Sign languages are rich, robust, and unquestionably as real as any spoken

[kdpeters]

As a hearing, irregular DU poster, I thought a long time before deciding to broach this topic. I did vote to establish this group, so I'll put this out there to see if anyone else is interested in discussing. I also thought a long time and repeatedly consulted DU FAQs before deciding how to reply to the linked post. Long story short, I'm doing it this way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=381&topic_id=4&mesg_id=54

I have a sketchy history with Deaf Culture as I've gotten into some arguments with them with the following points:

1) ASL as a "real language": I can understand why Deaf people consider it a language but there are some examples that I think doesn't really make it a "real language." There's very few grammatical rules in ASL (no conjunctions, same sign for multiple words). I've taken a look at BSL and they've included connecting words in the sign language, much more grammar-friendly than ASL.

Sometimes it's hard to be tactful and accurate at the same time. When people are so confident and so wrong, we charitably call it ignorance when arrogance is more accurate. Neither would be considered complimentary, but ignorant is the best I can describe the words above within reasonable accuracy. I don't know if the original poster is reading, but I'd seriously like her to consider this question in good faith.

Though you say you don't know much ASL, and it's clear you haven't studied much about linguistics, how can you so confidently express that ASL isn't a real language and has few grammatical rules? Have you considered that your attitude might be part of the reason your history with the Deaf Community is so "sketchy".

Like opinions on global warming or choosing to be gay, some opinions about "real" languages are much more valid than others because they are informed and authoritative. Others are uninformed sophistry. There's a general consensus among linguists that signed languages are as real, as natural as spoken language much like climatologists generally agree global warming is real and mostly man-made. Consider what Noam Chomsky had to say about a new sign language in Nicaragua in this interview:
http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/19/chomsky-noam-language-invention-comm05-cx_de_1024chomskyinvent.html

For a long time deafness was considered much like a disease, and they were isolated. Kept to themselves, there was no effort to teach them. Later, there were some efforts to improve their situation slightly, and it turned out that they had pretty quickly developed a sign language within the community.

Now that language has been investigated in considerable depth, and it appears to be just like any existing language. It has the same structural properties. The infants even babble in sign just like they babble in spoken language. There don't seem to be any detectable differences. It's just that the mode is different--sign and visual, instead of articulate and auditory.

If any don't understand why Chomsky's opinion on Linguistics would carry a great deal of weight, please wikipedia this brilliant man. For us laymen, there really isn't much to debate. I hope we can at least approach this topic accepting the reality and validity of signed languages as a given fact.

As a result, I've come across some ASL-user websites that are really hard to read due to the extremely bad grammar (they drop the following: the, and, but, etc

ASL is a visual language. As a result, many of its grammatical features are also visual and thus lost in textual representation. Spoken languages are necessarily linear because people can only say one word at a time. Visual languages, however, communicate in 3D and have the ability to simultaneously express grammatical features that those of us using Romantic or Germanic spoken languages can only accomplish using extra words and ordering them in a certain way. There are Native American and African spoken languages that communicate just swell without these features so there's no reason at all for a signed language to incorporate something so otherwise meaningless.

Similarly, your criticism that one sign is used for multiple words reveals both your bias toward your own preferred language as well as your ignorance of ASL's grammatical features. The classic example is the supposed "100 words for snow" in the language of the Inuit. Their experience with snow makes it necessary to differentiate between many different types undetectable by us south of the border who think snow is just snow. By your criteria, English isn't a real language because we use one word for multiple words in Inuit. That's just not how it works. Language describes concepts. If the concept doesn't exist, neither will the language to describe it. In English, 'mad' and 'angry' are different words, but the same concept. Why do you think sign inferior because it isn't as redundant as English? Then consider how 'cranky' and 'furious' represent the same concept but to different degrees. Yes, ASL may use the same base sign for 'angry' but much is communicated with emphasis and facial expression. ASL doesn't need or want to be a copy of English -- it is its own language and lacks nothing as a means for expression.

Sign languages don't "drop" the articles and conjunctions you list; they just have no use for them. One of the biggest differences between spoken and signed languages is the severe inefficiency of the former compared to the rich, robust efficiency of the latter. Stories are much better shared in sign. Written forms of spoken languages are like visualizing a line and drawing it on a page; it looks pretty much like the concept it represents. Written forms of signed languages, however, are like taking 3-dimensional solids and expressing them in one dimensional dots and lines. Of course it's difficult to understand when so much of the meaning is lost.

You can flame me if you want on this point, but I really truly believe that all deaf people should learn English (or the main language of their country) in order to get by in society. If they only learn ASL, they only can interact with other people who know ASL and that's not many people.

I can't understand why it should be controversial that any linguistic minority should attain a certain level of proficiency in the majority language. It seems obvious to me that multi-lingualism has exponentially more benefit than monolingualism. It also seem obvious that the best time to become bi- or multilingual is in those formative years between 3-5 when we're learning a couple hundred words each day. In my experience, what people usually mean, and what's unspoken here, is that deaf children should be deprived of a natural sign language as it might supposedly interfere with their motivation to speak, lipread, and generally struggle to act as if they can hear like us for our own comfort and convenience.

2) Is ASL going to die? I've had so many arguments with this point with passionate ASL-only users (or ASL and Cue users).

What's clear reading between the lines is that the issue is not so much if ASL 'will' die, but if ASL 'should' die. I can't imagine how anyone who respects and appreciates ASL for what it is could dispassionately argue its inevitable demise and lift not one finger to prevent it. Nor do I see how a neutral, un-invested third party would have "so many arguments" with passionate defenders. It seems to me you are actually an enemy of ASL and those who cherish this language are justifiably passionate in defending themselves against your attacks.

I hope I'm wrong, so if I am, please tell me how you support measures that burden the majority to adjust for the deaf child because right now, I only see how you think the deaf child should accept total responsibility for becoming acceptable to her parents, teachers, friends, and even total strangers.

There's some die hard ASL people who refuse to accept this change.

Better to burn out than to fade away!! ;)