SLLING-L Digest - 5 Feb 1999 to 6 Feb 1999

[Angus B. Grieve-Smith]

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Victor Brown wrote:

> I'd like to clarify and be sure that what I seem to have started is what is
> really going on here.

        Maybe, but maybe not anymore.


> 5) I'm NOT suggesting that we linguists here determine that an acronym
> is valid or not, or that the use of "language" is valid or not for
> currently, well established usage. This will happen in some
> Sociolinguistic way, we are not able to control.  But we have to be
> careful not to too heavily influence. Right?

        It is not true that we are not able to control things.  We just
don't have all the control that we might think.

        And, following Deborah Cameron, I think that linguists should be
willing to influence as heavily as needed.  We are the ones who know
things about language, at least to some extent.  The point is to remember
that we serve the various Deaf communities involved, and to use our
authority and knowledge in that service.


> 6) I AM suggesting that we as linguists think before we move ahead with
> "newer"  languages and use XSL, XGT, LSX, etc without understanding both
> the spoken and signed language in an area.

        If it's true that there is no connection between a signed language
and any spoken language, then why do we have to take the spoken language
into account?  I'm not saying that we should never, but that if we do, we
should spell out exactly why we're doing it.


> 8) I may not remember what the acronym means if I had to say each work, but I
> can remember that this is the signed language in Canada, France, Mexico
> and the Netherlands, respectively.

        This is an important point.  Abbreviations do not have to be
transparent.


                                -Angus B. Grieve-Smith
                                Linguistics Department
                                The University of New Mexico
                                grvsmth at unm.edu