Word-for-word translations from one language to another
often result in ungrammatical or meaningless sentences. This can be illustrated
by translating the following French sentences.
Il fait chaud.
It makes warm.*
(It is warm.)**
Est-ce qu'il vient d'arriver?
Is it that he comes to arrive?*
(Has he just arrived? )**
Tu me manques.
You me miss.*
(I miss you.)**
Consider the word-for-word translations of each French
sentence: the word-for-word translation of the first sentence is ungrammatical,
of
the second sentence is meaningless, and the word-for-word translation
of the third sentence suggests the wrong meaning, "You miss me."
On the basis of these examples, it would be foolish to suggest that
the French language is ungrammatical. Although the French and English
sentences are different in their choice of words and in their word order,
both are correct according to their own grammars. These differences are
expected because each language has a unique way of referring to objects
and events in the real world based on its particular vocabulary, grammar,
and pronunciation. Languages differ also in other important ways, such
as how they express politeness, humor, irony, and poetry.
A grammar describes how a language works, how it is put together. The
opinion that ASL is ungrammatical, or that it lacks a grammar, usually
results from a sign-for-word translation of ASL into English. It is based
on the assumption that ASL must be structured exactly like English. This
assumption is false since ASL is an independent language. It has its
own vocabulary, its own grammar, and both are unrelated to English.
There are, however, some speakers of English who assume
that ASL must follow the rules of their language in order to be grammatical.
To support
their claim, sign-for-word translations are used to show that ASL lacks
a grammar or that it is "broken English." Based on these translations, "deficiencies" are
pointed out. As an example, consider this sign sentence: TOUCH FINISH
SAN FRANCISCO YOU? (An appropriate English translation is, "Have
you been to San Francisco?")
Careful analysis of ASL grammar does
show that it differs from English grammar. ASL does not follow English
word order and it lacks,
or it makes limited use of, some grammatical features present in English,
for example, articles, the verb "to be," prepositions and conjunctions,
the passive voice, inflections for tense, person, and number. Yet, as
is the case with the French sentences translated word-for-word earlier,
the aforementioned ASL sentence is perfectly grammatical.
The important issue here is to deal directly with the particular language
under scrutiny. In English, word order is very important, as can be illustrated
by the difference in the meaning of these two sentences:
The dog bit the boy.
The boy bit the dog.
Some languages, including Latin, have a flexible word order. The grammatical
relationship, for instance, the grammatical subject or object of the sentence,
is indicated in these languages by affixes. There are many languages that have
no articles. Russian, Japanese, and Hindi are a few examples. The verb "to
be" does not exist or has limited usage in languages such as Hebrew, Hungarian,
and Russian. The Thai language functions without a passive construction. Navajo
has three or four ways of expressing the passive.
English itself lacks grammatical categories found
in other spoken languages, but no one argues that it is deficient or
ungrammatical for that reason.
English nouns and adjectives retain their form, unchanged, regardless
of the grammatical role they play in a sentence. In the Finnish language,
nouns and adjectives have fourteen different forms, depending on their
grammatical function in the sentence; in Latin, nouns and adjectives
have six different forms. English distinguishes between singular and
plural nouns, for example, the boy as opposed to the boys. Hebrew makes
an additional distinction with a "dual" category for things
that come in pairs, like hands. Other languages have still more features
which do not exist in English. No one assumes that these different features
must occur in English.
It is certainly true that ASL does not have some of the features found
in English. English on the other hand, does not make use of such features
as location and directionality which indicate grammatical relationships
in ASL. Grammatical relations in any language signal a difference in
meaning so that these two features play a critical role in ASL. Since
ASL consists of movements made in space, signers refer to particular
people or things by pointing, or by shifting their eyes to a specific
point in space. Several locations can be established and may remain for
the rest of the conversation. The following sentence illustrates the
general rules which govern the grammatical feature of location:
Bob insulted John and then he hit him.
In English, one cannot be sure whether the he refers to Bob or John.
The equivalent sentence in ASL makes it clear whether it was Bob or John
who did the hitting because the sign for he would be made in the location
which would specifically indicate the correct person.
Directionality, the second feature identified above,
also makes use of space for grammatical purposes. For example, the
notions of "subject" and "object" can
be included in some verb signs by moving from the location of the "doer" (subject)
to that of the "receiver of the action." Consequently, the
sentence HE SHOWS ME is executed through use of a single sign - SHOW.
These two drawings illustrate unique features of ASL -
directionality and simultaneous encoding of information.
Looking again at the sign SHOW, we find another important feature of
ASL - the simultaneous encoding of elements of information. In ASL,
information is included within the sign. Thus the distinction between
I SHOW YOU and YOU SHOW ME is an internal inflection, indicated by
the direction in which the sign SHOW is made. In English, the same
information is encoded successively by the order of the words. Internal
inflections do occur in English, although infrequently. These inflections
are obvious in the contrast between man and men or swim and swam.
As this discussion shows, a grammatical analysis can only be made from
within a language by someone who knows it like a native, or else with
the assistance of natives who provide their knowledge of that language.
Word-for-word and sign-for-word translations are misleading; they do
not provide the information necessary for analyzing the structure of
the language that has been translated.
* These sentences are word-for-word translations.
** These sentences are appropriate English translations.