major bookstore chain--uggh!

[Linda Lee Lonning]

*** My response here relates to third paragraph down and the lack of
application of the term "foreign" as a descriptor in any way of American
Sign Language.  That is why I put the term (foreign) in quotes in my
original email and why I said it still was a category which is totally a
misnomer, but I bet which large bookstores have no "better" (eeesh)
subgroup for. Ahh...the sad indications that how we merely (?) group items
or topics can reveal a lot about our society's naive perceptions AND, my
beef, FURTHER that perception.

Linda *****
------------------------------------

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Adam Schembri wrote:

> I'm not sure why you think the term "sign dictionary" is an oxymoron since a
> dictionary may simply be an alphabetically ordered reference book (i.e., the
> Dictionary of Biography). Perhaps you mean that they really should be listed
> as ASL-English dictionaries, or something of this nature.
>
> Some have argued that the term "dictionary" ought not be applied to sign
> language reference books, and that a distinction can be made between books
> such as the BSL/English dictionary edited by Brien (which list signs
> according to handshapes, and gives English equivalents for BSL signs and
> then also provides definitions in English of these equivalents) or the
> Auslan dictionary by Johnston (which list signs according to handshapes and
> attempts to define signs in English and provide, where possible, English
> equivalents) and other books (such as Sternberg or Costello's reference
> books for ASL) as glossaries. I have some sympathy with this view.
>
> What I don't understand is some people's insistence that ASL books ought to
> be in the "foreign language" section of bookstores. Given that ASL evolved
> entirely in the USA, and may actually result from a mixture of LSF and
> Martha's Vineyard Sign Language (an older sign language that had been used
> in the USA for several generations), it seems to me that ASL is only
> slightly more "foreign" in North America than English!
>
> Adam Schembri
>
> >From: "Karlin, Ben" <MFKARLB at MAIL.DMH.STATE.MO.US>
> >Reply-To: "For the discussion of linguistics and signed languages."
> >      <SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA>
> >To: SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA
> >Subject: Re: major bookstore chain--uggh!
> >Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:46:00 -0600
> >
> >I suspect that the practice comes from the history of "Sign Language
> >Dictionaries" being a principal source of sign instruction. (Isn't a "Sign
> >Dictionary" an oxymoron?  Think about it.)
> >
> >A related question that comes to mind, haven't most of these books actually
> >been glossaries or lexicons?  Is my understanding of these terms wrong?
> >
> >Ben Karlin, St Louis MO
> >  ----------
> > > From: Petra Eccarius
> > > To: SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA
> > > Subject: Re: major bookstore chain--uggh!
> > > Date: Tuesday, 15 February, 2000 10:28AM
> > >
> > > The Barnes and Noble in Lafayette, Indiana (the closest
> > > for Purdue University students) also puts their Sign
> > > Language dictionaries, etc. in the reference section.
> > > It struck me as odd as I know I _have_ seen them in the
> > > foreign language section of other stores...
> > >
> > > ....petra
> > >  --
> > > Petra Eccarius
> > > Graduate Student in Linguistics
> > > Purdue University-West Laffayette
> > > eccarius at purdue.edu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Linda Lee Lonning wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello everyone--
> > > >
> > > > An aside on how we see signed languages treated in
> > > terms of their
> > > > recognition in their placement in libraries and even
> > > in bookstores.  (I
> > > > read the ISO one initial email realllly quickly so
> > > excuse me if I'm not
> > > > capturing the essence of what ISO is exactly used
> > > for.)
> > > >
> > > > It has always rubbed me the wrong way as I peruse my
> > > area bookstores here
> > > > in Milwaukee (I'm talking specifically about our
> > > Barnes and Noble chain
> > > > here) to see ASL  **NOT** in the section for foreign
> > > languages (in the
> > > > case of ASL, and many other languages being present,
> > > please excuse the
> > > > reference to "foreign" in this case...but you see my
> > > point)...but they
> > > > place them in the *reference section (with the
> > > dictionaries, after all,
> > > > you can "learn" sign language by just memorizing a
> > > bunch of pictures,
> > > > right??  Uhhh!  ...OR I also see sign language books
> > > placed by the
> > > > enlarged-print books!  (After all, that's what sign
> > > language is, right?
> > > > An auxillary "device" or mechanism for communication,
> > > right??
> > > > Double-uhhh!!)
> > > >
> > > > I've asked personel at each book store what their
> > > rationale is for the
> > > > placement of sign language books where they are and
> > > explained that it
> > > > would more fairly placed at least with the "foreign"
> > > languages.  I've
> > > > submitted a feedback card to their regional or
> > > corporate office (where
> > > > ever that one was supposed to go)...NO response at
> > > all.  I was told I
> > > > should write something like their regional
> > > headquarters, etc.  Wow.  How
> > > > customer-friendly (?!)  BUT I'm told, the placement
> > > of media for Barnes
> > > > and Noble is decided higher up.
> > > >
> > > > I encourage folks to stop in their local
> > > bookstores/chains and check-out
> > > > where sign language/Deaf culture books are placed as
> > > well.  Let me know
> > > > what you find-- ;) .
> > > >
> > > > Linda L. Lonning, BS, CI & CT
> > > > University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee--Part-time Staff
> > > Interpreter
> > > > Community-based Interpreter with 3 Area Agencies
> > >
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>