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

Status
Not open for further replies.
BecLak said:
CSign,

You are new on the forum and hearing. It takes a bit of time to get the 'feel' of the Deaf Community and Culture. You can't just rush in hook, line and sinker. Try not to get so defensive. The mentality here is different from the hearing world, try to understand it a little more before drawing your guns. Jillio, is hearing but has been immersed in the Deaf community for a long time. She gets it.

Me, I am Oral-deaf, raised in a hearing family, full-on mainstreamed without access to Deaf Community or sign language until 18 months ago. So you can say, I understand both worlds.
Click to expand...

Many people seem to have this preconceived notion about what I am and what I know. The fact is that not a single person on this site has the faintest clue about what I know, where I've been, and where I am going. Just because I am hearing, I am not prevented from making well informed choices. I have not rushed in, "hook line and sinker." I've been immersed in this for the last almost 7 years. I made well informed choices based upon conversations, research, studies and my critical thinking skills.
I am pragmatic, which has allowed for me to weigh out without bias the benefits and challenges of the language modes available. I have also made a point of learning more about Deaf culture, so I can be the best parent I can be for my child. I didn't make choices because I was told it was what to do, I made choices based upon the loads of information I sought out.
If I did what I was "told", I would have put my son in a mainstream environment when he was 3 because he "no longer qualified" because he was "doing too well." Doing so well because he was given complete and meaningful access to language I might add. Instead I fought for my son's right to access language, made a unilateral placement to a school that used TC and SEE and after a year filed for due process. That placement in a Non-Public school was ultimately paid for by the district. It took an extensive amount of time out of my life to fight for my child's best interest but it paid off.
I have been on this forum for over a year so I am familiar with some of the AD'ers and had an idea as to what to expect. I've read the threads. I just don't get why some are so incredibly negative about TC and SEE.
Jillio, you yourself said that you've never actually seen any SEE users or something to that effect. I don't know how to post something from another thread yet otherwise I would. With that being the case, how can you say it is so bad and ineffective if you've never seen an appropriate language model?

I get it. I understand. I want essentially the same things the rest of you want. I am not coming from a place of darkness. I come from a place of light, and I will stay there :)
 
jillio said:
SEE attempts to put visual language that is processed spatially into the syntax for a language that is processed linerally. It simply does not work.

I have seen no actual SEE users in my time. They are ususally more PSE users with some of the initialized signs of SEE thrown in. SEE is just too cumbersome to be practical.

You are correct, PFH. Most had exposure to SEE as the first and only manual language available to them. It was better than nothing because it at least had some visual cues.
Click to expand...

I agree a poor language model will not effectively teach a child any meaningful language...
 
CSign said:
Many people seem to have this preconceived notion about what I am and what I know. The fact is that not a single person on this site has the faintest clue about what I know, where I've been, and where I am going. Just because I am hearing, I am not prevented from making well informed choices. I have not rushed in, "hook line and sinker." I've been immersed in this for the last almost 7 years. I made well informed choices based upon conversations, research, studies and my critical thinking skills.
I am pragmatic, which has allowed for me to weigh out without bias the benefits and challenges of the language modes available. I have also made a point of learning more about Deaf culture, so I can be the best parent I can be for my child. I didn't make choices because I was told it was what to do, I made choices based upon the loads of information I sought out.
If I did what I was "told", I would have put my son in a mainstream environment when he was 3 because he "no longer qualified" because he was "doing too well." Doing so well because he was given complete and meaningful access to language I might add. Instead I fought for my son's right to access language, made a unilateral placement to a school that used TC and SEE and after a year filed for due process. That placement in a Non-Public school was ultimately paid for by the district. It took an extensive amount of time out of my life to fight for my child's best interest but it paid off.
I have been on this forum for over a year so I am familiar with some of the AD'ers and had an idea as to what to expect. I've read the threads. I just don't get why some are so incredibly negative about TC and SEE.
Jillio, you yourself said that you've never actually seen any SEE users or something to that effect. I don't know how to post something from another thread yet otherwise I would. With that being the case, how can you say it is so bad and ineffective if you've never seen an appropriate language model?

I get it. I understand. I want essentially the same things the rest of you want. I am not coming from a place of darkness. I come from a place of light, and I will stay there :)
Click to expand...

If you 'know' so much, why so defensive? Ah! Obviously, it is because you are coming from a hearing perspective, you need to understand the deaf perspective. Knowledge and understanding are two different things. This has nothing to do with what choices you make or what methods you use. It is a perspective. Write-ups on the internet about Deaf Culture are often written by hearing people that say something of this effect: Deaf Culture is against hearing people; to be accepted you need to battle your way through. - Wrong. Ask Jillio, OceanBreeze too. Not all hearing people on the forum are at loggerheads with the Deaf. It is an understanding and respect of cultural perspective, not just doing what we do. That is cross-culture in essence. If you learn this as soon as possible, you will fit right in.
 
What is this long, endless and USELESS debate with fancy and complex words all about?

Simplicity is the key here. I could join the bandwagon with same manner as you debaters are doing knowing that it will NOT be constructive.

Why don't you share your experience, what you saw and explain clearly why you think what you encountered or did would help and leave them be rather than arguing your heads off about mumbo jumbos that went so far in the space and ended up burning in the sun and no one noticing?
 
naisho said:
Why not? Does it sound hard or something?

I can listen to someone speak in another language and write in english at the same time, easily. A part of how I was able to learn multiple languages was translating what people were saying as part of the lessons. We would listen to audio tapes and transcribe it into english, turn that in for homework.

I'm guessing it might be the same thing that goes on for interpreters who may translate someone's sign.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about translating. I'm talking about simultaneous communication. That is, a teacher or parent speaking French and writing German at the same time for a child who isn't completely fluent in either language to listen to and read at the same time. If hearing students aren't subjected to that at school, why are deaf students?
 
naisho said:
This is the perspective I'm seeing it.. germans taking french in germany.
or frenchie learning german in france. Transcribing the conversations in a discussion to the other language.

Whereas I had this situation in class, listening or speaking japanese and writing out where the narrator was going in english.

Yeah, first few times it is not easy but it's just being new.. once you are used to it or work in multilingual environments for periods of time (like spanish workers in a chinese restuarant in the USA), I'm thinking it eventually comes to them.
Click to expand...
That is totally NOT what I was giving as an example.

Translation/interpretation and simultaneous communication (Sim-Com) are not the same thing.

Translation/interpretation is the process of taking the source language product and changing it into the target language product. As skilled as one may be, there is a degree of lag time involved, even if it is not perceived by others.

Sim-Com is producing two languages, using two different modes, at the same time, to be received at the same time. There is no changing of languages or lag time involved.

Theoretically, true Sim-Com would be the messages of each of the produced languages would be perfectly delivered with no loss of meaning, as though done independently rather than simultaneously. This doesn't happen in real life.
 
naisho said:
Why not? Does it sound hard or something?

I can listen to someone speak in another language and write in english at the same time, easily. A part of how I was able to learn multiple languages was translating what people were saying as part of the lessons. We would listen to audio tapes and transcribe it into english, turn that in for homework.

I'm guessing it might be the same thing that goes on for interpreters who may translate someone's sign.
Click to expand...

You are talking about adults who have already acquired the fundamental nature of the purpose of language, not a young child who needs the proper environment to do so. You are also referring to a learned skill that is only possible if you have properly acquired language.

All of that is a very different situation from a child who needs a proper environment to acquire naturally what he is intended to acquire. What you are talking about is similar to asking a child who hasn't learned to add double digits to work an algebraic equation.
 
CSign said:
I agree a poor language model will not effectively teach a child any meaningful language...
Click to expand...

Language is not taught. Language is acquired. Ideally. The fact that we keep trying to teach deaf children English, either spoken or signed, before we give them the opportunity and environment to acquire language and intuitively understand it's function is completely reversed.

Just because a deaf child has English as their and only language does not mean that they have native usage of that language. That is why we continually see delays in the language use of deaf children who were exposed to nothing but English in their earliest years. How can that be remedied by just throwing another, and more confusing mode of the same language at them? It can't.
 
Anij said:
At the exact same time - or do you Listen THEN immediately write? There is ALWAYS a slight delay in the brain as it sorts the language rules for multiple languages ... which is way ASL interpreters are always a few words behind the speech the hear.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
 
CSign said:
Many people seem to have this preconceived notion about what I am and what I know. The fact is that not a single person on this site has the faintest clue about what I know, where I've been, and where I am going. Just because I am hearing, I am not prevented from making well informed choices. I have not rushed in, "hook line and sinker." I've been immersed in this for the last almost 7 years. I made well informed choices based upon conversations, research, studies and my critical thinking skills.
I am pragmatic, which has allowed for me to weigh out without bias the benefits and challenges of the language modes available. I have also made a point of learning more about Deaf culture, so I can be the best parent I can be for my child. I didn't make choices because I was told it was what to do, I made choices based upon the loads of information I sought out.
If I did what I was "told", I would have put my son in a mainstream environment when he was 3 because he "no longer qualified" because he was "doing too well." Doing so well because he was given complete and meaningful access to language I might add. Instead I fought for my son's right to access language, made a unilateral placement to a school that used TC and SEE and after a year filed for due process. That placement in a Non-Public school was ultimately paid for by the district. It took an extensive amount of time out of my life to fight for my child's best interest but it paid off.
I have been on this forum for over a year so I am familiar with some of the AD'ers and had an idea as to what to expect. I've read the threads. I just don't get why some are so incredibly negative about TC and SEE.
Jillio, you yourself said that you've never actually seen any SEE users or something to that effect. I don't know how to post something from another thread yet otherwise I would. With that being the case, how can you say it is so bad and ineffective if you've never seen an appropriate language model?

I get it. I understand. I want essentially the same things the rest of you want. I am not coming from a place of darkness. I come from a place of light, and I will stay there :)
Click to expand...

That is what makes it so bad. It is a mode that is bastardized for convenience of the hearing speaker. Worse than just asking a deaf kid to speech read. You are asking them to process an oral syntax intended to processed aurally, but giving it to them visually and not even sticking to the grammar that would allow them to properly interpret the message. Especially when we are talking about young children who need to have an environment that allows them to intuit messages.

I don't mean to offend, but I have serious doubts that you are using SEE I or II as an appropriate language model. I have witnessed many parent's attempts to use it. The vast majority don't even understand the premise behind making language visable for the deaf and think that all needs to be done to create language fluency is to give them a picture on the hands of the English word. That is just soooo wrong. I have observed numerous TC programs that claim to use a version of SEE. I have yet to see one that uses SEE as SEE is written in concept. They use SSS. Why? Because of the great difficulty of signing and speaking, and still making the conceptual message clear for the hearing people doing the signing. You are asking a deaf child to sync up and use two different manners of understanding, when they have not even been permitted to acquire the fundamentals that would make that possible for them. If the hearing adult signer can't sign it properly, what makes you think that a deaf child in the process of grasping language function, could possible understand what you are trying to communicate. I have seen SEE used enough in theory to know that rarely, if ever, is it used as intended when it is used as a communication method. When it is used as a teaching tool, in a classroom by a TOD that understands what he/she is doing with that tool it is a different situation. They use it minimally to teach, not to communicate.

I do hope that answers your question. And please understand, I am not criticizing you. I am attempting to provide you with explanations that go beyond the surface. You are looking only at the surface, and are not seeing what us occurring underneath psychologically and cognitively. When it comes to the deaf child and language, I simply don't mince words. I lay it on the line. Beating around the bush only creates situations where the child is left to flounder and the damage is done before the parent actually gets it.

More than worrying about "teaching your son English", it would be beneficial to the both of you to learn the proper way to sign a language and then simply converse with him in that language, spontaneously and naturally. That is what will allow him to properly acquire language the language you are directively teaching. It is an unnatural situation for language acquisition.

You say the Deaf signers are able to understand him. They are code switching in order to do so. That code switching only becomes a useful skill after the fundamentals of language are acquired. I suggest you turn him loose in a group of Deaf ASL signers a couple of times a week. You will be amazed at the way his expressive and receptive language blossoms, and he begins to play with language in the way a hearing child plays with spoken language. He will naturally and easily fall into ASL syntax because it makes sense in his brain.
 
cool scary guy said:
so, SEE is bad , ASL is good?
I'm lost on PSE is it good or bad?
Click to expand...

Good or bad is a judgement. We are not talking good or bad. We are talking about using the language that most effectively and naturally addresses the linguistic needs of a deaf child. SEE and PSE address the needs of the hearing.
 
ok let me ask a different way.

I know ASL is the most widely used . but
Is PSE used to the point that people , who use sign language in the US and Canada. be able to understand what you are saying ?

and a side question Do you say "saying" ?
 
cool scary guy said:
ok let me ask a different way.

I know ASL is the most widely used . but
Is PSE used to the point that people , who use sign language in the US and Canada. be able to understand what you are saying ?

and a side question Do you say "saying" ?
Click to expand...

No one minds "saying?" It has different connotations.

PSE can generally be understood, but there is often more clarification needed than with ASL. PSE signers tend to sign English words in English syntax without the regard for the conceptual nature of a visual language. ASL paints a picture. English describes the picture. Think about the differences in what you do for either of those activities, the difference in sequencing etc. To combine them creates havoc.
 
posts from hell said:
Third I was an expert SEE user, and it sucks.
Click to expand...

PFH, I was surprised to read this -- I knew of your background in SEE and had attributed your facility with English, in part, to having had that background. I'd actually started looking into SEE as a learning tool as a result (and also having met several SEE users in person who were very comfortable with both ASL and English, and some positive research about SEE -- as a learning tool, not a primary language). I didn't realize you were anti-SEE.

I think you and others have talked about some of the positives: your mother was able to grasp and use it with you from an early age and still does, it can be used to support reading, provided you with vocabulary for later use with ASL, but can you outline some of the drawbacks you encounter(ed)? You are currently teaching your daughter ASL -- do you use SEE with her, as well, or absolutely not?
 
GrendelQ said:
PFH, I was surprised to read this -- I knew of your background in SEE and had attributed your facility with English, in part, to having had that background. I'd actually started looking into SEE as a learning tool as a result (and also having met several SEE users in person who were very comfortable with both ASL and English, and some positive research about SEE -- as a learning tool, not a primary language). I didn't realize you were anti-SEE.

I think you and others have talked about some of the positives: your mother was able to grasp and use it with you from an early age and still does, it can be used to support reading, provided you with vocabulary for later use with ASL, but can you outline some of the drawbacks you encounter(ed)? You are currently teaching your daughter ASL -- do you use SEE with her, as well, or absolutely not?
Click to expand...

I am not anti SEE. It just sucks. It works for some people, but definitely not me.

With ASL you can just give the entire concept, visual, with so much more information in less time than SEE will ever give you.
The way my mind works I like to have visuals first then add to the picture. Not waiting until the end of the sentence to get the point.
When you interpret things into SEE you have to really use your mind .. I mean reallly use it to build sentences.. That was a chore, really.

Now I ASL to my mom she's cool with it. I should interview her on video one day...

Edit: I forgot to include, my English sucked until high school.... Reason: I was introduced to the world of internet and started reading a LOT more. With this thinking - I have to agree with the idea of language isnt taught, its acquired.

With my daughter, not using SEE at all. No reason to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top