Hi

[La Condessa]

Hi. I'm new here, and I'd like to ask for your advice.

 

I greatly desire my children to have the advantage of growing up with two languages. Four years ago in college I was conversant in German and had some basic Hebrew. (Which I had to work very, very hard for. Languages do not come naturally to me, and I am hard of hearing, which means that to some degree I have to learn to lip read in any new language I attempt). However, my mediocre abilities in these languages have definitely declined in the past few years. My husband served a two year mission in Argentina and is basically fluent in Castillano (dialect of Spanish). I want him to speak Castillano to our baby girl (and all future children as well), but he believes this would be ineffective, as I am going to be the stay at home Mom and primary caregiver. He's willing, however, if I learn the language as well.

 

I have been trying to learn using free materials from the library, but frankly I am very intimidated and discouraged. It was difficult enough trying to adjust to the new sounds of German as a freshman in high school, but my hearing has gradually been getting worse over the past ten years or so. Hebrew was far, far more difficult to adjust to than German, and I'm finding Spanish even more so. I've made some progress with reading Spanish children's books, but my oral comprehension skills are just terrible. We don't have the money for me to enroll in a class (so I can see an instructor's mouth as they teach), but computer programs with only audio are no help, and dubbed movies are worse. The Spanish channel is only slightly better, because they go so fast I can hardly understand a word.

 

I'm sorry I went on so long, I'm just not sure what to do. Does anyone have any suggestions?

[Rosie_0801]

Welcome :)

My suggestion is you go with your original plan, and have your husband speak the language with the kids. True, they will not learn as fast as if you both used it, but that doesn't mean it will be completely ineffective. Or at least, if it is important to him, he'll make sure it is effective. I would think you have plenty of other things to do without working that hard at something you can't make reasonable progress in. My hubby is half deaf also, so I'm not going to argue that deaf people can't learn other languages, I'm just saying that I imagine you've got too many other things to do to be able to devote yourself wholey and soley to learning Spanish. You know, like looking after your kids ;)

If this issue isn't important enough for your husband to put in the effort without you, it's probably not going to happen. My dear hubby wants our kids to learn to sign, but guess who won't sign with them? It's somehow not important enough.

 

If you are wanting another language, and don't want to go with ASL, how about Latin? That has it's uses, and being a dead language, you don't have to learn to speak it unless you want to. I haven't started Latin yet myself, but dh goes through bursts of it. He tells me he hasn't come across any sounds that don't also exist in English, so that might well be easier for you to pick up. Latin, being a Romance language, will give your kids a good foundation to learning Spanish later on.

 

Rosie

[Mabelen]

I can't imagine how hard it must be to try and learn a language when you have limited hearing. The consolation is that once you know your sounds, you can improve a lot by reading. Spanish is a very phonetic language.

 

I wanted to clarify about Castellano being a dialect of Spanish. Castellano or Castillian is just another name for Spanish, not a dialect. It can either be called Spanish (español) or Castillian (castellano). Español because it is the one unifying language of Spain (although not the only one as there are other Spanish languages like Catalan, Basque and Galician). Castellano because it is the language of Castilla, the Castille region in Spain. There are regional variations of Spanish across the many Spanish speaking countries in the world, just like there are regional differences between the various English speaking countries in the world. Your dh learned the Argentinian variety of Spanish, which is very distinctive, but it is not a dialect of Spanish, it simply is one of many varieties.

 

Good luck with your journey!

[La Condessa]

Actually, Castallano Spanish as spoken in Argentina is a distinct dialect (not a distinct language, but a dialect). It has extensive vocabulary differences, replaces the 'y'/'ll' sound with a soft 'j' (think the sound in the english word azure) and uses a completely different verb conjugation for the 'you' form--with the word 'vos' instead of 'tu'.

 

Sorry to be nitpicky. I've almost finished my bachelors in Linguistics--I know, a really weird choice for someone with hearing problems. One of my eventual goals (after my kids are older and possibly after a Masters) is to develop an accurate and efficient written form of ASL.

[Renai]

I want him to speak Castillano to our baby girl (and all future children as well), but he believes this would be ineffective, as I am going to be the stay at home Mom and primary caregiver. He's willing, however, if I learn the language as well.

 

For at least the first two years of my daughter's life, I did not speak Spanish to her, and my husband did not speak English to her. I did not want her learning my Spanish or his English :tongue_smilie:. Yes, I was the primary caregiver, and he worked all day, but the situation was fine. She's currently completely bilingual. I started speaking Spanish to her around 2 years old, only because dh was gone for about 5 months and although she could understand Spanish, she had trouble speaking it. Looking back, I probably would have realized many two year olds wouldn't have been very verbal in two languages anyway (but my dd was very verbal, so I worried).

 

Welcome :)

My suggestion is you go with your original plan, and have your husband speak the language with the kids. True, they will not learn as fast as if you both used it, but that doesn't mean it will be completely ineffective. Or at least, if it is important to him, he'll make sure it is effective.

 

If this issue isn't important enough for your husband to put in the effort without you, it's probably not going to happen. My dear hubby wants our kids to learn to sign, but guess who won't sign with them? It's somehow not important enough.

 

:iagree: on both counts, and especially the part I bolded. It doesn't take much to open your mouth to a known language to speak to your kids. Heck, if I knew more German and Japanese, I'd be speaking those to my daughter as well. As it is, I can only speak what I know (which is very little).

[Mabelen]

Actually, Castallano Spanish as spoken in Argentina is a distinct dialect (not a distinct language, but a dialect). It has extensive vocabulary differences, replaces the 'y'/'ll' sound with a soft 'j' (think the sound in the english word azure) and uses a completely different verb conjugation for the 'you' form--with the word 'vos' instead of 'tu'.

 

Sorry to be nitpicky. I've almost finished my bachelors in Linguistics--I know, a really weird choice for someone with hearing problems. One of my eventual goals (after my kids are older and possibly after a Masters) is to develop an accurate and efficient written form of ASL.

 

You are right. I think I learned the term dialect with a more restrictive definition than what is used today. What totally threw me off was your describing castellano as a dialect of Spanish because it is just another name for Spanish. In some countries one term is preferred over the other. In Spain there is also a huge discussion as to which is more correct. I personally think both are equally correct. For me personally Castillian and Spanish are one and the same. I learned my Spanish in Castille, so I speak Castillian Spanish.

[Rosie_0801]

One of my eventual goals (after my kids are older and possibly after a Masters) is to develop an accurate and efficient written form of ASL.

 

First question: Why?!!

Second question: What problems do you see with the current transcription method? I've not seen for ASL of course, but assume it is the same as the one (almost never) used for Auslan. I'm not in the least proficient in it, but they did teach us about it in our Auslan course.

 

Rosie

[La Condessa]

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, as my knowledge of the linguistic issues related to ASL comes from non-ASL signing professors and studies. I know almost nothing about Auslan.

 

I noticed on another thread on this blog a discussion of parents who choose not to learn and use ASL with their deaf children. Many of these parents choose instead to use a combination of signed English and, often, intensive training in lip reading for the child. They want their children to learn English, their own native language, and as stated, it is easier for other family members to learn hand gestures to accompany words than to learn a whole new language. But another legitimate concern which generally motivates these parents is that, because there is no widely used written form of ASL, their children's academic and intellectual attainment will be impeded if they learn ASL instead of signed English. (There are several forms for transcribing ASL, but they are overly technical, inefficient, and space-consumptive. Some of them are not adapted for computer use. For these reasons, they have never caught on much with the signing community in the United States.) Most ASL speakers read English to some degree, but it is very difficult for them to obtain full mastery of this foreign language which is based on a phonetic system. Every word they learn is a 'sight word'. Because of this, the average literacy level of ASL signers is understandably lower than native English speakers.

 

Personally, I do not believe it is fair to these deaf children to deny them ASL in an effort to make them learn English. A spoken language can never become completely native to a deaf person, and this leaves these children lacking both a native language in which they can readily communicate and a community with which to do so. However, these parents' concern over their children's literary and scholastic attainment is legitimate. Currently, the only option between the two is to learn ASL and to conduct an intensive study of English as a foreign language in order to gain access to literature. Many people do this successfully, but if there were a good written form of ASL, the problem of limited literacy among the signing community could be done away with.

 

It is my opinion that books enrich the lives of those who read them, and everyone should have access to literature in their native language.

[Matryoshka]

What totally threw me off was your describing castellano as a dialect of Spanish because it is just another name for Spanish. In some countries one term is preferred over the other. In Spain there is also a huge discussion as to which is more correct. I personally think both are equally correct. For me personally Castillian and Spanish are one and the same. I learned my Spanish in Castille, so I speak Castillian Spanish.

 

That confused me too - I'm quite familiar with the differences between Argentinian Spanish and other regional Spanish dialects/variants, but I'd never heard it referred to as Castellano - I've always heard Castellano used to refer to the Spanish spoken in the Castillian region of Spain - kind of the Spanish equivalent of High German.

[Matryoshka]

Most ASL speakers read English to some degree, but it is very difficult for them to obtain full mastery of this foreign language which is based on a phonetic system. Every word they learn is a 'sight word'.

 

I know nothing of how ASL or other signed languages are transcribed for speech, but I was just thinking how much sense it would make to use a pictoral transcription system already in existence - Chinese characters. Then they'd be able to puzzle out actual written Chinese as well if they wanted to. ;)

 

Heck, the Japanese managed to modify the Chinese characters for their language, and Japanese is completely unsuited for a pictoral system - they had to come up with two new alphabets to be make it work. ASL would transcribe much more easily.

[Rosie_0801]

I know nothing of how ASL or other signed languages are transcribed for speech, but I was just thinking how much sense it would make to use a pictoral transcription system already in existence - Chinese characters. Then they'd be able to puzzle out actual written Chinese as well if they wanted to. ;)

Heck, the Japanese managed to modify the Chinese characters for their language, and Japanese is completely unsuited for a pictoral system - they had to come up with two new alphabets to be make it work. ASL would transcribe much more easily.

 

Nah, it doesn't really work that way. Firstly, signed languages move and it's pretty hard to write down a movement. Secondly, while you could probably panelbeat it so as to transcribe specific lexical items, there are parts of signed languages that are very important but aren't words. I can't even imagine how it would be possible to transcribe those. Signed English doesn't have any of those things, so transcribing that would be possible, I don't think it is for a natural signed language.

 

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, as my knowledge of the linguistic issues related to ASL comes from non-ASL signing professors and studies. I know almost nothing about Auslan.

Funny, I have come across that myself in linguistic departments. The hearing, non-signing lecturers LOVE Auslan, but since they can't sign, they can't go and chat with the Deaf Auslan linguistics lecturers upstairs, hehehe. I'd have thought, in their enthusiasm, that they'd have thought of emailing, but it appeared they hadn't...

 

I noticed on another thread on this blog a discussion of parents who choose not to learn and use ASL with their deaf children. Many of these parents choose instead to use a combination of signed English and, often, intensive training in lip reading for the child. They want their children to learn English, their own native language,

And so they should.

 

and as stated, it is easier for other family members to learn hand gestures to accompany words than to learn a whole new language.

And it's easier for other family members to learn a whole new language than it is for the deaf kiddie to learn to hear, huh? Yep, I've come across that attitude many, many times. I shouldn't even get started or this will turn into a rant and a half. Pet topic...

 

But another legitimate concern which generally motivates these parents is that, because there is no widely used written form of ASL, their children's academic and intellectual attainment will be impeded if they learn ASL instead of signed English.

That's arguable, but few parents of deaf children will be fully informed on this topic. I think everyone I know who was educated in Signed English was also taught Auslan. Their education (a prestigious girl's school) was truck loads better than any of the other options, so as much as I dislike Signed English, it has it's uses.

 

(There are several forms for transcribing ASL, but they are overly technical, inefficient, and space-consumptive. Some of them are not adapted for computer use. For these reasons, they have never caught on much with the signing community in the United States.)

Same over here, and I've never met a Deaf person who wanted a written version of Auslan. As far as I know, it's a tool wanted by linguists. Perhaps, as you've said, parents want it, but I've not heard about it. Not that I would, I move in the wrong circles for that.

 

Most ASL speakers read English to some degree, but it is very difficult for them to obtain full mastery of this foreign language which is based on a phonetic system. Every word they learn is a 'sight word'. Because of this, the average literacy level of ASL signers is understandably lower than native English speakers.

It doesn't have to be that way. If you are interested in this, I suggest you try and find a copy of this book. The book was written in the eighties, so is rather old now, but there is no reason why their methods shouldn't work now. It strikes me that if a Swedish person can be fluent in Swedish Sign Language, written Swedish and written English by the time they graduate, there's no reason why our deaf kids can't graduate fluent in our respective signed language and written English.

 

A spoken language can never become completely native to a deaf person, and this leaves these children lacking both a native language in which they can readily communicate and a community with which to do so.

No, a spoken language can't become fully native to a profoundly deaf person, but a written language can.

 

However, these parents' concern over their children's literary and scholastic attainment is legitimate. Currently, the only option between the two is to learn ASL and to conduct an intensive study of English as a foreign language in order to gain access to literature. Many people do this successfully, but if there were a good written form of ASL, the problem of limited literacy among the signing community could be done away with.

I see this as a problem with the methods used to teach English, rather than a need for a way to transcribe ASL. I don't see how literacy skills in a minor language like that would prepare people for life in the rest of society. There would never be a wealth of literature or textbooks printed, because it would be cost ineffective. Also, if it is too hard for families of deaf children to learn to sign, it is going to be too hard for them to learn another written language too. Teacher training for deaf education already drags on long enough, adding the extra course in ASL literacy will add even more to their student debts. You have spoken about this issue from the point of view of hearing parents, have you ever spoken to deaf adults? They have gone through the system and understand the problems from the inside.

 

It is my opinion that books enrich the lives of those who read them, and everyone should have access to literature in their native language.

I would agree, if we were talking about spoken languages, but I can't agree for signed languages. For those, it is impractical and time would be better spent in learning literacy in the language that will take them through the education system and into the workforce. If you want my dh's opinion, he believe the signed language equivelent of a book is a youtube clip ;)

 

Rosie

[Matryoshka]

Nah, it doesn't really work that way. Firstly, signed languages move and it's pretty hard to write down a movement. Secondly, while you could probably panelbeat it so as to transcribe specific lexical items, there are parts of signed languages that are very important but aren't words. I can't even imagine how it would be possible to transcribe those.

 

I've only had a brief introductory ASL class many years ago, so maybe I'm missing something incredibly obvious, and knock me over the head if I am, :tongue_smilie: but I can't see why a sign couldn't be transcribed as a pictograph. I'm not saying the pictograph should *look* anything like the sign, any more than the pictographs in Chinese "sound" like the words they represent (there is zero correlation) - but the *meaning* represented by a sign (or even a facial expression or other part that add a shade of meaning) should be easily transcribed by a pictograph, no? For the shades of meaning you'd just have to add an extra character - for example, Chinese has a character that means just "this sentence is a question" (since with a tonal language that can't be implied by the voice going up at the end of the sentence) - this wouldn't be a word in English, but I could see it as similar to a facial expression denoting a question rather than statement in a signed language. Of course, for a sign, a question mark would do just as good a job in that particular case.

[Rosie_0801]

I've only had a brief introductory ASL class many years ago, so maybe I'm missing something incredibly obvious, and knock me over the head if I am, :tongue_smilie: but I can't see why a sign couldn't be transcribed as a pictograph. I'm not saying the pictograph should *look* anything like the sign, any more than the pictographs in Chinese "sound" like the words they represent (there is zero correlation) - but the *meaning* represented by a sign (or even a facial expression or other part that add a shade of meaning) should be easily transcribed by a pictograph, no? For the shades of meaning you'd just have to add an extra character - for example, Chinese has a character that means just "this sentence is a question" (since with a tonal language that can't be implied by the voice going up at the end of the sentence) - this wouldn't be a word in English, but I could see it as similar to a facial expression denoting a question rather than statement in a signed language. Of course, for a sign, a question mark would do just as good a job in that particular case.

 

Why translate a sign into Chinese characters instead of an English word? They are both arbitary, but the rest of America (and Australia in my case) uses written English, not written Chinese. You are right, if you were using pictographs, it would be easy to add a tick here or there to indicate facial expression, and having a pictogram for a question would be appropriate because Auslan (and I assume ASL) employs question markers as a language strategy. I suppose including "smilies" would solve much of the facial expression problem, but who could take a written language seriously if smilies were included? :lol:

Auslan signs (and I assume every other signed language) has five phonemes: handshape, orientation (where the fingers are pointing and which way the palms face), location, movement (what type of movement) and facial expression. For each lexical item, you would need to pack all that information into one pictograph. That's a lot of information to read on paper and would take way more effort at decoding than reading English or Chinese does. I think it would be *possible* if you were transcribing Signed English, though I still don't know why the deaf community would want to spend that effort. ASL has other features, though that I don't think could be transcribed, and if you don't include them in your written language, you aren't transcribing ASL.

 

Rosie

[Matryoshka]

Auslan signs (and I assume every other signed language) has five phonemes: handshape, orientation (where the fingers are pointing and which way the palms face), location, movement (what type of movement) and facial expression. For each lexical item, you would need to pack all that information into one pictograph. That's a lot of information to read on paper and would take way more effort at decoding than reading English or Chinese does.

 

Why would you have to include any of that? Chinese has a huge number of vowel and consonant sounds (like any other spoken language), and four tones (I think Cantonese has 7). None of that, not one bit, is encoded in their written language. Their written language offers not the slightest clue as to the pronunciation of the word. The pictograph for "sun" is identical in Chinese and Japanese, even though the languages have completley different words for them. If I knew what all the pictographs meant, I could decode the meaning of a Chinese text without having the slightest clue as to how to say a single word in the language.

 

You're getting hung up on the idea of most languages being decodable into speech (or in this case sign). Chinese isn't. You just have to memorize which word goes with which pictograph - there are *meaning* clues in the pictographs, but no pronunciation clues. I was suggesting the same model for a signed language - you already know what the sign is, then you just have to know what pictograph represents it and you can "read" it in your head. Someone who doesn't "speak" the language couldn't figure out how to move their hands to make the sign, as neither can anyone who already doesn't speak Chinese figure out how any particular character may be pronounced.

 

In complete contrast to a phonetic language where you can pronounce words without having any idea as to their meaning, in a pictographic language you can determine meaning without having any idea as to the pronunciation.

 

I was thinking if one wanted to write down a signed language so native speakers of the language could read and write in it easily, a pictographic system makes much more sense. I would think that memorizing pictographs would be more straightforward than memorizing random letter sequences for each word (because if a spoken language is not your native language, the order of the letters *is* random, and much harder to memorize than something that has meaning context clues).

 

If you're trying to "transcribe" sign so a non-signer can figure it out how to physically make the signs, that's a whole different problem. I was addressing this comment from a PP:

 

Currently, the only option between the two is to learn ASL and to conduct an intensive study of English as a foreign language in order to gain access to literature. Many people do this successfully, but if there were a good written form of ASL, the problem of limited literacy among the signing community could be done away with.

 

For this purpose, a pictographic system to write a signed language makes much more sense. Of course, it could be any pictographs, wouldn't have to be Chinese - I was just thinking that since it already existed you wouldn't have to come up with new pictographs for everything, and then anyone who read Chinese could probably figure out signed writing and vice versa (like Chinese/Japanese can probably figure out meaning chunks in each other's writing even though the languages are completely mutually unintelligible).

 

But of course, then books would have to be translated into sign language and/or people would have to start writing books in ASL or Auslan... probably not going to happen. :tongue_smilie: Might be good for taking notes or writing letters though? Maybe an ASL newspaper?

Edited November 13, 2009 by matroyshka

[Rosie_0801]

You're getting hung up on the idea of most languages being decodable into speech (or in this case sign). Chinese isn't. You just have to memorize which word goes with which pictograph - there are *meaning* clues in the pictographs, but no pronunciation clues.

Yeah, I am. :) I don't understand the difference between memorising a Chinese style pictograph and memorising an English word as a sight word. To me, they seem like the same thing. Deaf kids in English speaking countries need to read English and learning to read some transcribed version of ASL is not going to assist them. It's going to take up time that should be spent on English literacy. If you want to present material to a deaf person in their own language, you record it on video. That's what they do.

 

 

In a pictographic language you can determine meaning without having any idea as to the pronunciation.

If this were accurate, I would be able to translate Chinese characters into English. To make pictographs that easy to decipher, means you are making pictographs that are impractical for writing. If a written system is that cumbersome, it won't be used.

 

 

I was addressing a PP's comment that everyone should have the opportunity to read and write books/stories in their native language, to sit down and read silently for enjoyment -

As I said in a previous post, unless you can transcribe the parts of ASL that aren't actual signs, you aren't reading or writing ASL. You are reading and writing Signed English or some kind of pidgeon version of ASL. Can you think of a way of writing down mime? Also, deaf communities already have story telling traditions and a strong history of theatre. In my opinion, which isn't worth much since I've never asked anyone else about it, written signed languages are culturally inappropriate. The transcribed version of Auslan is only used by linguists, and the deaf have no desire to use it. They read and write in English because that is the gateway to the outside world. Transcribing a signed language takes the beauty out of it, so what would be the point of using it? Might as well use English like everyone else. Telling people who don't require a written form of their language that they need one or ought to be using one seems a bit odd. If they thought they required one and it was possible to make one, then Deaf teachers and linguists would have. I would agree that everyone ought to have access to enjoy stories in their own language, but not that they must do it via print. Actually, most Deaf think it's nice if a deaf child can be taught to speak, but if it is too much effort for them to learn, it's not worth doing. Focussing on speech to the detriment of an education, particularly in English literacy, is considered a bad idea. A written version of a signed language would be considered be considered inferior to English literacy, and therefore not worth the time. I think it is hard to understand that the deaf would not considered a transcribed version of their sign language to be part of their language in the same way that we consider literacy to be part of our language.

From what mmconde was saying, it is hearing parents who don't sign who are calling for this. I don't think they are experts on the way deaf people operate, and in my experience, such people often underestimate their children's ability to achieve so the children don't get educated well enough to allow achievement. Obviously that goes on to become evidence that the deaf can't achieve. I met a woman once who honestly believed that her daughter couldn't learn to read. That's pretty sad, especially when I consider the half dozen deaf adults I know with Masters degrees or PhDs. Not to mention all those with bachelor degrees...

 

 

But of course, then books would have to be translated into sign language

They are, but onto video ;)

 

Rosie

Edited November 13, 2009 by Rosie_0801

[Matryoshka]

Yeah, I am. :) I don't understand the difference between memorising a Chinese style pictograph and memorising an English word as a sight word. To me, they seem like the same thing.

 

What's different is that an English word is a phonetic representation of a collection of spoken sounds that is completely devoid of meaning as attached to a sign. A pictograph has inherent meaning and is therefore much easier to memorize. They are literally stylized pictures.

 

Deaf kids in English speaking countries need to read English and learning to read some transcribed version of ASL is not going to assist them. It's going to take up time that should be spent on English literacy. If you want to present material to a deaf person in their own language, you record it on video. That's what they do.

 

Not arguing that point at all. Not saying this is what should be done. Like I said before, I was addressing PP's comment that the problem of deaf kids' literacy in a written language would be much easier if they could read and write their *own* language. Reading and writing aren't the same thing as watching a video - the same as an audiobook isn't the same thing as braille to a blind person.

 

 

If this were accurate, I would be able to translate Chinese characters into English.

 

Yes, this is 100% accurate. It would be gramatically incorrect, of course, because it's Chinese, not English. But each sign could be read as an English word and you'd get the gist of the meaning. For example, I can read the Chinese sentence "I be center country person," and as long as I know that in Chinese "center country" refers to China (one's own country is always the center of the world ;)), I can figure out that the sentence means "I am Chinese".

 

To make pictographs that easy to decipher, means you are making pictographs that are impractical for writing. If a written system is that cumbersome, it won't be used.

 

That's why I thought it would be easier to use Chinese than to invent a new pictographal system - they've already worked out all those kinks. There are 20-something "radicals" in Chinese that convey base meaning. The more complex characters are based on combinations and extensions of those base characters, and still convey meaning, though not always literal. You can't literally decipher new characters without memorizing them, but if you know the meaning of the component parts, it can assist greatly in memorizing new characters. For example, the Chinese character for "peace" is the character for "woman" under a roof, because apparently culturally having a woman in the house is peaceful. The character for "good" is the character for "woman" placed next to the character for "child". The character for "faith" is the character for "man" next to the character for "speak". The character for "to divine" combined with the character for "mouth" becomes the character for "prophecy".

 

 

As I said in a previous post, unless you can transcribe the parts of ASL that aren't actual signs, you aren't reading or writing ASL. You are reading and writing Signed English or some kind of pidgeon version of ASL. Can you think of a way of writing down mime?

 

That's not true. Signs are discrete, or you couldn't learn them. If you write them down in order, you're writing sign, not English. I have an ASL book right here that "writes" sign using English words, for English speakers to be able to get a handle on ASL grammar. Here's an example sentence:

 

Telephone number woman she-give-me should she, which translates to the English "The woman should give me the telephone number." In a pictographic representation, "she-give-me" would have only one character, as it's only one sign (and I'm pretty sure the sign doesn't actually indicate gender; it's just necessary for it to be comprehensible in English). Yeah, *I* need the English to figure it out, but if I were a child that only knew sign, that's a clumsy way of writing it out.

 

Things like facial expressions or classifiers to a base sign could be written either as separate characters or as some kind of markings above/near the pictograph, as vowels are written optionally in some non-Latin languages.

 

Also, deaf communities already have story telling traditions and a strong history of theatre. In my opinion, which isn't worth much since I've never asked anyone else about it, written signed languages are culturally inappropriate.

 

I'm not sure why it's any more inappropriate than Braille to a blind person? The printed word can be parsed by the brain much more quickly than the spoken word - and audiobooks and signed videos are both the "spoken" word.

 

The transcribed version of Auslan is only used by linguists, and the deaf have no desire to use it.

 

And why would they? Transcribed sign by definition is for people who are not native signers and need to have it explained to them and translated into *their* native language. It would be ridiculously complex for a native speaker to want to learn read or write.

 

They read and write in English because that is the gateway to the outside world.

 

I totally understand and get this. Again, I was just responding to the PP's post and saying that *if* one wanted a readable, writable version of a signed langauge, pictographs would be the way to go. I'm not saying it should be done, just having an intellectual flight of fancy on what could be a good way to go about it *if* that were the goal.

 

I'm not trying to argue that it's a realistic goal in the real world, especially a real word, that as you quite rightly say, often doesn't even value teaching deaf kids a true signed languge (rather than something like signed English) in the first place. :glare:

[Rosie_0801]

That's why I thought it would be easier to use Chinese than to invent a new pictographal system - they've already worked out all those kinks. There are 20-something "radicals" in Chinese that convey base meaning. The more complex characters are based on combinations and extensions of those base characters, and still convey meaning, though not always literal. You can't literally decipher new characters without memorizing them, but if you know the meaning of the component parts, it can assist greatly in memorizing new characters. For example, the Chinese character for "peace" is the character for "woman" under a roof, because apparently culturally having a woman in the house is peaceful. The character for "good" is the character for "woman" placed next to the character for "child". The character for "faith" is the character for "man" next to the character for "speak". The character for "to divine" combined with the character for "mouth" becomes the character for "prophecy".

So you are suggesting the pictographs of ASL to be composed of morphemes rather than phonemes? That's not going to be a simple system either.

 

That's not true. Signs are discrete, or you couldn't learn them. If you write them down in order, you're writing sign, not English. I have an ASL book right here that "writes" sign using English words, for English speakers to be able to get a handle on ASL grammar. Things like facial expressions or classifiers to a base sign could be written either as separate characters or as some kind of markings above/near the pictograph, as vowels are written optionally in some non-Latin languages.

There is more to ASL than the lexicon and syntax. If you can't transcribe those other things, then you can not put ASL down on paper. You are only putting parts of ASL on paper. It would not be difficult, in theory, to add dicretic marks (or whatever they are called,) as you are saying. A notation for raised eyebrows or lowered eyebrows would be quite straightforward. However, you couldn't hope to find a way of marking all the different nuances a face can achieve with expression. Classifiers are also difficult. You may have some examples in your book of classifiers, such as the pronoun classifiers. You won't have the more complex classifiers in your book though, because there are a multitude of different things a pair of hands can do.

 

 

I'm not sure why it's any more inappropriate than Braille to a blind person? The printed word can be parsed by the brain much more quickly than the spoken word - and audiobooks and signed videos are both the "spoken" word.

Braille is not so easy to learn that everyone can do it. I've only met two blind people. One had given up on trying to learn braille. Funnily enough, I never thought of asking the other whether she used braille, and if she did, whether she preferred to access information via braille or audiobook. And even if I had, two isn't a very impressive sample group, heheh. You are right that a video is the equivalent of the spoken word, but that is entirely appropriate for a culture based off a visual language.

 

Transcribed sign by definition is for people who are not native signers and need to have it explained to them and translated into *their* native language. It would be ridiculously complex for a native speaker to want to learn read or write.

Ok, so we both agree that it is not a useful tool for native signers. It would be no use to a non-signer trying to learn either, unless it was based off the phonemes and we've both discarded that, though for different reasons. So, it seems that we haven't any use other than for linguists.

 

I'm not sure how much longer we can debate this issue, but I'm going out in about half an hour and won't be back until Saturday arvo some time. ;)

 

Rosie

[Matryoshka]

So you are suggesting the pictographs of ASL to be composed of morphemes rather than phonemes? That's not going to be a simple system either.

 

I'm not even suggesting morpheme - I'm suggesting pictograph. A phoneme makes no sense at all, since there are no phonetics in a signed language.

 

There is more to ASL than the lexicon and syntax. If you can't transcribe those other things, then you can not put ASL down on paper. You are only putting parts of ASL on paper. It would not be difficult, in theory, to add dicretic marks (or whatever they are called,) as you are saying. A notation for raised eyebrows or lowered eyebrows would be quite straightforward. However, you couldn't hope to find a way of marking all the different nuances a face can achieve with expression. Classifiers are also difficult. You may have some examples in your book of classifiers, such as the pronoun classifiers. You won't have the more complex classifiers in your book though, because there are a multitude of different things a pair of hands can do.

 

No written langauge can hope to transcribe a complete living language. That's why email is such a horrible communication medium for transmitting nuance of meaning and why people are constantly misreading others' intentions, and why emoticons are used so much. We all keep saying that email can't possibly transmit the nuance of tone, facial expression, etc. that really show the intent behind someone's word. The written word by definition is a shadow of living, interactive language between two people having a conversation. It's a great way to take notes and absorb information quickly, however.

 

Braille is not so easy to learn that everyone can do it. I've only met two blind people. One had given up on trying to learn braille. Funnily enough, I never thought of asking the other whether she used braille, and if she did, whether she preferred to access information via braille or audiobook.

 

Since the advent of the technology for audiobooks, Braille fell out of fashion. The thinking was why go through the work of teaching Braille when people can just listen to audiobooks? But statistics have shown that blind people who are literate in Braille are hugely more likely to be gainfully employed members of society. 90% of the blind jobholders in the US are Braille literate. Only 12% of blind children in the US can read Braille, down from 50% in the 1960s (exact statistics thanks to a quick google search, but I already knew the ballpark was around there) - methinks this is not because it's harder to learn now, but because they don't emphasize teaching it. This seems very akin to the demphasis of ASL to promote trying to speak/lip-read in the deaf.

 

I'm not sure how much longer we can debate this issue, but I'm going out in about half an hour and won't be back until Saturday arvo some time. ;)

 

Hey Rosie, it's been fun! :D Speaking of the inadequacy of the written word to convey tone, I've had a ball of a time chit-chatting about this, hijacking the poor OP's thread (sorry!) and generally fantasizing about the feasibility of this hypothetical exercise. :tongue_smilie: I just love language and comparative linguistics. Don't get a chance to actually converse about it much... Here it's quarter to one in the morning and I should probably be heading to bed soon...

[zaichiki]

Since the advent of the technology for audiobooks, Braille fell out of fashion. The thinking was why go through the work of teaching Braille when people can just listen to audiobooks? But statistics have shown that blind people who are literate in Braille are hugely more likely to be gainfully employed members of society. 90% of the blind jobholders in the US are Braille literate. Only 12% of blind children in the US can read Braille, down from 50% in the 1960s (exact statistics thanks to a quick google search, but I already knew the ballpark was around there) - methinks this is not because it's harder to learn now, but because they don't emphasize teaching it. This seems very akin to the demphasis of ASL to promote trying to speak/lip-read in the deaf..

 

I wonder if fewer blind kids are being taught Braille because of medical advances... and the high number of blind children (at schools for the blind) who have multiple disabilities. It used to be that most blind children at schools for the blind were "just" blind. Nowadays, with medical advances in surgeries and technoolgy, many "blind" children are functioning more like the sighted. Schools for the blind often have more children with low IQs, developmental delays, and neurological damage than ever before.

 

Also, most deaf children are born into hearing families who don't know any sign language... and with the recent advances in cochlear implants, most hearing families are more likely to lean in that direction. Indeed, many of the "leading" schools for the Deaf in the US now also have cochlear implant programs, where the kids are being exposed to spoken language on a daily basis.

 

Instead of "falling out of fashion" I wonder if medical and technological advances offer more children the "opportunity" to access information without the use of Braille and ASL.

[zaichiki]

mmconde,

 

I noticed, while teaching at a few schools for the Deaf, that most of the children of Deaf parents (those kids who actually learned ASL as their first and native language at the typical age kids learn native languages) were reading and writing on grade level right into high school. The kids who came from hearing families (90%) who had little to no access to any language until pre-school age were the ones struggling to learn English.

 

This holds true if you communicate with Deaf adults who were raised in literate Deaf families (fluent in ASL and who also read English to their kids), like the Suppalas.

 

I think that, instead of not having access to a written form of their native language, the reason so many deaf people cannot read beyond a 3/4th grade leve is because they did not have access to a native language during the time period necessary to acquire a native language.

 

I also believe that those deaf people who spend a lot of time with English in the written form will become more able to read and write it fluently. I have Deaf friends who came from hearing families that did not sign, but who have, growing up, spent many hours with their noses in books. It makes a difference.

 

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, as my knowledge of the linguistic issues related to ASL comes from non-ASL signing professors and studies. I know almost nothing about Auslan.

 

I noticed on another thread on this blog a discussion of parents who choose not to learn and use ASL with their deaf children. Many of these parents choose instead to use a combination of signed English and, often, intensive training in lip reading for the child. They want their children to learn English, their own native language, and as stated, it is easier for other family members to learn hand gestures to accompany words than to learn a whole new language. But another legitimate concern which generally motivates these parents is that, because there is no widely used written form of ASL, their children's academic and intellectual attainment will be impeded if they learn ASL instead of signed English. (There are several forms for transcribing ASL, but they are overly technical, inefficient, and space-consumptive. Some of them are not adapted for computer use. For these reasons, they have never caught on much with the signing community in the United States.) Most ASL speakers read English to some degree, but it is very difficult for them to obtain full mastery of this foreign language which is based on a phonetic system. Every word they learn is a 'sight word'. Because of this, the average literacy level of ASL signers is understandably lower than native English speakers.

 

Personally, I do not believe it is fair to these deaf children to deny them ASL in an effort to make them learn English. A spoken language can never become completely native to a deaf person, and this leaves these children lacking both a native language in which they can readily communicate and a community with which to do so. However, these parents' concern over their children's literary and scholastic attainment is legitimate. Currently, the only option between the two is to learn ASL and to conduct an intensive study of English as a foreign language in order to gain access to literature. Many people do this successfully, but if there were a good written form of ASL, the problem of limited literacy among the signing community could be done away with.

 

It is my opinion that books enrich the lives of those who read them, and everyone should have access to literature in their native language.

[zaichiki]

I know nothing of how ASL or other signed languages are transcribed for speech, but I was just thinking how much sense it would make to use a pictoral transcription system already in existence - Chinese characters. Then they'd be able to puzzle out actual written Chinese as well if they wanted to. ;)

 

It's interesting to note that Deaf people in China have no "gaps" in their reading level when compared to hearing Chinese (of similar education backgrounds of course). So... there ya go. Studies have been done.

[Rosie_0801]

Oh groovy, the conversation is still going! ;)

 

I'm not even suggesting morpheme - I'm suggesting pictograph. A phoneme makes no sense at all, since there are no phonetics in a signed language.

There are. I've already told you:

Handshape

Orientation (which way the palm and fingers are pointing)

Location

Movement

Expression.

Anyway, early languages that used pictographs that looked like something morphed into our modern alphabets for very good reason. Pictographs like that are cumbersome. If the pictograph is not iconic, as in you can see what it means by looking at it, but stylised like Chinese, you have an arbitary system that is no improvement on learning English as sight words. How are you going to draw a pictograph to avoid both of those issues?

 

 

No written langauge can hope to transcribe a complete living language. That's why email is such a horrible communication medium for transmitting nuance of meaning and why people are constantly misreading others' intentions, and why emoticons are used so much.

You are right, of course. However, transcribing a signed language without facial expressions is like writing English and leaving out the vowels. I get that written Hebrew has worked out that problem. Now, as I've explained, signed languages have other features like mime and classifiers. Neglecting to transcribe them would be like leaving out most of the adjectives and adverbs in English. If we were to leave out the adjectives, adverbs and vowels, we wouldn't have written English, would we?

 

 

Since the advent of the technology for audiobooks, Braille fell out of fashion. The thinking was why go through the work of teaching Braille when people can just listen to audiobooks? But statistics have shown that blind people who are literate in Braille are hugely more likely to be gainfully employed members of society. 90% of the blind jobholders in the US are Braille literate. Only 12% of blind children in the US can read Braille, down from 50% in the 1960s (exact statistics thanks to a quick google search, but I already knew the ballpark was around there) - methinks this is not because it's harder to learn now, but because they don't emphasize teaching it.

Well that's interesting. I wonder why it turns out that way? Is Braille such a wonderful thing on the resume that employers are jumping to hire Braille literate people? Or is it that the Braille literate people happen to have learned that in the course of their vastly superior education?

 

 

 

Hey Rosie, it's been fun! :D Speaking of the inadequacy of the written word to convey tone, I've had a ball of a time chit-chatting about this, hijacking the poor OP's thread (sorry!) and generally fantasizing about the feasibility of this hypothetical exercise. :tongue_smilie: I just love language and comparative linguistics. Don't get a chance to actually converse about it much... Here it's quarter to one in the morning and I should probably be heading to bed soon...

Oh, no probs, Love. Lets have this conversation again when you're fluent in ASL ;) :tongue_smilie:

 

Also, most deaf children are born into hearing families who don't know any sign language... and with the recent advances in cochlear implants, most hearing families are more likely to lean in that direction. Indeed, many of the "leading" schools for the Deaf in the US now also have cochlear implant programs, where the kids are being exposed to spoken language on a daily basis.

Instead of "falling out of fashion" I wonder if medical and technological advances offer more children the "opportunity" to access information without the use of Braille and ASL.

I don't know what your experiences are, so don't be offended if I appear to be talking down to you, ok! Anyway, don't think of the cochlear implant as a cure-all. The technology hasn't advanced that far yet. What it does, at the moment, is turn a profoundly deaf child into a hard of hearing child, and that has it's own set of issues. Perhaps in the future, it will fix all problems, but for now, it is possible for the installation of the cochlear implant to actually decrease hearing.

Also, you'd be surprised the amount of deaf kids with cochlear implants who are in deaf units in schools, being taught in Auslan. Even with the implant, Auslan is more efficient. One of the major providers of deaf education in Auslan in our state is full to the brim with kids who have cochlear implants. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen one of their students who didn't have one.

 

mmconde,

I noticed, while teaching at a few schools for the Deaf, that most of the children of Deaf parents (those kids who actually learned ASL as their first and native language at the typical age kids learn native languages) were reading and writing on grade level right into high school. The kids who came from hearing families (90%) who had little to no access to any language until pre-school age were the ones struggling to learn English.

This holds true if you communicate with Deaf adults who were raised in literate Deaf families (fluent in ASL and who also read English to their kids), like the Suppalas.

I think that, instead of not having access to a written form of their native language, the reason so many deaf people cannot read beyond a 3/4th grade leve is because they did not have access to a native language during the time period necessary to acquire a native language.

I also believe that those deaf people who spend a lot of time with English in the written form will become more able to read and write it fluently. I have Deaf friends who came from hearing families that did not sign, but who have, growing up, spent many hours with their noses in books. It makes a difference.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

It's interesting to note that Deaf people in China have no "gaps" in their reading level when compared to hearing Chinese (of similar education backgrounds of course). So... there ya go. Studies have been done.

Hey! Do you have a source for that info? I've read about Sweden and Denmark, but not China. Or, what I've read about China is that their Deaf were hidden out of sight as an embarrassment in the same way our cultures used to in times past. How interesting! New info!!

 

Rosie

[Renai]

That confused me too - I'm quite familiar with the differences between Argentinian Spanish and other regional Spanish dialects/variants, but I'd never heard it referred to as Castellano - I've always heard Castellano used to refer to the Spanish spoken in the Castillian region of Spain - kind of the Spanish equivalent of High German.

 

 

Really? I hear it referred to all the time, but never really paid attention to the conversations. I'm on a loop of Spanish-speaking homeschoolers from all over the world, and have seen references to Castellano vs. other spoken Spanish, and they weren't from Castille. (They were curriculum conversations, not a "my Spanish is better than yours type conversation" :tongue_smilie:. Just thought I should clarify.) Then again, like I said before, I never really paid attention to the conversations.

 

Maybe Castillian is also referring to the Spanish that came from Castille and planted in whatever country they were the majority? I have no idea. I've never studied the history of regional placement.

 

Interesting conversation.

[zaichiki]

Hey! Do you have a source for that info? I've read about Sweden and Denmark, but not China. Or, what I've read about China is that their Deaf were hidden out of sight as an embarrassment in the same way our cultures used to in times past. How interesting! New info!!

 

Rosie

 

Rosie,

Several years ago I worked with another teacher, who was Deaf, from a Chinese family in Malaysia. I was privvy to discussions with her and other teachers/researchers about deaf people and reading Chinese characters. It was years ago... so the only way I could find any references now would be an internet search. I'm SURE info is readily available.

 

(Re: "hiding away the deaf in China"

I know that there are special orphanages in China for special needs kids. I know several families who specifically adopted from China in order to adopt deaf children... However, there are also Deaf people functioning and living in China's mainstream nowadays.)

[Mabelen]

Really? I hear it referred to all the time, but never really paid attention to the conversations. I'm on a loop of Spanish-speaking homeschoolers from all over the world, and have seen references to Castellano vs. other spoken Spanish, and they weren't from Castille. (They were curriculum conversations, not a "my Spanish is better than yours type conversation" :tongue_smilie:. Just thought I should clarify.) Then again, like I said before, I never really paid attention to the conversations.

 

Maybe Castillian is also referring to the Spanish that came from Castille and planted in whatever country they were the majority? I have no idea. I've never studied the history of regional placement.

 

Interesting conversation.

 

It is a regional preference issue. Some Spanish speaking countries seem to prefer to use castellano vs español and viceversa to refer to the Spanish language. In Spain you will hear both terms used interchangeably, but there is a huge controversy on this subject (with the political background of other Spanish languages spoken in certain regions in Spain such as Basque, Catalan, Galician etc which are official languages in their respective regions but not across Spain).

[zaichiki]

I don't know what your experiences are, so don't be offended if I appear to be talking down to you, ok! Anyway, don't think of the cochlear implant as a cure-all. The technology hasn't advanced that far yet. What it does, at the moment, is turn a profoundly deaf child into a hard of hearing child, and that has it's own set of issues. Perhaps in the future, it will fix all problems, but for now, it is possible for the installation of the cochlear implant to actually decrease hearing.

Also, you'd be surprised the amount of deaf kids with cochlear implants who are in deaf units in schools, being taught in Auslan. Even with the implant, Auslan is more efficient. One of the major providers of deaf education in Auslan in our state is full to the brim with kids who have cochlear implants. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen one of their students who didn't have one.

 

Rosie,

I know next-to-nothing about CIs in Australia, but if I can generalize from what I know about them here in the US... sigh... I know a lot. I know babies, kids, and adults who have had the surgery. I know of cases where it was "like a miracle" and cases where the CI ended up being ignored/abandoned. I know of cases of multiple surgeries for problems with the technology. I know about the HUGE improvements in the technology over the last 15 years. Anyway... let's just say I know about a lot of successes and a lot of failures. It's become VERY common here and there are success stories. Those success stories are the reason CIs are so popular in hearing families. There has been signifcant internal struggling in the American Deaf culture, too (several pendulum swings and a LOT of heartache). It's not an easy topic for discussion.

 

Cheers,

[Matryoshka]

Really? I hear it referred to all the time, but never really paid attention to the conversations. I'm on a loop of Spanish-speaking homeschoolers from all over the world, and have seen references to Castellano vs. other spoken Spanish, and they weren't from Castille. (They were curriculum conversations, not a "my Spanish is better than yours type conversation" :tongue_smilie:. Just thought I should clarify.) Then again, like I said before, I never really paid attention to the conversations.

 

 

I've heard "Castellano" used for "Spanish" much more in Spain than in Latin America - to the point where I interpreted it a bit to differentiate between the Spanish from Spain (where Castile is) and Latin American Spanish variants, but I've only lived in Spain and Mexico. But I've certainly never heard it referred to specifically as the Argentinian variant of Spanish. I looked it up on Google Spain (thought a Spanish language site would have a more definitive opinion than an English language search). Seems the two terms are seen as synonyms, at least by linguists.

 

here's an interesting snippet:

 

12. ¿Castellano o Español?

Esta lengua también se llama castellano, por ser el nombre de la comunidad lingüística que habló esta modalidad románica en tiempos medievales: Castilla. Existe alguna polémica en torno a la denominación del idioma; el término español es relativamente reciente y no es admitido por los muchos hablantes bilingües del Estado Español, pues entienden que español incluye los términos valenciano, gallego, catalán y vasco, idiomas a su vez de consideración oficial dentro del territorio de sus comunidades autónomas respectivas; son esos hablantes bilingües quienes proponen volver a la denominación más antigua que tuvo la lengua, castellano entendido como 'lengua de Castilla'.

En los países hispanoamericanos se ha conservado esta denominación y no plantean dificultad especial a la hora de entender como sinónimos los términos castellano y español.

 

And here's something from Spanish-language Wiki (yes, I know, not definitive) - but interesting:

 

La polémica en torno a los términos español y castellano estriba en si resulta más apropiado denominar a la lengua hablada en Hispanoamérica, en España y en otras zonas hispanoparlantes «español» o «castellano», o bien si ambas son formas perfectamente sinónimas y aceptables, que es actualmente el criterio académico.

Como muchas de las controversias relacionadas con la denominación de una lengua identificable con un determinado territorio (español con España, y castellano con Castilla), o que lleva aparejada una ideología o un pasado histórico que provoca rechazo, o que implica una lucha en favor de una denominación única para facilitar su identificación internacional y la localización de las producciones en dicha lengua (por ejemplo, en redes informáticas), la controversia es de raíz ideológica, política y económica.

Desde el punto de vista estrictamente lingüístico, no hay preferencias por una denominación u otra.

Edited November 17, 2009 by matroyshka

[Rosie_0801]

Aha! http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1328254#post1328254

Mobile phones are very important in the Deaf community, so if they were to use a pictographic system it'd have to work this way.

 

Rosie

[Renai]

Aha! http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1328254#post1328254

Mobile phones are very important in the Deaf community, so if they were to use a pictographic system it'd have to work this way.

 

Rosie

 

 

The Deaf guest speaker in our class last night says they text a lot :D (in English, with the common acronyms).

Edited November 19, 2009 by Renai

[Matryoshka]

Aha! http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1328254#post1328254

Mobile phones are very important in the Deaf community, so if they were to use a pictographic system it'd have to work this way.

 

That's why I thought it would be cool to use Chinese characters - no reinventing the wheel. You could even use existing technology.

 

There are. I've already told you:

Handshape

Orientation (which way the palm and fingers are pointing)

Location

Movement

Expression.

Anyway, early languages that used pictographs that looked like something morphed into our modern alphabets for very good reason. Pictographs like that are cumbersome. If the pictograph is not iconic, as in you can see what it means by looking at it, but stylised like Chinese, you have an arbitary system that is no improvement on learning English as sight words. How are you going to draw a pictograph to avoid both of those issues?

 

Use Chinese. As I've already said, *none* of those "phonetics" has to be included in a pictographic system, any more than actual phonetics or the multiple tones of Chinese are encoded in their pictographic writing. Pinyin is actually much more readable to a non-Chinese speaker, because it includes both phonetics and tones, but Chinese characters do not. The stytlized characters do have mental cues to help figure out what the words *mean* (which phonetic systems do not, making them hard to memorize as sight units), but they do not give any instructions on how to say the word (or if you used in for a signed language, how to sign it). The pictographs in Chinese morphed from their ancient beginnings, but not into an alphabet. They stubbornly remain pictographs. Yes, they are stylized, but still iconic.

 

Do any of the other linguaphiles on this board know if there even is another modern language whose written form is 100% pictographic rather than at least partially phonetic? Japanese uses many of the Chinese pictographs, but it also has two phonetic alphabets to supplement it (I'd say a signed language is much more suited to a pictographic system than Japanese is, which has managed to make it work anyway). Does Korean have phonetic cues - I'm kind of thinking it does, but I really know next to nothing about Korean... Most of the other non-Latin writing systems I can think of (Cyrillic, Arabic, the various Indian languages) are phonetic.

[Nan in Mass]

I recently got an earfull from a grandmother of a deaf girl with CIs. I made the assumption that the girl spoke ASL as well as English, since I had been told by numerous people that it was detrimental not to have a mother tongue (or several) from birth and I had been told that she didn't get the implants until she was older. Nope. The family deliberately did kept the girl from being exposed to ASL so she would have only English. They fought the school system every time they wanted to give her any sort of extra help. They did not want their daughter considered deaf. The parents were hearing. The grandmother said that the deaf community is divided, often bitterly so, on this issue. She couldn't understand "why you would want anything less than English for your child because anything limits their ability to communicate with the rest of the world". It took me awhile to realize that this was a cultural issue, much like Cleo saying that her family doesn't speak English at home (even though she has gone to great effort to make her children bilingual) and has no intention of speaking English at home - they are French. I'm still not sure why being bilingual in English and ASL is bad, but obviously this was a hot issue for her family.

-Nan

[Renai]

I recently got an earfull from a grandmother of a deaf girl with CIs. I made the assumption that the girl spoke ASL as well as English, since I had been told by numerous people that it was detrimental not to have a mother tongue (or several) from birth and I had been told that she didn't get the implants until she was older. Nope. The family deliberately did kept the girl from being exposed to ASL so she would have only English. They fought the school system every time they wanted to give her any sort of extra help. They did not want their daughter considered deaf. The parents were hearing. The grandmother said that the deaf community is divided, often bitterly so, on this issue. She couldn't understand "why you would want anything less than English for your child because anything limits their ability to communicate with the rest of the world". It took me awhile to realize that this was a cultural issue, much like Cleo saying that her family doesn't speak English at home (even though she has gone to great effort to make her children bilingual) and has no intention of speaking English at home - they are French. I'm still not sure why being bilingual in English and ASL is bad, but obviously this was a hot issue for her family.

-Nan

 

It seems to be more of an issue with hearing parents of deaf children, and the stigma of deafness being a "disability." Therefore, knowing ASL isn't seen as an issue of bilingualism or culturalism (ie, Deaf Culture with the big-D), but as an issue of "curing" or covering up a defect (I am using "defect" tongue-in-cheek). The Deaf Culture says don't look at our "defect," look at who we are. And denying the right to be able to communicate, to have a language, from an early age (many children aren't diagnosed as deaf until 2 years old) is a travesty.

[Rosie_0801]

Yes, they are stylized, but still iconic.

 

 

Argh! In my opinion, if they were really iconic, you wouldn't need to work so hard to learn how to see the iconic nature. If you are going to work that hard at learning to see the iconic nature, you might as well just learn to read English as sight words since you are going to have to since English literacy is kind of important in America. Or move to Hong Kong so there is somewhere to use Chinese.

 

Plus, we still haven't found a way to transcribe many of the the non-word elements. Or I haven't, anyway. Do you have ideas on how to turn mime into pictographs without requiring a cartoon strip length of explanations?

 

Anyway, I think we should just get over it now since we both agree that a written form of ASL is unnecessary. I'm not even sure why I started up again. I guess I can't help myself, hehehe.

 

And yeah, I don't know how deliberately hampering your child's ability to learn a natural language isn't considered neglect. It leads to the big question, doesn't it? "What about socialization?":lol: Except it really isn't a laughing matter. I think a lot of the problem is the expectations parents have of their children's communication skills. They say "Oh, we're doing fine" when their child is one. Of course they are doing fine. When your child is one, you don't really expect an answer. Will they be doing so fine when the child is four? Probably not. If the child is profoundly deaf, they have been mooching around for four years with hardly any language input. Other kids their age are fairly proficient in their native language by then. True, the child might not be profoundly deaf, but there are no accurate tests for little kiddies, so what appears to be a mild hearing loss might not be, and even a mild hearing loss excludes the child from overhearing conversation in the home and elsewhere. Imagine that child trying to join in conversation during the add breaks over dinner? Their family members will have stopped speaking and someone else will be taking a turn before the deaf kiddie has figured out who was speaking first. Then they give up.

 

Anyway, people call CPS for far lesser things than not teaching a language in an appropriate way for the child to learn, don't they? If speaking a community language at home doesn't prevent a person from learning the majority language, why should signing a community language prevent a person learning the majority language? It's not like the brain is only able to learn one language. People don't think properly, and worse, people who don't think properly are dispensing advice to other people who trust them instead of thinking properly. Instead of talking to doctors about the issue, parents should be speaking to linguists!

 

Oops. That turned into a rant...

 

Rosie

[zaichiki]

True, the child might not be profoundly deaf, but there are no accurate tests for little kiddies, so what appears to be a mild hearing loss might not be, and even a mild hearing loss excludes the child from overhearing conversation in the home and elsewhere.

 

What about the ABR? Or am I missing something? Hospitals here in the US (in many states but it is not yet required in all states, I think) do hearing tests on newborns. That would be the ABR, right?

[Rosie_0801]

What about the ABR? Or am I missing something? Hospitals here in the US (in many states but it is not yet required in all states, I think) do hearing tests on newborns. That would be the ABR, right?

 

Not sure what it is called. They offer the tests here too, but they are notoriously inaccurate. You know what babies are like, hearing doesn't mean they feel like reacting.

 

Rosie

[Matryoshka]

Argh! In my opinion, if they were really iconic, you wouldn't need to work so hard to learn how to see the iconic nature.

 

Have you studied Chinese characters at all? It's not as hard as you'd think. I have two books that are great - one that shows the development of Chinese characters from the original more picture-like ancient symbol to the modern one; that helps to see it. Another overlays pictures over the symbols to help memorize. If you had to memorize them stroke-by-stroke, each from scratch, it would be well nigh impossible. 1/5 of the world population reads and writes this way after all - it can't be that insurmountable.

 

Plus, we still haven't found a way to transcribe many of the the non-word elements. Or I haven't, anyway. Do you have ideas on how to turn mime into pictographs without requiring a cartoon strip length of explanations?

 

One of the premises of the thesis here is that it would be for native ASL speakers. If these non-word elements are parts of speech, like modifiers or prepositions, no need to explain; you'd just need to add another symbol - you already know how the signs are made. If you're talking about inflections in tone and meaning, well, no written language conveys that well. If I write the sentence "Get over here right now." Am I conveying anger? Fear? Sternness? If I say "That dress looks good on you." Am I giving you a compliment, or being bitingly sarcastic? No way to know in English either - without adding "he said sternly" or "she said bitingly". In internet communication, that's the reason we have all of these... :):glare::lol::blink::thumbup:

 

Japanese just added extra characters where the Chinese base characters didn't suffice. I honestly think sign could manage it without resorting to two entirely new alphabets like Japanese had to...

 

Anyway, I think we should just get over it now since we both agree that a written form of ASL is unnecessary. I'm not even sure why I started up again. I guess I can't help myself, hehehe.

 

Well, yeah... I obviously suffer from the same affliction, hehe - I tried to shut up for a couple of days, but here I am again. Too much fun - hey if we were in complete agreement there'd be nothing to talk about... :D

 

And I agree a written form of ASL isn't necessary, I can't think it wouldn't be nice to have... ;) I can't think that it wouldn't be easier to jot down notes, write a shopping list or text friends in your native language than always having to translate into a foreign one. If ASL were just signed English, that would be one thing, but as we both know, it is a distinct language with a completley different grammar, so it really is translating.

 

And yeah, I don't know how deliberately hampering your child's ability to learn a natural language isn't considered neglect.

 

Well, here we quite vehemently agree. I don't think it's just neglect, I think it's abuse, and evil to boot. Study after study after study has been done to show that there is a critical window for first language acquisition, and it's quite young, and that once that window is passed, no language becomes native. I cannot even express how I feel about people who would deny a native language to any human being.

 

My mother was an ESL teacher for years, and she could tell you firsthand that the better the children's knowledge of their native tongue, the faster they could learn English.

 

Hey, I bet the same could be true for written language - that if you know how to write in your own language, it's easier to learn to write in a second, even if it's vastly different. I bet it's easier for a literate than an illiterate native Chinese person to learn to write in English, even if they both learn to speak the language equally well. ;)

[Rosie_0801]

Have you studied Chinese characters at all? It's not as hard as you'd think. I have two books that are great - one that shows the development of Chinese characters from the original more picture-like ancient symbol to the modern one; that helps to see it. Another overlays pictures over the symbols to help memorize.

Yeah, I have seen a bit. I had a friend just over from Hong Kong in high school and she showed me some. I'd love the details of the books you mention, though. I'll bet my son will love that when he's big enough to get into "secret codes." All boys go through that stage, don't they?

 

If you had to memorize them stroke-by-stroke, each from scratch, it would be well nigh impossible. 1/5 of the world population reads and writes this way after all - it can't be that insurmountable.

Of course it is possible, but I wouldn't think the effort worthwhile for a deaf kid living in the US or Australia, that's all.. Unless they are Chinese, anyway!

 

 

One of the premises of the thesis here is that it would be for native ASL speakers. If these non-word elements are parts of speech, like modifiers or prepositions, no need to explain; you'd just need to add another symbol - you already know how the signs are made.

No, they aren't like that. They aren't signs in the same way as there is a sign for "boy," "book" or "how are you?" To write them down, you'd have to translate them into lexical items, then you wouldn't be writing the signed language, you'd be writing a pidgin signed language. If you take those elements out of a signed language, you have a pidgin or Signed English, or you'd be talking like a baby. Or talking like a "Dick and Jane" reader, heheh. It would be like adults writing in three word sentences. I can't stick my hands through the screen to show you, so you'll have to believe me. Or not believe me, heheh. Bummer. Why isn't there someone else here helping me explain?!! There are language weirdnesses when translating. For example, in a signed language there are some things you can't talk about if you don't know what they look like. That doesn't happen in English. I'm trying to think if there are similar scenarios in English. Oh, you know how the Inuit have a zillion words for different type of snow, whereas we only have a couple. Their language wouldn't be their language if the written form only had one pictograph for snow. I don't know if that is a useful example; but I'm sure you'll tell me :D I'm finding this really frustrating. I know you don't understand my explanations, but I can't figure out how to explain without actually rocking up to your house and showing you! Try writing a description of a game of charades without using words. It's kind of like that.

 

If you're talking about inflections in tone and meaning, well, no written language conveys that well.

No, I'm not talking about that stuff. That one could do without or have a question marker pictograph or something.

 

And I agree a written form of ASL isn't necessary, I can't think it wouldn't be nice to have... ;) I can't think that it wouldn't be easier to jot down notes, write a shopping list or text friends in your native language than always having to translate into a foreign one.

Heheh. To the Deaf, a written version of Sign is not their native language. They really wouldn't perceive it that way. Now, if you obliged (I hesitate to say forced) three generations of Deaf to complete all their schoolwork in it, you might have some success. However decades of oralism didn't eradicate signed languages, so it might not. If the script was less effort than writing English, maybe. If it is more cumbersome, then definitely not. People are lazy. Ever seen someone signing lazily? I've seen people not only sign one handed and abbreviate, but not actually lift their hand out of their lap. Crazily enough, other deaf will still understand them. It was certainly a struggle for me! I kind of got some of it, hehe.

 

 

My mother was an ESL teacher for years, and she could tell you firsthand that the better the children's knowledge of their native tongue, the faster they could learn English.

Well that only makes sense, doesn't it? However, signed languages (or anyone other language) aren't someone's native tongue unless they are taught it effectively, huh? Our kids would have lagged behind everyone else if we'd only whispered in their presence, huh? So, speaking so people can't hear you properly isn't an effective way to teach. Oops, ranting again... Knock it off Rosie!

 

Hey, I bet the same could be true for written language - that if you know how to write in your own language, it's easier to learn to write in a second, even if it's vastly different. I bet it's easier for a literate than an illiterate native Chinese person to learn to write in English, even if they both learn to speak the language equally well. ;)

Apart from rehashing my earlier arguments on how it wouldn't be written ASL without transcribed mime, visual venacular, visual puns and classifiers... I would imagine you are right. It probably is easier to learn to write in another language if you can already write in one. If they had the same alphabet, anyway. Adding dicretics (whatever those umlaut things are called!) isn't difficult. I wonder if being able to write in one script helps you learn to write in another? I guess it would depend if the movements used to make the letters were shared? Writing a script in straight lines probably wouldn't help you learn to write a circle based script, I wouldn't think. I don't believe it would matter in the least if it was your native language you learned to write in first or not though. I think it matters much more how well you speak the language you are writing, not which order you learned to speak them. I suppose the fine motor control you learned by practicing one would carry over to another. Anyway, I hope we haven't scared everyone else off because it would be interesting to have some comments from people who can write in different scripts.

 

:)

Rosie

Edited November 19, 2009 by Rosie_0801

[Matryoshka]

I'm finding this really frustrating. I know you don't understand my explanations, but I can't figure out how to explain without actually rocking up to your house and showing you!

 

It is annoying that you live all the way on the other side of the planet! I'd love to have you over and we could discuss this, perhaps with wine! :D I'm obviously fascinated by this and would *love* to be shown what you're talking about! If I only had endless free time and money for tutors, I'd actually love to learn both ASL and Chinese in much more depth...

 

I would imagine you are right. It probably is easier to learn to write in another language if you can already write in one. If they had the same alphabet, anyway. Adding dicretics (whatever those umlaut things are called!) isn't difficult. I wonder if being able to write in one script helps you learn to write in another? I guess it would depend if the movements used to make the letters were shared?

 

Actually, the reason I used the example of a Chinese person learning English is that the written form is vastly different. Certainly if the scripts are the same or similar it's a no brainer that it would be easier. But I was hypothesizing that perhaps there's some kind of neural connections made simply in the act of writing speech, no matter what the form, that would make writing a second one easier, even if the transcription methods were different (pictographic vs. phonetic). In a similar vein that the brain stores even a visual langauge like sign in the language center of the brain, not the visual center - that even if different, there's be something to build on. Don't know, of course, if that would be true... just thinkin'... :)

[Rosie_0801]

It is annoying that you live all the way on the other side of the planet! I'd love to have you over and we could discuss this, perhaps with wine! :D I'm obviously fascinated by this and would *love* to be shown what you're talking about! If I only had endless free time and money for tutors, I'd actually love to learn both ASL and Chinese in much more depth...

I don't drink, but you guys have root beer. I LOVE root beer and it's really hard to get here! I'm just imagining, in 7 years time you're going to bump this thread, telling me you've managed to learn sign and now understand exactly what classifiers and visual vernacular are :D Actually visual vernacular is also called "short and distance focus" and is not too tricky to explain. Well, I'll try and we'll see if it makes sense to you, heheh. It's a very good story telling technique. To avoid employing story telling techniques is to make your audience feel like they are sitting in an overheated room trying to listen to a monotone maths teacher. Anyhow, visual vernacular is like zooming in and zooming out. Zooming out would be to explain your story using mime and probably slightly exaggerated facial expressions, then to zoom in again would be to use proform classifiers (pronouns, except there are more things that behave like pronouns in Auslan than in English) then if the action you are describing is still going (maybe you are climbing a very tall ladder or walking a tightrope or something) then you might zoom back out and back in again.

 

Does your local library have ASL dvds? If they have Bravo ASL! or something like that, they'll have examples of classifiers, basic ones at least. Obviously I don't know if they will show what I'm trying to explain, but they might. I don't know if it would really sink in if they did. Not a comment on your intellect, just your way of perceiving the world. It's kind of like learning to draw, it takes ages for your eyes to really see and register the detail you look at in a way that your brain can file suitably.

 

 

 

But I was hypothesizing that perhaps there's some kind of neural connections made simply in the act of writing speech, no matter what the form, that would make writing a second one easier, even if the transcription methods were different (pictographic vs. phonetic).

 

I don't know if that would be true. I've been told by a few people that calligraphy is a different skill to handwriting, so it is possible to have shocking handwriting, but nice calligraphy. I have shoddy handwriting, but calligraphy hasn't come to the top of my priority list yet, so I can't comment personally.

 

If we have no comments on this issue by tomorrow, I think I'll have to post an invite over on the general board :D

 

;)

Rosie- enjoying the unusual situation of debating and disagreeing without anyone cracking it and storming off. :o

[zaichiki]

Not sure what it is called. They offer the tests here too, but they are notoriously inaccurate. You know what babies are like, hearing doesn't mean they feel like reacting.

 

Rosie

 

No, Rosie. The ABR tests the responses of the brain stem. In fact, I believe they do the testing when the newborns are asleep. If I remember correctly the test has good accuracy.

[Nan in Mass]

I guess (trying to be charitable here) I can see why one might possibly think it would be worth the suffering if there weren't a perfectly good REAL language available and one didn't know it was a bad idea not to have a language from birth. Does it work in enough cases to be worth the risk, though? I thought there was a developmental window for language? My CI sample of one is reportedly managing high school without a problem, but I haven't heard of any others. Your description could well match this grandmother. No one else in the family is deaf. In the course of the conversation, she mentioned the ability to go to college and she definately didn't want to hear that there was a deaf dorm at my college and interpreters standing in front of many of my classes. She was forceful enough that I never asked why the girl couldn't learn both. The family seemed to be taking pride in the fact that the girl didn't speak ASL. I suppose it is the same with many immigrant families (without that developmental window bit), and that is why so many people here don't know the language their grandparents spoke. Sad.

[Renai]

I'm finding this really frustrating. I know you don't understand my explanations, but I can't figure out how to explain without actually rocking up to your house and showing you!

 

It is annoying that you live all the way on the other side of the planet!

 

 

Well girls, there's always Skype...but that would leave the rest of us out and I'm quite enjoying this! :D

[Nan in Mass]

Me, too. And I'm glad to have the child abuse thing discussed. I was trying to be polite in case I was wrong, but they were pretty adamant about that in my linguistic anthropology class.

 

It took my Classical Greek class less than a week to learn to write in Greek. Some of the letters are the same but quite a number of them are different. I happened to be better at reading the Greek aloud than most of my class because I discovered that I could memorize my vocab flashcards in half the time if I never saw them after I made them. My boyfriend-now-husband held the flashcards. It took about one set of vocabulary words for him to learn to read the Greek to me. Because I had learned the words orally, I could read aloud better than the rest of the class, who I think must have learned them as sightwords and didn't really know what they sounded like. The whole Greek alphabet part was a non-issue.

[Rosie_0801]

No, Rosie. The ABR tests the responses of the brain stem. In fact, I believe they do the testing when the newborns are asleep. If I remember correctly the test has good accuracy.

 

For picking up severe levels of some kinds of deafness, yes. It's not a thorough test though. According to my dh, the only question it really answers is "Does my child have a severe hearing loss?" And while that's good to know, it isn't an answer with much detail. Bear in mind, dh is working off seven year old info, so perhaps the test has improved now. It still wouldn't pick up a hearing loss that is located higher in the brain than the brain stem.

 

Rosie

[Rosie_0801]

She was forceful enough that I never asked why the girl couldn't learn both. .

 

That was very polite of you. It really isn't nice to challenge people's world views ;)

 

I think the major problem, as I've probably said, is that parents are receiving advice from medical professionals. They know about the medical point of view, but know bugger all about cultural issues, linguistic issues, education issues and don't think any further than learning to speak. Of course, they are mostly dealing with people who want to be reassured their children will be normal (meaning that they will learn to speak.) The parents who want more than that will search further afield and make their own decisions based on their research. If the doctors were to say "Your child is deaf and will learn English most effectively as a second language after learning [local sign language.] You can call [these people] to get access to tutors who will come to your home. If you don't do this, your relationship with your child will suffer due to lack of communication. Children who do not have strong and healthy relationships with their families are at great risk of [great long list of things including poor academic achievement, unemployment, teen pregnancies, catching stds, suicide and all that]" I bet parents would be much more able to learn not to bother talking to the back of their deaf toddler's head.

 

Obviously we can't say stuff like that to people though.

 

One of my teachers at tafe (similar to community college, I think) freely told us that she wagged her brother's wedding to go on a camp with her deaf friends. Most of us wouldn't dream of doing that, even if we didn't really like our brother and knew we'd be bored to death.

 

Ah well. If I dwell on this, I'll get depressed! At least if my kids go deaf it won't be until their late teens. By that time, they will be bilingual (or multilingual if I get my way) and properly socialized! Seriously, when my dh was a teacher of the deaf, he had to explain stds to one year 11 girl, because she really didn't know that info. There's a person at great risk of catching something, huh?

 

Rosie

[Nan in Mass]

Not polite - cowardly. The lady is a large, forceful pirate. I am a small timid housewife.

[Rosie_0801]

Cowardly? I'm all for self preservation! I'm willing to take a few verbal punches if I think it'll help, but see no reason to invite them if I'm sure it won't.

 

Rosie- who knows what small, timid housewives can do if you catch them the wrong way!

[Nan in Mass]

LOL - Thanks, Rosie.