Talk:Sign language/Archive 2

Animals' use of LANGUAGE

Jessicanr (talk · contribs) has insisted on repeatedly adding statements that animals such as apes, horses, and dogs use language. Below are comments from her talk page for others to read and respond:

I mean no personal offense, but it is clear that you know little or nothing about the linguistics of sign language. Sign language, like any other language, consists of signs, grammatical rules, and syntax. It's not just a conglomeration of gestures that we call signs. Animals do NOT use language, regardless of what a source might say. To say that animals use sign language is equivalent to saying that if I learn 10 words in a foreign language that I can speak that language. Adding a source to something that is wrong does not mean that it should stay in the article. If I add a source to Moon stating that it is made of cheese, that doesn't mean it is correct and should remain in the article. Please familiarize yourself with the linguistics of sign language (start by reading every article related to American Sign Language) before adding outrageous information about animals using sign language. I have used American Sign Language for 30 years and I still don't consider myself fluent in it. I also have read the research on attempts to teach signs to animals (not grammar, not syntax, just SIGNS). To state that an animal that responds to a few signs is using language is absurd. If you can find two or three peer-reviewed articles in a journal on lingusitics claiming definitively that animals use language, I will stand corrected. Again, no personal offense, but reliable sources are necessary for editing, but alone they are not necessarily sufficient. I would never edit an article on nuclear physics just because I read an article on the internet about the topic; some articles require more than a source or two to edit properly; they require competence in the subject matter. Cresix (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you know the first language babies can learn? sign language. They are not able to use proper grammar rules and syntax, but they are able to communicate using sign language. the same goes for gorillas and chimps. additionally humans use sign language to communicate with dogs and horses. i don't see what the problem is.-jessica

I'm not talking about babies. Of course babies can learn sign language; children of deaf adults do it every day. I'm talking about animals such as chimps and gorillas, who do not use language. Communication is not the same thing as language. Please read about language. Language is more than words or signs. For the third time: LANGUAGE HAS RULES. Gorillas, chimps, dogs, and horses DO NOT USE THE RULES OF LANGUAGE. At most they use or respond to words or signs. If I point to something that I want, I AM NOT USING LANGUAGE. I am using gestures. Stop edit warring on this matter because every linguist in the world disagrees with you. Cresix (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

harry wanted sources. i provided sources. the only other person that has commented on animals using sign language beside the both of you is someone who agrees this information is relevant and helped to provide information in that subject. so you're the only one that's disagreeing while three people are ok with the edits made. seems consensus is on my side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicanr (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus. Two people do not determine a consensus. Sourcing ALONE is not sufficient to add information. You need to provide evidence from experts in linguistics that animals use actual language, not just signs -- LANGUAGE, not signs -- LANGUAGE. Provide such sources here and we will have a basis for discussion. Short of that, you are simply wrong because animals such as apes, dogs, and horses do not use language. Cresix (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Apes have been shown to be able to be taught to use language in a rudimentary fashion. See Great ape language. Powers ^T 18:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cresix, calm down. I don't see anything objectionable in jessicanr's edits, provided her sources back up her statements. What is wrong with saying that animals utilize and recognize ASL gestures? It's akin to saying that I am able to utilize and recognize the ten Russian words I know, да? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm calm, thank you. First a minor correction. When people communicate with ASL, they use signs; they don't use gestures any more than people who communicate with spoken language. ASL is a language, not a group of gestures.
The sentence "Sign language is also used by non-human animals such as gorillas and chimpanzees" is wrong. Jessicanr does not provide a source from a linguist or expert in sign language stating that gorillas or chimpanzees use sign LANGUAGE. There is a distinct difference between understanding or using a few signs and using the grammar and syntax of that language. I know a few words in Spanish. Does that make me a user of the Spanish LANGUAGE? Clearly, no. The sentence "Dogs and horses, as well as other animals, can recognize hand signals given to them by people. They can also use their body and facial expressions in order to communicate with other animals, including humans" is irrelevant to an article on LANGUAGE. It might be appropriate in an article on animals or communication, but not language. When my dog responds to "sit", that is not my dog understanding LANGUAGE. She is responding to the sound of the word. If I said to her, "Sit down after you eat", she would not have a clue what I meant because that involves the rules of LANGUAGE. In short, gorillas may use signs, but they don't use language; dogs and horses being able to respond to commands has nothing to do with this article and thus should be placed elsewhere. Cresix (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cresix is right. Great apes have been taught to use the signs of ASL, but they haven't learned how to use ASL as a language. The signs of a sign language are equivalent to words (or morphemes), but using a language consists of a lot more than just knowing some of its words. Great apes cannot learn the grammar of sign language, nor can they say much more with the signs they've learned than requesting food, hugs, and play. Bertrand Russell said, "A dog cannot relate his autobiography; however eloquently he may bark, he cannot tell you that his parents were honest but poor", and the same is true of apes who have learned signs. —Angr (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, there's some debate about this. Obviously non-human primates do not use language fluently, but there are strong signs that their usage goes well beyond simple symbolic use and edges into real language, however rudimentary. Powers ^T 19:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Angr, Micihael the gorrilla used sign alngauge to tell the story of how his parents were killed by poachers. This is more than asking for food, hugs and play. video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXKsPqQ0Ycc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicanr (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a claim of the trainers of the gorilla. What we don't see in the video is how much coaching this gorilla had prior to the video. Furthermore, if you showed that video to a group of people who are fluent in ASL, most of them would have very little idea what was being communicated if they knew nothing in advance about what happened. The most you see in the video is a gorilla mimicking a few signs (and not doing it very well in some cases). Give me a video of a gorilla using full, grammatically correct, ASL sentences of more than a few signs, and most importantly, unique sentences that the gorilla has never seen, and you may have something to discuss. I can quickly learn to say the words "man, kill, mother" in a foreign language if I've heard them a few times. What I can't do is quickly learn to say, "12 poachers invaded my camp and shot my mother with a gun and ran over my father with a jeep; it made me very sad for a long time"; and neither can a gorilla sign such concepts with proper syntax if the gorilla has never seen that combination of signs before. I've seen no evidence other than the biased opinions of the trainers of these animals that the animals use language. Anyone can claim his animal uses language, but proving it to the satisfaction of a language expert is an entirely different matter. Cresix (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A brief mention and a link to Animal language is sufficient - a detailed discussion of gorillas using signs is excessive in this article. Roger (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's probably the best choice. Obviously, non-human animals are using and responding to gestures and speech actions, though their capacity with turning this usage to Language with a capital L is less apparent and in need of proper caveats. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The title of this page isn't "Humans Communicating with Humans Sign Language". It's "Sign Language". Therefore all facets of sign language should be discussed. This includes using ASL to communicate with dogs, dolphins, horses and human babies.Jessicanr (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There is debate among those who trained the apes (hardly considered unbiased) and those who question whether the apes are using language. I have never seen any evidence from linguists to indicate that apes use language. In fact, those who have claimed to teach apes to use sign language have been criticized for overstating the idea that the apes have done more than use a few signs to express themselves. To state that apes use sign language seriously denigrates a sign language's status as a language. Apes may be better at gesturing to communicate their needs than dogs or horses, but that's a far cry from using actual language. The bottom line here: where is the lingustic evidence that apes are using language beyond the use of a few signs? Provide that here, and we will have a basis for discussion. Otherwise it's simply opinion. In any event, there is enough disagreement, both here and among outside sources, that we don't need to be stating so unequivocally in the article that apes are using sign language. They use signs; we need more evidence to state that they use language. And the rubbish about dogs and horses responding to gestures clearly does not belong in an article on sign language or any other language. Cresix (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think that "denigrates a sign language's status as a language", no wonder you're so adamantly against it. It does nothing of the sort, any more than saying that some birds can speak English denigrates English's status as a language. Powers ^T 21:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And, in fact, stating that some birds speak English does denigrate English (or any other language). If I told you in seriousness that your use of English is worse than a parrot's, would you consider that a compliment? It's not just sign langauge I'm talking about. It's language in general. Birds mimic English words; they do not use language. But most people know that birds are not really using language. Most naive readers who know nothing about sign language do not know that apes are not actually using the language used by deaf people. It's a matter of degree. Both examples denigrate a language; the apes example does more so because of greater ignorance about sign languages than spoken languages. If by adamant you mean "emotional", no, you're wrong. This is an issue of accuracy amidst a sea of ignorance. One can be adamant (as in firm) and still be correct. I have requested something very factual that has no emotional overtones: reliably sourced statements from linguists that apes use language. That's a very reasonable request. Anyone can opine that apes use language; that doesn't make it accurate. Cresix (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is very difficult to communicate if you're going to ascribe meaning to my words that they don't have. Why would you think I meant "emotional" when I said "adamantly"? Powers ^T 23:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I ascribed a meaning inappropriately. I suppose I felt that you were challenging my objectivity because I was so adamant; but I seem to have jumped to an erroneous conclusions and I stand corrected and again apologize. That being said, I continue to disagree with your statement that attributing language skills to apes who use signs does not denigrate sign language, and I still am requesting (from anyone, not just you) reliably sourced information from linguists that apes use language. Thanks for your comment; sorry I misconstrued. Cresix (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the ignorance lies in not knowing the linguistic definition of language (that it require grammar, syntax etc) Jessicanr (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

On my talk page you agreed that babies used sign language even though they didn't have grammar and syntax. So why do you say babies use sign language, but other animals, whose sign language is equal to or beyond that of a baby is discounted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.216.240.254 (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are Jessicanr; you are not signed in. You have misstated what I wrote. I said babies can learn sign language, just as babies can learn spoken language (part of your confusion may be the definition of babies). Children learn language. They don't immediately learn the rules of grammar and syntax; they begin by learning words (or signs) and progress to learning grammar and syntax. It is incorrect to state that a baby who has a vocabulary of two words is using language, just as it is incorrect to say that animals who understand a few signs are using language. They are using a few elements of the language (words, signs), but not the actual language. I can utter and understand a few of those elements of Spanish, but I can't speak or understand the Spanish language. The difference between human children and apes, dogs, and horses is that human children eventually learn actual language, not just individual words or signs. Apes, dogs, and horses do not. And so far, no one here has provided a reliable source from a linguist stating that they do. Cresix (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, I actually agree with this reversion. The changes Jessicanr made were overstated and not particularly relevant. Phrased slightly differently, there may be some room for mentioning that gestures can be used to communicate without being a real sign language -- and even that gestures can be used as a visual transcription of a spoken language without being a real sign language. But that's not what Jessicanr's edits said. Powers ^T 12:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Cresix, let's say you only know a few words in Spanish. if you say "hola" and someone asks you "what language is that", what would be your response? Jessicanr (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's a word, not a language. Cresix (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you were fluent in Spanish and the same scenario was carried out. Would your answer be different?Jessicanr (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My answer would be the same; "hola" is a word from a language; a word is not a language. Now if I had a conversation in Spanish for about ten minutes, the response would be, "I was speaking in Spanish". Cresix (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no credible research that shows non-human primates being able to use grammar and syntax via sign language. I think the disagreement/my lack of understanding lied in what linguists define as being a language, which even among linguists is disputed...For example, I would have considered home signs to be a language, whereas you would not. I also would consider 18 month old humans to use language, even though they have not grasped grammar.Jessicanr (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Every credible linguist defines language as including grammar and syntax, not just words or signs. That is not disputed among linguists. Cresix (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cresix, to say that non-human animals never learn actual language is not correct. This article, published in Oxford Journals, looks at research done on Non-human primates, showing their flaws, their evolution, and the eventual acquiring of language in NHP. "Because Kanzi's mode of acquisition was very different from that of other linguistically tutored animals, his linguistic output was dramatically changed as well. Analysis of his utterance corpus revealed a basic comprehension of syntactical ordering rules as well as a comprehension of grammatical classes (Greenfield and Savage-Rumbaugh (1991)). But more than this, his understanding encompassed all manner of novel events and even of metaphor. His understanding of language informed his interpretation of real world events and his broadened capacity to interpret and appropriately classify real world events informed his linguistic comprehension in a boot strapping effect. An example of this was the ease with which Kanzi learned to flake stone tools given a modicum of both visual and verbal instruction. Similar attempts by other apes required long and arduous conditioning and shaping regimens (Toth et al., 1993). <snip> Like Kanzi, Panbanisha and Panzee experienced a social environment within which keyboard usage was a daily affair by human caretakers. Because Kanzi was already lexically competent, the keyboard, which had begun with only 1 lexigram in his case, had grown to a board of 256 symbols. Thus the keyboard could not grow with Panbanisha and Panzee, as it did with Kanzi. If Kanzi was to be a part of their linguistic world, his 256 symbols had to be present as well. Consequently, Panbanisha and Panzee were exposed to 256 lexigrams utilized in complex communications from the first week of life. Perhaps for this reason, their acquisition of these symbols was much more rapid than Kanzi's. Similarly, their combinations appeared far earlier and Panbanisha composed more complex utterances of greater duration than Kanzi, although Panzee did not. Nonetheless, Panzee, though delayed relative to Panbanisha, followed essentially the same developmental trajectory (Brakke and Savage-Rumbaugh, 1995, 1996). She acquired the lexigram-words without any specific training and began to produce novel ordered combinations at about the same age as Kanzi and Panbanisha (Greenfield, Lyn, and Savage-Rumbaugh, in press). Like Kanzi, she also developed the capacity to understand and properly respond to spoken English words and sentences. She is not as accurate in her comprehension of completely novel sentences as are Kanzi and Panbanisha, nor does she recognize as many individual spoken words. She also has a greater degree of difficulty in differentiating words that sound similar, such as bowl and ball. Nonetheless, in mapping onto all the major capacities that were observed in Kanzi, but previously absent in Lana, Sherman and Austin, Panzee clearly demonstrated that Kanzi's skill was not limited to bonobos. Instead, it was a function of his early exposure to the bicultural social environment. The process by which Kanzi, Panbanisha and Panzee acquired their lexicons include components of rapid mapping of sound to referent, similar to those utilized by human children (Lyn and Savage-Rumabugh, 2000; Lyn et al., 1998). In addition, it has been found that no interaction with the ape itself is required, it is sufficient to speak to other individuals about a novel object in front of the ape. New words are learned and understood even when the apes appear to be disinterested in the conversation (Lyn and Savage-Rumabugh, in press; Lyn et al., 1998). The cognitive and social processes that were found in Kanzi's proto grammatical utterances also characterized those of Panbanisha and Panzee, suggesting that there exist, within the genus Pan, basic cognitive processes that permit language acquisition in a human culture (Greenfield et al., in press). " And in another second article: "The research team led by Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh regrouped the obtained data into three groups in order to see whether the subjects comprehended reversal of word order: (A) verb plus word order changes, and appropriate response differs (e.g. "Could you take the pine needles outdoors?"/"Go outdoors and get the pine needles"), (B) word order remains constant, but appropriate response differs ("Take the rock outdoors"/"Go get the rock that's outdoors") and (C) word order changes, and appropriate response changes ("Put the juice in the egg"/"Put the egg in the juice") (o.c. 92). Results are listed in table 8, indicating that these sentences were a difficult challenge to both, and that Kanzi performed significantly better than Alia, who tended to return from various locations with more than one object. It is important to note that real inversion errors were scarce: semantic errors predominated (e.g. putting the melon in the water when requested to "put the melon in the tomatoes", o.c. 96). Indeed, both subjects' overall performance indicates that they were "sensitive to word order as well as to the semantic and syntactic cues that signaled when to ignore word order [e.g. "Go get the carrot that's outdoors"] and when to attend to it [e.g. "Make the doggie bite the snake"]" (o.c. 97). In conclusion, it should be clear by now that both Kanzi and Alia were able to understand the semantics and the syntactic structure of unusual English sentences, even though neither of them was as yet a fluent speaker. The lack of contingent reward, the novel nature of the requests, the absence of previous training to perform these specific requests, and the unique nature of each trial countermand simple explanations that depend on the conditioning of responses independently of semantic and syntactic comprehension. Both subjects clearly demonstrated a capacity to process the semantic and syntactic information in the sentences presented to them. Moreover, the manner in which they did so revealed that they did not interpret the words contained in sentences as randomly juxtaposed events, to be acted on independently. Instead, they invariably attempted to carry out a complex set of related actions that reflected their interpretation of the semantic and syntactic features of each novel utterance. Thus, for example, Kanzi’s solution to "Put the water on the carrot" was to toss it out into the rain. Such innovative actions revealed a sophisticated processing of the speaker’s intent (in this case, to get the carrot wet) rather than a rote, unthinking solution. Even when the subjects failed, they virtually never did so in a way that would suggest that they were assigning key words randomly. (o.c. 98-99) In addition, it should be noted that this study was carried out with an amazing sense for detail and precision, as shown in the elaborate coding system applied by various coders, the statistical analyses applied to the data at various stages, the recurrent methodological reflections, and the very detailed information provided in the appendix (o.c. 111-210)." The article also explains bonobo's ability to use grammar, though not via sign language.Jessicanr (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

See my response below. Cresix (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

[indent] I, like Cresix, have been signing for thirty years. I studied ASL and Deaf culture in America in college, worked as a Sign Language interpreter for over 15 years, and worked with Deaf clients in the mental health field. Unlike Cresix, however, I say that I'm a fluent signer and even an expert, because with all that experience, I'm somewhat certain that's what I am. I'm also certain that Cresix has a similar resume, making him--not Jessicanr and not even LtPowers--an expert. He, unlike others who have participated in this discussion, knows what he's talking about. He has other experts to back up his positions about this topic, unlike Jessicanr, who insists upon continuing an edit war in spite of opposing evidence. This article is about human languages, so discussion about how animals use language does not belong here; it belongs elsewhere. So I agree with Cresix; nothing about chimps using signs should be here. Christine (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is about sign language, no matter who uses it. We should talk about how babies and primates can be taught rudimentary aspects of sign language for communication purposes, and we can do so without claiming that they are fluent users of the language. Powers ^T 21:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Powers, I don't fully agree, but for the sake of consensus I can accept a very brief comment similar to the one you used above ("gestures can be used to communicate without being a real sign language") and links to related pages. Any more than that is overstating it, and we must assume that readers don't know the difference between signs and gestures, or between use of a few signs and use of sign language. I won't insist, but I personally think the word "language" doesn't even need to be included in such a statement except in the context that the gestures are not language. Cresix (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Even though using signs is not a language, there are two sections in this article which discuss the use of signs by humans ("Use of signs in hearing communities"and "home signs"). The fact that non-human animals use/recognize signs from sign language is equally justified in being in this article. Jessicanr (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Christine, Cresix never presented sources from peer-reviewed linguistic journals showing how NHP do not use language, nor did they link me to a peer-reviewed linguistic journal explaining the definition of language, nor did they provide me evidence of how research into NHP use of signs was flawed. I believed that it was general knowledge that nhps could use sign language, which obviously was wrong. Jessicanr (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nor have you, Jessicanr, provided evidence from linguists that non-human primates use language. The first article you cite above is written by biologists, not linguists. The second article is self-published (not in a peer-reviewed journal) by people who are a part of the "NHPs and Language project"; they have a biased interest in promoting their so-called "research", but the information they provide in your link is not peer-reviewed, which is essential for unbiased scientific evidence. As for how all the previous research in language among non-humans is flawed, here is a more recent review of the research that was published in peer-reviewed journals by linguists:

• Givón, T.; Rumbaugh, Sue Savage. (2009). Can apes learn grammar? Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language.: "With 'grammar' understood here is the sense used by adaptive-functional linguists—the communicative use of grammatical morphology and syntactic constructions. Our results, as of now, tend to point to a rather pessimistic view of whether it is meaningful to talk about grammar in apes (bonobos) at the comprehension level. The adaptive pressure, communicative goals, and cognitive prerequisites for grammar, are altogether missing in both natural and human-induced ape communication."

As for your challenge to produce evidence "showing how NHP do not use language", the scientific method never attempts to prove a negative ("NHP do not use language") because a negative is ultimately unprovable in science (there can always be unknown exceptions to the negative). Rather, the scientific method puts forth a positive hypothesis ("NHP use language") and attempts to provide evidence for it. Using the scientific method, the burden of proof here is that "apes use language" rather than "apes do not use language". Cresix (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Do you have a link so I can read it all? Also, if you can give me the links to some peer-reviewed linguistic journals whose articles I can read online for free, I'd much appreciate it.Jessicanr (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(Please don't place your comments in the middle of mine; it's confusing; I moved it.) I have access to some print journal articles. Online access requires a subscription. Cresix (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

One could show the methods used in the research was flawed, which would then discredit any research proving NHPs use language, thus having the evidence be on the side of no NHP language use. It seems to me like the research you have posted here (though i would like to read it all) would prove that NHPs do not use "the communicative use of grammatical morphology and syntactic constructions." To me, that is evidence of a negative.Jessicanr (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a statement that current research fails to confirm the hypothesis "NHP use language". That's the way it's done in science. It's simply a statement that the positive hypothesis "NHP use language" has not been demonstrated. It is impossible to prove "NHP do not use language" because no one can predict the future, including whether future NHP might use language some day. But for now, the evidence is overwhelming that NHP do not use langauge. All of this is Scientific Method 101. Cresix (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has died down, but it is worth offering the following reference for those who might be reading it now. Stephen Anderson has a book out on the subject: Doctor Dolittle's Delusion: Animals and the Uniqueness of Human Language (Yale University Press, 2006). Granted, this is not peer-reviewed material, being a popular book, but it is written by an eminent and highly-respected linguist, and my impression (as a linguist myself, in interacting with other linguists) is that his view represents the consensus of opinion on the subject among linguists. AlbertBickford (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Photos of Interpreters vs. Deaf people

The opening photo in the article shows two sign language interpreters in action, with no Deaf people shown. This is rather odd, that the primary users of sign languages are not featured? I know my Deaf friends are often bothered by the attention paid to interpreters (especially by naive hearing people), while the Deaf people continue to be avoided and ignored. (E.g., after an interpreted church service.) This seems paternalistic: highlighting what hearing people do to help Deaf people rather than what Deaf people do themselves. Does anyone have a picture of two Deaf people talking to each other naturally that could be used instead? Then the photo of the interpreters could be moved to a new section that deals with SL interpretation. (There's a section on VRI/VRS, but not on ordinary interpreting.) Having a photo of Deaf people on top would reinforce one of the main points of the article, that sign languages are natural languages created by Deaf people to communicate with each other. They are not there just so Deaf people can understand what hearing people are saying. AlbertBickford (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, of course, so I was WP:BOLD and went ahead and replaced it with a more appropriate image. I don't think the image of the interpreters belonged anywhere else in this article, though (perhaps in an article about Sign Language interpreting). You're also right about this article not having a section about SL interpreting; that's something that should be developed. Christine (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Very appropriate change. I enlarged the image a bit; it was fuzzy at that size. Cresix (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There's further discussion of this photo in some later posts (below), and those posts also talk about my having added a section on interpreting. AlbertBickford (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Oral language" vs. "Spoken language"

I notice that throughout the article and on this talk page the term used for languages that are not sign languages is "oral language". Although I do see that sometimes in the linguistic literature, the more common term is "spoken language", in my experience. Has there been a carefully considered decision to use "oral language" instead of "spoken language"? If so, I'd be interested in the reasons. If not, would anyone object to changing the article to use "spoken languages" instead? AlbertBickford (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "spoken" is used more frequently in the literature. "Oral" is the term most often used in the Deaf community and literature on sign language. I've seen both, but more often it's "oral". "Spoken" isn't inaccurate, of course, but "oral" is preferred. Cresix (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we may be talking about different bodies of literature. Let me cite a few major linguistic books that use "spoken languages" rather than "oral languages"; I'd be interested to know which books/articles you are referring to.

* Klima, Edward and Ursula Bellugi 1979. The Signs of Language. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

* Sandler, Wendy and Diane Lillo-Martin 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge University Press.

* Sutton-Spence, Rachel and Bencie Woll 1999. The Linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge University Press.

* Battison, Robbin 2003. Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language. Burtonsville MD: Linstock Press. (new edition of Battison's 1974 dissertation)

* Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press.

* Lucas, Ceil ed. 2001. The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages. Cambridge University Press.

These are all highly-respected linguists and linguistic publications, and represent the consensus of usage within the field. In my survey of such books, I found only one usage of "oral", when talking about the "oral-aural" modality in contrast to the "manual-gestural" modality of sign languages. The normal usage within the field of linguistics is "spoken language(s)". So, I'm assuming that you must be talking about usage in some other field, and I would like to see documentation of that usage. AlbertBickford (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I just stumbled across another use of "oral" in contrast to "signed", in David Perlmutter's essay "No Nearer the Soul" which appeared in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory (a professional linguistics journal) in 1986. He's a respected authority on sign languages, so one might use this as an argument in favor of retaining "oral" in this article. Note, however, that he has changed his usage since then, as evidenced in a pamphlet he wrote for the Linguistic Society of America (What is Sign Language?, toward the end of the article), and in a resolution passed by the LSA (Sign Languages). Thus, the preponderance of evidence is clearly in favor of "spoken languages" rather than "oral languages" by linguists, and as yet there has been no evidence offered as to any other usage by other groups of speakers. I've let this set for a couple years to see if any would materialize, and none has. Therefore, I intend soon to be bold and make the switch in the article; we'll see if that prompts any further discussion of the matter. AlbertBickford (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made the change as promised. Any further discussion? AlbertBickford (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Since sign languages are spoken, it is counter-intuitive to exclude them from spoken languages. "Oral" is unambiguous. — kwami (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that language use doesn't always "make sense" that way. Usage of one word isn't necessarily consistent with usage of other words. An important discipline that linguists follow is to document how a word is actually used, not how one thinks it should be used based on comparison to other words. In this particular case, "spoken language" has become a technical term used by linguists (as I have documented above) that does not include sign languages. Granted, it is common in ordinary non-technical English to use "speak" (and "speakers") with sign languages, e.g. to say that someone "speaks" a sign language. However, linguists generally avoid this usage, especially when (as in this case) comparing the two classes of languages; they tend to reserve "to speak" for spoken languages, and use "to sign" with sign languages. In other words, the ambiguity in the usage of "speak" doesn't carry over to the term "spoken language", which as far as I know never includes sign languages. My point, then, is that "oral language" is not generally used in the linguistic literature, and a WP article on sign languages that aims to present information from a linguistic perspective should follow the usage established by linguists. There is another problem, too, with "oral", in that for some people it calls up the spectre of "oral" education. Thus, using the term "oral languages" can introduce overtones of oppressive educational practices, which may contribute to a non-neutral point of view. I suspect that is one reason linguists have shifted away from use of that term in the past twenty years. AlbertBickford (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

But we also have an interest in not confusing our readers with contradictory usage. What about "vocal" language? — kwami (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding confusion is, of course, a concern. There are different ways to do that. The best way, I feel, is to use terms that people are going to see in most other places, and particularly in authoritative sources, if they read further about the subject. Granted, doing that isn't always simple. When different people use terms in different ways, then it helps to mention the differences. When a technical usage is not obvious to readers unfamiliar with the topic, then it helps to explain the terms. Both of those factors are entering in here. So, how about adding a sentence such as the following to the end of the first paragraph: "They share many similarities with spoken languages (sometimes called "oral languages", which depend primarily on sound), which is why linguists consider both to be natural languages, but there are also some significant differences between the two modalities." (Perhaps, also, a wikilink from "modalities" to Modality_(semiotics).) Then, later in the article we could explain that although people sometimes say that one can "speak" a sign language, that usage does not carry over to the terms "spoken language" or "speech", neither of which include sign languages. AlbertBickford (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarity is not about we editors voting on what the "best" term is, it's about recognizing and using the ones the experts use, irrespective of our opinions about them.

>What about "vocal" language?

Kwami, it's clear that your goal is to be as clear as possible for the user reading the article, especially the uninitiated, and that is highly commendable. But as AlbertBickford has been explaining, language doesn't always follow logic, and more importantly, we as WP editors don't get to "vote on" the most logical way to express some idea; we should follow usage of the literature in the field even if their word choice seems infelicitous to us and our way seems patently better based on some logical principle. For one thing, that would be original research, which is a core no-no of Wikipedia, and secondly, in the end it would make things less clear to the user, because the uninitiated, having happily learned and digested our "new, improved" term, now goes to the literature to deepen his understanding, and becomes completely flummoxed because none of the words he learned matches up with what he sees there. So in the end, we confuse and thereby fail them, by teaching them our "better" terms.

Thank goodness the astronomers settled on Black hole and not gravitationally completely collapsed object (an actual early suggestion) but had they not, there would be no point for WP editors to vote on, and use the pithier, shorter, "better" term if all the cosmologists called it something else.

So the question to promote clarity for the user ultimately is not, "Isn't this dynamite term I just read/saw/invented more logical than the inferior ones currently in the article?", but, "Have we made sure to use the same key terms for sign language topics in the same ways that the linguists do?"

Hope that helps, and keep on thinking about the user as you are now, that's the right track. (Aside to AB: I have 1/2 the books on your list, and they bring back many happy memories.) Mathglot (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

BSL and Australian Sign Language

As a beginning student of BSL I have been told by our Deaf teacher that BSL and Australian Sign Language are very similar and mutually intelligible. She also said that New Zealand Sign Language was pretty close to BSL, too. 86.174.9.72 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)John Clifford

Having read the Wikipedia article on British Sign Language, I definitely think that someone could use the clarification there to improve the statement in this article. Recent news clips from Australia and New Zealand on British TV (Australian election and Christchurch earthquake) included the live interpreter for the speakers and both seemed to me (as a beginning learner) to be close to BSL. John Clifford —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.246.137 (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

They are indeed very close. Linguists such as Adam Schembri and Trevor Johnson sometimes refer to the cluster of British, Australian and New Zealand sign languages as one language, although recognizing that in popular usage most people prefer to think of them as distinct. Johnson, who is a member of a large Deaf family in Australia, once told me that he examined the BSL dictionary when it was published and every sign in it was one that he was familiar with, in use someplace in Australia (although not necessarily the most common or "standard" sign). The current text of the article says that American, British, and Australian sign languages are very different, but this is only true as regards American vs. the other two. I'm going to fix that. AlbertBickford (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

AAC

Hi everybody,

I'm spending some time extending the speech_generating_device and Augmentative_and_alternative_communication articles, and could do with a bit of wisdom from you guys.

There are some things about sign language in Augmentative_and_alternative_communication and I could do with someone having a look over them to see how accurately they are reflected. I personally think that the unaided AAC section should be split into a subsection for the deaf communities (effectively as a main article link to this one) and a subsection for people with other disabilities - but I'm really intersted in canvasing for opinion on this.

Thanks Failedwizard (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest making the same request at Talk:Deaf culture, Talk:American Sign Language, and talk pages for other specific sign languages. You'll get responses from a broader range of people with interests in deafness and sign language. Cresix (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

To catch the "other disabilities" post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability. Roger (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture at the top of the article

(This section also includes some side discussion about interpreters and telecommunications and the sections about them.) AlbertBickford (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This picture is blurry and not carefully taken. If it has any merit in regards to sign language, it should be put in the section that it elucidates, otherwise it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.55.166 (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the picture about two men and a woman (all three in their 20s) signing in a kitchen, then it was added a while back to replace one that featured two interpreters. The current picture is definitely an improvement; see the earlier discussion for the reasons for the change Talk:Sign_language#Photos_of_Interpreters_vs._Deaf_people. (I'm not the one who supplied the picture, only the one who pointed out the problem with the old one.) I don't understand the criticism of the current picture. The blurriness is due to rapid motion, something that is difficult to avoid in indoor photography (due to low light). I'd say the blurriness actually adds to the value of the picture because it portrays the dynamic nature of signing. The photo illustrates the whole article on sign languages by showing people using a sign language. I'm not a professional photographer, but it seems to me to be well-framed, and the composition of the photo draws attention to the face of the man on the right, which is very appropriate since in sign languages people generally look at each other's faces. So, until something better comes along, this is definitely worth keeping. AlbertBickford (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The newer picture related to signing at a rally for the Pittsburgh Steelers is not the best possible photo for illustrating an article on sign languages. To many (including me), it seems the person is simply showing a peace sign. I am willing to believe that the person is actually signing ASL, but I suggest it be replaced by a photo that is less ambiguous.Pete unseth (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What shows that it is ASL is the facial expression, which doesn't match a peace sign. But, there is another issue about this picture. We got rid of a picture of interpreters illustrating an article about sign languages in order to get away from the hearing stereotype that sign language is used for communication between Deaf and hearing via interpreters. We wanted to illustrate sign language as a living language that is used by Deaf people primarily among themselves. A picture of an interpreter takes the focus off Deaf people and onto hearing people who are "helping" the Deaf community, which conveys a paternalistic attitude. So, if we have a picture of an interpreter at all, it should be in a section about interpreting, not at the head of the article. I'm going to move it. AlbertBickford (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, done. In order to do so, I had to make a further change that was long overdue: teasing apart the distinct topics of telecommunications and interpreting, by adding a section dealing just with interpreting (that references the main article on the subject), refocusing the section about telecommunications onto Deaf people's use of the technology among themselves, and then finally talking about the two topics together in VRI and VRS. AlbertBickford (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge: Asking for directions...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This (unexplained) proposal was closed in December 2011, with No consnesus for a merge. Archived, and tags deleted (again!) Moonraker12 (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Hi everyone - where do I find the discussion for the merge proposal about sign language history? I'm a touch lost about which article history (or maybe project history) I might find it at? Failedwizard (talk) 09:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it has not been discussed yet, so we might as well get it going here. I support the proposal. The History of sign language page is short and far from covering the topic well. Merging it here makes sense as the little bit of information that is in that article and not in this one already can easily be added here. If/when the history section here becomes substantially larger it can be split into a separate article but right now there really isn't enough material for a separate page. Roger (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Oppose. I've had a lot of success with this kind of thing. One of the articles I manage, Sesame Street, is really a series of summaries of forked articles. This is what I did: I created, wrote/expanded an article for each section, and then used the article's lead for the sections in the original article for a summary of the sections. It took a lot of work, but I think that the result was worth it. I recommend that you do that for this article, or at least this section. In other words, someone with the resources, time, and desire should research, expand, and rewrite the history article, write a good lead for it, and then use it in the history section here. Although I've been signing for thirty years, I'm not volunteering, because I don't have the resources for this kind of thing anymore. Christine (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, really newbie question - when we support (or not) are we saying we support the articles being merged, or support them being seperate articles? Failedwizard (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is to merge two or more articles, so "Support" means you agree that they should be merged while you would use "Oppose" to indicate that you think they should be left as separate articles. Traditionally such posts are begun with the keyword in bold text - this makes it easier for the summarising admin to pick out the arguments on each side. Roger (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my issue was confusion - I thought that Christine's 'Support' supported the merge, but my reading of her supporting argument to her support, looked to me like she was opposing it... very confused... but it's likely I'm just misreading... Failedwizard (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm the one who was confused. My apologies. My husband would say that I had a blonde moment. ;) Christine (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

So it looks like this kind of stalled with no consensus either way (I'm ambivalent... ) how about I remove the template (assuming nobody objects in the next few days) and we'll have another look if/when someone starts doing some serious work on either of the articles? Failedwizard (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Doh! I forgot about this, finally removed the template...Failedwizard (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Margalit Fox

I added her book *Talking Hands: What Sign Language Reveals About the Mind to the bibliography. i dont edit at this article, but this seems like an important book on the subject, and wanted to draw editors attention to it. I have not read the book myself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So I moved it to 'further reading' because I understood that bibliography was only for sources cited in the article... but now I'm having quite a lot of second thoughs... hmm... anyone have an opinion? Failedwizard (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Currently there are only two sections: "References" and "Bibliography", and no "For further reading"; the sections have probably been retitled since your note. References is the normal section title for sources cited in the article, so Bibliography is for other citations, and that's where Fox's book is now. I haven't read it yet either, but it has been highly recommended as a very readable explanation of what sign languages are like in general, in addition to its focus on Al Sayid Bedouin Sign Language. AlbertBickford (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It must not be listed in Bibliography if it has not actually been used to write the article - it belongs in Further reading. Roger (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

What's the basis for that assertion? Is this a standard Wikipedia policy? Also, it would help if you would sign your posts, thanks. AlbertBickford (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is standard practice - see the WP:Further reading#Relation to reference sections guideline. Roger (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. But, it raises another issue, in that there are several items listed in the bibliography section that are not obviously used in the article, e.g., they are not cited. Is that something that should be looked into, e.g. should someone attempt to move more items from Bibliography to For Further Reading? Or leave well-enough alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertBickford (talk • contribs) 03:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Oops, now I forget to sign, sorry. AlbertBickford (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

School for the "Deaf" or for the "deaf"?

In the caption for the photo of the sculpture, it says it is near a school for the "Deaf", rather than "deaf". I had thought that "deaf" was the term for lack of auditory ability, but that "Deaf" was a cultural and identity label. If this is correct, should the caption say school for the "deaf"?Pete unseth (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. There's not a hard-and-fast rule, nor even a universally-agreed-upon set of guidelines. In this case, if the school uses sign language and otherwise serves as a means for transferring Deaf culture, then it could be considered a school for the (culturally) Deaf, although it could also be described as a school for the (audiologically) deaf since that would presumably be the reason a child would go there. Complicating this is the fact that some people are moving away from making the Deaf/deaf distinction, since it is difficult to maintain consistently and leads to all sorts of awkward decisions like this one. Let's see if any of the other editors have an opinion on this issue. Whatever we do here, we should do it consistently throughout the article. AlbertBickford (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately some people wish to impose their cultural views on a wider spectrum of the population, and the capitalized spelling of 'deaf' is an example of that. Perhaps it gives them a sense of power. Irrespective of that, Wikipedia is not their personal fiefdom and such people have no special authority to lay down the spelling and capitalization rules for this encyclopedia. If text or captions refer directly to Deaf culture I personally don't have a general objection to the use of capitalization, however restyling every usage of the word is inherently wrong and should be corrected. That said there are undoubtedly other editors who would object to forced capitalization on the basis that almost no dictionaries show the word as a proper noun related to the deaf community, and also for the reason thAt ThoSE mAkIng theiR OwN spellING RuleS caN ProovE quiTE DiSTRaCTiNG. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you're one of those who reacts against the Deaf/deaf distinction that was introduced maybe 40 years ago, and want to get rid of it. Personally, I don't feel strongly about the issue either way. I would be comfortable keeping the Deaf/deaf distinction in the article, as long as it was appropriately used (and in several places it wasn't). I see, though, that you've gone ahead and changed several (all?) instances of "Deaf" to "deaf", and the usage is certainly more consistent than it was. Let's see if anyone objects. AlbertBickford (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Order of sections on Technology and Interpreting

There is one change that Harryzilber made recently (while changing instances of "Deaf" to "deaf") that I disagree with. He swapped the order of the two subsections on Sign Language Interpreting and Remote Interpreting. Logically, people need to know what interpreting is before they can understand remote interpreting, which is why I put them in the original order. Admittedly, that separates Remote Interpreting from the discussion of technology. The problem is that people need to understand both about videophones etc. and about SL interpreting for the discussion of remote interpreting to make sense. So, whether we talk about Telecommunications or Sign Language Interpreting first, both of them have to precede Remote Interpreting, and thus one of them is going to be separated from Remote Interpreting. For now, I feel strongly enough about having Sign Language Interpretation come before Remote Interpreting, that I'm going to put it back. If you strongly disagree, then let's talk about it further. AlbertBickford (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Distracting picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.76.98.84 (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

first printed pictures of signed letters

it is written in the history section that "The earliest known printed pictures of consonants of the modern two-handed alphabet appeared in 1698 with Digiti Lingua" but in the article History of sign language we can see Engravings of Reducción de las letras y arte para enseñar a hablar a los mudos from the book of Bonet, printed in 1620. i think this part of the text could be removed :

The earliest known printed pictures of consonants of the modern two-handed alphabet appeared in 1698 with Digiti Lingua, a pamphlet by an anonymous author who was himself unable to speak.[12] He suggested that the manual alphabet could also be used by mutes, for silence and secrecy, or purely for entertainment. Nine of its letters can be traced to earlier alphabets, and 17 letters of the modern two-handed alphabet can be found among the two sets of 26 handshapes depicted.

it is redundant with what is written before and obviously partly wrong. it may also be added "Some of" (the earliest known...) in order to keep this part. (fast and easy )

--SyntaxTerror (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. This paragraph is talking about the two-handed alphabet used today in British, Australian, and New Zealand Sign Languages. Bonet's alphabet was a one-handed alphabet, presumably a precursor of the one-handed system used by languages derived from Old French Sign Language. So, they aren't in conflict; they're talking about different things. Does that need to be made more obvious, though? AlbertBickford (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed unsourced ¶ re: very little historical linguistic research on sign languages

Removed the following unsourced paragraph from the article. This paragraph was added in 2008, where it was copied from another article that contained the paragraph, unsourced, since 2006:

There has been very little historical linguistic research on sign languages, apart from a few comparisons of lexical data of related sign languages. Sign language typology is still in its infancy, since extensive knowledge about sign language grammars is still scarce. Although various cross-linguistic studies have been undertaken, it is difficult to use these for typological purposes. Sign languages may spread through migration, through the establishment of deaf schools (often by foreign-trained educators), or due to political domination.

This was added to the article in rev 201664465 of 12:51, 28 March 2008 in slightly different form, having been moved from the topic List of language families, rev 201106446 of 12:52, 28 March 2008 where it existed since the original version of the article on 07:18, 11 August 2006. Mathglot (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, good point. Things have changed a lot since 2006. Still not a lot of research on historical relationships, but there's been a lot more work on Typology. If the article is to talk about how sign languages spread, it deserves more than a single unsourced sentence. So, if we want the article to cover these issues, we should start afresh. 134.129.148.205 (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I wasn't signed in wrote that. AlbertBickford (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Major omissions in article

I've only just come upon this article, and there seem to be some major omissions. The terms "bilingual[ism]", "diglossia", and "encoding" do not even occur in the article, much less have sections devoted to them, and "regional variety" is barely mentioned. It's late, so I won't attempt a lengthy addition now, but here are some basic thoughts:

• bilingualism - unlike many native speakers of spoken languages, in the vast majority of cases native deaf signers grow up in an geographical environment where another language is everywhere used. Thus ASL and BSL learners are surrounded by speakers of AE or BE, and so on. This has profound impact on the language; there are many aspects to this, fingerspelling, name signs, syntax of pidgin varieties used with second-language signers (hearing learners of SL), and more. An (imperfect) analogy with bilingual countries with majority/minority languages might be helpful, maybe Paraguay (es-gn) or Spain (es-ca-eu-gl).
• diglossia - to my knowledge H and L varieties exist everywhere SLs are used.
• encoding vs language - a basic misunderstanding of the uninitiated is that an SLs is an encoding of the language of the region. Thus, e.g., that BSL is a more or less word-for-word transcription of British English into a signed modality, in the way that Braille is a transcription of it into a tactile modality or Morse code is a transcription into an auditory one. Having clarified the point concerning the true SLs, one would then have to describe (or at least, link to articles about) encodings such as SEE and possibly such things as Cued Speech and explain the distinction between a true SL and an encoding, e.g., ASL as used by deaf signers amongst each other, and SEE. Possible discussion of lip-reading or fingerspelling as encodings.
• regional variety - more could be said about this.

The section on language acquisition is quite short, and much more could be said about it--hearing children learning from deaf parents, households with one hearing, one deaf parent, deaf children of hearing parents, mainstreaming, boarding schools, deaf adults acquiring second sign languages, and more. Dictionaries are barely mentioned, and could be added to the section.

Probably sections could be added for each of the above (or folded into some existing section). Imho, the encoding issue is so crucial, that some mention of it should be made in the lede. Mathglot (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it may be good to address these issues in more detail, particularly because of widespread misconceptions about them. I'd caution, though, about going overboard--we could through the article off-balance in the other direction. Further, some of these topics *are* already addressed in the "Linguistics of Sign" and "Sign languages' relation to spoken languages" sections. I suggest you look at those sections again, and if you still think additions would be helpful, you consider first adding a sentence or two to the parts of the article that already deal with the issues, rather than adding whole new sections. The issues that seem to have the least mention so far have to do with language-internal variation (diglossia, regional varieties, and we could add register); that would be a good candidate for a new section under "Linguistics of sign languages". Or, maybe we should start a separate major section on "Sociolinguistics of sign languages", since "Linguistics of sign languages" is getting long and includes both structural and sociolinguistic topics. AlbertBickford (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Albert, thanks for the tips, including pointing out some bits I had missed (yes, it is getting long). If/when I ever get to this, I'd certainly ask for your further help/advice on it.

While I'm here, please go have a gander at Lou Fant. I was astonished to see that no page existed on this topic, so I threw one together. Lou was about the only one out there back in the day, being the lone face of American sign to those of us who were hearing and didn't have a direct community connection to the deaf. He was huge in his day, in print, on TV, in film, everywhere--and it's sad/suprising to me to see how little information is out there about him now, other than obits and scattered bits from deaf blogs. If you have other sources of info, please point me to them, and of course, feel free to improve the article in any way you see fit. Mathglot (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it is surprising that there wasn't an article about him, and I'm glad you started it. I added one detail, the fact that he was hearing, which is significant to his role as a bridge-builder between Deaf and Hearing communities. See other notes on the talk page for that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertBickford (talk • contribs) 13:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Split?

As this page is already 73 Kb long, and there are suggestions (above) that more needs to go in, is is it worth considering splitting it? For starters, there is already a separate article on the History of sign language, which mirrors what is here; is it worth reducing the section here to a summary and move the rest there? If there are no objections I will do that in a few days. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

number of speakers?

No where in the article do we have anything about how many people speak sign. If I look at the language pages for other languages I can see that they suggest everyon in a cuontry speaks that language a s a first language. So do all deaf people speak a first language of English or whatever? I guess not and so those should not be included in the population figures. What do deaf people do when they have a form to fill in that asks about language use? DO they put English or sign down for example? Do they say WHICH sign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.205.148.141 (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to look at the articles on the actual languages. In many cases, including ASL, we simply don't know. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

d:Q34228 subclass of d:Q184767

Hi! Please compare:

http://d-nb.info/gnd/4129609-6 Sachbegriff: Gebärdensprache

http://d-nb.info/gnd/4192103-3 Sachbegriff: Zeichensprache

From: de:Zeichensprache "Gebärdensprache wird oft fälschlich als Zeichensprache bezeichnet, was auf eine fehlerhafte Übersetzung (engl. sign language) zurückgeht. Gebärdensprachen sind jedoch natürliche Sprachen, die Lautsprachen in allen linguistischen Aspekten ebenbürtig sind."
Please help with the English language Wikidata labels and descriptions. Thanks in advance! gangLeri ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 10:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. GND-search for Gebärdensprache provides multiple results.

Can you please identify what en.Wikipedia artikles (or what articles from other Wikipedias) correspond to the listed terms? ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 10:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

P.P.S. some help links / overviews: Reasonator and Reasonator .

Gebärdensprache is equivalent to "Sign language", and German Sign Language is Deutsche Gebärdensprache, from which the initialism DGS. Zeichensprache, according to the lede of that article, refers to nichtlautsprachliche Verständigungssysteme zur Kommunikation, "communication system for understanding without spoken language", including divers' signals, "talking drum" communication, semaphore, symbolic road signs, and more. I don't know of any corresponding term in English. To discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

DDC – Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036)

Please see http://dewey.info/class/419/e23/2012-10-24/about.en providing a large list. Would be happy if you could help adding the DDC statements to the proper Wikidata items. Thanks in advance! gangLeri ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 11:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved from Hearing loss article

This (off-topic) text was in the Hearing loss article and perhaps might be reviewed for incorporation here, where it better belongs. Some of it needs to be rewritten and re-cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC) (Edited slightly to keep cited references from being split away from the material they tag. AlbertBickford (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC))

The history of sign language

The history of sign language was full of frustration and confusion for individuals in the deaf society. In the mid-1960s, William Stokoe, a hearing scholar from Gallaudet University worked alongside his deaf colleagues to develop a new sign language dictionary that used the internal structure of sign language, including hand shapes and their specific movements to define words. As a result, some came to view sign language as a human language that could be analyzed and understood as like any other. The majority of deaf people, however, felt offended and angered by such a creation. Professor Gilbert Eastman at Gallaudet was shocked that someone would present his language through a collection of bizarre squiggles and symbols. Both members of the deaf and hearing society struggled to name "the sign language", contemplating whether or not it should have even been considered an actual form of language to begin with. The deaf community worried if such a language would contribute to their state of minority. Evidently, the recognition of American Sign Language brought more conflict and anxiety instead of the expected excitement and joy assumed to occur from the development of a new language. The basis of their anxiety came from their exposure to the public and the thought of exactly how they were to develop their own deaf culture. The combination of language and culture promised equity and opportunity to their minority group and they needed to learn how to develop both. In the 1970s and 1980s, the National Theatre of the Deaf hosted many who were poets and expressed their deaf culture through sign language on stage. Dorothy Miles was one of the first poets to generate ASL poetry. Throughout her career, she went from creating poetry where she precisely matched signs with words to performing poetry where she manipulated the signs themselves to create new forms of meaning that were beyond words themselves. Forms of art, like this one, brought the deaf community together to experience language through performance, which sparked the development of their culture. REFERENCE: Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (2005). Anxiety of Culture. Inside Deaf Culture (pp. 123-143). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Multiple types of sign language

There is no single "sign language". Wherever communities of deaf people exist, sign languages develop. While they use space for grammar in a way that oral languages do not, sign languages exhibit the same linguistic properties and use the same language faculty as do oral languages. Hundreds of sign languages are in use around the world and are at the cores of local deaf cultures. Some sign languages have obtained some form of legal recognition, for example the American Sign Language within the United States and Canada, while others have no status at all. Deaf sign languages are not based on the spoken languages of their region, and often have very different syntax, partly but not entirely owing to their ability to use spatial relationships to express aspects of meaning. The expression of the deaf language differentiates with the time era in which those with hearing loss live. (ORIGINAL ARTICLE HAD REFERENCE TO PADDEN & HUMPHRIES 2005 HERE.)

Communication methods

Hearing loss can affect an individuals acoustics during speech and delay the development of expressive and receptive spoken language. This can result in the limit of academic performance and the extent of an individuals vocabulary. The early detection of hearing loss in children can help maximize the development of auditory skills and spoken language. Once a family is aware of their children’s hearing loss, they can decide what communication approach they would like to implement for their child. There are several different types of sign language/communication options which hearing impaired individuals can use in their everyday language. The following communication options can be considered along a spoken and visual language continuum.

Auditory-verbal (AV)

Auditory-verbal communication is developed through the use of a hearing aid and the integration of hearing impaired individuals into a community of individuals who have hearing and use spoken language. During therapy, the individual is not permitted to view facial expressions and the lips of the speaker. Since the goal of this communication method is complete integration in the mainstream, the individual is not at all exposed to sign language.

Auditory-oral

Communication is similar to auditory-verbal in the sense a hearing aid is used and the individual is integrated in a spoken language community. Unlike auditory-verbal, the individual is permitted to use facial expressions, lip reading and gestures to receive messages and communicate.

Cued speech

Cued speech is a visual type of communication. It is made up of eight hand shapes and four different hand locations around the face (at the lips, side of lips chin and throat). Each handshake represents a group of constanants. Constants in each group can be distinguished through lipreading. Vowels are expressed by positioning the hand to one of the four locations around the lower face. Cued speech helps improve lipreading skills and understanding of speech of individuals who do not cue. It is said that people can learn cued speech in 18 hours.

Manually coded english (MCE)

Manually coded english is a close representation of spoken english. MCE uses signs and finger spelling. MCE’s syntax follows the rules of spoken english and lexical items which have no specific signs are finger spelled. Morphemes are represented by certain gestures or finger spellings.

Total communication (TC)

Individuals who use total communication combine signs, gestures, lip reading, auditory speech and hearing aids to communicate. In schools, TC is the most common communication method.

Simultaneous communication (SimCom)

SimCom is very similar to TC, except amplification from a hearing aid isn’t used.

American sign language (ASL)

American Sign Language is a language completely separate from English and is purely visual. It is considered by deaf culture its own language. ASL has its own rules for grammar, word order and pronunciation. The syntax of ASL differs from English because sentence structure begins with the subject, followed by a predicate. Individuals communicate using hand shapes, direction and motion of the hands, body language and facial expressions. While English speakers normally use an upward inflection in their tone to ask a question, ASL users ask a question by raising their eyebrows or scrunching their forehead. Magnification and exaggeration of certain signs can convey different meanings. For example, exaggerated movement of the sign for "happy" would mean "very happy." ASL varies regionally. REFERENCE: Gravel, J. S., O'Gara. J. (2014). Communication Options for Children with Hearing Loss. Retrieved October 31, 2014, from http://lsl.usu.edu/files/Gravel-ComunicationOptions.pdf

Too much ASL?

I get the impression that this article overuses descriptions, examples, images and videos related to American Sign Language, to the exclusion of other languages. We need to try harder to maintain a global pov of the topic - which is sign language in general, the ASL article is over there. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)