From: Wayne.Silsbee@p1.f222.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Wayne Silsbee)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: Deaf Culture
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:00:43 GMT
Reply-To: Wayne.Silsbee@p1.f222.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/222.1 - N.W. Family History, Oregon City OR

Index Number: 20860

[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]

> Ack, ptui, and you-gotta-be-kidding!  ASL is just as
> structured as any other language, and has been proven so
> linguistically!

Whoa! Hold your horses.

 o I did not intend to say that ASL has *no* structure
 o I did not say, nor did I imply, that ASL is not a language
 o Are you actually saying that ASL is as structured as English?

ASL has *some* rules, hence *some* structure. However, it gives the
person *far* more leeway than does English. What I was saying was
that because of this lack of (sorry -- maybe should have used the
word "minimal") structure, people who have used ASL tend to bend
(I'm being nice here) the rules of English when English is being
signed.

> That is NOT what I said at all, and you've twisted it
> incomprehensibly!  In this hypothetical Spanished-English
> (vs. Signed English) let's suppose that native Spanish
> speaking people are taught English grammar by taking the
> Spanish words (that they already know) and placing them in
> English word order, and making up the words that English has
> that Spanish doesn't.  Now, unless a person is *really*
> committed to doing this, they are going to fall out of the
> habit of using the made up parts, and the student will not
> really learn English grammar, but a pidgin version of it.

Why would one try to use English grammar with Spanish words? Is
there a sign that uses English grammar with ASL signs? Ah, yes --
SEE. But SEE is not Englishized ASL, SEE is, in my view, a truly
signed English. True, it does have some of its basis from ASL, but
when you are trying to bridge two cultures linguistically, it seems
proper to have *some* continuity when making a truly signed
English. But of course we all know how well SEE went over!

> Would you say that the existence of Spanish is eroding the
> ability to have a truly Spanished English?  Should we keep
> anyone who uses Spanish as their main method of
> communication with other Spanish speaking individuals from
> doing so?  (I am assuming, of course, that you accept
> Spanish as a language.)

Having an Englishized Spanish is absurd to the extreme. Are you
saying that you believe that having a truly signed English is
equally ridiculous?

> What does that have to do with anything?  Gestures are not
> part of spoken languages' grammar.

No, they are not part of a spoken language, but it seems that many
people prefer the use of visual examples rather than go through the
hassle of explaining it verbally.

> You can write down what a person has said, and not lose meaning by not
> transcribing the gestures she made while saying it.

"I had a fish on the line today -- and it was *THIS BIG*!"   Now,
would you care to tell me just how big the fish was that was
described? Ah, you mean you lost the meaning when I didn't
transcribe the gestures? :)

It really seems that, to you, the question of whether there can be
a signed English is rather moot as there is no need for such a
beast to exist. Yet this whole topic began when you complained that
sign in schools wasn't even English -- it was pidgin English. IS
there room for signed English? Is there a NEED for signed English?
We've been discussing whether it's possible to have one, and in
mid-stream you seem to have dismissed the the whole idea as a
ridiculous venture. Care to expand on *your* theories?

TTYL

Wayne

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!222.1!Wayne.Silsbee
Internet: Wayne.Silsbee@p1.f222.n105.z1.fidonet.org