FW: Encyclopedia of Linguistics

[Adam Schembri]

>I can't speak for anyone else, but I would very much like sign languages to
>be recognized as full-fledged members of the class of human languages and
>given equally detailed treatment in any text or program that purports to
>cover that class. It seems to me that letting the Fitzroy Dearborn
>encyclopedia proceed according to the plan shown and putting on our own
>separate show (which would not see print for at least five years) would
>merely continue the ghettoization of sign languages.

I agree with you, Mark. I was not suggesting that we produce an encyclopedia
of sign linguistics as an alternative, but I guess I was wondering out loud
why we are not thinking about aiming for a publication of our own, in
addition to pushing for greater recognition of sign languages in books on
general linguistics (I'm sure we all agree about that, and I took that as a
given). I would certainly find a single book with everything you ever wanted
to know about individual signed languages and sign linguistics useful.

Undoubtedly, more information about signed languages could be included in
the Fitzborn Encyclopedia, but we also have to be realistic. There are
already more words devoted to signed languages in the proposed encyclopedia
than to Australian languages, for example, which form a major family of over
250 languages (many now extinct) with a range of unique phonological,
lexical, and grammatical characteristics. Do we need as many signed
languages in the encyclopedia as spoken languages, or should they be treated
as one language family and given equal weighting as other language families?
It might be nice to have separate entries for BSL, Auslan, and NZSL; but if
space is limited, I think I would prefer to see a single entry for the
BSL-related dialects of signed languages (perhaps known as varieties of
BANZSL?) with comments about differences between the various varieties.

I am not sure what you mean when you mention the "ghettoization" of signed
language linguistics. I have never come across a spoken language linguist
who is not interested in what could be learnt from the study of signed
languages, but I have met many who are very misinformed. I have also met
some who are disappointed with the lack of accessibilty and quality of much
current work by sign linguists. I was struck by this in recent discussions
with someone who has worked extensively on classifiers. I was trying to nut
out with her whether so-called "classifier" handshapes in signed languages
really are smiliar to what we see in spoken languages, but our discussions
were led up a lot of blind alleys by her misunderstanding of much of the
current sign linguistics literature on the subject. I had to admit, however,
that little of it was written with the spoken language linguist in mind, and
some of it was not even written with the non-ASL researcher in mind (as we
so often see in ASL publications that make extensive use only of glossing).

Certainly I agree that we need to challenge the ignorance amongst spoken
language linguists about signed languages, but we also need to lift our game
a little as well, I think.

Adam Schembri

____________________________________________________________

Adam Schembri
Lecturer
Renwick College
Private Bag 29
Parramatta NSW
2124 AUSTRALIA
Ph (voice/TTY): (61 2) 9872 0303
Fax: (61 2) 9873 1614



_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.