SEE (Signing Exact English) is the best sign language for a child to start with..

Status
Not open for further replies.
SilenceGold

SilenceGold

Active Member
Joined
May 10, 2003
Messages
3,501
Reaction score
2
Every time I met an intelligent Deaf person either during or before the middle age - I have always asked whether this person has started with ASL, SEE or any other sign language..

I haven't encountered any of them saying ASL.

When I say intelligent - I mean those who are capable of logical and forward thinkings. I do not mean being highly educated such as finishing many years of college.

I think that SEE is an established foundation of providing this person the ability to use the English language as their ways to learn how to think logically.

Let's keep it a friendly debate!
 
Oh, boy. SEE is the answer?

PFH, I changed my mind. I think I need a sip of that Jag now. It's nice and cold in my freezer.
 
I know a number of people who are Bilingual (ASL and English) who learned ASL and English (written/read/speechread & in some cases aural/oral) who have excellent English skills as well as being very intelligent.

I think that A LOT is dependant on how early the individual had access and constant exposure to real language (ie ASL, English, German, French - NOT "a few signs, some words etc").

Unfortunately many Hoh/Deaf miss critical language windows during both during the diagnosis phase as well as the "language mode experimentation" time when family are determining if they are: going to learn sign, or cued speech, or just talk (and hope miraculously they can speechread REALLLY well) or a combination there of. For example if families DO start learning sign ... they have to (to properly model grammar etc) LEARN the language to TEACH the language - and while ideally the infant is surrounded by FLUENT ASL language models during the "ASL learning time" the sad reality is that this doesn't happen as much as is should (and it should ALWAYS happen).

The other MAJOR factor is literacy ... if someone is able to FLUENTLY read, write and understand written English (or German, French, Spanish etc) then they are able to access that language in a way that is impossible otherwise. For us Hoh/Deaf literacy skills are even MORE important than for hearing people - because it is Literacy that allows us the ability to learn, and grow intellectually. This is one of the reasons I'm a HUGE supporter of VERY early pre-literacy teaching for Hoh/Deaf infants (yes INFANTS) and toddlers ... they have the ability to BEGIN to understand written language (and tie "word shapes" to objects etc) MUCH earlier than people believe.

I think that CASE can be a VERY helpful tool, as can CS ... however regardless of the mode of communication the one thing that truly makes the biggest difference I honestly believe is being able to read, write and UNDERSTAND the written language of your area - and that the sooner parents start exposing their children to written word the better chance that infant has of becoming ANYTHING they want to be :)
 
I think the key is parental involvement, regardless of which system is used. I've noticed many of my friends who used SEE/ SEE II have had parents who were strongly involved in working with them.

Most hearing parents are most likely to learn a system that strongly reflects the English language order because it is easier to learn it than learning ASL which has a completely different syntax (word order, etc.) than English...
 
I have noticed that some SEE members around here have exceptional adage with written english. They write as if they were "orally raised" compared to primary ASL users - something another member has discussed before. I am not honestly surprised in your assertion in this thought, in SEE you are using the same grammar and context as of spoken/written english, no?

There are some primarily SEE's who did not turn out as well though.. but I guess you may have factored that into it anyway.

It seems there is a byproduct of all language types where a certain person may not do as well - this is consistent with all languages, SEE, ASL, even spoken or written english itself.
 
I should mention that I learned SEE first. I started learning ASL in the fourth grade. I believe that language development should be the primary focus during the first five years of a child's life. Any child can learn at least two languages during the first five years if they do it right.
 
Banjo said:
I should mention that I learned SEE first. I started learning ASL in the fourth grade. I believe that language development should be the primary focus during the first five years of a child's life. Any child can learn at least two languages during the first five years if they do it right.
Click to expand...
My first language was oral. I didn't use sign language until I was 5 years old.

The sign language they used was MSS (almost like SEE). There were other students who used ASL, but I didn't know the difference between the two until I entered RIT.

The other students who used ASL... they had English-speaking families that used English when they communicated. Yet, those students graduated at 3rd to 7th grade math/reading/writing. Even though they were taught to use English in writing and reading, they still communicated in ASL. The ones who used MSS graduated high school at grade level. Yes, ALL of those that used MSS graduated at grade level.

In order to learn better, there's a lot of teacher/student interaction... asking questions and giving answers... reading out loud... etc. Since those students couldn't fill in the gap that's missing in the ASL language, they became too dependent on the ASL language and never fully understood the English language.

I'm fine with children using ASL at first in order to develop language skills before they start talking. When it comes time to use proper grammar, then I would encourage SEE to be used.
 
I don't know about ASL until I was senior in high school. All the time, I have been use SEE in almost entire in school (not in college)
 
I've seen it both ways. I worked with a deaf student who had a CI, was raised with SEE, etc, but he was still at a 4th grade reading & writing level in college. I've also seen people who were raised with SEE that have impeccable writing skills. I honestly know very few people who were raised with straight ASL from birth, so I don't have first-hand experience to comment on that. Research shows, however, that when a deaf child is raised in a strong ASL environment (i.e. Deaf of Deaf), they often attain English proficiency levels that are equal with their hearing peers.

It's all about early language development.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
I've seen it both ways. I worked with a deaf student who had a CI, was raised with SEE, etc, but he was still at a 4th grade reading & writing level in college. I've also seen people who were raised with SEE that have impeccable writing skills. I honestly know very few people who were raised with straight ASL from birth, so I don't have first-hand experience to comment on that. Research shows, however, that when a deaf child is raised in a strong ASL environment (i.e. Deaf of Deaf), they often attain English proficiency levels that are equal with their hearing peers.

It's all about early language development.
Click to expand...

What research? Cite it please. :)
 
First, one must keep in mind... Average high school graduates are reading at a 6th-7th grade level.

50% of Americans can't read at the 8th grade level. 46% of Americans cannot understand the language used on their Rx bottle.

So, now.
 
All we really need to disprove the OP's statements is to find a couple of primary ASL users and let them respond in here. Doing so will contradict the statements entirely. Until then, it's still a debate..
 
naisho said:
All we really need to disprove the OP's statements is to find a couple of primary ASL users and let them respond in here. Doing so will contradict the statements entirely. Until then, it's still a debate..
Click to expand...

Not true. You could say that is the exception that proves the rule. Fallacious reasoning! :P:eek3:
 
Bottesini said:
Not true. You could say that is the exception that proves the rule. Fallacious reasoning! :P:eek3:
Click to expand...

It goes both ways, I was merely thinking of an immediate method to disprove the statement, which is why it's a debate in the first place..

In science, we refer to this as a null hypothesis.
 
My first language was ASL. I read ok. I write ok. I kind of know English, having a degree in it and all.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Do you have access to Purdue University Libraries and online academic databases?

:)
Click to expand...

Obviously not. I am just one of those poor uneducated deaf people with no degree.

So I guess I have to leave the debate to you higher functioning people.
 
deafbajagal said:
My first language was ASL. I read ok. I write ok. I kind of know English, having a degree in it and all.
Click to expand...

Then why do you constantly bitch about AGBell controlling your childhood if you were really ASL and not oral?
 
posts from hell said:
First, one must keep in mind... Average high school graduates are reading at a 6th-7th grade level.

50% of Americans can't read at the 8th grade level. 46% of Americans cannot understand the language used on their Rx bottle.

So, now.
Click to expand...

Yep. Specialists are so quick to forget this. It's suddenly a tragedy if a deaf student reads at a 4th grade level, and all kinds of theories are tossed around, which lead to any manner of language acquisition systems to impress on generations of deaf students. But when a hearing student graduates from high school not being able to read better than 6th grade, it's just like, "eh, whatever, you win some you lose some..." and that's it. I think the big thing here is audism. As long as these hearing students talk and communicate through auditory channels, nobody will think it's a big deal that they can't read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top