Mouthings- question for Stefan

Tue Aug 19 09:29:07 UTC 2003

Hi Antony,

you may not be aware of this, but most (northen) Europuan Sing Languages
uses mouthing as an integral part of the sign language itself. In
Norwegian Sign Language, fingerspelling on the other hand is seldom used,
even if there exists both a two-handed and a one-handed alphabeth. The
mouthing is not an exact replica of the Norwegian word, but serves to
distinguish two or more signs that are (almost) similar in the hands. Of
course, there are also the intrinsic Deaf use of the mouth and face, as
certain adverbs and other stuff. But the mouthing that resemles spoken
Norwegian is an integral part of NSL, as Deaf people use it among
themselves. - I believe that the question of focus is solved by actually
looking more or less at the mouth or chin, getting the hands in the
peripheral view. There is ample space for that, actually.

The training of speech and lipreading is a different matter altogether,
and is persued as such. NSL is seen by the school autorities as the main
language for deaf children, whit Norwegain as a neccessary second.

Ingvild

SW-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA writes:
>19/08/03
>
>HI Ingvild and Stefan,
>
>
>
>I have been with this site for a while and I would like to add my 2-bobs
>worth.
>
>
>
>Here in Australia we have Auslan (Australian Sign Language).  This is the
>language that the Deaf use, when they are among themselves and that is
>their
>natural language.  Often the signs, don's have an English equivalent.  The
>natural sign language of the Deaf is often conceptual, not a word for word
>translation of the host language. Host being the language of the hearing
>majority in the area where the Deaf live.
>
>
>
>To prove the point, the ASL (American Sign Language) uses a one handed
>alphabet and the Auslan uses two handed, eventhough the host language is
>both a form of English! Incidently the BSL (British Sign Language) is the
>ancestor' of Auslan and FSL(Frensch Sign Language) the ancestor of ASL.
>However all these languages are distinctly different from one another.
>The
>FSL and ASL are related, but the host language is different!!
>
>
>
>No this proves a problem for Stefan.  As the signs of the FSL and the ASL
>are similar for similar things (eg chair), but the spoken word is
>different.
>..
>
>
>
>The point is that for the Deaf person that has never heard a word, the
>mouthing is a waste of time.  a case in point:  my wife is profoundly
>Deaf,
>but is an excellent lipreader. however, she is very very frustrated by
>people mouthing the words and signing at the same time!  She can't watch
>both the mouth and the hands at the same time and this only confuses the
>conversation.
>
>
>
>Also hearing people that try to be helpful by using the now old-fashioned
>Total Communication' well know that if they try to speak and sign at the
>same time, either the signing becomes more like the spoken language
>grammatically and signs are left out, or the spoken words become more like
>the signs grammatically and there will be words left out.....
>
>
>
>Sadly over the last 200years there has been alot of oppression of the Deaf
>and their language (Read any book of Harlan Lane, and you will see what I
>mean).
>
>
>
>before this time, there were Deaf boarding schools, with Deaf teachers
>that
>used the native Sign Language to educate the Deaf. The education of the
>Deaf
>was very good. This was 'The Golden Age' of the Deaf.  They were able to
>reach there potential, held jobs, were respected in society.
>
>
>
>Sadly, Germany, Italy and to a lesser degree England all were in favour of
>the Oral method.  While the Deaf schools focussed on giving
>information/education, the oral method focussed on speech and then the
>information/deucation through there faulty ears....  This has proven to
>be a
>disaster for the Deaf.
>
>
>
>It has been proven that people don't learn a language they acquire (hope i
>spelled this right) a language.  so the more they hear a language, the
>better their speech clarity and vocabulairy will be...  So students that
>are
>hard or hearing became the 'succes stories' and the true (profoundly)
>Deaf,
>became the 'failures'.  I am sure that Stefan is able to supply profoundly
>Deaf people that can speak, however these are deifinitly in the minority.
>
>
>
>
>
> The 'Black Day' in Deaf history was the Milan Convention in 1880.  It was
>then that the educators of the day decided that oralism would be the way
>of
>the future.  Sadly with this, the future of the Deaf was doomed.
>
>
>
>Focussing on speech,then education through speech was the way these
>educators would teach the Deaf....   German and Italian educators were at
>the forefront of this idea....
>
>
>
>children were being caned, had to sit on their hands, anything to stop
>them
>from signing... It was thought that if they signed they would not be using
>their ears and mouth... again Germany, Italy (and Holland, where I come
>from) were the most fanatical...
>
>
>
>After 120 years of this oppression of their language it is amazingthe sign
>Language survived at all...
>
>
>
>However, after the war there was a blooming of oralism. It was thought
>that
>if we can find a hearing aid strong enough and a speach therapist
>persistant
>enough, the majority of Deaf would be 'normal' (=hearing).
>
>
>
>After 10-20 or whatever years they realised this doesn't work.  So the
>(hearing) educators had an idea! Let's take the Sign Language what these
>Deaf persist in using, put it in the host language grammatical structure,
>make up signs for the words that there are no signs for, speak at the same
>time as signing and then the Deaf will know what we are talking about!!
>Clever (D'oh)
>
>
>
>So to put this in perspective: Lets take Norwegian spoken language, put it
>in German grammar and this will help you to understand German better.  We
>will only allow one Norwegian word for each German word, and only one
>German
>word for each Norwegian word, and you will be so much better at both
>languages.  To make it even clearer, we will speak a German word, then a
>Norwegian word and so on!
>
>
>
>That is still being used today and is called (in Australia:) Sign(ed)
>English).
>
>
>
>Today, here in Townsville that is the going thought of the local
>schools....
> So over all these years the Deaf had speech therapy, and lip reading was
>sadly the tool they used to try to understand......
>
>
>
>This is the environment Stefan is in.  Probalby the true German Sign
>Language is being mixed with the Sign German. I imagine he has a sign for
>every equivalent of The (das des dem den, etc), but in the true German
>Sign
>Language there was never a sign for "the" in the first place.  As every
>Deaf
>student is (probably)undergoing speech therapy, the lip patterns are still
>very important for the hearing educators, so the Deaf will know what word
>is
>being said (sorry signed).
>
>
>
>As interpreters know very well, the variation of meaning of words in any
>language
>
>For example,we have a sign for "Thank you", but depending on the context
>it
>can also mean "Appreciate." The word appreciate can also convey the
>thought
>of understand.  "I appreciate the meeting is very important to you", would
>not be signed with the sign "Thank you", but with the sign for
>"understand."
> As an interpreter we choose according to the context the appropriate
>sign.
>Mouthing "appreciate" is absolute useless in this case
>
>
>
>In Auslan and also ASL, we do make mouth movements, but these are
>unrelated
>to the spoken words equivalent of the sign.  We have a tight-lips mouth
>movement, which convey intensity.  If we use this with the sign for "near"
>then it meant "very near". we have a mouthing of the word "pah", which has
>many different meanings depending on the signs it is being used.
>
>
>
>So, if Germany still uses Sign German, is still in this oralistic
>movement,
>if Stefan teaches children this oralistic way, then for him the mouth
>movements are very important.  To educate the Deaf, it has very little
>value
>
>
>
>
>Antony
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-------Original Message-------
>
>
>
>From: SignWriting List
>
>Date: Monday, August 18, 2003 22:34:20
>
>To: SW-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA
>
>Subject: Mouthings- question for Stefan
>
>
>
>Hi Stefan and all,
>
>
>
>on your site www.gebaerdenschirft.de , you have a diagram of mouthing
>
>symbols used in Germany.
>
>
>
>Some of the symbols are compoesed of a face/mouth symbol and a hand symbol
>
>near the mouth.
>
>
>
>If these are used to train German spoken language, I can well understand
>
>them.
>
>
>
>But as I understand, German Sign Language uses mouthing as part of the
>
>sign language itself, as does Norwegian Sign Language.
>
>How do you write the mouthing when the hands are otherwise occupied???
>
>
>
>Ingvild
>
>.