Is it really so bad to know SEE (Sign Exact English?)

I think what everyone seems to be missing is that the people I'm talking about are not Deaf(and that is probably the tread topic as well). It is a known fact the Deaf want to use ASL. What I'm asking is: When two or more deaf people need better communication and know only minimal ASL is SEE a better solution? Furthermore, have any non-Deaf(meaning deaf) grown to use it in social settings where some sign and mostly English(not another language) is used?

Reba, it is possible that six percent is wrong, I don't know. That is why I'm asking.

I think there is a misconception that only Deaf use sign. There are many deaf and late deafened who use it as well and they are not communicating with Deaf people.
 
In case you guys wonder...

Going = ASL signs ONE word

Going = S.E.E. sign two words with more seconds.

If you guys dont get it. then let someone else take over and explain any further.
 
I guess the best way to describe this is: When trying to explain sign to a hearing friend how do you do it. You can't start with the position of objects(subjects) because that is too advanced(even for educated people). You can't start with finger spelling either because that takes too long. You have to start with simple signs using Engish grammar. In other words, signing English. Given enough time, you could explain ASL, but there isn't enough time. Is that not the same as non-formal SEE or Pidgin?

Then take that a step further and have the two people be deaf.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
I guess the best way to describe this is: When trying to explain sign to a hearing friend how do you do it. You can't start with the position of objects(subjects) because that is too advanced(even for educated people). You can't start with finger spelling either because that takes too long. You have to start with simple signs using Engish grammar. In other words, signing English. Given enough time, you could explain ASL, but there isn't enough time. Is that not the same as non-formal SEE or Pidgin?

Then take that a step further and have the two people be deaf.
Click to expand...

But you are not talking about SEE, are you?

SEE is a formal thing for language instruction and quite complicated.

I think you are talking about PSE.
 
Bottesini said:
But you are not talking about SEE, are you?

SEE is a formal thing for language instruction and quite complicated.

I think you are talking about PSE.
Click to expand...

yeah it makes sense. Lots of people with strong hearing background tend to learn ASL but they sign PSE.

I do sign PSE because i ve been interacting with hearing people, HOH or many hearing losses people. :dunno2:

I do sign ASL but not too PURE. :ugh3:
 
Frisky Feline said:
Glad you got the right ITP. I am shocked to learn that some people learn SEE first then ASL. It is going to be harder on them, and they may struggle for the rest of their life.
Click to expand...

I started with SEE before ASL. I'm fine today. :)

In fact, I didn't know about the concept of ASL until I was 23.

There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
 
VamPyroX said:
I started with SEE before ASL. I'm fine today. :)



In fact, I didn't know about the concept of ASL until I was 23.



There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Click to expand...



Right.

Unfortunately for me. I used SEE first and I learned ASL around middle school through friends from other school but I still used my voice and sign at the same time during high school. I don't speak well. that was real joke for me. I stopped using my voice when I sign. But I sometime use my voice at my work though
 
Last edited:
In all honesty, the English language itself isn't the most efficient of languages. That sentence being the perfect example. I could have said:

English isn't very efficient.

I do believe that learning to read (silently) and write in English is good skill if you are planning to work in the US job market, but I really don't get the use of SEE. My learning of English was primarily from books. I read lots and lots of books as a child. I mean LOTS. My teachers had nothing to teach me about English because I read so much. When my high school teachers used fancy names for grammar, I ignored it because I already knew the rule subconsciously, just not the actual name of the rule. Creating a signed language to mimic the inefficiency of English just seems silly to me. ASL is much more efficient than English, and that is a good thing. It is also makes more sense (for example, placing the thing before the description). It has long been acknowledged in the international language community that English is very difficult to learn due to its nonsensical word order and its endless number of exceptions to rules. I don't feel you need SEE to teach people to write and read in English... just fingerspell out endings like 'ing' or 'ly.' But that's just my opinion. I guess the people who created it felt that it was very necessary.
 
Puck said:
I do believe that learning to read (silently) and write in English is good skill if you are planning to work in the US job market, but I really don't get the use of SEE.
Click to expand...

How do you get your students to read silently if they can't hear you speak the instructions of reading? That is the whole point of sign(SEE/ASL), to create communication for learning. Not every child can learn from spoken language, they need visual aid.
 
I guess I wasn't clear--I meant that you should use ASL while reading to students at a young age to help them develop good language skills and then, when it comes time to formally start learning the technical rules (like when to use - ing and -ly,) you explain in ASL. Not so very different from how my first semester of Japanese (which I sucked at, btw ). It's a language totally different from the European based languages I am used to-- even using unfamiliar alphabet--and they taught us to read and write it by supplying approximate equivalents in English, since there were some words that we don't have in English. They explained the rules in English, then we had to read and translate until we started to understand naturally how the language flowed. There was no special language where all the Japanese words were placed in English order to help us and new words were made up for concepts we had that the Japanese language does not. I'm not saying don't use sign to teach English, I'm just not understanding the need for SEE when you could teach it in ASL.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
How do you get your students to read silently if they can't hear you speak the instructions of reading? That is the whole point of sign(SEE/ASL), to create communication for learning. Not every child can learn from spoken language, they need visual aid.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if they can't hear in order to read silently. How do you think non-oral ASL signing Deaf professors with PhD's at Gallaudet learned how to read English silently and write English fluently? They are competent in those skills and cannot hear the spoken nuances of English. If they were not competent it these skills, they would most certainly not have PhD's and be tenured professors at the doctoral level.

I spent a semester interning in a teaching practicum at a community-based early childhood deaf education center that happened to use SEE exclusively during instruction. For toddlers and young children under 5, it is largely developmentally inappropriate. The vocabulary words are one thing, but SEE also has ways of using hands & signs to denote apostrophes, etc. Using those in a visual sense other than printed English is abstract and that is why it is developmentally inappropriate. Kids under a certain age will not pick up on the ways of signing that denote contractions such as the word "it's" for example, and recognize that, internalize that or connect that with the printed "it's". Learning the rules of grammar formally through instruction the way ESL kids learn them, once the kids are old enough to benefit from that, would be a better tool to explain the instructions of reading than SEE. For younger kids, the more print you expose them to, the easier time they will have with learning to read written English and understand those concepts that are being described through English.
 
everlastingstorm said:
It doesn't matter if they can't hear in order to read silently. How do you think non-oral ASL signing Deaf professors with PhD's at Gallaudet learned how to read English silently and write English fluently? They are competent in those skills and cannot hear the spoken nuances of English. If they were not competent it these skills, they would most certainly not have PhD's and be tenured professors at the doctoral level.

I spent a semester interning in a teaching practicum at a community-based early childhood deaf education center that happened to use SEE exclusively during instruction. For toddlers and young children under 5, it is largely developmentally inappropriate. The vocabulary words are one thing, but SEE also has ways of using hands & signs to denote apostrophes, etc. Using those in a visual sense other than printed English is abstract and that is why it is developmentally inappropriate. Kids under a certain age will not pick up on the ways of signing that denote contractions such as the word "it's" for example, and recognize that, internalize that or connect that with the printed "it's". Learning the rules of grammar formally through instruction the way ESL kids learn them, once the kids are old enough to benefit from that, would be a better tool to explain the instructions of reading than SEE. For younger kids, the more print you expose them to, the easier time they will have with learning to read written English and understand those concepts that are being described through English.
Click to expand...

:yesway:
 
VacationGuy234 said:
How do you get your students to read silently if they can't hear you speak the instructions of reading? That is the whole point of sign(SEE/ASL), to create communication for learning. Not every child can learn from spoken language, they need visual aid.
Click to expand...

ASL is the visual aid...
 
VacationGuy234 said:
I guess the best way to describe this is: When trying to explain sign to a hearing friend how do you do it. You can't start with the position of objects(subjects) because that is too advanced(even for educated people). You can't start with finger spelling either because that takes too long. You have to start with simple signs using Engish grammar. In other words, signing English. Given enough time, you could explain ASL, but there isn't enough time. Is that not the same as non-formal SEE or Pidgin?

Then take that a step further and have the two people be deaf.
Click to expand...

so you're having trouble trying to explain sign to a hearing friend... perhaps you should build up your ASL skill and practice your fingerspelling first before you're at the level where you can fluently and comfortably explain sign to a hearing friend.

I mean... this is exactly like a person with basic Spanish skill to teach Spanish to a person with no Spanish skill... so it's fine and ok to use Spanglish?

just no. absolutely not. very simple - an expert should be teaching a beginner. period.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
SEE II is taught in schools. Because of this, the majority of younger deaf will know it. Does anyone know if PSE is taught in school?

The problem is the relearning process. People are not going to learn a new language when there is no one with whom to communicate. The fact is deaf meet far more deaf than Deaf so ASL is not a priority.

The problem to be solved is immediate communication.

In the end, cell phone transcription is probably the best solution. Signing would make it easier, but both sides need to understand the language.

People always take the easiest route first, it's human nature.
Click to expand...
what? the easiest route would be a written communication.

the problem is not the relearning process... there are many former SEE signers here and everywhere having no problem learning ASL. the problem is SEE as communication language.... a remnant of audism and oralism...

did you go to Boston DNO last weekend? I was there. good time. all mix of deafies signing in ASL, PSE, and a dab of SEE in the mix. thanks god there's nobody signing in SEE.
 
Back
Top