LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.12.14 (08) [E]

Tue Dec 14 18:12:44 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 14.DEC.2004 (08) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: "Language politics" [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Language politics
>
> Hi, Sandy!
>
> Great to "hear" from you again.
>
> So, for us more or less hearing folks, could you just clarify how much of
a
> link there is between spoken, written and signed languages?  I'm asking
this
> in regards to levels of independence.  I assume that sign languages are
more
> or less independent of spoken and written languages, can thus be used by
> speakers of various languages in a given country.  Thus, Irish Sign
Language
> would be the same in English, Irish and Scots environments (in the
> Republic), British Sign Language would be used irrespective of the user's
> environment being English, Welsh, Cornish, Scots or Gaelic.  Is this
> correct?

This is correct, although you have to take political, topographic,
dialectical, religious, historical and educational factors into account, as
well as linguistic factors.

Political - if a political border has been set up then you could imagine
that deaf people cross it no more often than hearing people and the sign
languages near the border may start to be replaced with the sign language of
the rest of the country. If this happens with both types of language then
there will be a common area in which they're spoken, but still no actual
relationship between the languages.

Topographic - it's no surprise that Ireland has a different sign language
from Great Britain. In Wales the BSL is considered particularly different
from in the rest of the country. But it's really just BSL, there's no
communication problem. You might ask how much of the difference is accounted
for by spoken Welsh. I'm sure the answer is none at all, the differences are
due to the fact that Wales is mountainous and peninsular, this probably
having been a factor in preserving spoken Welsh also. Any differences due to
spoken Welsh are only at the narrow language interfaces of mouth patterns
and fingerspelling. These are my thoughts - this sort of thing hasn't been
much researched.

Dialectical - since BSL is rarely written, dialectical variation is much
more pronounced in BSL than in (modern) English. The pure dialectical
variation in BSL probably swamps out considerations of dialect variations
based on variation in oral dialects. One interesting question would be if
BSL grammar in Wales was more like Welsh grammar than the grammar of BSL in
English was like English grammer. On the whole, BSL is thought involve
placing the adjective after the noun in both Wales and England, and placing
the adjective before the noun may be from English influence or it may be a
feature of BSL grammar itself. Adjectives in BSL can also "bracket" the
phrases they qualify (eg "white shirt white") so it's hard to know to what
extent adjectives coming before the noun are influenced by English and to
what extent the grammar of BSL is just too complicated and too poorly
researched. Either way, it would seem that BSL has its own grammar and we
don't really know to what extent it'
 s influenced by either Welsh or English.

Religious - historically, before the decline of the churches and the advent
of social services, deaf people weren't usually in direct contact with their
priests or ministers but had missioners to represent them in the church.
These were members of the clergy who knew sign language. This means that
particular religious divides can cause a dialectical difference in sign
languages. BSL in the UK when used by Catholics can therefore have some ISL
influence due to priests being trained in Ireland. Again, no evidence of
sign languages being closely related to the local oral language - they're
much more likely to be influenced by other sign languages.

Historical - sign language history can be much more volatile than the
history of oral languages. This is due to a combination of factors: one is
that the sign community is relatively small. For example, Northern Ireland
Sign Language seems to be a creole of ISL, ASL, BSL and local signs. The ASL
elements were introduced by educators from America 100 years ago (this all
comes from the informant's email that I crossposted to the list earlier).
Again, it's all about sign languages interacting without regard to the local
oral languages.

Another factor is that language architecture is often successfully attempted
for sign languages. For example ASL itself is a creole of LSF (French Sign
Language) and Martha's Vineyard Sign language, as well as some Native
American elements. The LSF and Native American elements are the result of
importing French scholars to establish a national sign language for the deaf
in America. Same again, the local oral language had little part to play.

> What about the Channel Islands?  Was French Sign Language ever
> used there?  (If it was it has probably been replaced by BSL by now.)

I don't know if FSL was ever used there, and I don't know either first or
second hand if BSL is, either. But remember that deaf children in the past
tended to be sent to national schools for the deaf, where they learned a
sign language and afterwards took it to all parts of the country. So the
idea of FSL being replaced with BSL in the Channel Islands would make sense
and would be an example of the educational factors involved.

Sign languages are definitely known to have isolates. A recent example is
Nicaraguan Sign Language. Originating in a school for deaf children who came
with no previous sign language, it developed in the course of 30 years to a
full sign language. Of course this is a very valuable linguistic resource -
it makes it possible to study what are and aren't genuine language
universals. So it's always possible on an island that the sign language is
an isolate, although it's known from actual case histories that if there's
only one deaf person on an island, who has had no contact with other deaf
people, he may only develop a very simple form of language in his lifetime -
though I imagine this is only because none of the hearing people are making
much of an effort to communicate!

> In the Netherlands, I suppose everyone uses Netherlands Sign Language,
even
> if they live in predominantly Low-Saxon-, Frisian-, Zeelandic- or
> Limburgish-speaking environments.  Is this correct?

I don't know. You might be interested in visiting the online SignWriting
dictionaries at:

http://signbank.org/signpuddle/

These list separate Walloon, Flemish and Netherlands dictionaries, meaning
three languages divided between two countries by politics and religion! It's
interesting to note how sometimes the sign languages do seem to follow the
spoken languages (note also Swiss-French and Swiss-German sign languages -
following the spoken languages of Switzerland but different from those of
France and Germany). This is more about educational policies than
linguistics, however - the deaf in these countries being sent to different
schools according to the oral languages of the teachers presumably, whereas
in Great Britain the sign language is more unified than the oral languages
due to the deaf schools being in England and Edinburgh.

I think the conclusion is that sign language distribution is independent of
oral language distribution, but that politics and so on amongst the hearing
can sometimes define boundaries for the deaf too.

> I hope I don't come across as patronizing when I restate that I very much
> welcome inclusion of relevant (and background) sign language information
> here and at our forthcoming 10th anniversary site.  I truly believe that

I've contemplated putting the Wren into BSL, but unfortunately I don't write
BSL all that well yet - I might even the leading BSL writer in the world at
the moment, which isn't saying much - if there's anyone who can do better
I'd like to hear from them!

I could post a message to the SignWriting list asking them for translations
in their own languages, though?

> P.S.: I'm seriously thinking about taking courses in American Sign
Language

Try to make sure you get a deaf teacher!

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

==============================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================