Talk:American Sign Language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to sign languages, Deaf culture, deafness etc. For guidelines see the project page or talk page

Contents 1 ASL and native American sign languages 2 American or Canadian?? 3 Comment on Several Topics 4 Link suggestions 4.1 ASL Interpreting? 5 Images for ASL alphabet? 6 Transparent/translucent/opaque signs 7 Bilingual-Bicultural Philosophy 8 Fade to black 9 Dominant? 10 Removed world language 11 History of ASL 12 Comments moved from article 13 Copula/"to be" explanation uses invalid example 14 Pictures 15 Multiple articles on great ape language including ASL use 16 "deaf" vs. "Deaf" 17 Mexico? 18 Comprehension of Written English 19 word order 20 Naming 21 Inclusion of baby and primate usage 22 Wikipedia in American Sign Language proposed

[edit] ASL and native American sign languages

Is there any evidence that ASL was derived from native American sign languages? I find it hard to believe, since

• the American School for the Deaf, the first school for deaf children in the US to use sign language, held its first classes in 1817 [1] (the recent edit saying "1900" is incorrect), and is in Connecticut

• the only native American sign language I'm aware of is used by the Plains tribes, and deaf people (and their teachers) in Connecticut would not have been likely to have contact with Plains Indians

• I own a copy of Indian Sign Language, ISBN 048622029X, and there seem to be many differences between the signs pictured there and the equivalent signs that I learned in my ASL classes

Sethg 21:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's another interesting reference (also recently available in print from Dover Publications): "Sign Language Among North American Indians Compared With That Among Other Peoples And Deaf-Mutes" http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/17451 One intriguing but dubious theory it mentions is that the first Spaniards who came to North America taught sign language to the Indians, and the language spread across the continent with the trade of horses (also introduced by the Spanish).BillFlis 14:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American or Canadian??

Why is this sign language called American sign language?? It says in this article that it is both American and Canadian. 66.245.68.62 02:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because Canada is part of North America. I think the name makes sense. Quebec, interestingly, has a different sign language, called LSQ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.141.191 (talk • contribs) 4:51, 6 December 2004.

Because although most other countries have their own sign language, there is no such thing as Canadian Sign Language. The formalized grammatical language that was developed in the United States spread to Canada. The fact that Canada is part of North America is only tangentially relevant; it is more important to note that the language was developed in the United States and is therefore classified as American. As for Québéc, Langue des Signes Québécoise is used almost exclusively, and ASL is much less common in Québec than spoken English - while many cosmopolitan Québécois speak both English and French, it is rare for a Deaf person to use ASL at all.

Etoile 05:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the Republic of Benin, which is officially Francophone, ASL is used in schools for the deaf, with some concessions made for Signed French (such as pointing with the L hand for "she", after the French pronoun elle). Languages don't always follow national boundaries. kwami 05:39, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Several Topics

ASL and native American Sign languages: No there is no evidence. American Sign Language, like any language, is an indigenous product of the people who use it. In the United States, the New York and Martha's Vineyard deaf communities came together at the Hartford school where Laurent Clerc used French Sign Language to teach. These three forms of sign language merged into a single distinct sign language. This is documented in Nora Ellen Groce's book, "Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language" which was a result of her Master's thesis. My own ancestors were members of the Martha's Vineyard deaf community. The signed language of Martha's Vineyard was imported from Kentish farmers of southern England. The sign language of Kent is documented by many sources but probably most well know is the mention of it in Samuel Pepy's Diary.

Laurent Clerc, one of the founders of the Hartford school, wrote that he was enticed to come to American because "indians sign". He wrote of meeting Pacific islanders and conversing with them about their sign languages. So, yes, the people involved with the Hartford school had many opportunities to meet native Americans and learn about their signs.

As for the New York deaf community and its sign language, that group seems to have developed it very own language independently. That surprises almost no one who has studied the history of deaf people. Deaf children have been know to use "home sign" which are an attempt to invent a language within one's own life span in the absence of another language. Paris had it's own signing community and it developed as would any minority language community would once deaf people began to find each other. There is an evolution involved. The first generation comes together and forms the community. The next generation seems to sign even better because they don't have the worry of finding ways to conceputalize the language. In fact, they take the present words and begin to abstract from them and make them more complex.

AMERICAN OR CANADIAN: The mother of deaf education in North America is Hartford, Connecticut. Students from the United State and Canada and several other countries attended the Hartford school. Back in the days of the Hartford school, it was the students to returned to their home country and began to teach in schools for the deaf. Eventually, laws were passed that required teachers of the deaf to be able to teach speech, so by 1910 there were practically no deaf teachers of the deaf left in North America. However, the ASL that Canadians learned at Hartford was well-established and remains the national sign language of Canada. It's kind of odd, I think. With vocalized language we see English speakers in North America, England, South Africa, Kenya, India, Australia and New Zealand. But deaf education took different directions. England was on an Oral system in the 19th century and the teaching of the deaf was a business enterprise whose methods were kept as secret as corporations protect trade secrets. Thomas Braidwood had a few schools but he absolutely would not reveal his methods of teaching the deaf to speak to anyone. That's why the US and Canada began with schools that used sign language as the means of instruction. When the Braidwood school would reveal their methods, Thomas Gallaudet went to Paris where the were more than happy to teach him the methods of educating the deaf.

FOUNDATIONS OF DEAF EDUCATION IN AMERICA. This is a SORE point with me and most other deaf people. LAURENT CLERC is as much the founder of deaf education in Ameriican as Thomas Gallaudet. How do I know? First, I've been studying deaf history and culture for the past 20 years. But second, I'm related to both of these men. My ancestors where not only of the Chilmark signing community in Martha's Vineyard, I'm related to the same HOPKINS that forms Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet's middle name. Laurent Clerc's daughter, Sarah, married a Hopkins descendent so I'm related to both of these founders. This is a very common situation when one reads about innovators and founders. Thomas Gallaudet brought Laurent Clerc to the United State to FOUND the first school for the deaf. But in the history of the deaf, no deaf person is ever credited with founding a school. It's always the hearing person who brought them to town or the benevelent philanthropist who funded the school. This is an issue that was decided 30 years ago but scholars in deaf history. This page should give credit to Laurent Clerc as a founder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ray Foster (talk • contribs) 22:09, 16 December 2004.

I'd love to know who wrote this comment - could you please drop me a note if you're a registered user and willing to reveal yourself? Thanks!

-Etoile 05:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article history knows all - it was Ray Foster, as now noted above. RossPatterson 20:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the American_Sign_Language article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/American_Sign_Language}} to this page. — LinkBot 01:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ASL Interpreting?

Would anyone be interested in seeing an article, or at least a stub, on ASL interpreting specifically? I am a professional interpreter, and neither the article on ASL nor the article on Interpreting apply terribly well to my experiences. The Bearded One 02:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images for ASL alphabet?

Is anyone aware of license-free (or GFDL-compatible) images of the ASL alphabet? If this exists somewhere on the net, I'd be happy to upload and layout an entry here. I suppose some basic camera and hand skills could also accomplish this... --Ds13 09:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Using a freeware/PD font, I've created the following entry: American Sign Language alphabet Someone more resourceful may be able to put together a better chart with photos, but at least we have a reference for now. --Ds13 10:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Transparent/translucent/opaque signs

This section of the article doesn't seem to be specific to ASL, save for the fact that that language was used an the example in the elucidation of these principles. Wouldn't it be better off in the overall sign language article? -- JTN 20:14, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

[edit] Bilingual-Bicultural Philosophy

There are entries in Wikipedia for most of the educational/linguistic options for young deaf or hard of hearing children: Cued speech, auditory-verbal, Signing Exact English, oral, etc. But the only entry that discusses bilingual-bicultural deaf education pertains to a school for the Deaf in New Zealand. The ASL article should have a link to "Bilingual-Bicultural", the name of the philosophy that says that children who have a hearing loss are culturally Deaf and should be instructed in American Sign Language as their first language and then learn English as a second language through reading and writing. The Bi-Bi philosophy is in direct opposition to the auditory-verbal approach that teaches families and therapists to force the child to use residual hearing to listen and prevents them from using any type of visual cues at all. Catheee... 14:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~

[edit] Fade to black

The history of ASL ends precipitously at the foundation of the ASD. There's some conjecture that home sign and MVSL influenced sign there, but there's not much else. How much was sign taught, and how much originated as natural language? How did sign spread to other parts of the US? I find it hard to believe that the history of ASL ended almost 200 years ago.

Sadly, I can't find any Web resources that follow the history of the language farther than the 1810's, but there's got to be something. --ESP 14:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You are right, the language did not just stop in its tracks. I have added some information about how the language spread from the original school. Qaz

[edit] Dominant?

This article states that ASL is the dominant sign in the US. Doesn't that depend on the area you live in? The area I live in 20 years ago the only ASL'ers we had around the young college types fresh out of D.C. Virtually all were PSE. Now, ASL is pretty much all that is taught here, but there are still a lot of PSE users left.

So, I suppose I am asking what the source is for considering ASL dominant? Prevalent? Sure. Growing in influence? I think that is a fair description. Dominant in 2005? I have my doubts, but am willing to be convinced. :) Thank you for your help! --Teri 09:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

ASL is the dominant sign language in the U.S. - PSE is not a language. -Etoile 15:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, PSE is a manually coded form of English, like written English or Braille. It is clunky and very few people use it given the chance to use something else. Its only real purpose is to accustomize the deaf to English morphology and syntax. kwami 20:02, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

According to Manually Coded English#Pidgin Sign English (PSE), or 'Contact Sign', PSE is a contact language sharing features of English and a Deaf sign language. That is also my experience of the term here in Australia. Is PSE something more codified (and more English-like) in the US? This term comes up quite a bit so it would be good to make a PSE wikipedia page.

• I agree, PSE would make a good stub page. I could take a shot at writing one tomorow or the next day, but it will be my first stub. Suggestions? (User:The Bearded One)

Also, I respectfully disagree that teaching English grammar to deaf people is its "only real purpose". Surely it's essential purpose is to bridge the gap between the two languages, when (for example) deaf and hearing people meet socially and find a linguistic common ground, or for that matter Deaf native signers talking with 'oral' deaf. Etc. Even complete Manually Coded forms of English such as signed English are as much for hearing people as for deaf — eg. for hearing (English-speaking) parents with a deaf child, or hearing teachers not fluent in a deaf sign language, it's much easier to learn. -- ntennis 03:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake for Signed English. But I think Etoile's comment stands; in any case, PSE will be judged against a standard of ASL or MCE; ASL seems to be culturally dominant. kwami 06:30, 2005 July 29 (UTC)

Re: PSE page - please go ahead! I'm happy to contribute. But I feel it would be better to make a "contact sign" page, so as to include any contact languages that arise between a sign language and a spoken or manually coded language (such between Signed German and DGS). ntennis 03:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Here's the stub I created yesterday. I am pretty new here at Wiki, so I don't really know how to expand it into a full article. The Bearded One 18:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed world language

I removed this sentence: ASL was first considered as a world language in 1998. It was followed by this comment: "by whom? in what context?". I agree totally. Without context, declaring ASL was declared a world language borders on meaningless. I have taken it out of the article. If you can find the context, feel free to put it back in. Qaz

As an individual who is studying to be an Educator of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, I'm hoping to help answer some questions. First of all American Sign Language, (ASL) is the dominant language of the Deaf Community. I capitalize the "D" for a reason. There is a difference between big "D" deaf and "d" deaf. Little "d" is a pathological state whereas "D" is one who feels they fit into the Deaf culture. ASL is a big part of that culture. Individuals who use contact signs, are using devices that were made by hearing people to try to educate them on English. From all my history books, that is what we are taught. But there is a push away from using LOVE, SEE I, SEE II and the rest of them. Now most educators are learning American Sign Language, and a bit of Pidgen Sign English. And in regards to world language, it is not one. ASL incorporates parts of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. There are other recognized sign languages that have originated in other countries. So please do keep this in mind. However, like there is a generic world language that never picked up off the ground, there was an attempt at a universal sign language. At this second the name of it seems to be out of reach, but mabye later when I remember and have time to look up the terms, I'll place it up here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.137.189.242 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 20 September 2005.

I believe the name of the "universal" sign language used at international conferences and such is called "Gestuno"

Ara Pelodi 02:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of ASL

I spent some time in this section and added various things. I tried to give it a better introduction, added a bit about alice cogswell, william stokoe, the oralist vs manualists fight and some other things. Also I tried to get rid of the impression that ASL was invented by hearing people. Qaz

Nice of you to do that, Qaz. To Qaz and others: The history section really needs some cleanup in the first paragraph. Looks like someone just inserted some stuff in there that has nothing to do with history. I don't know anything about the subject, but that first para does not seem very "encyclopedic". Amysrobot 00:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments moved from article

The following comments were inserted by an anonymous user into the ASL article page. I have moved them here since they obviously don't belong in the article.

Perhaps the researchers just simply didn't understand what they were trying to say? Are they meaningless hand gestures? This is not a scientific conclusion. What was the behavior associated with these gestures for example? What is the environment in which these subjects live? Who are the caretakers, etc. I simply don't get your conclusion.

I'm not exactly sure what these comments were in reference to... perhaps the primate section? Gregmg 04:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copula/"to be" explanation uses invalid example

I thought I should point out that there is an error in one of the examples in this article. There is an explanation that ASL does not use "to be" as a copula. But then the example goes on to use "to be" as an auxiliary. In English, those are two completely different things.

"He is sad" uses "to be" as a copula, linking the subject to its descriptor.

"He is going" uses "to be" as an auxiliary, where it's simply a part of a larger syntactic construct, modifying the aspect of the verb "to go". In other words, "he is going" means "he goes at this present time and continues to do so", having nothing to do with the meaning of "is" as a copula.

Please see the wikipedia article on auxiliaries for more information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.137.189.242 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 20 September 2005.

I agree, I almost wanted to correct that, but I wasn't sure if there was an error. Still, it is possible that "going to the store tomorrow" is indeed a state of being, describing yourself as being in the process of going to the store tomorrow. Spanish and French do not use the auxiliary verbs as frequently as English. Instead, simply saying "I go there" in those languages is the same as "I'm going there." English has made "am" and "is" so much a part of our vernacular that using contractions like "I'm" and "He's" has become similar to French people using "c'est" instead of "est" alone, even though c'est means "that is". So we hear "L'état, c'est moi" (The state, that's me) instead of "L'état est moi" (The state is me).

Anyway, I'm just rambling. But I've added the distinctions between copula and helping verbs by using "My hair is wet" and "I'm going to the store tomorrow", respectively. --Lux 06:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Does anyone else think that this article is wholly incomplete without some kind of original picture showing how to do at least one sign? (eg, HELLO. WHAT? SIGN LANGUAGE). I'm No Parking and I approved this message 16:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Everyone will naturally have their own opinions about what word/phrase to show. A couple of simple (and, arguably, useful) ones like "YES" and "NO" could be a start. Now, where to find GFDL images...  ? --Ds13 19:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wandered in here and was completely shocked to find no images, from a major visual language! I second any effort to add images as soon as feasible; anyone fluent have a digital camera? Radagast 17:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple articles on great ape language including ASL use

This article is one of at least 16 articles on Wikipedia touching on the fascinating but controversial subject of Great ape language. These articles (or their parts on this topic) have been created independently and contain much interesting but uncoordinated information, varying levels of NPOV, and differences in categorization, stubbing, and references. Those of us working on them should explore better coordinating our efforts so as to share the best we have created and avoid unnecessary duplication. I have somewhat arbitrarily put the list of 16 articles on Talk:Great ape language and would encourage us to informally coordinate efforts there. Martinp 18:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "deaf" vs. "Deaf"

The identification of a culture of the "Deaf" with a capital "D" is a historically recent development, arising only in the last 20-30 years or so (the Wiki article on "Deaf" is sadly deficient in its historical context). So characterizing someone of the 19th century or before as "Deaf" is totally inaccurate. I've just had to revert the replacement of "deaf" with "Deaf" in an inappropriate context for the second time. "Deaf" refers to a relatively modern culture--not even everyone _today_ who is "deaf" is also "Deaf", and certainly not anyone before the term "Deaf" was coined and embraced by those who use it to describe themselves. I have some understanding of, and even considerable sympathy toward, the attitude of "Deaf pride", but can we stick to facts here? Or at least debate the issue here in the Discussion page? BillFlis 01:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, the usage of Deaf vs. deaf in the article seems correct. In either an historical context or as a description of the physical condition, "deaf" with a lower case "d" seems best. In a modern, cultural context, "Deaf" with a capital "D" is best. At least that's my opinion. Gregmg 04:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to debate the issue in the discussion page. I agree with you that the capitalized "Deaf" is much overused and that many people do not quite understand its meaning. However, its usage is nonetheless fairly subjective and thus subject to variation. As Carol Paden and Tom Humphries say in their _Deaf in America_: “[W]e use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language—American Sign Language (ASL)—and a culture” (2) ^[1]. The only place where I reverted your “deaf” to “Deaf” was when it referenced “deaf culture” with "natural sign languages already in use." In my opinion (and you are obviously free to disagree), because this “deaf” is talking about a culture with a shared language, it should be capitalized (see Padden and Humphries). I do not think it is significant that the term did not come into use until recent years; it can still be used when writing about a specific community even if that community existed before the term. Today, we certainly do not use the “Negro” or N-word of old when referencing historical people of African or Caribbean descent; we use the modern “Black” or “African-American.” I hope this clarifies my action.

1. ^ Padden, Carol, and Tom Humphries. Deaf in America. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1988. ISBN 0-674-19424-1.

Well, I think you're stretching a bit, in applying "Deaf" to all cultures, plural, of deaf people everywhere, who have evolved a sign language. From your brief quote, it appears that Drs. Padden and Humphries are defining a term that they use within their own book, which is limited to _the_ Deaf culture, singular, within America, who use a particular language, ASL. I doubt that they originated the term "Deaf", but it seems that the limited way they used it agrees with my understanding of it. Do other cultures, abroad, identify themselves as "Deaf"? We call some people "Black" or "African-American" because that's what they call themselves. To maintain a neutral point of view here, we have to be careful with such labels. As I suggested above, it would be interesting to have some history of the origin or early usages of "Deaf", which would be most appropriate in the "Deaf" wikiarticle.

BTW, my comment was directed mainly at a previous editor, who changed all occurences of "deaf" to "Deaf". It was a little jarring, in particular, to see Alice Cogswell described as part of "Deaf culture". To me, that's sort of like identifying slaves brought to America from Africa as "African-Americans". BillFlis 16:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This issue has arisen in other deaf-related articles. I think it would be good to discuss this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf. Personally, though I agree the issue is complex, I don't buy the "anachronism" argument that we can't use terms about historical peoples that they didn't use themselves. Many members of 19th century Deaf communities didn't use English as their primary language anyway, so if you want historical accuracy, the question is "what is the best translation into contemporary English for the sign that members of the D/deaf community used about themselves in the 19th century?" I think there's evidence that many saw themselves as linguistic/cultural group, altough a more detailed historical picture would be valuable. There's a similar phenomenon here in Australia with the words "aboriginal" and "indigenous", where the preferred usage in modern times is "Aboriginal" and "Indigenous" (with initial capitals) when referring to people (consistent with "Irish" or "Jewish", for example). An Aboriginal activist from the 19th century now gets a capital A, just like Aboriginal activists from the 21st century. ntennis 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico?

It says it's used in parts of Mexico. Can we be more specific? What areas use ASL in Mexico as the dominant sign language. Does it mean another sign language is primarily used in other parts of mexico?--Sonjaaa 14:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelavent because most deaf in Mexico use Spanish sign. Even in America most deaf with hispanic origins speak Spanish sign.--Meissmart 16:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehension of Written English

One thing I (an English speaker) have wondered about is the degree/difficulty of comprehension of written English by ASL users. I have an unproven hunch that ASL leads to "tics" in written style and maybe some grammar difficulties, and I wonder if anyone can add anything about that issue. I wonder if the English major at Gallaudet I read about in today's Washington Post is learning English like I would learn French, or essentially taking humanities/composition coursework. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrewrowe (talk • contribs) 11:39, 8 May 2006.

Inthe deaf community english is very hard to learn, however they learn it something like you would learn french, but without the speech so the language pattern cannot be reinforced and is therefore harder to pick up.--Meissmart 16:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] word order

ASL is strongly AVO, not OAV as the article now has it. Unfortunately, I won't have a chance to fix this up until next year. Could someone else do it? kwami 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, got it, along with a fairly extensive rewrite. However, many of the links are bad, or don't direct to the proper articles, and I don't have a good enough connection to sort it out. Sorry to leave someone else with the mess! kwami 13:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The confusion about the word order I think comes from the large number of topic phrases and tags used in ASL. One dictionary I consulted even uses OSV as the normal order! (The American Sign Language Handshape Dictionary, Tennent and Brown, 1998) FoiledAgain 00:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

I know that the Deaf can "create" their own names, and I think it is usually by first fingerspelling then showing some sign to their interlocuter. That sign becomes their name, rather than spelling it out each time. I'm sure I have details wrong on this, but could someone who knows a little more than I do put something about this into, perhaps, the fingerspelling section? FoiledAgain 00:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of baby and primate usage

(Note: The text below as moved from the top of the article. Gregmg 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

I am opposed to the inclusion of "baby sign" and "primate" sign at part of this article. I believe they should be included as their own articles on another page. They have nothing to do with the history or grammar of ASL. 168.169.90.88 15:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)TC

I can see arguments both ways on this. As I started to think about this, I was thinking that these subjects don't belong in this article as the anonymous user has suggested above. However, other language articles on Wikipedia do include cultural, social, and regional subtopics that are more or less on the fringe of the language being discussed. Many if not most people in the mainstream have heard of primate usage and baby signing, so there would be some interest in these topics. In short, I'm not sure what should be done, but this is worth further discussion. Gregmg 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Whether one would like it or not, ASL is the basis behind teaching Baby Signs, and also the language taught with varying levels of sucess to other primates. (Note: Human Sign Language Use is a subset of Primate Sign Language Use!) As this is a prevelant part of Hearing culture, I would have to regretfully say sorry, but it does meet the criteria of being notable to this article. --Puellanivis 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So does anybody have a cite for the early developmental stage for hearing babies?
~ender 2003-11-08 15:16:MST

I love the last paragraph about contraversy, I was afraid it wouldn't be here. Very well phrased, and nice job staying neutral! ~calmofthestorm Alex 14:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. Anybody have a reference for that controversy? I've never heard that before, and I'm curious to find out more.

I assume you are talking about the chimps which were alleged to have learned ASL. Linguists regard this as being completely false, and many people regard it as a publicity stunt and/or urban legend. I added a little bit to the paragraph to that effect. As a linguist, I feel it is very important that this lack of acceptance by the linguistic community be represented in any article referring to it. Jeeves 22:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DELETE entire section about primates. Those of us who have actually witnessed this process with primates AND have some knowledge of ASL can clearly see the glaring error that begins the section. ASL has not been taught to these primates; rather, a few signs and gestures BASED ON some ASL signs were ATTEMPTED to be taught to the primates. Regardles of whether the primates can or cannot learn a language, ASL is not being used either by the primates or by those human who are teaching them. Regarding the baby sign section, although it is less controversial, in my opinion, you have to ask yourself: unless the parents are deaf or otherwise FLUENT in ASL, how much real ASL is being used with these babies? Citations are desperately needed for that section. Ward3001 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So, certainly we shouldn't charactarize Parrots as speaking English, when they say "Polly wants a cracker", because it is simply BASED ON some English sounds that they just happened to pick up? I will agree that the section requires some work, perhaps by shifting the assertions of learning ASL into the subjunctive to provide them a clarity of reporting, not of affirmation of fact. Then presenting both sides of the issue in a neutral point of view, stating their assertions, and presenting a fair linguistic position that what ASL sign usage the non-human primates are using has no grammatical structure, and can be seen as more of an operant conditioning to produce gestures related to ASL signs in order to facilitate a primative communication.

As for Baby Signs, all of the signs used in Baby Signs are in fact ASL. Typically, a baby will only learn a handful of signs which are used atomically similar to typical verbal development, and then graduate away from using those signs as their vocal capabilities become more capable. The most common signs being "Food/Eat", "More", and "Milk". Typically, these may even be the only three signs that the child learns. Is it ASL in terms of a fully fleshed out grammar and correct usage? No, but neither is a kid coming up to her mother, tugging on her skirt and saying "Milk!" I don't think anyone would dispute that the child is using English in that case. That's why Baby Signs should be treated as different from ASL. While it is a very primative pidgin sort of ASL, it's purpose is simply to allow a child to communicate before their vocal abilities are in place. As such, it's a stop-gap, that is commonly lost by the child after aquiring their vocal skills. This does not however, make it not ASL. (I had a niece learn Japanese as a child, because she initially raised in Okinawa, while undergoing initial language aquisition. She doesn't know any as a result of it, nor did it develop any further, but for awhile, she was using Japanese.) --Puellanivis 20:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is my problem with including the "Baby Sign" info in an article on ASL. If I teach a child 20 signs, have I taught some ASL to the child? That's a matter of semantics (no pun intended). I may have taught some signs, but I have not taught very much American Sign Language. If the general public (many of whom will read a Wikipedia article for basic information) understood that ASL is a language as much as they understand that Spanish, or French, or Mr. Spock's Vulcan are languages, there might not be a problem. But, unfortunately, they don't have that level of understanding. That's why you find a statement like "teaching an infant ASL is also possible" (in the context of an adult not fluent in ASL teaching a child) in the Baby Sign section. There is already enough confusion about the differences among ASL and other signing system without adding to it by including the Baby Sign info in an ASL article. I have been told by adults that they are teaching ASL to their child, and their knowledge of it is limited to what they can glean from a pamphlet or book on signs. Ward3001 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. I must agree that one is not really teaching either of them a "language", you're rather just teaching them a set of words/signs that they can use for primitive communication (and Baby Sign usage typically falls into the best-reported capacities of non-human primate sign usage. Nim Chimsky could communicate needs, and wants, but could not form any more complex statements than that.)

I think it would be more appropriate to place both Baby Signs and Non-Human Primate Signing into a specific section detailing ... hm... can't really think of a good way to say it, so I'm going to struggle here, and hope something triggers a good idea for someone else... non-language use of ASL signs, or use of ASL signs for primitive communication, etc. In any case, the section would house both of these forms of signing, and make it abundantly clear that neither of these uses of signs is anywhere near the complex and rich expression available in AS Language. That Baby Signs allows solely for a simple communication system with a child before they develop typical hearing vocal abilities, and in non-human primates the usage never reaches anything more complex than two, or three word association pairs. It would be very important to put information that Baby Signs disappear rapidly as children learn command over their vocal abilities, and realize that their parents have an excessive lack of any signing ability. Also typical is that parents will stop signing to their children with Baby Signs, similar to how they stop speaking to them with a baby voice, because they just get tired of special-casing communication. Their limited vocabulary in ASL, and complete lack of grammar likely will not help at all either, as they attempt to communicate any further with their child, they would begin using speech, just to be able to express their ideas. This looks like a good move, I don't like the idea of completely removing these related topics about uses (and misuses?) of ASL, but I am definitely all for giving them a specific section explaining that ASL is more than just a vocabulary of pantomimes. --Puellanivis 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I continue to feel that both the Primate ASL Usage and the "Baby Sign" sections should be taken out of the ASL article. An imperfect analogy that might put the issue in better perspective would be the inclusion of a section about Pig Latin in the article on Latin. I realize that the analogy doesn't hold up perfectly because the signs referred to in the primate/baby sections are based on ASL, whereas pig latin is not based on Latin. But including "pig latin" in an article on Latin would quite erroneously suggest that pig latin might be a language in its own right; similarly, including primate/baby info in the ASL article further confuses the difference between signs and language, especially with naïve readers.

As a "lesser of two evils" option, I could accept paring both sections down, removing any references to use of ASL by the primates/babies and those teaching them, and moving both sections to the article on Sign language. That doesn't solve all of the problems, but it removes the primate/baby info out of the context of ASL. The Sign language article probably needs revisions also, but for now I am focusing on clarifying the language issue in the ASL article. Ward3001 17:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could just spin this stuff off into Alternative uses of sign language gestures, and then we could just say in one sentence that ASL signs have been primarily used for this sort of thing.--Pharos 21:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I could live with that if it would remove the info from the ASL article. My major caveat would be that the new article needs to be very clear that it is not referring to ASL. Ward3001 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia in American Sign Language proposed

Please see meta:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia American Sign Language 2. Thank you.--Pharos 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)