Signing Exact English: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:55, 20 June 2008

Signing Exact English (SEE, sometimes Signed Exact English or Signed English) is a system of manual communication that strives to be an exact representation of English vocabulary and grammar. It is one of a number of such systems in use in English-speaking countries, which are known collectively as Manually Coded English.

SEE is an artificial system that was devised in 1972. It takes much of its vocabulary of signs from American Sign Language (ASL). However, it often modifies the handshapes used in the ASL signs in order to incorporate the handshape used for the first letter of the English word that the SEE sign is meant to represent. Many new signs were invented, however, especially signs for grammatical concepts. SEE can be thought of as a code for visually representing spoken English, developed primarily for use in deaf education.

These systems for visually representing the English language are used most often with deaf children in educational settings. They often find use in the home too, however, as they are often welcomed as an alternative to natural sign languages by hearing parents of deaf children because they do not require them to learn a new grammar or syntax. Therefore, SEE and its variants are easy to quickly learn for people who have already internalized English. It is not often used by adult deaf people except to communicate with hearing people who know some sign but who are not fluent users of sign language.

The use of Signed English is controversial. Many deaf people complain that it is awkward and difficult to sign, and that it is an attempt to replace their own native sign languages and that it works to separate deaf children from deaf culture, exposure to which is imperative in order to complete healthy development. However it is advocated by some educators as a way of providing deaf children with access to a visual form of the English language.

Advantages

SEE sign shows fully the use of articles and prepositions to deaf children who often have difficulty learning the correct usage of these parts of the English language.
SEE is easy for English speaking parents and teachers of deaf children to master quickly.

Disadvantages

SEE is not slower than natural speech or ASL but it does require a person to be adept in signing for interpretation, it has raised the bar for people trying to become Interpreters because it has a larger vocabulary of signs available.
SEE has been under attack by ASL for years, and the community is growing.
SEE cannot faithfully show every aspect of spoken English, however it does provide for understanding of more intricate vocabulary and conceptual ability.

Educational controversy

The use of SEE is somewhat controversial, especially compared to the somewhat more entrenched system ASL.

Some detractors of SEE claim that teaching deaf children SEE deprives them of belonging to a culture that they can fully participate in. They also claim that SEE is harder for deaf children to master and does not result in those children being competent with English.^[1] Sometimes, deaf children are instructed using SEE and receive no instruction in ASL, leading to a culture gap.

In addition, some advocates of ASL cite SEE's more intensive adherence to English grammar as leading to negative consequences in the classroom. The argument is that interpreters may drop signs or skip grammatical structures in order to be able to keep up with the spoken lessons. This approximation destroys the main benefit of using SEE in the first place. However, experimental evidence ^[2] indicates that simultaneous verbal and signed communication is possible when given adequate training.

Finally, SEE introduces confusion in ASL. Casual learners are often taught the SEE equivalent of an ASL sign, which they then believe belongs to the vocabulary of ASL when in fact those signs do not. Since deaf people are most often in the role of accommodating hearing people with whom they are communicating, the misunderstanding about which signs belong to what system is reinforced. Because ASL is culturally significant, this can lead to the impression that outsiders are attempting to dilute the language.

Supporters of SEE claim that it helps children build English language skills more effectively ^[3], does not diminish students ability to understand ASL ^[4], and is as easy to learn as ASL. In addition, because SEE is easy for English-speaking hearing people to learn ^[5], it facilitates rapid adoption of signing amongst the hearing, which then helps the deaf community communicate with those outside.

SEE is not considered a language in itself like ASL. Rather, it is an encoding for a language - namely, of English. Thus, there is some discrepancy for whether language credit ought to be given for learning SEE, as is commonly done now with ASL.

References

^ Stack, Kelly (1999), Innovation by a Child Acquiring Signing Exact English II {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |book= ignored (help)
^ Hyde, M. last2=Power (1991), Teachers’ use of simultaneous communication: Effects on the signed and spoken components {{citation}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help); Missing pipe in: |first1= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Luetke-Stahlman, Barbara (1988), "The benefit of oral English-only as compared with signed input to hearing-impaired students", The Volta Review, 90 (7): 349–361
^ Luetke-Stahlman, Barbara (1989), "Can SEE-II children understand ASL-using adults?", American Annals of the Deaf, 135 (1): 7–8
^ Luetke-Stahlman, Barbara; Moeller, M. (1990), "Enhancing parents use of SEE-II: Progress and retention", American Annals of the Deaf, 135 (5): 371–378

External links

The official SEE website

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 The use of SEE is somewhat controversial, especially compared to the somewhat more entrenched system [[American Sign Language|ASL]].
-Some detractors of SEE claim that teaching deaf children SEE deprives them of belonging to a culture that they can fully participate in. They also claim that SEE is harder for deaf children to master and does not result in those children being competent with English. (These claims are unsupported by research.) Sometimes, deaf children are instructed using SEE and receive no instruction in ASL, leading to a culture gap.
+Some detractors of SEE claim that teaching deaf children SEE deprives them of belonging to a culture that they can fully participate in. They also claim that SEE is harder for deaf children to master and does not result in those children being competent with English.<ref>{{ Citation | last=Stack | first=Kelly | year=1999 | title=Innovation by a Child Acquiring Signing Exact English II | book=UMI}}</ref> Sometimes, deaf children are instructed using SEE and receive no instruction in ASL, leading to a culture gap.
 In addition, some advocates of ASL cite SEE's more intensive adherence to English grammar as leading to negative consequences in the classroom. The argument is that interpreters may drop signs or skip grammatical structures in order to be able to keep up with the spoken lessons. This approximation destroys the main benefit of using SEE in the first place. However, experimental evidence <ref>{{Citation | last1=Hyde | first1=M. last2=Power | first2=D. | year=1991 | title=Teachers’ use of simultaneous communication: Effects on the signed and spoken components }}</ref> indicates that simultaneous verbal and signed communication is possible when given adequate training.