ASL vs SEE: What's the Core Difference?

The landscape of visual communication for the deaf and hard-of-hearing community encompasses a range of signing systems, yet what is a fundamental difference between ASL and SEE remains a central question for educators and linguists alike. American Sign Language (ASL), characterized by its unique grammatical structure and expressive fluidity, distinctly contrasts with Signing Exact English (SEE), a system developed to mirror English word order and grammatical markers. The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) advocates for the recognition and preservation of ASL as a natural language, emphasizing its cultural significance. Conversely, the desire to provide a signing system more directly aligned with written English motivated the creation of SEE, aiming to improve literacy among deaf students. While both systems serve as tools for communication, their philosophical underpinnings and practical applications reveal considerable divergence, shaping the educational experiences, particularly at institutions like Gallaudet University, and linguistic identities of those who use them.

Decoding Sign: Navigating the Diverse World of Visual Communication

Within the vibrant Deaf community, communication transcends spoken words, finding expression through a rich tapestry of visual languages. Among these, American Sign Language (ASL) and Signing Exact English (SEE) stand out as prominent systems, each with its unique structure, philosophy, and impact.

Understanding the nuances of these languages is not merely an academic exercise; it's a crucial competency for educators, interpreters, healthcare professionals, and anyone seeking to foster genuine connection with Deaf individuals.

ASL and SEE: A Brief Overview

ASL, a natural, visual language, possesses its own distinct grammar, syntax, and cultural context, entirely separate from English. It is the primary language of the Deaf community in North America, fostering a sense of identity and belonging.

SEE, on the other hand, is a manually coded English system, designed to visually represent spoken English. Its aim is to provide a direct, sign-by-sign translation of English, mirroring its grammatical structure and vocabulary.

Why the Differences Matter

The choice between ASL and SEE is more than just a matter of preference. It touches upon fundamental questions of language acquisition, cultural identity, and cognitive development.

For educators, selecting an appropriate communication method can significantly impact a Deaf child's ability to learn and thrive.

Interpreters must possess a deep understanding of both ASL and SEE to accurately convey information between Deaf and hearing individuals.

Furthermore, healthcare professionals and social workers need to be aware of these differences to ensure effective communication and culturally sensitive care.

The Purpose of This Exploration

This article embarks on a comprehensive comparison of ASL and SEE, delving into their linguistic structures, practical applications, and broader implications.

By illuminating the contrasts and similarities between these systems, we hope to provide readers with a clearer understanding of the diverse landscape of sign communication and its significance within the Deaf community.

Our goal is to empower educators, interpreters, and advocates with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions and foster more inclusive and accessible environments.

ASL vs. SEE: Defining the Terms

Decoding Sign: Navigating the Diverse World of Visual Communication Within the vibrant Deaf community, communication transcends spoken words, finding expression through a rich tapestry of visual languages. Among these, American Sign Language (ASL) and Signing Exact English (SEE) stand out as prominent systems, each with its unique structure, philosophy, and application. To fully appreciate their nuances, it's essential to begin by clearly defining each term, understanding their origins, and recognizing their core principles. This groundwork will pave the way for a deeper comparison of their linguistic characteristics and their impact on communication within the Deaf community.

American Sign Language (ASL)

ASL is not merely a visual representation of English. It is a complete and natural language, possessing its own grammar, syntax, and cultural context, entirely independent of spoken English.

It’s a visually-gestural language, expressed through hand movements, facial expressions, and body language.

ASL's structure is significantly different from English.

ASL utilizes space and movement to convey meaning, offering a level of expressiveness that goes beyond a simple translation of English words.

It has evolved organically over centuries within the Deaf community.

ASL: A Language of the Deaf Community

ASL serves as the primary language for many Deaf individuals in the United States and parts of Canada. It's more than just a means of communication; it's a cornerstone of Deaf culture and identity.

Its rich history and cultural significance make it an integral part of the Deaf experience.

It fosters a sense of belonging and connection within the community. ASL allows for the transmission of cultural values, stories, and traditions across generations.

Signing Exact English (SEE)

SEE, in contrast to ASL, is a manually coded English system.

This means it was deliberately created to represent English on the hands, attempting to provide a visual equivalent of spoken English.

The Goal of SEE: Visualizing English

The primary goal of SEE is to present English visually, including its grammar and word order.

This involves creating signs for English words, prefixes, suffixes, and grammatical markers.

SEE aims for a direct correspondence between English and its signed representation.

While SEE strives to represent English accurately, this pursuit can sometimes lead to awkward or unnatural sign constructions. It may also lose some of the nuance and conceptual richness found in ASL.

Linguistic Deep Dive: Comparing Grammatical Structures

Having established the fundamental definitions, we now turn our attention to the intricate linguistic structures that underpin ASL and SEE. This exploration delves into the nuances of grammar, morphology, semantics, and phonology (or cherology), revealing the significant differences in how each system constructs and conveys meaning.

Grammar and Syntax: Divergent Paths

The grammatical landscape of ASL and SEE presents a stark contrast.

ASL, as a natural language, boasts a grammatical system entirely independent of English. Its syntax is characterized by features absent in spoken English.

SEE, conversely, is intentionally tethered to English grammar.

ASL: A World of Topic-Comment and Non-Manual Markers

ASL frequently employs a topic-comment structure, where the subject of the sentence is presented first, followed by commentary or information about that subject.

For example, instead of signing "The dog is running," one might sign "DOG, RUN," placing the emphasis on the dog before describing the action.

Classifiers are another hallmark of ASL grammar. These handshapes represent entire classes of objects (e.g., vehicles, people) and can be manipulated to show movement, location, and other characteristics.

Crucially, non-manual markers—facial expressions, body language, and head movements—are integral to ASL grammar. They convey emphasis, emotional tone, and grammatical information.

A raised eyebrow might indicate a question, while a furrowed brow could signify confusion or disapproval.

SEE: Mirroring English Sentence Structure

In stark contrast, SEE meticulously adheres to English grammatical rules.

Word order in SEE mirrors English syntax, typically following a subject-verb-object (SVO) pattern.

Verb tenses are explicitly signed, and articles (a, an, the) and prepositions (in, on, at) are included, even though they may not carry the same weight or function as they do in spoken English.

The emphasis is on creating a visual representation of English, even if it means sacrificing the natural flow and expressiveness of ASL.

Morphology: Building Words in Different Ways

Morphology, the study of word formation, further distinguishes ASL and SEE.

ASL: Compounding and Affixation

ASL uses morphology to create new signs and modify existing ones.

Compounding involves combining two or more signs to create a new sign with a related meaning. For example, the signs for "sun" and "shine" can be combined to create the sign for "sunny."

Affixation, while less common than in English, also plays a role. Certain handshapes or movements can be added to a base sign to alter its meaning.

SEE: Mimicking English Morphology

SEE often adds suffixes and prefixes to signs to mirror English words, even when these additions do not add meaning in the signed context.

For instance, to sign the word "understandable," SEE might add separate signs that visually translate the suffixes.

This practice, while faithful to English morphology, can result in longer, more cumbersome signs that do not necessarily enhance comprehension.

Semantics: The Nuances of Meaning

The way meaning is conveyed—semantics—also differs significantly.

ASL: Iconicity and Conceptual Representation

ASL signs often exhibit a high degree of iconicity, meaning they visually resemble the concept they represent.

The sign for "tree," for example, might mimic the shape of a tree trunk and branches.

Furthermore, ASL signs often represent concepts and ideas rather than direct translations of English words.

One sign might encompass a range of related meanings that would require multiple words to express in English.

SEE: One-to-One Correspondence

SEE strives for a one-to-one correspondence between English words and signs.

While this approach can be helpful for learning English vocabulary, it can also lead to less conceptually accurate translations.

The richness and nuance of ASL, where a single sign can convey a complex idea, may be lost in the pursuit of a direct English equivalent.

Phonology/Cherology: The Building Blocks of Signs

Finally, the phonological, or cherological, structure of ASL and SEE reveals further distinctions.

ASL: Handshape, Movement, and Location

In ASL, the smallest units of a sign—handshape, movement, location on the body, and palm orientation—are crucial for distinguishing meaning.

Changing just one of these parameters can create an entirely different sign.

This complex system allows for a high degree of precision and efficiency in communication.

SEE: Prioritizing English Correspondence

In SEE, these elements are still present, but their relative importance may be diminished.

The primary goal is to match English as closely as possible, even if it means sacrificing some of the phonological richness and efficiency of ASL.

Beyond the Basics: Exploring Related Signing Systems

Having established the fundamental definitions, we now turn our attention to the broader landscape of signing systems. While ASL and SEE represent distinct approaches to visual communication, several related systems exist, each with its own nuances and applications. This exploration delves into SEE1 and SEE2, Manually Coded English (MCE) generally, and Pidgin Signed English (PSE)/Contact Sign Language (CSL), clarifying their relationships to and distinctions from ASL and SEE.

SEE1 and SEE2: A Closer Look

SEE, as discussed, is not monolithic. Two primary versions exist: Seeing Essential English (SEE1) and Signing Exact English (SEE2).

SEE2 is the more commonly encountered of the two.

The core difference lies in their approach to representing English words.

While both aim to provide a visual equivalent of spoken English, SEE1, developed earlier, utilizes a more literal, morpheme-based approach, even creating compound signs for words with multiple morphemes.

SEE2, in contrast, prioritizes conceptual accuracy, often opting for a single sign to represent a word, even if it requires departing from a strict morpheme-by-morpheme translation.

Ultimately, both systems strive to make English accessible visually. However, their divergence in implementation leads to variations in sign choices and overall linguistic fidelity.

Manually Coded English (MCE): A Category Perspective

It's crucial to recognize that SEE exists within the broader category of Manually Coded English (MCE) systems.

MCE encompasses any system designed to visually represent English on the hands.

SEE's significance stems from being one of the more widely adopted MCEs. Other MCE systems have been developed over the years, each with varying degrees of acceptance and application.

The unifying goal of all MCE systems is to provide a signed representation that closely mirrors spoken English, often for educational purposes or to facilitate communication between Deaf and hearing individuals.

Therefore, understanding SEE requires acknowledging its place as one, but not the only, method within the larger framework of MCE.

Pidgin Signed English (PSE) / Contact Sign Language (CSL): A Bridge Between Worlds

Finally, we must consider Pidgin Signed English (PSE), also known as Contact Sign Language (CSL).

PSE/CSL emerges from interactions between Deaf individuals who primarily use ASL and hearing individuals who are learning to sign or are not fluent in ASL.

It represents a blend of ASL and English, utilizing ASL signs but often presented in English word order.

Unlike SEE, which consciously adheres to English grammar, PSE/CSL arises naturally from communicative necessity, representing a compromise that allows for greater understanding between users with varying levels of fluency in ASL and English.

It lacks the strict rules and deliberate structure of MCE systems, acting more as a linguistic bridge.

As such, while SEE attempts to encode English into a visual form, PSE/CSL blends English structures with an existing, autonomous visual language.

[Beyond the Basics: Exploring Related Signing Systems Having established the fundamental definitions, we now turn our attention to the broader landscape of signing systems. While ASL and SEE represent distinct approaches to visual communication, several related systems exist, each with its own nuances and applications. This exploration delves into S...]

The Impact on Language Acquisition and Development

The choice of signing system significantly impacts language acquisition and development, particularly for Deaf children.

Early exposure to a robust and natural language is crucial for cognitive, social, and emotional growth. Understanding the distinct effects of ASL and SEE on these developmental milestones is essential for educators, parents, and caregivers.

Language Acquisition: ASL vs. SEE

The pathway to language proficiency differs considerably between ASL and SEE.

ASL: A Natural Language Foundation

Children exposed to ASL from a young age acquire it as a natural language, developing full linguistic competence. ASL's rich grammatical structure and expressive capacity provide a solid foundation for cognitive development, mirroring the natural language acquisition process of hearing children.

This early exposure fosters critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and a strong sense of identity within the Deaf community.

SEE: A Manually Coded System

In contrast, children exposed to SEE may learn English grammatical structures but may not develop the same level of fluency or cultural understanding as native ASL users.

While SEE can provide access to English, its reliance on a manually coded system may hinder the development of natural language fluency.

The cognitive load required to process SEE's artificial structure can detract from the development of higher-level language skills.

This can potentially impact a child's ability to fully engage with and express themselves within the broader Deaf community.

The Risks of Language Deprivation

Language deprivation, regardless of the communication method employed, poses significant risks to a child's development.

Children who are not exposed to a consistent and accessible language early in life may experience cognitive delays, social-emotional challenges, and difficulties with academic achievement.

Early language exposure is not just about communication; it's about building the foundation for learning, thinking, and interacting with the world.

The absence of a strong language base can have long-lasting consequences, affecting a child's ability to reach their full potential. It is imperative that Deaf children are provided with early and consistent access to a visually accessible language, whether it be ASL or a carefully considered, linguistically sound alternative.

Conceptual Accuracy: Representing Meaning Effectively

After delving into the grammatical and structural nuances, the question of conceptual accuracy arises. This involves analyzing how effectively each signing system, ASL and SEE, conveys the intended meaning behind a concept, independent of its linguistic form.

The core of this discussion revolves around the inherent differences in how meaning is constructed and represented in each system.

Understanding Conceptual Accuracy

Conceptual accuracy, in the context of sign languages, refers to how well a sign or signed phrase captures the true meaning or essence of the concept it represents. It is not merely about finding a visual equivalent for an English word.

Instead, it is about conveying the underlying idea in a way that is both linguistically sound and culturally relevant. This is particularly crucial in ensuring that Deaf individuals receive information that is not only accessible but also meaningful and conceptually clear.

ASL: Prioritizing Concept Over Direct Translation

ASL, as a natural language, often prioritizes the underlying concept over a direct, word-for-word translation from English. This means that a single ASL sign can sometimes represent an entire English phrase or sentence.

Furthermore, ASL utilizes a rich array of non-manual markers, such as facial expressions and body language, to add nuance and context to its signs.

For instance, the ASL sign for "running late" might visually depict the act of hurrying combined with a stressed facial expression, effectively capturing the concept without needing to explicitly sign each individual word. This holistic approach to meaning-making often results in a high degree of conceptual accuracy, as the signs are designed to reflect the underlying idea rather than simply mirroring English vocabulary.

SEE: The Challenge of Literal Equivalence

SEE, on the other hand, strives for a one-to-one correspondence between English words and signs. While this approach can be helpful for learning English grammar, it can sometimes fall short in terms of conceptual accuracy. The need to represent every English word, including articles and prepositions, can lead to cumbersome and less natural-looking sentences.

More importantly, it can obscure the underlying meaning. In some cases, the direct translation of English idioms or metaphors into SEE can result in signs that are confusing or nonsensical, as they fail to capture the intended figurative meaning.

The phrase "kick the bucket," for example, might be literally signed in SEE, which would not convey the idiomatic meaning of "to die." This emphasis on literal equivalence can sometimes compromise the conceptual clarity and overall effectiveness of communication.

Impact on Comprehension

The differences in conceptual accuracy between ASL and SEE can have significant implications for comprehension.

ASL's emphasis on conveying the underlying meaning can make it easier for Deaf individuals to grasp complex concepts, as the signs are designed to reflect the essence of the idea. However, a learner must first be proficient in ASL as a language.

SEE's reliance on direct English translation can be helpful for reinforcing English vocabulary and grammar, but it can also create barriers to understanding if the signs are not conceptually clear or if the individual is not already proficient in English. The overall effect may create "cognitive overload."

The choice between ASL and SEE, therefore, involves a careful consideration of the goals of communication and the individual's language proficiency. Understanding the strengths and limitations of each system in terms of conceptual accuracy is crucial for promoting effective and meaningful communication within the Deaf community.

Resources for Further Exploration

After delving into the grammatical and structural nuances, the question of conceptual accuracy arises. This involves analyzing how effectively each signing system, ASL and SEE, conveys the intended meaning behind a concept, independent of its linguistic form.

To continue your exploration of ASL, SEE, and the rich tapestry of Deaf communication, a wealth of resources awaits. This section offers a curated guide to dictionaries, research, and visual examples. It will empower you to delve deeper into these fascinating languages.

ASL Dictionaries: Unlocking the Lexicon

Online ASL dictionaries are invaluable tools for learners and researchers alike. They provide a visual and interactive way to explore the ASL lexicon. Lifeprint.com, maintained by Dr. Bill Vicars, is a comprehensive resource. It features a vast collection of signs, grammatical explanations, and cultural insights.

Handspeak is another notable dictionary, offering detailed sign illustrations and variations. These dictionaries often include example sentences. They show the signs in context, enhancing comprehension and retention.

Practical Considerations for Using Online Dictionaries

When using these dictionaries, remember that ASL is a living language. Signs can evolve over time, and regional variations exist. Cross-referencing multiple sources is always a good practice. It ensures a well-rounded understanding.

Research Articles: Deepening Your Understanding

To gain a deeper understanding of the linguistic and educational implications of ASL and SEE, turn to academic research. Peer-reviewed journal articles provide evidence-based insights into the effectiveness of different communication methods.

Key studies often compare language acquisition rates, cognitive development, and social-emotional outcomes for Deaf children exposed to ASL versus SEE. Search databases such as JSTOR, ERIC, and Google Scholar using relevant keywords. Look for articles that specifically address the linguistic structures of ASL and SEE. Examine their impact on literacy development and educational settings.

Critically Evaluating Research

Be mindful of the methodologies employed in these studies. Consider the sample sizes, participant demographics, and potential biases. Look for studies that use rigorous research designs. They provide reliable and generalizable findings.

Video Examples: Seeing the Difference

Perhaps the most impactful way to understand the differences between ASL and SEE is to see them in action. Video examples bring the linguistic nuances to life. They highlight the distinct sentence structures and vocabulary choices.

YouTube channels and educational websites often feature demonstrations of both ASL and SEE. Look for videos that compare the two systems side-by-side. Pay attention to the use of non-manual markers in ASL and the English-based word order in SEE.

Observing Nuances

Observe how each system conveys meaning, focusing on the clarity and naturalness of the communication. Consider how the visual representation aligns with the intended concept. The more examples you view, the more attuned you'll become to the subtle yet significant differences between ASL and SEE.

So, there you have it! While both ASL and SEE aim to bridge communication gaps, remember that fundamental difference: ASL is a complete, natural language with its own grammar and cultural nuances, whereas SEE is a manually coded system striving to represent English on the hands. Hopefully, this gives you a clearer picture as you continue (or start!) your journey into the world of visual communication!