Reply #13: Thanks!

[FunkyLeprechaun]

That was what I was asking for. I don't necessarily agree with ASL for the Deaf (that was my original intent of my postings here) but, like I said, your hearing child has access to the English language as well as ASL.

However, I was wondering how well a hearing child read English after immersion in ASL. IQ tests are mainly visual, I had the highest score in a psychology class (in high school) I was getting a grade of B in. As a deaf person, I really do well with visual cues, which is why I did so well in an IQ test, beating the straight-A students.

If an IQ test was presented in a written form (like the SAT's Analogue Questions), I can guarantee you a deaf person with ASL only immersion will do badly, as the signs are very limited. They may not know what pulchritudinous means but they'll know beautiful. Beautiful and pulchritudinous have the same meaning but only one sign and they are taught that this sign means "beautiful" not "pulchritudinous" or even "gorgeous".

It is imperative that you don't use ASL, but rather the other form of English sign language, called SEE. It may seem like a long slog compared to ASL, but it is proven that deaf people with SEE immersion do fairly better at English comprehension compared to ASL immersion.

Thank you for the information, I am not looking to pick a fight here. I am a strong advocate of giving deaf children access to literacy. If ASL helps hearing people then maybe it's a useful tool for them. As I said, if any tool helps deaf people (Cued Speech, Cochlear Implants) then it's good to seize the opportunity, like you with ASL for your hearing child.