The American Sign Language

The American Sign Language or ASL is a formal and structured means by which people are able to communicate. Like all other languages, the ASL also follows specific structures or guidelines that set how this particular system is used to communicate. Over the years, there had been various definitions presented framing what the ASL is all about, as mentioned by Harry Markowicz in his transcript. However, Markowicz strongly discloses how established and generalized definitions of the ASL are, in actuality, myths that should be debunked in order to give way to the formation of a clear and factual connotation of the ASL.

In Markowicz’ transcript, he revealed six myths about the ASL, thoroughly discussing justifications as to why widely held beliefs and ideas about ASL or simply sign language are, most of the time, inaccurate and false. According to Markowicz, sign language is not a universal language which is utilized and understood by the deaf populations all over the world. Like all other languages, ASL differs from other systems of sign languages in other countries, just as the English language differs from the German, French, Spanish, etc. languages in form and in structure.

Another myth is the widely held belief that since language is based on the meaning of words or sentences expressed, the sign language is also based on the conveyance of words or sentences through gestures. Some other beliefs relate to the idea that the ASL is a translation or a transposition of the English language. However, the sign language does not work that way. Communication through sign language, or the ASL for that matter, is based on concepts or impressions that may be expressed singularly through gestures. (Markowicz, 1980)

The third myth has something do with how people often undervalue the sign language as merely a system of language through arbitrary gestures diminishing its formal and systematic structure. Markowicz revealed how the sign language follows various rules that constitute a succession of concurrent body movements, facial expressions, gestures, etc. Another myth is how the sign language is regarded as simply iconic or graphic. However, Markowicz argued how considering the sign language as simply a visual means of communication does not justify the system’s purpose of facilitating communication for the deaf.

He rationalized that if the sign language is truly and simply iconic or visual, then people without hearing problems would be able to understand the language. This means that the sign language is not merely a visual stimulus, but a succession of meaningful concepts that are conveyed through the process of communication. (Markowicz, 1980) The fifth myth limits the communicative process facilitated by the sign language. Many people believe that the sign language is only capably of transmitting concrete and discrete ideas, leaving out the abstract and conceptual ideas that are easily expressed through words.

Markowicz discounts this view by proving how the ASL has formal signs or gestures for abstract ideas such as love, faith, and such. The last myth discussed by Markowicz again touches on the issue of the form and structure of the sign language. People overlook the structural aspect of the sign language by disregarding how it is formed under grammatical rules and expressions. Markowicz justified his position by stating examples on how a particular thought differentiated by various patterns of inflections may be expressed through sign language according to their correct word arrangements. (Markowicz, 1980)

The aforementioned arguments and justifications of Markowicz may be further proven by looking into other research studies, discussions, or transcripts concerning the sign language. For instance, the research study conducted by Padden and Ramsey (2000) regarding the ability of deaf children to read textual data as it is related to methods and strategies of instruction, has revealed how the sign language is not universal and word-based. The results and conclusions obtained from the research study have revealed how the competencies of deaf students differ according to their culture, family, and school environment.

This means that based on discrepancies or gaps concerning sign language competencies among deaf students, they may not be able to communicate effectively even through shared sign language. Moreover, this particular research study proves that the sign language is not word-based since deaf students who read texts do not express the ideas from the book through the exact words or sentences in the text, but through various concepts or whole ideas gained from reading them.

(Padden & Ramsey, 2000) Moreover, this also means that if deaf children are able to translate written texts to concepts in sign languages, this means that sign language is not simply a representation of concrete ideas, but also complex abstract thoughts and ideas that originated from the thinking process involved in understanding, analyzing, and judging written texts. The discussion relayed by Bellugi and Klima (1975) also supports Markowicz’ arguments by revealing how the sign language is formed or structured, debunking myths of it being merely glorified gestures and ungrammatical.

According to Bellugi and Klima, the signs or gestures are translated into notational representations that form a complete thought or idea which is distinguishable in the English language. In addition, for each word or though represented through signs or gestures, there are proper and exact portrayal of simultaneous movements as observed in the figures included in Beluggi and Klima’s discussions. (Bellugi & Klima, 1975) Liddell (1980) explored the grammatical structure of the sign language comprehensively by analyzing the syntactic components of the ASL alongside the English language.

On the other hand, the research study of Pettito (2000) discredits the myth about the sign language as iconic, which means that communication through the sign language is simply visual in nature, eliminating the form, structure, the grammar, and the formal learning process behind it. According to Pettito, babies will not be able to exhibit the formal and structural nature of either signed or spoken language, unless they are exposed to sign language or spoken language within their immediate environment.

(Pettito, 2000) This rationalization supports Markowicz assumptions that a child will not be able to fully understand the concept of milk, unless he is exposed to the nature or processes behind the word. (Markowicz, 1980) References Bellugi, U. & Klima, E. S. (1975). “Aspects of Sign Language and its Structure” In: Kavanagh, James F. ; Cutting, James E. (eds. ). The Role of Speech in Language. Cambridge: MIT Press [335 pp. ], pp. 171-203. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://old. lib. ucdavis. edu/access/reserv/courses/90334. pdf Liddell, S. K. (1980) American Sign Language Syntax.

The Hague: Mouton, [194 pp. ], pp. 10-23, 68-80. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://old. lib. ucdavis. edu/access/reserv/courses/90335. pdf Markowicz, H. (1980) “Myths about American Sign Language” In: Lane, Harlan; Grosjean, Francois (eds. ). Recent Perspectives on American Sign Language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, [170 pp. ], pp. 1-6. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://old. lib. ucdavis. edu/access/reserv/courses/90333. pdf Padden C. & Ramsey, C. (2000) “American Sign Language and Reading Ability in Deaf Children” In: Chamberlain, Charlene; Morford, Jill P. ; Mayberry, Rachel I.

(eds. ). Language Acquisition by Eye. Mahwah, N. J. : Lawrence Erlbaum [276 p. ], pp. 165- 168, 177-189. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://old. lib. ucdavis. edu/access/reserv/courses/90337. pdf Petitto, L. A. (2000) “The Acquisition of Natural Signed Languages: Lessons in the Nature of Human Language and its Biological Foundations” In: Chamberlain, Charlene; Morford, Jill P. ; Mayberry, Rachel I. (eds. ). Language Acquisition by Eye. Mahwah, N. J. : Lawrence Erlbaum [276 p. ], pp. 41-50. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://old. lib. ucdavis. edu/access/reserv/courses/90336. pdf