Is Sign Language a Language?
Philocophus
Philocophus at PHILOCOPHUS.DEMON.CO.UK
Sat May 3 09:20:16 UTC 2003
This is my first posting here and please accept my apologies for the extremely long length of this
e-mail, as I am unaware whether there are protocols that decree mails to be of certain limit.
However, here I go. Briefly, may I introduce myself. I am not a linguist, but a Deaf historian and a
publisher of 30 books on Deaf history in Britain, including "A Pictorial history of the Evolution of
the British Manual Alphabet" and a reprint of the 1698 book, "Digiti Lingua". At present I am
currently working on a project funded by the British Government to create a higher exam course in
Deaf History and one of the most important elements in Deaf History, is of course language. In my
quest to ensure that I obtain professional confirmation that sign language is indeed and unarguably
a language, I encountered one lady, copies of whose correspondences with me I attach here.
I am seeking advice/opinions from your group, perhaps you are able to confirm what she says is
correct, win which case it means sign language is NOT a language, or you can confirm that she is
wrong. I would very much like to listen to you before proceeding with my section on language during
my present project.
Not being a linguist, but relying on commonsense as a Deaf person myself and as a Deaf historian, I
say that she is totally wrong in her views and approach and she is twisting everything to suit her
means, but I find it difficult to argue her points in the way linguists are qualified to.
Thank you for your patience and kind attention,
Raymond Lee
1. First mail from Paulette Caswell.
[Comments in capital letters interspersed in message below]
=========================
The Department for Work and Pensions
Reference: CSD1803-Sign
Date: 18 March 2003
Government recognition and t million boost for British Sign Language
The Government has today taken the formal step of recognising British
Sign Language (BSL) as a language in its own right. It has also
allocated t million funding for initiatives to support the move.
[DOES "THE GOVERNMENT" REALIZE THAT THEY ARE TAKING A "FORMAL STEP"
(OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT INFORMATION OR ANALYSIS BY PROFESSIONAL LINGUISTS) OF
APPROVING A "LANGUAGE" THAT IS NOT BASED ON ANY SOUNDS OF HUMAN SPEECH,
AND WHICH IS PURELY GESTURAL AND MIMETIC, AND DEFINITELY UNRELATED TO
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?]
Following publication of the Government's Position Statement on British
Sign Language, Secretary of State Andrew Smith told a gathering of
representatives from Deaf organisations:
"What we are saying today is important for the 70,000 or so Deaf people
for whom British Sign Language is their first or preferred language for
participating in everyday life, and for their families. [WHERE IS THE
ACTUAL PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH THAT STATES THERE ARE "70,000 OR SO
"CULTURALLY" DEAF PEOPLE FOR WHOM THE NONPHONETIC MIME-BASED LANGUAGE OF
"BSL" IS THEIR FIRST OR PREFERRED LANGUAGE FOR PARTICIPATING IN EVERYDAY
LIFE WITHIN GENERAL SOCIETY IN BRITAIN?
HAS ANYONE DONE A PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH STUDY ON WHICH KIND OF "SIGNING"
(ENGLISH OR BSL) IS ACTUALLY BEING DONE BY DEAF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO
PARTICIPATE IN GENERAL SOCIETY?]
IN FACT, WHERE IS THE RESEARCH DEMONSTRATING THAT THERE ARE 70,000 DEAF
PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY SIGN IN BSL AND NOT IN THE SIGNED FORM OF
SIGN-ASSISTED LIPREAD (SPEECHREAD) ENGLISH?]
But it is also important for the rest of society to understand that BSL
is a language and what this means.
[APPARENTLY, THESE GOVERNMENT PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW WHAT A "LANGUAGE" IS,
SINCE THEY HAVE NOT CONSULTED PROFESSIONAL LINGUISTS ON THIS ISSUE. IN
PROFESSIONAL LINGUISTICS, A "LANGUAGE" IS ONE THAT IS BASED ON THE
SOUNDS OF HUMAN SPEECH. A PANTOMIME IS NOT A "LANGUAGE" IN THE
PROFESSIONAL FIELD OF LINGUISTICS -- ASK ANY PROFESSIONAL LINGUIST AT
OXBRIDGE]
"Symbolism is very important of course but the statement is about more
than that. Across Government we have taken a number of steps to increase
access to BSL and we are today announcing a t million programme of
initiatives to support the statement."
[YES, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THAT MONEY WILL BE GIVEN TO HEARING
PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES "INTERPRETERS" AND WHO RUN "BSL
LANGUAGE/CULTURAL" PROGRAMS. THAT MONEY WILL NOT MAKE ANY DEAF
INDIVIDUAL MORE INDEPENDENT OR MORE ENGLISH-LITERATE]
Maria Eagle, Minister for Disabled People, explained how the funding
will be spent:
"Among our priorities are raising awareness of the communication needs
of Deaf people who use BSL and increasing opportunities for people to
study BSL at a professional level."
[THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "STUDYING" A PANTOMIME, NON-PHONEMIC LANGUAGE
AT A "PROFESSIONAL" LEVEL. SUCH FORMS OF COMMUNICATION ARE RESTRICTED TO
COMMUNICATION AT AN EARLY PRIMARY SCHOOL LEVEL AT BEST. PLUS, THERE IS
NO NEED FOR ANY DEAF PERSON TO HAVE ANY "COMMUNICATION NEEDS" IN BSL --
THEY HAVE THAT FROM BIRTH -- WHAT THEY NEED IS TO BE TAUGHT THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE THAT THEY CANNOT OTHERWISE HEAR OR LEARN INDEPENDENTLY]
The British Deaf Association welcomed the move: "The British Deaf
Association, the lead organisation of Deaf sign language users, has been
campaigning for over 20 years for this decision and we are delighted to
receive the news. [HOW MANY OF THE BDA PEOPLE ACTUALLY SIGN IN ENGLISH
AND NOT IN BSL? HOW MANY OF THEM ARE LYING TO THE GOVERNMENT THAT THEY
SIGN IN "BSL" WHEN THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY DO SO?]
We are grateful to the UK Council on Deafness for the important
contribution they have made in bringing together their member
organisations to support the BDA's campaign. There is still a long way
to go before equality is achieved, but this is a milestone achievement
for the Deaf community.
[THE DEAF COMMUNITY WILL NEVER ACHIEVE "EQUALITY" WITH HEARING PEOPLE IF
THEY CONTINUE TO SEGREGATE, ISOLATE AND EXCLUDE THEMSELVES FROM GENERAL
CULTURE AND GENERAL SOCIETY AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE]
The BDA looks forward to working closely with the Government on this
issue."
[WHAT "ISSUE"??]
Notes for Editors
1. Full text of Position Statement on British Sign Language issued
today:
The Government recognises that British Sign Language (BSL) is a language
in its own right regularly used by a significant number of people. [WHAT
IS A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER, AND WHERE IS THE RESEARCH DATA PROVING THIS
"SIGNIFICANT NUMBER" ACTUALLY EXISTS?]
For an estimated 70,000 Deaf people it is their preferred language for
participation in everyday life.
[EVERYDAY LIFE IN BRITAIN IS DONE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. WHERE IS THE
RESEARCH DEMONSTRATING THAT THEIR "ESTIMATED NUMBER" IS RATIONAL,
REASONABLE AND BASED ON ACTUAL FACTS?]
BSL is a visual-gestural language with its own vocabulary, grammar and
syntax.
[YES, AND IT IS NOT BASED ON THE SOUNDS OF HUMAN SPEECH. THIS IS WHAT
THEY ARE NOT TELLING THE GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE NOT TELLING THE GOVERNMENT
THAT BSL IS A METHOD OF COMMUNICATION SIMILAR TO THAT WHICH WAS USED BY
HOMO ERECTUS PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPEECH BY HOMO SAPIENS. THEY
ARE ALSO NOT TELLING THE GOVERNMENT THAT DEAF PEOPLE DEFINITELY CAN AND
DO LEARN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE FLUENTLY. THEY ARE ALSO NOT TELLING THE
GOVERNMENT THAT BSL IS CATEGORIZED AS A SEMIOTIC "FIRST ARTICULATION"
FORM OF COMMUNICATION, WITHOUT AN UNDERLYING PHONEMIC CODE, WHILE
ENGLISH AND ALL OTHER SPEECH-BASED LANGUAGES ARE "DOUBLE ARTICULATION"
WITH A STRICT UNDERLYING PHONEMIC CODE]
The Government understands that people who use BSL want their language
to be protected and promoted in the same way some minority languages are
by the Council of Europe's Charter for Recognition or Minority
Languages.
[ALL OF THOSE OTHER LANGUAGES ARE ACTUALLY LANGUAGES, AND ALL OF THEM
ARE BASED ON AN UNDERLYING STRICT PHONEMIC CODE]
The Council is considering how that might be achieved for indigenous
sign languages.
[THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN "INDIGENOUS SIGN LANGUAGE" BECAUSE OVER
90% OF DEAF PEOPLE ARE BORN TO HEARING PARENTS AND HEARING FAMILIES. IN
ADDITION, THE SIGNS ARE CREATED MOSTLY BY HEARING PEOPLE, AND BSL ALSO
COPIES MANY OF THE NORMAL EVERYDAY GESTURES OF HEARING PEOPLE]
The Government will give careful consideration to any proposals which
the Council might make. [ONE OF THOSE PROPOSALS SHOULD BE FOR FUNDING A
PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH PROJECT TO DEBUNK THE STATEMENTS OF THE AMERICAN
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF AND GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY PEOPLE, WHO
ARE TRAVELING WORLDWIDE WITH NONSENSE SUCH AS THAT WHICH IS BEING
"BELIEVED" BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS]
The Government has already taken action to improve access to BSL, for
example by identifying situations where it might be reasonable for
employers and service providers to engage the services of a BSL/English
interpreter.
[IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO ENGLISH FOR DEAF
INDIVIDUALS, NOT ACCESS TO THEIR OWN LANGUAGE OF BSL FOR WHICH THEY DO
NOT NEED ANY "IMPROVED ACCESS."]
The Government will be funding a discrete programme of initiatives to
support this statement.
2. The Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
aims to protect and promote regional and minority languages used in
Europe. It was not intended to cover indigenous sign languages. [IT
SHOULD NOT INCLUDE ANY "INDIGENOUS SIGN LANGUAGES," BECAUSE THOSE ARE
ALL CREATED AND NOT INDIGENOUS]
3. The t million programme of initiatives announced today will
include projects to raise awareness of BSL particularly among employers
and service providers, to increase opportunities to study BSL at a
professional level, and to research Deaf people's take-up and
experiences of accessing services.
[THE "RAISING AWARENESS" IN THE HEARING COMMUNITY WILL BE DONE BY BSL
HEARING INTERPRETERS, WHO WILL BE THE PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES OF THIS
"FUNDING PROGRAM"; THE INCREASED OPPORTUNITIES TO STUDY BSL MEANS THAT
HEARING BSL INTERPRETERS WILL GET PAID FOR RUNNING THOSE PROGRAMS (THEY
WOULD NEVER PERMIT A DEAF PERSON TO RUN THOSE PROGRAMS AT A
"PROFESSIONAL" LEVEL); AND THE RESEARCHERS WILL ALL BE HEARING PEOPLE,
TOO, WHO WILL USE THE DEAF COMMUNITY AS THEIR GUINEA PIG RESEARCH
SUBJECTS. THERE WILL NOT BE ANY MONEY AVAILABLE TO GIVE DEAF PEOPLE ANY
MORE ACCESS OR MORE INDEPENDENCE. IN FACT, BECAUSE OF ALL OF THIS,
HEARING PEOPLE WILL NOT BE WILLING TO SPEND ANY MORE FUNDS ON HELPING
DEAF PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY HAVE BETTER OR MORE SUCCESSFUL LIVES AS ADULTS]
4. Digital pictures from this morning's reception for representatives of
Deaf organisations will be available on request. [WHAT? NO
OPEN-CAPTIONED VIDEOTAPES?]
[This message is restricted to the person to whom it was sent. This
message cannot be forwarded to anyone else, in whole or in part, without
the advance express written permission of the original author.]
**************************
2. Raymond Lee's response:
I do not concur with your approach that "language" is entirely, utterly and
unequivocally speech-based. This is an erroneous approach. If you consult
the Oxford Dictionary and look up the meaning of language, you will see
there are EIGHT different references, the main ones being 'a method of human
communication' and 'any method of expression or communication'. It is absurd
to insist that language is entirely based on sounds of human speech.
The UK Government consulted with a good number of professional and
academical bodies (including professional linguists at research centres and
universities) for some 18 months before making this announcement which is
merely a first step towards full recognition. The UK Government people have
taken care to consult the appropriate bodies and has executed its task
admirably.
The UK Deaf community is not seeking to isolate itself from the general
community through the recognition of BSL. More than that, it promotes closer
links and integration when hearing people learn BSL and use it when it comes
to interacting with deaf people. Remember life and everything in life is a
two-way process, based on give and take. If anyone has respect for the
various diversities in life, they would understand the importance of
respecting each other's needs, language, religion, and so on, rather than
adopting a dictatorial approach that the minority must bow before the
majority. That is not how life works nowadays - Britain has moved on from
the Feudal system of pre-William the Conqueror days!
Everyday life in Britain is not all done via English language, although it
remains the nation's language. There are various languages in use in Britain
and translated written versions are readily available and an ever-growing
number of interpreters/translators are being placed in vital institutions
such as hospitals, social services, police offices and suchlike to assist an
extremely large number of hearing people who cannot or are unable to (and
maybe in some cases even won't) speak English. The same provision is being
put into process for the deaf and the deafblind.
Figures are always in dispute. People always query figures. to me. 70,000 is
too small a figure for my estimation as I did research way back around 1982
and concluded that the number using sign language (either BSL or signed
English) were some 148,000. Unfortunately, my research papers are now stored
in Doncaster Archives and I have no intention of taking it out. I suppose
that the 70,000 referred to are BSL users, not signed English users.
The definition and meaning of language has NOT changed in its root. Even
those at Oxbridge will agree to that. I do not know if I have quoted this to
you before but I quote it here now anyway:
Two prominent professors of English - H. Marmaduke Hewitt, M.A., LL.M., and
George Beach M.A., LL.D., joined forces to write and produce a monumental
843-page book entitled "A Manual of Our Mother Tongue" in 1891.
On the very first page of their great work, under "Definitions", the authors
wrote that...
"LANGUAGE is the expression of thought by sounds or signs. The sounds
employed may be either the human voice or any acoustical system of
signalling. The signs used may be either different combinations of forms, as
in writing, printing, etc., or motions used by the dumb. The senses appealed
to by language are the ear and the eye, and, in the case of the educated
blind, the touch also."
What a far-reaching definition in those days and it still stands good today.
I note that there are unscrupulous academics trying to take away the "signs"
bit from the definition to suit everything to match their needs.
I use speech, lipreading and signed English. When I meet deaf people who use
BSL, I use this mode of communication with them. I am flexible, not rigid.
Philocophus
******************************************
3. Paulette's 2nd e-mail:
Since when have any professional linguists ever considered PANTOMIME to be a
"language?" Explain this, because you are misunderstanding the TWO DIFFERENT
KINDS of "signing."
What you learned, dear Philocophus, is the underlying phonetic-phonemic CODE
of the English language, the basis for all human language. What you use in
your own everyday life is SIGNED English communication, because language is
in your brain, not "on your hands."
* People can communicate in English even if they cannot speak clearly.
* People can learn the phonetic-phonemic CODE of the English language even
if they cannot hear anything (in fact that CODE is made 100% visual by Cued
Speech -- you yourself learned it through lipreading and vibrotactile
training or have you forgotten HOW you were educated in the language you are
now using??).
* People do not need to PHYSICALLY SPEAK a "sound-based language" in order
to know and use that language.
* People also do not need to HEAR a "sound based language," since the
sound-pattern CODE can be learned through other means (for example,
lipreading and vibrotactile training in identifying the discrete elements of
the underlying CODE that is normally learned subconsciously by hearing
infants (and deaf children with cochlear implants) simply listening to that
same code being spoken).
The FACT is that the professional field of linguistics does not, and never
has, "recognized" a PURELY mimetic-visual form of communication as a
"language." The word "language" is derived from the Latin "lingua," meaning
"tongue."
Human beings switched over to LINGUISTIC processing about 30 million years
ago, when homo erectus died out and homo sapiensis appeared WITH THE ABILITY
TO SPEAK because of the sudden appearance of the hyoid bone in the human
throat (to this day, no one knows how this happened, but it did -- the
current best explanation is in Genesis in the story of Adam and Eve).
Because human beings could speak, a section of the HUMAN BRAIN became
reserved for HUMAN PHONETIC-PHONEMIC LANGUAGE, a situation which does not
exist in any other animal species on this Earth. THIS IS WHAT MAKES HUMAN
BEINGS HUMAN.
In terms of "deaf people," THEY ALL HAVE the reserved area in their brains
for human speech-sound-based (phonetic-phonemic) language. But they cannot
hear that language being spoken. HOWEVER, THEY CAN BE TAUGHT THE
PHONETIC-PHONEMIC CODE ON WHICH THAT LANGUAGE IS BASED. And after they learn
that code, they TRANSITION from being an "ape" to a HUMAN BEING. This is how
YOU were educated, Raymond, and Colin and every other
teacher of the deaf in Britain will verify this fact. You were taught the
phonetic-phonemic CODE of "verbal" language. That is what you "think in" and
that is how your brain has functioned -- you THINK in the phonetic-phonemic
code and you WRITE in the phonetic-phonemic-coded alphabetic characters
which REPRESENT THE SOUNDS OF HUMAN SPEECH.
As for your inability to "speak completely clearly," that is a whole
different system of the human brain functions and it depends solely on being
able to HEAR the sounds of your own voice and compare those sounds to the
voice sounds produced by other people -- it is a "feedback loop" in a
different section of the human brain, and it has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER
TO THE "LANGUAGE" FUNCTIONS OF THE HUMAN BRAIN, which depend on learning the
phonetic-phonemic CODE, and which do not require full auditory function!
BSL, just like "ASL" DOES NOT HAVE an underlying phonetic-phonemic code. It
is PURELY gestural and PURELY mimetic. It is the kind of communication you
engaged in, and which ALL human beings engage in, before they fully learn
the phonetic-phonemic code of their community's
HUMAN language. [Why do you think chimpanzees can function in "sign
language" but can never learn the phonetic-phonemic code of HUMAN
languages?]
Now, if you WISH TO REMOVE the entire phonetic-phonemic code of the human
language of English that is in your brain, then I invite you to do so,
before you assert that PURELY gestural-mimetic communication is some kind of
"language" recognized by professional linguists. In fact, that
form of communication is a "First Articulation Only" form of human
communication that is ONLY "recognized" by the field of Semiotics.
AFTER you COMPLETELY remove the linguistic phonetic-phonemic code of the
English HUMAN-ONLY linguistic language from your brain, THEN you can explain
to everyone why your remaining form of PRELINGUISTIC communication is a
"language."
Of course, you won't be able to write email messages or written text to make
this explanation to anyone, but you can still videotape or film it. Of
course, in addition, you won't be able to read anything at all in printed
PHONETIC-PHONEMIC CODE ALPHABETIC CHARACTERS, but maybe people will be
willing to draw you diagrams or pictographs for their responses to your
explanations.
ENTIRELY ERASE THE INFORMATION IN THE LEFT SIDE OF YOUR UPPER BRAIN,
RAYMOND, BEFORE YOU CLAIM THAT "PURE SIGNS" ARE SOME KIND OF "LANGUAGE."
[This message is restricted to the person to whom it was sent. This message
cannot be forwarded to anyone else, in whole or in part, without the advance
express written permission of the original author.]
******************************
3. Raymond Lee's 2nd response:
Lesley and I have got back from our week's holiday.
Having read your responses, I consider it prudent that all these could be
well explained by a fully qualified linguist. Without revealing the source
of our correspondences, I am contacting two professional linguists, both
with a PhD and both lecturers in Linguistics at a respectable university in
England for their perusal and comments. It will be interesting to see what
these established professional linguists have to say.
Till then,
Raymond.
****************************************
4. Paulette's 3rd e-mail:
Patrick and I have been contacting several "professional Linguists,"
Raymond, including one who happens to be one of the most highest-ranked
International Linguists in the world who is Patrick's
mentor, and who EDITS five of the most highly-respected Linguistics JOURNALS
in the world. Frankly, you won't find anyone in England or the UK who has
"better credentials," not even at Oxbridge.
Simply put, the field of "Linguistics" is the WRONG field for studying
any form of communication based SOLELY on "signs," like "BSL." ASL, BSL, and
all of the other such "languages" are within the field of SEMIOTICS, which
studies "nonverbal" (non-phonetic, non-phonemic) forms of human
communication (i.e. "the language of bee dances," "the language of flowers,"
"the language of music," "the language of perfumes," "the language of silent
movies," and "the language of silent movies conveyed by 'signs,'" etc.)
Within the field of SEMIOTICS, there are two categories:
1.) SECOND ARTICULATION: An underlying strict structural code, either
standing by itself (as in computer languages), or as a basis for another
kind of "language").
2.) FIRST ARTICULATION: A system of communication that has NO underlying
structural specific code (like "BSL"), or the HIGHER FORM of a Second
Articulation language comprising the words, grammar and syntax of a Second
Articulation-coded language (such as English).
Simply put, "BSL" is a First Articulation ONLY "form of human
communication."
HOWEVER... English is a DOUBLE ARTICULATION LANGUAGE, comprised of a
Second Articulation underlying code that is based on the sounds of human
speech, PLUS a First Articulation pattern of words, grammar, and syntax that
is BASED ON the Second Articulation underlying phonetic/phonemic code.
The field of LINGUISTICS only studies and researches DOUBLE
Articulation Languages, which are true HUMAN-ONLY languages. Only human
beings can communicate in Double Articulation languages (such as English),
because ONLY the human brain has a separate "reserved section" for
human-only Double Articulation Language functions. This is what makes human
beings "human."
You and the other people in the deaf community in Britain are
misunderstanding some very important things, and transmitting misinformation
to government officials who have no idea what is going on.
ENGLISH can be spoken, heard, read, and written. It can also be
represented in many other ways, such as in semaphore, fingerspelling,
alphabetic characters, lipreading (speechreading), Cued English, Braille,
and a HUGE number of codes. BUT, language is IN YOUR BRAIN, not on the
surface and not in the "codes" you may be seeing, feeling, or otherwise
perceiving.
Because of dedicated people like Colin Sayer and others, deaf
children have been able to learn the SECOND ARTICULATION underlying
phonetic-phonemic code of the English language for many years. You, Raymond,
have that code stored PERMANENTLY in your own brain, in the reserved
section for human language, and you use that code all the time to produce
words, grammar and syntax. Once that code is in the brain of a human being,
it cannot be removed or erased. It constitutes the basic "programming code"
on which your language functions depend. Those who then learn a second or
further Double Articulation language use their FIRST "code set" as the basis
for their second and further language learning.
"BSL" is based on ONLY First Articulation, and it doesn't have an
underlying "Code Set." That is why apes can learn BSL, but they can't learn
English.
What you are "thinking" about is wrong. You are forgetting the fact
that the ONLY REASON any deaf person anywhere "needs signs" is that the
person is unable to lipread every person on Earth accurately, and the person
has no ability to supplement their lipreading with auditory information.
[Those who DO have that ability -- hard of hearing people -- (the VAST
majority of the hearing impaired community) obviously don't need and don't
use any kind of "sign-assistance" to communicate with anyone else].
Thanks to people like Colin Sayer, the language in YOUR brain is a
DOUBLE ARTICULATION, HUMAN-ONLY LANGUAGE known as "English." The signing
that you use primarily is simply additional "hints" to supplement what you
are lipreading (speechreading) in interactions with other people. Because
you were given the underlying code of the English language, you are also
completely and very highly LITERATE in reading and writing the English
language.
In the past (and Colin will verify this) and ever since deaf
education began, until the 1960s, the term "sign LANGUAGE" meant "a
Human-Only Double Articulation LANGUAGE for which "signs" are required for
prelingually deaf people to comprehend interpersonal interactions." In other
words "sign language" simply meant, "the sign-coded method for communicating
in SPOKEN languages."
In the 1960s and thereafter, and ONLY IN THE UNITED STATES, and
starting ONLY AT A PLACE THAT IS NOT A REGULAR UNIVERSITY, and BECAUSE THE
METHOD OF CUED SPEECH PROVED TO BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE AT TRAINING DEAF
CHILDREN AND ADULTS TO COMMUNICATE PRECISELY IN SPOKEN LANGUAGES
AND THEREFORE TO BE MUCH MORE INDEPENDENT AND ABLE TO BE "MAINSTREAMED"
INTO GENERAL EDUCATION (which threatened the "existence" of the segregated
institutions such as the one causing all of this nonsense)... a HEARING
PERSON who had no idea about what he was looking at, and who WAS NOT A
LINGUIST, simply "decided" that what he was seeing was "different from" the
sign-coded English he had been "used to," and began to call what he was
seeing "a different language."
The LINGUISTICS professionals demanded that he and his "group" (which
were NOT, and never have been, published in any recognized professional
Journals of Linguistics, and they instead "self-published" (for obvious
reasons) PROVE that their "version" of "sign language" ("Pure ASL") had a
DEMONSTRABLE SECOND ARTICULATION underlying phonetic-phonemic code, and that
it was and is a verifiable DOUBLE ARTICULATION HUMAN-ONLY language.
There has never been any such verification, proof or evidence of any
such thing. There is also no such thing as "ASL Linguistics" or "BSL
Linguistics" or any other relationship between "Linguistics" and the
non-English (non-spoken language) forms of "pure visual-gestural-mimetic
signing."
While YOU are VERY WRONGLY imagining "BSL" to mean "The British
ENGLISH language coded for understanding by signs" -- that is NOT what those
"BSL" advocates are really talking about.
They are talking about a "language" comprised ONLY of mimetic
"signs" -- a SIGN-ONLY form of communication, which has NO RELATIONSHIP
WHATSOEVER to any human-only double articulation language, because it DOES
NOT HAVE an underlying Second Articulation phonetic-phonemic code.
Now, Raymond, go see some "professional Linguists" and give them this
email message and ask them to read it.
Ask the truly professional Linguistics Professors in Britain,
preferably at Oxbridge, if the field of Linguistics "recognizes" or studies
or researches SEMIOTIC FIRST-ARTICULATION-ONLY forms of human communication.
Ask your professional Linguists in Britain whether PANTOMIME is
"recognized" in the field of Linguistics as a "language."
And after the professional Linguists stop laughing at you, then ask
them WHEN (what point in time in human history) ALL human beings designated
as homo sapiens (including "deaf" homo sapiens) developed the ability and
the brain structure to communicate in DOUBLE ARTICULATION HUMAN-ONLY
languages such as English.
*********************************
5. Raymond Lee's 3rd response:
Paulette,
One of the linguists I contacted has given response which is attached below.
XXX's details are also included so you may contact the person.
Raymond
*****************************************************
----- Original Message -----
To: "Philocophus" <Philocophus at philocophus.demon.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 12:57 PM
Subject: My response
Ray,
This person is simply and grossly misinformed. All she has to do is open up
any recent introductory linguistics textbook to get the appropriate
information - e.g. Fromkin & Rodman (1995).
Linguistic research since the 1960s has shown, overwhelmingly and
conclusively that BSL and other natural signed languages used by Deaf
communities are indeed true languages in their own right (Stokoe 1965; Klima
& Bellugi 1979). Natural signed languages are not simply pantomime or
mimetic - they have linguistic structure at every level, including the
phonological, morphological, and syntactic levels. Signs have sublexical
structure and are made up of phonemic elements: handshape, location and
movement combine in discrete and patterned ways to create all the different
signs of that language. Different signed languages have different sets of
phonemic handshapes in the same way that spoken languages have different
sound inventories. Quite simply, there is nothing in the structure of
language that requires the use of the vocal-auditory channel as opposed to
the visual-spatial channel.
As evidence, signed languages also meet all the criteria for human language
as set forth by Hockett (1960) - they exhibit the properties of
discreteness, displacement, productivity, duality of patterning,
semanticity, and yes even arbitrariness. Despite the apparent iconicity of
many signs, signed languages are predominantly arbitrary in their
form-meaning relationships. This follows from the fact that sign language
is not universal and that different signed languages (e.g. ASL, BSL,
Japanese Sign Language, Catalan Sign Language, Ugandan Sign Language, etc.)
are instead mutually unintelligible from each other. For more information,
see Klima & Bellugi (1979), Valli & Lucas (1995), Wilbur (1987) just to
start. For a very comprehensive database of sign language references, see
http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/bibweb/.
I have to say: Any proper academic (particularly one who claims that she
"functions on scientific research, demonstrable and proven facts") would
always cite their sources in this kind of debate, particularly when claiming
to have knowledge about a field that is not her own (i.e. linguistics). I
would like to know who these "professional linguists" are that she's
talking about. I also think this person should identify herself and her own
background.
I myself am a professional linguist, with a PhD in linguistics from the
University AAA, USA. (See my web site for my credentials - URL
given below.) RRR, the other linguist who works with me at
the Centre for Deaf Studies, has published The Linguistics of British Sign
Language. RRR earned her PhD here at XX - note that her BA is from
Oxford.
And if this person is not impressed with my credentials or RRR's... The
Linguistic Society of America, an association of 7000 professional
linguists, also supports the status of signed languages as true languages.
Here is an excerpt from their Sign Language FAQ, written by David Perlmutter
(http://www.lsadc.org/):
"What has been discovered over the past half century is that sign language
is language. This is not just a discovery about sign language; it is a
discovery about language itself. It reveals human language to be more
flexible than had been imagined, able to exist in either auditory or visual
form. It shows that the human drive for language is so strong that when
deafness makes speech inaccessible, it finds another channel, creating
language in sign. Sign language has taught us that human language can use
either channel language is what we all need to be human."
References
Fromkin, Victoria, and Rodman, Robert. 1993. An introduction to language.
London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American
203:88-96.
Klima, Edward, and Bellugi, Ursula. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Meier, Richard P., Cormier, Kearsy, and Quinto-Pozos, David eds. 2002.
Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Stokoe, William, Casterline, D., and Cronebeg, C. 1965. A dictionary of
American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Sutton-Spence, Rachel, and Woll, Bencie. 1998. The Linguistics of British
Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Valli, Clayton, and Lucas, Ceil. 1995. The linguistics of American Sign
Language: An introduction. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1987. American Sign Language: Linguistic and applied
dimensions. Boston: Little Brown and Co.
--
XXX
Lecturer
(Details withheld as permission not sought)
*********************************
6. Paulette's 4th e-mail:
Yes, Raymond, this is what happens when you talk to HEARING people who are
repeating "research" done by NON-LINGUISTS, and using that "research" for
their own self-interest. The individual who responded to you is in a "Center
for Deaf Studies," and is wholly biased.
For example:
A. Stokoe was an English Literature teacher (hearing) at Gallaudet
University, and not a Linguist (and in fact his research proved that sign
languages like ASL and BSL were SEMIOTIC, and not "Linguistic" forms of
communication.
Stokoe, William, Casterline, D., and Cronebeg, C. 1965. A dictionary
of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
[Since when is a DICTIONARY an academic linguistics publication? (and it is
wrong, since signs ARE IN MOTION and cannot be
accurately depicted in a printed "dictionary." It is also from GALLAUDET
UNIVERSITY PRESS. Throw this one out. Also read the biography of Stokoe, who
had a cup on his desk at Gallaudet saying "Bullshit," and when he was asked
why he had that coffee cup, he stated "Because that is what we do around
here.")
B. Klima is a linguist who doesn't sign at all. Ursula Bellugi is
Klima's wife, who holds an Ed.D. degree (not a Ph.D.) in Early Childhood
Education, not in Linguistics. Klima hasn't done any "research" on sign
language at all since the late 1970s, and he (and Ursula) use the term "sign
language" to represent the sign-assisted lipread form of the English
language. Klima, Edward, and Bellugi, Ursula. 1979. The signs of language.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [And where is the RECENT research?
Klima doesn't sign. Bellugi has an "Ed.D." degree that isn't even recognized
as an academic doctorate in the UK, nor could she ever be a Professor in any
UK university. Throw this one out]
C. Clayton Valli is prelingually deaf and he got his own Ph.D. from
Gallaudet in "ASL POETRY," not in Linguistics. Lucas is hearing. Valli,
Clayton, and Lucas, Ceil. 1995. The linguistics of American Sign Language:
An introduction. Washington, DC: GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY PRESS (AGAIN). I would
suggest that you read this "Valli and Lucas" book, because it contains
complete nonsense. It is one of the main reasons why Gallaudet Press was
shut down several years ago for publishing complete nonsense.
D. Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American
203:88-96. [This is an article in a NON-PEER-REVIEWED general publication.
It is not an academic reference. Throw this one out. Further, she fails to
even mention the recent work of the MOST prominent person in this field,
Joseph Lieberman, who stated specifically that the "research" being done at
Gallaudet is in direct
violation of research protocols.]
E. A. Fromkin, Victoria, and Rodman, Robert. 1993. An introduction to
language. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [These people didn't even know
about signed "natural" (prelinguistic) languages. Throw this one out].
F. Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1987. American Sign Language: Linguistic and
applied dimensions. Boston: Little Brown and Co. [Hearing, Interpreter,
BIASED, using the deaf community for his own income and status]
G. Sutton-Spence, Rachel, and Woll, Bencie. 1998. The Linguistics of
British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Hearing, and
DIRECTLY related to the author of the response. It has been well known for a
long time now that after Gallaudet University was forced to
shut down their propaganda center called Gallaudet University Press, these
people began to publish through Cambridge University Press. THIS DOES NOT
MEAN THAT ANY OF THESE PUBLICATIONS WERE PEER-REVIEWED BY ANY LINGUISTICS
PROFESSORS AT CAMBRIDGE].
H. Meier, Richard P., Cormier, Kearsy, and Quinto-Pozos, David eds.
2002. Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. [This is your correspondent's own publication,
and XXX was only one of the "Editors." This is simply a rehashed and
repeated compilation of previous nonsense.]
One of the most common "ploys" of these people, when they are debunked,
is to turn around and engage in wholly improper ad hominem personal attacks,
since they do not have any actual evidence or real proof for their
assertions. [And my "credentials" and experience are much better than hers]
ASK THESE QUESTIONS:
1.) Is this individual prelingually deaf? If not, she has an "etic"
(outside, surface) not an "emic" (inside, real) perspective.
2.) Is this individual living WITHIN the prelingually deaf community?
If not, XXX has no idea what XXX is talking about, and XXX is merely looking
at "signs" without determining which LANGUAGE is being processed in the
brains of the signers (nor where that language comes from).
3.) Can this individual independently determine whether a deaf person
is using the sign-assisted lipread version of the ENGLISH language, or
whether the deaf individual is using the language of signs only?
4.) Has this individual ever actually seen or learned the INTERNAL
version of sign language used by the deaf community, which is not shared
with persons outside of that community?
5.) How much MONEY is this linguist earning, where does this money
come from, and how much of it does she return back to the deaf community?
6.) Is this "Centre for Deaf Studies" within the LINGUISTICS
Department at Bristol University? Or within the regular FOREIGN LANGUAGES
Department at Bristol University?
7.) What is the overall academic ranking of Bristol University as
compared to Oxbridge and other world-class universities?
8.) It doesn't matter where a person got their undergraduate
degree -- for a professional academic researcher, it only matters where and
in what field they received their Ph.D. degree. Further, degrees in
"Linguistics" can be obtained in various sub-areas. The author of the
response fails to state the title and subject matter of her Ph.D.
dissertation, or whether her Ph.D. degree was in Applied Linguistics or
another area of Linguistics.
9.) Look up the background history of "David Perlmutter." XXX quotes
him as saying... "It reveals human language to be more flexible than had
been imagined, able to exist in either auditory or visual
form." EVERYONE KNOWS that "verbal" languages can be and are in "visual
form" I am now writing this message in English in VISUAL FORM. English can
be represented in MANY VISUAL FORMS, including the visual lipreading of
ENGLISH, the sign-assisted lipreading of ENGLISH, Braille coding of ENGLISH,
semaphore coding of ENGLISH, fingerspelling of ENGLISH alphabetic
characters, and so much more. This statement does not prove that BSL is its
own separate and distinct language.
David Perlmutter doesn't know what he is talking about. He says
that... when deafness makes speech inaccessible, it finds another channel,
creating language in sign."
Well, as Colin Sayer or the other TEACHERS of the deaf can tell
anyone, and so can all PRELINGUALLY DEAF people, the truth is that "when
deafness makes [the learning of the underlying code for human] speech
inaccessible," deaf people learn the PHONETIC CODE through vibrotactile
methods, as early in life as possible... BECAUSE they would otherwise be
left in a PRELINGUISTIC situation in life, WITHOUT human-only language.
These "sign language researchers and linguists" are looking ONLY AT
SIGNS. They are not aware of how a deaf person is actually taught. They
completely ignore the fact that all of their "research subjects" have been
taught the phonetic code of spoken language, at various levels
of achievement.
They have NO IDEA that deaf individuals with high intelligence, such
as you Raymond, are processing VERBAL language in their brains, even though
these same individuals are using "signs" outwardly and on the surface.
Further, and most importantly, they see ALL deaf people as being "the
same," because "all deaf people sign."
Even worse, they have never been WITHIN the prelingually deaf
community, nor do they understand that this "recognition of BSL" DENIES and
DEPRIVES deaf individuals of obtaining the absolutely necessary vibrotactile
training that gives such individuals the ability to
communicate in human-only language.
THESE "SIGN LANGUAGE LINGUISTS" ARE IN A PATTERN OF ADVOCATING
FOR PRELINGUALLY DEAF INDIVIDUALS TO REMAIN IN A PRELINGUAL STATE... IN
THEIR "NATURAL STATE" SO THEY CAN ALL BE "RESEARCHED."
Why are they doing this? Because prelingually profoundly bilaterally
deaf people are the only human beings who can be FORCED to remain in a
prelingual state by the deprivation of education such as that which Colin
Sayer was providing to prelingually deaf children. If you leave a
prelingually deaf child without such education and training, and without the
technology that would enable such children to learn that same information
independently, then you are left with a "feral child" WHO CAN BE RESEARCHED,
USED, STUDIED, AND ABUSED.
This "sign language linguist" needs to think very hard about the
fact that SHE and her hearing colleagues obtained THEIR human-only language
phonetic code subconsciously and independently. THEY DON'T REMEMBER when
THEY "learned language," nor even HOW they "learned language." They would
prefer to doom prelingually deaf HUMAN BEINGS to a life of illiteracy and
poverty, so THEY can get money and recognition and "status" from researching
prelingually deaf individuals in a "natural" state.
What these "researchers" are actually SEEING is a group of
prelingually deaf individuals who have been already taught the phonemic code
of the ENGLISH spoken language, but, for many of them, they have not been
taught completely, properly, or consistently, all the way to the end of
their language development period at 12 years old.
Those who were properly taught, such as the students of Colin Sayer,
have extensive VERBAL language ability in their left cerebral hemisphere.
Those who were not properly taught have language deficits, and are partially
still PRELINGUISTIC.
There is NO prelingually deaf individual in England with normal or
high intelligence who is "unsullied" by "verbal language," and therefore is
a proper research subject for "natural" sign language
(unless there are deaf people who have still been kept in closets all of
their lives, but I doubt this is the case).
Further, this "natural sign language" nonsense has been known,
researched and identified since AT LEAST the late 1700s.
Apparently, since there are no references, this "sign language
linguist" has not bothered to read the publications of the Abbe de L'Epee,
particularly the Volume (which has apparently not yet been
translated into English), in which he describes the REASONS why he developed
his Methodical Signs method of education, which was thereafter adopted and
spread nationwide in the USA. She has no references to, and apparently has
never read the ORIGINAL writings of the prelingually deaf Laurent Clerc, nor
his own comments as to the differences between sign-assisted lipread VERBAL
language, and the PRELINGUISTIC "natural" sign language of the uneducated
and undereducated prelingually deaf population.
I also don't see any references to the writings of Thomas Miner
Gallaudet, who brought the general deaf population in the United States OUT
OF being PRELINGUISTIC.
I also do not see any references to the writings of the formerly
prelingually deaf students after they became LINGUISTIC subsequent to being
PRELINGUISTIC. (Yes, those comments are definitely written, and are the best
"references" available).
I DO NOT SEE any references to ANY publications of PRELINGUALLY DEAF
individuals who have managed to obtain enough LINGUISTIC capability in
VERBAL language to attend a world-class regular University at the Ph.D.
level of education.
10.) Ask this hearing "sign language linguist" what XXX is going to do
for a job in the future, when all deaf children receive cochlear implants
before age 1.
[This message is restricted to the person to whom it was sent. This
message cannot be forwarded to anyone else, in whole or in part, without
the advance express written permission of the original author.]
**********************************
The linguist, XXX, pulled out when Paulette made it clear that
she would not discuss anything directly with the person.
*********************************
7. Paulette's 5th. e-mail:
I shall not read, nor shall I respond to, any communications from this
XXX person. The conclusion of XXX's own Ph.D. dissertation states that
ASL "may be" only "partly linguistic." Yes, that is what it says, and
the abstract of that dissertation is posted on XXX's own website. XXX is a
fraud.
[This message is restricted to the person to whom it was sent. This
message cannot be forwarded to anyone else, in whole or in part, without
the advance express written permission of the original author.]
********************************
8. Paulette's 6th. e-mail: (Subject title: PROOF of XXX's Fraud)
Raymond, DON'T "forward" my email address to other people without my
permission.
And now...
In the field of Linguistics, the term NATURAL LANGUAGE refers to spoken
languages, such as English.
In the field of "Sign Language Linguistics" which is already fraudulent,
there are two different definitions, which were established by Ursula
Bellugi, and which are being used to confuse you and also everyone else:
"SIGNED LANGUAGE" refers to the sign-assisted lipread form of SPOKEN
languages, such as English in a "sign-assisted form." Obviously, the
underlying NATURAL LANGUAGE (spoken language -- the one being LIPREAD)
is a "true Linguistic language."
"SIGN LANGUAGE" is a language comprised ONLY of "signs" without any
spoken language involved. This is what they call PRELINGUISTIC
communication forms, such as ASL or BSL. These do not have an underlying
spoken language.
Now, take a look again at what XXX said in the previous message.
** Every time XXX says "NATURAL SIGNED LANGUAGE," XXX is referring to
Signed English. Since Linguists already "recognize" the spoken form of
English, it is obvious that they would also "recognize" the
sign-assisted lipread form of ENGLISH, because ENGLISH is definitely a
"true linguistic language" even when it is lipread, and even when the
lipreading is assisted by "signs." It is still the ENGLISH language.
** Every time XXX says "SIGN LANGUAGE," XXX is referring to "pure"
NON-English, ASL or BSL -- the one that has no lipread or spoken or
written form and which is PURELY and ONLY pictorial gestures.
[This message is restricted to the person to whom it was sent. This
message cannot be forwarded to anyone else, in whole or in part, without
the advance express written permission of the original author.]
*************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20030503/9595301e/attachment.htm>
More information about the Slling-l
mailing list