<html>
<body>
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). <br>
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.
<br><br>
Sangeeta<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>X-Sender:
slobin@socrates.berkeley.edu<br>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1<br>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003
20:56:05 -0700<br>
Reply-To: "For the discussion of linguistics and signed
languages." <SLLING-L@ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA><br>
Sender: "For the discussion of linguistics and signed
languages." <SLLING-L@ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA><br>
From: "Dan I. Slobin"
<slobin@SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU><br>
Subject: Re: Q: Classic
terminology/methods? A: Why not?<br>
To: SLLING-L@ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA<br>
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean<br>
X-MailScanner-SpamScore: s<br><br>
Dear Nicole Kuplenik<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>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.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>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:<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Emmorey,
K. (Ed.) (2003). <i>Perspectives on classifier constructions in
sign languages</i>. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Liddell,
S. K. (2003). <i>Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign
Language</i>. Cambridge University Press.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Taub, S.
F. (2001). <i>Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in
American Sign Language</i>. Cambridge
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>University
Press.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Sincerely,<br>
Dan Slobin<br>
Professor of Psychology<br>
University of California, Berkeley<br><br>
At 12:05 PM 10/4/2003 +0200, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>Dear
SL-Ling-ists!<br>
<br>
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. :)<br>
Rather frustrating, actually, since the power of power (e.g. higher v.
lower academic rank) prevailed ... <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<br>
Nicole Kuplenik<br>
Ljubljana School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing <br>
Slovenia</font></blockquote></blockquote></body>
<br>
</html>