This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sign language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
The contents of the Sign language on television page were merged into Sign language on March 9, 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Toanndo.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 9 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yehkim. Peer reviewers: Marissanicole67.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Shaunbp.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
There were three paragraphs in § Deaf communities and Deaf culture: one general and vague one about the title topic, and two, very confusing and badly written, about native American signing. I'm cleaning these up and am going to integrate them into § Use of signs in hearing communities, where there is already a paragraph about the topic.
Some parts of § Deaf communities and Deaf culture were so confusing I could make no sense of them, and the best I could do was to remove them completely. Those parts are in boldface below. For the record, here's what it said before:
To discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. -- Thnidu ( talk) 23:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Currently, there is a hearing-centered bias in the article, in that discussions of technology (in the section on Sign languages and society) tend to assume that there are interpreters involved, for communication between deaf and hearing (or, more likely in many hearing people's minds, from hearing to deaf). This is a common bias in society, of course, but it doesn't reflect a WP:NPOV. I made some changes a couple years ago, distinguishing the use of videophones for deaf-to-deaf communication from their use with interpreters, but I notice the bias is still there. What brought it to my attention was inclusion of material by @ Athomeinkobe: from an old article about sign languages on television. I fully support merging of that article into this one, but I notice that the new material seems to talk exclusively about interpretation of programs that are aimed primarily at hearing people. There's nothing explicitly stated (unless I missed it) about programs that use a sign language as a primary language, created by Deaf people for other Deaf people. More generally, we don't cover other uses of technology for primary communication by sign language users without an interpreter, such as vlogs and other video on the internet, video communication other than videophones (Skype, etc.), distribution of sign language material on phones, etc.
So, what I think is needed is to separate out the technological developments about the way video technologies are being used for sign languages into a section separate from sign languages in society. Comments? AlbertBickford ( talk) 21:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC), updated AlbertBickford ( talk) 21:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
janelli joyce batchar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.164 ( talk) 05:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I am editing the baby sign language page and am looking to remove a section from it. The section I wish to remove is a journal study discussing a bilingual hearing child born to deaf parents and raised with both spoken and signed speech. I think this could be a good asset to this page as it talks about using authentic Italian sign language and the influence of sign language on hearing children's abilities. I am adding the section onto this talk page with the citations so it can be treated accordingly.
Case study on bilingual exposure A study entitled "Hearing Children Exposed to Spoken & Signed Input" [1] [2] investigated the transition from gesture to sign in a case study of an Italian, hearing, bimodal, bilingual child.
Marco was "a bilingual hearing child of deaf parents exposed to sign and [oral] language from birth". Though both parents were deaf, they used both Italian Sign Language (LIS) and spoken Italian, at some times simultaneously. Marco was also regularly enrolled in a day care with Italian-speaking peers.
Gesture was considered anything that a hearing (Italian) monolingual child had also been observed producing, whereas LIS was only considered in use if it resembled an adult speaker's LIS or a simplified sign, as judged by a native signer.
Under these criteria, Marco did not appear to have a "sign advantage." "Sign advantage" refers to the hypothesis that children who learn sign language and spoken language simultaneously will reach early linguistic milestones more rapidly in sign than in speech. Differences appeared in Marco's use of deictic and representational gestures as compared to those of monolingual children. "While Marco used proportionately more representational than deictic gestures at both comparison points, monolingual children produced deictic gestures much more frequently than representational gestures." He was able to use representational gestures more comfortably and practically, showing that "exposure to sign language may enhance a children's appreciation of the representational potential of the manual modality; this may, in turn, generalize to gesture use." Marco differed from all the studied monolingual peers in that he was able to combine and use two representational gestures. Sarah.Monk ( talk) 15:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Baby sign is not in fact a language as ASL, BSL or ISL are languages that have grammar, syntax and punctuation. Baby sign is an extension of symbolic gesture and therefore using this study, since it talks directly about a specific form of sign language being taught as a language, does not apply to baby sign. Although I do agree that it could use some simplification before it is accessible to the public. The goal of the baby sign article is to inform readers of what baby sign is, how it can be implemented, and what affects it can have on language acquisition for children. For a child who is bilingual and learning a legitimate sign language it does not apply to the article. Although we do provide a link to this sign language article on the baby sign page. Sarah.Monk ( talk) 18:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
( talk) We are not excluding studies with deaf parents, this one was solely excluded for the use of a legitimate sign language with a bilingual child because it brings about situations that apply directly to learning a sign language not baby sign. As for the worry about legitimate sources I assure you I spent countless hours searching for them on numerous academic, google, and other search engines. Sources that could no longer be found were removed but that does not mean that all information was removed, previously existing information that applies to baby sign has now been cited from sources that can be accessed. Certain information was removed because it can not be substantiated from more than one source. Studies regarding deaf children, if we find them, will be touched on briefly with a link to the sign language pages since deaf children are going to be learning a true sign language after basic introduction to baby sign. I welcome more comments about the Baby sign language page but do ask that you post them on the Baby sign talk page itself. Thank you. Sarah.Monk ( talk) 18:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The lead states unequivocally that non-human primates have been taught to use sign language. I think if we look at the entirety of the research on this issue conducted over that last 30 years and the response of linguists, we can only conclude that such a claim carries with it considerable controversy and disagreement on a number of issues. Some of the details in this regard are discussed later in the article and at Great ape language. There is also discussion of this issue on this talk page at Talk:Sign language#Animals use of LANGUAGE. I'll acknowledge that this article and Great ape language probably need better sourcing on both sides of the issue. But in the mean time I would like to get the lead consistent with the information that is already in the articles.
First, I should emphasize that my main concern is the unequivocal firmness that it is stated in the lead that non-humans use sign language. There is some research supporting that possibility, but there are also challenges to both the methodology and the conclusions that have been made by the researchers. The criticism is particularly strong by some linguists (Chomsky, for example). The gist of the criticisms has been that it is unclear at best that the non-humans are using language rather than simply signs. An analogy would be a person's use of a few words of a foreign language that can be described as communication but not language as defined by the linguistic rules that qualify the communication as language. There also has been criticism that some of the conclusions about non-human use of language have come from the trainers who are biased and do not necessarily understand what constitutes a "language." Other arguments that the research fails to distinguish between "communication" and "language" have come from observation by native users of the sign language watching videos of the animals; some of the native users commented that the communications did not follow the usual syntactic and grammatical rules of the sign language and that some of the signs were not recognizable if the viewer did not know the context of what the animal was trying to communicate about.
The main point I am trying to convey here is not a definitive conclusion that non-humans have not or could not learn a sign language. My point is that the conclusions have enough dispute and criticism that the statement in the lead needs to be toned down so that it doesn't indicate without reservation that non-humans have learned a language. That would make the lead consistent with other parts of the article (and with Great ape language), as well as the overall research data. Sundayclose ( talk) 19:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
If there's no objection, I will reword and move the sentence out of the lead. Sundayclose ( talk) 13:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I noticed Jack Sebastian's change of "basic signs" to "sign language" in the section about the issue. It seems to me that neither wording is NPV, so I changed this to simply "signs", and adjusted wording later to try to bring out the meat of the controversy. Also, I'm not aware that there is any controversy about animals' ability to communicate with signs (or by other means), so I removed that claim, which was unsourced. AlbertBickford ( talk) 14:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the sentence out of the lead to the closing section, since it seemed like discussion on that aspect of the issue had died down. There's still the matter of how to describe the controversy over whether apes can have language, how much of it to handle in this article in addition to the main treatment elsewhere, and getting some newer citations in here. I also think we should check the citations about sign language being used with various specific types of primates, particularly the claim that Bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) have learned it. AlbertBickford ( talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
With an eye towards resolving this discussion on the common ground we have found, I've made an edit that addresses the concerns:
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 23:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking back through talk pages, I found an earlier (and unfortunately much more contentious) discussion on this topic that may be worth reviewing, here. The conclusion seems to have been to include a brief mention of animals' use of sign language in the article, which is what we inherited when the current discussion began. AlbertBickford ( talk) 05:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I have now completed the changes I had anticipated in my comments above. In the discussion of ape use of signs at the end of the article, I added a reference to Dr. Doolittle's Delusion and two other published works that represent linguists' perspective on signing apes, to balance the claims by primatologists (in previously-existing references). Someone may want to also insert these references into the main article: Great_ape_language#Primate_use_of_sign_language, but I think I'll stop here. Thanks to everyone for a stimulating discussion, which finally prompted me to read the Doolittle book. AlbertBickford ( talk) 02:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sign language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
According to U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, "No one form of sign language is universal. Different sign languages are used in different countries or regions". [1] Since there is not one form of sign language, a section to be added identifying the sign language around the world, and how each region of the world affect each individual type of sign language. Also, how do each culture and religion view sign language? How would one come about in answering these questions, and is it even possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toanndo ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sign language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I read your wiki information and I want to talk about your “Acquisition” section. I think you should give more information about bilingualism and how it impacts deaf children’s acquisition of language. For example, the deaf children who are exposed to American Sign Language earlier as opposed to later in their life will have a better understanding of written English. Deaf children who learn ASL first before cochlear implantation will achieve more desirable progress with spoken languages. Teaching a child ASL first, preferably in early ages, will impact the child’s language development overall. There is an article titled, Spoken English Language Development Among Native Signing Children With Cochlear Implants, that might protect your wiki information with valuable credits.
I have a couple of questions to ask:
Can you explain how sign language does not have a traditional or formal written form? Additionally, the information presented in the article should mention several research studies to help prove the point. How does the research you collected show that sign language has significant transformative properties towards a child’s language development? Could you argue that a deaf person’s video-recorded or photo-recorded sign language could be viewed as a written language?
Thank you, Dnalves1990 ( talk) 23:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC) David
I'm currently looking through the article to see if anything needs any kind of improvement on. I've found a few areas that could be edited and would love to know if anyone agrees, disagrees, or has any other comments.
Under the Linguistics portion of the article, the last sentence in paragraph three that talks about the characteristics of human language needs citing. In paragraph four, the last sentence talks about how linguists refer to the word "classifiers" as different terms and I think there should be a few examples there and also a citation. Under the Relationships with spoken languages portion, the last sentence of the last paragraph should also have a citation.
Aside from citation, under the Iconicity portion of the article, the first paragraph has a sentence, "Frishberg (1975) wrote a very influential paper addressing the relationship between arbitrariness and iconicity in ASL." which I think is slightly biased. The "very influential paper" is subjective in my opinion. I feel like that should be changed to just "Frishberg (1975) wrote a paper addressing..." That portion of the paragraph (the last 3 sentences) could be rewritten to convey the subject a bit more clearly since it seems a bit redundant and drawn out. -- Adrisheh ( talk) 01:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello!
I noticed in the "linguistics" (tongue is the instrument) or "handistics" (hand is the instrument) section of this article, signed languages are heavily compared to oral languages. Although it is very easy to make this connection since the majority of people are familiar only with oral languages, but it could be more beneficial to avoid this close comparison. Historically their is a stigma that oral languages are not real/complete languages. By relating signed languages back to oral languages, it is almost as if signed languages need to prove themselves to readers that they fit all of the criteria of language and that the only way to do so is to use oral languages as a guide.
In addition, the "'baby sign language' with hearing children" section, the statement "Babies can usually produce signs before they can speak." lacks a citation.
Best, -- Brooke hayman ( talk) 04:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
We could really use a picture for Sign language glove. Anyone? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 18:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Considering that classifier constructions are near-universal in sign languages, they should be described in more detail. Currently, information about classifier constructions is mentioned sporadically in two paragraphs, neither of which describe them particularly well. They're also confusingly linked to the article on measure words, which is a very different concept.
I'd say there should be a separate section devoted to classifier constructions explaining the four different types of classifiers (whole entity, handling/instrument, limb, extension/surface) and the types of movement (position, motion, manner and extension). Perhaps use some examples from ASL if possible. Additionally a quick mention that some village sign languages, like Adamorobe Sign Language, do not seem to have entity classifiers at all.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 16:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you in advance. --
Blutgretchen (
talk) 15:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Gloss: NAMESIGN(L-on-forehead) HIS SON DIE YOUNG, LEAVE WHAT? 100. LATER, [unintelligble], MOVE ILLIOIS. Approximate translation: L____'s son passed away when he was young. He left behind 100 [?] Later, [?] moved to Illinois.
Matthall.research ( talk) 21:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
They are quite common now e.g. when politicians are speaking. It wasn't always like this. When, how, and why did the change take place? Mporter ( talk) 07:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
This statement in this section is a little strange, because most of the languages given as examples given immediately before that in the paragraph differ from the surrounding spoken languages in their word order. Japanese is SOV, but Japanese Sign Language is SVO. Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Pashto, and Sindhi are all SOV, but Indo-Pakistani Sign Language is SVO. English is SVO, but American Sign Langauge is SOV. The statement is also apparently uncited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VIVIT-r ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The introduction should make it more clear that sign languages are completely independent from spoken languages. For example, that ASL is not just some non-spoken form of (spoken) American english. -- 217.149.171.189 ( talk) 21:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
From the lead:
Linguists consider both spoken and signed communication to be types of natural language, meaning that both emerged through an abstract, protracted aging process and evolved over time without meticulous planning.
The phrase "an abstract, protracted aging process" needs improvement. It makes sign language sound like a cheese. "Aging process" is simply inappropriate here; I don't like either "abstract" or "protracted", either. Substitute "continuous" for "protracted"? I think the whole sentence needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. The key point is that sign languages are not constructed languages, no? It might be clearer to just say that.
Sign languages are not constructed languages. Like spoken languages, they are undirected, unplanned emergent phenomena.
Or:
Linguists consider both spoken and signed communication to be types of natural language. Sign language, like spoken language, emerges from its users' behaviour without central management or direction.
Something like that? Just thinking out loud, here. I really don't think "abstract, protracted aging process" is what is called for. Regulov ( talk) 09:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I need to learn sign language to understand my sister 50.101.197.154 ( talk) 03:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Can someone add a section about the mutual intelligibility (or lack there of) of sign languages to the mutual intelligibility article? Treetoes023 ( talk) 01:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
How do I do sign language Bugs the bunny13 ( talk) 18:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BrisaB12 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 ( talk) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sign language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
The contents of the Sign language on television page were merged into Sign language on March 9, 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Toanndo.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 9 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yehkim. Peer reviewers: Marissanicole67.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Shaunbp.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
There were three paragraphs in § Deaf communities and Deaf culture: one general and vague one about the title topic, and two, very confusing and badly written, about native American signing. I'm cleaning these up and am going to integrate them into § Use of signs in hearing communities, where there is already a paragraph about the topic.
Some parts of § Deaf communities and Deaf culture were so confusing I could make no sense of them, and the best I could do was to remove them completely. Those parts are in boldface below. For the record, here's what it said before:
To discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. -- Thnidu ( talk) 23:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Currently, there is a hearing-centered bias in the article, in that discussions of technology (in the section on Sign languages and society) tend to assume that there are interpreters involved, for communication between deaf and hearing (or, more likely in many hearing people's minds, from hearing to deaf). This is a common bias in society, of course, but it doesn't reflect a WP:NPOV. I made some changes a couple years ago, distinguishing the use of videophones for deaf-to-deaf communication from their use with interpreters, but I notice the bias is still there. What brought it to my attention was inclusion of material by @ Athomeinkobe: from an old article about sign languages on television. I fully support merging of that article into this one, but I notice that the new material seems to talk exclusively about interpretation of programs that are aimed primarily at hearing people. There's nothing explicitly stated (unless I missed it) about programs that use a sign language as a primary language, created by Deaf people for other Deaf people. More generally, we don't cover other uses of technology for primary communication by sign language users without an interpreter, such as vlogs and other video on the internet, video communication other than videophones (Skype, etc.), distribution of sign language material on phones, etc.
So, what I think is needed is to separate out the technological developments about the way video technologies are being used for sign languages into a section separate from sign languages in society. Comments? AlbertBickford ( talk) 21:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC), updated AlbertBickford ( talk) 21:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
janelli joyce batchar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.164 ( talk) 05:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I am editing the baby sign language page and am looking to remove a section from it. The section I wish to remove is a journal study discussing a bilingual hearing child born to deaf parents and raised with both spoken and signed speech. I think this could be a good asset to this page as it talks about using authentic Italian sign language and the influence of sign language on hearing children's abilities. I am adding the section onto this talk page with the citations so it can be treated accordingly.
Case study on bilingual exposure A study entitled "Hearing Children Exposed to Spoken & Signed Input" [1] [2] investigated the transition from gesture to sign in a case study of an Italian, hearing, bimodal, bilingual child.
Marco was "a bilingual hearing child of deaf parents exposed to sign and [oral] language from birth". Though both parents were deaf, they used both Italian Sign Language (LIS) and spoken Italian, at some times simultaneously. Marco was also regularly enrolled in a day care with Italian-speaking peers.
Gesture was considered anything that a hearing (Italian) monolingual child had also been observed producing, whereas LIS was only considered in use if it resembled an adult speaker's LIS or a simplified sign, as judged by a native signer.
Under these criteria, Marco did not appear to have a "sign advantage." "Sign advantage" refers to the hypothesis that children who learn sign language and spoken language simultaneously will reach early linguistic milestones more rapidly in sign than in speech. Differences appeared in Marco's use of deictic and representational gestures as compared to those of monolingual children. "While Marco used proportionately more representational than deictic gestures at both comparison points, monolingual children produced deictic gestures much more frequently than representational gestures." He was able to use representational gestures more comfortably and practically, showing that "exposure to sign language may enhance a children's appreciation of the representational potential of the manual modality; this may, in turn, generalize to gesture use." Marco differed from all the studied monolingual peers in that he was able to combine and use two representational gestures. Sarah.Monk ( talk) 15:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Baby sign is not in fact a language as ASL, BSL or ISL are languages that have grammar, syntax and punctuation. Baby sign is an extension of symbolic gesture and therefore using this study, since it talks directly about a specific form of sign language being taught as a language, does not apply to baby sign. Although I do agree that it could use some simplification before it is accessible to the public. The goal of the baby sign article is to inform readers of what baby sign is, how it can be implemented, and what affects it can have on language acquisition for children. For a child who is bilingual and learning a legitimate sign language it does not apply to the article. Although we do provide a link to this sign language article on the baby sign page. Sarah.Monk ( talk) 18:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
( talk) We are not excluding studies with deaf parents, this one was solely excluded for the use of a legitimate sign language with a bilingual child because it brings about situations that apply directly to learning a sign language not baby sign. As for the worry about legitimate sources I assure you I spent countless hours searching for them on numerous academic, google, and other search engines. Sources that could no longer be found were removed but that does not mean that all information was removed, previously existing information that applies to baby sign has now been cited from sources that can be accessed. Certain information was removed because it can not be substantiated from more than one source. Studies regarding deaf children, if we find them, will be touched on briefly with a link to the sign language pages since deaf children are going to be learning a true sign language after basic introduction to baby sign. I welcome more comments about the Baby sign language page but do ask that you post them on the Baby sign talk page itself. Thank you. Sarah.Monk ( talk) 18:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The lead states unequivocally that non-human primates have been taught to use sign language. I think if we look at the entirety of the research on this issue conducted over that last 30 years and the response of linguists, we can only conclude that such a claim carries with it considerable controversy and disagreement on a number of issues. Some of the details in this regard are discussed later in the article and at Great ape language. There is also discussion of this issue on this talk page at Talk:Sign language#Animals use of LANGUAGE. I'll acknowledge that this article and Great ape language probably need better sourcing on both sides of the issue. But in the mean time I would like to get the lead consistent with the information that is already in the articles.
First, I should emphasize that my main concern is the unequivocal firmness that it is stated in the lead that non-humans use sign language. There is some research supporting that possibility, but there are also challenges to both the methodology and the conclusions that have been made by the researchers. The criticism is particularly strong by some linguists (Chomsky, for example). The gist of the criticisms has been that it is unclear at best that the non-humans are using language rather than simply signs. An analogy would be a person's use of a few words of a foreign language that can be described as communication but not language as defined by the linguistic rules that qualify the communication as language. There also has been criticism that some of the conclusions about non-human use of language have come from the trainers who are biased and do not necessarily understand what constitutes a "language." Other arguments that the research fails to distinguish between "communication" and "language" have come from observation by native users of the sign language watching videos of the animals; some of the native users commented that the communications did not follow the usual syntactic and grammatical rules of the sign language and that some of the signs were not recognizable if the viewer did not know the context of what the animal was trying to communicate about.
The main point I am trying to convey here is not a definitive conclusion that non-humans have not or could not learn a sign language. My point is that the conclusions have enough dispute and criticism that the statement in the lead needs to be toned down so that it doesn't indicate without reservation that non-humans have learned a language. That would make the lead consistent with other parts of the article (and with Great ape language), as well as the overall research data. Sundayclose ( talk) 19:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
If there's no objection, I will reword and move the sentence out of the lead. Sundayclose ( talk) 13:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I noticed Jack Sebastian's change of "basic signs" to "sign language" in the section about the issue. It seems to me that neither wording is NPV, so I changed this to simply "signs", and adjusted wording later to try to bring out the meat of the controversy. Also, I'm not aware that there is any controversy about animals' ability to communicate with signs (or by other means), so I removed that claim, which was unsourced. AlbertBickford ( talk) 14:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the sentence out of the lead to the closing section, since it seemed like discussion on that aspect of the issue had died down. There's still the matter of how to describe the controversy over whether apes can have language, how much of it to handle in this article in addition to the main treatment elsewhere, and getting some newer citations in here. I also think we should check the citations about sign language being used with various specific types of primates, particularly the claim that Bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) have learned it. AlbertBickford ( talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
With an eye towards resolving this discussion on the common ground we have found, I've made an edit that addresses the concerns:
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 23:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking back through talk pages, I found an earlier (and unfortunately much more contentious) discussion on this topic that may be worth reviewing, here. The conclusion seems to have been to include a brief mention of animals' use of sign language in the article, which is what we inherited when the current discussion began. AlbertBickford ( talk) 05:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I have now completed the changes I had anticipated in my comments above. In the discussion of ape use of signs at the end of the article, I added a reference to Dr. Doolittle's Delusion and two other published works that represent linguists' perspective on signing apes, to balance the claims by primatologists (in previously-existing references). Someone may want to also insert these references into the main article: Great_ape_language#Primate_use_of_sign_language, but I think I'll stop here. Thanks to everyone for a stimulating discussion, which finally prompted me to read the Doolittle book. AlbertBickford ( talk) 02:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sign language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
According to U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, "No one form of sign language is universal. Different sign languages are used in different countries or regions". [1] Since there is not one form of sign language, a section to be added identifying the sign language around the world, and how each region of the world affect each individual type of sign language. Also, how do each culture and religion view sign language? How would one come about in answering these questions, and is it even possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toanndo ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sign language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I read your wiki information and I want to talk about your “Acquisition” section. I think you should give more information about bilingualism and how it impacts deaf children’s acquisition of language. For example, the deaf children who are exposed to American Sign Language earlier as opposed to later in their life will have a better understanding of written English. Deaf children who learn ASL first before cochlear implantation will achieve more desirable progress with spoken languages. Teaching a child ASL first, preferably in early ages, will impact the child’s language development overall. There is an article titled, Spoken English Language Development Among Native Signing Children With Cochlear Implants, that might protect your wiki information with valuable credits.
I have a couple of questions to ask:
Can you explain how sign language does not have a traditional or formal written form? Additionally, the information presented in the article should mention several research studies to help prove the point. How does the research you collected show that sign language has significant transformative properties towards a child’s language development? Could you argue that a deaf person’s video-recorded or photo-recorded sign language could be viewed as a written language?
Thank you, Dnalves1990 ( talk) 23:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC) David
I'm currently looking through the article to see if anything needs any kind of improvement on. I've found a few areas that could be edited and would love to know if anyone agrees, disagrees, or has any other comments.
Under the Linguistics portion of the article, the last sentence in paragraph three that talks about the characteristics of human language needs citing. In paragraph four, the last sentence talks about how linguists refer to the word "classifiers" as different terms and I think there should be a few examples there and also a citation. Under the Relationships with spoken languages portion, the last sentence of the last paragraph should also have a citation.
Aside from citation, under the Iconicity portion of the article, the first paragraph has a sentence, "Frishberg (1975) wrote a very influential paper addressing the relationship between arbitrariness and iconicity in ASL." which I think is slightly biased. The "very influential paper" is subjective in my opinion. I feel like that should be changed to just "Frishberg (1975) wrote a paper addressing..." That portion of the paragraph (the last 3 sentences) could be rewritten to convey the subject a bit more clearly since it seems a bit redundant and drawn out. -- Adrisheh ( talk) 01:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello!
I noticed in the "linguistics" (tongue is the instrument) or "handistics" (hand is the instrument) section of this article, signed languages are heavily compared to oral languages. Although it is very easy to make this connection since the majority of people are familiar only with oral languages, but it could be more beneficial to avoid this close comparison. Historically their is a stigma that oral languages are not real/complete languages. By relating signed languages back to oral languages, it is almost as if signed languages need to prove themselves to readers that they fit all of the criteria of language and that the only way to do so is to use oral languages as a guide.
In addition, the "'baby sign language' with hearing children" section, the statement "Babies can usually produce signs before they can speak." lacks a citation.
Best, -- Brooke hayman ( talk) 04:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
We could really use a picture for Sign language glove. Anyone? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 18:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Considering that classifier constructions are near-universal in sign languages, they should be described in more detail. Currently, information about classifier constructions is mentioned sporadically in two paragraphs, neither of which describe them particularly well. They're also confusingly linked to the article on measure words, which is a very different concept.
I'd say there should be a separate section devoted to classifier constructions explaining the four different types of classifiers (whole entity, handling/instrument, limb, extension/surface) and the types of movement (position, motion, manner and extension). Perhaps use some examples from ASL if possible. Additionally a quick mention that some village sign languages, like Adamorobe Sign Language, do not seem to have entity classifiers at all.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 16:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you in advance. --
Blutgretchen (
talk) 15:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Gloss: NAMESIGN(L-on-forehead) HIS SON DIE YOUNG, LEAVE WHAT? 100. LATER, [unintelligble], MOVE ILLIOIS. Approximate translation: L____'s son passed away when he was young. He left behind 100 [?] Later, [?] moved to Illinois.
Matthall.research ( talk) 21:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
They are quite common now e.g. when politicians are speaking. It wasn't always like this. When, how, and why did the change take place? Mporter ( talk) 07:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
This statement in this section is a little strange, because most of the languages given as examples given immediately before that in the paragraph differ from the surrounding spoken languages in their word order. Japanese is SOV, but Japanese Sign Language is SVO. Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Pashto, and Sindhi are all SOV, but Indo-Pakistani Sign Language is SVO. English is SVO, but American Sign Langauge is SOV. The statement is also apparently uncited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VIVIT-r ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The introduction should make it more clear that sign languages are completely independent from spoken languages. For example, that ASL is not just some non-spoken form of (spoken) American english. -- 217.149.171.189 ( talk) 21:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
From the lead:
Linguists consider both spoken and signed communication to be types of natural language, meaning that both emerged through an abstract, protracted aging process and evolved over time without meticulous planning.
The phrase "an abstract, protracted aging process" needs improvement. It makes sign language sound like a cheese. "Aging process" is simply inappropriate here; I don't like either "abstract" or "protracted", either. Substitute "continuous" for "protracted"? I think the whole sentence needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. The key point is that sign languages are not constructed languages, no? It might be clearer to just say that.
Sign languages are not constructed languages. Like spoken languages, they are undirected, unplanned emergent phenomena.
Or:
Linguists consider both spoken and signed communication to be types of natural language. Sign language, like spoken language, emerges from its users' behaviour without central management or direction.
Something like that? Just thinking out loud, here. I really don't think "abstract, protracted aging process" is what is called for. Regulov ( talk) 09:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I need to learn sign language to understand my sister 50.101.197.154 ( talk) 03:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Can someone add a section about the mutual intelligibility (or lack there of) of sign languages to the mutual intelligibility article? Treetoes023 ( talk) 01:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
How do I do sign language Bugs the bunny13 ( talk) 18:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BrisaB12 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 ( talk) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)