My sister-in-law is studying sign language right now and is very into it, so I did a little reading about it over the holidays. I didn't realize before that sign language has such radically different grammar from spoken English, nor that Sign Equivalent English (signing using the same grammar as spoken English) is considered by many deaf people to be offensive.
Does anyone know if there's any other reason for the difference in grammar other than the desire of the deaf community for their own identity? I find the whole thing fascinating, because, as I understand it anyway, deaf people still read and write standard English, but then when they "speak" they use a completely different grammar. It seems like the different grammar structure introduces an extra layer of complexity to communication.
Anyone?
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
My mom has been studying ASL for 3 years. I will ask her about it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Well, first of all, ASL is a combination of french sign language, and a "native" sign language that grew up on the east coast in the 1700s. ASL has also followed a different evolution then spoken english... it is NOT just a transliteration of english, but rather, ASL is an independent language. Much like french and german are radically different, so too are english and ASL. ASl is a living language. Like any language, it evolves. Since ASL doesn't have its roots in american english, its unsurprising that the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, are also different, and have evolved along a different path.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
*relieved this is not another "A/S/L?" thread*
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
saxon, I think part of it is that it would be silly to have it exactly like English. ASL is more expressive than the spoken word, as facial expression and body language are an intrinsic part of it. We would say, "Hi! What is your name?", where in ASL, you'd sign with a smile and quizzical look "Name" and "You". Why sign "What" also? It wouldn't be necessary at all.
Not that I know very much about ASL, but that's the impression that I got when I took a couple of classes on it for fun.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The other thing I recall reading (over 10 years ago, when I was trying to learn Ameslan (ASL)), is that as a non-verbal language, it makes sense it would have a different grammar. Certain signs, or types of signs, would naturally go together, neh? Ameslan involves the whole body, and body language -- not just the hands.
[addit: or, y'know, what jeniwren said]
[ January 04, 2005, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I will ask JenniK to comment on this when she gets home, she speaks ASL faitly well. I am sure she will have something to say about it, even if it is just to ocnfirm what has already been said.
Kwea
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Is ASL a literate language? Is it possible to communicate via written word in that language?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:She told me that ASL has a different grammar for the same reason that Japanese has a different grammar; it's a seperate language, with a seperate alphabet, spoken by a different culture.
I get the point, but it does seem a little different in that ASL--or, at least, the language that developed into ASL--was invented. I'm no linguist, but it doesn't seem very similar to either English or French. And does it really have a separate alphabet? I have heard that there are some attempts at creating new orthographical symbols for writing ASL*, but my impression was that there is no widely used system and that most people who "speak" ASL write in English. That's what I find so interesting, that there are separate languages for speaking and writing.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I get the point, but it does seem a little different in that ASL--or, at least, the language that developed into ASL--was invented."
This isn't really any more true then saying that english was invented. ASL developed out of necessity... people who couldn't communicate verbally needed other means. While we often credit a french monk for "inventing" sign language, the truth is that he codified something that already existed.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I took 4 semesters of ASL and what people are saying here is totally in line with what I learned then. One of the reasons why it is so essential for the deaf to learn English is because there is no practical, wide-spread form of written ASL. So while their first language is ASL, in order to be literate, they have to take on English as a second language.
Something I think is cool about ASL grammar is the use of an inclusive and an exclusive "we". Does "we" include you or not? The cool thing is that Philippine languages do the same thing. I have not encountered this in any other language--though admittedly I have not studied other languages much.
The example was given of asking "what" by using a quizzical look. The interesting thing is that if you raise your eyebrows, it is a yes/no question. If you lower your eyebrows, it is more of a "who/what/where/etc." question.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Interesting, Paul; I didn't realize that. If you don't mind my asking, where'd you learn this stuff?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I was taught in my ASL classes that something becomes a true language when it is passed from parent to child. Before that, it is just symbols with meaning. Grammar is developed, apparently, by human children learning their first language.
In my Speech Pathology classes, I learned that the human brain is hard-wired for grammar. But if for some reason a child grows up never learning a language, they largely lose the ability to grasp grammar. There is a "learning window". Children raised by wolves, for example, usually never grasp grammar. Apes that learn language likewise.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I never even knew that. I totally still want to learn ASL. For an interesting fiction book that mention stuff about ASL read Of Sound Mind by Jean Harris I think that's the name of the writer. It's really good. She mentioned about how some deaf people have trouble with reading and writing in English because of the different structure. Sign Language is also so beautiful. And also touch sign language.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
SEE (Signed Exact English) is pretty much signed code for English with English grammar and all. If I understand your question, saxon, you are wondering why the deaf do not adopt SEE out of convenience?
I was taught that it is about preserving their culture. They are proud of it and don't want it to die. Their ASL is a precious part of that culture.
Edit: Incidentally, they find cochlear implants to be a threat to their culture also.
[ January 04, 2005, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Actually, I'm not asking why they are keeping ASL grammar instead of adopting English grammar, I'm asking why ASL has different grammar from English (or French) in the first place. As far as I can see, the answer boils down to, "Because it does." It's a reasonable answer, since if you were to change the question to "Why does English have different grammar from Tagalog?" you'd get the same answer. But it's sort of unsatisfying. Actually, I'm curious about the modified question as well, but I don't think there's a readily available and satisfying answer.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Saxon- My ex-girlfriend is virtually deaf. She has less then 1% hearing in her left ear, and 5% in her right ear. I've learned a lot about deaf culture from her.
Posted by ctm (Member # 6525) on :
A friend of mine was teaching some of our daughters to sign a song for church and she told them not to translate it word for word, but to think of it more as a picture of the song, or acting it out. It was interesting watching her and listening to her explanations of why their word by word translation wouldn't make sense. Her way of signing it gave a better sense of the meaning of the song.
I wish I could remember how she explained it... it was the first time I understood the difference between ASL and English grammar...
ctm
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
ctm, that's how it was described to me also. The instructor of my classes was deaf but me-oh-my he had no problem communicating with us. He was a deft actor, and he said that if we didn't know the sign for some word, acting it out would suffice. Toward the end of the class, he would ask us questions and then tell us to answer the best we could...it was fun because it was largely play acting (there were quite a few children in the class), and it was surprising how often what we did to try to communicate a concept was fairly close to the correct sign. (Like when he asked me what I did for a living...I thought for a moment, then drew a box in the air and pretended like I was typing. He said "computer" then showed me the sign, very close. Then I pretended like I was breaking a stick, and putting it back together again. That too was pretty close to the sign for "fix". Then I did the sign for "phone", which I knew.) While he was a pretty clear speaker, the vast vast majority of the classes were in sign. It was great fun, and I do wish I had time to continue it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
My aunt and uncle are deaf. When I speak sign language with them, I use normal english grammar, and they have never indicated to me that they find it offensive. I have noticed the difference in their grammar, but they've never said it's about preserving their culture. To be honest, that sounds like a reason that's been made up after the fact, because it's so cool to claim a unique culture for your own. My impression was that their main reason for the differences in their "speech" was simply that some words became unnecessary when everything was being signed.
-o-
quote: In my Speech Pathology classes, I learned that the human brain is hard-wired for grammar.
Ug. Chomsky. >_<
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
For what it is worth, my deaf sister has said she was thankful that we signed exact english with her when she was young.
She enjoys reading and reads better than any of her peers in school did. Her written communication is grammatically correct for English, unlike many deaf people I've communicated with. She credits this to the SEE, and has said that if she had a deaf child, she would also use SEE during their early years.
As she grew older she quickly picked up ASL. My mom says that when my sister talks to other deaf people on IM or TDD, she uses different grammer and many abbreviations that would make her communications appear to us as barely literate. Barely functional literacy, unfortunately, is the case for many deaf people. It isn't their fault. For this, I blame educators, parents, and even medical personel who expect little out of them. We were told in the beginning to expect her to be intellectually about two years behind hearing kids her age. That was the stupidest thing we'd heard. There was never anything wrong with her brain.
There are the cases where the deaf child isn't discovered until they aren't talking, unfortunately around 2, and those kids often are behind. Still, I think most intellectual achievements can be caught up. It is the communication and socialization that suffers most in those circumstances, and the coddling of the system and parents that keep them behind. Teachers have actually told my sister not to worry too much, because she would always get Social Security.
edit: I can get the concept of having a different grammer even in written language. What bothers me is that then deaf educators extend this to give the kids an excuse not to learn English grammer, when it is so important for them to function in society. And I see the same laxity in other areas of their education as well: math, social studies, science, etc.
[ January 04, 2005, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
Try and imagine how useless words like "the" "a" "is" "at" etc. are in ASL.
You wouldn't draw a picture of a dog and include the article "a" or "the" with the picture. So it is with ASL. Many of the words that make spoken & written English flow are superfluous (at best) in ASL. These type of omissions, and other peculiarities of a "signed" language necessitate a unique grammar that will work for that language.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Ug. Chomsky. >_<
?
quote: To be honest, that sounds like a reason that's been made up after the fact, because it's so cool to claim a unique culture for your own.
This was stressed so much in my classes that I was skeptical myself. While I do think some of it is hype, I think it is natural for a group of people to be bound together by a common language in their community. It makes sense that they would have emotional attachment to that and not want it to become obsolete.
But your above suggestion may play a part also.
[ January 04, 2005, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
quote: There is a "learning window". Children raised by wolves, for example, usually never grasp grammar. Apes that learn language likewise.
I noticed this with learning French: we we had French classes at my school begining in first grade, and while we barely did anything but play games at first, we ended up learning to read in French only a year after we learned in English. We obviously didn't have nearly as large a vocabulary in French as in English, but I find that I have a much better "ear" for French grammar than my peers simply because I heard it spoken during that "learning window". I think it's sad that american public schools don't start kids with foreign languages that early...
Posted by ravenclaw (Member # 4377) on :
If I remember right the guy who "invented" french sign language (I think his name was L'Eppe..?) used a lot of signs already in use in Paris, possibly by deaf people who may not have known Fench very well (just a guess) and then made up signs for each letter of the alphabet. He started a school for the deaf in Paris, I think in the mid 1700's, and this is where Laurent Clerc later went to school and then became a teacher. Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet met Laurent Clerc while he was in France studying sign language and asked him to come back to America to help start a school for the deaf. The first school for the deaf was in Hartford in I think 1817, and ASL was pretty much developed there. So it was a mixture of signs deaf people had already come up with in Paris and in New England, it was never really a translation of a spoken or written language like SEE. Then it was Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet's son, Edward Miner Gallaudet, who founded Gallaudet college in 1860something.
This is all from memory so could be wrong. But basically it has a different grammar because it was never a translation of another language. It's constantly changing, if you learned ASL 30 years ago and then went to Gallaudet today a lot of the signs would be different. It's hard to keep up with.
I go to Gallaudet, and honestly, the people that I know who came from deaf families and went to residential schools for the deaf are often the ones who have the most trouble with English grammar, unless their parents taught them to read at an early age. The ones who went to public schools generally don't need to take remedial english courses... This is a generalization of course and if anyone at my school read this and knew who I was I would probably never hear the end of it. But if my children are deaf there is no way I am sending them to a deaf school, unless they want to or something.
*runs and hides*
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I'm kind of surprised that no one has spelled deaf as Deaf here, as the Deaf community often does. In extreme cases, Deaf people hope for deaf children, so that they will be part of the Deaf community.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
The example that came to my mind (with the experience of a very brief class in ASL at church more than 10 years ago, was the memory of being told that in ASL it's important to sign time reference in order to let the viewer know the verb tense. The sign for the verb would be the same, the using the time reference would let the viewer know if it was in the past, present or future.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
IIRC, if something is past tense, you move your hand over your shoulder. If it is future tense, you move your hand forward. I think it is no more complicated than that, but I do not know ASL well enough to be sure of that.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: We would say, "Hi! What is your name?", where in ASL, you'd sign with a smile and quizzical look "Name" and "You". Why sign "What" also? It wouldn't be necessary at all.
Random: You do sign "what". At least, that's how I was taught. It's signed as "You name what?"
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
You are correct, PSI.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
a little background of ASL... "sign language" was brought to North America by French monks who had taken a vow of silence and created an unspoken language as a means of communication. With some changes due to English colonists, and the eventual travels and assistance of Gallaudet, the language took a basic shape as ASL. It has continued to evolve ever since, much as society continues to evolve...(in 1875 there was no word for television because there was no such thing at that time).
As for one reason ASL Grammar is different... punctuation in spoken English is noticeable such as the voice going up when asking a question...or yelling something may have an exclamation point! In ASL punctuation is many times interpreted by facial expression. grammar in ASL is centered in the upper chest area to the head.... such as a questioning look when asking "your name ?" (literal translation could be "your name what?")
I have studied ASL and, although not an ASL interpreter, I understand Deaf culture. I was raised with an aunt who was born Deaf, and my job..well I'm a relay operator for the Deaf. My job is to place phone calls for people who are Deaf. So I work with the Deaf community every day. I am also a trained "Grammatical Change Operator". Meaning I translate written ASL into spoken English. I hope that helps to shed some light. If I can answer any questions I certainly will try. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Both answer what the question was, that ASL is a seperate language with rules of its own. Sme schools teach SEE, while some don't....either is considered proper, although SEE eliminates a lot of the difficulties with writing in English.
Jenni spends a good amount of her time at work"translating" what they write into proper English for the hearing people on the other side of the phone conversation. She has some people who write in perfect English, and some have no idea what proper English is so she has to translate it....which isn't as easy as it sounds.
Kwea
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
When I was studying linguistics, I had a roomate who served in the deaf mission. When they had a transfer, it could be from Chicago to L.A. For several months, when we went to the temple it happened to be the session being interpreted for the deaf. That was interesting.
So, Icarus, who do you feel has refuted Chomsky's proposal of a Language Acquisition Device?
The phenomenon whereby children learning a broken grammer fill in the grammatical gaps is called creolization. The most famous example is creoles, but ASL and Black speech are also somewhat examples.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It has been refute often, and well.
I will try to see if I can find some of the links I saw last time I looked it up, but I know a lot of people in teaching and all of them hate his theories, and they have plenty of examlples to base their opinions on.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)