Importance of SL phonemes

[GerardM]

Hoi,
When you want to square a circle, you do not necessarily get to the truth.
The vocal chords are necessarily serial in nature and movements are not.
When the "powers that be" need to be placated in their preconceptions in
order to have them accept signed languages as true languages, I have doubts
about the quality of the resulting science.

When the"powers that be" deny sign language their place under the sun as a
true language, it will only result in more resentment from the people that
do sign. It will also make the respect that the science of linguistics
commands evaporate. The same is true for using arguments for the wrong
reasons, when it is fitting to describe sign languages with the terminology
developed for oral languages it is fine, when it is only to placate the
people that have not studied the arguments it is completely wrong and the
conclusions are not to be trusted because the result is preconceived.

I have an inkling why it is perceived necessary to do it this way but I am
afraid that the result is a compromise that does both science and sign
languages an injustice. Signed languages do not need to excuse themselves
that they upset the axioms of linguistics. If anything the science of
linguistics should welcome this upset because as a science linguistics will
emerge only stronger from such an "upset".

Thanks,
    Gerard

Thanks,
    Gerard



On 9/28/07, Kathy H. <kaylynnkathy at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Let's not give up yet on finding actual phonemes for 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.
>
> If we make the claim to some official person that signed languages have
> phonemes, too, and then we are asked to show them, we cannot do so!  Then
> why should that official listen to us and honor our request?  He has reason
> NOT to do so.
>
> I honestly believe that we need to unite the two modalities as much as
> possible.  In doing so, we just might find where spoken language phonology
> needs to be adjusted, and then we are further along in learning how
> languages work.
>
> Concerning iconicity (see below), I would remove that from the equation in
> the search for phonemes.  I would also remove morphology.  In this way,
> there are no confounding elements.  Get a list of words, preferably native
> vocabulary, list the phonetic elements, and find patterns and predictable
> factors.
>
> And that's my two cents on a Friday morning!  (see below)
> (That adds up to four cents.  Anyone else want to contribute?  We could
> start a sign language phoneme fund!)  <just kidding, of course>
>
> Kathy
>
>
> ------------------------------
> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SLLING-L mailing list
> SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
> http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20070928/0879d943/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
SLLING-L mailing list
SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l