For all you lovers of political correctness this is the latest offering here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F21%2Fnsign21. xml)

It just gets better :loopy:

Hmm, suppose that its trying to stop stereotypes. If a sign can be used without stereotyping without any extra fuss, then its no big deal really.

Originally posted by Andy78
Hmm, suppose that its trying to stop stereotypes. If a sign can be used without stereotyping without any extra fuss, then its no big deal really.

Its a tad over the top. Besides, isn't the implication that all Chinese people wear tunics just as stereotypical as that of slitty eyes? I'd have thought more Chinese people had slitty eyes (given the fact that its a physical characteristic) that wore tunics, so its not even a good stereotype to use. This PC rubbish really is going over the top, so much so it's becoming a joke.

Maybe so, but using signs like a floppy wrist for gay people and a big nose for jews, maybe could cause offence. To be honest i'm not too bothered, as i'm fortunate enough not to have to use sign language. So to be fair it doesn't really affect me.

It's not really that OTT. The whole sign system is fairly out-dated, and i'm sure there was a lot fewer Chinese people in the country at the time it was devised, and being gay was frowned upon back then.

I have mixed feelings on this one. What I am certain about is that TV companies should not be making such decisions.

Everybody generalises all the time. It saves time.

If someone asks me what the weather was like on holiday and I say "it was hot" then of course I'll be generalising. There will have been times during the night when it was cold but people are smart enough (whoops, there goes another generalisation!) to understand what you mean.

Generalising is not generally offensive.

To orally describe someone who is homosexual we use the word "gay" because it is one word that is quick, simple and less of a mouthful (no pun intended!). The deaf use one quick flick of the wrist to communicate the same thing. The same principle applies to how they describe Indian, Chinese (T020 made a particular good point), Jewish etc, etc.

Is it offensive? Well, with no complaints from groups representing gays, Chinese, Indians etc, then I would assume not. You can bet your life that the only people who found any offence were white, middle class and way left of centre. Of course, this is yet another generalisation... but we all know it will be true!

As Sidla and Belle said in the "I'm not racist but..." thread:

Originally posted by Sidla
As Belle said, it's the intent that matters. I find it hard to believe that anyone would be charged with racism if there was no intent to be racist.

I don't think there is any intent on the part of the deaf community (who are no doubt all too familiar with the experience of being discrimination against) to be racist, or any other "ist".

People, let's get a grip!

Originally posted by Zamo
I don't think there is any intent on the part of the deaf community (who are no doubt all too familiar with the experience of being discrimination against) to be racist, or any other "ist".
Agreed. But some people can take things the wrong way, wether this is rational or irrational.

As for generalisations, they're never right when directed towards individuals.

why dont we ask a deaf jew or deaf homosexual and see if they find it particularly offensive, i think its probably been used so much no one really thinks of it as offensive

and really there is nothing wrong with stereotypes, i mean the chinese are using stereotypes for us and not necessarily meaning offense, if this is the way you get the message across in the easiest and most obvious way, then why complicate matters.

Originally posted by Sidla
Agreed. But some people can take things the wrong way, wether this is rational or irrational.
This is of course true. But why change a language to appease a micro-minority of irrational people, when doing so p*sses off the rational majority?

Originally posted by Sidla
Originally posted by Sidla [/i]As for generalisations, they're never right when directed towards individuals.
I'm not sure I agree with that generalisation!

"Zamo talks like a typical cockney."

"Zamo is a typical bloke - all he thinks about is beer, women and football."

"Zamo, like most white boys, is a sh*t dancer."

All the above are probably true... in a generalised sort of way. I wouldn't consider any of the statements offensive and I wouldn't say they are "wrong" just because they are not 100% accurate. They are generalisations, something we all use and something we all understand.

Originally posted by Zamo

"Zamo talks like a typical cockney."
Crikey, I wouldn't want anyone calling me a Cockney - I would be VERY insulted ;)

Originally posted by Tony
Crikey, I wouldn't want anyone calling me a Cockney - I would be VERY insulted ;)
59 minutes... what took you all so long! ;)

Lunch comes before insults ! :D

though I have to say, i'd take it a bit personally if i wasn't trusted based on the fact that I'm scouse. Another Stereotype. As we've said before, I think it just depends if the stereotype is offensive or derogatory. I suppose regarding the signing, if no one really takes any great offence at the current system, then there's no real need to change it. i couldn't comment about people taking offence as i've never conducted a study of the situation. Then again, I doubt anyone has.

Originally posted by thenewborn
why dont we ask a deaf jew or deaf homosexual and see if they find it particularly offensive, i think its probably been used so much no one really thinks of it as offensive

I dont have a view on this really, not being a signer and not knowing any signer, but I did read the whole article to the end and a Jewish deaf woman in charge of some organisation or other said that they were offended by the use of a sign demonstrating a hooked nose

Like I said, as Zamo helpfully quoted, if you dont know that something offends, you cant be criticised for doing it. But once you know that you might hurt someone or get their backs up (and I mean the person about whom the remark or sign is made, not observers like me) then you have to stop doing it, or be classed as offensive.

Originally posted by Belle
I dont have a view on this really, not being a signer and not knowing any signer, but I did read the whole article to the end and a Jewish deaf woman in charge of some organisation or other said that they were offended by the use of a sign demonstrating a hooked nose
Yes, but we need to keep a sense of perspective. If a handful of Jewish people complain that the hooked nose sign is offensive, but the rest of the Jewish community don't see what the fuss is about, then surely the argument is lost?

I think it's ridiculous to change a language because some middle class, white **** in the BBC decides to flex her PC muscles, using the testimony of one big nosed old hag to support her argument!

Offensive? Moi? :D

Originally posted by Zamo
"Zamo talks like a typical cockney."

"Zamo is a typical bloke - all he thinks about is beer, women and football."

"Zamo, like most white boys, is a sh*t dancer."
Ok, I guess it's generalisation, but it's not really what I meant. You use the words 'most' and 'typical' in ways that may mean that there's exceptions.

Originally posted by Zamo
Yes, but we need to keep a sense of perspective. If a handful of Jewish people complain that the hooked nose sign is offensive, but the rest of the Jewish community don't see what the fuss is about, then surely the argument is lost?
I don't agree. If something like this offended you would you still be defending it?

Originally posted by Sidla
I don't agree. If something like this offended you would you still be defending it?
No, I'd be arguing against it of course! Your point being...?!?

In life there isn't a single issue on which everyone is in agreement. Therefore there will always be someone who doesn't like something or takes offence.

Of course, people should be allowed to express their opinion and fight for their cause but ultimately decisions need to be taken and these should be based on common sense and general consensus. There will always be people unhappy with the decisions society takes but that's one of the downsides of belonging to a communal species operating a democratic system.

Originally posted by Zamo
No, I'd be arguing against it of course! Your point being...?!?
I rest my case.

Originally posted by Sidla
I rest my case.
So we agree that people have the right to state their opinion and complain when they find something offensive.

Do we also agree that when/if their opinion or complaint is deemed irrational or petty (by the majority) then it should be dismissed?

Therefore, using the example cited at the start of the thread, we should not expect deaf signers to change their language to appease some right-on tw*t at the BBC and some woman, who happens to be Jewish, and is self-conscious about her big nose?

A small degree of PC is acceptable, but its just getting stupid now. People have to be so so careful in what they say nowadays for fear of offending someone. Its like legislating against human nature. How many women do you know that still say fireman or policeman, instead of PC terms fire fighter and police officer?

I really believe most people aren't bothered in the first place.

Along with...

Personhole cover, personuscript, Person united :D

Originally posted by Lickszz
Along with...

Personhole cover, personuscript, Person united :D

exactly, just how awful do those terms sound!! I'm offended!

Originally posted by Zamo
So we agree that people have the right to state their opinion and complain when they find something offensive.

Do we also agree that when/if their opinion or complaint is deemed irrational or petty (by the majority) then it should be dismissed?

Therefore, using the example cited at the start of the thread, we should not expect deaf signers to change their language to appease some right-on tw*t at the BBC and some woman, who happens to be Jewish, and is self-conscious about her big nose?
If deemed irrational or petty then yeah, maybe. But in this case it's about generalisations that all Jews have big noses, or all gay people are camp. It simply isn't true.

Erm... well speaking as a BSL and an ASL signer (british and american)... the use of some of the old signs has pretty much died out anyway...

... and in some ways they seem to have borrowed signs from other existing sign languages... eg: gay is an american sign..

What makes me laugh is that the sign is only a small part of the whole communication process in the same way as words... so if you say or sign something with additional prosodic (non verbal) cues such as tone, body posture, facial expression, etc... you actually add whether you're trying to be lewd, rude or polite through that...

To be competely honest the only reason that topic has probably been brought up is more than likely because of the "stop hearing people messing with our culture" issue... which is a common one in deaf culture...

Daisy could probably tell us more about the current usage of such signs though as she's a sign language interpreter...


... but.. all in all... storm in a teacup time.. and doesn't deal with the real issues anyway.. ie: what's in peoples heads... that's where the danger lies.. :loopy:

Originally posted by Martin_s


Daisy could probably tell us more about the current usage of such signs though as she's a sign language interpreter...


...

Thanks for that, Marty! I'll post tomorrow, if people are really interested; it's too late to compose a response tonight, zzzzzz

Originally posted by Andy78
To be honest i'm not too bothered, as i'm fortunate enough not to have to use sign language. So to be fair it doesn't really affect me.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, Andy. Do you mean you're fortunate enough to be hearing? I am and am fortunate enough to use sign language and have made a career out of it. Most people think it doesn't affect them until they realise the implications of legislation such as the DDA or are on training courses/meetings where Deaf people and interpreters are present - then it affects everyone; it changes the whole dynamics of the event. Creating the opportunity for effective communication to take place during interpreter-mediated events requires the participation of all present, hence affecting everyone.

Originally posted by Zamo
Therefore, using the example cited at the start of the thread, we should not expect deaf signers to change their language to appease some right-on tw*t at the BBC and some woman, who happens to be Jewish, and is self-conscious about her big nose?

If you had read the example cited you would have seen that it was Channel 4 not the BBC but we get your point.;)

Should language not be allowed to evolve irrespective of whether it's spoken or signed? The English language, as spoken, has certainly evolved. We no longer hear pejorative words such as ****** and pooftah, or at least not on and in the media. Why should signing be any different? If phrases offend parts of the community then shouldn't the media use their positions of influence to reduce any perceived offence?

Originally posted by dinp
exactly, just how awful do those terms sound!! I'm offended!

I think that Sidla might have been making the point that these are usually apocryphal tales, not reality.

Originally posted by max

Should language not be allowed to evolve irrespective of whether it's spoken or signed?
Yes, and it has. BSL is still evolving as a language.This is apparent, especially in the education field (Disabled Students Allowance has enabled more disabled & Deaf students to study). The increase of deaf academics means that sign language interpreters are now increasingly engaged in interpreting specialist subjects, for which there is no established BSL lexicon, because previously there wasn't a need to develop signs in, say, computer programming (we didn't need a sign for the internet until it came about).

You also have regional sign variations (RSV) in the same way that geographical areas have their own distinctive dialects (and there was an argument some time ago to standardise BSL, but again, it's a bit like RP-do we all want to speak the Queen's English? Whose dialect/RSV do we adopt for standardisation and in doing so, we erode part of the rich language that exists around the country and part of their identity, I dare say.

Originally posted by max

The English language, as spoken, has certainly evolved. We no longer hear pejorative words such as ****** and pooftah, or at least not on and in the media .

True, but it depends which circles you mix in (and also what some people say behind closed doors!). Some members of oppressed, marginalised groups have "reclaimed" those derogatory terms once used against them, such as "******" and "queer" and in doing so feel empowered, whilst other members of those same groups oppose the use of such negative terms.

Originally posted by max
Why should signing be any different? If phrases offend parts of the community then shouldn't the media use their positions of influence to reduce any perceived offence?

Ok, I'll apologise in advance for the rant:

The "problem" with signing is that hearing people have been paternalistic to Deaf people for centuries; hearing people banned the use of all signed languages at the 1880 Milan Convention, where they excluded deaf professionals from attending, rolled out a couple of deaf kids whose speech was articulate and this was the basis for banning the use of sign language in the education of deaf kids in favour of teaching them orally. It's taken the British government until 2003 to officially recognise BSL as a language, although linguists did this over 20 years ago.

Deaf kids were forced to sit on their hands to stop them signing; they were given hours and hours of speech and language therapy at the expense of their education, as a result, most have poor literacy skills (though there are always exceptions to the rule) and are still paying for the misguided education policies now.

Hearing people, to make it easier to understand signs have bastardized the language by replacing perfectly good signs with initialised signs e.g the letter 'k' for 'kitchen', 'G' for 'garage', 'M' for 'mother' 'F' for 'father' etc.

Your Deaf professionals on the tv use a lot of signs that they've agreed amongst themselves, and there's nothing wrong with that in terms of creative morphology, but the majority of deaf people, especially grassroots/older deaf people don't understand them.

Originally posted by daisy
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, Andy. Do you mean you're fortunate enough to be hearing? I am and am fortunate enough to use sign language and have made a career out of it. Most people think it doesn't affect them until they realise the implications of legislation such as the DDA or are on training courses/meetings where Deaf people and interpreters are present - then it affects everyone; it changes the whole dynamics of the event. Creating the opportunity for effective communication to take place during interpreter-mediated events requires the participation of all present, hence affecting everyone.

Yes, I did mean fortunate enough to be hearing. Didn't really think about my wording. When I say i'm not too bothered, I mean that I can't really get involved in the discussion fully, without the knowledge needed to do so.

So, basically, what I'm saying is leave BSL alone. It's a visual-spatial language that is based in part on the physical appearance of objects - you have iconic and arbitrary signs. Deaf people give each other sign names, instead of spelling out a person's full name, which will be linked to mannerisms or physical attributes (e.g. a bald head or beer belly).

They generally use direct "speech" acts (some D/deaf people who interact with hearing people may use indirect speech acts), such as "You're fatter", where we might say "you're looking well". They just express what most of us are thinking i.e. "Blimey, s/he's put on weight". So why should they then change their language use to conform with political correctness?

I've debated with Deaf and hearing colleagues about the use of certain signs e.g. I see more people of Chinese origin wearing Levis than traditional dress, so should the sign change to reflect this? I've changed my sign from India (the dot on the forehead) to India (tracing the shape of the country), only to be told by some Deaf Indians that the dot is a symbol of pride, that denotes status: married, single, widowed etc.

I've interpreted in London, where I've discovered that the Deaf person objects to my sign for 'black' to denote ethnicity and prefer me to adopt their sign (which is exactly the same as the sign for "White", distinguishable only by the lip pattern).

The sign for Preston "Priestown" (collar around neck) & Bristol (a gun-which looks like 'pistol' when lip-read) and Wolverhampton (signed as a wolf's snout) have been changed by some Deaf linguists who argue that the signs are based on the phonetics of the proper nouns and have replaced them with fingerspelt versions "PR" for Preston, "BR" for Bristol and so on. I object to this when the sign is historically derived e.g. the sign for Lancaster is a noose drawn up from the neck, because that's what they used to do there - hang people. The sign for Chesterfield is derived from the crooked spire - thes are visually motivated signs.

If an elderly Deaf person signs "I'm stone deaf" - do I flower that up and state that s/he is profoundly deaf or am I disempowering them in doing so, if that's the term they choose to identify themselves by? In which case, stuff political correctness.

You've got to think about the intent behind the utterance (and effect) & the audience (are they already 'deaf aware' or are you going to be doing more harm than good if you let the audience go away thinking that's an ok term to use?)

I basically wait for the person to use a sign or I will fingerspell the word and ask them "What sign do you use?" and adopt that throughout the interaction to avoid causing offence. I guess it depends if a word/sign is being used to describe something/someone, or have the oppressors attributed an additional meaning to the word which has negative connatations?

Originally posted by Andy78
Yes, I did mean fortunate enough to be hearing. Didn't really think about my wording. When I say i'm not too bothered, I mean that I can't really get involved in the discussion fully, without the knowledge needed to do so.

Thanks for taking the time to clear that one up for me, I misunderstood you - sorry!

I've just finished a fairly extensive course in BSL, and whilst I'm nowhere near fluent I reckon I could hold enough discussions to 'get by'.

Regarding countries... my view is that they have seemed to get a lot better over time. If you think the current word for Germany is bad enough, it's not hard to guess what it used to be! Also, I've been instructed to not actually touch my face, body etc. with my hands whilst making signs of countries, sexual/racial characteristics etc., as the idea goes that it shows respect to just hover your hands over (for example, if you were to say 'China' or 'Japan' then don't actually press the edges of your eyes back, just make the repective movement).

I guess regional dialects will always be around, and with it will come different ways of expressing different places. For example, I've been taught the sign for 'Chesterfield' but I'd expect few people from outside this area to need to remember it or know what it symbolises, so 'CF' would probably do. (Sheffield is the first two fingers on your right hand tapping the first two fingers on your left with the contact being the side of your right middle finger and the side of your left index finger, by the way.)

Originally posted by Moonolt
I've just finished a fairly extensive course in BSL, and whilst I'm nowhere near fluent I reckon I could hold enough discussions to 'get by'.

Hope you're enjoying your course, Moonolt; it's a fun & sometimes frustrating language to learn!

Originally posted by Moonolt

Regarding countries... my view is that they have seemed to get a lot better over time. If you think the current word for Germany is bad enough, it's not hard to guess what it used to be! Also, I've been instructed to not actually touch my face, body etc. with my hands whilst making signs of countries, sexual/racial characteristics etc., as the idea goes that it shows respect to just hover your hands over (for example, if you were to say 'China' or 'Japan' then don't actually press the edges of your eyes back, just make the repective movement)..

That's interesting, because I started learning 12 years ago and even back then we were taught the old un-pc sign for China & Germany and then the correct, & now well established signs (outlining the tunic & hand held against forehead with index finger extended), but it depends who teaches you, I guess. It's like learning to pass your driving test and then getting out there on the road and really learning how to drive (the same as with spoken modern foreign languages taught at school and then trying it out on the locals!).

Me? I tread carefully: if I'm signing to a person of German origin, I'll use the initial 'G' to refer to Germany and see what sign they use for their country.Similarly, I'm not going to flick a shamrock off my shoulder when talking to an Irish Deaf person about Ireland. I've got a pc BSL sign that's widely used by the Brits, and an ISL (Irish Sign Language) sign for Ireland.

I guess regional dialects will always be around, and with it will come different ways of expressing different places. Originally posted by Moonolt
For example, I've been taught the sign for 'Chesterfield' but I'd expect few people from outside this area to need to remember it or know what it symbolises, so 'CF' would probably do. You do if you're interpreting for a Deaf person and this bl**dy sign that you've never seen before keeps cropping up in conversation and you don't know what it means!

Originally posted by Moonolt

Sheffield is the first two fingers on your right hand tapping the first two fingers on your left with the contact being the side of your right middle finger and the side of your left index finger, by the way.) And Sheffield was famous for its knives, hence the sign - two knives crossed and tapping each other.

Personally, I always believe that once you've got a bag of tricks or extensive vocabulary, you can start adjusting your language use to relate more easily to the person you're 'chatting' to (I wouldn't use text speak with someone who's of a much older generation, nor would I use a high register with kiddies). I'll use what they know, even if it's done discreetly.

I think that's enough from me about this topic!

Thanks. The course is over now, I don't know when I'll pursue it further, sometime when the opportunity comes I guess, but it was definitely interesting.

I never got taught the new signs for India, China etc. that have been mentioned in this thread, they're all new to me. I know very few Deaf people so it's hard to practice, but I'll ask around about this, see what I can pick up. And I can relate with the modern foreign languages comment, I'm studying German, Spanish, Dutch and Swedish as my course at Shef Uni :).

Yeah, maybe I should have commented about the knives, it would have made it easier to explain :D.