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

CSign said:
Sounds like you took a course in Seeing Essential English (SEE 1, which is not really used anymore) rather than Signing Exact English. That would certainly explain the confusion.
Click to expand...
Who's confused? Not me.

Actually, in our transliterating course, we studied them all, with the emphasis on signed English.

When did you become an interpreter?
Click to expand...
It was before the turn of the century.
 
Reba said:
Who's confused? Not me.

Actually, in our transliterating course, we studied them all, with the emphasis on signed English.


It was before the turn of the century.
Click to expand...

" Before the turn of the century" makes me think the 1800s until I reminded myself it is actually the 1900s. Geez, now I feel old!
 
Journey said:
I have never heard of spoken ASL and am having a hard time imagining how that is expressed. Could you explain it a little for me please?
Click to expand...

Do you understand the term oxymoron?

Signing English

Speaking ASL :aw:
 
shel90 said:
Again, I ask...

Do you support spoken ASL?
Click to expand...

I thought I posted a question before, but was likely all iphone thumbs :) .

I know there are spoken, written, and several signed modes of English, but I thought ASL existed only in a signed mode. Is there really a spoken mode of ASL?

I was surprised to find last year that my daughter's ASL-based school for the deaf incorporates SEE into its reading program to some degree. Suddenly my daughter came home using a few SEE signs that I'd never encountered before. I asked her teachers about it, and apparently it's considered SOP for teaching reading English to deaf kids, not by them -- they were using Fundations, a phonics-based system with my daughter's class -- but some of the voices off classes use SEE signs here and there and the librarians would use them when reading to the kids. These are ASL-using deaf educators with graduate degrees from Gallaudet, McDaniel, and BU, and they don't seem to approach using SEE with the same hostility I often see here. Sign-supported English and use of MCEs seems to be "approved" for teaching English by the Deaf community at this school, which is one of the very first ASL-based bi-bi schools in the nation.
 
Last edited:
GrendelQ said:
...I know there are spoken, written, and several signed modes of English, but I thought ASL existed only in a signed mode. Is there really a spoken mode of ASL?
Click to expand...
If there can be a "signed mode" of English, then why not a "spoken mode" of ASL? If all kinds of "modes" can be invented for languages, then I guess anything goes.
 
Reba said:
If there can be a "signed mode" of English, then why not a "spoken mode" of ASL? If all kinds of "modes" can be invented for languages, then I guess anything goes.
Click to expand...

Do you think there should NOT be a signed mode of English used to teach literacy to deaf kids?
 
GrendelQ said:
Do you think there should NOT be a signed mode of English used to teach literacy to deaf kids?
Click to expand...

English teachers at my old deaf school didn't use SEE and rather fingerspelled some words like "the" "were" and so on when they taught us grammar rules. In other classes, we used ASL.
 
CrazyPaul said:
English teachers at my old deaf school didn't use SEE and rather fingerspelled some words like "the" "were" and so on when they taught us grammar rules. In other classes, we used ASL.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but it didn't answer the question.
 
GrendelQ said:
Do you think there should NOT be a signed mode of English used to teach literacy to deaf kids?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's necessary. That's my opinion, for whatever it's worth :)2c:).
 
Sigh...seems like my question didn't get answered by the SEE supporters. I had a feeling that would happen.

To answer the question if SEE is necessary...like Reba and CrazyPaul said, no..it is not necessary. I used to use SEE to teach English in LA class but things have changed.
 
CrazyPaul said:
English teachers at my old deaf school didn't use SEE and rather fingerspelled some words like "the" "were" and so on when they taught us grammar rules. In other classes, we used ASL.
Click to expand...

Are you opposed to use of such a tool, that can make the acquisition of English easier and perhaps more natural in DHH children?
 
Wirelessly posted

CSign said:
CrazyPaul said:
English teachers at my old deaf school didn't use SEE and rather fingerspelled some words like "the" "were" and so on when they taught us grammar rules. In other classes, we used ASL.
Click to expand...

Are you opposed to use of such a tool, that can make the acquisition of English easier and perhaps more natural in DHH children?
Click to expand...

How can it be natural when it is a code that has to be taught in addition to the native sign language in order to teach English. Why not like Reba and Shel say use the native sign language to teach English, in this case fingerspelling? If you use SEE it is like asking a Deaf student to learn the Chinese script in order to learn how English is formulated.
 
Last edited:
CSign said:
Are you opposed to use of such a tool, that can make the acquisition of English easier and perhaps more natural in DHH children?
Click to expand...
If you are talking about DHH children using SEE to communicate with each other to develop their English skills, it will never happen.

If any ASLer wants to improve it, he/she can take English classes and/or read some books. Don't forget about helpful online tutoring. Therefore, SEE is not necessary. ASLers hate SEE because it takes much longer. ASL is like a shortcut so what's wrong with that? What's more, ASL is beautiful.
 
CrazyPaul said:
If you are talking about DHH children using SEE to communicate with each other to develop their English skills, it will never happen.

If any ASLer wants to improve it, he/she can take English classes and/or read some books. Don't forget about helpful online tutoring. Therefore, SEE is not necessary. ASLers hate SEE because it takes much longer. ASL is like a shortcut so what's wrong with that? What's more, ASL is beautiful.
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking if it was necessary. My question is are you opposed to the use of a tool (in this case SEE) that can make the acquisition of language (English) easier?

This question isn't about the merits of ASL.

There are many roads to an end.
 
CSign said:
I wasn't asking if it was necessary. My question is are you opposed to the use of a tool (in this case SEE) that can make the acquisition of language (English) easier?

This question isn't about the merits of ASL.

There are many roads to an end.
Click to expand...
Yes
 
CSign said:
I wasn't asking if it was necessary. My question is are you opposed to the use of a tool (in this case SEE) that can make the acquisition of language (English) easier?
Click to expand...
You're presuming that SEE makes it easier to learn English. Not everyone agrees with that presumption.

If SEE makes learning English more confusing, then that makes SEE a monkey wrench, not a useful tool.

There are many roads to an end.
Click to expand...
Not always. Sometimes those "roads" are actually detours away from the end, or routes to washed out bridges.
 
Back
Top