Saying hi!

O

O

New Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I thought I'd just introduce myself real quick. I'm a deaf parent of a really great deaf kid. Primarily verbal in ASL. No, I'm not oral and that's not what the O stands for. :lol:

I am sort of reincarnated because life happened in a decade as it does for everyone else. I quit social media some time ago and I pretty much am engrossed in grad school. So something came up recently and I found myself registering for AD once again. So hello! :ty:
 
O said:
I thought I'd just introduce myself real quick. I'm a deaf parent of a really great deaf kid. Primarily verbal in ASL. No, I'm not oral and that's not what the O stands for. [emoji38]

I am sort of reincarnated because life happened in a decade as it does for everyone else. I quit social media some time ago and I pretty much am engrossed in grad school. So something came up recently and I found myself registering for AD once again. So hello! :ty:
Click to expand...
Welcome!![emoji2] [emoji2] [emoji2] [emoji2] [emoji1] [emoji1] [emoji1]
 
Thank you all for the warm welcome! That helps, especially when it's pretty chilly up here in the ol' O(regon) this morning. ;)

What are your favorite topics around here? I just have no idea where to start now.
 
O said:
I thought I'd just introduce myself real quick. I'm a deaf parent of a really great deaf kid. Primarily verbal in ASL. No, I'm not oral and that's not what the O stands for. :lol:

I am sort of reincarnated because life happened in a decade as it does for everyone else. I quit social media some time ago and I pretty much am engrossed in grad school. So something came up recently and I found myself registering for AD once again. So hello! :ty:
Click to expand...

Call me silly... But... What does being verbal in asl mean?
Oh.. And welcome :D
 
:wave: Hi I didn't think 'O' meant you're oral , I was thinking it was an interesting username.
 
Jezie said:
Call me silly... But... What does being verbal in asl mean?
Oh.. And welcome :D
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call ya silly:P That's a good question. You're only asking for me to ramble! Get ready!

I express myself only in ASL when I communicate in social situations. I do not verbalize using my voice. I can read lips a little but I prefer to respond in sign language. I think I blew this old dude's socks off last week when we were dropping off our preschoolers one morning by responding to his verbal "good morning" with the same words in sign language. Hey, I was being verbal, too.. and polite at that one! ;)

I do get sick of people associating "talk" and "being verbal" with only voice when I can actually talk and be verbal in my own language (signed, of course). Down with microinvalidation, right? So I own being verbal :cool2:
 
A
O said:
I wouldn't call ya silly:P That's a good question. You're only asking for me to ramble! Get ready!

I express myself only in ASL when I communicate in social situations. I do not verbalize using my voice. I can read lips a little but I prefer to respond in sign language. I think I blew this old dude's socks off last week when we were dropping off our preschoolers one morning by responding to his verbal "good morning" with the same words in sign language. Hey, I was being verbal, too.. and polite at that one! ;)

I do get sick of people associating "talk" and "being verbal" with only voice when I can actually talk and be verbal in my own language (signed, of course). Down with microinvalidation, right? So I own being verbal :cool2:
Click to expand...

Interesting... It does work even of you break the meaning of "verbal" down. Now bear with me for I admit I am a baby in this and this is a curiosity for me. Anyway, "verbal" on a stricter note is defined as use of words. Words are defined a spoken or written aspects of language that form meaning. Yet, sign uses gestures to represent meaning of the concept or idea.
On the flip side, when learning sign, one is given a gesture that has the translated action into words... Verbal works... Until one starts debating linguistics ;)
 
Jezie said:
A

Interesting... It does work even of you break the meaning of "verbal" down. Now bear with me for I admit I am a baby in this and this is a curiosity for me. Anyway, "verbal" on a stricter note is defined as use of words. Words are defined a spoken or written aspects of language that form meaning. Yet, sign uses gestures to represent meaning of the concept or idea.
On the flip side, when learning sign, one is given a gesture that has the translated action into words... Verbal works... Until one starts debating linguistics ;)
Click to expand...

Debate and all is a fun exercise! Oooh! Challenge accepted. Too late. ;) Follow me into this rabbit hole...

Okay here it is.. in terms of scholarly matters, sign Language has been proven to be a legit language through scientific analysis by language scholar William C. Stokoe a while back. Sign language not being valid as verbal or language is just a part of a stereotype that is really unproven, biased, and is harmful to those that depend on it 100% in terms of being considered for jobs and other things. I base being verbal solely on ASL being a legit language to use as a way of communicating. Some people do not view it as a gestural language, even though hands and physical expressions are used to convey meanings and context instead of the voice/pitches. Gesturing to me is "pointing at things" and playing charades so I don't think that has a valid application on a legit language like ASL. Gesturing involves a lot of guesswork. ASL does not. Ya know?

If we account for the ones who created the stricter definition of "being verbal," we can assume the bias of "Disability Privilege" was used. In this context, I mean the victor determines how history is explained in the history books to school children.

Here's an article on Stokoe's position of sign language regarding "verbal" and "speaking" - it is not peer reviewed and a bit old, though. I find this article interesting all the same. You can google plenty of material on Stokoe and his research :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/11/us/william-stokoe-jr-sign-language-advocate-dies-at-80.html
 
O said:
Debate and all is a fun exercise! Oooh! Challenge accepted. Too late. ;) Follow me into this rabbit hole...

Okay here it is.. in terms of scholarly matters, sign Language has been proven to be a legit language through scientific analysis by language scholar William C. Stokoe a while back. Sign language not being valid as verbal or language is just a part of a stereotype that is really unproven, biased, and is harmful to those that depend on it 100% in terms of being considered for jobs and other things. I base being verbal solely on ASL being a legit language to use as a way of communicating. Some people do not view it as a gestural language, even though hands and physical expressions are used to convey meanings and context instead of the voice/pitches. Gesturing to me is "pointing at things" and playing charades so I don't think that has a valid application on a legit language like ASL. Gesturing involves a lot of guesswork. ASL does not. Ya know?

If we account for the ones who created the stricter definition of "being verbal," we can assume the bias of "Disability Privilege" was used. In this context, I mean the victor determines how history is explained in the history books to school children.

Here's an article on Stokoe's position of sign language regarding "verbal" and "speaking" - it is not peer reviewed and a bit old, though. I find this article interesting all the same. You can google plenty of material on Stokoe and his research :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/11/us/william-stokoe-jr-sign-language-advocate-dies-at-80.html
Click to expand...

I am familiar with Stoke... I have sat her for about an hour trying to find a way to argue for the devil, and maybe someone else can have better luck. For even within the rules of linguistics sign language can be argued as be a verbal language.
Here is why:
Verbal is defined as relating to or in the form of words.
Words of defined as a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
Writing is a derivative of write and to write is a mark (letters, words, or other symbols) on a surface, typically paper, with a pen, pencil, or similar implement.
Yet, nothing says that the surface cannot be the air, and signs can be considered as symbols written on the air.

The closest I can come is to try and debate that sign language is more closely related to body language, which is defined as the conscious and unconscious communication using conscious and unconscious gestures and movement. Yet, this fall through because only thoughts and feelings can be communicated through body language while sign language can go so much further and deeper into true communication. Also, there are only a limited number of reasons and meanings being told using sign language while body language can have a multiple reasons for a single simple gesture.
 
O said:
I wouldn't call ya silly:P That's a good question. You're only asking for me to ramble! Get ready!

I express myself only in ASL when I communicate in social situations. I do not verbalize using my voice. I can read lips a little but I prefer to respond in sign language. I think I blew this old dude's socks off last week when we were dropping off our preschoolers one morning by responding to his verbal "good morning" with the same words in sign language. Hey, I was being verbal, too.. and polite at that one! ;)

I do get sick of people associating "talk" and "being verbal" with only voice when I can actually talk and be verbal in my own language (signed, of course). Down with microinvalidation, right? So I own being verbal :cool2:
Click to expand...

Yes. I hate the term nonverbal as it seems to be mostly used as an Euphanism for kids who are profoundly mentally affected/ low functioning. One can have language on an Ivy League level but not be able to physically speak.
 
Jezie said:
I am familiar with Stoke... I have sat her for about an hour trying to find a way to argue for the devil, and maybe someone else can have better luck. For even within the rules of linguistics sign language can be argued as be a verbal language.
Here is why:
Verbal is defined as relating to or in the form of words.
Words of defined as a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
Writing is a derivative of write and to write is a mark (letters, words, or other symbols) on a surface, typically paper, with a pen, pencil, or similar implement.
Yet, nothing says that the surface cannot be the air, and signs can be considered as symbols written on the air.

The closest I can come is to try and debate that sign language is more closely related to body language, which is defined as the conscious and unconscious communication using conscious and unconscious gestures and movement. Yet, this fall through because only thoughts and feelings can be communicated through body language while sign language can go so much further and deeper into true communication. Also, there are only a limited number of reasons and meanings being told using sign language while body language can have a multiple reasons for a single simple gesture.
Click to expand...

The reason why signers are able to understand the context of any signed communication is that there are language rules to be followed or sign language wouldn't make sense in itself. Norwegian probably is very similar to ASL in terms of syntax. Grammar is different but it just makes sense for the people fluent in this language. Like you would say or write in English "The dog" -- Norwegian written form would be literally "dogthe" -- ASL would be "DOG"--the "the" is silent but actually present if you want to look at it that way. Nothing unconscious about understanding rules for ASL. You don't just diminish another community's language such as French just because it has rules that don't follow English. That's just enthocentric thinking.

I like you :)
 
O said:
The reason why signers are able to understand the context of any signed communication is that there are language rules to be followed or sign language wouldn't make sense in itself. Norwegian probably is very similar to ASL in terms of syntax. Grammar is different but it just makes sense for the people fluent in this language. Like you would say or write in English "The dog" -- Norwegian written form would be literally "dogthe" -- ASL would be "DOG"--the "the" is silent but actually present if you want to look at it that way. Nothing unconscious about understanding rules for ASL. You don't just diminish another community's language such as French just because it has rules that don't follow English. That's just enthocentric thinking.

I like you :)
Click to expand...
Glad you like me :) it is fun to play with ideas, it gives one an opportunity to learn and grow. I never thought of sign as a verbal language, not due to any enthocentric thinking... Rather because it has not come up. Verbal and oral has always been used to denote using one's voice to speak... Hmm... So, just a lack of thinking it through ;)
All languages have rules... Granted I dislike absolutes, I believe this is an exception I can make :) I do hope you know that I was not intending my words to come off as disrespectful of any language or community ... but I realized that even to break things up in linguistics, ASL is a verbal language.
However, it is not the rules of ASL that permits one to travel easier and understand different signed languages, rather the similarly between them. Much like it is easier for a Spanish speaking person to pick up French. Yet, I contradict myself, by saying with German being my first language American still gives me issues due to the rules as much as the format of words. Yet, signed language are similar in its signs in many aspects across nations; thus easier to grasp when meeting someone who signs from a different nation.
 
Last edited:
Like it or not..
Sign languages, ie visual kinitic languages, are not verbal.
They are visual kinitic.

The mode of them is visual, meaning is captured via the eyes, and processed in the brain, not via the ears through sound.

Our languages are our own, our natural language.
They are distinct from verbal ie aural languages...in important ways, any new signer will be confronted with.

I see no reason at all to ignore the vast corpus of linguistic evidence in regards to visual kinitic languages and how theyv are different and distinct from.verbal ie aural languages for the mere sake of

Non verbal comes across as negative

Thats a seperate issue, one of bigotry and discrimination, one of audism.

Not linguistics.


Welcome to allDeaf
 
Back
Top