Talk:Sign language

message: 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:
:Deaf communities are very widespread in the world and the culture which comprises within them is very rich. Sometimes it even does not intersect with the culture of the hearing population because of different impediments for hard-of-hearing people to perceive aurally conveyed information.
:There are many theories indicating what native American sign language were applied for. One theory indicates that the sign system's development provided great ease for the local inhabitants to talk with each other: In the 1500s, a Spanish expeditionary, Cabeza de Vaca,  observed using sign language with the natives on the west part of modern day Florida. In mid 16th century, Francisco de Coronado also mentioned that communication with the Tonkawa using signs, was possible without the  presence of a translator.
:Ideas narrate to doing business with the use of sign as a common understandable language, and even exaggerated ideas of Native American using sign because they were perceived to be "exotic" and "uncivilized" group also prevail. Nevertheless, the sign adhered by the Indians were used primarily with communication between tribes or for the usage of hunting.  If gestures that were used by primitive individuals or Native Indians did in fact or not quite reach the stage of being official languages, excluding the usage of oration and still having full communication, is still up for debate.There are estimates indicating that as frequent as 15 in 650 Native Americans have serious deafness or are completely deaf. These estimates are more than twice the national medium.
To discuss this with me, please  me. --Thnidu (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like what you did.  Sorry to jump in to do other things while you were still working on it.  Are you done now? AlbertBickford (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaf communities and Deaf culture 

message: 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" 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)
replies: text: This seems like it would be an interesting addition to the Sign Language article. However, I'm puzzled as to why you want to remove it from the Baby Sign article, as it seems to be relevant to it (although I think in both cases I'd suggest shortening and summarizing it, and maybe rephrasing to make it clearer to a non-technical audience). AlbertBickford (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I also wonder why it is removed from Baby Sign. I don't believe that the Baby Sign article should exclude studies with deaf parents or deaf children. I also am concerned that legitimate sources were removed simply because they "could no longer be accessed". Sometimes the locations of online sources change. Better to mark them as "dead links"; someone may find them. Even better is to try to find them yourself. Sundayclose (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks,  for your explanations. Now that I understand your goal for the Baby Sign page, and I agree with it completely: Keep the page focused on the use of signs with babies where there is no intention for the child to acquire a natural sign language, and use cross-references to this or other articles when a real natural sign language is to be discussed.  Also agreed--further discussion of that page should be done on its own talk page. AlbertBickford (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section to Add 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126034146/http://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/deaf-sign-language to http://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/deaf-sign-language
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041013082721/http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/slling-l.html to http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/slling-l.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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".https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/american-sign-language 
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)
thread_title:  Section To Add 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623215926/http://www.porticus.org/bell/pdf/picturephone.pdf to http://www.porticus.org/bell/pdf/picturephone.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Need for more citations and editing a possible biased portion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: We could really use a picture for Sign language glove. Anyone? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign language glove 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section on classifier constructions needed 

message: </br>
Thank you in advance. --Blutgretchen (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASL - What's the meaning of the message this person signs? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't have any reliable sources immediately available, but it has been a slow progression over decades. A major step forward was with William Stokoe's seminal research in the 1960s and 1970s that clearly confirmed that ASL is a legitimate language. Beginning in the 1970s there have been a number of legal and social changes that made availability of interpreters more common (and in many cases required legally) in educational, employment, and other settings; this was in the USA, I'm not familiar with other countries. This led to the development of interpreter training programs. Disability rights groups became more prominent and politically effective. Like most social change, it evolved slowly but with a few leaps from time to time. Sundayclose (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign language interpreters in public life 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not to mention pretty weaselly: "influence is not improbable" doesn't exactly nail it down. Regulov (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Influence from the surrounding spoken languages [on sign language word order] is not improbable." 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There are many sign languages. To include such a statement in this generic article would require a reliable source that it's true for all sign languages. That's impractical. Such information really belongs in the articles for specific sign languages. It's stated in the lead for American Sign Language, although it doesn't necessarily have to be in the WP:LEAD because the lead has limited information. Sundayclose (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  independance from spoken languages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Awkward phrasing 

message: I need to learn sign language to understand my sister 50.101.197.154 (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need to learn sign language 

message: 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)
thread_title: Adding a sign language section to the mutual intelligibility article

message: How do I do sign language Bugs the bunny13 (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is not for general discussion of the topic. You might be interested in discussing at the reference desk. Sundayclose (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ok Bugs the bunny13 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign Launguage  

message: — Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age