SV: [SLLING-L] Importance of SL phonemes

Mon Oct 1 07:08:40 UTC 2007

Hi again, 

>Let's not give up yet on finding actual phonemes for signed languages.  

Why not? :) Maybe we can come up with a much better model if we concentrate on looking for what actually is in the language than trying to find a theoretical linguistic entity inherited from a model for a different type of language? 
I do not say that there cannot be any models including phonemes for signed languages. But the reason for having such a model should be that it actually fits signed languages. 

>I think it's important to fit sign language phonology into spoken language phonology as much as we can.  If we >have to start making up new things that are specific for sign language, other than the obvious difference of using >the hands (etc.) rather than the vocal tract, then that gives evidence to people in charge to say No! concerning >issues that deal with signed languages as true and natural languages.

>The more we can fit signed and spoken languages into one phonological system, the stronger our case is in such >instances where we need to contend for signed languages as true languages.  

I would have agreed with you about 15-20 years ago. But today I think we don't need this kind of "evidence" for SLs as true languages any more. Actually I think it is more convincing to naturally treat signed languages as true languages and talk/write about it as a matter of course. The more you argue for it despite its wide acceptance the more you seem to be in an unneccesary state of defending something that does not need to be defended any more - at least in a number of countries and among linguists this is true. 

Signed languages are in linguistics widely accepted as true languages and there are several linguistic approaches (originally based on spoken language research) looking at signed languages for some answers that concern their linguistic models. And that is why I think it is important to form a language model in accordance to what we find in languages, not the other way around. As much as we can learn from - for example - spoken language typology as much can spoken language typology learn from us. In the end our understanding for language in general will have  grown. Personally I do not believe in ONE answer that fits all. And knowing that the visual mode works differently with regard to cognitive processes I have no problems whatsoever to argue for differences in the structures as well. Actually, I think it would be rather odd if visual languages would not make anything out of the advantages the visual mode gives and on the hand deal with the disadvantages in their own way. 
Having a phoneme-system is not a sufficient or necessary criterion for a true language, although some definitions may claim so. But these definitions are inherited from a linguistic based solely on research on spoken languages and thus is based on a smaller sample of languages than we have available today.  I would rather work on these definitions than questioning the status of a signed language. 

As for the officials: I think it is enough to tell them that scientifically spoken are signed languages naturally developed, fully grammaticalized languages that - as all other natural languages - are part of the cultural and individual identify of their users.
Politicians do not need (or want to have) explanations on the detailed differences and similarities of spoken and signed languages to recognize signed languages as politically respected languages. 

All the best

Sonja Erlenkamp

________________________________

	Kathy wrote:

	>(And I WOULD like to know if anyone can list the phonemes of any sign language...and justify their phonemic Zstatus...)  [I meant "status".  kh]

	That's a really good question. :) 
	I have searched for an answer to that questions some years now and haven't found any full description of the phonemesystem of any signed language yet. But of course I may not have found the one that exists (please let me know if that is the case :)
	One of my Ph.D. students who is working on notational systems for sign lanuage dictionaries seems to close in to a conclusion that one of the major problems for notational system is to capture shared iconic features of different signs.
	Personally I believe that many, if not allmost of all the parameters in a single sign and including nonmanual features can (and often do) carry an iconic potential which makes them by definition non-arbitrary and that means again they could not be phonemic in the sense of spoken language phonemes, because phonemes are by definition arbitrary. On the other hand is for example  a handshape not always morphemic either since it does not carry some meaning in a morphemic sense, just an iconic potential that can be activated in a sign. I think that signed languages probably do not fit entirely in the linguistic level model of phonemic - morphemic and that we probably need a new level, somewhat in between these two "levels" describing how "iconemes" work. I use the terms "iconeme" roughly said for the "smallest analysable unit in a language carrying an iconic potential". 
	And if (I say IF!) we end up describing an iconeme-level of signed languages this could also influence our understanding of writing systems/notational tools for signed languages.

	Just my two cents on a friday morning :)

	All the best

	Sonja Erlenkamp

________________________________

Explore the seven wonders of the world Learn more! <http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE>  
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
SLLING-L mailing list
SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l