Vocab limits?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
Well, then, let me make it less vague for you. It is obvious that you do not understand what the difference between a native language and a first language is, nor what constitutes nativity. I simply offered you evidence and correction for your misconception so that you might learn accurately.
Click to expand...

Actually you did make a statement about words and signing in the same sentence. Here is where you did that, "I understand the concept of using existing signs to convey a new word"
 
jasin said:
Actually you did make a statement about words and signing in the same sentence. Here is where you did that, "I understand the concept of using existing signs to convey a new word"
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's not my quote. Check again.
 
jasin said:
Actually you did make a statement about words and signing in the same sentence. Here is where you did that, "I understand the concept of using existing signs to convey a new word"
Click to expand...

I meant idea. If you read the whole post, you'd know that I'd meant idea. In fact I even said idea in the VERY same post.
 
jasin said:
Actually you did make a statement about words and signing in the same sentence. Here is where you did that, "I understand the concept of using existing signs to convey a new word"
Click to expand...

you'll go to any length to prove jillio wrong, won't you? :roll:
 
jasin said:
"Sorenson Claims that ASL is Native Language of HOH Folks
Click to expand...

this isn't necessarily true given the fact that more big "D" Deaf and little "d" deaf know asl more than a majority of hoh people do.

i didn't start to learn tactile sign until i had severe-profound hearing loss.

furthermore, most audis do not encourage the hoh to learn sign unless they are unable to distinguish speech. as long as hearing aids are effective, they see no reason to encourage the use of sign.
 
Hear Again said:
this isn't necessarily true given the fact that more big "D" Deaf and little "d" deaf know asl more than a majority of hoh people do.

i didn't start to learn tactile sign until i had severe-profound hearing loss.

furthermore, most audis do not encourage the hoh to learn sign unless they are unable to distinguish speech. as long as hearing aids are effective, they see no reason to encourage the use of sign.
Click to expand...

A language being native to a person is not dependent upon whether that person knows more then another.

Them audis are wrong too. The hard of hearing have as much right to sign as any other deaf person.
 
jasin said:
And she'll go to any length to not accept being wrong, regardless of what the evidence is.
Click to expand...

Nope. I will accept being wrong when I am, and those who know me are well aware of the fact that I will admit to having made an error. In this case, however, I am not wrong, and, therefore, there is nothing to accept. You have presented to evidence no prove me wrong. However, I have offered you much evidence to show where your conclusions are in error, in an attempt to help you learn and correct your mistaken perceptions. However, I suppose, some people are just not interested in learning and becoming more informed, and are content to live with their distorted ideas.
 
jasin said:
"American Sign Language (ASL) is a complex visual-spatial language that is used by the Deaf community in the United States and English-speaking parts of Canada. It is a linguistically complete, natural language. It is the native language of many Deaf men and women" (Karen Nakamura Deaf Library).

"ASL is the recognized sign language of the deaf community in the United States of America. As is the case with standardized spoken, written, and signed languages worldwide, ASL conforms to linguistic principles (e.g., semantics, syntax, morphology, phonology, and pragmatics). The complex visual-spatial linguistic structure of ASL is distinct from English, a linear, sequential language based on auditory processes." (AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE Position Statement National Association of the Deaf)

"American Sign Language (or ASL, Ameslan) is the dominant sign language of the Deaf community in the United States" (2005, Downs, Sharon. Make A Difference. University of Arkansas at Little Rock.)


"Sorenson Claims that ASL is Native Language of HOH Folks" see: Sorenson Claims that ASL is Native Language of HOH Folks

Deaf people are "native users of ASL. " (college of New Jersey, The College of New Jersey Home)
Click to expand...

You need to read these links with a wider perspective. Dominant does not mean "native". Native in Sorenson's article is not intended to mean native in a liguistic and cognitive sense, as in L1 language. There are specific criteria that must be met for one to be considered a native language user. Just because there are native users within a specific population, does not automatically imply that all users of that language within the population are native users. Nor does it mean that someone outside of that specific population cannot be a native user.

We are all well aware of the fact that ASL is a complete form of language totally separate from any other spoken or signed language. That is exactly what qualifies it as an L1 language for those that have acquired it on a developmentally appropriate schedule, and as an L2 language for those that have learned it after acquisition of an L1 language. However, please keep in mind that "learning" and "acquiring" language are two very different concepts and have very different implications for the cognition of those individuals.
 
Last edited:
jillio said:
Nope. I will accept being wrong when I am, and those who know me are well aware of the fact that I will admit to having made an error. In this case, however, I am not wrong, and, therefore, there is nothing to accept. You have presented to evidence no prove me wrong. However, I have offered you much evidence to show where your conclusions are in error, in an attempt to help you learn and correct your mistaken perceptions. However, I suppose, some people are just not interested in learning and becoming more informed, and are content to live with their distorted ideas.
Click to expand...

Your statement about things being taken on a "case by case" basis in another thread was proven false with numbers I posted and others posted from the ssa its self. There is a maximum already set for the amount one can receive in ssi when married. There is no determining anything on, as you say, a "case by case" basis.

That is just one example, from another thread, where you were clearly proven wrong but still refused to accept being wrong. I'm sure there are many others, but I have yet to think of one.

http://www.alldeaf.com/american-disabilities-act/40169-ssi-marriage.html
 
Last edited:
jasin said:
Your statement about things being taken on a "case by case" basis was proven false with numbers I posted and others posted also from the ssa its self. There is a maximum already set for the amount one can receive in ssi when married. There is no determining anything on, as you say, a "case by case" basis.
Click to expand...

I think you have made another mistake. This is a thread about ASL. :shrug:

Regardless, I do believe I have had more contact, on the behalf of clients, with SSA than have you. But you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. It would just be easier for you if you had accurrate information.:cool2:
 
jillio said:
You need to read these links with a wider perspective. Dominant does not mean "native". Native in Sorenson's article is not intended to mean native in a liguistic and cognitive sense, as in L1 language. There are specific criteria that must be met for one to be considered a native language user. Just because there are native users within a specific population, does not automatically imply that all users of that language within the population are native users. Nor does it mean that someone outside of that specific population cannot be a native user.

We are all well aware of the fact that ASL is a complete form of language totally separate from any other spoken or signed language. That is exactly what qualifies it as an L1 language for those that have acquired it on a developmentally appropriate schedule, and as an L2 language for those that have learned it after acquisition of an L1 language. However, please keep in mind that "learning" and "acquiring" language are two very different concepts and have very different implications for the cognition of those individuals.
Click to expand...

As with your other posts, this post here is too fallacy. Resorting to a semantic based argument, which is exactly what you did when you were arguing "dominate" means something else, is an etymological fallacy.

Oh, and for the record, 3 of the 4 quotes I gave do not use the word or wording "dominat". That's really illrelevant though, those quotes are still factual. Therefore, ASL is a native language of the deaf, and in some cases the hard of hearing too.
 
Last edited:
jillio said:
I think you have made another mistake. This is a thread about ASL. :shrug:

Regardless, I do believe I have had more contact, on the behalf of clients, with SSA than have you. But you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. It would just be easier for you if you had accurrate information.:cool2:
Click to expand...

Nope, that was not a mistake. That was simply an example of how you'll refuse to accept being wrong regardless of what the evidence may state or show.
 
jasin said:
Try rereading the quotes I posted. 3 of the 4 do not use the word or wording "dominate". Sorenson did not use that word or kind of wording either as you have tried to state it does.

Similarly, as with your other post, this post here is too fallacy. Resorting to semantic based arguments, which is exactly what you did when you went on about "dominate" meaning something other then "native" makes this a etymological fallacy.
Click to expand...

I read them. The problem is, you are only looking for words, and, as a result, are failing to understand the contextual meaning of entire sentences.

My arguments are not semantically based. They are fact based. Etymology has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. That is an entirely different subject, and completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.

Sorenson did not use the word "dominate" nor did I state anywhere that Sorenson did use that word. What I said was, Sorenson's contexual meaning of native was not the lignguistic and cognitive meaning of native.

There is no such thing as an "etymological fallacy". Etimology has absolutely nothing to do with contextual meaning, nor does it have anything to do with fallacy.

And, since you went back and changed your post, I will add this: ASL is not the native language of all deaf or even all Deaf, and it is the native language of some hearing.
 
jasin said:
Nope, that was not a mistake. That was simply an example of how you'll refuse to accept being wrong regardless of what the evidence may state or show.
Click to expand...

This is an example of fallacy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top