common criticisms of signwriting?

Sun Nov 8 11:54:25 UTC 2009

I wonder, what tipped the scales and convinced the Deaf in Brazil that SSW was an important and useful writing system?  I'd like to know the history of that situation more deeply and how perhaps it could influence the progress of SignWriting here in the U.S.

I'm convinced that SignWriting, as I use it to teach ASL classes to hearing people has been truly beneficial, especially in pronunciation of signs and as a recall aid, but I am also very interested in its benifits to Deaf students as I'm a teacher of the Deaf as well.  It looks like there is some pretty hefty research backing SSW and its use with Deaf students in Brazil.

There seems to be a basic underlying paranoia of a system invented by a hearing person, at least in the U.S.  This type of polar opposition, based on the origin of the system, as opposed to its merits, may be particularly strong here in America.  

Natasha Escalada-Westland, M.Ed. (D/HH), Certified Interpreter - NIC

Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:12:48 -0800
From: chazzer3332000 at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [sw-l] common criticisms of signwriting?
To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu

On the opposite end of the spectrum is Brazil, where the tireless efforts of Marianne Stumpf, Ronice Quadros, and many others has created a ready pool of SignWriting being used at all levels of education.  Brazilian Sign Language is considered to be a native language (as of 2002) and native Deaf are required to be the primary teachers of interpreters.  SW was adopted by the Deaf Community at its national conference in 2000 and has taken off all over the place since.  The social validation of Deaf clubs has really made a difference.

When I taught a seminar on SignWriting at Deaf Way II, the criticism that was often heard was that the conference was overwhelmingly ASL-centric and I was one of the few presenters that "assumed" that not only did more than one sign language exist, but that they all deserved to be treated as "native languages" with their own writing systems. 

Neither HamNoSys or SignType are used as everyday tools by the Deaf in their own cultures, they are linguistic tools only.  Only SW has actually been welcomed, once the Deaf have learned it, to become an everyday writing system, based on the usage of the Deaf as primary users.

Charles Butler

From: KJ <kjoanne403 at signwriting.org>
To: SignWriting List <sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu>
Sent: Sat, November 7, 2009 1:10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [sw-l] common criticisms of signwriting?

I've run into most of the criticisms mentioned; one other that I've heard (and I realize it's completely wrong, but it is the opinion of one of the top people in Deaf education in Alberta) is that trying to learn SignWriting as well as the majority spoken language is "cognitive overload".

Another "issue" brought up by a teacher I spoke to is that a lot of the hearing-impaired kids she teaches have no language when they start school; their hearing parents don't (and often won't) sign.  Since they're not starting with a signed language knowledge base, and because the hearing parents generally don't want their kids involved with the Deaf community and have no desire to sign with them, this teacher really doesn't see any point in using SSW in her classroom.

KJ

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Erika Hoffmann 
To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu 
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 1:40 PM
Subject: [sw-l] common criticisms of signwriting?

Hi! I mentioned the last time I posted that I'm working on a paper
about SignWriting for presentation at the American Anthropological
Association meeting in December.
One of the things I'm thinking about is the ways in which Signwriting
and Signwriten documents can be used to critique dominant ideologies
about language and writing that are common in Linguistics and related
disciplines. At the same time, I want to note that the radical nature
of the script can sometimes be a social barrier to its adoption by
signers (particularly because of the historical relationship between
the Linguistic validation of sign languages with the social validation
of Deaf signers).
I'm wondering if any of you would be willing to share some of the ways
you've heard people criticize or dismiss SSW (or point me to places
where these opinions are aired). I'm looking for people's concerns
about the script itself (i.e., "it looks like hieroglyphics") rather
than the other common arguments about the need for a script at all
(i.e., "Deaf people can just write in English").
Thanks!
Best,
Erika

____________________________________________

SW-L SignWriting List

Post Message
SW-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu

List Archives and Help
http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist/

Change Email Settings
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/sw-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20091108/19f2af61/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------

____________________________________________

SW-L SignWriting List

Post Message
SW-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu

List Archives and Help
http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist/

Change Email Settings
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/sw-l