Vocab limits?

[jillio]

I am lost here?

ASL Teacher's Association. There is certification at the national level, and also the state level. It is what my college requires, along with several of the colleges in this area.

 

[Interpretrator]

ASL is much more limited than the English language.

ASL vocabulary is much more limited than English's.

 

[shel90]

I find it hard to believe that there are only 5,000 signs. Perhaps these are 5000 "official" signs but what about classifiers? You never see that in the dictionaries. Classifiers are awesome because, although they are not official signs, are legitimate method of enrichening your signing by creative use of describing or representing objects. I often find it an unfortunate fact that many interpreters and teachers have problems with these classifiers which makes them rather to use the official signs instead. Sometimes it is a problem because the lectures or meetings become so dry and boring due to the lack of classifiers in the interpretations.

I love classifiers! I can understand them so much better than I can express them. I try to use as much classifiers while teaching my students.

 

[jasin]

ASL is much more limited than the English language. ASL usually has one sign for multiple words.

So true, but asl is more versatile then English. Also, Asl is still a fairly new language, so its still evolving. I would add as well, that if you look at asl from a vocabulary perspective, asl is far more complex then basic English, a purposed international language.

 

[jillio]

So true, but asl is more versatile then English. Also, Asl is still a fairly new language, so its still evolving. I would add as well, that if you look at asl from a vocabulary perspective, asl is far more complex then basic English, a purposed international language.

Well said!

 

[jasin]

I find it hard to believe that there are only 5,000 signs. Perhaps these are 5000 "official" signs but what about classifiers? You never see that in the dictionaries. Classifiers are awesome because, although they are not official signs, are legitimate method of enrichening your signing by creative use of describing or representing objects. I often find it an unfortunate fact that many interpreters and teachers have problems with these classifiers which makes them rather to use the official signs instead. Sometimes it is a problem because the lectures or meetings become so dry and boring due to the lack of classifiers in the interpretations.

I never said there is only 5000 sign I stated most asl dictionaries I come across include only about that many signs.

 

[Southern]

I have been told that there are between 12,000 to 15,000 signs, classifiers, non manual makers, and mouth morphemes not included. I know over 1,000 signs myself and am in ASL 1 so I am ahead of the class in that respect. The professor told us that we would learn around 300 signs this semester. If they learn 300 signs per semester then that would put me at ASL 4 with the amount of signs I know, that is unless they really pick up the pace in the other semesters. There is still so much I don’t know but the vocab in these books are pretty similar. I want to learn more signs in the way I learned the first 1,000 but I don’t know how or where to accomplish this. I digress though.
The English language has around 150,000 words. I don’t know that anyone can authoritatively give the EXACT number of any language. There are words everyone has never heard of before, just as there are signs people have never seen. English is considered a bastard language per my English teacher who had a masters. She said because it is unlike other languages. For instance Spanish and French. Those languages come from 2 main sources Latin from the Romans, and the original language of the people who were conquered, in the case of the Spanish the Spaniards and the French, Gauls. English has the original language of England, then the Celtic languages, then Latin, language of the Anglos and Saxons and Vikings. Large influences from French and German. Then you spice that with contact countries like Italy, Spain, Russia, and Portugal. Then since the British Empire was the largest and most wide spread empire in the history of the world every conquered country like India, and every colonized land like China, South Africa, America, and Australia, all imparted their words into our language. Words like Raccoon which is native American and Kangaroo which is Australian Aborigine.

 

[HearingSwede]

I wasn't even going to register at this forum but when I read this thread, I just had to dive in! My initial reaction to this whole topic is that it's always hard to compare the size of the vocabulary of one language with that of another. Some languages express differences in meaning by modifying some kind of root word (attaching prefixes or suffixes to it, for instance) whereas others use additional words to modify the meaning of the intended message. How many words (or signs) it takes to convey a message is a reflection of how that particular language relays information, but is not a reflection of its complexity.
As for how many words/signs are in the entire language, English is not a very good basis for comparison as it has an almost ridiculous number of words. I read somewhere that a reasonably well-educated native English-speaker understands some 60 000 words, and regularly uses around 10 000. I'll try to find the correct source for those numbers if anyone is interested.
I took a year of ASL when I was an exchange student in the U.S. six years ago. While I was at the top of my class I am FAR from fluent and really don't know enough say whether or not ASL is a "limited" language, but that was never my experience. I would even say that it would be unlikely for a natural language to be limited in that sense since a language that couldn't meet the needs of its speakers would certainly continue to develop until it did, or else die out.
I think different languages have different kinds of complexity though. For instance, my native language, Swedish, doesn't use the progressive tense (corresponding to the English verb ending -ing) and does perfectly well without it. I use the progressive tense in English all the time without missing it at all in Swedish. We simply express that concept in other ways. Conversely, Swedish makes distinctions between many concepts where English has only one word, such as "peace" (where we distinguish between the meaning of "opposite of war" and "a sense of calm") and "know" (there's a difference between knowing a person and knowing a subject). We also distinguish between a grandparent or aunt/uncle depending on whether they are maternal or paternal.
So, where am I going with this seemingly pointless Swedish lesson? Well, one could easily, based on these examples, say that English is limited compared to Swedish because it uses only one word where Swedish uses several. This would, of course, be untrue, but that is the point I'm trying to make. It is nearly impossible to compare the complexity of different languages, and measuring the size of the vocabulary is probably not the right way to do it. Someone already pointed out that classifiers are absent from most ASL dictionaries and that would be one example of a source of complexity in ASL that is absent from English (and Swedish for that matter).
Okay, I'm sorry if I put anyone to sleep, I just thought I'd weigh in on the subject!

/Christine, Stockholm (Sweden)
(A hearing Swede who's an English/Swedish translator, former ASL student and current student of Swedish Sign Language)

 

[Interpretrator]

It is nearly impossible to compare the complexity of different languages, and measuring the size of the vocabulary is probably not the right way to do it.

Very interesting post, and this part especially I completely agree with.

 

[VamPyroX]

When I was growing up in mainstream school, my interpreters used MMS. Like I said before, it is based on the system of syllables. It's almost like cued speech. So, vocabulary is almost limitless.

For instance... impossible and incredible.

Notice how both words end with "ible"? There's a MMS sign for 'ible' along with 'im' & 'poss' or 'in' & 'cred".

 

[Interpretrator]

When I was growing up in mainstream school, my interpreters used MMS. Like I said before, it is based on the system of syllables.

And is not a natural language, and therefore can't be compared with ASL or English.

 

[VamPyroX]

And is not a natural language, and therefore can't be compared with ASL or English.

What defines a natural language?

 

[Interpretrator]

What defines a natural language?

That's actually a very good question. There isn't really a good definition of "natural language" but examples would be ASL, English, Japanese, and Latin. They can be contrasted with "constructed languages" such as Esperanto or Gestuno, or language/sign systems such as SEE or MMS.

 

[VamPyroX]

That's actually a very good question. There isn't really a good definition of "natural language" but examples would be ASL, English, Japanese, and Latin. They can be contrasted with "constructed languages" such as Esperanto or Gestuno, or language/sign systems such as SEE or MMS.

If we were to follow your definition, then all schools (with deaf students) should use SEE or MMS in order to maintain their English language.

The school system follows standard English. Therefore, sign language should be in English to ensure that the deaf students are getting the full education out of the English system.

If Spanish-speaking students come to our school, they are educated through the English system.

If ASL-signing students come to our school, they should also be educated through the English sign language.

If they want to take foreign language, then they can take ASL as a foreign language option like every other student take French, Spanish, or German as a foreign language option.

 

[Interpretrator]

If we were to follow your definition, then all schools (with deaf students) should use SEE or MMS in order to maintain their English language.

You are extrapolating way too far from what I said. All I was doing was pointing out the difference between a natural language and a sign system.

I completely disagree with you and don't want my comment misinterpreted as supporting your (personal? educated? don't know which) viewpoint on language acquisition.

This is not a flame, this is just a disagreement.

 

[VamPyroX]

You are extrapolating way too far from what I said. All I was doing was pointing out the difference between a natural language and a sign system.

I completely disagree with you and don't want my comment misinterpreted as supporting your (personal? educated? don't know which) viewpoint on language acquisition.

This is not a flame, this is just a disagreement.

I understand. I wasn't trying to say what I thought you intended. I was merely interpreting it from my point of view.

If ASL is considered a language, then it should be kept separate from the actual English system.

 

[shel90]

If we were to follow your definition, then all schools (with deaf students) should use SEE or MMS in order to maintain their English language.

The school system follows standard English. Therefore, sign language should be in English to ensure that the deaf students are getting the full education out of the English system.

If Spanish-speaking students come to our school, they are educated through the English system.

If ASL-signing students come to our school, they should also be educated through the English sign language.

If they want to take foreign language, then they can take ASL as a foreign language option like every other student take French, Spanish, or German as a foreign language option.

The problem is many children enter school with little or a weak language foundation due to not being exposed to language 24/7 during those critical years of language development. To be able to understand SEE, they need a strong foundation of English first due to so many abstract words that r a part of the English language. My 1st graders remember the nouns, adjectives, and verbs so easily but struggle with articles such as for example, the, is, from, for. They need experience with those words for them to have a meaning.

Another problem is that English is meant to be used in the spoken form so Spanish or other language speaking children are getting the natural aspect of English which is through the spoken form. If deaf students must be taught through English then it should be in the spoken form not in the signed form. We already know that the oral-only approach does not work for many deaf children. The problem with SEE is that it is not a language so therefore by teaching children using SEE, they aren't being taught by a real language. The immigrants do so that's puts them at an advantage over deaf students who r taught using a visual code of English.

Besides, it doesn't feel natural to be signing in SEE...too time consuming and the concepts get lost in the translation. Little children will lose interest in the discussion quickly. Even maintaining their attention using ASL is challenging at times cuz they need to keep their eyes on the speaker long enough to get the message and little ones' ability to do that isn't fully developed whether they r deaf or hearing.

Hope this makes sense. If SEE worked for every deaf child, it would be implemented in all deaf programs just like for the oral-only approach. People say TC may be the best. Only problem with TC is that u need to meet each child's communication needs which is impossible to do in a class full of deaf children with different communication needs.

 

[VamPyroX]

The problem is many children enter school with little or a weak language foundation due to not being exposed to language 24/7 during those critical years of language development. To be able to understand SEE, they need a strong foundation of English first due to so many abstract words that r a part of the English language. My 1st graders remember the nouns, adjectives, and verbs so easily but struggle with articles such as for example, the, is, from, for. They need experience with those words for them to have a meaning.

Another problem is that English is meant to be used in the spoken form so Spanish or other language speaking children are getting the natural aspect of English which is through the spoken form. If deaf students must be taught through English then it should be in the spoken form not in the signed form. We already know that the oral-only approach does not work for many deaf children. The problem with SEE is that it is not a language so therefore by teaching children using SEE, they aren't being taught by a real language. The immigrants do so that's puts them at an advantage over deaf students who r taught using a visual code of English.

Besides, it doesn't feel natural to be signing in SEE...too time consuming and the concepts get lost in the translation. Little children will lose interest in the discussion quickly. Even maintaining their attention using ASL is challenging at times cuz they need to keep their eyes on the speaker long enough to get the message and little ones' ability to do that isn't fully developed whether they r deaf or hearing.

Hope this makes sense. If SEE worked for every deaf child, it would be implemented in all deaf programs just like for the oral-only approach. People say TC may be the best. Only problem with TC is that u need to meet each child's communication needs which is impossible to do in a class full of deaf children with different communication needs.

Exactly, you just pointed out that SEE isn't a "language".

That's why I prefer SEE or MMS be used for deaf students learning English. They may not be able to speak it, but they can write and read it. That's certainly better than speaking.

 

[jillio]

Children exposed to SEE make the same errors on a consistent basis that native signers os ASL make in their English writings. Manually coding English does not make it more comprehensible for the visually oriented person. Just because you have invented a sign or a marker to portray an English word or word ending doesn't mean that it makes any sense in the conceptual interpretation. Cognition follows a different pathway for oral/auditory and visual understanding.

 

[jillio]

The problem is many children enter school with little or a weak language foundation due to not being exposed to language 24/7 during those critical years of language development. To be able to understand SEE, they need a strong foundation of English first due to so many abstract words that r a part of the English language. My 1st graders remember the nouns, adjectives, and verbs so easily but struggle with articles such as for example, the, is, from, for. They need experience with those words for them to have a meaning.

Another problem is that English is meant to be used in the spoken form so Spanish or other language speaking children are getting the natural aspect of English which is through the spoken form. If deaf students must be taught through English then it should be in the spoken form not in the signed form. We already know that the oral-only approach does not work for many deaf children. The problem with SEE is that it is not a language so therefore by teaching children using SEE, they aren't being taught by a real language. The immigrants do so that's puts them at an advantage over deaf students who r taught using a visual code of English.

Besides, it doesn't feel natural to be signing in SEE...too time consuming and the concepts get lost in the translation. Little children will lose interest in the discussion quickly. Even maintaining their attention using ASL is challenging at times cuz they need to keep their eyes on the speaker long enough to get the message and little ones' ability to do that isn't fully developed whether they r deaf or hearing.

Hope this makes sense. If SEE worked for every deaf child, it would be implemented in all deaf programs just like for the oral-only approach. People say TC may be the best. Only problem with TC is that u need to meet each child's communication needs which is impossible to do in a class full of deaf children with different communication needs.

***nodding agreement*** Understanding and fluency in English is not dependent upon devising an artificial sign system to make it visual. If the visual cue was all that was needed, it is already available inthe printed form. Fluency in English is dependent upon the deaf child's early language acquisition, in order to have a fluency in an L1 language. That forms the base on which all other language skills are built. If you can't conceptualize in one language, you certainly can't transfer those skills to learning a second language!