Talk:American Sign Language

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)

I agree completely! -- Cynthisa (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Reorganized lead and first few paragraphs

I hope I haven't ruined someone else's careful work -- being new-ish to Wikipedia, I still tend to just "dive in" without looking at the Talk pages first...sorry! At any rate, it seemed to me like the ASL lead para. talked more about who and where ASL is used than what, specifically, ASL is -- something that seemed rather important for including in a lead para. So, I revised it slightly.

Additionally, the "Population" discussion on the 1972 study was a bit disorganized, so I rearranged it a bit and also added some additional notes. Lastly, in reviewing the article, I noticed that there was no clear distinction for what ASL is and isn't (i.e., not SEE, MCE, etc.) and since they are also forms of sign, I figured their mention (as a bit of a "disambiguation" of sorts) was important to have early on. In that regard, moving the mention of "fingerspelling" up towards the begining would also be helpful, since it is a component of ASL. But, since there's a big table/figure of all the finger-sign alphabet associated with it, I didn't move it. (I don't know how to properly move something like that using Wiki mark-up and didn't want to screw up the whole article!)

There's clearly more organizing (streamlining) that can be done to improve this article, but I've stuck to smaller changes right now. I'm not well-versed in the academic/linguistic side of ASL and its side issues to be confident in making those kinds of major changes. But, I will think on it and read the trunk/branch articles to try to get a better sense of the organization. Thanks for letting me play! -- Cynthisa (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a reference that expands the territory of ASL

I have a reference that expands the territory of ASL as mentioned in the lead. This comes from the "Random House American Sign Language Dictionary" ISBN 0-394-58580-1 copyright 1994, on page xvi, 1st paragraph it states "As its name suggests, American Sign Language is a product of North America. Its use is heavily concentrated in the United States, but it has also spread to other parts of the world, notably Canada, Africa, and the Philippines." As you can see this statement would have been accurate in 1994, or at least the author's of this ASL dictionary believed so. Thanks. 65.26.177.239 (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Those locations are already noted in the article. Cresix (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. They were not mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead. I see now that they are mentioned in the second paragraph, so I apologize. I misinterpreted whether the first sentence was referring to the popularity of the language in the regions it mentions, or whether it was referring specifically to the regions where the major "speakers" of the language were Deaf people. This is my fault for misreading. Also, on a side note, I would like to mention that hard-of-hearing people may also be native "speakers" of ASL, and as far as I can tell, this is not reflected in the article. Could something be done about that? Or maybe I missed that too, lol. Thanks again.65.26.177.239 (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The article identifies ASL as the langauge of Deaf Americans (with the capital "D"), denoting Deaf culture as opposed to hearing impaired in a medical sense. If a HoH person truly uses ASL (rather than a pidgen or "hybridized" variant, such as Signed English), that person is part of Deaf culture and thus included in the article. Even hearing people (such as CODA) may be part of Deaf culture and users of ASL. Cresix (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

--Noted. Personally I understand the concept of big D as in Deaf culture vs. little d as in deaf (the medical condition), however, I do not believe the average Wikipedia reader immediately realizes the distinction when first reading the first paragraph of an article. 165.138.95.59 (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe true, but we can't educate anyone very much if they don't bother to read past the lead or click the many links that provide more details. I think if someone is truly interested in learning about ASL and/or Deafhood, they'll read more; if they don't, not much we can do. Cresix (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

AMESLAN

I have spoken to a few of my Deaf Associates about the term of Ameslan used on Wikipedia. According to them, Ameslan is shortened for Ameslang, meaning an older slang version of American Sign Language, which is not longer in major usage. If this is the case, then it would not be proper to use the term Ameslan to refer to American Sign Language. Could some one please provide a source that verifies the term Ameslan as referring to American Sign Language,at least according to "one" author. 165.138.95.59 (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of this and I've known Deaf people for over 35 years. At one point "Ameslan" was another term for ASL (although rarely used now). We would need a reliable source for your information before making changes. Cresix (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like a dwaddle, but my main argument {in the subtext}, here, originally speaking that is, is that there is no current citation or reference already in place for the term Ameslan as referring to American Sign Language, either. According to Wikipedia guidelines anything not cited or unreferenced may be removed. I am {still} giving this the benefit of the doubt, however. Simply because I like to do my own research than use hearsay, here is one possible citation or reference:

"American Sign Language (AMESLAN) American Sign Language is a form of language used by people who are deaf or who have a hearing impairment. Concepts and ideas are represented through the use of manual signs, fingerspelling, and symbols. Each country has its own version of the manual alphabet. For example, some countries use one hand while others use both hands for the alphabet. AMESLAN uses only one hand." --American Red Cross, Assisting People With Disabilities Appendix C. {you can access the pdf here: www.nwnc-redcross.org/signlangemergen 165.138.95.59 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, actually the citation at the end of the first sentence in the lead refers to Ameslan as another term for American Sign Language. But if you can find a reliable source that indicates Ameslan currently could refer to an older, slang version of ASL, we certainly should discuss it. I don't think we should remove any reference to Ameslan referring to ASL, but another source with differing information may require an additional comment. It depends on how widespread Ameslan = Ameslang is. Words that only have narrow regional meanings probably shouldn't be included, but if you find something please let us know. Cresix (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My first ASL book (late 1970s) specifically used the term "Ameslan" and NOT ASL. I cannot remember the name of the author (Hoyt? Hoyle?), but I will look it up and bring in the specific citation and add it to the lead para. I think refering to "Ameslan" as obsolete is accurate now, though. BTW, I'd never heard the term "Ameslang" or heard Ameslan associated with "slang" before. Cynthisa (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Iconicity of Signed Languages

The current text on iconicity in signed languages is quite biased and does not include any current research from cognitive linguistics, which does in fact show that there are iconic properties of signed language do influence different aspects of language processing. A few of the claims on this page are unfounded and misleading. I am deleting the text that has not evidential basis and including a better description of the different viewpoints associated with iconicity's impact on signed languages.Cmocchino (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

/* Classifiers */

There is not much research put there. Does anyone have further opinions, helpful other links, and such? I would love to have some more input from the Deaf community on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkammann (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)