I did a research paper on the possiblity of a written form of ASL as a
PRIMARY form. Argument in english classes have been revolved around the
idea of writing english as a primary form instead of secondary which
means that it is just another way of expressing language that is quite
different and independant of speaking. I don't know if this makes any
sense but when you look at it as an way to express a language that does
not necessary follow the same rules as the spoken form, it appears that
ASL users has yet more unexplored territory of their language.
So I don't neccessary feel that SignWriting needs to be a recorded
representative of the signed language but can be evolved into a rich
primary form of ASL, just as written English has.
For those who have a hard time understanding this, I offer this
idea...When I write something, I usually find that I express things that I
wouldn't have when speaking it. That is a different mode of expressing
the langauge that wasn't easy in the speaking mode (I'm talking about
writting and speaking English, not ASL here).
John
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Bill Reese wrote:
> Joe - You are saying that how you write it down has nothing to do with
> the language? Ok, I see your point. We can't be bilingual by knowing
> the language, vocal or visual, and also the written system that
> represents this language. The written system, being a representation of
> the language, is not the language itself anymore than an actor is the
> character in a play. The only exception to this would be a written
> system that is not a representation of either a vocal or a visual
> language. I don't know of any so I would suppose that's a moot point.
>
> But I suppose you would agree that signwriting is not a different "type"
> of writing, as you stated before, but, rather, a writing system similar
> to Kanji?
>
|
SignWriting List Forum