Q: Classic terminology/methods? A: Why not?

[Terry Janzen]

Laurence,

Thank you for this important statement. 

Terry

Terry Janzen, Associate Professor
Department of Linguistics
514 Fletcher Argue Building
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canada R3T 2N2
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Laurence Meurant 
  To: SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 5:26 AM
  Subject: Re: Q: Classic terminology/methods? A: Why not?


  Dear all,

  Reading your messages about this fundamental debate, I'm thinking that maybe the problem could be used in another way... 
  I mean that the work made by analysing signed languages with a linguisitic point of view should be the opportunity to re-investigate the classical catergories, born about spoken languages analysis.  Signed languages are a unique opportunity for general linguistics to put his notions and categories to the test.  Maybe the problem should not be considered as a conflict between signed languages linguists and spoken languages ones, but as a theorical turning-point that sign languages offer to linguistics in general.  
  Step by step, our works could show how to improve classical notions to make them relevant to both signed and spoken languages.

  Thank you for having shared your opinions and ideas about this debate... It's really instructing.
  Best wishes

  Laurence Meurant
  Langues et Littératures romanes
  Namur - Belgium
  laurence.meurant at fundp.ac.be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20031007/eba04d32/attachment.htm>