My friend is convinced ASL isn't a language and there is no such thing as...

[Daredevel7]

Hi, newbie here! I was reading this thread and someone briefly mentioned Braille. Am I safe to assume that no one considers Braille a language?

 

[jillio]

Hi, newbie here! I was reading this thread and someone briefly mentioned Braille. Am I safe to assume that no one considers Braille a language?

Braille is a tactile mode of written English. It is not a separate language in and of itself.

 

[web730]

Hi, newbie here! I was reading this thread and someone briefly mentioned Braille. Am I safe to assume that no one considers Braille a language?

Right, Braille is just a language device for he blind, not a language of its own like Jillio said.

 

[Passionate4ASL]

His only leg to stand on is Black's Law, its a dictionary used by lawyers, and according to him it says that ASL is just a branch of English ...

I agree with RedFox, check out the publishing date for his Black's Law Dictionary. I can't imagine an up-to-date version to define ASL as a branch of English. If it is corrected in a new version maybe seeing it corrected in the Black Law Dictionary would help convince him, since he seems to believe so strongly in it.

Also you said he has two deaf aunts? Is it possible they are deaf and not Deaf? Meaning they are deaf in the hearing sense but not Deaf in the Cultural sense. Maybe if he see them not embracing the culture he thinks all deaf are that way? Just some curious questions, not saying they are fact.

...But I don't know how long you want to argue, he sounds like he is just being stubborn at this point.

Sidenote; I remember someone asking if SEE(Signed Exact English) was its own language. I view it more as a visual translation of English, please correct me if I am wrong. I have actually rarely run into SEE in my signing experiences.

 

[Daredevel7]

Braille is a tactile mode of written English (language device for the blind). Wouldn't this be the same thing as calling ASL a tactile mode of spoken English (language device for the deaf) or is this only for SEE?

 

[imdeafsowhat]

Braille is a tactile mode of written English (language device for the blind). Wouldn't this be the same thing as calling ASL a tactile mode of spoken English (language device for the deaf) or is this only for SEE?

You're right about Braille. It's a written language form of any language. Same goes for ASL only it's "Sign" Language. SEE is "Signing Exact English" which means you're signing every words. In ASL, there's no to be verbs, which doesn't make sense but only to the deaf people.

 

[SimplyMints]

Braille is a tactile mode of written English (language device for the blind). Wouldn't this be the same thing as calling ASL a tactile mode of spoken English (language device for the deaf) or is this only for SEE?

ASL is no more closely related to English than any other language on the planet. It's its own unique language.

SEE is as much a part of English as written English and Braille. It's just an alternative mode of communicating in the same language, meaning the same words, the same grammatical rules, etcetera.

ASL has its own grammar that is not related to or derived from English.

Somebody said the creative use of signing space only makes sense to the deaf, but I would argue that it can make perfect sense to any hearing as well if they learn the language. It really is possible, and it isn't even rare to be very fluent in more than one language at a time. It probably wouldn't make much sense to any deaf person who was not exposed to ASL, but only to the strictest adherence to SEE.

 

[imdeafsowhat]

ASL is no more closely related to English than any other language on the planet. It's its own unique language.

SEE is as much a part of English as written English and Braille. It's just an alternative mode of communicating in the same language, meaning the same words, the same grammatical rules, etcetera.

ASL has its own grammar that is not related to or derived from English.

Somebody said the creative use of signing space only makes sense to the deaf, but I would argue that it can make perfect sense to any hearing as well if they learn the language. It really is possible, and it isn't even rare to be very fluent in more than one language at a time. It probably wouldn't make much sense to any deaf person who was not exposed to ASL, but only to the strictest adherence to SEE.

I'M NOT STUPID! If you are implying that. Hahaha.

I was taught to speak english then sign in SEE, then ASL, only because my mother knew that I would encounter people in the world who's very fluent in ASL.

ASL may be unique but it is related to English. How otherwise are you going to sign without the English terms?

 

[SimplyMints]

I'M NOT STUPID! If you are implying that. Hahaha.

I was taught to speak english then sign in SEE, then ASL, only because my mother knew that I would encounter people in the world who's very fluent in ASL.

ASL may be unique but it is related to English. How otherwise are you going to sign without the English terms?

:Ohno:If I though you were stupid, I wouldn't bother saying anything to you because I would assume you wouldn't understand anyway.

How would you say anything without English terms? There are hundreds of languages in this world that manage to do this without being related to English. It doesn't mean the language is derived from English. It just means we're using a term from another language, perhaps because the language is evolving, or perhaps merely because of its geographical location in relation to the language the term originated from. Perhaps it's noteworthy that in areas where two common languages overlap, each language in that area tends to borrow a LOT of words and even phrases from each other. I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure ASL uses so many English terms because its geographical region is the same geographical region as the English language.

I used to watch our pastor while he was preaching. He didn't seem to be aware of the existence of signing, so he would move his hands and arms all over the place, and he actually signed a lot, though accidentally. Sometimes, he would sign what he was saying without realising it, so one might say English is a little derived from ASL. However, I know this is not what you're saying, and partly because most of the time, he's signing random unrelated things, sometimes outright vulgar, nasty things. And right in front of the church congregation! (Also because much of ASL is outright unpronounceable in any spoken language, hah!)

I know that's only slightly related to topic, but I found it funny. If you find it offensive, please disregard as that was not my intent. I'm not an expert. I minored in linguistics for a few years, but I never graduated, and it was a long time ago. These are just my observations.

 

[shel90]

I'M NOT STUPID! If you are implying that. Hahaha.

I was taught to speak english then sign in SEE, then ASL, only because my mother knew that I would encounter people in the world who's very fluent in ASL.

ASL may be unique but it is related to English. How otherwise are you going to sign without the English terms?

What English terms?

 

[shel90]

:Ohno:If I though you were stupid, I wouldn't bother saying anything to you because I would assume you wouldn't understand anyway.

How would you say anything without English terms? There are hundreds of languages in this world that manage to do this without being related to English. It doesn't mean the language is derived from English. It just means we're using a term from another language, perhaps because the language is evolving, or perhaps merely because of its geographical location in relation to the language the term originated from. Perhaps it's noteworthy that in areas where two common languages overlap, each language in that area tends to borrow a LOT of words and even phrases from each other. I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure ASL uses so many English terms because its geographical region is the same geographical region as the English language.

I used to watch our pastor while he was preaching. He didn't seem to be aware of the existence of signing, so he would move his hands and arms all over the place, and he actually signed a lot, though accidentally. Sometimes, he would sign what he was saying without realising it, so one might say English is a little derived from ASL. However, I know this is not what you're saying, and partly because most of the time, he's signing random unrelated things, sometimes outright vulgar, nasty things. And right in front of the church congregation! (Also because much of ASL is outright unpronounceable in any spoken language, hah!)

I know that's only slightly related to topic, but I found it funny. If you find it offensive, please disregard as that was not my intent. I'm not an expert. I minored in linguistics for a few years, but I never graduated, and it was a long time ago. These are just my observations.

You nailed it...each language has their own terms for different concepts.

 

[SimplyMints]

You nailed it...each language has their own terms for different concepts.

Did I say that?

But you're right, though, absolutely.

I'm also curious about what terms, but I'm thinking he might mean the things we fingerspell, or perhaps conceptual metaphores that are borrowed from English. Since so many people in the world watch American movies, this is happening in languages all over the world since the movies are being translated directly from English to their native languages. Here, we watch American TV with captions written directly in English. This is actually having a noticable affect on ASL, and it has been observed.

 

[Hermes]

Did I say that?

But you're right, though, absolutely.

I'm also curious about what terms, but I'm thinking he might mean the things we fingerspell, or perhaps conceptual metaphores that are borrowed from English. Since so many people in the world watch American movies, this is happening in languages all over the world since the movies are being translated directly from English to their native languages. Here, we watch American TV with captions written directly in English. This is actually having a noticable affect on ASL, and it has been observed.

Cultures that are in contact with each other always exchange words and concepts. Its usually transfered from dominant culture of the given time and field but can work both ways. For example there are no western languages that was not affected by at least one other western language. Therefore it is not possible for ASL to not being affected by English .

This is not the key point. Being affected by neighbor language doesnt tell us anything about ASL being a language by itself. We should ask ourselves a different question. Could ASL exist if there was no English? Ok I will take the question a step further for really understanding the fundamentals of this question. Could sign language exist if there was no speaking languages?

I believe there could be a sign language even if nobody used speaking languages. If that stands correct then signing is a language by itself.

Hermes

 

[SimplyMints]

Cultures that are in contact with each other always exchange words and concepts. Its usually transfered from dominant culture of the given time and field but can work both ways. For example there are no western languages that was not affected by at least one other western language. Therefore it is not possible for ASL to not being affected by English .

This is not the key point. Being affected by neighbor language doesnt tell us anything about ASL being a language by itself. We should ask ourselves a different question. Could ASL exist if there was no English? Ok I will take the question a step further for really understanding the fundamentals of this question. Could sign language exist if there was no speaking languages?

I believe there could be a sign language even if nobody used speaking languages. If that stands correct then signing is a language by itself.

Hermes

I don't think the question from my quote was whether or not ASL was a language, since everybody in this debate seems to agree that it is. The original question that triggered my response was whether or not ASL was a language distinct from English. My intended response was that ASL is a distinct language. What I mean by that is, though it is affected by English, it does not depend upon English for its existence, and is therefore distinct and separate from English.

 

[Hermes]

I don't think the question from my quote was whether or not ASL was a language, since everybody in this debate seems to agree that it is. The original question that triggered my response was whether or not ASL was a language distinct from English. My intended response was that ASL is a distinct language. What I mean by that is, though it is affected by English, it does not depend upon English for its existence, and is therefore distinct and separate from English.

No, the trade of words and terms between languages part is addition to what you said and then I keep talking about the thread subject.

-

 

[jillio]

:Ohno:If I though you were stupid, I wouldn't bother saying anything to you because I would assume you wouldn't understand anyway.

How would you say anything without English terms? There are hundreds of languages in this world that manage to do this without being related to English. It doesn't mean the language is derived from English. It just means we're using a term from another language, perhaps because the language is evolving, or perhaps merely because of its geographical location in relation to the language the term originated from. Perhaps it's noteworthy that in areas where two common languages overlap, each language in that area tends to borrow a LOT of words and even phrases from each other. I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure ASL uses so many English terms because its geographical region is the same geographical region as the English language.

I used to watch our pastor while he was preaching. He didn't seem to be aware of the existence of signing, so he would move his hands and arms all over the place, and he actually signed a lot, though accidentally. Sometimes, he would sign what he was saying without realising it, so one might say English is a little derived from ASL. However, I know this is not what you're saying, and partly because most of the time, he's signing random unrelated things, sometimes outright vulgar, nasty things. And right in front of the church congregation! (Also because much of ASL is outright unpronounceable in any spoken language, hah!)

I know that's only slightly related to topic, but I found it funny. If you find it offensive, please disregard as that was not my intent. I'm not an expert. I minored in linguistics for a few years, but I never graduated, and it was a long time ago. These are just my observations.

Good explanation. And I would add that it is only necessary to assign an English word concept to a signed concept when one is interpreting. It is entirely possible, and it happens all the time, that 2 native ASL users could carry on an extended conversation without ever assigning a single word to a sign. They understand and communicate purely through concept. The sign is a symbol for the concept the same as a word is a symbol for a concept. The only time it is necessary to replace one symbol with another symbol is when one interprets from one language to the other.

 

[SimplyMints]

No, the trade of words and terms between languages part is addition to what you said and then I keep talking about the thread subject.

-

Yeah, I caught that, and I agreed with that. Sorry I didn't mention that. Just trying to be clear. I still hold to what I said in my previous post. Here is the original quote I was trying to talk about by Daredevel7:

Braille is a tactile mode of written English (language device for the blind). Wouldn't this be the same thing as calling ASL a tactile mode of spoken English (language device for the deaf) or is this only for SEE?

This is what I was trying to explain by what I said. You can follow the conversation up from that point.

 

[jillio]

Braille is a tactile mode of written English (language device for the blind). Wouldn't this be the same thing as calling ASL a tactile mode of spoken English (language device for the deaf) or is this only for SEE?

No, it wouldn't be the same at all because ASL is not English, and Braille is.