Sign language and grammar

Reba said:
Yep.

"Signed Exact English (SEE) was developed in 1972 by Gerilee Gustason. It is not a language; it is a manually coded form of English that uses ASL signs supplemented with special signs or inflections that allow English to be signed exactly as it is spoken."

Manually coded English
Click to expand...
At least, SEE users follow proper English. ;)
 
VamPyroX said:
At least, SEE users follow proper English. ;)
Click to expand...
Semaphore and Morse users can follow proper English too, but I wouldn't want to carry on conversations that way. ;)

That aside, when SEE users follow "proper English", they are using the English language. When ASL users follow "proper ASL", they are using American Sign Language. English and ASL are two separate languages, just like English and French are two separate languages.

English has various modes of transmission--spoken, printed, brailed, tapped out in Morse, signaled in semaphore, or signed manually in SEE. They are all representations of one language--English. They are NOT individual languages.
 
VamPyroX said:
At least, SEE users follow proper English. ;)
Click to expand...

For that to happen the sender and reciever must sign every single word in every conversation. That is very exhausting and usually what happens, people start reverting to either PSE or ASL. It is just not natural to sign word for word in the English language and even processing the received information is difficult especially for little children who dont have a strong foundation in language. Believe me I did try that last year on my students...lost their attention within 5 minutes just like that.
 
shel90 said:
For that to happen the sender and reciever must sign every single word in every conversation. That is very exhausting and usually what happens, people start reverting to either PSE or ASL. It is just not natural to sign word for word in the English language and even processing the received information is difficult especially for little children who dont have a strong foundation in language. Believe me I did try that last year on my students...lost their attention within 5 minutes just like that.
Click to expand...

Not to mention articficially designated word endings such as -ing and -ed and -ly.
 
jillio....vampy was the one who stated "SEE is more gramatically correct than ASL" so i was referring to him not you.



while i certainly agree that SEE is not a *seperate* language from english...it certainly IS a language...its english.

just like you guys explained...when i write, i write in english. im using the written form of the english language. Noone looks at this post and says "ahh, he's using "visually representitive english"(nice made up word for the sake of argument)...no, they say "ahh this post is in english...a language.
 
Ariakkas said:
jillio....vampy was the one who stated "SEE is more gramatically correct than ASL" so i was referring to him not you.



while i certainly agree that SEE is not a *seperate* language from english...it certainly IS a language...its english.

just like you guys explained...when i write, i write in english. im using the written form of the english language. Noone looks at this post and says "ahh, he's using "visually representitive english"(nice made up word for the sake of argument)...no, they say "ahh this post is in english...a language.
Click to expand...

How is SEE a language? It wasnt naturally elvolved like ASL and spoken English was.

If SEE is a language then spoken ASL should be a language as well.
 
Last edited:
Ariakkas said:
jillio....vampy was the one who stated "SEE is more gramatically correct than ASL" so i was referring to him not you.

Pardon my misunderstanding.



while i certainly agree that SEE is not a *seperate* language from english...it certainly IS a language...its english.

And English has several modes of representation, SEE being only one of them.

just like you guys explained...when i write, i write in english. im using the written form of the english language. Noone looks at this post and says "ahh, he's using "visually representitive english"(nice made up word for the sake of argument)...no, they say "ahh this post is in english...a language.
Click to expand...

It is quite obvious when English is written it is a visual mode of conveying English. However, to the novice, it is often assumed that because Enlish is represented in a visual mode via sign, it is a language separate from English. That is why the linguists made the distiction. And to avoid a liguistically confusing environment for the deaf child, it is necessary to make these disticntions. Likewise, it cannot be assumed that a SEE signing person will be udnerstood by an ASL using individual, due to syntactical and grammatical differences. In addition, when reading a written language,the phonetic loop is employed to allow the written word to be processed in the same manner that a spoken word would be processed. Not so when processing a spatial and time oriented language such as ASL. ASL is procesessed in the way that other visual information is processed. That is why the structure has evolved to accommodate that manner of processing, and why its syntactical structure is not linear as are the sytactical structures of spoken langauges.
 
shel90 said:
How is SEE a language? It wasnt naturally elvolved like ASL and spoken English was.
Click to expand...

It is English, I think is the point that the poster is trying to make. It is also very confusing to the deaf individual because its structure is linear, jsut like spoken langauge, and the visual system is designed to process visual information in a spatial and time oriented way. English already has a viusal mode....writing. It is redundant to design another visual mode.
 
shel90 said:
How is SEE a language? It wasnt naturally elvolved like ASL and spoken English was.
Click to expand...

SEE is a code. ASL is a natural language. English is a natural language. Esperanto is an invented language. Languages do not have to evolve naturally to be true languages.

And now that I've repeated myself for the 14th time, I think I shall bid this thread a fond adieu. :wave:
 
Secretblend said:
Not all languages evolve. Latin is a dead language therefore doesn't change anymore.

Some language have died out and therefore does not evolve.
Click to expand...

But when it was in use, it did evolve. Dead languages, if resurected, would continue to evolve, as the evolution is based on cultural change, and all cultures evolve. And, church Latin is still in use, and evolving.
 
i realize we are talking in circles...but for the sake of argument, one could state that SEE can and will evolve....haha
 
jillio said:
No, they aren't. All languages evolve. Systems are invented.
Click to expand...

so lolcats is a language because it evolved from typos consisting of horrible grammar and dark humor. it was only natural that lolcats would come out to become our new language.

regardless, when it comes down to the root - everything is invented. nothing comes naturally except through our ability to bring forth those inventions through innovation. we gain ideas that are efficient over other methods and when it becomes successful, it will spread like wildfire to popularity.
 
Back
Top