Should a deaf child learn ASL or SEE?
Just curious your opinion on ASL v. SEE.
I have mine.
What is yours and WHY?
- Go Rangers!Lv 51 decade agoFavorite Answer
SEE is not a real language. It's taking signs in an unnatural way and putting them in English word order. It's unnatural and hard to produce. ASL, by contrast, has a natural grammatical structure, is easier for deaf kids to learn, and is much more widely used.
In reality, most deaf people use a mix of the two, but ASL is heavily favored. Ask any Deaf person, and they will argue vehemently for ASL use.
From a psychological standpoint, it is important for a child to learn a language, any language, while they are very young. Not doing so can lead to language or cognitive delays. Once a child has a solid language base, they can learn additional languages more easily in the future. Learning ASL will not hamper a child's ability to read/write English. Emphasize reading, especially with the child, and the child should learn English reasonably well. But if you start with SEE, they do not have that language base, and their development could be hindered.
Recent studies also show that Cued Speech helps with reading development. But, again, I would still recommend ASL as a first language for deaf children.
- desandroLv 44 years ago
It's no longer just like the minute you grow to be deaf, you are magically granted the potential to be trained ASL immediately. The "ASL Fairy" does not come and sprinkle pixie grime in your head or whatever, granting you the potential to be capable to signal, identical to that. (Sounds dull, however I've honestly had men and women count on that that is what occurs! True tale!) Just like every other language, it takes YEARS of research with a purpose to grow to be expert in ASL. You must learn, and also you must research the language with a purpose to be capable to make use of it safely. I have had listening to loss for so much of my (quick) lifestyles. I have had huge listening to loss due to the fact approximately the age of 6 or 7, and I am now deaf. But I am finding out ASL now, on the age of sixteen. I did not be trained ASL immediately, as a tender youngster. I did not have that possibility till just lately. I rather desire that I could have had that possibility, that present as a youngster; it most likely could have stored me plenty of heartache. Some men and women do have the possibility to be trained ASL from an overly younger age, and so they be trained ASL lovely swiftly as their first language or as their moment language whilst nonetheless younger. Others be trained it in a while. Some deaf men and women certainly not be trained it in any respect. It all is dependent upon the individual. There are many past due-deafened men and women who certainly not be trained ASL. They are deaf, however culturally Hearing. They could instead stay within the Hearing global than to be a aspect of the Deaf global, so they do not be trained ASL. (This is what the capital letter approach. Deaf, with a capital D, refers back to the cultural Deaf group. However, deaf, with a lowercase d, refers back to the audiological situation of no longer being capable to listen to. There IS a change among being deaf and being Deaf.) But no, to reply your query, no longer all deaf men and women be trained ASL immediately. Some do, a few do not. It is dependent upon the individual in query, and their man or woman obstacle and heritage.
- KellyLv 71 decade ago
I'm not Deaf (or deaf), but I think learning SEE would help a Deaf person read and understand English a lot better than if they knew ASL. I think ASL is good to start with when you're a child because it's so simplistic, and it's good to know because I think more people know ASL than SEE, but to learn to read and write is much harder if you only know ASL. Not that it's impossible, but it would certainly help.
That's my 2¢ anyway. What's yours?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I work with special ed kids. To me it's irrelevant which one they learn as long as they learn. I don't think there's a controversy about this.