Stupid question

[jillio]

I suppose this raises the point of its value in real access terms to deaf people ? Since the deaf need/want access to the wider world it suggests ASL (Or the Brit BSL), is the wrong type of sign deaf should be using. Signed English (In the UK), seems a more practicable and realistic sign deaf should acquire as it mirrors better the written/spoken word thus enabling deaf people to access books and learning materials as well as understanding better how the world works.

There IS no written ASL/BSL and if there WAS, there is NO references material deaf can use. Learning English also offers deaf people a gateway to higher learning and education too, which BSL/ASL (As 'concept' sign), is not going to do because it lacks all the details. A general idea won't do. Obviously deaf need to sign, but do they need ASL ? or BSL ? except as communual communication. Being sign Bi-lingual is easier for deaf via sign, indeed a norm, but the priority on a poor accessible tool in BSL here, hinders deaf advance. NO reference materials exist in education via BSL here so, why use it ?

When ASL/BSL is used as the linguistic base for teaching ESL, the purpose is accomplished. Visual language is the natural language of the deaf. You wouldn't put Spanish into English syntax to teach English to a Spanish speaking person would you? Of course not. You would use their native language to approach the teaching of a non-native language.

 

[Passivist]

When ASL/BSL is used as the linguistic base for teaching ESL, the purpose is accomplished. Visual language is the natural language of the deaf. You wouldn't put Spanish into English syntax to teach English to a Spanish speaking person would you? Of course not. You would use their native language to approach the teaching of a non-native language.

A visual language needs like any other 'language' reference material and everything else, ASL/BSL hasn't any. Teaching one form of grammar to address another seems not the way to go about things, surely it can only confuse ? most 'Deaf' as we know just take the non-standard grammar of ASL/BSL and refuse to change or adapt, or are swayed by activists that suggest to adapt to learn, is to betray a culture. It is why I have personal reservation about ASL/BSL FIRST, I would rather a good grounding on Signed English first (UK).

It is not practicable or desireable a complete re-write of all educational and other reference materials are done again in visual sign, we know this is not going to happen, for a minority sector of disabled people, even the blind don't get that in Braille. The fact a deaf person may not follow unless they can read or write the basic host country language, means they cannot advance either... it makes a practical sense to attain Signed English, communual ASL/BSL is just for deaf conversation. Literacy is a higher priority than a dogmatic adherence to a non-standard form of ASL/BSL. A number of dedicated BSL users here, cannot, access books.

Do Deaf want an identity, based on Isolation ? and poor education ? The 'chicken/egg' proposals and arguments don't really work, because Deaf who use ASL/BSL won't change afterwards so get forever left out of things. Holding out for mainstream to adapt to them is a total, and lost cause.

 

[jillio]

A visual language needs like any other 'language' reference material and everything else, ASL/BSL hasn't any. Teaching one form of grammar to address another seems not the way to go about things, surely it can only confuse ? most 'Deaf' as we know just take the non-standard grammar of ASL/BSL and refuse to change or adapt, or are swayed by activists that suggest to adapt to learn, is to betray a culture. It is why I have personal reservation about ASL/BSL FIRST, I would rather a good grounding on Signed English first (UK).

It is not practicable or desireable a complete re-write of all educational and other reference materials are done again in visual sign, we know this is not going to happen, for a minority sector of disabled people, even the blind don't get that in Braille. The fact a deaf person may not follow unless they can read or write the basic host country language, means they cannot advance either... it makes a practical sense to attain Signed English, communual ASL/BSL is just for deaf conversation. Literacy is a higher priority than a dogmatic adherence to a non-standard form of ASL/BSL. A number of dedicated BSL users here, cannot, access books.

Do Deaf want an identity, based on Isolation ? and poor education ? The 'chicken/egg' proposals and arguments don't really work, because Deaf who use ASL/BSL won't change afterwards so get forever left out of things. Holding out for mainstream to adapt to them is a total, and lost cause.

ASL certainly has reference materials. And using one grammar to teach another is done constantly when teaching any foreign language. If you are learning Spanish, you utilize English grammar in the teaching process. I personally own 14 ASL dictionaries, 2 references for grammar, and numerous books citing research on ASL.

 

[SxyPorkie]

I can hear just fine, but with a bit of loss of high frequency. My low/medium frequency's fine.

No Wonder!!!! you had made fun on video of a deaf guy with no arms.. he uses his feet signing,...Are you still making fun on us???? if so... you dont need to be here...
SxyPOrkie

 

[jillio]

A visual language needs like any other 'language' reference material and everything else, ASL/BSL hasn't any. Teaching one form of grammar to address another seems not the way to go about things, surely it can only confuse ? most 'Deaf' as we know just take the non-standard grammar of ASL/BSL and refuse to change or adapt, or are swayed by activists that suggest to adapt to learn, is to betray a culture. It is why I have personal reservation about ASL/BSL FIRST, I would rather a good grounding on Signed English first (UK).

It is not practicable or desireable a complete re-write of all educational and other reference materials are done again in visual sign, we know this is not going to happen, for a minority sector of disabled people, even the blind don't get that in Braille. The fact a deaf person may not follow unless they can read or write the basic host country language, means they cannot advance either... it makes a practical sense to attain Signed English, communual ASL/BSL is just for deaf conversation. Literacy is a higher priority than a dogmatic adherence to a non-standard form of ASL/BSL. A number of dedicated BSL users here, cannot, access books.

Do Deaf want an identity, based on Isolation ? and poor education ? The 'chicken/egg' proposals and arguments don't really work, because Deaf who use ASL/BSL won't change afterwards so get forever left out of things. Holding out for mainstream to adapt to them is a total, and lost cause.

:bsflag:

It's only a total and lost cause as long as attitudes like yours persist. Their identity is not based on isolation but on a cultural and linguistic difference. It only results in isolation when audist attitudes prevail.

 

[Passivist]

:bsflag:

It's only a total and lost cause as long as attitudes like yours persist. Their identity is not based on isolation but on a cultural and linguistic difference. It only results in isolation when audist attitudes prevail.

I wasn't suggesting ASL/BSL should be banned or anything, but it isn't the ideal sign to use for access to education and the hearing world. AS an ACCESS tool SIgned english is obviously better. As a social tool ASL seems to be, but in deaf-only situations, signed english would appear to be a better sign to use, for hearing-deaf communication, I don't believe BSL will traverse anywhere beyond the deaf area, and that's fine fo rthose who forever remain in that area, but most want more choice, signed english will offer more choices, it's still, SIGN LANGUAGE, and ASL/BSLusers can still obviously use it amongst themselves of course. How is it 'audist' to suggest sign language choices ? Audist is anyway an American and not an European accepted term, so I find it difficult to respond to the word. It is only valid in the USA.

In Britain acquired/deafened and HIO who use sign language are statinga preference for Signed english and changingthe image of a 'BSL' interpreter here, they have a right to access,in their own sign form too, are they all to be labeled 'audists' in some derogatory way ? this is anti-choice surely ? Deaf people stand, on free choice.

 

[Tousi]

Passivist, your view is attractive to me but I don't see it happening any time soon.

 

[Passivist]

The facts of this issue is we are deaf people, who use many differeing means, often a varied combination of means, to follow written and spoken communications. There is no such thing as a preference, most is dictated via basic ability. I might prefer to lip-read 100% my ability doesn't let me, I might prefer to sign 100% circumstances and again ability may prevent that too. You use what you are able to. I think the newish emphasis on 'preference' has changed a lot of perspectives on this and allowed users of one mode or another to divide the supportive system up,while it works after a fashion for some for those of no real or total ability in either major modes they will be not able to have access.

To this end we shoudl all support whatever each uses without throwing political spanners and debates into it, our primary issue isn't identity or culture, but communication the rest follows AFTER. In the UK the primary language is English, deaf people have a signing equyivelant, for those that want to use that medium and for those who want their children to gain the widsest possible access to the world, then a grounding in this seems vital to me,and it doesn't interfere with the BSL user or his or her personal preferences, the opposaition we have is because BSL users fear S.E, would replace BSL, nobody has found this has any basis in reality, but the opposition is denying deaf people access, in a mode they want and use, and this cannot be right.

We find sign classes downgrade S.E, in some cultural stand-off, this is really blocking access. Interpreters of BSL here appear totally unable to sign in S.E, this shows too the bi-lingual argument is flawed too.