<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2>This is my first posting here and please
accept my apologies for the extremely long length of this e-mail, as I am
unaware whether there are protocols that decree mails to be of certain
limit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2>However, here I go. Briefly, may I
introduce myself. I am not a linguist, but a Deaf historian and a publisher of
30 books on Deaf history in Britain, including "A Pictorial history of the
Evolution of the British Manual Alphabet" and a reprint of the 1698 book,
"Digiti Lingua". At present I am currently working on a project funded by the
British Government to create a higher exam course in Deaf History and one of the
most important elements in Deaf History, is of course language. In my quest to
ensure that I obtain professional confirmation that sign language is indeed and
unarguably a language, I encountered one lady, copies of whose
correspondences with me I attach here.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2>I am seeking advice/opinions from your
group, perhaps you are able to confirm what she says is correct, win which case
it means sign language is NOT a language, or you can confirm that she is wrong.
I would very much like to listen to you before proceeding with my section on
language during my present project.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2>Not being a linguist, but relying on
commonsense as a Deaf person myself and as a Deaf historian, I say that she is
totally wrong in her views and approach and she is twisting everything to suit
her means, but I find it difficult to argue her points in the way linguists are
qualified to.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2>Thank you for your patience and kind
attention,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2>Raymond Lee</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2><FONT face="Lucida Sans"
size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>1.
First mail from Paulette Caswell.<BR><BR>[Comments in capital letters
interspersed in message below]<BR>=========================<BR>The Department
for Work and Pensions<BR>Reference: CSD1803-Sign<BR>Date: 18 March
2003<BR>Government recognition and £1 million boost for British Sign
Language<BR>The Government has today taken the formal step of recognising
British<BR>Sign Language (BSL) as a language in its own right. It has
also<BR>allocated £1 million funding for initiatives to support the
move.<BR>[DOES "THE GOVERNMENT" REALIZE THAT THEY ARE TAKING A "FORMAL
STEP"<BR>(OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT INFORMATION OR ANALYSIS BY PROFESSIONAL LINGUISTS)
OF<BR>APPROVING A "LANGUAGE" THAT IS NOT BASED ON ANY SOUNDS OF HUMAN
SPEECH,<BR>AND WHICH IS PURELY GESTURAL AND MIMETIC, AND DEFINITELY UNRELATED
TO<BR>THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?]<BR>Following publication of the Government's
Position Statement on British<BR>Sign Language, Secretary of State Andrew Smith
told a gathering of<BR>representatives from Deaf organisations:<BR>"What we are
saying today is important for the 70,000 or so Deaf people<BR>for whom British
Sign Language is their first or preferred language for<BR>participating in
everyday life, and for their families. [WHERE IS THE<BR>ACTUAL PROFESSIONAL
RESEARCH THAT STATES THERE ARE "70,000 OR SO<BR>"CULTURALLY" DEAF PEOPLE FOR
WHOM THE NONPHONETIC MIME-BASED LANGUAGE OF<BR>"BSL" IS THEIR FIRST OR PREFERRED
LANGUAGE FOR PARTICIPATING IN EVERYDAY<BR>LIFE WITHIN GENERAL SOCIETY IN
BRITAIN?<BR>HAS ANYONE DONE A PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH STUDY ON WHICH KIND OF
"SIGNING"<BR>(ENGLISH OR BSL) IS ACTUALLY BEING DONE BY DEAF PEOPLE WHO WANT
TO<BR>PARTICIPATE IN GENERAL SOCIETY?]<BR>IN FACT, WHERE IS THE RESEARCH
DEMONSTRATING THAT THERE ARE 70,000 DEAF<BR>PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY SIGN IN BSL AND
NOT IN THE SIGNED FORM OF<BR>SIGN-ASSISTED LIPREAD (SPEECHREAD) ENGLISH?]<BR>But
it is also important for the rest of society to understand that BSL<BR>is a
language and what this means.<BR>[APPARENTLY, THESE GOVERNMENT PEOPLE DO NOT
KNOW WHAT A "LANGUAGE" IS,<BR>SINCE THEY HAVE NOT CONSULTED PROFESSIONAL
LINGUISTS ON THIS ISSUE. IN<BR>PROFESSIONAL LINGUISTICS, A "LANGUAGE" IS ONE
THAT IS BASED ON THE<BR>SOUNDS OF HUMAN SPEECH. A PANTOMIME IS NOT A "LANGUAGE"
IN THE<BR>PROFESSIONAL FIELD OF LINGUISTICS -- ASK ANY PROFESSIONAL LINGUIST
AT<BR>OXBRIDGE]<BR>"Symbolism is very important of course but the statement is
about more<BR>than that. Across Government we have taken a number of steps to
increase<BR>access to BSL and we are today announcing a £1 million programme
of<BR>initiatives to support the statement."<BR>[YES, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF
THAT MONEY WILL BE GIVEN TO HEARING<BR>PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES "INTERPRETERS"
AND WHO RUN "BSL<BR>LANGUAGE/CULTURAL" PROGRAMS. THAT MONEY WILL NOT MAKE ANY
DEAF<BR>INDIVIDUAL MORE INDEPENDENT OR MORE ENGLISH-LITERATE]<BR>Maria Eagle,
Minister for Disabled People, explained how the funding<BR>will be
spent:<BR>"Among our priorities are raising awareness of the communication
needs<BR>of Deaf people who use BSL and increasing opportunities for people
to<BR>study BSL at a professional level."<BR>[THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
"STUDYING" A PANTOMIME, NON-PHONEMIC LANGUAGE<BR>AT A "PROFESSIONAL" LEVEL. SUCH
FORMS OF COMMUNICATION ARE RESTRICTED TO<BR>COMMUNICATION AT AN EARLY PRIMARY
SCHOOL LEVEL AT BEST. PLUS, THERE IS<BR>NO NEED FOR ANY DEAF PERSON TO HAVE ANY
"COMMUNICATION NEEDS" IN BSL --<BR>THEY HAVE THAT FROM BIRTH -- WHAT THEY NEED
IS TO BE TAUGHT THE<BR>ENGLISH LANGUAGE THAT THEY CANNOT OTHERWISE HEAR OR LEARN
INDEPENDENTLY]<BR>The British Deaf Association welcomed the move: "The British
Deaf<BR>Association, the lead organisation of Deaf sign language users, has
been<BR>campaigning for over 20 years for this decision and we are delighted
to<BR>receive the news. [HOW MANY OF THE BDA PEOPLE ACTUALLY SIGN IN
ENGLISH<BR>AND NOT IN BSL? HOW MANY OF THEM ARE LYING TO THE GOVERNMENT THAT
THEY<BR>SIGN IN "BSL" WHEN THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY DO SO?]<BR>We are grateful to
the UK Council on Deafness for the important<BR>contribution they have made in
bringing together their member<BR>organisations to support the BDA's campaign.
There is still a long way<BR>to go before equality is achieved, but this is a
milestone achievement<BR>for the Deaf community.<BR>[THE DEAF COMMUNITY WILL
NEVER ACHIEVE "EQUALITY" WITH HEARING PEOPLE IF<BR>THEY CONTINUE TO SEGREGATE,
ISOLATE AND EXCLUDE THEMSELVES FROM GENERAL<BR>CULTURE AND GENERAL SOCIETY AND
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE]<BR>The BDA looks forward to working closely with the
Government on this<BR>issue."<BR>[WHAT "ISSUE"??]<BR>Notes for Editors<BR>1.
Full text of Position Statement on British Sign Language issued<BR>today:<BR>The
Government recognises that British Sign Language (BSL) is a language<BR>in its
own right regularly used by a significant number of people. [WHAT<BR>IS A
SIGNIFICANT NUMBER, AND WHERE IS THE RESEARCH DATA PROVING THIS<BR>"SIGNIFICANT
NUMBER" ACTUALLY EXISTS?]<BR>For an estimated 70,000 Deaf people it is their
preferred language for<BR>participation in everyday life.<BR>[EVERYDAY LIFE IN
BRITAIN IS DONE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. WHERE IS THE<BR>RESEARCH DEMONSTRATING
THAT THEIR "ESTIMATED NUMBER" IS RATIONAL,<BR>REASONABLE AND BASED ON ACTUAL
FACTS?]<BR>BSL is a visual-gestural language with its own vocabulary, grammar
and<BR>syntax.<BR>[YES, AND IT IS NOT BASED ON THE SOUNDS OF HUMAN SPEECH. THIS
IS WHAT<BR>THEY ARE NOT TELLING THE GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE NOT TELLING THE
GOVERNMENT<BR>THAT BSL IS A METHOD OF COMMUNICATION SIMILAR TO THAT WHICH WAS
USED BY<BR>HOMO ERECTUS PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPEECH BY HOMO SAPIENS.
THEY<BR>ARE ALSO NOT TELLING THE GOVERNMENT THAT DEAF PEOPLE DEFINITELY CAN
AND<BR>DO LEARN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE FLUENTLY. THEY ARE ALSO NOT TELLING
THE<BR>GOVERNMENT THAT BSL IS CATEGORIZED AS A SEMIOTIC "FIRST
ARTICULATION"<BR>FORM OF COMMUNICATION, WITHOUT AN UNDERLYING PHONEMIC CODE,
WHILE<BR>ENGLISH AND ALL OTHER SPEECH-BASED LANGUAGES ARE "DOUBLE
ARTICULATION"<BR>WITH A STRICT UNDERLYING PHONEMIC CODE]<BR>The Government
understands that people who use BSL want their language<BR>to be protected and
promoted in the same way some minority languages are<BR>by the Council of
Europe's Charter for Recognition or Minority<BR>Languages.<BR>[ALL OF THOSE
OTHER LANGUAGES ARE ACTUALLY LANGUAGES, AND ALL OF THEM<BR>ARE BASED ON AN
UNDERLYING STRICT PHONEMIC CODE]<BR>The Council is considering how that might be
achieved for indigenous<BR>sign languages.<BR>[THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN
"INDIGENOUS SIGN LANGUAGE" BECAUSE OVER<BR>90% OF DEAF PEOPLE ARE BORN TO
HEARING PARENTS AND HEARING FAMILIES. IN<BR>ADDITION, THE SIGNS ARE CREATED
MOSTLY BY HEARING PEOPLE, AND BSL ALSO<BR>COPIES MANY OF THE NORMAL EVERYDAY
GESTURES OF HEARING PEOPLE]<BR>The Government will give careful consideration to
any proposals which<BR>the Council might make. [ONE OF THOSE PROPOSALS SHOULD BE
FOR FUNDING A<BR>PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH PROJECT TO DEBUNK THE STATEMENTS OF THE
AMERICAN<BR>NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF AND GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY PEOPLE,
WHO<BR>ARE TRAVELING WORLDWIDE WITH NONSENSE SUCH AS THAT WHICH IS
BEING<BR>"BELIEVED" BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS]<BR>The Government has
already taken action to improve access to BSL, for<BR>example by identifying
situations where it might be reasonable for<BR>employers and service providers
to engage the services of a BSL/English<BR>interpreter.<BR>[IT WOULD BE MUCH
BETTER TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO ENGLISH FOR DEAF<BR>INDIVIDUALS, NOT ACCESS TO THEIR
OWN LANGUAGE OF BSL FOR WHICH THEY DO<BR>NOT NEED ANY "IMPROVED ACCESS."]<BR>The
Government will be funding a discrete programme of initiatives to<BR>support
this statement.<BR>2. The Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages<BR>aims to protect and promote regional and minority languages used
in<BR>Europe. It was not intended to cover indigenous sign languages.
[IT<BR>SHOULD NOT INCLUDE ANY "INDIGENOUS SIGN LANGUAGES," BECAUSE THOSE
ARE<BR>ALL CREATED AND NOT INDIGENOUS]<BR>3. The £1 million programme of
initiatives announced today will<BR>include projects to raise awareness of BSL
particularly among employers<BR>and service providers, to increase opportunities
to study BSL at a<BR>professional level, and to research Deaf people's take-up
and<BR>experiences of accessing services.<BR>[THE "RAISING AWARENESS" IN THE
HEARING COMMUNITY WILL BE DONE BY BSL<BR>HEARING INTERPRETERS, WHO WILL BE THE
PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES OF THIS<BR>"FUNDING PROGRAM"; THE INCREASED OPPORTUNITIES
TO STUDY BSL MEANS THAT<BR>HEARING BSL INTERPRETERS WILL GET PAID FOR RUNNING
THOSE PROGRAMS (THEY<BR>WOULD NEVER PERMIT A DEAF PERSON TO RUN THOSE PROGRAMS
AT A<BR>"PROFESSIONAL" LEVEL); AND THE RESEARCHERS WILL ALL BE HEARING
PEOPLE,<BR>TOO, WHO WILL USE THE DEAF COMMUNITY AS THEIR GUINEA PIG
RESEARCH<BR>SUBJECTS. THERE WILL NOT BE ANY MONEY AVAILABLE TO GIVE DEAF PEOPLE
ANY<BR>MORE ACCESS OR MORE INDEPENDENCE. IN FACT, BECAUSE OF ALL OF
THIS,<BR>HEARING PEOPLE WILL NOT BE WILLING TO SPEND ANY MORE FUNDS ON
HELPING<BR>DEAF PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY HAVE BETTER OR MORE SUCCESSFUL LIVES AS
ADULTS]<BR>4. Digital pictures from this morning's reception for representatives
of<BR>Deaf organisations will be available on request. [WHAT?
NO<BR>OPEN-CAPTIONED VIDEOTAPES?]<BR><BR>[This message is restricted to the
person to whom it was sent. This<BR>message cannot be forwarded to anyone else,
in whole or in part, without<BR>the advance express written permission of the
original author.]<BR><BR>**************************<BR><BR>2. Raymond Lee's
response:<BR><BR>I do not concur with your approach that "language" is entirely,
utterly and<BR>unequivocally speech-based. This is an erroneous approach. If you
consult<BR>the Oxford Dictionary and look up the meaning of language, you will
see<BR>there are EIGHT different references, the main ones being 'a method of
human<BR>communication' and 'any method of expression or communication'. It is
absurd<BR>to insist that language is entirely based on sounds of human
speech.<BR><BR>The UK Government consulted with a good number of professional
and<BR>academical bodies (including professional linguists at research centres
and<BR>universities) for some 18 months before making this announcement which
is<BR>merely a first step towards full recognition. The UK Government people
have<BR>taken care to consult the appropriate bodies and has executed its
task<BR>admirably.<BR><BR>The UK Deaf community is not seeking to isolate itself
from the general<BR>community through the recognition of BSL. More than that, it
promotes closer<BR>links and integration when hearing people learn BSL and use
it when it comes<BR>to interacting with deaf people. Remember life and
everything in life is a<BR>two-way process, based on give and take. If anyone
has respect for the<BR>various diversities in life, they would understand the
importance of<BR>respecting each other's needs, language, religion, and so on,
rather than<BR>adopting a dictatorial approach that the minority must bow before
the<BR>majority. That is not how life works nowadays - Britain has moved on
from<BR>the Feudal system of pre-William the Conqueror days!<BR><BR>Everyday
life in Britain is not all done via English language, although it<BR>remains the
nation's language. There are various languages in use in Britain<BR>and
translated written versions are readily available and an ever-growing<BR>number
of interpreters/translators are being placed in vital institutions<BR>such as
hospitals, social services, police offices and suchlike to assist
an<BR>extremely large number of hearing people who cannot or are unable to
(and<BR>maybe in some cases even won't) speak English. The same provision is
being<BR>put into process for the deaf and the deafblind.<BR><BR>Figures are
always in dispute. People always query figures. to me. 70,000 is<BR>too small a
figure for my estimation as I did research way back around 1982<BR>and concluded
that the number using sign language (either BSL or signed<BR>English) were some
148,000. Unfortunately, my research papers are now stored<BR>in Doncaster
Archives and I have no intention of taking it out. I suppose<BR>that the 70,000
referred to are BSL users, not signed English users.<BR><BR>The definition and
meaning of language has NOT changed in its root. Even<BR>those at Oxbridge will
agree to that. I do not know if I have quoted this to<BR>you before but I quote
it here now anyway:<BR><BR>Two prominent professors of English - H. Marmaduke
Hewitt, M.A., LL.M., and<BR>George Beach M.A., LL.D., joined forces to write and
produce a monumental<BR>843-page book entitled "A Manual of Our Mother Tongue"
in 1891.<BR><BR>On the very first page of their great work, under "Definitions",
the authors<BR>wrote that...<BR><BR>"LANGUAGE is the expression of thought by
sounds or signs. The sounds<BR>employed may be either the human voice or any
acoustical system of<BR>signalling. The signs used may be either different
combinations of forms, as<BR>in writing, printing, etc., or motions used by the
dumb. The senses appealed<BR>to by language are the ear and the eye, and, in the
case of the educated<BR>blind, the touch also."<BR><BR>What a far-reaching
definition in those days and it still stands good today.<BR>I note that there
are unscrupulous academics trying to take away the "signs"<BR>bit from the
definition to suit everything to match their needs.<BR><BR>I use speech,
lipreading and signed English. When I meet deaf people who use<BR>BSL, I use
this mode of communication with them. I am flexible, not
rigid.<BR><BR>Philocophus<BR><BR>******************************************<BR><BR>3.
Paulette's 2nd e-mail:<BR><BR>Since when have any professional linguists ever
considered PANTOMIME to be a<BR>"language?" Explain this, because you are
misunderstanding the TWO DIFFERENT<BR>KINDS of "signing."<BR><BR>What you
learned, dear Philocophus, is the underlying phonetic-phonemic CODE<BR>of the
English language, the basis for all human language. What you use in<BR>your own
everyday life is SIGNED English communication, because language is<BR>in your
brain, not "on your hands."<BR>* People can communicate in English even if they
cannot speak clearly.<BR>* People can learn the phonetic-phonemic CODE of the
English language even<BR>if they cannot hear anything (in fact that CODE is made
100% visual by Cued<BR>Speech -- you yourself learned it through lipreading and
vibrotactile<BR>training or have you forgotten HOW you were educated in the
language you are<BR>now using??).<BR>* People do not need to PHYSICALLY SPEAK a
"sound-based language" in order<BR>to know and use that language.<BR>* People
also do not need to HEAR a "sound based language," since the<BR>sound-pattern
CODE can be learned through other means (for example,<BR>lipreading and
vibrotactile training in identifying the discrete elements of<BR>the underlying
CODE that is normally learned subconsciously by hearing<BR>infants (and deaf
children with cochlear implants) simply listening to that<BR>same code being
spoken).<BR><BR>The FACT is that the professional field of linguistics does not,
and never<BR>has, "recognized" a PURELY mimetic-visual form of communication as
a<BR>"language." The word "language" is derived from the Latin "lingua,"
meaning<BR>"tongue."<BR><BR>Human beings switched over to LINGUISTIC processing
about 30 million years<BR>ago, when homo erectus died out and homo sapiensis
appeared WITH THE ABILITY<BR>TO SPEAK because of the sudden appearance of the
hyoid bone in the human<BR>throat (to this day, no one knows how this happened,
but it did -- the<BR>current best explanation is in Genesis in the story of Adam
and Eve).<BR><BR>Because human beings could speak, a section of the HUMAN BRAIN
became<BR>reserved for HUMAN PHONETIC-PHONEMIC LANGUAGE, a situation which does
not<BR>exist in any other animal species on this Earth. THIS IS WHAT MAKES
HUMAN<BR>BEINGS HUMAN.<BR><BR>In terms of "deaf people," THEY ALL HAVE the
reserved area in their brains<BR>for human speech-sound-based
(phonetic-phonemic) language. But they cannot<BR>hear that language being
spoken. HOWEVER, THEY CAN BE TAUGHT THE<BR>PHONETIC-PHONEMIC CODE ON WHICH THAT
LANGUAGE IS BASED. And after they learn<BR>that code, they TRANSITION from being
an "ape" to a HUMAN BEING. This is how<BR>YOU were educated, Raymond, and Colin
and every other<BR>teacher of the deaf in Britain will verify this fact. You
were taught the<BR>phonetic-phonemic CODE of "verbal" language. That is what you
"think in" and<BR>that is how your brain has functioned -- you THINK in the
phonetic-phonemic<BR>code and you WRITE in the phonetic-phonemic-coded
alphabetic characters<BR>which REPRESENT THE SOUNDS OF HUMAN SPEECH.<BR><BR>As
for your inability to "speak completely clearly," that is a whole<BR>different
system of the human brain functions and it depends solely on being<BR>able to
HEAR the sounds of your own voice and compare those sounds to the<BR>voice
sounds produced by other people -- it is a "feedback loop" in a<BR>different
section of the human brain, and it has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER<BR>TO THE
"LANGUAGE" FUNCTIONS OF THE HUMAN BRAIN, which depend on learning
the<BR>phonetic-phonemic CODE, and which do not require full auditory
function!<BR><BR>BSL, just like "ASL" DOES NOT HAVE an underlying
phonetic-phonemic code. It<BR>is PURELY gestural and PURELY mimetic. It is the
kind of communication you<BR>engaged in, and which ALL human beings engage in,
before they fully learn<BR>the phonetic-phonemic code of their
community's<BR>HUMAN language. [Why do you think chimpanzees can function in
"sign<BR>language" but can never learn the phonetic-phonemic code of
HUMAN<BR>languages?]<BR><BR>Now, if you WISH TO REMOVE the entire
phonetic-phonemic code of the human<BR>language of English that is in your
brain, then I invite you to do so,<BR>before you assert that PURELY
gestural-mimetic communication is some kind of<BR>"language" recognized by
professional linguists. In fact, that<BR>form of communication is a "First
Articulation Only" form of human<BR>communication that is ONLY "recognized" by
the field of Semiotics.<BR><BR>AFTER you COMPLETELY remove the linguistic
phonetic-phonemic code of the<BR>English HUMAN-ONLY linguistic language from
your brain, THEN you can explain<BR>to everyone why your remaining form of
PRELINGUISTIC communication is a<BR>"language."<BR><BR>Of course, you won't be
able to write email messages or written text to make<BR>this explanation to
anyone, but you can still videotape or film it. Of<BR>course, in addition, you
won't be able to read anything at all in printed<BR>PHONETIC-PHONEMIC CODE
ALPHABETIC CHARACTERS, but maybe people will be<BR>willing to draw you diagrams
or pictographs for their responses to your<BR>explanations.<BR><BR>ENTIRELY
ERASE THE INFORMATION IN THE LEFT SIDE OF YOUR UPPER BRAIN,<BR>RAYMOND, BEFORE
YOU CLAIM THAT "PURE SIGNS" ARE SOME KIND OF "LANGUAGE."<BR><BR>[This message is
restricted to the person to whom it was sent. This message<BR>cannot be
forwarded to anyone else, in whole or in part, without the advance<BR>express
written permission of the original
author.]<BR><BR>******************************<BR><BR>3. Raymond Lee's 2nd
response:<BR><BR>Lesley and I have got back from our week's
holiday.<BR><BR>Having read your responses, I consider it prudent that all these
could be<BR>well explained by a fully qualified linguist. Without revealing the
source<BR>of our correspondences, I am contacting two professional linguists,
both<BR>with a PhD and both lecturers in Linguistics at a respectable university
in<BR>England for their perusal and comments. It will be interesting to see
what<BR>these established professional linguists have to say.<BR><BR>Till
then,<BR><BR>Raymond.<BR><BR><BR>****************************************<BR><BR>4.
Paulette's 3rd e-mail:<BR><BR> Patrick and I have been contacting several
"professional Linguists,"<BR>Raymond, including one who happens to be one of the
most highest-ranked<BR>International Linguists in the world who is
Patrick's<BR>mentor, and who EDITS five of the most highly-respected Linguistics
JOURNALS<BR>in the world. Frankly, you won't find anyone in England or the UK
who has<BR>"better credentials," not even at Oxbridge.<BR><BR>
Simply put, the field of "Linguistics" is the WRONG field for studying<BR>any
form of communication based SOLELY on "signs," like "BSL." ASL, BSL, and<BR>all
of the other such "languages" are within the field of SEMIOTICS,
which<BR>studies "nonverbal" (non-phonetic, non-phonemic) forms of
human<BR>communication (i.e. "the language of bee dances," "the language of
flowers,"<BR>"the language of music," "the language of perfumes," "the language
of silent<BR>movies," and "the language of silent movies conveyed by 'signs,'"
etc.)<BR>Within the field of SEMIOTICS, there are two categories:<BR><BR>1.)
SECOND ARTICULATION: An underlying strict structural code, either<BR>standing by
itself (as in computer languages), or as a basis for another<BR>kind of
"language").<BR>2.) FIRST ARTICULATION: A system of communication that has NO
underlying<BR>structural specific code (like "BSL"), or the HIGHER FORM of a
Second<BR>Articulation language comprising the words, grammar and syntax of a
Second<BR>Articulation-coded language (such as English).<BR><BR>Simply put,
"BSL" is a First Articulation ONLY "form of
human<BR>communication."<BR><BR> HOWEVER... English is a DOUBLE
ARTICULATION LANGUAGE, comprised of a<BR>Second Articulation underlying code
that is based on the sounds of human<BR>speech, PLUS a First Articulation
pattern of words, grammar, and syntax that<BR>is BASED ON the Second
Articulation underlying phonetic/phonemic
code.<BR><BR> The field of LINGUISTICS only
studies and researches DOUBLE<BR>Articulation Languages, which are true
HUMAN-ONLY languages. Only human<BR>beings can communicate in Double
Articulation languages (such as English),<BR>because ONLY the human brain has a
separate "reserved section" for<BR>human-only Double Articulation Language
functions. This is what makes human<BR>beings "human."<BR><BR> You
and the other people in the deaf community in Britain are<BR>misunderstanding
some very important things, and transmitting misinformation<BR>to government
officials who have no idea what is going
on.<BR><BR> ENGLISH can be
spoken, heard, read, and written. It can also be<BR>represented in many other
ways, such as in semaphore, fingerspelling,<BR>alphabetic characters, lipreading
(speechreading), Cued English, Braille,<BR>and a HUGE number of codes. BUT,
language is IN YOUR BRAIN, not on the<BR>surface and not in the "codes" you may
be seeing, feeling, or
otherwise<BR>perceiving.<BR><BR> Because of
dedicated people like Colin Sayer and others, deaf<BR>children have been able to
learn the SECOND ARTICULATION underlying<BR>phonetic-phonemic code of the
English language for many years. You, Raymond,<BR>have that code stored
PERMANENTLY in your own brain, in the reserved<BR>section for human
language, and you use that code all the time to produce<BR>words, grammar and
syntax. Once that code is in the brain of a human being,<BR>it cannot be removed
or erased. It constitutes the basic "programming code"<BR>on which your language
functions depend. Those who then learn a second or<BR>further Double
Articulation language use their FIRST "code set" as the basis<BR>for their
second and further language
learning.<BR><BR> "BSL" is based on
ONLY First Articulation, and it doesn't have an<BR>underlying "Code Set."
That is why apes can learn BSL, but they can't
learn<BR>English.<BR><BR> What you are "thinking"
about is wrong. You are forgetting the fact<BR>that the ONLY REASON any deaf
person anywhere "needs signs" is that the<BR>person is unable to lipread every
person on Earth accurately, and the person<BR>has no ability to supplement their
lipreading with auditory information.<BR>[Those who DO have that ability -- hard
of hearing people -- (the VAST<BR>majority of the hearing impaired community)
obviously don't need and don't<BR>use any kind of "sign-assistance" to
communicate with anyone else].<BR><BR>
Thanks to people like Colin Sayer, the language in YOUR brain is a<BR>DOUBLE
ARTICULATION, HUMAN-ONLY LANGUAGE known as "English." The signing<BR>that you
use primarily is simply additional "hints" to supplement what you<BR>are
lipreading (speechreading) in interactions with other people. Because<BR>you
were given the underlying code of the English language, you are
also<BR>completely and very highly LITERATE in reading and writing the
English<BR>language.<BR><BR> In
the past (and Colin will verify this) and ever since deaf<BR>education began,
until the 1960s, the term "sign LANGUAGE" meant "a<BR>Human-Only Double
Articulation LANGUAGE for which "signs" are required for<BR>prelingually deaf
people to comprehend interpersonal interactions." In other<BR>words "sign
language" simply meant, "the sign-coded method for communicating<BR>in SPOKEN
languages."<BR><BR> In the 1960s and
thereafter, and ONLY IN THE UNITED STATES, and<BR>starting ONLY AT A PLACE THAT
IS NOT A REGULAR UNIVERSITY, and BECAUSE THE<BR>METHOD OF CUED SPEECH PROVED TO
BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE AT TRAINING DEAF<BR>CHILDREN AND ADULTS TO COMMUNICATE
PRECISELY IN SPOKEN LANGUAGES<BR> AND THEREFORE TO BE MUCH MORE INDEPENDENT
AND ABLE TO BE "MAINSTREAMED"<BR>INTO GENERAL EDUCATION (which threatened the
"existence" of the segregated<BR>institutions such as the one causing all of
this nonsense)... a HEARING<BR>PERSON who had no idea about what he was looking
at, and who WAS NOT A<BR>LINGUIST, simply "decided" that what he was seeing was
"different from" the<BR>sign-coded English he had been "used to," and began to
call what he was<BR>seeing "a different
language."<BR><BR> The LINGUISTICS
professionals demanded that he and his "group" (which<BR>were NOT, and never
have been, published in any recognized professional<BR>Journals of Linguistics,
and they instead "self-published" (for obvious<BR>reasons) PROVE that their
"version" of "sign language" ("Pure ASL") had a<BR>DEMONSTRABLE SECOND
ARTICULATION underlying phonetic-phonemic code, and that<BR>it was and is a
verifiable DOUBLE ARTICULATION HUMAN-ONLY
language.<BR><BR> There has never been any
such verification, proof or evidence of any<BR>such thing. There is also no such
thing as "ASL Linguistics" or "BSL<BR>Linguistics" or any other relationship
between "Linguistics" and the<BR>non-English (non-spoken language) forms of
"pure
visual-gestural-mimetic<BR>signing."<BR><BR>
While YOU are VERY WRONGLY imagining "BSL" to mean "The British<BR>ENGLISH
language coded for understanding by signs" -- that is NOT what those<BR>"BSL"
advocates are really talking about.<BR><BR> They
are talking about a "language" comprised ONLY of mimetic<BR>"signs" -- a
SIGN-ONLY form of communication, which has NO RELATIONSHIP<BR>WHATSOEVER to any
human-only double articulation language, because it DOES<BR>NOT HAVE an
underlying Second Articulation phonetic-phonemic
code.<BR><BR> Now, Raymond, go see some
"professional Linguists" and give them this<BR>email message and ask them to
read it.<BR><BR> Ask the truly professional
Linguistics Professors in Britain,<BR>preferably at Oxbridge, if the field of
Linguistics "recognizes" or studies<BR>or researches SEMIOTIC
FIRST-ARTICULATION-ONLY forms of human
communication.<BR><BR> Ask your professional
Linguists in Britain whether PANTOMIME is<BR>"recognized" in the field of
Linguistics as a "language."<BR><BR>
And after the professional Linguists stop laughing at you, then ask<BR>them WHEN
(what point in time in human history) ALL human beings designated<BR>as homo
sapiens (including "deaf" homo sapiens) developed the ability and<BR>the brain
structure to communicate in DOUBLE ARTICULATION HUMAN-ONLY<BR>languages such as
English.<BR><BR>*********************************<BR><BR>5. Raymond Lee's 3rd
response:<BR><BR>Paulette,<BR><BR>One of the linguists I contacted has given
response which is attached below.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>XXX's details are also included so you may contact the
person.<BR><BR>Raymond<BR><BR>*****************************************************<BR>-----
Original Message ----- <BR></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>To:
"Philocophus" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:Philocophus@philocophus.demon.co.uk"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Philocophus@philocophus.demon.co.uk</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>><BR>Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 12:57
PM<BR>Subject: My response<BR><BR><BR>Ray,<BR><BR>This person is simply and
grossly misinformed. All she has to do is open up<BR>any recent
introductory linguistics textbook to get the appropriate<BR>information - e.g.
Fromkin & Rodman (1995).<BR><BR>Linguistic research since the 1960s has
shown, overwhelmingly and<BR>conclusively that BSL and other natural signed
languages used by Deaf<BR>communities are indeed true languages in their own
right (Stokoe 1965; Klima<BR>& Bellugi 1979). Natural signed languages
are not simply pantomime or<BR>mimetic - they have linguistic structure at every
level, including the<BR>phonological, morphological, and syntactic levels.
Signs have sublexical<BR>structure and are made up of phonemic elements:
handshape, location and<BR>movement combine in discrete and patterned ways to
create all the different<BR>signs of that language. Different signed
languages have different sets of<BR>phonemic handshapes in the same way that
spoken languages have different<BR>sound inventories. Quite simply, there
is nothing in the structure of<BR>language that requires the use of the
vocal-auditory channel as opposed to<BR>the visual-spatial channel.<BR><BR>As
evidence, signed languages also meet all the criteria for human language<BR>as
set forth by Hockett (1960) - they exhibit the properties of<BR>discreteness,
displacement, productivity, duality of patterning,<BR>semanticity, and yes even
arbitrariness. Despite the apparent iconicity of<BR>many signs, signed
languages are predominantly arbitrary in their<BR>form-meaning
relationships. This follows from the fact that sign language<BR>is not
universal and that different signed languages (e.g. ASL, BSL,<BR>Japanese Sign
Language, Catalan Sign Language, Ugandan Sign Language, etc.)<BR>are instead
mutually unintelligible from each other. For more information,<BR>see
Klima & Bellugi (1979), Valli & Lucas (1995), Wilbur (1987) just
to<BR>start. For a very comprehensive database of sign language
references, see<BR></FONT><A
href="http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/bibweb/"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/bibweb/</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>.<BR><BR>I have to say: Any proper academic
(particularly one who claims that she<BR>"functions on scientific research,
demonstrable and proven facts") would<BR>always cite their sources in this kind
of debate, particularly when claiming<BR>to have knowledge about a field that is
not her own (i.e. linguistics). I<BR>would like to know who these
"professional linguists" are that she's<BR>talking about. I also think
this person should identify herself and her own<BR>background.<BR><BR>I myself
am a professional linguist, with a PhD in linguistics from the<BR>University
AAA, USA. (See my web site for my credentials - URL<BR>given below.) RRR,
the other linguist who works with me at<BR>the Centre for Deaf Studies, has
published The Linguistics of British Sign<BR>Language. RRR earned her PhD
here at XX - note that her BA is from<BR>Oxford.<BR><BR>And if this person is
not impressed with my credentials or RRR's... The<BR>Linguistic Society of
America, an association of 7000 professional<BR>linguists, also supports the
status of signed languages as true languages.<BR>Here is an excerpt from their
Sign Language FAQ, written by David Perlmutter<BR>(</FONT><A
href="http://www.lsadc.org/"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>http://www.lsadc.org/</FONT></A><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>):<BR><BR>"What has been discovered over the past half century is that
sign language<BR>is language. This is not just a discovery about sign language;
it is a<BR>discovery about language itself. It reveals human language to be
more<BR>flexible than had been imagined, able to exist in either auditory or
visual<BR>form. It shows that the human drive for language is so strong that
when<BR>deafness makes speech inaccessible, it finds another channel,
creating<BR>language in sign. Sign language has taught us that human language
can use<BR>either channel language is what we all need to be
human."<BR><BR>References<BR>Fromkin, Victoria, and Rodman, Robert. 1993. An
introduction to language.<BR>London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.<BR>Hockett,
Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific
American<BR>203:88-96.<BR>Klima, Edward, and Bellugi, Ursula. 1979. The signs of
language. Cambridge,<BR>MA: Harvard University Press.<BR>Meier, Richard P.,
Cormier, Kearsy, and Quinto-Pozos, David eds. 2002.<BR>Modality and structure in
signed and spoken languages. Cambridge: Cambridge<BR>University
Press.<BR>Stokoe, William, Casterline, D., and Cronebeg, C. 1965. A dictionary
of<BR>American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
Press.<BR>Sutton-Spence, Rachel, and Woll, Bencie. 1998. The Linguistics of
British<BR>Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<BR>Valli,
Clayton, and Lucas, Ceil. 1995. The linguistics of American Sign<BR>Language: An
introduction. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.<BR>Wilbur, Ronnie B.
1987. American Sign Language: Linguistic and applied<BR>dimensions. Boston:
Little Brown and Co.<BR><BR>-- <BR><FONT face="Lucida Sans"
size=2>XXX</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Lecturer<BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans" size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>(Details withheld as permission not sought)</FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT
face="Lucida Sans" size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT>
<DIV><BR><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>*********************************<BR><BR>6. Paulette's 4th
e-mail:<BR><BR>Yes, Raymond, this is what happens when you talk to HEARING
people who are<BR>repeating "research" done by NON-LINGUISTS, and using that
"research" for<BR>their own self-interest. The individual who responded to you
is in a "Center<BR>for Deaf Studies," and is wholly
biased.<BR><BR> For
example:<BR><BR> A. Stokoe was an English Literature
teacher (hearing) at Gallaudet<BR>University, and not a Linguist (and in fact
his research proved that sign<BR>languages like ASL and BSL were SEMIOTIC, and
not "Linguistic" forms
of<BR>communication.<BR><BR> Stokoe,
William, Casterline, D., and Cronebeg, C. 1965. A dictionary<BR>of American Sign
Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.<BR>[Since when is a
DICTIONARY an academic linguistics publication? (and it is<BR>wrong, since signs
ARE IN MOTION and cannot be<BR>accurately depicted in a printed "dictionary." It
is also from GALLAUDET<BR>UNIVERSITY PRESS. Throw this one out. Also read the
biography of Stokoe, who<BR>had a cup on his desk at Gallaudet saying
"Bullshit," and when he was asked<BR>why he had that coffee cup, he stated
"Because that is what we do
around<BR>here.")<BR><BR> B. Klima is a
linguist who doesn't sign at all. Ursula Bellugi is<BR>Klima's wife, who holds
an Ed.D. degree (not a Ph.D.) in Early Childhood<BR>Education, not in
Linguistics. Klima hasn't done any "research" on sign<BR>language at all since
the late 1970s, and he (and Ursula) use the term "sign<BR>language" to represent
the sign-assisted lipread form of the English<BR>language. Klima, Edward, and
Bellugi, Ursula. 1979. The signs of language.<BR>Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. [And where is the RECENT research?<BR>Klima doesn't sign.
Bellugi has an "Ed.D." degree that isn't even recognized<BR>as an academic
doctorate in the UK, nor could she ever be a Professor in any<BR>UK university.
Throw this one out]<BR><BR> C. Clayton Valli
is prelingually deaf and he got his own Ph.D. from<BR>Gallaudet in "ASL POETRY,"
not in Linguistics. Lucas is hearing. Valli,<BR>Clayton, and Lucas, Ceil. 1995.
The linguistics of American Sign Language:<BR>An introduction. Washington, DC:
GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY PRESS (AGAIN). I would<BR>suggest that you read this "Valli
and Lucas" book, because it contains<BR>complete nonsense. It is one of the main
reasons why Gallaudet Press was<BR>shut down several years ago for publishing
complete nonsense.<BR><BR> D. Hockett, Charles F.
1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American<BR>203:88-96. [This is an
article in a NON-PEER-REVIEWED general publication.<BR>It is not an academic
reference. Throw this one out. Further, she fails to<BR>even mention the recent
work of the MOST prominent person in this field,<BR>Joseph Lieberman, who stated
specifically that the "research" being done at<BR>Gallaudet is in
direct<BR>violation of research protocols.]<BR><BR> E.
A. Fromkin, Victoria, and Rodman, Robert. 1993. An introduction to<BR>language.
London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [These people didn't even know<BR>about
signed "natural" (prelinguistic) languages. Throw this one
out].<BR><BR> F. Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1987. American Sign
Language: Linguistic and<BR>applied dimensions. Boston: Little Brown and Co.
[Hearing, Interpreter,<BR>BIASED, using the deaf community for his own income
and status]<BR><BR> G. Sutton-Spence, Rachel, and Woll,
Bencie. 1998. The Linguistics of<BR>British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. [Hearing, and<BR>DIRECTLY related to the author of the
response. It has been well known for a<BR>long time now that after Gallaudet
University was forced to<BR>shut down their propaganda center called Gallaudet
University Press, these<BR>people began to publish through Cambridge University
Press. THIS DOES NOT<BR>MEAN THAT ANY OF THESE PUBLICATIONS WERE PEER-REVIEWED
BY ANY LINGUISTICS<BR>PROFESSORS AT CAMBRIDGE].<BR><BR>
H. Meier, Richard P., Cormier, Kearsy, and Quinto-Pozos, David eds.<BR>2002.
Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages. Cambridge:<BR>Cambridge
University Press. [This is your correspondent's own publication,<BR>and XXX
was only one of the "Editors." This is simply a rehashed and<BR>repeated
compilation of previous nonsense.]<BR><BR> One of the most
common "ploys" of these people, when they are debunked,<BR>is to turn around and
engage in wholly improper ad hominem personal attacks,<BR>since they do not have
any actual evidence or real proof for their<BR>assertions. [And my "credentials"
and experience are much better than hers]<BR><BR>ASK THESE
QUESTIONS:<BR><BR> 1.) Is this individual
prelingually deaf? If not, she has an "etic"<BR>(outside, surface) not an "emic"
(inside, real) perspective.<BR> 2.) Is this
individual living WITHIN the prelingually deaf community?<BR>If not, XXX
has no idea what XXX is talking about, and XXX is merely looking<BR>at
"signs" without determining which LANGUAGE is being processed in the<BR>brains
of the signers (nor where that language comes
from).<BR> 3.) Can this individual independently
determine whether a deaf person<BR>is using the sign-assisted lipread version of
the ENGLISH language, or<BR>whether the deaf individual is using the language of
signs only?<BR> 4.) Has this individual ever
actually seen or learned the INTERNAL<BR>version of sign language used by the
deaf community, which is not shared<BR>with persons outside of that
community?<BR> 5.) How much MONEY is this
linguist earning, where does this money<BR>come from, and how much of it does
she return back to the deaf community?<BR>
6.) Is this "Centre for Deaf Studies" within the LINGUISTICS<BR>Department at
Bristol University? Or within the regular FOREIGN LANGUAGES<BR>Department at
Bristol University?<BR> 7.) What is the
overall academic ranking of Bristol University as<BR>compared to Oxbridge and
other world-class universities?<BR> 8.) It
doesn't matter where a person got their undergraduate<BR>degree -- for a
professional academic researcher, it only matters where and<BR>in what field
they received their Ph.D. degree. Further, degrees in<BR>"Linguistics" can be
obtained in various sub-areas. The author of the<BR>response fails to state the
title and subject matter of her Ph.D.<BR>dissertation, or whether her Ph.D.
degree was in Applied Linguistics or<BR>another area of
Linguistics.<BR> 9.) Look up the background
history of "David Perlmutter." XXX quotes<BR>him as saying... "It reveals
human language to be more flexible than had<BR>been imagined, able to exist in
either auditory or visual<BR>form." EVERYONE KNOWS that "verbal" languages can
be and are in "visual<BR>form" I am now writing this message in English in
VISUAL FORM. English can<BR>be represented in MANY VISUAL FORMS, including the
visual lipreading of<BR>ENGLISH, the sign-assisted lipreading of ENGLISH,
Braille coding of ENGLISH,<BR>semaphore coding of ENGLISH, fingerspelling of
ENGLISH alphabetic<BR>characters, and so much more. This statement does not
prove that BSL is its<BR>own separate and distinct
language.<BR><BR> David Perlmutter doesn't
know what he is talking about. He says<BR>that... when deafness makes speech
inaccessible, it finds another channel,<BR>creating language in
sign."<BR><BR> Well, as Colin Sayer or the other
TEACHERS of the deaf can tell<BR>anyone, and so can all PRELINGUALLY DEAF
people, the truth is that "when<BR>deafness makes [the learning of the
underlying code for human] speech<BR>inaccessible," deaf people learn the
PHONETIC CODE through vibrotactile<BR>methods, as early in life as possible...
BECAUSE they would otherwise be<BR>left in a PRELINGUISTIC situation in life,
WITHOUT human-only language.<BR><BR> These "sign
language researchers and linguists" are looking ONLY AT<BR>SIGNS. They are not
aware of how a deaf person is actually taught. They<BR>completely ignore the
fact that all of their "research subjects" have been<BR>taught the phonetic code
of spoken language, at various levels<BR>of
achievement.<BR><BR> They have NO IDEA that
deaf individuals with high intelligence, such<BR>as you Raymond, are processing
VERBAL language in their brains, even though<BR>these same individuals are using
"signs" outwardly and on the
surface.<BR><BR> Further, and most
importantly, they see ALL deaf people as being "the<BR>same," because "all deaf
people sign."<BR><BR> Even worse, they have
never been WITHIN the prelingually deaf<BR>community, nor do they understand
that this "recognition of BSL" DENIES and<BR>DEPRIVES deaf individuals of
obtaining the absolutely necessary vibrotactile<BR>training that gives such
individuals the ability to<BR>communicate in human-only
language.<BR><BR> THESE "SIGN LANGUAGE
LINGUISTS" ARE IN A PATTERN OF ADVOCATING<BR>FOR PRELINGUALLY DEAF INDIVIDUALS
TO REMAIN IN A PRELINGUAL STATE... IN<BR>THEIR "NATURAL STATE" SO THEY CAN ALL
BE "RESEARCHED."<BR><BR> Why are they doing this?
Because prelingually profoundly bilaterally<BR>deaf people are the only human
beings who can be FORCED to remain in a<BR>prelingual state by the deprivation
of education such as that which Colin<BR>Sayer was providing to prelingually
deaf children. If you leave a<BR>prelingually deaf child without such education
and training, and without the<BR>technology that would enable such children to
learn that same information<BR>independently, then you are left with a "feral
child" WHO CAN BE RESEARCHED,<BR>USED, STUDIED, AND
ABUSED.<BR><BR> This "sign language
linguist" needs to think very hard about the<BR>fact that SHE and her hearing
colleagues obtained THEIR human-only language<BR>phonetic code subconsciously
and independently. THEY DON'T REMEMBER when<BR>THEY "learned language," nor even
HOW they "learned language." They would<BR>prefer to doom prelingually deaf
HUMAN BEINGS to a life of illiteracy and<BR>poverty, so THEY can get money and
recognition and "status" from researching<BR>prelingually deaf individuals in a
"natural" state.<BR><BR> What these
"researchers" are actually SEEING is a group of<BR>prelingually deaf individuals
who have been already taught the phonemic code<BR>of the ENGLISH spoken
language, but, for many of them, they have not been<BR>taught completely,
properly, or consistently, all the way to the end of<BR>their language
development period at 12 years old.<BR><BR> Those who
were properly taught, such as the students of Colin Sayer,<BR>have extensive
VERBAL language ability in their left cerebral hemisphere.<BR>Those who were not
properly taught have language deficits, and are partially<BR>still
PRELINGUISTIC.<BR><BR> There is NO
prelingually deaf individual in England with normal or<BR>high intelligence who
is "unsullied" by "verbal language," and therefore is<BR>a proper research
subject for "natural" sign language<BR>(unless there are deaf people who have
still been kept in closets all of<BR>their lives, but I doubt this is the
case).<BR><BR> Further, this "natural
sign language" nonsense has been known,<BR>researched and identified since AT
LEAST the late 1700s.<BR><BR> Apparently,
since there are no references, this "sign language<BR>linguist" has not bothered
to read the publications of the Abbe de L'Epee,<BR>particularly the Volume
(which has apparently not yet been<BR>translated into English), in which he
describes the REASONS why he developed<BR>his Methodical Signs method of
education, which was thereafter adopted and<BR>spread nationwide in the USA. She
has no references to, and apparently has<BR>never read the ORIGINAL writings of
the prelingually deaf Laurent Clerc, nor<BR>his own comments as to the
differences between sign-assisted lipread VERBAL<BR>language, and the
PRELINGUISTIC "natural" sign language of the uneducated<BR>and undereducated
prelingually deaf population.<BR><BR> I also don't
see any references to the writings of Thomas Miner<BR>Gallaudet, who brought the
general deaf population in the United States OUT<BR>OF being
PRELINGUISTIC.<BR><BR> I also do not see any
references to the writings of the formerly<BR>prelingually deaf students after
they became LINGUISTIC subsequent to being<BR>PRELINGUISTIC. (Yes, those
comments are definitely written, and are the best<BR>"references"
available).<BR><BR> I DO NOT SEE any
references to ANY publications of PRELINGUALLY DEAF<BR>individuals who have
managed to obtain enough LINGUISTIC capability in<BR>VERBAL language to attend a
world-class regular University at the Ph.D.<BR>level of
education.<BR><BR> 10.) Ask this hearing "sign
language linguist" what XXX is going to do<BR>for a job in the future, when
all deaf children receive cochlear implants<BR>before age 1.<BR><BR>[This
message is restricted to the person to whom it was sent. This<BR>message cannot
be forwarded to anyone else, in whole or in part, without<BR>the advance express
written permission of the original
author.]<BR><BR>**********************************<BR><BR>The linguist, XXX,
pulled out when Paulette made it clear that<BR>she would not discuss anything
directly with the person.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>*********************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><BR>7. Paulette's 5th. e-mail:<BR><BR>I
shall not read, nor shall I respond to, any communications from
this<BR>XXX person. The conclusion of XXX's own Ph.D. dissertation
states that<BR>ASL "may be" only "partly linguistic." Yes, that is what it says,
and<BR>the abstract of that dissertation is posted on XXX's own
website. XXX is a<BR>fraud.<BR><BR>[This message is restricted to the
person to whom it was sent. This<BR>message cannot be forwarded to anyone else,
in whole or in part, without<BR>the advance express written permission of the
original author.]<BR><BR>********************************<BR><BR>8. Paulette's
6th. e-mail: (Subject title: PROOF of XXX's Fraud)<BR><BR>Raymond, DON'T
"forward" my email address to other people without my<BR>permission.<BR><BR>And
now...<BR><BR>In the field of Linguistics, the term NATURAL LANGUAGE refers to
spoken<BR>languages, such as English.<BR><BR>In the field of "Sign Language
Linguistics" which is already fraudulent,<BR>there are two different
definitions, which were established by Ursula<BR>Bellugi, and which are being
used to confuse you and also everyone else:<BR><BR>"SIGNED LANGUAGE" refers to
the sign-assisted lipread form of SPOKEN<BR>languages, such as English in a
"sign-assisted form." Obviously, the<BR>underlying NATURAL LANGUAGE (spoken
language -- the one being LIPREAD)<BR>is a "true Linguistic
language."<BR><BR>"SIGN LANGUAGE" is a language comprised ONLY of "signs"
without any<BR>spoken language involved. This is what they call
PRELINGUISTIC<BR>communication forms, such as ASL or BSL. These do not have an
underlying<BR>spoken language.<BR><BR>Now, take a look again at what XXX
said in the previous message.<BR><BR>** Every time XXX says "NATURAL
SIGNED LANGUAGE," XXX is referring to<BR>Signed English. Since Linguists
already "recognize" the spoken form of<BR>English, it is obvious that they would
also "recognize" the<BR>sign-assisted lipread form of ENGLISH, because ENGLISH
is definitely a<BR>"true linguistic language" even when it is lipread, and even
when the<BR>lipreading is assisted by "signs." It is still the ENGLISH
language.<BR><BR>** Every time XXX says "SIGN LANGUAGE," XXX is
referring to "pure"<BR>NON-English, ASL or BSL -- the one that has no lipread or
spoken or<BR>written form and which is PURELY and ONLY pictorial
gestures.<BR><BR>[This message is restricted to the person to whom it was sent.
This<BR>message cannot be forwarded to anyone else, in whole or in part,
without<BR>the advance express written permission of the original
author.]<BR><BR>*************************************</FONT><BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>