Chapters 6 and 7: Sentence Structure and Written Form

I am getting the impression that hearing people learning ASL are determined to connect ASL to some sort of speaking language, whether it be English or French, so they have something to relate to and grasp hold of instead of just letting ASL be its own independent language.  It's not English, okay.  So it must be like French, then!  No.  People are uncomfortable with what they do not understand, and the idea of a purely visual, independent language is quite foreign and not the least bit understood among most hearing people.  Yes ASL has influences of other languages, but all languages do.  I wish we could just accept that we need to let go of our English-habit-assumptions and be sponges to soak up the ways of ASL and not insist on making connections.  I suppose that is only human, though.  I have never been good at labeling the different parts of sentence structure in English, so I am not sure how to approach glossing.  I think I shall learn more effectively through examples than through trying to comprehend that ASL sentence structure is OSV where as English sentence structure is typically MSVO...none of that means anything to me.  So I for one shall do my best to be a sponge and just try to soak up sentence structure so I don't have to think about it so much.  

As far as learning goes, I rather like that ASL does not have a written form.  When I was attempting to learn Spanish in high school, we simply read lists of Spanish vocabulary and examined grammar charts.  We very rarely spoke Spanish and we never had to prove that we could comprehend it.  With ASL, watching and communicating and not having the excuse of "oh, I'll just write this down and work on remembering it later" (and never actually looking back over it) is not an option.  We have to grasp the moment of exposure and if we forget, figure out a way to see the sign again.  It is a much more effective learning process.  I need to work on glossing as I have not experimented with it very much as of yet.  

Chapters 3, 4, and 5: Curing Ignorance, Good Intentions, and Great Britain

I can't help but wonder at times if the authors are exaggerating some things.  Apparently it is a common misconception to think that Braille and ASL are one in the same.  I don't understand how enough people would be ridiculous enough to lob together two such vastly different sensory disabilities into one category and believe that a system that is completely visual doubles as a reading tool for those with no visual capabilities.  The authors also say that the blind community has our attention more than the deaf community as the blind are more noticeable than the deaf in the opinion of the authors.  Perhaps this is true for the majority, I do not know, but for me this is not true.  Blind people speak the same language as the run-of-the-mill community and not all service dogs are for blind people.  I am much more likely to notice deaf people using sign language than a blind person being led through a crowd by a friend.  I did find it interesting that blind and deaf people can communicate with each other through Morse Code, though.  

The authors seem rather touchy on the misconception of the origin of FSL.  They seem to regard the Abbe de l'Epee as a well-meaning little man who completely missed the point of the French deaf community's language.  They are thankful that he recognized that signing was the best way for the deaf to communicate, but seem rather irked by his meddlesome grammar additions.  

I find it interesting that New Zealand and Australia use BSL when  they are quite some distance away from the British Isles and, based on its description, BSL seems cumbersome when compared to ASL, FSL, and Spanish finger spelling.  I wonder why BSL had such opposition in the 1900s.  They mention repeatedly the evils of the Oralism method and how physical punishments were often used with such methods.  I have mixed feelings about Oralism.  I understand their opposition to a method that represses a preferred method, as Oralism repressed signing, but what if signing was never repressed and the two systems were simply two peacefully co-existing options?  I have met three deaf individuals who read lips and speak English when with people who cannot communicate with ASL and who use ASL when with people who understand it, and they seem to be relatively happy with their lot in life.  If deaf individuals are already bilingual in that they sign with ASL and read and write with English, it seems like knowing both ASL and Oralism would be quite useful and practical in life, just as my class learning ASL will be useful and practical in life.  Everyone likes to be reached out to, especially when it is apparent that the reaching out took effort.  When I have come across deaf individuals who could speak English, I was impressed and thought things along the lines of "wow, that's dedication" just as the deaf communities of both the U.S. and England cherished Princess Diana for going out of her way to learn to communicate in BSL.  

Chapters 1 and 2: Origins of ASL and Worldly Variations

When I signed up for ASL I, I assumed it was based off of English.  I find it quite interesting that it has more French influences.  I also had never realized that the ability of deaf people to both sign ASL and write English makes them bilingual.  I can't imagine what it would be like to grow up without a language as many children did before schools for the deaf.  It was only briefly mentioned in chapter 1 that gorillas can learn and communicate with ASL, but that along side thinking about how frustrating it must have been for deaf children to not have a language makes me wonder if it is almost as cruel not to give gorilla children language as it seems cruel not to give human children a language.  A couple of years ago I read the book Congo by Michael Crichton.  In it there was a gorilla named Amy who communicated with ASL.  While in the Congo she left the group of researchers she was with.  Later she was seen with a baby gorilla who could sign.  I know this is fiction but I wonder if ASL would take off and be passed from mother to child with gorillas if enough gorillas in a certain area were taught ASL.  Perhaps that would just be forcing our culture on them though, as we have tried to force our culture on humans with different cultures before.  I would like to learn more about gorillas and ASL and the different positions of those who think it is beneficial to gorillas and those who think it is forcing our culture on a society that doesn't need or want our help.  Are we even teaching it to them in the first place for their sake though, or are we doing it to study brain patters or something for the benefit of humans?  I kinda doubt we would be doing something to help a different species without getting something out of it for ourselves.  Otherwise, who would fund it?  Humans are so selfish.  Not only do we only look out for our own species, but we often narrow it even more to those of our species who we can relate to.  Before the concern of people like Cogswell and Gallaudet, the majority of Americans were content to sit by while deaf children were institutionalized, trapped forever in their own minds except for "home signs" that were not recognized by those who did not know them well or who didn't care enough to take the time to try to understand them.  The majority does not understand what it is like to be deaf, so the majority labeled the deaf as inferior and even signing as inferior to speech when it started to become more widely used.  Even those who had deaf children and did not want to institutionalize them only looked out for the interest of their own children, hiring tutors or sending them over seas to a fancy school that did not want to let its methods be widely known without making a profit.  There are so few people who are truly exceptional, people who will act for the good of others in situations they cannot really understand and spark a change in societal norms.

At first it rather annoyed me that ASL is not a universal language, and especially that British sign language is so different when American and British spoken languages are the same.  I suppose it comes down to culture again, though.  Maintaining the culture of a region is important, but as the world becomes a smaller place through technology and trade, the development of more forms of universal communication would be very practical.  It greatly impressed me the relative ease with which Gestuno is apparently picked up by deaf individuals.  I wonder if learning it for international communication would be simpler than trying to get everyone to learn English or Mandarin or whatever languages the leading super powers speak.