Hear Again
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 20,114
- Reaction score
- 5
I understand, but I was speaking generally.
so was i.
I understand, but I was speaking generally.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with the statement that a CODA who is exposed to ASL from infancy can make ASL be their L1 language, even if they are hearing. Ultimately, they grow up (even at age 2-3 when they start socializing with other hearing children and on), I do believe that for CODAs, spoken English is still their first language. It's only natural, when they have hearing. I could see that ASL could follow a very, very close second. I do understand that you were offering another perspective on Jasin's statement that ASL "cannot" be a native language for hearing people. I can't think of a single CODA I've met where ASL was their L1 language. It always followed a close second.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with the statement that a CODA who is exposed to ASL from infancy can make ASL be their L1 language, even if they are hearing. Ultimately, they grow up (even at age 2-3 when they start socializing with other hearing children and on), I do believe that for CODAs, spoken English is still their first language. It's only natural, when they have hearing. I could see that ASL could follow a very, very close second. I do understand that you were offering another perspective on Jasin's statement that ASL "cannot" be a native language for hearing people. I can't think of a single CODA I've met where ASL was their L1 language. It always followed a close second.
I have to strongly agree with you!!! Coda don't communicate in ASL Nativity they only use it to communicate with deaf people whether its their parents or other deafs. Being fluent in ASL from a young age does not make you a native signer!!!!! Native signers are deaf, and sometimes hard of hearing. It is our language!!!!! We created it and are solely responsible for its development and improvement.
“As long as we have deaf people on earth, we will have signs…”
George Veditz, Preservation of Sign Language, 1913
I can sign that "stroma" example in what you'd consider a sentence and not lose any meaning. Just because there is no specific sign for that word does not make ASL limiting. Languages are much more then vocab. Furthermore, translating from one language to another is never perfect. You have to, in most cases, think in the language you are using without any translating or equivalents to truly understand that language.
I understand the concept of using existing signs to convey a new word. I never claimed that it was limiting because there's no sign for specific words. It seems to me that you would have to have a higher intelligence in order to EASILY utilize 15,000 signs (or whatever the number may be for ASL) to create a new idea.
Are you telling me that it's easy for you to convey the following sentences? I understand it's hard to translate exactly, but honestly would this be easy for someone to translate into ASL:
"Stroma, the thick fluid found in between grana, which are stacks of thylakoid disks. Stroma is where the carbohydrate formation reactions occur in the chloroplast of plant cells undergoing photosynthesis."
I just copied that from wikipedia. I really would like to know since I'm not fluent in ASL.
I think you are confusing native with first. There is a difference.
I understand the concept of using existing signs to convey a new word. I never claimed that it was limiting because there's no sign for specific words. It seems to me that you would have to have a higher intelligence in order to EASILY utilize 15,000 signs (or whatever the number may be for ASL) to create a new idea.
Are you telling me that it's easy for you to convey the following sentences? I understand it's hard to translate exactly, but honestly would this be easy for someone to translate into ASL:
"Stroma, the thick fluid found in between grana, which are stacks of thylakoid disks. Stroma is where the carbohydrate formation reactions occur in the chloroplast of plant cells undergoing photosynthesis."
I just copied that from wikipedia. I really would like to know since I'm not fluent in ASL.
ASL doesn't have words it has signs. ASl is not a written or spoke language!!!!! Anything that is said in English can be signed, regardless of how complex it may or may not be in English. Interpreters do this for us everyday.
Lastly, we don't need English structure, vocab, or grammar to sign something in ASL. We use the rules and grammar of ASL not English. The rules and grammar of ASL are entirely different.
No, I'm not confusing it at all, but I think perhaps you are. It has to do with when the language was acquired.
I don't know why you're arguing that...? Did you even read what I said? You said that anything in English can be signed, so I asked if people can easily sign what I said above. I said that it seems to me that you have to have an extensive knowledge of the signs in order to utilize complex ideas. No idea where your argument is coming from.
I don't know why you're arguing that...? Did you even read what I said? You said that anything in English can be signed, so I asked if people can easily sign what I said above. I said that it seems to me that you have to have an extensive knowledge of the signs in order to utilize complex ideas. No idea where your argument is coming from.
If that's what you want to believe.
so was i.
It isn't what I believe, it is what I and linguists, cognitive pshychologists, neurologists, developmental psychologists and linguistic anthropologists know.
As I stated in a previous post, there are innumerable deaf people who have spoken English as their first and only language, but that does not make them native users, and they do not have available to them the linguistic features of English that a native user does. The same with ASL. A CODA who acquires ASL on a developmentally appropriate schedule, and it is the language used first for communication, both receptive and expressive, is a native signer. More so than a child who learns ASL at the age of 5. The native language is the one that first influences cognition.
You were addressing me and stating i'm the one who who does not understandf. Now you bringing up linguists and psychologist?
Arguing in defense of other deaf people. You did imply our language is limiting.
You were addressing me specifically and stating i'm the one who who is confusing things. You did specifically state, "No, I'm not confusing it at all, but I think perhaps you are". Oh, and if your statement about me confusing things was not so vague then maybe I would of known you were talking about what some psychologist, linguists, etc.. believe.