Who 'owns' Sign Language?
- Thread starter Synner
- Start date
diehardbiker
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 16,190
- Reaction score
- 16
How about this, who owns English?
Teresh
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,078
- Reaction score
- 1
Languages cannot be owned unless they are invented by a single company or individual and have been copyrighted or parented by some means, and even then, the copyright or patent would have dubious validity as the concept of owning a language does not exist in any established country. Programming languages are something else entirely and I won't go into the details of that.
Language standardisation doesn't occur in every country or with every language, but regardless the organisation that standardises a particular language can do so by law or by the fact that they're simply the only major group attempting to do it.
An example of the former would be how the Japanese Ministry of Education standardises Japanese in a de jure fashion; literally, the Ministry of Education has authority of the language, what is considered a word, what is not, the kana, kanji and kanji compounds, particles, et al under Japanese law. Within Japan, its policies and ideas of the language are thus legally enforcable. Outside of the country, this standard is de facto, there's no legal bodies stating that the Japanese Ministry of Education has legal basis to standardise the Japanese language, however, most rational, logical people who study Japanese would study Japanese as it is standardised in the country in which it is most commonly spoken (Japan), in this case, as it is standardised by the Ministry of Education, so as a result, the Ministry of Education's standard of the Japanese Language is de jure within the nation and de facto outside of it.
Some oral languages, such as English, French, Spanish and German, are widely-used all over the world and one would have to ask how they could be standardised. Well, many of them are standardised, but the standard is not generally followed by people in other nations. England may have its own organisation to standardise English, but there would be another one in the US, another in Australia, yet another in Canada, and so on. All of these different organisations would have differening opinions as to how the language should be standardised, and thus there would be no prevailing idea as to which should be considered correct.
Visual languages (sign languages, for example) have a different situation additionally as they're not only often used all over the world (BSL and LSF derivatives have been exported all over the place), but they're also not considered acceptable by the government for public use, only for deaf people. This is, of course, a different problem entirely, but nonetheless as a result of this generally there would be no governmental organisation, ministry or department seeking to standardise a particular visual language. As a corrolary of this, a particular visual language is generally standardised as much as possible by private organisations. I'm really not sure if ASL is being standardised very much any more in the US as it's pretty portable the way it is. I imagine the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) would be overseeing any such efforts, though. I imagine a similar organisation in France would be standardising LSF, ASL's parent, and that another similar organisation in England would be standardising BSL specifically.
Language standardisation doesn't occur in every country or with every language, but regardless the organisation that standardises a particular language can do so by law or by the fact that they're simply the only major group attempting to do it.
An example of the former would be how the Japanese Ministry of Education standardises Japanese in a de jure fashion; literally, the Ministry of Education has authority of the language, what is considered a word, what is not, the kana, kanji and kanji compounds, particles, et al under Japanese law. Within Japan, its policies and ideas of the language are thus legally enforcable. Outside of the country, this standard is de facto, there's no legal bodies stating that the Japanese Ministry of Education has legal basis to standardise the Japanese language, however, most rational, logical people who study Japanese would study Japanese as it is standardised in the country in which it is most commonly spoken (Japan), in this case, as it is standardised by the Ministry of Education, so as a result, the Ministry of Education's standard of the Japanese Language is de jure within the nation and de facto outside of it.
Some oral languages, such as English, French, Spanish and German, are widely-used all over the world and one would have to ask how they could be standardised. Well, many of them are standardised, but the standard is not generally followed by people in other nations. England may have its own organisation to standardise English, but there would be another one in the US, another in Australia, yet another in Canada, and so on. All of these different organisations would have differening opinions as to how the language should be standardised, and thus there would be no prevailing idea as to which should be considered correct.
Visual languages (sign languages, for example) have a different situation additionally as they're not only often used all over the world (BSL and LSF derivatives have been exported all over the place), but they're also not considered acceptable by the government for public use, only for deaf people. This is, of course, a different problem entirely, but nonetheless as a result of this generally there would be no governmental organisation, ministry or department seeking to standardise a particular visual language. As a corrolary of this, a particular visual language is generally standardised as much as possible by private organisations. I'm really not sure if ASL is being standardised very much any more in the US as it's pretty portable the way it is. I imagine the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) would be overseeing any such efforts, though. I imagine a similar organisation in France would be standardising LSF, ASL's parent, and that another similar organisation in England would be standardising BSL specifically.
silentmusic
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2006
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
Me.
(sorry! couldn't resist. will go back to reading posts now.)
(sorry! couldn't resist. will go back to reading posts now.)
Endymion
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2005
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 0
VamPyroX said:It's not who owns it or controls it. Sign language is a form of communication.
No one owns the English language or controls it.
But French Language Preservationsists think they own the French language.
Then again, they wouldn't know linguistic evolution if it bit them in their arses.
or individual and have been copyrighted or parented by some means, and even then, the copyright or patent would have dubious validity as the concept of owning a language does not exist in any established country. Programming languages are something else entirely and I won't go into the details of that.
Language standardisation doesn't occur in every country or with every language, but regardless the organisation that standardises a particular language can do so by law or by the fact that they're simply the only major group attempting to do it.
An example of the former would be how the Japanese Ministry of Education standardises Japanese in a de jure fashion; literally, the Ministry of Education has authority of the language, what is considered a word, what is not, the kana, kanji and kanji compounds, particles, et al under Japanese law. Within Japan, its policies and ideas of the language are thus legally enforcable. Outside of the country, this standard is de facto, there's no legal bodies stating that the Japanese Ministry of Education has legal basis to standardise the Japanese language, however, most rational, logical people who study Japanese would study Japanese as it is standardised in the country in which it is most commonly spoken (Japan), in this case, as it is standardised by the Ministry of Education, so as a result, the Ministry of Education's standard of the Japanese Language is de jure within the nation and de facto outside of it.
Some oral languages, such as English, French, Spanish and German, are widely-used all over the world and one would have to ask how they could be standardised. Well, many of them are standardised, but the standard is not generally followed by people in other nations. England may have its own organisation to standardise English, but there would be another one in the US, another in Australia, yet another in Canada, and so on. All of these different organisations would have differening opinions as to how the language should be standardised, and thus there would be no prevailing idea as to which should be considered correct.
Visual languages (sign languages, for example) have a different situation additionally as they're not only often used all over the world (BSL and LSF derivatives have been exported all over the place), but they're also not considered acceptable by the government for public use, only for deaf people. This is, of course, a different problem entirely, but nonetheless as a result of this generally there would be no governmental organisation, ministry or department seeking to standardise a particular visual language. As a corrolary of this, a particular visual language is generally standardised as much as possible by private organisations. I'm really not sure if ASL is being standardised very much any more in the US as it's pretty portable the way it is. I imagine the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) would be overseeing any such efforts, though. I imagine a similar organisation in France would be standardising LSF, ASL's parent, and that another similar organisation in England would be standardising BSL specifically.[/QUOTE]
Language standardisation doesn't occur in every country or with every language, but regardless the organisation that standardises a particular language can do so by law or by the fact that they're simply the only major group attempting to do it.
An example of the former would be how the Japanese Ministry of Education standardises Japanese in a de jure fashion; literally, the Ministry of Education has authority of the language, what is considered a word, what is not, the kana, kanji and kanji compounds, particles, et al under Japanese law. Within Japan, its policies and ideas of the language are thus legally enforcable. Outside of the country, this standard is de facto, there's no legal bodies stating that the Japanese Ministry of Education has legal basis to standardise the Japanese language, however, most rational, logical people who study Japanese would study Japanese as it is standardised in the country in which it is most commonly spoken (Japan), in this case, as it is standardised by the Ministry of Education, so as a result, the Ministry of Education's standard of the Japanese Language is de jure within the nation and de facto outside of it.
Some oral languages, such as English, French, Spanish and German, are widely-used all over the world and one would have to ask how they could be standardised. Well, many of them are standardised, but the standard is not generally followed by people in other nations. England may have its own organisation to standardise English, but there would be another one in the US, another in Australia, yet another in Canada, and so on. All of these different organisations would have differening opinions as to how the language should be standardised, and thus there would be no prevailing idea as to which should be considered correct.
Visual languages (sign languages, for example) have a different situation additionally as they're not only often used all over the world (BSL and LSF derivatives have been exported all over the place), but they're also not considered acceptable by the government for public use, only for deaf people. This is, of course, a different problem entirely, but nonetheless as a result of this generally there would be no governmental organisation, ministry or department seeking to standardise a particular visual language. As a corrolary of this, a particular visual language is generally standardised as much as possible by private organisations. I'm really not sure if ASL is being standardised very much any more in the US as it's pretty portable the way it is. I imagine the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) would be overseeing any such efforts, though. I imagine a similar organisation in France would be standardising LSF, ASL's parent, and that another similar organisation in England would be standardising BSL specifically.[/QUOTE]
non_sequitur
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2005
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 0
language isn't something that changes in a formal manner- despite what your MLA handbook says. the text i'm using in my english composition class right now gives a hearty :fu: to standard rules of grammar, and i'm writing better than ever with its little nuggets of advice.
change in a language comes through individuals, not through a group of people, whether they are a deaf group or a government commitee. the goal is communication, not purity of language laws.
for example, i use an older sign for "homosexual" just because i find it more expressive than a simple "g" on the chin. i mean nothing derogatory by it, although i'm aware it might offend some people. all the people i sign with know my intent, and they have started signing the same way. among this small group of signers on campus, i, a "hearing" person, have changed something in the way sign is used. purists of sign language in terms of WHO can use it and HOW it's used just might be offended. oh well.
change in a language comes through individuals, not through a group of people, whether they are a deaf group or a government commitee. the goal is communication, not purity of language laws.
for example, i use an older sign for "homosexual" just because i find it more expressive than a simple "g" on the chin. i mean nothing derogatory by it, although i'm aware it might offend some people. all the people i sign with know my intent, and they have started signing the same way. among this small group of signers on campus, i, a "hearing" person, have changed something in the way sign is used. purists of sign language in terms of WHO can use it and HOW it's used just might be offended. oh well.
hootster
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 373
- Reaction score
- 0
I m the real owner of ASL.
So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.
Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
But trust me.... You don't.
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.
This is how bad info gets passed around.
If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.
Cuz some people belive anything they hear.
/had to do it.
So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.
Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
But trust me.... You don't.
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.
This is how bad info gets passed around.
If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.
Cuz some people belive anything they hear.
/had to do it.
web730
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,270
- Reaction score
- 1
VamPyroX said:It's not who owns it or controls it. Sign language is a form of communication.
No one owns the English language or controls it.
There you said as straight as an arrow! That should end this thread. Not a good thread topic speaking of common sense.
gnulinuxman
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,738
- Reaction score
- 0
The problem is some interpreters think they own sign language. We all know that's not true. :roll:web730 said:There you said as straight as an arrow! That should end this thread. Not a good thread topic speaking of common sense.
ayala920
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 444
- Reaction score
- 0
gnulinuxman said:
What is your deal with interpreters? I'm genuinely curious. Yes, some interpreters do suck. But a lot are also very good, and those of us that are, or at least like to think we are, shouldn't have to be subjected to constantly being told by a non-native, hearing signer that we suck at what we do.
For the record, I've yet to meet an interpreter who thinks they "own" sign language.
