 |
||||
|
Whenever a new concept was brought up, the concept was explained and discussed in a similar way. Then the available signs were discussed: if the word in Norwegian was an everyday word, could we use the corresponding sign? Or one of the corresponding signs if there were more than one? What about the ASL sign? The Finnish sign? The Gestuno sign (if there was any)? The class, with 4 to5 students, did most of the discussion. I might correct them if they seemed to have the concept wrong, or I might suggest something myself if they seemed stuck. The procedure, as seen from the students' point of view, is also discussed in my paper 'Deaf teachers talk about science education' (Roald 2000, submitted). We went through the same procedure in the two consecutive classes, but for the second class my suggestions (after the class got stuck) usually were the signs used by the class before. In most instances the second class agreed with the first class. The resulting dictionary, written in Sutton SignWriting, contains both signs where they differ. Many signs seem to have stuck, those which are relevant are seen from time to time on the signed programs on television. This was laborious work, and the first class got credit for it (about 20 hours in one year). The second class did not get credit, but this tough work was certainly part of what got them good grades (Roald 2000, submitted). But even with these thorough discussions, we sometimes came up with strange situations. In one instance, we were discussing (electrical) charge. I suggested the sign "battery", which also may mean "charging a battery". Everyone agreed. Two minutes later, one of the students turns to another and without thinking uses another sign, which was conceptually better. (The index and middle finger placed on the outside of the closed O-hand, like resting there. It also conveys the fact that in metals the charge is on the outside of the sample.) These sorts of happenings are not uncommon in terminology work. They have to do with the motivation of the terminology makers, and will call for re-negotiation of the term agreed upon (Myking 1998). We settled for the second sign. |
||||
|
||||
|
