S.E.E. stands for Signing Exact English. It is a visual, signing communication system that allow the full English language to be visually seen in its correct grammatical and syntactical forms. S.E.E. is in fact a visual language of the English language. Not that S.E.E. itself is a language but an avenue to see the English language visually in its full proper form without breaks and help continue with the English foundation and development.
I see no controversy in using S.E.E. for deaf kids to use. It's certainly better than having no signing at all with no visual communication access. This is especially true among those who cannot get the full benefit of hearing aids or cochlear implants. At least there is an option out there. A choice. I have friends who grew up with S.E.E. One is even a CEO and runs his own, very successful deaf-run company.
9 comments:
I agree with the statement that it is better than having no visual access to spoken language. However the nature of spoken language is to be processed at the phonemic level within our brain. People who are not supportive of SEE often cite the fact that SEE does not represent the phonemes of spoken language, and therefore is not a "complete" representation of language. In order to be a visual language, you would have to have all the aspects of language from phonology to pragmatics.
Therefore I would take issue with the statement that SEE is a visual language, since you contradicted yourself by stating that it is a visual communication system. You can't label something as both a visual language and a communication system. It has to be one or the other. For example cued language is what we understand when we see people using Cued Speech.
Are people using the lips to support the phonological aspect of their language processing? I don't know the answer to that question. In my experience lipreaders have the ability to distinguish between similar looking phonemes on the lips using context and that's where SEE helps in terms of context.
How would you describe the "language" that SEE produces (in the way speech produces spoken language and Cued Speech produces cued language)?
Aaron, I made the effort to show that SEE is a visual language in the respect that you can visually see (signing) the English language in its grammatical and syntactical forms. I also made clear that SEE itself isn't a language. Not a contradiction here when I have pointed them out as a clarification. Not about addressing phonemes and such. That was your doing. Nobody said you are required to move your mouth or the mimicking of the spoken language aspect when signing in SEE.
Yes, I suppose you can say SEE is a visual language or visual representation of one. But, I can understand why most people in deaf education and signers do not use SEE. From my experience working with various students on developing their language skills, Cued Speech/Language seems to be more effective than SEE (if used appropriately and consistently). SEE has not shown to work well with most students who are learning the English language. It may work well for some, but for the students who do not have a first language and for students who receive little or no support at home in developing their language skills, it does not seem to work. In addition, trying to communicate in SEE is difficult and tiring. I prefer to use Pidgin Signed English when communicating.
I wanted to add one more thing. There should NOT be any controversy in using S.E.E. for deaf kids to use, if it works for them.
Question?
I use ASL along with my mouth move like I speak words so what it call? just wondering.
Ok... tell me how you would sign this word "broke/n" in these two sentences:
"Do not play with this toy; it is broken."
"I don't have any money to give to you this week; I am broke!"
Would you use the same "broke/n" sign in these two sentences? Of course NOT! That would not be conceptually correct. That's why we have ASL. :-)
Mike, 'SEE' do not do any justice for English language. There are NO signs available in exact representation for every English word out there today. Thus, in having an idea of learning/using 'SEE' to provide "visual" language for English is highly ill advised. In fact, it is a completely misrepresentation and effectively setting up people for failure in accuracy language acquisition on English.
Just saying, my friend.
-Sean
Anony @ 5:16 PM,
It's easy, anony. You have already the content and context in that sentence. Whether in spoken English, SEE, or in the written form, we understand the differences.
Sean, the same for ASL which is why SEE uses also the manual alphabet.
I saw no failure in the people I am acquainted with who grew up signing in SEE.
The thing is, Sean, SEE is part of that option. It is a valid option to have. Just as CUED speech is valid option to have. So is audio and verbal. So is SEE. So is PSE. So is, of course, ASL. Let's not limit ourselves here.
Post a Comment