The Status of Sign Language & 2nd Articulation

[Philocophus]

For all of you interested in sign languages & its status regarding 2nd
Articulation is explained to me here by Dr. John S. Coleman, Director of
Oxford University Phonetics Laboratory.

Philocophus

****************************

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Coleman" <john.coleman at phonetics.oxford.ac.uk>
To: "Philocophus" <Philocophus at philocophus.demon.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: The Status of Sign Language


> Dear Raymond,
>
> Thank you for your message, in which you wrote:
>
> > I came under attack from a pair based in the University of Southern
> > California in the US, who claimed to have proof that BSL is not a true
> > language, based on the ground that BSL is a 1st. Articulation only
> > language. I print here an extract from their e-mail to me:
> >
> > "They (BSL users and advocates, my words) 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.
> > 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."
>
> These people are clearly ignoramuses. (That reminds me of a joke
> definition: ignoranus - a person who is both stupid and an asshole) ...
>
> All informed experts in linguistics recognise BSL and other natural sign
> languages of the deaf as true human languages with duality of
> patterning, not "pantomime", as your critics put it. There is a
> substantial literature on the linguistic structure of signs in BSL and
> other sign languages, such as Mary Brennan's "Words in hand: a
> structural analysis of the signs of British Sign Language", or, more
> recently, a special issue of the academic journal "Phonology" on sign
> language phonology (volume 10, number 2). Explain to your critics, if
> you have cause to, that in sign languages individual components of signs
> (such as handshapes, place of articulation, movements etc), which are
> meaningless in themselves, are combined to construct whole signs and
> larger, meaningful expressions
> (statements, questions, poems, plays, etc). That is the very definition
> of duality of patterning! Any critic who doesn't know THAT much about
> sign languages is clearly very poorly informed and their opinion is not
> worth taking seriously. You can quote me on that.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --- John Coleman
> Reader in Phonetics, University of Oxford
>