Talk:American Sign Language/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Linguistics section edits

I have edited a sentence in this section to bring it into line with its sources. The sentence in question:

While spoken languages are produced singularly by the oral cavity and are thus one-dimensional or linear (and can be written in linear patterns) as words are produced one at a time in a sequential order, ASL (like other natural sign languages) uses hands, head and body, with constantly changing movements and orientations, and is thus three dimensional.

The first source [1]:

Because sign language is three-dimensional, and because grammatical inflections and nonmanual signals are expressed simultaneously with the signs, it is difficult to present ASL in the two-dimensional medium of a book.

The second source [2]:

ASL is three-dimensional using space in conjunction with signs to convey meaning.

The clear intent of both sources is to highlight the fact that ASL is "three dimensional" in the sense that it is signed in the air, making it hard to transcribe into the two-dimensional medium of paper. This sentence in question leaps from this into an idiosyncratic linguistic distinction between 'one dimensional or linear' and 'three dimensional' languages. The new sentence is more accurate and precise.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.202.31.199 (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

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 [3] (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)

You guys are forgetting Martha's Vineyard. Purplewowies (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

American or Canadian??

• • • ASL is mostly French based*** American Sign Language (ASL) was derived from French Sign Language (FSL) Brought to America from Laurent Clerc with Thomas Gallaudet. When FSL was brought to Hartford Asylum the students changed signs and structure and the result was what we know know as ASL. A heavy mixture of FSL with Martha's Vineyard dialect along with other "old ASL" signs.

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)

   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.104.9 (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC) 

Because Canada is part of North America. I think the name makes sense. Quebec, interestingly, has a different sign language, called LSQ. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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)

American manual alphabet

Hows this? Cwterp 17:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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)~~

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

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)

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)

The native sign language of Martha's Vineyard mentioned seems to have a link to the sign language used in a part of Kent, England, the ancestral homeland of many of those early Massachusetts residents. This theory was formed by the granddaughter of one of the area's last residents who recalled seeing different signs growing up. The granddaughter videotaped some of the signs and noticed they had similarities to British Sign Language, which is not otherwise related to American Sign language. The article with her story and just about every other factual article about the history of ASL are housed in the archieves of American School for the Deaf. The archivist has many resources, including copies of Boston Globe reporter accounts of visiting the area in the 1800s. The rate of deafness in some areas, according to the reports, was one in 25 and in one area one in 4. There was a high rate of genetic deafness in the ancestral area in Kent; and the gene pool became concentrated in certain areas. Interestingly, it seems that by setting up schools for the Deaf that it decreased deafness by diluting the recessive gene pool. Rachel Cywinski198.49.125.27 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

Is there any way to add a short video clip? Cwterp 14:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

"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) . 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.

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)

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 use Spanish sign.--Meissmart 16:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

It's a sign name. There should be some references to it on this article though. NightMaj (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

I wonder if some of the concern is misplaced. I've met plenty of people who tell me they're teaching their children English, and the quantity isn't any greater than the amount of ASL in Baby Sign (assuming it's even ASL Baby Sign, which frequently it isn't). If the kid can say "bye bye", even if he thinks it means "hello", he's "speaking English". But neither set of parents takes this literally; it's just that it would make conversation awkward to be overly precise when you're presumably intelligent enough to know the difference without being told. Parents who "teach their babies ASL" aren't under the delusion that their kids can speak actually with deaf signers. kwami 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

merge w grammar page

Yes, these should definitely be merged. Sorry, I didn't have much of an internet connection when I added the grammatical material, and I forgot there was a separate article. Personally, I don't care whether they're merged here or in that article, though since the section's a bit long, it might be better off on its own. kwami 18:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The grammar/syntax etc. should be moved out of the ASL page and onto the grammar page. (although it should probably be renamed to something like "Linguistics of ASL" because it will cover more than just grammar) – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Left the non-grammar bits in this article. kwami (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Double Negative (Introductory Paragraph)

The first paragraph of this article includes a double negative ("British Sign Language (BSL) is quite different from ASL, and the two sign languages are not mutually intelligible.") It should either be "but the two sign languages are not mutually intelligible", or "and the two languages are mutually intelligible". I don't know much on this particular subject so I can't change it accordingly. Someone please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GnomesRuleTheEarth (talk • contribs) 23:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my denseness on this particular example. Let's look at each part of the sentence separately:

• It is true that "British Sign Language (BSL) is quite different from ASL".
• It is also true that "the two sign languages are not mutually intelligible".
• One of your suggested fixes, therefore, would be false: "British Sign Language (BSL) is quite different from ASL, and the two sign languages are mutually intelligible."

So that leaves us with your other suggestion: "British Sign Language (BSL) is quite different from ASL, but the two sign languages are not mutually intelligible". That sounds awkward as hell!! It sounds like the first part of the sentence is contradictory to the second part, which is not the case. The two languages are different, and the two languages are not mutually intelligible.

What is wrong with "British Sign Language (BSL) is quite different from ASL, and the two sign languages are not mutually intelligible"? Both parts of the sentence are correct, and they are connected by the word "and". What's wrong with that? If the two parts of the sentence were connected with a semicolon instead of the word "and", it would be OK, right? I'm not getting this. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, you are right. I don't know why I thought "intelligible" meant INcapable of being understood; I guess it was late at night and I was reading too quickly. I didn't know if they were mutually intelligible or not, that's why I offered two options. However, my definition of intelligible was wrong, so thanks for pointing that out. Sorry again, I messed up there. :) GnomesRuleTheEarth (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Googling around, it seems that, while ASL is taught in Puerto Rico, that may or may not be what most deaf people use on a daily basis. Any cites for ASL’s use in Puerto Rico? Any Deaf Boricuas wanna weigh in on this?

…And, just ran across this. So. Once again, how actually used is ASL in Puerto Rico? —Wiki Wikardo 22:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Have fun with these links ’til I get around to it

• http://www.theinterpretersfriend.com/indj/dcoew/pr.html
• http://deafness.about.com/cs/signfeats2/a/spanishsign_2.htm
• http://www.slinterpreters.com/
• A-ha!

My former teacher from a couple years ago[4] is the president of the Houston chapter of the ASLTA. She attended a conference once in Puerto Rico. She told me that (though, there is a PRSL) most Deafs still know ASL.

Fingerspelling chart

Someone added a fingerspelling chart, but the section on fingerspelling where the chart is has a wikilink to Fingerspelling, which has a chart. I think this redundancy unnecessarily lengthens the article. Before I delete the chart, however, I'll wait for other opinions. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The chart at fingerspelling doesn't have the latin characters next to it, making it fairly hard to read, so I put this same chart that I just made there too. We can remove it here, but this article has very little illustration so it seemed to make sense. L'Aquatique^talk 22:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, something I didn't notice. I suggest that your chart replace the top one in Fingerspelling and remove it here. Ward3001 (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I switched out the charts at fingerspelling, but I still think we should leave it in place at ASL as well. Let's wait for one more opinion, and if that opinion is to take it off, I'd have no problem removing it. : ) L'Aquatique^talk 23:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, we should me linking to the main article instead.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fingerspelling section

This section is very confusing to someone who is a non-signer - can anyone clarify it a little better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.82.107 (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bah, added a bit, and maybe it's clearer, but I still think it sucks. Maybe I'll try my hand again later.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Recruiting

Any editors who are interested are more than welcome at Wikibooks. We have several Visual Language books which are in dire need of authors. If you are interested, but want more information, feel free to contact me at Wikibooks, or ask at our Reading Room.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

standardization

Is there any final authority that recognizes, standardizes or other wise makes official certain signs, something along the lines of Oxford's and Webster's for English or the RAE for Spanish?72.221.122.42 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. There are some standard texts on the language, but no final authority. Even with spoken languages such as English or Spanish, the final authorities sometimes conflict with each other, and they only define the "formal" language (as opposed to common usage by native speakers). ASL, like any language, has regional dialects, but most native users have no difficulty communicating across those regional differences. Ward3001 (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Constructed or natural Language?

Do linguists consider ASL to be a constructed or natural language? Kinemaτ —Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

ASL is clearly a natural language. It evolved naturally among deaf people in the USA and related areas. It was not created by non-deaf people. It has influences from French sign language (another natural language) because some early educators of the deaf in the United States were deaf people from France. The history section of the ASL article is very skimpy and doesn't explain some of these details. The linguist Stokoe (cited in the article) conducted much of the early research on ASL demonstrating that it is a natural language. Ward3001 (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Would someone with more knowledge on the subject mind adding this fact along with the requisite cites to the article? Kinemaτ —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

The article already says that... explicitly in at least two places, and mentioned in passing in several others.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

World Language can be defined as: "a language spoken (signed) internationally, which is learned by many people as a second language. A world language is not only characterized by the number of its speakers (native or second language speakers), but also by its geographical distribution, and its use in international organizations and in diplomatic relations.[1][2] In this respect, major world languages are dominated by languages of European origin. The historical reason for this is the period of European colonialism. World languages originating with historical colonial empires include English, Spanish, Portuguese and French."

With this being stated, as American Sign Language is used outside the nation, namely Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Guyana, Belize, Canada and other countries that have a strong American influence,and as many Deaf individuals learn American Sign Language (i.e. in order to attend Gallaudet University) as a second language, it thus meets the definition of being a world language. *Note that World Language and Universal Language are two different concepts 68.89.69.41 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Alex

First, one minor correction: Puerto Rico is part of the United States. Now to the more important issue. Even though ASL is used outside the United States, and even though it is sometimes learned by Deaf people (as well as hearing people) as a second language, I don't think it reaches the scale of use of the other examples in World language (i.e., English, Spanish, Portuguese and French). Almost any language is used by people outside the borders of a particular country and is learned as a second language by some people, but every language cannot be considered a world language. I think the definitional examples of use among international organizations and diplomatic relations is a good anchor point. For example, English is the official language of air traffic controllers throughout the world because it used by so many people. Certain languages are much more predominant in the diplomatic relations community because they are used so widely. ASL simply doesn't reach the scope of such languages (that's not to say it's in any way inferior as a language, just that it's use is not nearly as widespread). If ASL is a world language, then almost any language is a world language. And that seems to defeat the purpose of having a category of languages that are considered world languages. Cresix (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Some sources define a living world language as having the following properties:

Notice some criteria or properties of a World Language: 1. a large number of speakers 2. a substantial fraction of non-native speakers (function as lingua franca) 3. official status in several countries 4. a linguistic community not defined strictly along ethnic lines (multiethnic, pluricentric language) 5. one or more standard registers which are widely taught as a foreign language 6. association with linguistic prestige 7. use in international trade relations 8. use in international organizations 9. use in the academic community 10. significant body of literature

Now keep in mind the context of the debate: American Sign Language is a World Language among Sign Languages. Comparing A sign language to a spoken language would be unfair, as there are more hearing people in the world that use spoken languages. There are some countries that have more people in them then there are Deaf people on the Earth.(i.e. China) Also keep in mind that a World Language does not need to meet all of the criteria above, just some. With these points in mind, would you not agree that American Sign Language is a World Language among Signed Languages? Notice criteria 1 (relative to the signing communities of the world) 2, 3 (arguably) 4, 5, 9, 10 (and will grow with the recent advancement in technology). With all of this in mind, not mentioning how it would be impossible for air traffic controllers to use a Sign Language to communicate over radios and the such, how is it possible to say that American Sign Language is not an International Language?*

• Puerto Rico is a Territory of the United States and a commonwealth, not part of the United States. This is simply due to the fact that they have not gained Independence from the United States such as other former territories have (i.e. Cuba and the Philippines) probably never will as long as the United States is a World Power. But the Language and Culture in itself makes it a foreign country despite not gaining technical independence. Notice how it is not called the state of Puerto Rico. Since the main Language on the island is Spanish, however, we can conclude that it is relevant in the discussion of whether or not ASL is a World Language.

66.138.254.65 (talk)Alex —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

I didn't say that Puerto Rico is a state; I said it is part of the United States. Citizens of Puerto Rico are citizens of the United States. They vote in U.S. Presidential elections. Being a territory does not mean it is not part of the United States. Guam also is a U.S. territory, and it is part of the United States, and it's citizens consider themselves part of the United States. The "commonwealth" term in your context is meaningless. Virgina and Massachusetts use the term "commonwealth" to describe themselves, but they are still part of the United States. English is an official language of Puerto Rico, and Spanish is used quite frequently in a number of U.S. states, so use of ASL in Puerto Rico has no bearing on ASL as a "world language".

I repeat my comment above: If ASL is a world language, then almost every language is a world language. The fact that there are fewer deaf people than hearing people in the world is irrelevant. There aren't many Estonians in the world (a little over a million), and Estonian is spoken outside of Estonia and is learned as a second language by some people, but that doesn't make Estonian a "world language". Cresix (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I can not but help but laugh at the irrelevance of Puerto Rico being a commonwealth versus a state. If you wish, you may make your points on that, please visit the Puerto Rico page and make the corrections you feel are necessary. However, the culture and the people are by no means American. Feel free to ask your local Puerto Ricans. Anyways, given the Criteria afore mentioned, American Sign Language is a World Language in context of sign languages. Estonian is not a sign language. Therefore, has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Given the stated criteria, American Sign Language is a world language. Estonian does not meet that criteria. Until these facts can be proven wrong, there is no point discussing opinion. No other sign language is used as wide spread as American Sign Language. There is a rich history of the language and the literature. There are different registers and is taught in Academic Settings. Used Internationally. Learned as a first and second language (non-native speakers). Is a multi-ethnic language. Has official status in several countries. Thus, fulfilling the necessary criteria of a world language. 66.138.254.65 (talk) alex —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

I've lived in Puerto Rico, and I know thousands of Puerto Ricans, both on the island and the mainland. Your laughing at their American citizenship is offensive. Puerto Rico is part of the United States, even with it's Hispanic heritage, regardless of your narrow-minded definition of "part of the United States". If you want to create a new article, World sign Languages, be my guest, but ASL is not a world language. Don't add "world language" to American Sign Language or add ASL to World languages without consensus, which you most definitely don't have right now. Adding it without consensus is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. And quite contrary to your premature proclamation that "there is no point discussing opinion", there is a requirement that opinions are expressed and allowed here because that is the only way consensus is achieved. There is no such thing on Wikipedia as a consensus of one person. Please carefully read WP:CON, a cornerstone of Wikipedia. I've made my points more than clear. This is the end of my discussion with you unless you can come up with a credible argument. Cresix (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The def we use for a "world language" is one that is spoken internationally and commonly learned as a 2nd language. ASL qualifies per the 1st criterion, but not the 2nd. — kwami (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and to clarify, it is not commonly learned as a second language (as would be English or Spanish, for example). And you can't have it both ways: It's not a valid argument that it is commonly learned among deaf people as a second language; by definition a world language is commonly learned as a second language in the general population. It may be a "worldwide sign language", but it's not a "worldwide language". Cresix (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was my point all along, that it is a World Language in the context of Signed Languages, or, as you put it, a World Sign Language. The original question at hand was to provide context for stating why it can be considered a World Language. Compared to other Signed Languages, it is a World Sign Language. That's all I was trying to say. 70.242.227.122 (talk) Alex —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

If you're the same editor as 68.89.69.41 (talk · contribs) and 66.138.254.65 (talk · contribs), I'm glad you have finally made this clear. Since this section of the talk page pertains to removing the phrase "ASL was first considered as a world language in 1998" (see the first sentence in the section), it certainly appeared to me that you were arguing that ASL should be considered a world language as described in World language. It does not meet the criteria provided in that article as a world language. But as long as you don't plan to refer to ASL as a "world language", no problems. BTW, referring to it as a "world sign language" in a Wikipedia article would require a reliable source. Cresix (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What sign languages are mutually intelligible?

It is hard to say whether it would be a good idea to post this question here, but strangely enough, I was not able to find another forum to post it to. I may come back and see if anyone posts an answer, and then delete this section if someone either does or doesn't.

A few weeks ago was the first time that I came in contact with knowledge of sign language to learn that there was more than one sign language than ASL throughout the world. At near the top of this article it says that ASL and BSL are not mutually intelligible.

Beyond that, however, supposedly there are a lot of other sign languages in the world as evidenced by the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sign_languages

The basic question is this: Are all of these other sign languages also mutually unintelligible with each other and with ASL and FSL, or are most of these sign languages simply variants of ASL and FSL that are generally mutually intelligible?

It really seems questionable to me that all of the xenophobic nations of the Earth are purposefully handicapping their deaf people by forcing them to learn sign languages that can only be understood in their own country. If the deaf people of one country could understand what the deaf community of another country is signing, even when the two countries have mutually unintelligible spoken languages, that might foster less hatred between the two countries than either country would want, due to the distance caused by the spoken languages.

Is that an accurate view of all the different international sign languages, or are most of the world's sign languages besides ASL mutually intelligible variants of FSL? 4.242.174.2 (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

uh... the governments of the world didn't create these sign languages to force them on a passive deaf audience. Just as spoken languages evolve over time and change through interactions with other languages, these sign languages arose in deaf communities and evolved according to their surroundings. Here's the largest group of related sign languages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Sign_Language_family —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.143.57 (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

citation not supported

"ASL has been historically discouraged in schools for the deaf in many parts of the country. During periods of repression in residential schools, deaf children of deaf adults were the primary agents of spreading the language to other deaf children"

This passage cites Paul Preston's book Mother Father Deaf 70-71, but the text does not support most of this, particularly the remarks about "in many parts of the country" (which parts?) or "periods of repression" (what periods?) Even "ASL has been historically discouraged in schools for the deaf" is not what Preston says; instead he says "schools for the deaf historically kept the language and customs of the Deaf shrouded in secrecy and shame," a much different matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgr09 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Passage deleted (it didn't belong where it was anyway); citation copied above. — kwami (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Black American Sign Language

This section either needs to be significantly expanded into its own section, or made into a new article. I'm not familiar enough with either ASL or BASL, so I can't help, but if someone could add more information it would be greatly appreciated. James Who (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand ASL but I'm not very familiar with BASL. Why do you think that section needs expansion or development into a new article? Do you have have reason to believe that the information is underrepresentated (compared to the remainder of topics) based on the extent of reliable sources that are available on BASL? You may have a point, but to state that something needs expansion without any indication that there's a lot of missing information or that the topic has undue weight is kind of vague. Please explain. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the fact that it needs a new article, unless you have enough sources to make a new one, and be able to prove that it became a new language (with I don't believe it did). I can't help either, but if someone can add any information, ou sources, I'll be very glad, because I'll use them all at te pt-wiki article, that I'm working on. It's sad that such an important article has got 2 (bad) tags on it. Belanidia^Hey! 09:34, 3 December 2010 (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)

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)

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)

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)

There are plenty of legitimate 1970's & 1980's American Sign Language manuals that use the word Ameslan for American Sign Language. The word was not only used in the 1960's. I suggest that the years be from the 1960's to the 1980's. Not only the 1960's. To discount Ameslan as simply an obsolete term is not a good enough description. The term was used freely in the 70's and 80's by deafness professionals. One can change the Ameslan citation to another source too. Examples of books that use Ameslan as equal to ASL and their MLA citations: 1) Hoemann, Harry W. The American Sign Language: Lexical and Grammatical Notes with Translation Exercises. Silver Spring: NAD, 1975. 2) Humphries, Tom, Carol Padden, and Terrence J. O'Rourke. A Basic Course In American Sign Language. Silver Spring: T.J., 1980. 3) Fant, Lou. The American Sign Language Phrase Book. Chicago: Contemporary, 1983. Humblenotry (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2012 (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)

image with semaphore signs?

What do semaphore signs have to do with ASL? The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asl_sutton.png reference in the About box on the right of the page seems like some sort of weird and stupid joke. DavesPlanet (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So for lack of anything better I changed it to the ILU sign. DavesPlanet (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the name of the language in the most widely used script for the language. Entirely appropriate. — kwami (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Map

Added a map. I've heard that ASL is used in parts of Mexico, but I don't know where, nor whether its use is really significant. Anyone know? Should Mexico be grey? — kwami (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

ASL is like Chinese

The Grammar of ASL is similar to Chinese. Chinese has no tense or number, and there is no article.

Also, the words are formed similarly to Chinese. Many Chinese Characters are formed out of components which convey meaning. similarly, many ASL words are made of basic words as well as shapes, based on meaning as well as sound ("blood" is "red" plus "heart") Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The grammar is not very close, and characters are not words. — kwami (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:American Sign Language/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 17:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I would love to review this article, to help it reach GA status. I should start with some initial comments soon. PrairieKid (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get this going. Will start right away! PrairieKid (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Initial Comments

Lead

• A little long for the size of the article

- I think it goes a little too deeply into the history of ASL and its relation to other sign languages. Strays a little bit from ASL.

• Well-written, although a little technical

- (I feel a little silly saying this but,) I had to think about a few of the terms used, particularly in the final paragraph. A summary should provide a brief overview, but not much more.

I've tried to pare down the lead. Mo-Al (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

• Outdated

- The number of speakers 40 years ago isn't nearly accurate anymore, especially considering globalization. A more modern figure probably exists somewhere

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a more recent estimate. ASL use isn't counted in the American census, so everyone relies on the 1972 survey. See Mitchell et al. (2006:17). Hopefully American policy will become more receptive towards ASL in the future. Mo-Al (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What about this? Can you at least mention it? Not a terribly big deal, but something. PrairieKid (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't help, unfortunately. All the estimates other than the 1974 one are based on misunderstandings. See Mitchell et al. (2006). Mo-Al (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• FSL comparison

- Don't see a source to say it is in the FSL family... I know they are related, but I wouldn't say they are that similar.

(Reading later on, I get it.) And, to be nitpicky, I don't think FSL is a direct... "heir" of French, similar to how ASL isn't English. (Which is ESL.)

I've tweaked this. You're right that it shouldn't have said "French". Mo-Al (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Classification

• Well-written, albeit, again, perhaps a little technical for the average reader
• Well sourced

No major problems. I'm pretty pleased with it.

Reply to this comment:

• Well-written, albeit, again, perhaps a little technical for the average reader

Hence, the accessibility to this page via the Simple English link: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Sign_Language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.95.59 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

History

• Repeats Classification

- Repeats information on Plains Indians

Again, no other problems. Pretty happy here so far.

Population

• Outdated

- I'm sure you you looked hard for another statistic, but there has to be at least one more estimate for the number of ASL speakers after 1972

See comment above. Mo-Al (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Very well-written

- I'm learning quite a bit in this review. (Both about ASL and about editing.)

Once more, no big complaints

Geographic distribution

Nothing to say. I'm very impressed. Everything has been well-cited, well-written and interesting

Variation

• Quote could be in a box

- Just a minor, personal preference

Unfortunately I had issues trying to get the formatting to work. Mo-Al (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Black ASL?

- I don't know if that is the proper, or commonly used term. I know AAVE is, so I would just use that for consistency.

Well, AAVE refers to a dialect of spoken English, not of ASL. I guess the analogous term would be AAVASL, but I've never seen that used. My sources all use the term "Black ASL." Mo-Al (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Slightly technical

- Some of the characters used to represent signs, the wording and phrasing are often a little difficult to understand. (Again, I feel a little silly saying that.)

Status

I'm going to have to continue this at another time. I will finish this later today or early tomorrow. I hope you can take this time to make the minor corrections needed. Thanks for the patience and, again, I apologize for the wait. PrairieKid (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC) PrairieKid (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Title

-I'm not sure if "Status" is a proper title. This mainly deals with the geographic distribution and CODAs/Deaf children.

I've changed this to "stigma". Not sure that's the best title either though... Mo-Al (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Writing Systems

• I think it may be helpful to mention that most ASL speakers write in English. It sounds like most don't read English.

Had trouble getting this in. The thing is, it's hard to find a pertinent place to mention this, since the section topic really doesn't have anything to do about English. Also, I'm not sure what the average ASL user's proficiency in English is... Mo-Al (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The topic has to do with the writing systems ASL speakers use. Most of them use English.

Really? I thought this section was for the writing systems used for the ASL language. Wouldn't information about the English language be somewhat off-topic? Mo-Al (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell if your trying to be a smart-ass or not... Haha... I would just like a mention of what most ASL speakers use, as there isn't a definite system for ASL. Written English is part of ASL... I guess. PrairieKid (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if it came off that way -- I don't want to be argumentative. However, I don't think written English is part of ASL -- English and ASL are fundamentally different languages (despite the fact that occasionally ASL borrows words from English using fingerspelling). Now, ASL is sometimes written with interlinear glossing (e.g. "DOG NOW CHASE>IX=3 CAT"), which is mentioned in the writing systems section. However, the fact that ASL speakers sometimes use English doesn't seem relevant, just like the fact that some English speakers use Spanish probably doesn't belong in the English language article. Let me know if I'm off-base here. Mo-Al (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

(I was being sarcastic above, by the way. I hope it came off that way and not as if I was angry.) I think we can agree to disagree here. I understand what your saying. I'll leave it up to you. Besides that, I don't think we have too many more problems. I'm going to give the article a once over again, just to make sure, but I think I'll be passing it for GA level. PrairieKid (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Phonology

No problems.

Grammar

(This reviewer's favorite thing in the world...NOT!)

• Focuses too much on English

- More so, on how it isn't English! I realize that the whole article is like that. I understand that there is the confusion by the public that ASL and ESL are the same, but that doesn't mean this article should focus on that.

Okay, I've tried to de-emphasize this. Mo-Al (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Very technical

-I shouldn't have to click through 2-3 other articles just to fully understand what a subsection is hinting at

Iconicity

• Title is kind of a strange word... I think I've now crossed into being a college freshmen. (OH NO! BIG WORDS! AH!)

Overall

The Good

• Where not overly technical (and even then), this article is very well-written and interesting
• The images are all clear
• I learned a lot, which is always nice
• Article was focused very well, and covered everything it needed to.

The Bad

• Too many comparisons to English. They are two separate languages. Make one statement (every now and then, if you have to) saying that are not the same, and be done

Fixed. Mo-Al (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Too technical, Mr. Linguist.

I've tried to deal with this, at least in the grammar section. Mo-Al (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• I can't check many of the cites, because they are videos or otherwise inaccessible. I'll take your word for it.

I will point out that there's nothing wrong with sources that are hard to access (Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS). Not a big deal though. Mo-Al (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No major problems there... Just something I pointed out.

The Ugly

Nothing here.

I should be able to do the rubric now. Good work! PrairieKid (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I bolded all of the problems I now see with the problems, and struck out everything you fixed. I'm pushing this article a little bit (maybe more than I really need to, to be honest), because I see a lot of potential here. Possible FAN soon, huh? PrairieKid (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Rubric

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Article will be put on hold for 7 days for changes to be made.  On hold

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Too technical for now.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   I can't check many of the sources, but the ones I could check were fine.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Again, focuses a little too much on comparing ASL to English

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:  On hold}}

   For 7 days.

PrairieKid (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to fix most of your general comments. I had some trouble making the article less technical, though I did change the grammar section (which sounds like it was the most difficult section) to be more readable. Let me know if it's still not up to par. Mo-Al (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I really have no complaints. I pushed this article a little much (and was nitpicky), because, from the beginning, I was very impressed at the level of quality the article already had. I can see this easily becoming an FA within a reasonable amount of time, with a reasonable amount of effort and I hope you at least attempt to get it there. For the future, I would work on the technical writing in the article. I still feel that readers have to have at least some prior knowledge in linguistics or ASL, and they shouldn't. Further, there still are a few parts where a ce might be required. They are good enough for GA but to make it to FA, they will need to flow better and become a little more interesting, and, dare I say it, to the point. For now, I think you have a really good article (I would classify a A-level now), which is informative for people who know very little, up to professionals such as yourself, and even people in the deaf culture. Personally, I truly enjoyed this GAN and am happy ASL was able to reach this level. It can only go up hill from here... American Sign Language, welcome to the GA list. PrairieKid (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for all of the work helping to get this article to GA status! I'm excited to work on getting this article to FA status sometime in the future, and I appreciate all of your help. Mo-Al (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Handwritten SignWriting is not Si5s

The image that compares the various scripts for ASL incorrectly states that Si5s is the handwritten form of SignWriting. SignWriting has been written by hand since the beginning in 1974 and is still written by hand today. While the majority of SignWriting online is based on the computerized model, the majority of SignWriting that exists is written by hand and is not online.

There are three type of handwriting for SignWriting: block printing, cursive, and shorthand. The first type is block printing which is included in the comparison graphic. Block printing is the basis of the computer encoding model and what will appear in Unicode 8 next year. The second type is cursive, which drops some features for the sake of speed and efficiency when writing. While the block printing is universally shared within SignWriting, the cursive model is developed within groups or by individuals. The third type of handwriting for SignWriting is shorthand, which drops even more features than the cursive. In 1982, writers demonstrated the ability to record signs at signing speed with SignWriting shorthand. I've written a short piece about the SignWriting Script which details these types of handwritten SignWriting.

Si5s, which debuted in 2010, has often been confused with a handwritten form of SignWriting. Stylistically, it is somewhere between SignWriting cursive and SignWriting shorthand. So it is accurate to say that Si5s resembles a handwritten form of SignWriting, but it is inaccurate to say that Si5s is the handwritten form of SignWriting.

The full set of features that are included in SignWriting block printing are important for a general audience. Dropping too many features, such as palm facing, creates "notes that are sketchy." -Slevinski (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead image

I'd like to know if there are any major and reasonable objections to replacing the lead image of the article with an image of a person using ASL. The replacement image can be discussed here. My reason for putting this forward is that the Sutton SignWriting figure comes from a relatively obscure writing system. The article itself says that there isn't a well-established writing system for ASL. The Sutton system doesn't even seem to be specific to ASL, the topic of this article. I examined the supporting references of SignWriting in the writing systems section, and while some people (we don't know how many) may use the writing system, it's entirely not clear that it is widespread enough to represent ASL in the lead image. Anyway, that's my reasoning. My proposal is simply to replace the lead image with a photograph of a person signing, or a photograph of hands signing something in ASL. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I just asked a linguist who studies sign languages about this and they said that since no notation system for ASL is widely or even semi-commonly adopted, it wouldn't be right to use any of them as a main representation of ASL. They suggested a still image of a person signing, and preferably not finger spelling, since finger spelling is borrowing from English. They suggested a still from George Veditz's 1913 film Preservation of the Sign Language. It is in the National Film Registry, though I do not know what the copyright status is. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We often illustrate the name of a language with it in local script. There are other languages with multiple scripts, and we tend to use the most common one(s). AFAIK, there is no other script that approaches SignWriting in use. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That's true, and that's reasonable I think when a script is generally or moderately recognized by a literate user or speaker of that language. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a significant number of ASL users from a representative sample who even recognize the icons of the Sutton script. Even in the cases where a language has multiple scripts, I think none are probably too esoteric as to not be recognized by a general speaker/user. So, while many language articles use a language's common script to illustrate in the lead image, I don't think we should constrain ourselves to that here. For the purposes of making a good WP article, I think the lead image should be an appropriate representation of the article's topic. The Sutton script image to me is an inappropriate representation of ASL, giving undue weight to a minor element in the history of ASL. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I know this is a year-old discussion, but I agree with User:Astrocog. I suggest replacing the image with File:American Sign Language ASL.svg, which is much more recognizable and appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  Seeing no objections, I've made the change. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I think this is a better image than the previous, but my only objection is (see above) that it is showing finger spelling, which is a derivative of English. I think an image showing a sequence of a native signer using the signs for "American" "Sign" "Language" would be ideal - though that is difficult to fit nicely into a lead image. For now, this is a good compromise. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• User:Slevinski has, without discussion, reverted the edit. I would appreciate some explanation as to why they think that a set of SignWriting symbols, unrecognizable to most ASL speakers, are a better representation of the language than the fingerspelled word "ASL", which is recognizable to any ASL speaker. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  • The user appears to be an acolyte of SignWriting, and also under the delusion that it is a universally accepted written representation of sign languages (according to the user's own pages). This is not supported by the literature discussing American Sign Language. I think it's not worth an edit war at the moment. Unfortunately, this page doesn't appear to have enough watchers to garner a discussion which can establish consensus. I'm in support of an image that is NOT sign writing. My preference has been given above (native signer using the signs for "American Sign Language" rather than finger spelling). However, User:Slevinski's assertion (in the edit summary) that SignWriting is better than finger spelling for a lead image is ridiculous as a native signer is more likely to recognize the finger spelling as a representation of their language than the SignWriting (which almost NO native signers use). Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Astrocog: What do you think of using this gif? File:ASL AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE.gif —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's closer to what we should have. I think animated images are discouraged for leads, but I could be wrong about that. Perhaps an image that is comprised of 3 stills from the animation showing all 3 signs? The only issue there is that the image is somewhat low resolution. Perhaps I can recruit a friend from the deaf community to pose for high res images - or ask several to do it, and we can choose here. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. After some consideration, I think that an animated image would probably be distracting, even if it's not prohibited. Since Slevinski hasn't responded, and we're in agreement that fingerspelling is more appropriate than SignWriting, I'm going to put back the fingerspelling image for now—but hopefully at some point we can replace it with a set of 3 images, as you've suggested. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, at this point, I'm happy with the fingerspelling, because it's what most native signers use as a noun for the language. My deaf linguist friend agreed on this point, so I think we might as well stick with the current image. If something better comes up, we can always review it here. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought that my revert was sufficient to illustrate that your change was not universally accepted, but as a proponent of SignWriting I thought it would leave the matters for others to decide. As a discussion point, I thought that Kwami's initial response was sufficient and appropriate. "We often illustrate the name of a language with it in local script. There are other languages with multiple scripts, and we tend to use the most common one(s). AFAIK, there is no other script that approaches SignWriting in use." Unfortunately kwami is taking a wikibreak. Perhaps he can weigh in when he returns. -Slevinski (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

ASL appears as [under] "ASLic" in the Wikipedia article about Glottolog

Shouldn't the "Language family" name "ASLic" be mentioned in the lede?

Sometimes alternate spellings, or "names" for a certain person (or other topic) that a Wikipedia article is about, are included in the very first paragraph -- often in the first sentence. ASLic is not exactly a synonym for ASL, but it is a related term, and there may be an opportunity here, to avoid some confusion.

As someone who is ignorant about ASL, I was confused when I saw an entry that displayed as "ASLic" -- and the hyperlink [nominally] pointed to [a Wikipedia article about] ASLic languages... but even that (hyperlink target) was confusing, too, because that hyperlink seemed to automatically forward (!) to "[[French_Sign_Language_family#ASL]]" -- which seems to be the ASL (or "ASLic") section of the Wikipedia article about the French Sign Language family. I suspect that this would all have been less confusing, to someone who is more familiar with this field.

That hyperlink was found in a table of "Language families" in the "Language families" section of the Wikipedia article about Glottolog.

Even when I (finally) got to this article -- (the Wikipedia article about ASL) -- I still had some uncertainty; which I think might have been alleviated somewhat, if the lede section of the ASL article had contained a paragraph (which I am considering adding! but I thought it would be better to check here, first) saying (something like)

ASL is considered to be part of the Language family called "ASLic" -- for example, it is shown as "ASLic" in the table of "Language families" in the Language families section of the Wikipedia article about Glottolog.

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the exact nature of your confusion. Did you begin your search looking for information about ASL, or were you looking for sign language families, or did you have some other interest in languages and happened upon the link to ASLic? Does your confusion have anything to do with the relationship between French Sign Language and ASL? Sundayclose (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I initially saw a hyperlink to the article about Glottolog -- and it was actually displayed as Glottolog, which was nice! -- from an entry in [an instance of] the {{Infobox language}} template -- probably from an article about a language, such as the article about the English language. When I clicked on that, I was looking around within some big table in that article, (Glottolog), and, frankly, I probably did not even realize that it was a table in which the entries in the leftmost ("first") column ["Name"] were not (necessarily) the names of languages. Way later (probably some time during or after, when I wrote the comments above), I eventually realized that they were the names of language families -- which in some cases, might be similar to the names of languages, but not always. (Probably mostly in cases where there is only one language, or one "main" language, in a certain language family). However, at first, I did not know what it was that I did not know -- and I did not realize the nature of the mistake that I was making.

Btw, I know very little about ASL, and very little about "ASLic". Anyway, I saw an entry in that leftmost ("first") column, and I clicked on it. It was an entry that displayed as "ASLic", and "pointed to" the article about "ASLic languages".

Then I was confused, partly because it took me to the middle of an article ("French_Sign_Language_family"), right near a line with a single-line bullet entry that displays as "American SL (1817, with possible local admixture)", -- with a multi-line list of "related" "sub-" bullets that I did not read -- in which the hyperlink ("American SL") points to the article about "American Sign Language". Well, I had at least heard of "American Sign Language", so I clicked, and when I got to that article, I started looking around for some explanation about the relationship, "if any", between "ASLic and "American Sign Language". Maybe it was my fault, because I was too far along, and I should have backed up, and done more reading of the context, in one of the previous articles (the one about Glottolog). (Note: two clicks back.)

So, I guess an article cannot be expected to anticipate -- (and answer!) -- every possible question in the mind of the reader, including questions arising due to some possible "path" that the reader took, to get there from (e.g.) an entry in [an instance of] the {{Infobox language}} template. But, at that time it seemed to me, that there was a missed opportunity to clear up some confusion. Others might see it differently. (In fact, at this time -- "now" -- I might even see it differently.) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)