Links
- Journal's Current Page
- To Lum Aves' Home Page
- luminus310@hotmail.com
Deaf Bloggers
- Golden Notebook
- ASL Poetry Prize
- gnarlyDORKETTE
- Spoo Blog
- Golden Notebook
- SwimPC's thing
- Daveynin's thing
- Bionic Ear Blog
- Amanita.net
- Why Try
- Semi-Cathartic
- Job Hunt Larry
- Burninglight
- My Voice
- Diana's Place
- Arcadian Expressions
Lurking in . . .
Archives
"From the darkness, sleeping light." Formerly luminus dormiens. Lux pacis, light of peace.
Quote: "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." --Bill Watterson, cartoonist, Calvin and Hobbes
20031108
American Sign Language as a Foreign Language
Sometimes, I feel that as I grow in support of viewing American Sign Language (ASL) as a true language for communication and discussion on any topics conceivable in the human world, I am using the same arguments I have heard again and again.
Yes, ASL is a language. ASL is based on visual modality, just as spoken languages of Spanish, French, Navajo and others are based on audial modality. Each handshape has a specific use to produce specific meaning, each sound uttered through the use of the tongue, lip, teeth, throat, and lung has a specific combination to produce words that we can understand.
Time and time again, I hear this argument. Time and time again, I hear the reseach cited and the Navajo and Russian languages held in comparison. Time and time again, I hear ASL praised as being the most developed and the most expressive sign language of all the sign languages of the world.
Time and time again, I hear how different Signed Exact English (SEE) is so different in structure from ASL. I hear that SEE is simply using ASL with some additional non-ASL signs signed in English word order, e.g. Subject-Verb-Indirect_Object "I love him." ASL says it instead in this format, "Him I love."
Again and again and again, this argument I hear so often and so much the same that I feel I should be rebelling, that I should say ASL is not a language, but a feeble composition of signs.
So here is the list of arguments I have to say that ASL is not a language:
1. It is limited to people who can see it. Unlike spoken language, which can be shouted to get the maximum attention, signed language exaggerated will not get the attention of those who are not eyeballing your way.
2. Your eyes must work well to see ASL. When something's caught in your eyes, communication is lost. Where there's fog, there's no one talking.
3. Your hands must be unencumbered to sign. If you are using your hands for something else, you cannot sign, which can be dangerous for certain situation, such as surgery.
4. You need light, and that light must be perfectly balanced for a comfortable signing environment. If there's a light behind the one that is signing to you, you cannot see anything except silhouette. If there is no light, you cannot see anything. (Of course, for those who are blind and deaf, they can understand the ASL through touch, the most powerful sense.)
5. ASL is not a language in which anger can be easily shown. Sometimes, people just need to raise their voice, but how can you raise your hands?
6. When there is a conflict, and people are avoiding that conflict, the trouble is that that person with whom you are arguing may look away, thus frustrating your attempt to put your righteous ideas in your head.
7. Being unable to hear means that you don't hear all the fuck, cunt, shit, fag, and all the slang available in the hearing world. You are in fact isolated.
8. There is a limit in the number of signs that you have. After all, how many different signs can you really make that would have the same variety as in English? I understand that people claim that English speakers have a working vocabulary of 2,500 words a day, and from this therefore, the number of signs in the ASL lexicon is right there on the mark. The fact is that Shakespeare used 39,476 different words in his work, English has a total of 500,000 words. That total would make any ASL users quiver.
9. There is no sign for every single word. I will say that ASL can explain the meanings of any English words, just as English and Spanish can be used to explain the meanings of each other, but the limitation of signs mean that you cannot find a variety of words to give an exact meaning that you want to convey.
I understand that to augment the relative scaracity of signs ASL users employ fingerspelling (A B C . . .) and use classifiers to produce imagery. Two things: (1) Fingerspelling, especially for long word, can be slow for any native speakers, and mortifyingly slow for new beginners; (2) Classifiers are good for visual things, but not for abstract things. I'm sure that ASL signs can help to explain abstract meaning like condensation, abstract, antidisestablishmentarianism, but still (!) . . .
Some people regard number 7 to be a good thing, women in particular because they would prefer not to be exposed to sordid things.
True, ASL is the official language for international conference. Where there is needed a sign language translator, ASL is the one translating. Where two cultures want to meet, an ASL interpreter is there.
So what am I trying to say? ASL is a fun language to learn, it help you exercise with your hands and fingers. I take great delight in carving meanings in air that disappear very quickly, just as sound disappears, to leave a mark on the listener.
Sometimes, I feel that as I grow in support of viewing American Sign Language (ASL) as a true language for communication and discussion on any topics conceivable in the human world, I am using the same arguments I have heard again and again.
Yes, ASL is a language. ASL is based on visual modality, just as spoken languages of Spanish, French, Navajo and others are based on audial modality. Each handshape has a specific use to produce specific meaning, each sound uttered through the use of the tongue, lip, teeth, throat, and lung has a specific combination to produce words that we can understand.
Time and time again, I hear this argument. Time and time again, I hear the reseach cited and the Navajo and Russian languages held in comparison. Time and time again, I hear ASL praised as being the most developed and the most expressive sign language of all the sign languages of the world.
Time and time again, I hear how different Signed Exact English (SEE) is so different in structure from ASL. I hear that SEE is simply using ASL with some additional non-ASL signs signed in English word order, e.g. Subject-Verb-Indirect_Object "I love him." ASL says it instead in this format, "Him I love."
Again and again and again, this argument I hear so often and so much the same that I feel I should be rebelling, that I should say ASL is not a language, but a feeble composition of signs.
So here is the list of arguments I have to say that ASL is not a language:
1. It is limited to people who can see it. Unlike spoken language, which can be shouted to get the maximum attention, signed language exaggerated will not get the attention of those who are not eyeballing your way.
2. Your eyes must work well to see ASL. When something's caught in your eyes, communication is lost. Where there's fog, there's no one talking.
3. Your hands must be unencumbered to sign. If you are using your hands for something else, you cannot sign, which can be dangerous for certain situation, such as surgery.
4. You need light, and that light must be perfectly balanced for a comfortable signing environment. If there's a light behind the one that is signing to you, you cannot see anything except silhouette. If there is no light, you cannot see anything. (Of course, for those who are blind and deaf, they can understand the ASL through touch, the most powerful sense.)
5. ASL is not a language in which anger can be easily shown. Sometimes, people just need to raise their voice, but how can you raise your hands?
6. When there is a conflict, and people are avoiding that conflict, the trouble is that that person with whom you are arguing may look away, thus frustrating your attempt to put your righteous ideas in your head.
7. Being unable to hear means that you don't hear all the fuck, cunt, shit, fag, and all the slang available in the hearing world. You are in fact isolated.
8. There is a limit in the number of signs that you have. After all, how many different signs can you really make that would have the same variety as in English? I understand that people claim that English speakers have a working vocabulary of 2,500 words a day, and from this therefore, the number of signs in the ASL lexicon is right there on the mark. The fact is that Shakespeare used 39,476 different words in his work, English has a total of 500,000 words. That total would make any ASL users quiver.
9. There is no sign for every single word. I will say that ASL can explain the meanings of any English words, just as English and Spanish can be used to explain the meanings of each other, but the limitation of signs mean that you cannot find a variety of words to give an exact meaning that you want to convey.
I understand that to augment the relative scaracity of signs ASL users employ fingerspelling (A B C . . .) and use classifiers to produce imagery. Two things: (1) Fingerspelling, especially for long word, can be slow for any native speakers, and mortifyingly slow for new beginners; (2) Classifiers are good for visual things, but not for abstract things. I'm sure that ASL signs can help to explain abstract meaning like condensation, abstract, antidisestablishmentarianism, but still (!) . . .
Some people regard number 7 to be a good thing, women in particular because they would prefer not to be exposed to sordid things.
True, ASL is the official language for international conference. Where there is needed a sign language translator, ASL is the one translating. Where two cultures want to meet, an ASL interpreter is there.
So what am I trying to say? ASL is a fun language to learn, it help you exercise with your hands and fingers. I take great delight in carving meanings in air that disappear very quickly, just as sound disappears, to leave a mark on the listener.