LIMITED VOCABULARY OF ASL?
Miriam Clifford
The issue is that deaf kids end up not able to function in the language
required to live in the world they find themselves in.
dm...@acpub.duke.edu Mimi (Miriam) Clifford
2535 Sevier St, Durham, NC 27705, 919-489-4821
Tom Lyczko
> On Mon, 21 Feb 1994, Tom Lyczko wrote:
>
> > stuff deleted here...
>
> > > And how many teachers actually understand this necessity? I would bet
> > > darn few, judging from the attitudes expressed by several (many?) teacher
> > > trainees on the list, understnad the issue and/or take the time and energy
> > > required to do it right?
> >
> > Ohhhhhhhhh...I suddenly remembered something that a LOT of people are
> > forgetting (or are not aware of). One aspect of ASL is that, to explain
> > many English concepts, typically one sign is NOT enough. The statements
> > above make me think that many people are getting hung up in the "one
> > word, one sign" thinking. Typically an English word or concept
> > frequently requires several ASL signs together, often in a more visual
> > fashion than the equivalent English.
>
> But the kids NEED the English words. ASL, wonderful as it is (and I'm not
> being sarcastic!) doesn't take the place of knowing English.
Tom says: No argument here. I was talking about the concept of using
ASL to explain or teach English. Going between English and ASL is more
complex than "one word, one sign." THIS is the point I was making, not
whether or not the kids need english words.
>
> Mimi
>
> dm...@acpub.duke.edu Mimi (Miriam) Clifford
> 2535 Sevier St, Durham, NC 27705, 919-489-4821
>
==========================================================================
WANTED: *BEAR* HUGS! FLOWERS! E-MAIL! lyc...@hebron.connected.com
Tom Lyczko, P.O. Box 23102, Seattle, WA 98102 206/328-2297 v/tty
==========================================================================
Miriam Clifford
> On Tue, 22 Feb 1994, Miriam Clifford wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Feb 1994, Tom Lyczko wrote:
> >
> > But the kids NEED the English words. ASL, wonderful as it is (and I'm not
> > being sarcastic!) doesn't take the place of knowing English.
>
> Tom says: No argument here. I was talking about the concept of using
> ASL to explain or teach English. Going between English and ASL is more
> complex than "one word, one sign." THIS is the point I was making, not
> whether or not the kids need english words.
>
But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about the lack
of English vocabulary breadth found in deaf kids.
Tom Lyczko
Okay!!!! :) Again, no argument. Now I see your point. :) tom
Caralee Crye
-> language. The issue is that deaf kids end up not able to function in
-> the language required to live in the world they find themselves in.
Oh, I'm aware of the latter point. I never said that ASL is better
than English.
Some students do well with using ASL to assist in learning English--when
ASL is used as their primary language to explain what is wanted or
expected. Some students do well in a purely English environment and
don't seem to need ASL.
I used to teach English in Adult High School and also used to be an
English tutor for deaf students in college. [Now don't ask me why a
deaf person like me was doing with teaching English to hearing adults;
it is a long story.] I am aware of the complexity of explaining English
whether with spoken English, SEE, or ASL.
Perhaps it is more in the way with how each student processes the
information??
There are certain academic topics I understand better when expressed
with ASL and others with English.
I know you're going to say that the topic is "English" and the learning
of that language. How should that goal be accomplished for deaf
students to allow them to "function" with a society whose primary
language is English?
Seriously, I cannot say that there is one formula that works with all
students nor should there be as every person is very much an individual.
Unfortunately, the educational system generally emphasizes group
instruction.
I wish I have an answer. I don't.
-=[Caralee Crye]=-
carale...@deafnet.com
Miriam Clifford
> -> Caralee, the issue isn't whether English or ASL is the *better*
> -> language. The issue is that deaf kids end up not able to function in
> -> the language required to live in the world they find themselves in.
>
> Oh, I'm aware of the latter point. I never said that ASL is better
> than English.
I don't have names, but some have (no sharpness intended--just a statement).
The above is the only point I keep making about ASL as THE language for
the deaf.
> Some students do well with using ASL to assist in learning English--when
> ASL is used as their primary language to explain what is wanted or
> expected. Some students do well in a purely English environment and
> don't seem to need ASL.
>
> Perhaps it is more in the way with how each student processes the
> information??
Good point. Maybe some of the research really needs to be done in this
area. Different ways that different people process information; different
learning styles. Has any work been done with deaf subjects in these
areas. I know there's been quite a bit with hearing subjects.
> There are certain academic topics I understand better when expressed
> with ASL and others with English.
Tell us more about this. I'd be most interested in examples to help me
understand ASL and its relationship to English better.
> I know you're going to say that the topic is "English" and the learning
> of that language. How should that goal be accomplished for deaf
> students to allow them to "function" with a society whose primary
> language is English?
That has been the topic we've discussed to death. And it is the important
bottom line. But the more we know about the cognitive characteristics of
deaf kids (would they be any different than those of hearing kids? No,
but their ability to utilize them might be.) the better we'll be able to
teach them what they need to know.
> Seriously, I cannot say that there is one formula that works with all
> students nor should there be as every person is very much an individual.
> Unfortunately, the educational system generally emphasizes group
> instruction.
It has too emphasize group instruction. It costs too much to do anything
else--especially if the "anything else" doesn't work well.
Mimi