Is Sign Language a Language?

[d'Armond Speers]

>From the tone and demeanor of your correspondent, I am afraid that no amount
of reasoned dialog will ever change her opinion.  She is firmly entrenched
in her dogma.  When someone resorts to ad hominem attacks (such as "your
researcher is a fraud"), this usually means their arguments alone are too
weak to stand alone.

I will let others here present references and examples to counter her
claims.  After all, I'm hearing and am not fluent in ASL (though I am
competent), and Georgetown probably doesn't live up to her standards, so I
am obviously a fraud.

--
d'Armond Speers, Ph.D.
speersd at georgetown.edu





>From: Philocophus <Philocophus at PHILOCOPHUS.DEMON.CO.UK>
>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: Is Sign Language a Language?
>Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 10:20:16 +0100
>
>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.]
>
>*************************************


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail