canasia.org

sign language and even more universal language Was sign language and universal language [WAS: up]   << [Charles Riggs] I find it distressing that ASL differs from what the British use. Sign language is such an admirable form of communication. How nice it would be if it could become the universal language for all deaf people and, perhaps better yet, all people.   I find it interesting that we could theoretically extend this idea to a universal language for big furry mammals that consort with humans. We already know of gorillas and chimpanzees that can communicate by sign language in both directions.   Within the last few days, there was an article in the San Jose Mercury News about a lost dog that understood some sign language, an ability important to the deaf people that the dog lived with. The dog also knew how to translate certain sound events such as knocks on the door (I don't have the actual examples) Gorillas and chimpanzees have it relatively easy signing to humans, since their arms move similarly. For dogs and cats, we would have to invent a new set of signs. Oh well, can't get by with one universal language, has to be a set of two or three for speaking, but we could all understand the two or three. We look upon a conversation between two pedestrians, a human stranger and a local dog. [human stranger] Excuse me, can you tell me how to get to the Albertson's Supermarket? [local dog] Yes I can, it's pretty close. You take a right there at the first corner [indicates the direction], then a left at the next corner, then about 3 houses down on the right you go through Fluffy's yard and under the fence and it is on the other side of the street. Oh wait, you won't fit.  Ha, ha, ha. You will have to go all the way to the next corner and take a right and then another right then come back as far as you went. [human stranger] Thank you. [local dog] You are welcome. I suspect the idea is not new, but it's new to me. A book I am now reading which I recommend is *Seeing Voices: A Journey Into the World of the Deaf* by Oliver Sacks, Berkeley: University of California Press, (C)1989. He deals among other things with the difference between true language and other forms of communication. American Sign Language, British Sign Language, and French Sign Language are examples of the first. Exact Signed English, the Indian Sign Language used as a lingua franca among American Indian Tribes, and Gestuno are examples of the second, forms of communication which are not true language. Exact Signed English is a substitute for English: it is too awkward to make for fluent communication between speakers and is thus a form of code (coding a true language). The American Indian Sign Language and Gestuno are basically vocabulary and thus constitute a type of pidgin. There is currently a project trying to combine the vocabulary of Gestuno with the grammar of Esperanto, called Signuno, and while that might possibly be an improvement over Gestuno alone, it would again be an example of a coding of a true language. William Stokoe, who was the first to demonstrate that ASL had all the elements of a true language,  also deals with the difference between true languages and language systems in his last book *Language in Hand: Why Sign Came Before Speech,* Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, (C) 2001. He points to writing as an example of a form of communication which is not a true language, but a substitute for same. It is my opinion that reading may indeed act as a true language, due to the speed with which the mind takes in the ideas expressed. But writing is quite different. One of these authors also point to the sign languages used in monasteries where a vow of silence has been taken as not true languages but coded forms of English or another spoken language. That apes have been taught sign *language* has been debunked. They have been taught to communicate some thoughts using a limited number of signs. They either do not use grammar at all, or what they use is rudimentary. The dog, also, is not listening to sign language but interpreting gestures. (Note: While in English and French sign language has become the standard term for what were previously referred to as gestural languages, the name changed because signs are more than simply gestures, in German the _expression_ sign language has not been taken up, because that _expression_ already stood for something else. In Esperanto, it appears that there is not yet a consensus for whether to use the equivalents to sign language, gestural language, or manual language. )

That apes have been taught sign *language* has been debunked. They have been taught to communicate some thoughts using a limited number of signs. They either do not use grammar at all, or what they use is rudimentary. I'd be interested in seeing this debunking.  While clearly they don't use the full grammar of an adult (or even an older child) signer, I doubt that many people would look at a similar level of communication in spoken English and laugh at the claim that they had learned to communicate in English.  (And note that this is simply the productive capacity.  I seem to recall seeing papers on relatively subtle grammatical distinctions being understood by the apes in both ASL and spoken English.) If memory serves, the closest I recall to such a debunking was by Bickerton in, I believe, _Language and Species_, in which he acknowledges that they sign at about the level of a two-year-old human...and then salvages humanity's uniqueness by declaring that what two-year-old humans have (either spoken or signed) isn't really language but rather protolanguage .

ASL does have a lot of grammar, it's just different from English.  The sign glossed as give , for example, has to be inflected to agree with three nouns: the one doing the giving, the one receiving the _object_, and the _object_ being given.  For the first two, this means that the subject and indirect _object_ have to have been previously established at (necessarily different) loci.  For the third, you have to select the correct classifier to agree with the direct _object_.  Other classes of verbs agree with zero, one, or two nouns. Interesting. I wonder where, in Europe, a hearing person could go to learn sign language? Tell me again, please, the name of the language used in the UK. Is it the same as that used in Germany and France, does anyone know? There is also an Irish sign language which, I understand, differs considerably from British sign language. I know little about signing, but I am aware that its users hold strong views about the need to regard it differently from spoken language, particularly in the way thought and language interact. If you want a home study opportunity, see http://www.ahead.ie/notices/islcdrom.html . PB

There is also an Irish sign language which, I understand, differs considerably from British sign language. Looking at a fingerspelling chart     http://lara.wortech.ac.uk/monday_web/stavert/irish_signs.html this aspect of the language, at least (which may well have been grafted on late) appears to be _base_d on ASL/FSL fingerspelling.  The letters are the same as ASL     http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/cedir/kidsweb/asl.html except for F, G (=ASL F ), H, K, L, P, Q, T, and the movement component of X.  (F and T are similar to the ASL handshapes.)  Looking at an FSL chart    http://www.wordworkers.nl/frsign.htm F is identical to FSL, and T and X imply (to me) that ISL may have split off from an older form of ASL (when X had been reduced to one finger but still had some movement and T had curled the fingers but not yet moved the thumb). By contrast, the two-handed British Sign Language alphabet    http://homepages.tesco.net/~deafsupport/alphabet.htm is obviously completely unrelated. Looking at the ISL numbers 1-30, at     http://www.iol.ie/~johnpmon/numbers.html these are the same as ASL at 1, 3, 4, 5, 20, and 30.  The identity of 20 and 30 would indicate a relationship between the languages. (Interestingly, ISL 20 is related to ISL 2 , but the same is not true for modern ASL, so it may also indicate an older form.)  In ASL, all numbers up to 999 are made on one hand. Unfortunately, I was unable to find an actual ISL vocabulary, much less a grammar, so I can't comment on the similarity of the language as a whole.  (And there don't seem to be any books on the subject available from Amazon, either in the US or, surprisingly, in the UK. Are there any decent on-line Irish bookstores?)

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (Raymond S. Wise) writes: That apes have been taught sign *language* has been debunked. They have been taught to communicate some thoughts using a limited number of signs. They either do not use grammar at all, or what they use is rudimentary. I'd be interested in seeing this debunking.  While clearly they don't use the full grammar of an adult (or even an older child) signer, I doubt that many people would look at a similar level of communication in spoken English and laugh at the claim that they had learned to communicate in English.  (And note that this is simply the productive capacity.  I seem to recall seeing papers on relatively subtle grammatical distinctions being understood by the apes in both ASL and spoken English.) If memory serves, the closest I recall to such a debunking was by Bickerton in, I believe, _Language and Species_, in which he acknowledges that they sign at about the level of a two-year-old human...and then salvages humanity's uniqueness by declaring that what two-year-old humans have (either spoken or signed) isn't really language but rather protolanguage . For my purposes, a protolanguage is not true language, and a chimpanzee who had been taught some signs from ASL would no more speak ASL than a person speaking Pidgin English could be said to speak English

Padraig Breathnach < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it writes: There is also an Irish sign language which, I understand, differs considerably from British sign language. Looking at a fingerspelling chart    http://lara.wortech.ac.uk/monday_web/stavert/irish_signs.html this aspect of the language, at least (which may well have been grafted on late) appears to be _base_d on ASL/FSL fingerspelling.  The letters are the same as ASL    http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/cedir/kidsweb/asl.html except for F, G (=ASL F ), H, K, L, P, Q, T, and the movement component of X.  (F and T are similar to the ASL handshapes.)  Looking at an FSL chart   http://www.wordworkers.nl/frsign.htm F is identical to FSL, and T and X imply (to me) that ISL may have split off from an older form of ASL (when X had been reduced to one finger but still had some movement and T had curled the fingers but not yet moved the thumb). By contrast, the two-handed British Sign Language alphabet   http://homepages.tesco.net/~deafsupport/alphabet.htm is obviously completely unrelated. Looking at the ISL numbers 1-30, at    http://www.iol.ie/~johnpmon/numbers.html these are the same as ASL at 1, 3, 4, 5, 20, and 30.  The identity of 20 and 30 would indicate a relationship between the languages. (Interestingly, ISL 20 is related to ISL 2 , but the same is not true for modern ASL, so it may also indicate an older form.)  In ASL, all numbers up to 999 are made on one hand. Unfortunately, I was unable to find an actual ISL vocabulary, much less a grammar, so I can't comment on the similarity of the language as a whole.  (And there don't seem to be any books on the subject available from Amazon, either in the US or, surprisingly, in the UK. Are there any decent on-line Irish bookstores?) How quickly one can get out of one's depth in AUE! Sign Language is just not my thing. I am not acquainted with any hearing-impaired people, and I know only two people who know how to sign. I don't meet either of them very often. Washoe would leave me for dead. I presume you googled on Irish Sign Language and found http://www.ahead.ie/notices/islcdrom.html . Online bookshops? (We don't, of course, have bookstores in Ireland). I don't think so. I have never checked, because I enjoy getting in among the books and being surprised. Serendipity, that's my thing. You might like to find out a little about the most enjoyable bookshop in Ireland: http://www.kennys.ie/ . But you really should make a personal visit. PB