent" languages. The symbol used for that concept can be produced int he same way that English represents the concept; orally or in writing. However, it is spelled differently and pronounced differently, therefore it is a different symbol. Since ASL does not use English symbols, it does not use English vocabulary. It useds English concept.

ASL does not attempt to separate itself--it is inherently separate. All languages are conceptual--they simply use a different symbol system to represent those concepts.

 

[Phillips]

depend on deaf people

One of my stronger or power Deaf Man.. He do not understand English .. but He do understand Basic English!!

 

[BearBeauty]

We don't write asl we sign asl!! Its actually impossible to have a written form of asl. Anyone who thinks they can write asl knows nothing about the grammar of asl and is most likely very uneducated in the linguistics of sign language.

Wrong.. you can write ASL.. it's called Sign Writing. SignWriting: Write Sign Languages

I know because I was looking at videos and found a documentary about it.

 

[shel90]

Wrong.. you can write ASL.. it's called Sign Writing. SignWriting: Write Sign Languages

I know because I was looking at videos and found a documentary about it.

I can't open the link cuz I am using my pager but I know what Jasin is talking about. I have gone to many workshops hosted by people who claimed to have created a written form of ASL but the truth is, in the long run, it isn't effective and doesn't make sense. The best thing is for deaf children to develop literacy skills in English or other spoken languages that have written form. Some deaf schools have attempted to teach using ASL in the written form..I haven't read any studies that showed propven results of it being effective. ASL has five compenents...handhsape, palm orienation, location, facial expression (there is one more but can't remember it but I think it is related to movement)..by putting it in written form, u take away two of the the components which r facial expression and movement. Without those two, ASL is no longer a working language.

 

[jillio]

Based on what sources? My brother went to Gally for 5 years as an undergrad student and for him to pass his classes, he must be able to read and write in English. I went to Gallaudet for grad school..all my written papers and readings were in English. Gallaudet offers English 050 classes for those who are weak in English and they must pass those classes to get into English 101 and 102. Those classes are required for getting a BA degree.

Also, what about jobs? If deaf people arent proficient in English, they will be stuck with low paying jobs or no jobs at all UNLESS they are lucky to start their own businesses without needing to read or write in English. The job market is extremely competive so it will just make it worse if Deaf people arent proficient in English.

I believe in deaf children acquiring a strong L1 language during their first 5 years rather than spending so much time on learning how to speak and listen only. That's why I advocate for all deaf children to be exposed to both ASL and spoken language instead of just spoken language only.

**nodding agreement** on all points. And, although deaf students are provided terps, that is only during lecture. Textbooks are still written in English, and all written assignments from students must meet basic writing in English requirements. In addition, those papers students write must not only adhere to proper grammar, syntax, and spelling rules, they must also adhere to a specific writing style. Depending upon the dept. for whom the paper is submitted, it could be APA,MLA, or Chicago style--all of which have conflicting and various rules about the style of the formatting. That can be confusing for a hearing student. I'm sure you have experience, shel, in the difficulty of remembering all the guidelines. So knowledge of English is a fundamental skill for success in college, but I agree that kids should be taught that knowledge early on as a second language.

 

[jillio]

That's strange cuz the regular ed students at my work have been using ASL since birth and their parents have learned ASL or have deaf parents. They are the ones who are ahead in reading/writing and math than those deaf who have been referred from mainstreamed programs using oral or SEE. I have one student who just came from the public school. She signs in exact English and she cant even read more than 80 words!

I think we all have to look at what happened with the children during their first 5 years of life. Did they have full access to language 24/7? I think that is the key...I honestly dont know why I am able to read and write this well (I wish I was better) considering I missed out soooo much growing up being in an oral-only mainstreamed program. Honestly, that scares the shit out of me cuz if I didnt have the motivation to learn, I sure would be in a fucked up situation now.

Absolutely, shel. And the research that has been done in this area supports everything you say.

 

[Serendipity]

I advocate learning how to write/speak first then sign. The reason is simple: It is easier to eliminate than to add things. When a child is accustomed to English and is expected to use ASL, all the child has to do is eliminate words and change its order to some extent. When that skill is mastered, it becomes easier to translate ASL into English.

Because of that, I learned to have a "switch" that enabled me to switch from English to ASL and vice versa. Others have lost out on an opportunity to master English from their infant years but it's never too late!

ASL is my native language, then English. I had no problem interpreting from ASL to written English. Sure, it took a long time but it is worth my own time, in my opinion. It is really depending on how capable everyone drifting back and forth with their first language and written language.

 

[Craziebabe]

it is hard for me to sign in asl but i am able to understand if someone else sign in asl. I guess it is hard for me cause I have to think to interp the langauge.

 

[Yiffzer]

Once again, you misunderstand. All languages borrow concept. It is the symbol that varies. The concept is happy, the English symbol used to represent that concept is the word "happy", eoither produced orally, or in written form. The ASL symbol is the manually produced sign. They represent the same concept, but are not the same word. The same argument can be made for the concept "happy" in another one of your "fluent" languages. The symbol used for that concept can be produced int he same way that English represents the concept; orally or in writing. However, it is spelled differently and pronounced differently, therefore it is a different symbol. Since ASL does not use English symbols, it does not use English vocabulary. It useds English concept.

ASL does not attempt to separate itself--it is inherently separate. All languages are conceptual--they simply use a different symbol system to represent those concepts.

I already said this:

However, I did enough freelance observations of English and ASL to tell that signing vocabulary (or concepts as you would like to call it; a matter of semantics) are literally derived from the English language.

No matter what linguistics might say, it would still be "vocabulary" to me. There's no arguing that it still uses the English alphabet and "concepts". Because of that, I consider ASL to be an extension of the English language. As there's "Polish Sign Language" and "Russian Sign Language" - they are all derived from the Polish and Russian languages respectively.

Even still, it is a visual art-type language which is enough justification to categorize itself as a unique language.

 

[Yiffzer]

ASL is my native language, then English. I had no problem interpreting from ASL to written English. Sure, it took a long time but it is worth my own time, in my opinion. It is really depending on how capable everyone drifting back and forth with their first language and written language.

No offense but even your grammar sucks. I don't doubt it takes a long time though. I don't really have a strong opinion on which to learn first.

 

[Yiffzer]

it is hard for me to sign in asl but i am able to understand if someone else sign in asl. I guess it is hard for me cause I have to think to interp the langauge.

Think about it this way: it is the same as looking at a beautiful painting on a wall but difficult to replicate it. I have said this plenty of time: when you want to say something, think of an image and have a background to support the image. By the time you're done doing that, you've just created a solid context for you to base your story on. That way, it is much easier to reorganize spoken sentences into the structure ASL requires with graceful and beautiful signing. Yes, doing so would delay your signing but you become quite better at it over time that you will have no problem moving along with the pace.

 

[jillio]

I already said this:

However, I did enough freelance observations of English and ASL to tell that signing vocabulary (or concepts as you would like to call it; a matter of semantics) are literally derived from the English language.

No matter what linguistics might say, it would still be "vocabulary" to me. There's no arguing that it still uses the English alphabet and "concepts". Because of that, I consider ASL to be an extension of the English language. As there's "Polish Sign Language" and "Russian Sign Language" - they are all derived from the Polish and Russian languages respectively.

Even still, it is a visual art-type language which is enough justification to categorize itself as a unique language.

Never mind. You still don't get it!