Fwd: Re: Q: Classic terminology/methods? A: Why not?

[Sangeeta Bagga-Gupta]

I agree that there is a need to be critical in transferring terminology
from the analysis of spoken languages to the analysis of signed languages.
This perhaps is particularly true in the case of sociolinguistic analysis
of SL's (Ceil Lucas's intro to the 2001 vol of "The socioling of SL's" -
edited by C Lucas, pub Cambridge Univ Press discusses this interestingly).
For instance, there appears to be some amount of confusion when we transfer
concepts like "code-switching" and even "bilingualism" when discussing
people's uses of ASL-English or SSL-Swedish (and what about people's use of
ASL-SSL!). Thick descriptions of language behaviour by Carol Padden,  Carol
Erting, and others, including my own work, have given rise to more grounded
concepts like "linking" and different types of "chaining" that attend to
the complexities that arise in visually oriented environments.

Sangeeta


>X-Sender: slobin at socrates.berkeley.edu
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1
>Date:         Sun, 5 Oct 2003 20:56:05 -0700
>Reply-To: "For the discussion of linguistics and signed languages."
><SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA>
>Sender: "For the discussion of linguistics and signed languages."
><SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA>
>From: "Dan I. Slobin" <slobin at SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU>
>Subject:      Re: Q: Classic terminology/methods? A: Why not?
>To: SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA
>X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>X-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
>
>Dear Nicole Kuplenik
>         That's an important question--and, as you suggest--one that is
> influenced by power.  In my opinion, classic linguistic terms cannot be
> uncritically applied to sign languages.  I have serious doubts about the
> uses of notions such as subject, object, classifier, agreement, and
> others.  But as for linguistic methods--these are precisely the methods
> that we need in order to determine the structure of sign languages.  It's
> not the methods that are a problem, but the direct transfer of categories
> of analysis that have been established for (particular) written languages.
>         There's been a lot written about these issues--both taking the
> position that I've just summarized and taking the opposite
> position.  Several recent books are especially relevant:
>
>         Emmorey, K. (Ed.) (2003).  Perspectives on classifier
> constructions in sign languages.  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
>         Liddell, S. K. (2003).  Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American
> Sign Language.  Cambridge University Press.
>         Taub, S. F. (2001).  Language from the body: Iconicity and
> metaphor in American Sign Language.  Cambridge               University Press.
>
>If you send me your email address, I can send you some papers from our
>Sign Language Research Group at the University of California, Berkeley.
>
>Sincerely,
>Dan Slobin
>Professor of Psychology
>University of California, Berkeley
>
>At 12:05 PM 10/4/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>>Dear SL-Ling-ists!
>>
>>The other day a debate occured in a certain linguistic environment (Sl
>>and non-SL) on whether classic linguistic methods and terminology can be
>>used in the field of SLs. :)
>>Rather frustrating, actually, since the power of power (e.g. higher v.
>>lower academic rank) prevailed ...
>>
>>Could you please share your opinion on this matter? I would also like to
>>know whether there are any materials on the subject of linguistic and
>>SL-linguistic teminology.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Nicole Kuplenik
>>Ljubljana School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
>>Slovenia

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20031006/00e08a64/attachment.htm>