General Election
Bosco
if any political parties have made a statement on the recognition of
British Sign Language or what? Has Deaf voters made any impression on
the parties? I understand that the Lib. Democrats are more favourable
to the idea of recognition but I could not find any reference in their
manifesto.
Any comment?
Bosco
Roy Staines
None of the parties has made a commitment to the recognition of BSL though
individual candidates will say he/she endorses it.
Roy.
Philocophus
never been officially enshrined in law as the language of England?
Philocophus
"Roy Staines" <Roy.S...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:B73EC252.413%Roy.S...@btinternet.com...
Jules Bradford
officially so going by these old laws we should be talking French thanks to
a French King we once had once upon a time !! IS also why English has many
strange spellings, apparently the French ruler (and don't ask me which one I
forget!) decided we spelt things awkwardly and changed some of the spellings
to an easier way!!
Thus ends your history lesson for today *G*
--
Jules Bradford
Unless it's mad, passionate, extraordinary love,it's a waste of your time.
There are too many mediocre things in life. Love shouldn't be one of them.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mail4julie/home.html
Philocophus <Philo...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:thi68cg...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.252 / Virus Database: 125 - Release Date: 09/05/01
Kevin Balaam
"Jules Bradford" <js...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9tcS6.12287$HL5.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> England's official language was once French and has never been
changed
> officially so going by these old laws we should be talking French
thanks to
> a French King we once had once upon a time !! IS also why English
has many
> strange spellings, apparently the French ruler (and don't ask me
which one I
> forget!) decided we spelt things awkwardly and changed some of the
spellings
> to an easier way!!
>
> Thus ends your history lesson for today *G*
>
> --
> Jules Bradford
The French would probably argue we should all be talking French no
matter what country we live in or what the law says!!<g>
--
/ Kevin
Spill "your.guts." to reply by email.
Alex Buell
> The French would probably argue we should all be talking French no
> matter what country we live in or what the law says!!<g>
To that, I say.. "va t'en!" ;o)
Alex.
--
I'm too sexy for you.
Doug McLean
visited Gloucestershire to see how we work with Deaf people. This I
believe, was on the suggestion of our local Labour MP who interested,
having being lobbied by us, is a strong supporter of recognising BSL.
We used the occasion to introduce the PM via an interpreter to several
Deaf people including those on our staff and family. I can vouch that
he was genuinely interested and instead of the flying visit planned,
stayed for nearly an hour asking more and more searching questions about
Sign Language. To begin with, he had no idea that it was a full
language grown from within deaf communities over centuries. He was
amazed to discover that Sign wasn't 'international' and spent ages
talking to a young Deaf boy and a young Deaf academic about their work
and life experiences "*I* didn't manage a First like you" he said "my
wife did, but for me it was too much rock and roll". Again his eyes were
opened as to what can be achieved by Deaf people given full access to
education. He chatted on the videophone to Roger and Mark at Red Lizard
about running a Deaf business. He paused by and commented on a
strategically placed poster stating that BSL was Britain's 4th
indigenous language. News filtered back to me that he had said to his PA
that this was his most interesting and enlightening visit so far.
I believe this is the first time the leader of the Country has been
exposed to the Deaf world in such a positive manner.
If the polls are to be believed, Tony Blair will be back at Downing
Street when the next 'Recognise BSL' petition is delivered. The
questions are, will he remember his visit? Will he start the ball
rolling? Will he actually receive the petition himself?
In article <B73EC252.413%Roy.S...@btinternet.com>, Roy Staines
<Roy.S...@btinternet.com> writes
--
Doug McLean
Alex Buell
> If the polls are to be believed, Tony Blair will be back at Downing
> Street when the next 'Recognise BSL' petition is delivered. The
> questions are, will he remember his visit? Will he start the ball
> rolling? Will he actually receive the petition himself?
Why bother? All politicians are liars. Spoil your ballot in protest,
instead. I hate them all. They're all in it to feather their nests. Both
NuNazi^H^H^H^HLabour and NuTories are all sleazy scumbags who won't serve
the best interests of this country. Tossers, all of them.
Doug McLean
>, Alex Buell <alex....@tahallah.clara.co.uk> writes
I tend to agree with you there. There are plenty instances of outrageous
dodgy dealings and practices from individuals of all political colours.
And loads of them seem to be on some ego trip or other. But I can vouch
at least for one or two that I know personally who are/were in it for
good reasons. So it might be a bit sweeping to say *all* politicians.
Someone (Gladstone?) once said something like 'The British Political
System is corrupt, insular ..etc.. but I defy you to invent a better
one'.
Don't spoil you ballot paper, use your hard won democratic right to vote
for the least worst of the bunch, whoever you may decide that to be.
It's the only way we can change things.
--
Doug McLean
Andy Barber
On Mon 4 Jun 2001 at 10:32, some electrons were re-arranged so that
Alex Buell, could reply to Doug McLean about Re: General Election.
AB> From: alex....@tahallah.clara.co.uk
AB> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Doug McLean wrote:
>> If the polls are to be believed, Tony Blair will be back at
>> Downing Street when the next 'Recognise BSL' petition is
>> delivered. The questions are, will he remember his visit? Will
>> he start the ball rolling? Will he actually receive the
>> petition himself?
AB> Why bother? All politicians are liars. Spoil your ballot in
AB> protest, instead. I hate them all. They're all in it to
AB> feather their nests. Both NuNazi^H^H^H^HLabour and NuTories
AB> are all sleazy scumbags who won't serve the best interests of
AB> this country. Tossers, all of them.
Then in that case, vote Socalist Alliance, or spoil your ballot paper
with the words "Socalist Alliance!"
Regards
Andy Barber
Mon 4 Jun 2001 18:54
Stuart Baldwin
Small victories are what it's about. You can never beat them but you
might manage to break better than even if you focus on what you want.
--
Stuart Baldwin
Stuart Baldwin
I'm tempted, but as they've not sent us any election info (Manchester
Withington, Barlow Moor ward ) I think it'll probably be Green this
time round.
--
Stuart Baldwin
The Roving Reporter
scribbled:
>Why bother? All politicians are liars. Spoil your ballot in protest,
>instead. I hate them all. They're all in it to feather their nests.
Ok so send them a donation to do things your way instead. Really, all
this cynicism is bad for our government. How are we going to get any
worthwhile govt. if people think their neighbors are tossers?
(Hint: politicians are regular people, but usually with money since
it's expensive to get elected. And THAT'S the reason they want money,
not because they want to get rich from their position!)
--
Therese Shellabarger / The Roving Reporter
tls...@concentric.net / http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell
Alex Buell
> Then in that case, vote Socalist Alliance, or spoil your ballot paper
> with the words "Socalist Alliance!"
Thank you, but that's not what I have in mind.
Alex Buell
> (Hint: politicians are regular people, but usually with money since
> it's expensive to get elected. And THAT'S the reason they want money,
> not because they want to get rich from their position!)
Ha. Look to Bush with his oil connections to Houston. He's as bent as they
come.
Alex Buell
> Small victories are what it's about. You can never beat them but you
> might manage to break better than even if you focus on what you want.
I'm denying them my vote, to vote would legitimise them. And I will not
legitimise what they've been doing to the people of this country, with
scare stories and ever increasingly stricter laws and erosion of our
freedoms and rights.
Bring on PR, I want to cast my vote for minority parties next time around.
Philocophus
"all mouth - no action" stance. I will take everything with a bucketful of
salt, I am not a gullible type!
Philocophus
"Doug McLean" <dm...@forestbk.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:psM5cUAM...@forestbk.demon.co.uk...
Philocophus
a Labour backside-licker. And that is our lot - how pathetic!
Philocophus
"Alex Buell" <alex....@tahallah.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.01060...@tahallah.clara.co.uk...
Philocophus
Philocophus
"Alex Buell" <alex....@tahallah.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.010604...@tahallah.clara.co.uk...
Andy Barber
On Mon 4 Jun 2001 at 22:54, some electrons were re-arranged so that
Alex Buell, could reply to Andy Barber about Re: General Election.
AB> From: alex....@tahallah.clara.co.uk
>> Then in that case, vote Socalist Alliance, or spoil your ballot
>> paper with the words "Socalist Alliance!"
AB> Thank you, but that's not what I have in mind.
What, you are planning/plotting something even more revolutionary?
Cool!
Regards
Andy Barber
Tue 5 Jun 2001 18:29
Alex Buell
> Well spoken Mr Buell. Blair is a liar; Hague a naive codswallop and
> Kennedy a Labour backside-licker. And that is our lot - how pathetic!
Quite. I blame it on the slipping standards in education. People don't
think for themselves any more these days. If more people stood up and
questioned the politicans' bullshit and rhetoric, we might not have such a
messed up country.
What I think will happen is that Blair will return with a reduced majority
along with an increase in Lib-Dem MPs, with Tories trailing in third
place. That is, if there are enough intelligent people in this country.
There will also be a very high number of spoiled ballots.
Hopefully this will put William Vague and Anne TooDaftAndTooUgly out of
business, and knock some sense into Bliar, Jackboots Straw and their
bumchums. One result I would dearly love to see is to see Charles Clark,
MP for Norwich, and Home Office Mis-Minister lose his seat.
BRING BACK LORD SCREAMING SUTCH AND THE MONSTOR LOONY RAVING PARTY!
Alex.
--
Some people need to get a life!
Alex Buell
> I would have voted for Alice B. Toklas - I love you!
What has Gertrude Stein has got to do with politics? Sorry, but I do fail
to see the relevance.
The Roving Reporter
>
>> (Hint: politicians are regular people, but usually with money since
>> it's expensive to get elected. And THAT'S the reason they want money,
>> not because they want to get rich from their position!)
>
>Ha. Look to Bush with his oil connections to Houston. He's as bent as they
>come.
Well, he's in, not because he wants to be rich (he already is!), but
because not enough people who disagreed with him voted! So if you
really want change, you gotta be willing to participate. It also helps
if you can convince your friends/family to participate too.
The Roving Reporter
>
>> Small victories are what it's about. You can never beat them but you
>> might manage to break better than even if you focus on what you want.
>
>I'm denying them my vote, to vote would legitimise them. And I will not
>legitimise what they've been doing to the people of this country, with
>scare stories and ever increasingly stricter laws and erosion of our
>freedoms and rights.
I'm reminded of the saying, "bite off your nose to spite your face."
OK, so you don't like the status quo, so you don't vote. Hence, the
people who might have benefitted from your vote don't, and if enough
people do this, the wrong people get into office!
You're simply inviting disaster rather than preventing it.
Chris Dunlop
> One result I would dearly love to see is to see Charles Clark,
> MP for Norwich, and Home Office Mis-Minister lose his seat.
Why him in particular, Alex? I ask as he's my MP (Norwich South, to be
precise) and likely to be re-elected.
Chris.
--
Chris Dunlop
MIS, ITCS, UEA, Norwich.
c.du...@uea.ac.uk
Alex Buell
> Why him in particular, Alex? I ask as he's my MP (Norwich South, to
> be precise) and likely to be re-elected.
He's the knob who pushed laws such as the RIP (which allows people to
snoop on your e-mails, telephone calls etc) through Parliament as part of
his brief as Home Office Minister.
Doug McLean
part to expose him to the Deaf community. He chose to come to visit us
as a 'visionary' business in the Forest of Dean' (we have recently
achieved a listing as one of Britain's top 100 most Visionary companies)
on his whistle stop tour of the County. He was genuinely interested in
discovering about the Deaf community and culture and like I said
disrupted his day by staying on nearly an hour instead of the 15 minutes
planned.
At least he will have a good idea of the issues involved and it may well
make a difference when presented with the case for recognising BSL when
and if he becomes leader of the Country again.
In article <thqbt96...@corp.supernews.co.uk>, Philocophus
<Philo...@lineone.net> writes
>Sounds like a ploy on Blair's part to win support - I think it is called
>"all mouth - no action" stance. I will take everything with a bucketful of
>salt, I am not a gullible type!
>
--
Doug McLean
Philocophus
the swinging sixties.
Philocophus
"Alex Buell" <alex....@tahallah.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.010605...@tahallah.clara.co.uk...
Alex Buell
> I can vouch that it was not a ploy. If anything, it was a ploy on my
> part to expose him to the Deaf community. He chose to come to visit
> us as a 'visionary' business in the Forest of Dean' (we have recently
> achieved a listing as one of Britain's top 100 most Visionary
> companies) on his whistle stop tour of the County. He was genuinely
> interested in discovering about the Deaf community and culture and
> like I said disrupted his day by staying on nearly an hour instead of
> the 15 minutes planned.
Oh bummer, Forest of Dean's 45 mins from here. I'd have loved to ask him
hard questions.
Alex Buell
> The wonderful marijuana cakes - the spirit of free love - and all that
> in the swinging sixties.
Doh! Missed that bit, now I see why, thanks. I feel the same way.
Chris Dunlop
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Chris Dunlop wrote:
>
> > Why him in particular, Alex? I ask as he's my MP (Norwich South, to
> > be precise) and likely to be re-elected.
>
> He's the knob who pushed laws such as the RIP (which allows people to
> snoop on your e-mails, telephone calls etc) through Parliament as part of
> his brief as Home Office Minister.
Looks like your wish didn't come true this time Alex.
So, do you want me to arrange some unfortunate 'accident' for him then,
seeing as he's local?
Whoops, what was that email interception law he pushed again? I really
must stop reading Martin Amis and getting these bad ideas....
Chris Dunlop
c.du...@uea.ac.uk
Alex Buell
> Looks like your wish didn't come true this time Alex.
Fecking shame, especially given that the Apathy Party got 41% of the vote
- which ought to have given us no government at all.. yay!
> Whoops, what was that email interception law he pushed again? I
> really must stop reading Martin Amis and getting these bad ideas....
I get these ideas as well, from time to time.
Wiggums
> As an interested observer of your British general election, I wonder
> if any political parties have made a statement on the recognition of
> British Sign Language or what? Has Deaf voters made any impression on
> the parties? I understand that the Lib. Democrats are more favourable
> to the idea of recognition but I could not find any reference in their
> manifesto.
>
> Any comment?
>
> Bosco
Quite frankly, I see no reason why BSL should be recognised as a
language on its own. It is very much like American Sign Language. I
believe BSL users should be perceived as "English-speaking." No
reason why it should be separate.
Cheers
Alison Bryan
Wiggums <wig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:552226c0.01061...@posting.google.com...
Ok - you would mind explaining your logic in typing this statement?
(BSL is actually proven to be a seperate langauge by academics and theres
several refs to this. To put it into the same box, is factually wrong plus
says you have a hang up about BSL itself).
Alison
Wiggums
> > Quite frankly, I see no reason why BSL should be recognised as a
> > language on its own. It is very much like American Sign Language. I
> > believe BSL users should be perceived as "English-speaking." No
> > reason why it should be separate.
>
>
> Ok - you would mind explaining your logic in typing this statement?
>
> (BSL is actually proven to be a seperate langauge by academics and theres
> several refs to this. To put it into the same box, is factually wrong plus
> says you have a hang up about BSL itself).
>
> Alison
Okay, are you speaking English or using BSL? Furthermore, can BSL
users who speak English try to pass themselves off as "bilingual?"
That'd be a novel concept. I sign ASL (American Sign Language) which
has more reason to deserve recognition as a separate language compared
to BSL. Frankly, ASL is a grossly distorted form of the English
language. The deaf people in USA are trying to bypass the difficulty
of learning English by claiming that they speak "ASL, not English."
They also want employers to recognise it as a language and try to
accommodate those who cannot speak or even write English.
Since I speak and use ASL, am I bilingual? Wait, I speak Spanish too.
Ay, dios mio! I am trilingual!
Wiggums
Alex Buell
> Since I speak and use ASL, am I bilingual? Wait, I speak Spanish too.
> Ay, dios mio! I am trilingual!
Bueno dias, yo soy loco en la cabenza! ;o)
--
Alex.
Alison Bryan
Wiggums <wig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:552226c0.01061...@posting.google.com...
> "Alison Bryan" <alison...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<992888774.651694@dionysos>...
> > Wiggums <wig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:552226c0.01061...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> Okay, are you speaking English or using BSL? Furthermore, can BSL
> users who speak English try to pass themselves off as "bilingual?"
> That'd be a novel concept. I sign ASL (American Sign Language) which
> has more reason to deserve recognition as a separate language compared
> to BSL. Frankly, ASL is a grossly distorted form of the English
> language. The deaf people in USA are trying to bypass the difficulty
> of learning English by claiming that they speak "ASL, not English."
> They also want employers to recognise it as a language and try to
> accommodate those who cannot speak or even write English.
>
> Since I speak and use ASL, am I bilingual? Wait, I speak Spanish too.
> Ay, dios mio! I am trilingual!
To answer your last question first - yes you are trilingual! There are very
few monolingual people in the world anyway.
You state that ASL is a grossly distorted form of English - I dont actually
use ASL or know a lot about it, so Im not qualified to speak on this.
However, I can speak for BSL - it is a language in its own right, and there
is NO dispute amongst linguists that this is the case. It has its own
syntax and grammar. ie its not your average Deafie whos just saying this,
Professors of Linguistics at Universities acknowledge this. Are you
appropriately qualified to argue against this, or are you offering a
subjective opinion instead?
Your comments about ASL being a distorted form of English - may I actually
question whether you say this because you are thinking that English is the
superior language, and tuned into thinking that the world should fit around
that? Would you even say that I spoken language is a distorted form of
English? What you could be referring to, is that sometimes languages borrow
from others (they influence each other) and this happens also with spoken
languages. However its unique combination of rules, makes it a unique
language in its own right.
Going back to the point re BSL recognition, the point of the campaign for
recognition in the UK has nothing to do with academics recognising whether
or not its a language (because it already is, and is correctly referenced
as), but the whole fuss is about raising the legal status of the language.
To compare this campaign to the USA, and the US not having done anything
about it, therefore why should the Brits, is a statement based on 2
assumptions (which are wrong) - the USA has to lead on everything, and if
they have not already done so then other countries should not initiate it;
and secondly it assumes that the USA constitution and the UK one are the
same, when nothing could be further from the truth. Therefore its wrong to
draw strict parallels for both countries.
As for accommodation by employers - here you have adapted thinking along the
lines of ADA (or DDA for the UK). BSL recognition does not operate on the
same legislative model as the ADA / DDA. Whilst there are obligations
placed its not about accommodations / adjustments (to use UK term) in the
strict sense of the word as seen under the ADA/DDA, but another model
entirely (cf Welsh Language Act 1967, Welsh Language Act 1993).
Alison
Wiggums
> Wiggums <wig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:552226c0.01061...@posting.google.com...
> > "Alison Bryan" <alison...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<992888774.651694@dionysos>...
[snip]
> > Since I speak and use ASL, am I bilingual? Wait, I speak Spanish too.
> > Ay, dios mio! I am trilingual!
>
> To answer your last question first - yes you are trilingual! There are very
> few monolingual people in the world anyway.
In regards to "very few monolingual people in the world," you
apparently haven't been to the U.S. :)
So you saying that if I learn Irish Sign Language, British Sign
Language, Australian Sign Language, South African Sign Language,
Canadian Sign Language, and know American Sign Language, Spanish, and
English, I'm octalingual? That's an easy way to pass myself as one.
Although I know American Sign Language, I do not perceive it as a
separate language. In the U.S., there is a heated debate over
"Ebonics" which is merely English language riddled with inaccuracies
like, "I ain't going to no store." There are double negatives - ain't
and no. Thankfully, it failed to gain recognition as a language.
> You state that ASL is a grossly distorted form of English - I dont actually
> use ASL or know a lot about it, so Im not qualified to speak on this.
> However, I can speak for BSL - it is a language in its own right, and there
> is NO dispute amongst linguists that this is the case. It has its own
> syntax and grammar. ie its not your average Deafie whos just saying this,
> Professors of Linguistics at Universities acknowledge this. Are you
> appropriately qualified to argue against this, or are you offering a
> subjective opinion instead?
And I for BSL, admittedly. I compare Ebonics with ASL - but am not
sure in regards to BSL. I've been to London countless times and used
to live there, but have not learned BSL. In ASL, if one wants to say,
"I saw the cat jump out of the box," it would be signed as, "Me finish
see cat jump out box." Articles are omitted and every past tenses
come with "finish" before the verb. I don't know if BSL is similar to
ASL, but it is a big controversy in the U.S. Why, even Gallaudet, the
first university for the deaf, have their students graduating with
their reading skills between the 3rd and 4th grade (perhaps lower
compared to UK standards). Ironically, Gallaudet does not condone the
perception of ASL as a separate language. I don't know if English is
mandated in the UK, but in several states of the U.S., they recognize
ASL as a separate language and English wouldn't be required. Why,
even here in California, deaf people are legally entitled to have an
interpreter read questions for them in ASL during testing before they
get their driving licence since their English is so bad and they
cannot comprehend some questions such as, "If your car begins to
hydroplane on a concrete surface, you should decelerate by a) hitting
the brakes, or b) downshifting." I don't know if it's like that in
the UK, but I am quite sure at LEAST 50% of the deaf people would NOT
understand "hydroplane" and roughly 30% would not understand
"decelerate" and "downshifting." As for hearing people, I'd say 5%
would not understand "hydroplane" and less than 1% would not
understand "decelerate" and "downshifting." Shocking? Or is that the
same thing in the UK?
> Your comments about ASL being a distorted form of English - may I actually
> question whether you say this because you are thinking that English is the
> superior language, and tuned into thinking that the world should fit around
> that? Would you even say that I spoken language is a distorted form of
> English? What you could be referring to, is that sometimes languages borrow
> from others (they influence each other) and this happens also with spoken
> languages. However its unique combination of rules, makes it a unique
> language in its own right.
I compare ASL with Ebonics. Why did ASL turn out to be like that? It
needs to be corrected. I do not perceive English as a superior
language - everybody knows it's the French language that's superior
:-). In several states, deaf people do not even have to speak or
write English - they can bypass that by claiming ASL as a language. I
think it's wrong - I've been to Germany and Israel. In both of these
countries, written language must be up to hearing standards, no less.
I was quite impressed. If I sign in perfect English and write in
perfect English, then I "speak" English, no more, no less.
> Going back to the point re BSL recognition, the point of the campaign for
> recognition in the UK has nothing to do with academics recognising whether
> or not its a language (because it already is, and is correctly referenced
> as), but the whole fuss is about raising the legal status of the language.
Is BSL different in structure? As for ASL, there's no right and
wrong. It is very difficult for me to gauge one's fluency in ASL. As
for written English, I can determine exactly what is right and what is
wrong as it is already written down. There's another sign in the U.S.
- SEE which means Signing Exact English. SEE requires the use of all
words as if you're speaking English. It's slow and cumbersome, but
it's like talking. Now that SEE is modelled after the English
language, is it also a separate language or not? Is Ebonics a
separate language?
> To compare this campaign to the USA, and the US not having done anything
> about it, therefore why should the Brits, is a statement based on 2
> assumptions (which are wrong) - the USA has to lead on everything, and if
> they have not already done so then other countries should not initiate it;
> and secondly it assumes that the USA constitution and the UK one are the
> same, when nothing could be further from the truth. Therefore its wrong to
> draw strict parallels for both countries.
ADA does not recognise American Sign Language. It merely states that
an employer is to provide reasonable accommodations to help one
overcome the handicap. I understand UK has their own version.
> As for accommodation by employers - here you have adapted thinking along the
> lines of ADA (or DDA for the UK). BSL recognition does not operate on the
> same legislative model as the ADA / DDA. Whilst there are obligations
> placed its not about accommodations / adjustments (to use UK term) in the
> strict sense of the word as seen under the ADA/DDA, but another model
> entirely (cf Welsh Language Act 1967, Welsh Language Act 1993).
Well, your English is quite admirable. Of course, that's an American
speaking here or is that the norm with the British? Try going to U.S.
deaf newsgroups and you shall weep. That's why I am strongly opposed
to the recognition of ASL as a language because that also means giving
the deaf people way too much leeway. Does BSL allow one to get by in
schools with shoddy English? That's one thing I wonder - because I'm
American and you're obviously British.
Richard
Wiggums
> On 18 Jun 2001, Wiggums wrote:
>
> > Since I speak and use ASL, am I bilingual? Wait, I speak Spanish too.
> > Ay, dios mio! I am trilingual!
>
> Bueno dias, yo soy loco en la cabenza! ;o)
:)
Speaking Spanish got me away from a parking ticket in London. I was
dressed like an American and the cop took one look at me and spoke to
his fellow copper, "I reckon he's a Mexican. Dressed like an American
and speaks Spanish."
Unfortunately, don't pull that stunt here in L.A.
Richard
Alex Buell
> Unfortunately, don't pull that stunt here in L.A.
Especially not in downtown L.A. They'd soon as pull out their Uzi and
fill you with hot lead..
--
Alex.
Wiggums
> On 18 Jun 2001, Wiggums wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, don't pull that stunt here in L.A.
>
> Especially not in downtown L.A. They'd soon as pull out their Uzi and
> fill you with hot lead..
No, they'd beat the crap out of me until I'm unconscious then shoot me
in the name of self-defence.
Richard
Stuart
> Frankly, ASL is a grossly distorted form of the English
> language.
I was always taught that ASL was a derivative of French Sign Language. Did
they get that wrong too?
Stuart
Alex Buell
> > Especially not in downtown L.A. They'd soon as pull out their Uzi and
> > fill you with hot lead..
>
> No, they'd beat the crap out of me until I'm unconscious then shoot me
> in the name of self-defence.
Does that work then?
--
Alex.
Andrew Knox
"Wiggums" <wig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message:
> Well, your English is quite admirable. Of course, that's an American
> speaking here or is that the norm with the British? Try going to U.S.
> deaf newsgroups and you shall weep. That's why I am strongly opposed
> to the recognition of ASL as a language because that also means giving
> the deaf people way too much leeway. Does BSL allow one to get by in
> schools with shoddy English? That's one thing I wonder - because I'm
> American and you're obviously British.
To turn that arugment around, one could say: "try going to hearies' BSL
virtual conferences and you shall weep at their abysmal hand-signing &
body language postures".
Remember, the internet-based newsgroups are lingual by their nature -
therefore all those with poor grasp of the language-in-use (e.g. many
hearies graduating from schools - which is NOT the same as saying
"most of them") will shock you with their terrible language skills.
Like those with "Ebonics" as you mentioned earlier.
The real issue about deaf people not having good grasps of their mother
<lingual> language skills boils down to education systems. Not because
of their BSL / ASL skills. Don't forget that many years ago, BSL & ASL
were not recognised in schools, with all deaf children FORCED into one
lingual language or more - even then, they graduated with terrible written
& reading skills..
I see sign languages as a fundamental right for deafies to learn and use
well - and then use that to improve their lingual language skills. If more
non-deafies know and use sign languages in the real world (i.e. places
other than deaf schools & deaf gatherings), deaf people would get
more exposure to English language and such and strive to improve
themselves. I'm of course referring to those who left school, as well
as those still at school.
- Andrew
Wiggums
> > language.
>
> I was always taught that ASL was a derivative of French Sign Language. Did
> they get that wrong too?
>
> Stuart
Just the letters - both the Germans and the Irish use one hand from
what I recollect. I don't think our signed words came from ASL.
French Sign Language/ASL is probably like the way the northern
Mexicans sign American Sign Language. They'd sign house and I'm
reading their lips, "casa." They still think in Spanish, but use ASL
words.
Cheers,
Wiggums
Wiggums
>
> > > Especially not in downtown L.A. They'd soon as pull out their Uzi and
> > > fill you with hot lead..
> >
> > No, they'd beat the crap out of me until I'm unconscious then shoot me
> > in the name of self-defence.
>
> Does that work then?
That's what caused the L.A. riots - the court had acquitted the 4 coppers.
Cheers,
Wiggums
Wiggums
> (snip!)
>
> "Wiggums" <wig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message:
>
> > Well, your English is quite admirable. Of course, that's an American
> > speaking here or is that the norm with the British? Try going to U.S.
> > deaf newsgroups and you shall weep. That's why I am strongly opposed
> > to the recognition of ASL as a language because that also means giving
> > the deaf people way too much leeway. Does BSL allow one to get by in
> > schools with shoddy English? That's one thing I wonder - because I'm
> > American and you're obviously British.
>
> To turn that arugment around, one could say: "try going to hearies' BSL
> virtual conferences and you shall weep at their abysmal hand-signing &
> body language postures".
And you'd rather not speak/write English or have to bother learning
English? After all, ASL/BSL is essentially a branch of the English
language. The hearies don't have to bother learning BSL/ASL - but the
deaf people would have to in order to get a decent job that requires
English. My job requires fluency in English and many ASL users in USA
do not exactly have "fluent" English - hence the high unemployment
rate amongst the deaf. Some say discrimination, but I know my
employer has rejected 4 deaf applicants based solely on English. I
will not hold that against him.
> Remember, the internet-based newsgroups are lingual by their nature -
> therefore all those with poor grasp of the language-in-use (e.g. many
> hearies graduating from schools - which is NOT the same as saying
> "most of them") will shock you with their terrible language skills.
> Like those with "Ebonics" as you mentioned earlier.
It's difficult for me to gauge one's knowledge of the English language
and provide a number, but I can definitely tell the difference between
deaf Americans and hearing Americans whilst reading e-mails.
> The real issue about deaf people not having good grasps of their mother
> <lingual> language skills boils down to education systems. Not because
> of their BSL / ASL skills. Don't forget that many years ago, BSL & ASL
> were not recognised in schools, with all deaf children FORCED into one
> lingual language or more - even then, they graduated with terrible written
> & reading skills..
Actually, it boils down to parental involvement. My parents learned
SEE (Signing Exact English) sign language immediately upon finding out
my deafness. Children from deaf parents tend to perform better than
children from hearing parents. Actually, deaf children from hearing
parents tend to vary widely in language - some at the norm compared to
hearing peers, some way below average. Children from deaf parents
tend to be pretty much below the hearing norm.
> I see sign languages as a fundamental right for deafies to learn and use
> well - and then use that to improve their lingual language skills. If more
> non-deafies know and use sign languages in the real world (i.e. places
> other than deaf schools & deaf gatherings), deaf people would get
> more exposure to English language and such and strive to improve
> themselves. I'm of course referring to those who left school, as well
> as those still at school.
I absolutely support the deaf learning sign language as it is a
remarkable tool. Now, BSL vs. ASL - I don't know, but it's not really
possible to use ASL as a method to improve language skills since words
are switched around. I left high school when I was 16 and I'm not at
all an avid reader. I think it's because my parents were using SEE,
not ASL. There are all kinds of possibilities here.
Richard
Jenn
>> language on its own. It is very much like American Sign Language. I
>> believe BSL users should be perceived as "English-speaking." No
>> reason why it should be separate.
>
>
>Ok - you would mind explaining your logic in typing this statement?
>
>(BSL is actually proven to be a seperate langauge by academics and theres
>several refs to this. To put it into the same box, is factually wrong plus
>says you have a hang up about BSL itself).
>
>Alison
Even if it was considered along with American Sign Language to be dialects of a
bigger language, rather than two different languages, why does that mean it
shouldn't be recognised?
When you say it is close to American Sign Language, therefore people who have
BSL as their first language should be considered as "English-speaking", you are
making a rather illogical leap. Many people from Asian communities in Britain
have Urdu (to take one example) as their first language. I don't know the
language, but I'd imagine it is very similar to the Urdu spoken in Asia. So
does that mean they are English speakers?
It's a red herring whether BSL is close to Americal Sign language. It's how
different it is from English which determines whether it is a seperate
language.
The point is that BSL is the first language of a significant section of the
population, and should be officially recognised as such.
Chris Dunlop
> English? After all, ASL/BSL is essentially a branch of the English
> language. The hearies don't have to bother learning BSL/ASL - but the
> deaf people would have to in order to get a decent job that requires
> English. My job requires fluency in English and many ASL users in USA
> do not exactly have "fluent" English - hence the high unemployment
> rate amongst the deaf. Some say discrimination, but I know my
> employer has rejected 4 deaf applicants based solely on English. I
> will not hold that against him.
Is fluent English *really* necessary for these jobs, or is it just part of a
wish list masquerading as requirements? The employment section of the DDA
in the UK is very clear about the need to make reasonable adjustments to job
descriptions to accommodate those with Disabilities.
--
Chris Dunlop
MIS, ITCS, UEA, Norwich.
......................................................
J
population percentage and/or actual numbers?
Just curious.
John
"Jenn" <jens...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010620114033...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
>))))))))))))))))))SNIP((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((>
Alex Buell
> That's what caused the L.A. riots - the court had acquitted the 4
> coppers.
Oh yes, I remember that. Disgusting, the video-taped evidence should have
sent them to jail for life.
And let's not forget Diallou, in NY, who was unarmed, shot dead by a team
of detectives hunting a rapist. The subsequent autopsy showed that he had
43 bullets lodged in his body.
Eric Clapton wrote a song about the incident, "43".
--
Alex.
Alex Buell
> When you say it is close to American Sign Language, therefore people
> who have BSL as their first language should be considered as
> "English-speaking", you are making a rather illogical leap. Many
> people from Asian communities in Britain have Urdu (to take one
> example) as their first language. I don't know the language, but I'd
> imagine it is very similar to the Urdu spoken in Asia. So does that
> mean they are English speakers?
BSL is not English, nor is it ASL. ASL is not English, is not BSL either.
Ergo, they are proper languages and should be classified as such.
--
Alex.
Wiggums
[snip]
> Even if it was considered along with American Sign Language to be dialects of a
> bigger language, rather than two different languages, why does that mean it
> shouldn't be recognised?
Why can't it be "English?" If you write English and sign English
(ASL/BSL, whatever), then why can't it be "English?"
> When you say it is close to American Sign Language, therefore people who have
> BSL as their first language should be considered as "English-speaking", you are
> making a rather illogical leap. Many people from Asian communities in Britain
> have Urdu (to take one example) as their first language. I don't know the
> language, but I'd imagine it is very similar to the Urdu spoken in Asia. So
> does that mean they are English speakers?
Written and spoken Urdu is derived from Urdu, therefore it's Urdu.
BSL is derived from English (albeit spoken/signed, but not written)
and written in English, therefore it's English.
> It's a red herring whether BSL is close to Americal Sign language. It's how
> different it is from English which determines whether it is a seperate
> language.
American Sign Language is for those who think in pictures and their
language pretty much reflects that. I don't know how BSL is signed.
Just out of curiosity, if you sign, "I saw a red car drive past
Sainsbury's then it made a left turn." - what will the words be? In
ASL, it would be clearly, "Me finish see car red pass Sainsbury then
turn left." Is it the same in BSL? I am still unclear on how exactly
BSL is signed.
> The point is that BSL is the first language of a significant section of the
> population, and should be officially recognised as such.
1% of the population here in USA sign. Roughly 3% speak Ebonics -
inner city schools. Unfortunately, Ebonics is not a language.
Richard
Wiggums
> Wiggums <wig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
> > And you'd rather not speak/write English or have to bother learning
> > English? After all, ASL/BSL is essentially a branch of the English
> > language. The hearies don't have to bother learning BSL/ASL - but the
> > deaf people would have to in order to get a decent job that requires
> > English. My job requires fluency in English and many ASL users in USA
> > do not exactly have "fluent" English - hence the high unemployment
> > rate amongst the deaf. Some say discrimination, but I know my
> > employer has rejected 4 deaf applicants based solely on English. I
> > will not hold that against him.
>
> Is fluent English *really* necessary for these jobs, or is it just part of a
> wish list masquerading as requirements? The employment section of the DDA
> in the UK is very clear about the need to make reasonable adjustments to job
> descriptions to accommodate those with Disabilities.
I work on PowerPoint presentations and, yes, English is absolutely
required. Furthermore, I communicate with clients regularly via
e-mail. ADA does not recognise "American Sign Language" so if I had
terrible English, I cannot bypass this rule by claiming to only speak
American Sign Language. Does DDA accommodate those with poor English
skills (sign language users, not foreigners)?
Richard
Kev
> And you'd rather not speak/write English or have to bother learning
> English?
That's up to individuals. (Just like it is a pregnant woman's decision
to play netball - -don't- ban pregant women from playing netball!!
Never mind if you don't understand, it's an Aussie issue.)
> After all, ASL/BSL is essentially a branch of the English
> language.
The arguments I have seen over the years are that the official sign
languages are not directly related to English but to other languages.
> The hearies don't have to bother learning BSL/ASL - but the
> deaf people would have to in order to get a decent job that requires
> English.
If you need English, then you need English. That's common sense. The
main argument that seems to be made in favour in favour of sign
languages (that is, it is implied) is that English is not necessary.
However, it is mainly the responsibility of the person trying to
communicate to ensure their message is understood by recipients. It is
no use using one language if the recipient does not know that
language. It is also no use using complex language that people
struggle to understand. If a hearing person wishes to communicate with
a deaf person, they should use whatever means is possible to get their
message across. Likewise, if a deaf person wishes to communicate with
a hearing person, then the deaf person should use whatever means is
effective. So, the decision to use a specific language depends on the
language known by the receiver of the communication. This post will
not be understood by people who do not know English!
> My job requires fluency in English and many ASL users in USA
> do not exactly have "fluent" English - hence the high unemployment
> rate amongst the deaf.
This is more an argument that English is necessary, not whether it is
a different language.
If you are correct that ASL is directly based on English, then how do
you explain the low English fluency rate? They probably wouldn't be
"fluent" in ASL either (presuming it is a language)!
<snip>
> It's difficult for me to gauge one's knowledge of the English
language
> and provide a number, but I can definitely tell the difference
between
> deaf Americans and hearing Americans whilst reading e-mails.
I'm not American, but I will ask this question anyhow: "Am I deaf or
hearing?"
> I absolutely support the deaf learning sign language as it is a
> remarkable tool. Now, BSL vs. ASL - I don't know, but it's not
really
> possible to use ASL as a method to improve language skills since
words
> are switched around.
Does that mean there is no structure? Then you would be correct in
claiming it is not a language.
--
/ Kevin
Spill "your.guts." to reply by email.
Jenn
>(ASL/BSL, whatever), then why can't it be "English?"
Of course it can be "English" if you mean that as an adjective, but it isn't
connected to the language known as English.
>American Sign Language is for those who think in pictures and their
>language pretty much reflects that. I don't know how BSL is signed.
>Just out of curiosity, if you sign, "I saw a red car drive past
>Sainsbury's then it made a left turn." - what will the words be? In
>ASL, it would be clearly, "Me finish see car red pass Sainsbury then
>turn left."
Don't you realise that when you say that is what the words are, you are in fact
translating?
>
>1% of the population here in USA sign. Roughly 3% speak Ebonics -
>inner city schools. Unfortunately, Ebonics is not a language.
No, it's a dialect which evolved from English and probably other languages, and
this could be seen by looking at the similarities the words have with words in
"standard" English. But the difference is, "aeroplane" for instance, in BSL, is
no closer to the English word aeroplane than it is to the German word - so why
is it part of the English language?
Wiggums
> languages are not directly related to English but to other languages.
American Sign Language's fingerspelling is based on the older French
sign language. However, we came up with our own words. I really
don't see the justification of switching words around. The only
reason is because the deaf people think in pictures. I see that the
English deaf have quite decent English (I still am not sure if I'm
talking to deaf people or hearing people).
> > The hearies don't have to bother learning BSL/ASL - but the
> > deaf people would have to in order to get a decent job that requires
> > English.
>
> If you need English, then you need English. That's common sense. The
> main argument that seems to be made in favour in favour of sign
> languages (that is, it is implied) is that English is not necessary.
To accommodate a tiny minority. It's like braille. OK, if I speak
English but I only read braille, do I speak Braille? No, I'd be
speaking English. Sign language is merely a mode of communication to
offset the hearing loss and the subsequent inability to speak.
> However, it is mainly the responsibility of the person trying to
> communicate to ensure their message is understood by recipients. It is
> no use using one language if the recipient does not know that
> language. It is also no use using complex language that people
> struggle to understand. If a hearing person wishes to communicate with
> a deaf person, they should use whatever means is possible to get their
> message across. Likewise, if a deaf person wishes to communicate with
> a hearing person, then the deaf person should use whatever means is
> effective. So, the decision to use a specific language depends on the
> language known by the receiver of the communication. This post will
> not be understood by people who do not know English!
Right, that's why I said I don't recognise ASL/BSL as a language but
as a branch of the English language. It's just a form of
communication.
> > My job requires fluency in English and many ASL users in USA
> > do not exactly have "fluent" English - hence the high unemployment
> > rate amongst the deaf.
>
> This is more an argument that English is necessary, not whether it is
> a different language.
>
> If you are correct that ASL is directly based on English, then how do
> you explain the low English fluency rate? They probably wouldn't be
> "fluent" in ASL either (presuming it is a language)!
That explains why I am dead against the recognition of ASL as a
language. ASL has slowly changed over the years for the worst and
deaf people in USA are now considerably worse off than they were 20
years ago. It has sparked the debate over "SEE" and "ASL" with SEE
requiring the use of all words, past tenses, etc. whilst ASL only does
nouns and verbs. ASL has no right or wrong.
> <snip>
> > It's difficult for me to gauge one's knowledge of the English
> language
> > and provide a number, but I can definitely tell the difference
> between
> > deaf Americans and hearing Americans whilst reading e-mails.
>
> I'm not American, but I will ask this question anyhow: "Am I deaf or
> hearing?"
I'm deaf - completely deaf and been that way since birth. I have seen
both sides and I do feel it is imperative that the deaf people learn
English on top of ASL. They don't appreciate the nuances of the
English language and I think it is absolutely important in order to
get along with life.
> > I absolutely support the deaf learning sign language as it is a
> > remarkable tool. Now, BSL vs. ASL - I don't know, but it's not
> really
> > possible to use ASL as a method to improve language skills since
> words
> > are switched around.
>
> Does that mean there is no structure? Then you would be correct in
> claiming it is not a language.
If I were to say, "I saw a dead cat," it would be signed "Me finish
see cat finish dead," or "Me finish cat real self dead." Nobody can
determine whether that's correct or wrong. In English, if I were to
say, "I saw a dead cat," or "A dead cat was seen by me," - both are
correct. In ASL, there are so many ways to say it - and it's
impossible to gauge right or wrong. I'm not sure how it is done in
BSL, but that's precisely why ASL users have very low literacy rate.
My original argument was actually intended for ASL not being
recognised as a language. Mind telling me how you'd sign, word by
word, "I saw a dead cat?"
Richard
Wiggums
Diallou - yes. In fact, a month or two ago, there was a door on eBay
for sale. It was riddled with bullet holes and it was the same door
the detectives shot through whilst shooting Diallou. I think it went
for over $100,000. Let's also not forget the $10 million for the raft
Elian González used to sail to the land of freedom from Cuba.
Amazing.....
Richard
Wiggums
> >Why can't it be "English?" If you write English and sign English
> >(ASL/BSL, whatever), then why can't it be "English?"
>
> Of course it can be "English" if you mean that as an adjective, but it isn't
> connected to the language known as English.
>
> >American Sign Language is for those who think in pictures and their
> >language pretty much reflects that. I don't know how BSL is signed.
> >Just out of curiosity, if you sign, "I saw a red car drive past
> >Sainsbury's then it made a left turn." - what will the words be? In
> >ASL, it would be clearly, "Me finish see car red pass Sainsbury then
> >turn left."
>
> Don't you realise that when you say that is what the words are, you are in fact
> translating?
And why? ASL has twisted over the years and is now far more
simplified. It is used to expedite communication between the deaf
people. What would take a hearing person an hour to finish would take
me roughly 7 minutes. ASL has no right or wrong - it is like speaking
Ebonics. ASL and Ebonics has no reason to be the way they are - and
deaf people in USA desperately need to improve their literacy skills.
Experts in USA believe ASL is to blame.
> >
> >1% of the population here in USA sign. Roughly 3% speak Ebonics -
> >inner city schools. Unfortunately, Ebonics is not a language.
>
> No, it's a dialect which evolved from English and probably other languages, and
> this could be seen by looking at the similarities the words have with words in
> "standard" English. But the difference is, "aeroplane" for instance, in BSL, is
> no closer to the English word aeroplane than it is to the German word - so why
> is it part of the English language?
Then why would Ebonics be called a language? What's wrong with
"dialect?" ASL is a dialect of English, BSL is a dialect of English.
Why, even in Germany, Kölners sometimes cannot understand Bavarians as
their German are so different from each other. Still, they're
speaking German. Why not recognise BSL as a "dialect?" It's merely a
mode of communication to offset the inability to speak. If one can
sign BSL, can't speak English, but can write English, how can that one
also try to claim bilingualism?
Richard
Alex Buell
> Diallou - yes. In fact, a month or two ago, there was a door on eBay
> for sale. It was riddled with bullet holes and it was the same door
> the detectives shot through whilst shooting Diallou. I think it went
> for over $100,000. Let's also not forget the $10 million for the raft
> Elian González used to sail to the land of freedom from Cuba.
> Amazing.....
Not amazing, just one of the many warning signs of a very sick society.
Britain is, unfortunately, on the slippery slope. Europe frequently says
things about us in the same way we do about America.
--
Alex.
Wiggums
That was one of the reasons I moved back to USA, aside from the bloody
expensive petrol. I used to live in London and my car was broken into
so many times. In my area, if criminals dare do anything stupid, they
will be looking up the barrel of a gun. After all, being able to
carry a gun saved my father's life twice - one from a knife wielding
mugger and one from a gang hellbent on stealing his car. Back then,
robbers wouldn't hurt you if you'd hand in your wallet. Nowadays,
they will kill you because you're a witness and there's the
three-strike law in effect.
Richard
J
news:yK4Y6.6726$6q2.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Ok, so I will post at the bottom,
I take it that no-one has any definite statistics for a "significant section
of the population" ?
John.
The Roving Reporter
very strange color crayon and scribbled:
>Since I speak and use ASL, am I bilingual? Wait, I speak Spanish too.
> Ay, dios mio! I am trilingual!
If you speak while signing, you're using "contact sign" not ASL.
That would make you the equivalent of a someone who uses pidgin
english to communicate.
So, you'd still be trilingual according to a linguist, but not
according to a strict grammatist.
I think you need to study theory of languages before you spout off any
more on this topic.
--
Therese Shellabarger / The Roving Reporter
tls...@concentric.net / http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell
The Roving Reporter
very strange color crayon and scribbled:
>I work on PowerPoint presentations and, yes, English is absolutely
>required.
Well, that's a specialty in a language field, so of course it needs
English (or whatever language is being used.) But there are lots of
jobs out there that don't need perfect English. I could be a plumber
or a pipefitter and probably make more money than I'm doing now as a
writer. Or I could have if I'd wised up 20 years ago.
The problem in the U.S. is that "the trades" seems to be reserved only
for people who "fail" in the traditional white collar oriented
schooling, particularly high school. I think this is a waste of good
talents. Not everyone _wants_ to be a white collar worker! But
everyone (or at least the middle class) is brainwashed, so that's
what parents try to convince their kids to do, whether it fits them or
not.
So the issue isn't the lack of jobs, it's the lack of ACCESSIBLE
TRAINING. VR counselors are desperate for more training programs that
are able to take a Deaf person who "failed" in oral school and has a
smattering of signs, not a complete grasp of language, and teach them
enough of a trade that they can support themselves.
It's too bad the education system is so damn audist.
The Roving Reporter
a very strange color crayon and scribbled:
>I was always taught that ASL was a derivative of French Sign Language. Did
>they get that wrong too?
It's not a "derivative" it actually has a similar history to what
happened to English. The French arrived in the U.S. and took over. (-;
Actually, from what I've surmised, there were existing signs such as
home signs, and signs learned from the Indians (the plains Indians had
their own signs for native wildlife, for example. You can read about
it in a book by Iron Eyes Cody which has pictures), and the students
brought these to the American School for the Deaf where they combined
with Laurent Clerc's native French signs to become old ASL. This old
ASL gradually morphed over time into what we have today, whatever it's
called...do we have "new" ASL?
The Roving Reporter
very strange color crayon and scribbled:
>Experts in USA believe ASL is to blame.
Bullshit. ASL has almost never been used as a form of instruction in
the U.S. There is no preponderance of Deaf people who at this time can
say they grew up being taught *IN* ASL. If they had been, you can be
sure they would be a lot more literate and a lot better informed of
what teachers were trying to tell them.
The major change that has affected Deaf Education has been the
diminishing number of mild to moderately Deaf people who have been
shifted into oral-only programs, leaving the Deaf Residential Schools
to deal with the truly "hardcore" Deaf who have never heard anything
and thus need a genuine visually accessible education system rather
than the half-assed effort that passed for one in the past. A lot of
successful Deaf people in the past learned, not BECAUSE of the school
system but IN SPITE OF the school system.
Case in point: I'm hard of hearing, but with no one around who
understood what that meant, I grew up largely self-taught because the
schools simply bored me. You try speechreading all day for hours at a
time, chasing people who don't stand where you can see them while they
are talking, and who often as not spend so much time belaboring the
point that all you get is a smidgen of knowledge and a headache after
hours of watching. My FATHER was the one who taught me how to read,
after the school gave up. My FATHER was the one who tutored me in math
and science the whole time I was growing up. I don't give schools
credit for ANYTHING because as far as I'm concerned, they wasted most
of my time. That's why I took up reading instead of paying attention
in class and didn't give a damn if I did my homework or not. (But I
did some of it, mostly the math problems since I actually enjoyed
those somewhat, and of course I read my textbooks from cover to cover
along with everything else I was "devouring.")
I polished my English from reading, and that's the way most Deaf kids
should and could be learning it. The other issue, of course, is
maximising effectiveness of trained Deaf Education teachers by
grouping them in regional schools with Deaf and moderate/severe hard
of hearing kids in the same classroom. It doesn't have to be a
residential school, there are many hard of hearing kids out there,
enough for a "magnet school" concept.
* For those who don't know, a magnet school is a centralized school
which gets extra funding etc. to serve as a model.
The Roving Reporter
very strange color crayon and scribbled:
>requiring the use of all words, past tenses, etc. whilst ASL only does
>nouns and verbs. ASL has no right or wrong.
I can "see" you don't know ASL very well. Hebrew doesn't use the verb
"to be" in sentences, does that mean there's no existence in Israel?
Alex Buell
> It's too bad the education system is so damn audist.
Wouldn't it be better if every deaf person learned both oral and signed
communication? That's the best way for anyone to decide for themselves
which language is more benefical.
I know both, but I long ago decided that fitting in better with one's work
colleagues tends to further one's career. I'll sign if I need to do if I
met another deaf person... And talking of meeting, the last time I met a
deaf person was about three years ago (Hi Melissa!) This will not do at
all!
--
Alex.
Alex Buell
> That was one of the reasons I moved back to USA, aside from the bloody
> expensive petrol. I used to live in London and my car was broken into
> so many times. In my area, if criminals dare do anything stupid, they
> will be looking up the barrel of a gun. After all, being able to
> carry a gun saved my father's life twice - one from a knife wielding
> mugger and one from a gang hellbent on stealing his car. Back then,
> robbers wouldn't hurt you if you'd hand in your wallet. Nowadays,
> they will kill you because you're a witness and there's the
> three-strike law in effect.
Rats! Hey guys, I think we got ourselves a troll!
--
Alex.
Jennifer Elizabeth Martin
: On 23 Jun 2001, The Roving Reporter wrote:
: Wouldn't it be better if every deaf person learned both oral and signed
: communication? That's the best way for anyone to decide for themselves
: which language is more benefical.
Using that argument, can't we say that all English speakers should learn
Russian, Japanese, Spanish, etc so that we may decide which language is
more beneficial? Why would the deaf have to learn oral communication when
we don't force hearing people to speak (sign) in other languages?
Jenn
The Roving Reporter
<mart...@uhunix4.its.hawaii.edu> took a very strange color crayon and
scribbled:
>Using that argument, can't we say that all English speakers should learn
>Russian, Japanese, Spanish, etc so that we may decide which language is
>more beneficial? Why would the deaf have to learn oral communication when
>we don't force hearing people to speak (sign) in other languages?
Not true. In the case of Deaf people, they pretty much HAVE to be
bilingual, whereas hearing people who don't intend to associate with
Deaf people and who have no sense of justice, can get by with only one
spoken language. Not only that, but Deaf people aren't learning a
foreign language, per se, they're learning the two languages of their
country. (One used by hearing people, the other used by Deaf people.)
In some countries, the number is even higher, when more than one
language is commonly used by hearing people, and/or more than one sign
language used in the Deaf community. (Switzerland would be an example
of the former; for example of the latter, I have read Ireland has
developed two sign languages, one for males, and one for females, due
to Catholicism and separate Deaf schools for girls and boys.)
Alison Bryan
> "Alison Bryan" <alison...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<e_yX6.111994$ML4.8...@nnrp4.clara.net>...> > news:552226c0.01061...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Alison Bryan" <alison...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<992888774.651694@dionysos>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Since I speak and use ASL, am I bilingual? Wait, I speak Spanish too.
> > > Ay, dios mio! I am trilingual!
> >
very
> > few monolingual people in the world anyway.
>
> In regards to "very few monolingual people in the world," you
> apparently haven't been to the U.S. :)
I've only visited the US once, so I cant comment here. I do however have
some stats in London (I'm in Wales right now) on the number of people who
are monolingual, the no who are bilingual etc. I've only got this as I had
to research a BSL recognition submission for the govt, plus I've got to know
what I'm talking abt when I venture into places like the DfEE (wrong place
to sort out recognition here anyway).
> So you saying that if I learn Irish Sign Language, British Sign
> Language, Australian Sign Language, South African Sign Language,
> Canadian Sign Language, and know American Sign Language, Spanish, and
> English, I'm octalingual?
BSL and ASL are completely different - I went to the pub with a Deaf
american lawyer (who is currently working at a law firm in the City
(London)) about 3 weeks ago. They were completely astounded how different
BSL actually is (I've seen ASL before), and we kind of adopted to
international, plus some English.
>That's an easy way to pass myself as one.
no its not and what would be the point in doing so anyway, only to satisfy
one's ego. Just because you use ASL, doesnt mean that you are fluent in
BSL. You may shift to more pidgin signs when communicating with another
Deaf person from another country, but it doesnt deem yourself to
automatically know other languages.
As for Auslan, I have a good friend who is from Oz, a work colleague the
same etc, we can communicate, I've picked up some Auslan, Auslan has
borrowed a lot of BSL (think of history, as to how this is the case)
> Although I know American Sign Language, I do not perceive it as a
> separate language.
In the U.S., there is a heated debate over
> "Ebonics" which is merely English language riddled with inaccuracies
> like, "I ain't going to no store." There are double negatives - ain't
> and no.
I am no linguist, but linguists have proven that BSL is a language. We now
even have MRI scans of Deaf people's brains to prove this (these MRI scans
differ where a deafened person has tried to learn BSL later) with research
papers to back this up ..... they are currently on show in London. You and
I can argue against if we think BSL should be recognised linguisically, but
neither of us are qualified to do so - I am not a linguist, and I assume you
are not.
I can and I do argue for BSL recognition on a legal status level (that is
another ball game, and its what marches are about in the UK). We are not
arguing linguistically here - its not up for argument over this side of the
pond, its academically proven.
>Thankfully, it failed to gain recognition as a language.
Why so thankfully - what is it you have against recognition?
> And I for BSL, admittedly. I compare Ebonics with ASL - but am not
> sure in regards to BSL. I've been to London countless times and used
> to live there, but have not learned BSL. In ASL, if one wants to say,
> "I saw the cat jump out of the box," it would be signed as, "Me finish
> see cat jump out box." Articles are omitted and every past tenses
> come with "finish" before the verb.
But why are you attempting to apply English grammar rules to BSL? Would you
try analyse English and say its short of proforms, classifiers, etc, and
when it fails make a profound statement such as English cant be a language,
as it omits proforms etc. BSL I can convey past tense, not in sentence
order, but on emphasis, eye gaze etc - BSL is not just about how you sign
something. The example you used above, I would not even say me finish cat
jump out of the box in BSL, but I would sign it in a different way, and I am
not going to even attempt to put that into so called BSL word order here, as
its not conveying the whole picture of what I am saying. Look I've taught
law undergraduates using BSL and it is possible to communicate very abstract
concepts using that language.
I don't know if BSL is similar to
> ASL, but it is a big controversy in the U.S. Why, even Gallaudet, the
> first university for the deaf, have their students graduating with
> their reading skills between the 3rd and 4th grade (perhaps lower
> compared to UK standards). Ironically, Gallaudet does not condone the
> perception of ASL as a separate language. I don't know if English is
> mandated in the UK, but in several states of the U.S., they recognize
> ASL as a separate language and English wouldn't be required.
In arguing for BSL recognition here, we havent been going down these lines.
Why,
> even here in California, deaf people are legally entitled to have an
> interpreter read questions for them in ASL during testing before they
> get their driving licence since their English is so bad and they
> cannot comprehend some questions such as, "If your car begins to
> hydroplane on a concrete surface, you should decelerate by a) hitting
> the brakes, or b) downshifting." I don't know if it's like that in
> the UK, but I am quite sure at LEAST 50% of the deaf people would NOT
> understand "hydroplane" and roughly 30% would not understand
> "decelerate" and "downshifting." As for hearing people, I'd say 5%
> would not understand "hydroplane" and less than 1% would not
> understand "decelerate" and "downshifting." Shocking? Or is that the
> same thing in the UK?
But the point is in BSL they could understand the concepts. As for teaching
English to Deaf people is concerned, thats a seperate issue to BSL
recognition. Deaf people are perfectly able to learn English, but I see the
fault in the way that English is taught to Deaf people. Theres an
interesting method being used at Wolverhamtpon Uni, which has some very
positive results.
As for the population not understanding hydroplane, and stating a low
percentage for hearing people, I would actually object to this. I cant roll
off statistics off the top of my head, but I used to work for the Probation
Service (with hearing clients) for a couple of years. Theres a high link
between low literacy and offending (for reasons I wont go into here), and as
a result I had to train as a tutor for ABE (Adult Basic Education) for
hearing people. There's a lot of hearing people out there who dont have the
skills, plus the national average reading age is not high. I think the Sun
newspaper has a reading age of 8 or something.
What was interesting I did start teaching ABE to Deaf adults, and the
attitude of Deaf people is completely different - they always want to know
why, and are much more active in the learning process when they are taught
properly.
> I compare ASL with Ebonics. Why did ASL turn out to be like that? It
> needs to be corrected.
WHY? To come out with such a statement, is based on the assumption that its
an inferior language, therefore not good enough.
I do not perceive English as a superior
> language - everybody knows it's the French language that's superior
> :-). In several states, deaf people do not even have to speak or
> write English - they can bypass that by claiming ASL as a language. I
> think it's wrong - I've been to Germany and Israel. In both of these
> countries, written language must be up to hearing standards, no less.
> I was quite impressed. If I sign in perfect English and write in
> perfect English, then I "speak" English, no more, no less.
yes so what? I can write in perfect English (well sort of, I will fall flat
on my face sometimes) but that doesnt stop me arguing for BSL recognition,
and wanting to benefit from it as a Deaf person.
> Is BSL different in structure?
different in structure to English yes, and it does have its rules.
As for ASL, there's no right and
> wrong. It is very difficult for me to gauge one's fluency in ASL. As
> for written English, I can determine exactly what is right and what is
> wrong as it is already written down. There's another sign in the U.S.
> - SEE which means Signing Exact English. SEE requires the use of all
> words as if you're speaking English. It's slow and cumbersome, but
> it's like talking. Now that SEE is modelled after the English
> language, is it also a separate language or not? Is Ebonics a
> separate language?
SEE, or SSE here is not a seperate language, its a communication method.
The rules are still based on English.
> ADA does not recognise American Sign Language. It merely states that
> an employer is to provide reasonable accommodations to help one
> overcome the handicap. I understand UK has their own version.
Yes and it differs from the ADA, and the Australian DDA (in Oz breach their
DDA and you are liable to go to prison!) However, recognition of BSL here
is not about reasonable adjustments (accommodations for the US), we are
arguing a different thread, different model, going to the route of something
else. Deaf people will still use the DDA etc.
> Well, your English is quite admirable. Of course, that's an American
> speaking here or is that the norm with the British? Try going to U.S.
> deaf newsgroups and you shall weep. That's why I am strongly opposed
> to the recognition of ASL as a language because that also means giving
> the deaf people way too much leeway. Does BSL allow one to get by in
> schools with shoddy English? That's one thing I wonder - because I'm
> American and you're obviously British.
BSL recognition is not about letting Deaf people get away with whatever.
Its about esteem, being allowed to be active participants of society, full
citizenship etc. Those are very vague concepts, and theres more specifics
than this.
As for allowing Deaf people to get away with whatever in Education, is this
really about Deaf people, or what the system imposes on them? I think one
needs to begin at the starting point of what Education is about, is it your
ability to prove you can communicate in English, or understand concepts etc?
As for Education in the UK, the way the system stands, Deaf people are going
to still be required to learn English, and recognition wont elimate this.
cf Welsh Language in Wales, although Welsh carries equal status to English,
Welsh people do learn English. However, its more than this - if you are
arrested for example you would want to communicate in the language that is
natural to you (as your first language) and not have to interpret this.
(Questions arise here where is the best place for interpretation to take
place - in the mind of the bilingual person or someone elses). As for
bilingual people, there are very few people in the world who possess equal
ability in two languages, and everyone has strengths in one more than
another.
I think I've typed enough on this topic for now.
Alison
Alison Bryan
Wiggums <wig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:552226c0.01062...@posting.google.com...
> "Kev" <kev...@your.guts.bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:<5qcY6.109821$hV3.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > "Wiggums" <wig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:552226c0.01062...@posting.google.com...
> >
>
> I'm deaf - completely deaf and been that way since birth <snip>
Arguments like this do not help at all. I can easily pass off as a hearing
person both in terms of my written English (in fact I have a better grasp of
the English Language than many hearing people out there), and my speech - I
can speak pretty clearly.
Wowee big deal. So what.
(Interestingly I spend lots of time measuring people's real attitude to Deaf
people as to how they react, but thats another story).
What on earth would give me the right to type here and say that all Deaf
people should learn English and not bother with BSL? We are all
individuals. What on earth gives people the right to aspire that all Deaf
people / children should speak etc. To do so is simply oppression.
Although I have stated the above, I know I need to use BSL just as much as
another Deaf person who uses it. I know that I would greatly benefit from
legal recognition in the UK. Some of the benefits are common to all Deaf
people, and some benefits would depart (but this is a spectrum).
I've said it before, and I will say it again, BSL recognition is aiming for
something else, and goes further back than the DDA. When BSL recognition is
in place (although a different model) I think Deaf people will be in a
position to assert their rights a bit more under this legislation.
Alison
Alex Buell
> In some countries, the number is even higher, when more than one
> language is commonly used by hearing people, and/or more than one sign
> language used in the Deaf community. (Switzerland would be an example
> of the former; for example of the latter, I have read Ireland has
> developed two sign languages, one for males, and one for females, due
> to Catholicism and separate Deaf schools for girls and boys.)
Yet another argument ramming home the point that religion is a irrelevancy
for most free thinking humans.
--
Alex.
Alex Buell
> Using that argument, can't we say that all English speakers should
> learn Russian, Japanese, Spanish, etc so that we may decide which
> language is more beneficial? Why would the deaf have to learn oral
> communication when we don't force hearing people to speak (sign) in
> other languages?
You miss the point, how are we supposed to get on in a world where
everyone uses oral methods to communicate if we only use the sign
language?
To limit ourselves to one form of communication is to stunt your
development.
--
Alex.
Jennifer Elizabeth Martin
: On 23 Jun 2001, Jennifer Elizabeth Martin wrote:
: You miss the point, how are we supposed to get on in a world where
: everyone uses oral methods to communicate if we only use the sign
: language?
: To limit ourselves to one form of communication is to stunt your
: development.
Yes, it is. My point, though, was not that we limit ourselves. It was that
we not force others to speak our language. By doing so, we are exerting a
power over them that should not even exist.
Jenn
Wiggums
> On 21 Jun 2001 09:23:53 -0700, wig...@hotmail.com (Wiggums) took a
> very strange color crayon and scribbled:
> >It has sparked the debate over "SEE" and "ASL" with SEE
> >requiring the use of all words, past tenses, etc. whilst ASL only does
> >nouns and verbs. ASL has no right or wrong.
>
> I can "see" you don't know ASL very well. Hebrew doesn't use the verb
> "to be" in sentences, does that mean there's no existence in Israel?
Hebrew started that way because that's the way they've been doing it.
There's still a right and wrong when it comes to Hebrew as it's
already in the books. ASL can't stake a similar claim. How can one
grade one's fluency in ASL? Furthermore, claiming to have ASL as a
language enables one to bypass English requirements in the states.
And, mind you, it so happens I'm fluent in ASL. Instead of signing
"actually," an ASL user would have to sign "real self." If you want
to say, "Actually, I thought the car was white," they'd sign "I finish
think car real self white." There really is no basis for this
horribly distorted form of English. Why do the deaf English have
better English than the Americans?
Wiggums
>Bullshit. ASL has almost never been used as a form
>of instruction in the U.S. There is no
>preponderance of Deaf people who at this time can
>say they grew up being taught *IN* ASL. If they had
>been, you can be sure they would be a lot more
>literate and a lot better informed of what teachers
>were trying to tell them.
You should come over to California sometimes. It's a bit sticky here,
but the way it is done is the deaf children are given reading material
(so that they can claim English is read). The teachers then translate
that in American Sign Language to help the class understand. That
hardly does anything for the children as they grow up. That's why
California does let deaf people have the tests "signed" to them so
that they can understand the instructions a bit better.
>The major change that has affected Deaf Education
>has been the diminishing number of mild to
>moderately Deaf people who have been shifted into
>oral-only programs, leaving the Deaf Residential
>Schools to deal with the truly "hardcore" Deaf who
>have never heard anything and thus need a genuine
>visually accessible education system rather than
>the half-assed effort that passed for one in the
>past. A lot of successful Deaf people in the past
>learned, not BECAUSE of the school system but IN
>SPITE OF the school system.
I'm completely deaf and I'm hard-core deaf. My parents were shocked
at the material and yanked me out of the programme. I went back to a
mainstreamed programme and have learned a whole lot from there. What
also helped was the appreciation of the English language. I know it
by heart and I wouldn't need somebody to sign ASL for me. It boils
down to parental involvement - it's absolutely crucial.
>Case in point: I'm hard of hearing, but with no one
>around who understood what that meant, I grew up
>largely self-taught because the schools simply
>bored me. You try speechreading all day for hours
>at a time, chasing people who don't stand where you
>can see them while they are talking, and who often
>as not spend so much time belaboring the point that
>all you get is a smidgen of knowledge and a
>headache after hours of watching. My FATHER was the
>one who taught me how to read, after the school
>gave up. My FATHER was the one who tutored me in
>math and science the whole time I was growing up. I
>don't give schools credit for ANYTHING because as
>far as I'm concerned, they wasted most of my time.
>That's why I took up reading instead of paying
>attention in class and didn't give a damn if I did
>my homework or not. (But I did some of it, mostly
>the math problems since I actually enjoyed those
>somewhat, and of course I read my textbooks from
>cover to cover along with everything else I was
>"devouring.")
I began learning sign language when I was six because I missed a whole
lot in the oral programme. I was born completely deaf, but my mother
wanted me to talk. Furthermore, she's a speech pathologist so that
did help considerably. She realised I wasn't learning anything in
school so I began using sign language and was moved to another school.
I was never an avid reader nor did I really do well in school. In
high school, I basically partied and had lots of fun. I never
graduated from high school nor did I graduate from college (I'm 30 by
the way).
>I polished my English from reading, and that's the
>way most Deaf kids should and could be learning it.
>The other issue, of course, is maximising
>effectiveness of trained Deaf Education teachers by
>grouping them in regional schools with Deaf and
>moderate/severe hard of hearing kids in the same
>classroom. It doesn't have to be a residential
>school, there are many hard of hearing kids out
>there, enough for a "magnet school" concept.
I did learn English quite well. It wasn't from reading - it was from
interaction with others who were signing in full SEE (not ASL). I
have never relied on hearing and my mother realised it was visual.
When I was in high school, I wasn't a model student. I smoked
ciggies, stayed up late, and enjoyed it.
>* For those who don't know, a magnet school is a
>centralized school which gets extra funding etc. to
>serve as a model.
You had to put this paragraph after the last one - I typed about
magnet thinking it was similar to "tripod" in the states only to find
that it's different. Hmph... :)
Richard
Wiggums
> On 18 Jun 2001 14:01:17 -0700, wig...@hotmail.com (Wiggums) took a
> very strange color crayon and scribbled:
> >Since I speak and use ASL, am I bilingual? Wait, I speak Spanish too.
> > Ay, dios mio! I am trilingual!
>
> If you speak while signing, you're using "contact sign" not ASL.
>
> That would make you the equivalent of a someone who uses pidgin
> english to communicate.
>
> So, you'd still be trilingual according to a linguist, but not
> according to a strict grammatist.
>
> I think you need to study theory of languages before you spout off any
Linguists do not recognise ASL as a language in the U.S. It is not
recognised as a language in my state of California. There's no right
and wrong - it's basically 10% of the whole English language.
Wiggums
>Well, that's a specialty in a language field, so of
>course it needs English (or whatever language is
>being used.) But there are lots of jobs out there
>that don't need perfect English. I could be a
>plumber or a pipefitter and probably make more
>money than I'm doing now as a writer. Or I could
>have if I'd wised up 20 years ago.
True. You're getting ripped off. Teachers do complain about the same
thing.
>The problem in the U.S. is that "the trades" seems
>to be reserved only for people who "fail" in the
>traditional white collar oriented schooling,
>particularly high school. I think this is a waste
>of good talents. Not everyone _wants_ to be a white
>collar worker! But everyone (or at least the middle
>class) is brainwashed, so that's what parents try
>to convince their kids to do, whether it fits them
>or not.
Actually, that was from the Reagan-era. Anybody who had a B.S. or
B.A. degree from an American college was automatically "better" than
those with skills, talents, years of experience, etc. That was when
U.S. tried to promote higher education - but it's already fizzling
away.
>So the issue isn't the lack of jobs, it's the lack
>of ACCESSIBLE TRAINING. VR counselors are desperate
>for more training programs that are able to take a
>Deaf person who "failed" in oral school and has a
>smattering of signs, not a complete grasp of
>language, and teach them enough of a trade that
>they can support themselves.
Well, there's another problem. I would assume that incomes in England
do not vary widely as they do in USA. Here, the minimum wage is $5.75
(£4.00) an hour. A secretary gets roughly $15 an hour and a graphics
artists can get from $18 to $28 an hour. Working in McDonald's will
more likely get you $6.50 an hour. That has created a rift in the
deaf community and resentment. Accessible training is already taught
in deaf high schools (not hearing high schools). I know plenty of
deaf people who have impeccable English and do not talk at all - and
just about all of them have decent high-paying jobs. Yes,
discrimination is prevalent, and they had to jump through plenty of
hoops to prove themselves. Now they're up in the big leagues.
Richard
Wiggums
No, that's a Texan talking. We think very differently from you folks.
I used to live in Texas - got really used to big parking spaces, big
cars, cheap and plentiful petrol. Why, I had a Cadillac with an 8.2
litre V-8 with a 40-gallon petrol tank. I was stupid enough to bring
this car over - and paid through my arse to keep it running.
Thankfully, a car hit my Cadillac whilst it was parked so I got a new,
smaller, far more economical car that handled a whole lot better. I
now reside in an ultra-conservative area of California. In a way, I
do miss England - I admit it. :)
Richard
Wiggums
>
>Wouldn't it be better if every deaf person learned
>both oral and signed communication? That's the best
>way for anyone to decide for themselves which
>language is more benefical.
I don't really think it's better for them to be oralists. I was born
as an oralist then quickly went over to sign language when I was 6
although I do retain my speaking skills. It's difficult to teach a
deaf person how to appreciate phonetics.
Richard
ROD
English second as a second language required for life in the outside world
"hearing world"I have seen deaf children brought up in oral method looking
so lost in these two worlds stuck in the middle of these two worlds is
really sad so therefore BSL be recognised is very important to get a decent
education then this deaf child can decide which world they want to live in
90% will choose deaf world but continue to live in hearing world ???? are we
deaf people a guinea pig ??? in the cochlear implant ? if we deaf have a
decent deaf education we will be changing the rules of these doctors or
professors etc ???news:hqj8jtsasrcr7r100...@4ax.com...
Wiggums
> > > Wiggums <wig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:552226c0.01061...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Alison Bryan" <alison...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:<992888774.651694@dionysos>...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Since I speak and use ASL, am I bilingual? Wait, I speak Spanish too.
> > > > Ay, dios mio! I am trilingual!
> > >
> > > To answer your last question first - yes you are trilingual! There are very
> > > few monolingual people in the world anyway.
> >
> > In regards to "very few monolingual people in the world," you
> > apparently haven't been to the U.S. :)
>
> I've only visited the US once, so I cant comment here. I do however have
> some stats in London (I'm in Wales right now) on the number of people who
> are monolingual, the no who are bilingual etc. I've only got this as I had
> to research a BSL recognition submission for the govt, plus I've got to know
> what I'm talking abt when I venture into places like the DfEE (wrong place
> to sort out recognition here anyway).
I was intrigued by the Welsh language - I stayed at the Plas Hafod
Hotel in Gwernymynydd. I don't blame the Welsh for trying to revive
the language - they're a very proud bunch.
> > So you saying that if I learn Irish Sign Language, British Sign
> > Language, Australian Sign Language, South African Sign Language,
> > Canadian Sign Language, and know American Sign Language, Spanish, and
> > English, I'm octalingual?
>
> BSL and ASL are completely different - I went to the pub with a Deaf
> american lawyer (who is currently working at a law firm in the City
> (London)) about 3 weeks ago. They were completely astounded how different
> BSL actually is (I've seen ASL before), and we kind of adopted to
> international, plus some English.
Just out of curiosity, when you sign BSL, do you move words around?
Nobody's actually answered my question on that one. I'm fluent with
ASL, but often wondered how BSL is signed.
> >That's an easy way to pass myself as one.
>
> no its not and what would be the point in doing so anyway, only to satisfy
> one's ego. Just because you use ASL, doesnt mean that you are fluent in
> BSL. You may shift to more pidgin signs when communicating with another
> Deaf person from another country, but it doesnt deem yourself to
> automatically know other languages.
Okay, if I learned the words and alphabet in BSL, would I be a BSL
signer or is the structure different from spoken English? That's what
I meant - learning just the signed words would render me fluent in
these languages, or am I wrong?
> As for Auslan, I have a good friend who is from Oz, a work colleague the
> same etc, we can communicate, I've picked up some Auslan, Auslan has
> borrowed a lot of BSL (think of history, as to how this is the case)
There is remarkable similarity. I think letters are similar.
> I am no linguist, but linguists have proven that BSL is a language. We now
> even have MRI scans of Deaf people's brains to prove this (these MRI scans
> differ where a deafened person has tried to learn BSL later) with research
> papers to back this up ..... they are currently on show in London. You and
> I can argue against if we think BSL should be recognised linguisically, but
> neither of us are qualified to do so - I am not a linguist, and I assume you
> are not.
You're absolutely correct - I'm not a linguist. I do deal with a
linguist myself (she has so many degrees in a wide variety of fields).
She is vehmently opposed to the recognition of ASL as a language and
I really don't remember what her explanation was. I'll post it when I
find that lengthy e-mail or I can e-mail it to you. It had her
explanation as to why ASL is not a language. I was basing it on an
entirely different reason - something about structure. I don't quite
remember.
> I can and I do argue for BSL recognition on a legal status level (that is
> another ball game, and its what marches are about in the UK). We are not
> arguing linguistically here - its not up for argument over this side of the
> pond, its academically proven.
>
> >Thankfully, it failed to gain recognition as a language.
>
> Why so thankfully - what is it you have against recognition?
I speak English and I write English. ASL is just a tool - a way of
expressing English (by hands instead of by mouth) - hence my
insistence that it be classified as "English."
> > And I for BSL, admittedly. I compare Ebonics with ASL - but am not
> > sure in regards to BSL. I've been to London countless times and used
> > to live there, but have not learned BSL. In ASL, if one wants to say,
> > "I saw the cat jump out of the box," it would be signed as, "Me finish
> > see cat jump out box." Articles are omitted and every past tenses
> > come with "finish" before the verb.
>
> But why are you attempting to apply English grammar rules to BSL? Would you
> try analyse English and say its short of proforms, classifiers, etc, and
> when it fails make a profound statement such as English cant be a language,
> as it omits proforms etc. BSL I can convey past tense, not in sentence
> order, but on emphasis, eye gaze etc - BSL is not just about how you sign
> something. The example you used above, I would not even say me finish cat
> jump out of the box in BSL, but I would sign it in a different way, and I am
> not going to even attempt to put that into so called BSL word order here, as
> its not conveying the whole picture of what I am saying. Look I've taught
> law undergraduates using BSL and it is possible to communicate very abstract
> concepts using that language.
OK, in BSL, are there signed words for "actually" or "acknowledge?"
In ASL, there's no "actually" - they sign "real self." Many words are
missing from ASL and ASL tends to make up two words in order to
compensate for this deficiency.
> I don't know if BSL is similar to
> > ASL, but it is a big controversy in the U.S. Why, even Gallaudet, the
> > first university for the deaf, have their students graduating with
> > their reading skills between the 3rd and 4th grade (perhaps lower
> > compared to UK standards). Ironically, Gallaudet does not condone the
> > perception of ASL as a separate language. I don't know if English is
> > mandated in the UK, but in several states of the U.S., they recognize
> > ASL as a separate language and English wouldn't be required.
>
> In arguing for BSL recognition here, we havent been going down these lines.
This is going to get real messy. I'll try to sum it up - but it's
quite apparent I won't change my position and you won't change your
position. Using these famous words echoed by Rodney King during the
Los Angeles riots, "Can't we all get along?"
> Why,
> > even here in California, deaf people are legally entitled to have an
> > interpreter read questions for them in ASL during testing before they
> > get their driving licence since their English is so bad and they
> > cannot comprehend some questions such as, "If your car begins to
> > hydroplane on a concrete surface, you should decelerate by a) hitting
> > the brakes, or b) downshifting." I don't know if it's like that in
> > the UK, but I am quite sure at LEAST 50% of the deaf people would NOT
> > understand "hydroplane" and roughly 30% would not understand
> > "decelerate" and "downshifting." As for hearing people, I'd say 5%
> > would not understand "hydroplane" and less than 1% would not
> > understand "decelerate" and "downshifting." Shocking? Or is that the
> > same thing in the UK?
>
> But the point is in BSL they could understand the concepts. As for teaching
> English to Deaf people is concerned, thats a seperate issue to BSL
> recognition. Deaf people are perfectly able to learn English, but I see the
> fault in the way that English is taught to Deaf people. Theres an
> interesting method being used at Wolverhamtpon Uni, which has some very
> positive results.
I know deaf people are able to learn perfect English - but how?
That's the problem. Hearing people have it innate.
> As for the population not understanding hydroplane, and stating a low
> percentage for hearing people, I would actually object to this. I cant roll
> off statistics off the top of my head, but I used to work for the Probation
> Service (with hearing clients) for a couple of years. Theres a high link
> between low literacy and offending (for reasons I wont go into here), and as
> a result I had to train as a tutor for ABE (Adult Basic Education) for
> hearing people. There's a lot of hearing people out there who dont have the
> skills, plus the national average reading age is not high. I think the Sun
> newspaper has a reading age of 8 or something.
Of course, I cannot sprout off statistics, but I'll say this for sure
- Deaf people in USA have it considerably worse than the hearing.
> What was interesting I did start teaching ABE to Deaf adults, and the
> attitude of Deaf people is completely different - they always want to know
> why, and are much more active in the learning process when they are taught
> properly.
>
> > I compare ASL with Ebonics. Why did ASL turn out to be like that? It
> > needs to be corrected.
>
> WHY? To come out with such a statement, is based on the assumption that its
> an inferior language, therefore not good enough.
No, I never said it was inferior. There was no reason for ASL to
evolve into this. Before, it was recognised as "sign language." It
eventually split into two - ASL and SEE with ASL being spoken by the
masses while SEE is modeled after English. Words are signed the same,
but SEE has added more words such as "hinge" or "consequences."
Really really big words here.
> I do not perceive English as a superior
> > language - everybody knows it's the French language that's superior
> > :-). In several states, deaf people do not even have to speak or
> > write English - they can bypass that by claiming ASL as a language. I
> > think it's wrong - I've been to Germany and Israel. In both of these
> > countries, written language must be up to hearing standards, no less.
> > I was quite impressed. If I sign in perfect English and write in
> > perfect English, then I "speak" English, no more, no less.
>
> yes so what? I can write in perfect English (well sort of, I will fall flat
> on my face sometimes) but that doesnt stop me arguing for BSL recognition,
> and wanting to benefit from it as a Deaf person.
My stance is that BSL is a mode of communication - as for ASL and SEE.
> > Is BSL different in structure?
>
> different in structure to English yes, and it does have its rules.
>
> As for ASL, there's no right and
> > wrong. It is very difficult for me to gauge one's fluency in ASL. As
> > for written English, I can determine exactly what is right and what is
> > wrong as it is already written down. There's another sign in the U.S.
> > - SEE which means Signing Exact English. SEE requires the use of all
> > words as if you're speaking English. It's slow and cumbersome, but
> > it's like talking. Now that SEE is modelled after the English
> > language, is it also a separate language or not? Is Ebonics a
> > separate language?
>
> SEE, or SSE here is not a seperate language, its a communication method.
> The rules are still based on English.
But SEE is far more complicated than ASL.
> > ADA does not recognise American Sign Language. It merely states that
> > an employer is to provide reasonable accommodations to help one
> > overcome the handicap. I understand UK has their own version.
>
> Yes and it differs from the ADA, and the Australian DDA (in Oz breach their
> DDA and you are liable to go to prison!) However, recognition of BSL here
> is not about reasonable adjustments (accommodations for the US), we are
> arguing a different thread, different model, going to the route of something
> else. Deaf people will still use the DDA etc.
Prison? Now that's a good idea. I can name a few in the states....
> > Well, your English is quite admirable. Of course, that's an American
> > speaking here or is that the norm with the British? Try going to U.S.
> > deaf newsgroups and you shall weep. That's why I am strongly opposed
> > to the recognition of ASL as a language because that also means giving
> > the deaf people way too much leeway. Does BSL allow one to get by in
> > schools with shoddy English? That's one thing I wonder - because I'm
> > American and you're obviously British.
>
> BSL recognition is not about letting Deaf people get away with whatever.
> Its about esteem, being allowed to be active participants of society, full
> citizenship etc. Those are very vague concepts, and theres more specifics
> than this.
I fully am in support of esteem for the deaf. I fully support ADA
(DDA) and support others learning ASL or SEE. I believe ASL should be
taught in high schools in lieu of French, Spanish, or another foreign
language. However, as for a DEAF person attempting to bypass English
requirements by claiming to ASL is what I am absolutely opposed to.
> As for allowing Deaf people to get away with whatever in Education, is this
> really about Deaf people, or what the system imposes on them? I think one
> needs to begin at the starting point of what Education is about, is it your
> ability to prove you can communicate in English, or understand concepts etc?
If a deaf person is born in USA, why cannot they speak English?
> As for Education in the UK, the way the system stands, Deaf people are going
> to still be required to learn English, and recognition wont elimate this.
> cf Welsh Language in Wales, although Welsh carries equal status to English,
> Welsh people do learn English. However, its more than this - if you are
> arrested for example you would want to communicate in the language that is
> natural to you (as your first language) and not have to interpret this.
> (Questions arise here where is the best place for interpretation to take
> place - in the mind of the bilingual person or someone elses). As for
> bilingual people, there are very few people in the world who possess equal
> ability in two languages, and everyone has strengths in one more than
> another.
>
> I think I've typed enough on this topic for now.
>
> Alison
I'll be in London in a few weeks from now. I want to do research on
deaf people up there and how their education system works.
Unfortunately, I don't do BSL and I'll admit I have so many questions
about BSL and how it is signed. I have watched a few sign BSL but I
couldn't tell whether the structure is different or the same. I think
I'll probably drive up to Manchester - I was told there's a big deaf
club there.
Cheers,
Richard
Alex Buell
> No, that's a Texan talking. We think very differently from you folks.
> I used to live in Texas - got really used to big parking spaces, big
> cars, cheap and plentiful petrol. Why, I had a Cadillac with an 8.2
> litre V-8 with a 40-gallon petrol tank. I was stupid enough to bring
> this car over - and paid through my arse to keep it running.
> Thankfully, a car hit my Cadillac whilst it was parked so I got a new,
> smaller, far more economical car that handled a whole lot better. I
> now reside in an ultra-conservative area of California. In a way, I
> do miss England - I admit it. :)
Do come back ;o) Intelligent Americans are always welcome!
--
Alex.
Stuart Baldwin
>I'll be in London in a few weeks from now. I want to do research on
>deaf people up there and how their education system works.
>Unfortunately, I don't do BSL and I'll admit I have so many questions
>about BSL and how it is signed. I have watched a few sign BSL but I
>couldn't tell whether the structure is different or the same. I think
>I'll probably drive up to Manchester - I was told there's a big deaf
>club there.
There is indeed and they have their own (licensed) premises too, so no
struggling to find tables in crowded pubs. I haven't been for a
couple of years but I imagine that it is still much the same.
Social night is Monday night, about 7pm or so to 11pm. Visitors were
always welcome when I used to go and you may be able to talk/sign your
way in if you just turn up. However, it may be worth trying to
contact someone who is a current member before you go as you would
then get introduced to more people when you arrive.
The name is Manchester Deaf Centre and the postal address is Crawford
House, Booth Street East, Manchester M13 9CH. There is an embryonic
web site (nothing to do with me) at
http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Cottage/1715/home.html
--
Stuart Baldwin
Stuart Baldwin
>In my own view is deaf children should learn BSL first then start learning
>English second as a second language required for life in the outside world
>"hearing world"I have seen deaf children brought up in oral method looking
>so lost in these two worlds stuck in the middle of these two worlds is
>really sad so therefore BSL be recognised is very important to get a decent
>education then this deaf child can decide which world they want to live in
>90% will choose deaf world but continue to live in hearing world ???? are we
>deaf people a guinea pig ??? in the cochlear implant ? if we deaf have a
>decent deaf education we will be changing the rules of these doctors or
>professors etc ???
Oooh, can of worms here! (Not to mention the bee in my bonnet...)
I think I would agree with your first sentence if there were no such
thing as cochlear implants. The fact is that implants are here to
stay and there is nothing anyone can do about that. Deaf children
/will/ receive implants because it is natural for hearing parents and
healthcare professionals to think that is best for the child. Once a
child has an implant, they need intensive auditory training to ensure
that they learn spoken english during the critical language
acquisition phase (apparently, although if you deny that this phase
exists you also weaken the case for early exposure to sign language).
I think the difficulty is likely to be in finding room for sign
language during this intensely aural/oral phase and the quality and
breadth of support at this time is probably the key to maintaining the
widest range of life options for the child. The deaf community[1]
would be ideally placed to assist with this support if they can
maintain a constructive attitude.
Having said all that, I have to admit that I am not really qualified
to comment on the implantation of deaf children. My position is that
of a late-deafened adult with cochlear implants and I can confirm from
my own experience that the technology /can/ work very well indeed. On
the other hand, I have also had extensive contact with the deaf
community and found them very supportive when I was feeling somewhat
disorientated by my hearing loss (your 'stuck between two worlds' sums
it up very well). I wouldn't like to see that community wither and
die because they were not flexible enough to accomodate the changes
that the increasing use of cochlear implants will bring.
[1] I'm always uneasy about using the term 'deaf community' because I
realise that some people regard it as divisive. I'm going to stick
with it though as it certainly looked like a community to me.
--
Stuart Baldwin
The Roving Reporter
<mart...@uhunix4.its.hawaii.edu> took a very strange color crayon and
scribbled:
The majority always forces the minority to learn their language in
order to succeed. The point, I think, is that Deaf people want to have
the right to use their own language IN ADDITION. Here in California,
Mexicans can speak Spanish among themselves, or have an interpreter at
certain times, but for employment, they really need to learn English
if they want to have full access to the better jobs. Same deal should
work for Deaf people as well, and to a greater extent because unlike
the Mexicans, Deaf people need visual accessibility that people who
can hear don't need. Spoken language isn't visually accessible, ergo,
sign language. At the minimum, all Deaf people should be able to learn
to read/write the spoken language, and they can best do this with the
help of their natural sign language skills abetted by qualified
teachers.
Mainstreaming doesn't often give Deaf children access to the right
teachers though...because there will never be enough of them to teach
all the Deaf children in all the possible places they can be found. So
the real issue for any country is how to make the best use of
qualified teachers that are available to teach those Deaf children who
need their services, and not leave anyone out.
Wiggums
> On 25 Jun 2001, Wiggums wrote:
>
> Do come back ;o) Intelligent Americans are always welcome!
Fret not for I will be in London on 26 July. You'll definitely bump
into me in the Grenadier Pub on Wilton Row next to Belgrave Square
(SW1). It's one of my favourite pubs. If you happen to be in the
area, I have a glass of Grenadier's famous bloody mary ready for you.
Cheers,
Richard
Alison Bryan
> "Alison Bryan" <alison...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<BCjZ6.193118$PP3.15...@nnrp3.clara.net>...
> Wiggums <wig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:552226c0.01061...@posting.google.com...
> > "Alison Bryan" <alison...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<e_yX6.111994$ML4.8...@nnrp4.clara.net>...
> > > > Wiggums <wig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:552226c0.01061...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Alison Bryan" <alison...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:<992888774.651694@dionysos>...
> > >
>
> I was intrigued by the Welsh language - I stayed at the Plas Hafod
> Hotel in Gwernymynydd. I don't blame the Welsh for trying to revive
> the language - they're a very proud bunch.
:)
well so are Deaf people.
One thing about minority languages, people thing that minority languages are
a dying breed, when they are not (see European Bureau for Lesser Languages
stats).
> Just out of curiosity, when you sign BSL, do you move words around?
> Nobody's actually answered my question on that one. I'm fluent with
> ASL, but often wondered how BSL is signed.
by saying you move the words around, you are starting from the assumption
that English is a superior language. BSL does have a different order than
English - why? The grammatical rules for BSL are different, and theres more
to it than juggling words around. For that matter, the order for Welsh is
completely different to English as well (I come from a Welsh speaking
family - half of my family's first language is Welsh).
> Okay, if I learned the words and alphabet in BSL, would I be a BSL
> signer or is the structure different from spoken English? That's what
> I meant - learning just the signed words would render me fluent in
> these languages, or am I wrong?
if you just learnt signs and nothing about the way BSL is structured, then
no you cannot pass yourself as being able to use BSL. Pure signs in itself
does not convey the full meaning.
> > As for Auslan, I have a good friend who is from Oz, a work colleague the
> > same etc, we can communicate, I've picked up some Auslan, Auslan has
> > borrowed a lot of BSL (think of history, as to how this is the case)
>
> There is remarkable similarity. I think letters are similar.
yes. But next time when youre in the pub, ask a Britsh Deafie in Auslan if
they want a coca cola/coke, and you'll get a v interesting facial expression
(in response!) :)
>
> You're absolutely correct - I'm not a linguist. I do deal with a
> linguist myself (she has so many degrees in a wide variety of fields).
> She is vehmently opposed to the recognition of ASL as a language and
> I really don't remember what her explanation was. I'll post it when I
> find that lengthy e-mail or I can e-mail it to you. It had her
> explanation as to why ASL is not a language. I was basing it on an
> entirely different reason - something about structure. I don't quite
> remember.
ok will wait for your post, but BSL is proven not to be an artificial
language this side of the pond.
> I speak English and I write English. ASL is just a tool - a way of
> expressing English (by hands instead of by mouth) - hence my
> insistence that it be classified as "English."
yes but are you using SSE, or the ancroym that is actually used over there?
> OK, in BSL, are there signed words for "actually" or "acknowledge?"
> In ASL, there's no "actually" - they sign "real self." Many words are
> missing from ASL and ASL tends to make up two words in order to
> compensate for this deficiency.
but theres signs in BSL that theres no words in English, you have to adapt a
phrase instead. On that basis could I say that English is not a proper
language because no words have not evolved?
Europe has many languages, and each one of its languages contains words that
its impossible to translate literally, without loosing its meaning (I'm
trying to think of some examples here). Welsh is the same, are words in
Welsh that its impossible to translate the full meaning into English - take
a simple one like 'bech', its used all the time in my family, but theres no
way I could find an English word to match its real meaning.
And yes, I could get the meaning across for acknowledge, and actually - not
in a pure sign but I'd get it across in the context of everything I am
saying. You cant just translate languages literally.
> This is going to get real messy. I'll try to sum it up - but it's
> quite apparent I won't change my position and you won't change your
> position. Using these famous words echoed by Rodney King during the
> Los Angeles riots, "Can't we all get along?"
I think theres a cultural difference here as well, from the US and UK
perspective. What you actually see in the US, is not actually the same
experience over here.
> I know deaf people are able to learn perfect English - but how?
> That's the problem. Hearing people have it innate.
>
> Of course, I cannot sprout off statistics, but I'll say this for sure
> - Deaf people in USA have it considerably worse than the hearing.
one thing I will say is dont be so easily put off by things as you see them
on the face of it. Because hearing people are able to hear and very often
get away with things auditory/verbally, its incredibly easy to assume that
very few hearing people have poor literacy skills. I fell for that
assumption before, but jump in the deep end of ABE, and you'll knock
yourself backwards.
> No, I never said it was inferior. There was no reason for ASL to
> evolve into this. Before, it was recognised as "sign language." It
> eventually split into two - ASL and SEE with ASL being spoken by the
> masses while SEE is modeled after English. Words are signed the same,
> but SEE has added more words such as "hinge" or "consequences."
> Really really big words here.
but is it actually possible to convey the MEANING of consequences in ASL?
> My stance is that BSL is a mode of communication - as for ASL and SEE.
SSE is a mode of communication, and BSL is a language. Not an artificial
one, but a real one. Its proven. You are not qualified to make such
statements if you are not 1) efficient in BSL (by that I dont mean a flying
visit to the UK), or you are 2) a linguist who has actually studied BSL.
Go and spend some time with Prof Bencie Woll!
> > As for ASL, there's no right and
> > > wrong. It is very difficult for me to gauge one's fluency in ASL. As
> > > for written English, I can determine exactly what is right and what is
> > > wrong as it is already written down. There's another sign in the U.S.
> > > - SEE which means Signing Exact English. SEE requires the use of all
> > > words as if you're speaking English. It's slow and cumbersome, but
> > > it's like talking. Now that SEE is modelled after the English
> > > language, is it also a separate language or not? Is Ebonics a
> > > separate language?
> >
> > SEE, or SSE here is not a seperate language, its a communication method.
> > The rules are still based on English.
>
> But SEE is far more complicated than ASL.
>
> > > ADA does not recognise American Sign Language. It merely states that
> > > an employer is to provide reasonable accommodations to help one
> > > overcome the handicap. I understand UK has their own version.
> >
DDA over here. And no it does not recognise BSL under this Act, and we are
not seeking recognition under here. As I've already said before,
recognition and disability discrimination models are 2 very different ball
games. To interelate the 2 at the outset - you cant.
> Prison? Now that's a good idea. I can name a few in the states....
yep prison, top CEOs can end up there if they dont take resp for their
company's actions as well. Whats more interesting is how they define
disability in Oz as well......
> >
> I fully am in support of esteem for the deaf. I fully support ADA
> (DDA) and support others learning ASL or SEE. I believe ASL should be
> taught in high schools in lieu of French, Spanish, or another foreign
> language. However, as for a DEAF person attempting to bypass English
> requirements by claiming to ASL is what I am absolutely opposed to.
Welsh is recognised as a language here, but Welsh people still learn
English. As I have already stated, some of my family their first language
is Welsh, but they have still learnt English. What is interesting though is
that theres the option of doing your part of your degree in Wales, through
the medium of Welsh (one of my cousins did that).
> > As for allowing Deaf people to get away with whatever in Education, is
this
> > really about Deaf people, or what the system imposes on them? I think
one
> > needs to begin at the starting point of what Education is about, is it
your
> > ability to prove you can communicate in English, or understand concepts
etc?
>
> If a deaf person is born in USA, why cannot they speak English?
Recognition is not the same as saying that all Deaf children have to be
educated in the medium of BSL. Its not saying stamp out oralism. Its
giving choice, and I mean proper choice, not what we see now. If oralism
fails, lets educate in BSL. That way BSL is seen as the stigma / failure
option. You cant speak, therefore you had to learn BSL, you are not very
good are you. Look at that oral deaf person over there, look how well they
can speak, you wouldnt know they were deaf. You should try a bit harder.
What the hell does that do for a Deaf person, whos first language is BSL?
Not a lot does it. You are a small person, you use an inferior language.
This is 2001, all Deaf people are equal.
> I'll be in London in a few weeks from now. I want to do research on
> deaf people up there and how their education system works.
> Unfortunately, I don't do BSL and I'll admit I have so many questions
> about BSL and how it is signed. I have watched a few sign BSL but I
> couldn't tell whether the structure is different or the same. I think
> I'll probably drive up to Manchester - I was told there's a big deaf
> club there.
Well I live in London, and I also work for a national deaf organisation, so
contact me off list if you want.
Alison
Wiggums
> Wiggums <wig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:552226c0.01062...@posting.google.com...
> > "Alison Bryan" <alison...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<BCjZ6.193118$PP3.15...@nnrp3.clara.net>...
> > Wiggums <wig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:552226c0.01061...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Hotel in Gwernymynydd. I don't blame the Welsh for trying to revive
> > the language - they're a very proud bunch.
>
> :)
>
> well so are Deaf people.
>
> One thing about minority languages, people thing that minority languages are
> a dying breed, when they are not (see European Bureau for Lesser Languages
> stats).
Welsh was nearly killed off in the 1940's. From that point, it began
to rise.
> > [my stuff snipped]
>
> by saying you move the words around, you are starting from the assumption
> that English is a superior language. BSL does have a different order than
> English - why? The grammatical rules for BSL are different, and theres more
> to it than juggling words around. For that matter, the order for Welsh is
> completely different to English as well (I come from a Welsh speaking
> family - half of my family's first language is Welsh).
I am aware of how Welsh is written and it is incomprehensible to me.
The Welsh has long been spoken and it's been around. Neither English
nor Welsh is superior. Now, why was BSL developed this way - moving
words waround? In ASL, it was due to the deaf person's inability to
think in English and the ASL reflects the fact that deaf people think
in pictures. And 200 years ago when sign language was introduced, it
was in perfect English. Over the years, it has distorted itself and
now deaf people want it recognized as a language so they need not have
to bother learning English.
> > [my stuff snipped]
> if you just learnt signs and nothing about the way BSL is structured, then
> no you cannot pass yourself as being able to use BSL. Pure signs in itself
> does not convey the full meaning.
How did BSL evolve to be that way?
> > > As for Auslan, I have a good friend who is from Oz, a work colleague the
> > > same etc, we can communicate, I've picked up some Auslan, Auslan has
> > > borrowed a lot of BSL (think of history, as to how this is the case)
> >
> > There is remarkable similarity. I think letters are similar.
>
> yes. But next time when youre in the pub, ask a Britsh Deafie in Auslan if
> they want a coca cola/coke, and you'll get a v interesting facial expression
> (in response!) :)
Will try doing that.. :-)
> > You're absolutely correct - I'm not a linguist. I do deal with a
> > linguist myself (she has so many degrees in a wide variety of fields).
> > She is vehmently opposed to the recognition of ASL as a language and
> > I really don't remember what her explanation was. I'll post it when I
> > find that lengthy e-mail or I can e-mail it to you. It had her
> > explanation as to why ASL is not a language. I was basing it on an
> > entirely different reason - something about structure. I don't quite
> > remember.
>
> ok will wait for your post, but BSL is proven not to be an artificial
> language this side of the pond.
OK.. I found it.. it came from a linguist I know very well, Paulette
Caswell. I copied and pasted it over - that's her explanation as to
why ASL is not a language. Her reason is different from mine - and
she's doing it from her linguist point of view.
Quote...
No, the ASL people have SAID that "ASL is a language," but no one else
outside of their little "group" actually recognizes it as a language
(in the Linguistic sense). Everyone knows that ASL is a
protolanguage, or prelanguage, in the real fields of Linguistics,
Semiotics, Anthropology, Cognitive Neuroscience, etc.
And everyone in the field of Bilingual Education, including the people
at the US Department of Education's Bilingual Education Division,
definitely know that "bilingual education" involves the crossover of
PHONEMES (speech sounds) from one PHONEMIC language to another
PHONEMIC language. ASL is purely gestural, is NONphonemic, and can't
be used in any Bilingual Education program. Ain't no way, and that's
why the Bilingual Ed. people at the US Dept. of Ed. refuse to give any
"free grant money" for the "ASL Bi-Bi" programs.
Oh, believe me, everyone KNOWS what is going on with those people, and
everyone has known for more than 100 years (with a lot of research
results) that what they are proposing never has worked, and never will
work.
SEE was actually "invented" by the Abbe de l'Epee, as "methodical
signs," and that is ALL he used to teach French, PLUS he used oralism,
as well, of course. That was then modified by the Abbe Sicard, who
then taught Laurent Clerc, who came to the USA to use the Methodical
Signs in the English language (SEE) in the American Asylum in
Hartford, CT. THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ANY HISTORICAL USE OF "ASL" OR
"NATURAL SIGN LANGUAGE" IN ANY EDUCATION PROGRAM ANYWHERE, UNTIL
RECENTLY.
The Council of Milan was simply concerned with TWO basic methods...
"Oralism" (without signs, but which used completely natural gestures
that everyone else uses since birth), and the "Combined Method" (Total
Communication, but the schools had been slowly removing the oral
instruction, and that was the main concern).
The Council of Milan simply told the people... "Try the Oral method
first. Then, if those kids can't get it, then use the REAL Combined
Method (which was used by the Abbe de l'Epee, and others), which is a
combination of ORAL TRAINING with Sign-Coding of the phonemic language
concerned.
The focus CANNOT be on "speech" unless the child can actually hear
enough phonemes to use the brain's SEPARATE feedback system for
accurate voice production. If they can't use the "Auditory-Verbal
Feedback Loop" in the brain, then the focus must be more on
development of "inner language," so the kids can read and write,
because they will NEVER have completely clear and understandable
speech without effective auditory-verbal feedback.
YES, the "ASL" people will challenge, harass, and suppress ANY system
that can effectively teach deaf children the ENGLISH language, and so
they challenge the SEE, Total Communication, and Cued English
programs, and suppress knowledge in the public mind that those
programs (or even people like you) ACTUALLY EXIST. Did you know that,
to them, you are "impossible," and that they want you to remain as
invisible to the public as possible?
The average level at graduation from a deaf asylum institution in the
USA is "4th grade" English and academic knowledge. Gallaudet
University admits students with 8th grade English and academic levels.
HOWEVER, once those students get into Gallaudet, no matter what their
English level is, they are REQUIRED to learn and become fluent in the
ASL protolanguage gestural form of communication, and to use it AT ALL
TIMES in their classes, social interactions, etc. By four years
later, after total immersion in ASL, their English levels tend to
disappear rapidly.
Yes, dear, the world loves "Americans" but they also love the ENGLISH
language. Unfortunately, those people from WFD and Gallaudet are
running around to the other countries, telling them that Gallaudet can
teach their deaf children, and, they are assuming it is in the English
language. Boy, are they WRONG! Even the ESL program at Gallaudet
teaches ASL first, and can delay a student from regular admission into
any of the college credit courses at Gallaudet up to THREE FULL YEARS.
The foreign parents are paying a LOT of money to give their children a
protolanguage gestural form that is used by the higher apes, and
hearing children below 2 years of age.
There is no such thing as "Deaf Culture." It isn't totally from the
deaf community (as you know), and it is not a separate and distinct
Culture, either. That term is a sociopolitical position designation,
fradulent, misleading, and most people don't know what it really is,
which is very dangerous.
Unquote. She is an extremely knowledgeable individual and I wouldn't
dare challenge any one of her comments. She has done so much research
and she's a valuable member of the deaf community.
> > I speak English and I write English. ASL is just a tool - a way of
> > expressing English (by hands instead of by mouth) - hence my
> > insistence that it be classified as "English."
>
> yes but are you using SSE, or the ancroym that is actually used over there?
I'm fluent in ASL, SEE, spoken English, and spoken Spanish. I do know
ASL by heart, but I still don't think of it as a language.
> > [my stuff snipped]
> but theres signs in BSL that theres no words in English, you have to adapt a
> phrase instead. On that basis could I say that English is not a proper
> language because no words have not evolved?
Why not invent one? In SEE, there are about 3 times more signed words
than ASL. And the SEE book continues to grow while ASL continues to
evolve. Are BSL users given leeway if they had bad English?
> Europe has many languages, and each one of its languages contains words that
> its impossible to translate literally, without loosing its meaning (I'm
> trying to think of some examples here). Welsh is the same, are words in
> Welsh that its impossible to translate the full meaning into English - take
> a simple one like 'bech', its used all the time in my family, but theres no
> way I could find an English word to match its real meaning.
Same with cabronciton in Spanish. I can't think of a way to translate
it.
> And yes, I could get the meaning across for acknowledge, and actually - not
> in a pure sign but I'd get it across in the context of everything I am
> saying. You cant just translate languages literally.
Am aware of that.
> > [my stuff snipped]
>
> I think theres a cultural difference here as well, from the US and UK
> perspective. What you actually see in the US, is not actually the same
> experience over here.
That's true.
> > [my stuff snipped]
>
> one thing I will say is dont be so easily put off by things as you see them
> on the face of it. Because hearing people are able to hear and very often
> get away with things auditory/verbally, its incredibly easy to assume that
> very few hearing people have poor literacy skills. I fell for that
> assumption before, but jump in the deep end of ABE, and you'll knock
> yourself backwards.
I receive plenty of e-mails from deaf and hearing people alike. I
have received e-mails from different deaf teachers countless times and
was quite shocked to find them riddled with inaccuracies. I then
found out that they were given leeway because they claimed they only
"spoke" ASL and did not have to go through stringent English
requirements. Despite the fact I know ASL by heart and was born deaf,
nearly all of my friends are not deaf. Perhaps that's in the UK - but
it just ain't the same in ol' USA.
> > No, I never said it was inferior. There was no reason for ASL to
> > evolve into this. Before, it was recognised as "sign language." It
> > eventually split into two - ASL and SEE with ASL being spoken by the
> > masses while SEE is modeled after English. Words are signed the same,
> > but SEE has added more words such as "hinge" or "consequences."
> > Really really big words here.
>
> but is it actually possible to convey the MEANING of consequences in ASL?
No, there's one sign for "consequences," "ramifications," "happens,"
and others. It explains why the literacy rate is low. Originally in
sign language, there would have been signs for each, but it has gone
way down lately.
> > My stance is that BSL is a mode of communication - as for ASL and SEE.
>
> SSE is a mode of communication, and BSL is a language. Not an artificial
> one, but a real one. Its proven. You are not qualified to make such
> statements if you are not 1) efficient in BSL (by that I dont mean a flying
> visit to the UK), or you are 2) a linguist who has actually studied BSL.
>
> Go and spend some time with Prof Bencie Woll!
Now I'll have Paulette talk with him. :-) She is a linguist. My
explanation is different from hers. I just see no reason why ASL has
slowly deteriorated for the worse and it has gotten so bad it's now
trying to be called a "language" so the deaf need not bother studying
English.
> > Prison? Now that's a good idea. I can name a few in the states....
>
> yep prison, top CEOs can end up there if they dont take resp for their
> company's actions as well. Whats more interesting is how they define
> disability in Oz as well......
Oh, now that'll never happen here. Here, it's impossible to prosecute
CEO's of large corporations even if there was gross negligence on the
company's part.
> > I fully am in support of esteem for the deaf. I fully support ADA
> > (DDA) and support others learning ASL or SEE. I believe ASL should be
> > taught in high schools in lieu of French, Spanish, or another foreign
> > language. However, as for a DEAF person attempting to bypass English
> > requirements by claiming to ASL is what I am absolutely opposed to.
>
> Welsh is recognised as a language here, but Welsh people still learn
> English. As I have already stated, some of my family their first language
> is Welsh, but they have still learnt English. What is interesting though is
> that theres the option of doing your part of your degree in Wales, through
> the medium of Welsh (one of my cousins did that).
Welsh is not derived from English (obviously). ASL/BSL is - therefore
I believe they should be required to learn English and get their act
straightened up.
> > If a deaf person is born in USA, why cannot they speak English?
>
> Recognition is not the same as saying that all Deaf children have to be
> educated in the medium of BSL. Its not saying stamp out oralism. Its
> giving choice, and I mean proper choice, not what we see now. If oralism
> fails, lets educate in BSL. That way BSL is seen as the stigma / failure
> option. You cant speak, therefore you had to learn BSL, you are not very
> good are you. Look at that oral deaf person over there, look how well they
> can speak, you wouldnt know they were deaf. You should try a bit harder.
I am not at all for stamping out oralism. I think SEE/SSE should be
first, then comes in ASL/BSL. Oralism is not an option for the
profoundly deaf (which I am). I started out as an oralist myself and
still do speak. Most of my friends do not even sign - and I'm
comfortable with that. Still, I know ASL by heart and have been
signing it since I was about six.
> What the hell does that do for a Deaf person, whos first language is BSL?
> Not a lot does it. You are a small person, you use an inferior language.
>
> This is 2001, all Deaf people are equal.
Do you think it a wise maneovre to first teach a deaf person in BSL or
would it be SSE?
> > I'll be in London in a few weeks from now. I want to do research on
> > deaf people up there and how their education system works.
> > Unfortunately, I don't do BSL and I'll admit I have so many questions
> > about BSL and how it is signed. I have watched a few sign BSL but I
> > couldn't tell whether the structure is different or the same. I think
> > I'll probably drive up to Manchester - I was told there's a big deaf
> > club there.
>
> Well I live in London, and I also work for a national deaf organisation, so
> contact me off list if you want.
I'll be at the Grenadier Pub on Wilton Row, Belgrave Square SW1, on 27
July at 5:00 PM. No joke.
Richard
Wiggums
>
> There is indeed and they have their own (licensed) premises too, so no
> struggling to find tables in crowded pubs. I haven't been for a
> couple of years but I imagine that it is still much the same.
>
> Social night is Monday night, about 7pm or so to 11pm. Visitors were
> always welcome when I used to go and you may be able to talk/sign your
> way in if you just turn up. However, it may be worth trying to
> contact someone who is a current member before you go as you would
> then get introduced to more people when you arrive.
>
> The name is Manchester Deaf Centre and the postal address is Crawford
> House, Booth Street East, Manchester M13 9CH. There is an embryonic
> web site (nothing to do with me) at
> http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Cottage/1715/home.html
Splendid, thank you very much! I did go to a small deaf club in
Lancaster - and had quite a good time although I had to keep talking
through an interpreter who could speak English and sign BSL since I
didn't know BSL at all. I did like the pub there as well.
Are there any in the SW area of London?
Cheers,
Richard
Kev
states....
>
> yep prison, top CEOs can end up there if they dont take resp for
their
> company's actions as well.
Yes, I believe that managers are not held responsible for
discrimination if they make training available to employees and the
employee discriminates (or whatever), whether or not they did the
training. It is purely the employee at fault. Something like that,
anyway.
> Whats more interesting is how they define
> disability in Oz as well......
Why do you say this?
--
/ Kevin
Spill "your.guts." to reply by email.
Alex Buell
> Fret not for I will be in London on 26 July. You'll definitely bump
> into me in the Grenadier Pub on Wilton Row next to Belgrave Square
> (SW1). It's one of my favourite pubs. If you happen to be in the
> area, I have a glass of Grenadier's famous bloody mary ready for you.
I'll probably be out of the country - don't know yet though!
--
Hey, they *are* out to get you, but it's nothing personal.
The Roving Reporter
very strange color crayon and scribbled:
>Caswell. I copied and pasted it over - that's her explanation as to
>why ASL is not a language. Her reason is different from mine - and
>she's doing it from her linguist point of view.
Paulette Caswell is not a linguist in any manner shape or form. She is
a disbarred ex-lawyer. She makes trouble for Deaf people everytime she
writes anything, and she is definitely anti-American Sign Language and
pro-English. She's a hearing person who doesn't know her ass from a
hole in the ground. She jumps in like a busybody in any Deaf
controversy and puts her foot in her mouth every time too.
People who know better laugh at her, at least when they're not busy
explaining why she's wrong.
The Roving Reporter
very strange color crayon and scribbled:
>signs," and that is ALL he used to teach French, PLUS he used oralism,
>as well, of course. That was then modified by the Abbe Sicard, who
>then taught Laurent Clerc, who came to the USA to use the Methodical
>Signs in the English language (SEE) in the American Asylum in
>Hartford, CT. THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ANY HISTORICAL USE OF "ASL" OR
>"NATURAL SIGN LANGUAGE" IN ANY EDUCATION PROGRAM ANYWHERE, UNTIL
>RECENTLY.
How could Abbe de l'Epee use "SEE" (Signed Exact English) if he only
knew French?
SEE was invented in 1972 by a professor at Gallaudet University. He
wanted an easy way to teach Deaf children English, so he tried to
adapt signs to exact English word order. For more information, look
here: http://www.seecenter.org/faq.htm. Of course, it's very biased in
favor of S.E.E., but that was the best I could come up with from home.
Another page with more information, but not quite accurate about ASL:
http://www.listen-up.org/sign2.htm
I also found a 1997 paper which concludes that ASL was better
understood by a group of oral Deaf children than SEE. It's only a
preliminary study though, and would need more such studies before it
could be used as scientific proof. The study is important though as it
reinforces in the introduction what I've been saying: ASL is a
complete language, separate from English.
http://deafed.educ.kent.edu/970723e.htm
Here's a 1998 Article from the American Psychology Association which
says ASL has been shown to improve learning English, and that other
signing systems fail: http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr98/amer.html
Here's a sample:
In a recent study of 80 deaf children, Singleton and Sam Supalla, PhD,
of the University of Arizona found similar results.
They evaluated the written English skills of children attending three
types of schools:
A bilingual school where educators use ASL as the primary instruction
language and teach English as a second language.
A traditional residential school for the deaf where teachers use oral
and signed English. These children learn some ASL from peers who
learned it at home.
A public school where teachers and interpreters use English-based
sign. These children have no exposure to ASL.
Children in the bilingual school were the most proficient in ASL, with
some children in the residential school showing proficiency and none
of the children in the public school, says Singleton. When the
researchers examined writing samples from the children, they found a
strong relationship between higher proficiency in ASL and better
writing for children between ages 9 and 12. They didn’t find such a
correlation for children under age 9, which isn’t surprising, says
Singleton, since children at that age don’t tend to write much.
The reason ASL is superior to SEE and other systems is that ASL is a
fully complete language with consistent rules, while the systems are
incomplete and not consistent. In other words, as a real-life example,
SEE will use the same sign for "run" in "She is running across the
street", and "My nose is running" (comical image of a nose going on a
jaunt comes to mind),
Copying English words that sound the same but have different meanings
does not help young Deaf children pick up the true meaning of things.
By the time they are old enough to figure out what's going on, they
are behind their grade level in reading and writing!
I finally found the names of the different people who invented SEE
(there are several variations.) SEE 2 is the variation mostly seen
today.
From http://www.zak.co.il/deaf-info/old/methods.html
SEE-1 - Seeing Essential English
This method was developed by David Anthony. It is based upon
signing in morphemes or units of meaning. It is known also as MSS.
SEEING ESSENTIAL ENGLISH (SEE I) and SIGNED EXACT ENGLISH (SEE II) -
The idea behind these systems is that Deaf children will learn English
better if they are exposed, visually through signs, to the grammatical
features of English. the base signs are borrowed from ASL, but the
various inflections are not used. A lot of inialitization is used.
Additionally, a lot of "grammatical markers" for number, person,
tense, etc. are added and strict English word order is used. Every
article, conjunction, auxillary verb, etc. is signed. Also, English
homophones are represented by identical signs (i.e. the same sign is
used for the noun fish and the verb fish, which have different ASL
signs). The difference between the two is minor - the principle one
being that in SEE II ASL signs for compound words (like butterfly) are
used, where the two signs representing the separate English words are
used in SEE I.
SEE-1 and SEE-2 are signing systems rather than languages on their
own. Therefore some people claim that exposure to them does not
provide children with the complete linguistic access, which is needed
to internalize whole language.
SEE-2 - Signing Exact English
This method was developed by Gerilee Gustason. It uses lots of
initialized/ASL signs + endings, and is very literal.
There's an interesting summary of the history of SEE and how ASL
developed in the U.S. here:
http://lightning.prohosting.com/~stooge/matt/reports.htm
"The Language of Education" by Matthew Arnold
I don't know who this guy is though, and it looks like the kind of
paper you'd write for a class, with appropriate references that I _do_
recognize. I have some of the books that were mentioned. The article
mentions Bi-Bi. Indiana School for the Deaf was the first to institute
this teaching philosophy, and that was in 1989-90, not very long ago.
A quote from this above article is interesting:
"In a recent discussion with Donna Stutler, Ball State University
liaison at the Indiana School for the Deaf (ISD), the Bi-Bi program
has given ISD successful results since its adoption in 1989. Today,
sixth, seventh, and eighth grade Deaf students attending ISD have
acquired an English reading and writing level equal to their hearing
peers. This means that the Bi-Bi program with the usage of ASL in the
classroom has improved the English skills of Deaf students to a level
equal to their grade and age. Never before have Deaf students at ISD
reached such high English skills. So many students are gaining the
reading skills at the seventh grade reading level, that ISD is being
forced to purchase more seventh grade literature books. This shows an
enormous improvement using ASL and Bi-Bi considering that it use to be
an accomplishment if a Deaf student reached a fourth grade reading
level by high school graduation (Stutler interview)."
So, there you have it, my rebuttal of all this nonsense. The same
would be true of BSL, too, or any other sign language.
Julie Brandon
>I don't really think it's better for them to be oralists. I was born
>as an oralist then quickly went over to sign language when I was 6
>although I do retain my speaking skills. It's difficult to teach a
>deaf person how to appreciate phonetics.
Speaking as a hearing person, and hence likely to make an idiot
of myself here by misinterpreting whats been said...
I assume that learning to oralise if deaf must be insanely hard work. I'd
question the point of doing that when we're in a society that continues to
go towards computerised/typed/written communication -- especially in the
workplace.
My partner's inability to speak easily was surprisingly not too much of a
problem in his workplace, as the majority of communication was by e-mail
and other computer text messaging means.
As such, I'd question putting too much effort into speech, and would think
that more concentration on written english would provide someone with better
value skills in the outside world.
I suppose that's always the hard thing with education -- having to predict
the future to make sure that skills learnt will be appropriate to the
future evolving society.
Ta-ra,
Julie
--
Julie Brandon, Derby, UK | Ageing gamer who should know better
http://www.computergeeks.co.uk | aka Gena Side (on HL, Q3A & UT) and
^^^^^ LIVE COLOUR WEBCAM ^^^^^ | Wocyllis (on FIBS, Daytona & PSO)
Andrew Knox
"Julie Brandon" wrote in message
>
> My partner's inability to speak easily was surprisingly not too much of a
> problem in his workplace, as the majority of communication was by e-mail
> and other computer text messaging means.
>
> As such, I'd question putting too much effort into speech, and would think
> that more concentration on written english would provide someone with
better
> value skills in the outside world.
>
international company commuting between two countries on a regular basis.
And I don't use speech or my ears at all. Let alone lipreading which I don't
bother to attempt. My workmates have no problem talking to me via handsigns
(they're not fluent signers), pen / paper or by electronic means (emails,
faxes, whatever). Some of them did discuss cochlear implants with me, but
acknowledge my point that if I was to get a CI or a super-brilliant HA,
it'll still mean a lot of effort on my part and no effort on their side
(unless where they have to repeat speaking something...)
I know that if it wasn't for my good English, I wouldn't be where I am now,
but stuck in a trade job in my home country not being able to realise my
goal of working aboard.
Ciao,
Andrew