Is Sign Language a Language?

[Philocophus]

I thank you for your response, but have one small query. Is there a difference between the terms
"sign language" and "signed language" which you use? If so, what is the difference from a linguist's
persective?

I thought "signed language" referd to something like "signed English" whereas "sign language" refers
to the sign language as used by the Deaf. Imay be wrong.

Raymond Lee

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Geoffrey Hunt
  To: SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA
  Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 11:54 AM
  Subject: Re: Is Sign Language a Language?


  I am new to this list, but I am writing as a linguist interested in signed languages.  While it is
true that British Sign Language is not based on sounds, and while it is true that it is unrelated to
(spoken) English, it nevertheless has many of the characteristics of a language.

  Its gestures can be emically analysed in the same way that phones can be phonemically analalysed.
It has units that are similar to words in that they represent a semantic concept.  Its syntax can be
analyzed in a similar way to the syntax of spoken language.  Its discourse structure can be analysed
in a similar way to the discourse of a spoken language.  Different signed languages can be compared
for mutual intelligibility as can spoken languages.  Signed languages relate to particular cultures,
just as spoken languages do.

  But above everything else, signed languages are used to communicate complex meaning, just as
spoken languages do.  Therefore I have no hesitation in using the term language in its fullest sense
about signed languages.

  Geoffrey Hunt

  -----Original Message-----
  From: For the discussion of linguistics and signed languages.
[mailto:SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA]On Behalf Of Philocophus
  Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 10:20 AM
  To: SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA
  Subject: Is Sign Language a Language?


  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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20030503/3914ec0e/attachment.htm>