I’m just curious if American Sign Language is ubiquitous around the world for deaf/mute people or if each spoken language has its own sign language system?
Also, how ‘complete’ of a language system is ASL? For example, could one have a meaningful and deep philosophical discussion using ASL (simply and assuming both parties are fluent in ASL) or is it limited to only conveying somewhat simpler concepts and ideas?
Is there a Chinese Sign Language? Yes.
As for the “completeness” of ASL, pretty much any concept that can be expressed in spoken English can be expressed in ASL as well. The grammar of ASL is somewhat different from English, but it is definitely capable of expressing complex ideas.
American sign language isn’t even the only system in English speaking countries, in Britain British Sign Language is used.
Thanks but perhaps I should have been more clear. I wasn’t interested specifically if there was a Chinese Sign Language (although it is part of the answer). I was more interested in how ubiquitous ASL is as a signing language around the world. The link you provided has a tantalizing clue in that it specifically mentions that ASL had no influence on CSL. I wouldn’t think they’d bother to mention that unless ASL is dominant to the extent that one would find it unusual to have another sign language that has no similarities.
What perhaps is more interesting (and what I probably should have specified earlier) is if different languages require a modification of ASL to fit the native tongue or if ASL is so separate from spoken grammar rules that French, Japanese, Germans, etc. coould all chatter away with one another using ASL. For some reason the Chinese felt the need to be different but I do no know if this is a necessary result of the difference in the spoken languages or if it was just some sort of political move to not be ‘American’ in any way.
Lots o’ links here.
Sign Languages have just as much variety as oral languages and can be divided into language phyla and families. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the Oral language and the Sign language. For example, American Sign Language is descended from French Sign Language and that’s due to how it was introduced to this country. ASL is also used in Guatemala.
Please check Ethonologue’s short list of Sign languages and also Ethnoluge’s entry on French Sign language. The latter says this about the relationship between ASL & FSL:
Ethnologue’s entry on British Sign language says:
That shows that the various Sign languages actually used in the United Kingdom differ more from each other than the various dialects of English do (and thus one set is referred to as various languages and the other as various dialects).
As to your second paragraph: Yes, ASL is a complete language, just as any other human language is a complete language. It has all the elements of a language and is therefore a language. There’s even a (in my opinion) very nifty system of writing the various Signed languages which is not based on the oral languages’ writing system: SignWriting.
None of the Signed lanaguages is ubiquitous around the world.
There are 114 sign languages liste don ethnologue (though a handful of them are extinct, as you can see most larger countries in the world have their own sign language (some have up to 3 or 4 systems even).
Before someone nitpicks me on this I realize that anyone who learned ASL could speak to anyone else who knows ASL. What I meant was if French, Japanese, Germans, etc. each learned whatever signing system is taught in their countries could they still talk among each other? If not why not? It seems it would be advantageous if there was one universal sign language. Since it seems there are different ones I wonder if there is a legitimate reason (i.e. to fit the local spoken language in some way) ot if everyone just has to be ‘different’ for no good reason. Sign language isn’t all that old (150-200 years?) so why not get everyone on the same page for this?
Whack-a-Mole: I think you’re overlooking something. The Signed langauges developed separately from the Oral languages. Signed languages are not related to Oral languages. The bit in the Ethnolouge entry about ASL not influencing CSL is in there apparently because the first Deaf school was founded by an American missionary.
Types of grammar for languages, whether Oral or Signed, is interesting. Two languages which have absolutely no relationship to each other can likely have similar grammar. For example: English today is a SVO language (“I love you”) and Chinese also employs that strategy (“Wo ai ni”); although both language permit variations on it.
Oh, and let’s not forget that “the native tongue” in China is a whole lot of native tongues!
Universal Sign language has been attempted. It’s called Gestuno and is basically the Deaf equivalent for Esperanto, although Gestuno is not related to Esperanto.
ASL has very little connection to English. In fact, the bulk of ASL was derived from French sign language…ASL is closely related to FSL, but very different from British sign language.
The thing is, every community of deaf people will naturally develop a signed language. As the community becomes larger and schools for the deaf are established, the home signs of the small deaf communities will be merged into the larger sign language. But the reach of the merged sign languages isn’t global, but regional. Many countries and regions have their own traditional sign systems that have a long history. The various sign languages typically are unrelated geneologically, although they are often related conceptually. In ASL the sign for “baby” is to cradle your arms like you are holding a baby. This is a very conceptual sign, and it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that many other sign systems have very similar signs for “baby”. But that isn’t because they copied ASL or vice versa, just that the gesture is a natural one.
ASL is NOT dominant world wide…it may (or may not) be the largest sign language, but it is by no means ubiquitous. As the name suggests, ASL is pretty much confined to America and Canada, plus a few other smaller countries that have consciously adopted ASL to join the ASL community.
ASL grammar IS completely different than English grammar. It is an entirely different language. However, most hearing people that learn sign language use English grammar while signing. Most deaf people expect this and have no trouble figuring out what you are saying.
The different international sign systems are NOT a conscious rejection of Americanism, they are simply the traditional sign systems of those regions, developed and augmented and updated with new signs for the modern era. The difference isn’t that different spoken languages are used in different regions, the difference is that different communities of deaf people with no contact with a broader international deaf community developed the systems a hundred or more years ago.
I should have previewed as I see much of my question answered.
Thanks everyone…
I never meant to imply that ASL is not a language. I merely wondered at the facility with which two practitioners could communicate whatever was on their minds including out of the ordinary conversations that might draw on somewhat specialized terminology (e.g. theology, philosophy, science).
Oh, the reason everyone doesn’t jump onto an international sign language is the same reason everyone doesn’t jump onto an international spoken language. Sure, we could all give up English and start teaching Esperanto exclusively. But it isn’t going to happen. Same with sign languages.
Gotcha…however this brings another question to mind. If sign languages are in no way dependant on the local spoken language why would an American missionary go to the trouble of devising an entirely new system for the Chinese? The missionary had a system tried and tested ready to go in the form of ASL. It need not even have been ASL but a variety of systems that were already in place (French sign language for instance). I suppose some modification might be necessary but that would seem an easier task than starting from scratch which is what I gather happened in this case.
Whack-a-Mole writes:
> For example, could one have a meaningful and deep
> philosophical discussion using ASL (simply and assuming both
> parties are fluent in ASL) or is it limited to only conveying
> somewhat simpler concepts and ideas?
I have a friend who teaches philosophy at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C. Gallaudet, as you may know, is a university where all (or nearly all, anyway) of the students are deaf. All of the classes are taught in ASL. My friend isn’t deaf herself, and neither are most of the faculty. An ASL interpreter is assigned to each new professor for their first year, and they interpret the spoken English of the professor into ASL. During that year the new professor is expected to learn ASL. After that first year, they teach all classes in ASL.
I’ve asked her what the signs are for “phenomenology” or “dialectics” or “syllogism.” She says that what she does for any technical term is to finger-spell the word for the first several times that she uses it in the class. (Finger-spelling is a system that allows one to spell out any word in the ordinary alphabet using special signs.) All of her students can read English, of course. After that point she used whatever the standard sign for the word is. If she and the students don’t happen to know what the standard sign is (or if there isn’t one), they make one up.
There is a book at amazon.com, SIGNING IN FOURTEEN LANGUAGES, I bought it, but it uses the same signs pretty much for each country. Makes sense to me too, we aren’t making a word here, we are making a picture.
handy: I believe those pictures in that book are those which the pictured object are fairly common among those countries. Now, if they’d asked for the signs for “hello” or “goodbye” or “thank you,” there might be a bit of a difference as each group would, no doubt, conceptualize it on their own.
Whack-a-Mole: Two Signers using American Sign Language can communicate on any subject whatsoever, to include theology and philosophy. If one doesn’t happen to know a word used by the other, then they will do the same thing users of any other language do: reword the expression.
Perhaps the missionary was devising his system from a number of Signs that were already being used by the Deaf children? I’ve no idea and it interests me enough now to do some research into it. From what I understand, Nicaraguan Sign Language came into being along those lines (a pidgin constructed by the Deaf in Bluefields School).
Whack-a-Mole: I’ve just spent some time websearching for some reputable sites on the issue. So far, everyone seems to agree that Mills founded the first school for the Deaf in China and that the Sign Language introduced in the PRC doesn’t descend from ASL. When I go to school tomorrow, I’ll ask some of my professors what they know about the issue (I’m majoring in Linguistics, so they’re Linguistics profs) and report back as soon as I can.
[minor nitpick:]
IIRC the intent of Esperanto was not for everyone to give up their native language, but to be a universal “Second Language.”
[/minor nitpick]
Argh! I posted a really nice informative posting, complete with citations, from school this morning & the dreaded post monster must’ve eaten it! So, Whack, you’ll have to wait for tomorrow so I can repeat the research.