Talk:Auslan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deafness and Deaf culture.

For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.
Flag
Portal
 Auslan is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments


some problems with this article:

  • does not mention impact (or potential impact) of video conferencing.
  • does not mention impact of text messaging (SMS).
  • not sure about terminology.. "people who sign in Auslan (perhaps as a first language) or consider themselves part of the Deaf community" is pretty long so i didn't use it.
  • not much on grammar or examples of signs or info for people who want to learn auslan
  • does not discuss much of australia's deaf culture or history
  • do you call the variants "dialects" or "differences" ?

[edit] How many people use Auslan as their main language?

It has been widely cited for some years that there are 16,000 Auslan users. This has been largely unchallenged speculation; there is a lack of reliable data available. Other figures that have been given are 9,500 (Flynn 1985), 7,000 (Power 1987), 10,000 (Johnston 1989), 15,000 (Deaf Society of NSW 1989), 15,400 (Hyde and Power 1991), 15,000 (Ozolins and Bridge 1998), and 5,305 (2001 Australian Census). Latrobe university NIDS even suggest on the website that the figure is 30,000.

The most credible attempt I have seen to determine the real number of people for whom Auslan is their primary language was the 2004 paper by Trevor Johnston (the guy who coined the word "Auslan") in the American Annals of the Deaf (volume 148 no. 5), where he looks at all these estimates and a number of other studies, arriving at a figure of around 6,500 for the year 2001. This also fits well with statistics available in other western countries. If any wikipedians are unable to find the journal in their local library and are interested, I may be able to email a copy (it is 544KB in size) - contact me on my talk page. I think the next edition of the journal will have a number of responses to the paper (and it's worrying claim that Auslan is an endangered language as the size of the community is shrinking).

I suggest we use the 6,500 figure for now unless anyone can justify their claims (another editor replaced 6,500 with the NIDS figure 30,000 - don't believe everything you read on the web!). I would be happy to compromise by giving a range (eg 5,000 - 10,000), but I think figures higher than 10,000 are really unlikely. ntennis 09:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, fair enough, I will accept your better reasoning/better-sourced arguments. If you think a range is justified, you can do it, but don't just on account of me. BTW: If the Auslan speaker-base is shrinking, what is it being replaced with? Is deafness becoming less of a problem? —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 13:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether deafness is a problem or not is entirely a matter of perspective! :) But apparently there are fewer proundly deaf children (the core Auslan-using group) than there was before, due to vaccinations (Rubella in particular) and other medical technologies (eg. cochlear implants), combined with a shift away from specialist deaf schools in favor of mainstream settings, reducing the exposure deaf children have to sign language. So in a sense, the answer to your question is that Auslan is being replaced by English. Time (50 years?) will tell I guess. ntennis 22:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I heard an interesting angle on this today, relating to the fact that the largest cause of deafness in the Auslan signing community is maternal rubella (now virtually eliminated in Australia). Apparently many of these deaf adults born during the rubella epidemics have had deaf children, and some grandchildren, which nobody expected would happen. If deafness is now carried genetically in these populations (who are to some degree endogamous), it could mean that the deaf community here is not necessarily destined to shrink. I didn't know hereditary genes could appear like that! ntennis 16:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'm inclined to be a little sceptical about that—but then I'm not a geneticist. (Regarding describing "deafness" as a problem, I realise it's about perspective, but if it isn't a problem, then why do deaf people get cochlear implants? Perhaps that's just another aspect of the endogamy/distinction of culture, outsiders (losing hearing later in life; children of hearers) who become deaf will unbecome deaf, whereas insiders (children of the Deaf) who become deaf will remain deaf. Something like that?) Thanks! —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 19:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you are on the right track here. Regarding the cultural attachments of deaf and hearing people, it's worth noting that about 95% of the Deaf community in Australia are born to hearing parents. While most hearing parents of deaf children want their kids to be as "hearing" as possible (speaking/lipreading/hearing aids/cochlear implants), and rarely learn Auslan, many of these deaf children don't want those things at all, and identify strongly with Deaf culture, regarding English as their second language — the average English literacy level of deaf high-school graduates in Victoria was grade 5 or 6 level when the study was done about ten years ago. Others want "the best of both worlds", and would argue that that getting a cochlear implant (for example) is about access to social privilegde and opportunity. Thus deafness is a "problem" perhaps in the same way as being an ethnic minority is a "problem", and those deaf people that do want cochlear implants may be comparable to migrants to Australia wanting to learn English. There is a powerful incentive to attempt to assimilate to the dominant culture; sometimes even at the cost of one's "own" culture. I know most people who haven't encountered the deaf community find the cultural framework hard to accept, and rather see deafness as a medical deficit. However, many people who use Auslan as their main language do see themselves very much as members of a linguistic minority with a rich and unique visual culture that is worth preserving.

I'm sorry if any of that sounded like a sermon. Do you think the Auslan article needs more explanation of any of this stuff? ntennis 01:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Not at all: it was very interesting. The Auslan article doesn't stand on it's own, it needs to be read in conjunction with the Deaf culture article, I'd say, so I don't really think it needs to be expanded on here (what I'd rather see is information about the grammar, "phonology" etc. of Auslan, which seems to be lacking on the Internet at all except in broad, hand-wavy terms). But I'm still a bit confused. What proportion of people who are deaf, are also Deaf? And of both groups, what proportions use Auslan? Perhaps the article appears to exaggerate that?
Also, one thing about cochlear implants. During our perceptual psychology lectures at Uni, it was mentioned that people who had been blind since birth but through miracles of modern technology had been given sight were unable to properly comprehend what they say (e.g. they could see a square and a circle as different shapes, but no matter how intelligent they were, if you showed them only one, they could not identify it), and generally preferred to once again lose their sight. Do deaf-since-birth people experience similar difficulties and confusion with hearing with a cochlear implant? (or are people who can benefit from them usually able to have had some limited hearing before, even if it's wildly insufficient to let them understand speech?).
Thanks! (BTW: Are you deaf/Deaf/related (or friends etc.) with any, or do you just know the topic well? if you don't mind.) —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 10:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

OK I will write a reference to Deaf culture into the intro. You are right about the lack of information about the grammar — I've been meaning to expand on this and you've given me a little incentive to do so. In fact there's been very little published on the grammar of Auslan, compared to what's available for most spoken langauges, or ASL and BSL. Linguistic research on sign languages is still in its infancy, and on Auslan even more so — the first dictionary was written less than 20 years ago. I was actually planning a general page on sign language linguistics, but perhaps I should start here first.

Regarding Deaf vs deaf, the simple answer is that Deaf use Auslan and deaf don't; language issues determine cultural affiliations. The core group of Auslan-users are typically born deaf or have lost their hearing at a young age, and have a kind of deafness that prevents them from hearing intelligible speech. They are a small minority of Australians with hearing impairments (most of whom are elderly). Again, figures are hard to come by, but "one in ten Australians have a hearing loss" is a typical statement. From the www.hearingawarenessweek.org.au school kit: Recent studies with Australian Primary Schools have indicated that 1 in every 10 children have a hearing loss of the level likely to impede normal learning, language acquisition and development. By the time the children in your class are ready to start work (approx 15 yrs), 22% of them will have a significant hearing loss. By the time they retire over 90% will have damaged hearing!

I'm not sure if I can answer your third question about cochlear implants with much authority; I'm sure there's research on this somewhere. I believe, as you suggested, that cochlear implants (and hearing aids in general) are more effective for "late-deafened" people. Many people I know who grew up deaf find the sound they hear with assisted hearing devices to be annoying, and prefer to have their full attention available for sight. The way I see it, the person we are has been developing since birth to adapt to our environment. If that enviroment doesn't include sound, we develop differently than if it does. Rather than being "impaired", we just put our energies into different (eg. visual/spatial) areas. You probably know that many Deaf people don't consider themselves disabled, wouldn't want to be hearing if given the choice, and are proud when their children are born deaf, whereas for a hearing adult to lose their hearing is devastating because they've developed a reliance on it.

You might be interested to see a documentary due to screen on SBS early next year called "Welcome 2 my Deaf World". There's a scene where one of the two main characters, who has grown up profoundly deaf without using hearing aids, tries one on. The look on her face probably answers your question better than words could! She describes her immediate experience of hearing sound and (though it didn't make it into the final cut) eventually loses interest in wanting to hear.

As for you final question, I am hearing (you can probably tell from my written English that it's my native language — it's usually pretty easy to pick the ESL features of Deaf English). I work (sometimes) as a sign language interpreter, and my partner and many of my friends are deaf. ntennis 01:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will be looking forward to your additions on Auslan (and sign language) linguistics.
Those statistics seem to require a very generous definition of "significant hearing loss". I've probably got the worst hearing of anyone I know that can hear well-enough without hearing aids or whatever; and I don't think I know many who (obviously) have them. Either that or I just only know people who can hear relatively well! (Which is possible if people who can't hear well aren't provided-for well enough in our education system that they tend to drop out before they get to University...)
That SBS show does sound like it's interesting, except that I'm really likely to forget to watch it. Even if someone tells me ten minutes before a show I want to watch starts, I won't remember to watch it!—let alone a few months ahead of time ;) Do you know if there is/going to be some sort of tape or DVD of it?
Without having "spoken" to (m)any Deaf people or knowing Auslan grammar, it's hard to know what sort of mistakes they're likely to use in English; and anyway, I've come across many an ESL speaker who you can't really tell most of the time when they're writing. Still, I suspected it was your partner or someone close like that.
—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 03:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, also, do Deaf people have names in sign language, or do they always fingerspell written ones? —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 06:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is a DVD, and a schools pack is currently in production so eventually it should be available at libraries etc. Contact me on my talk page if you want more info about the doco. The representation of names is an interesting feature of sign languages and probably worth noting on the Auslan page. When someone introduces themself in Auslan, they fingerspell their names as in written English. After that, names are never used to address someone, and almost never used to refer to someone who is physically present. For simply referring to someone, Auslan uses pronouns (pointing or eye gaze) where English uses names. English has a number of other uses for names (such as getting someone's attention, or the "you're in trouble" register) for which Auslan has other strategies. When people are talked about, however, a name sign will often emerge in the community, which may refer to something physically striking about them (often with little regard for tact!), something they are known for, or may be a play on their 'English' name. Some examples of name signs of people I know translate roughly as SERIOUS, STREAK-OF-COLOR-IN-HAIR, WALRUS (because of their surname "Walsh"), CUED-SPEECH-R (refering to the person's educational background). The meaning of many name signs is often opaque. They are often established in school and persist for life. The person may not like the name (especially the more colorful ones) or they may in some cases not even know their name-sign. Some name-signs are just fingerspelled names (usually very short names), or initials. Name signs belong to a more casual register, and in very formal situations, full names are usually spelled.

It's been useful for me to see what you questions you've had after reading this article, because other casual readers will undoubtably have similar questions. Let me know if you have any articles you want to make sure are accessible to a newbie and I'll have a look over them. Cheers, ntennis 07:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S The long-delayed doco will be on SBS at 8:30pm on September 14. ntennis 23:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I've made a few changes to make this a little more accurate. Adam Schembri.

Thanks Adam! It's really valuable to have your expertise here :) ntennis 23:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auslan as related to other languages

The following passage now appears:

Auslan is related to British Sign Language (BSL) and New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL); the three have descended from the same parent language, and together comprise the BANZSL language family. Auslan has also been influenced by Irish Sign Language (ISL) and more recently has borrowed signs from American Sign Language (ASL).

This changes something I wrote last week, about Auslan not being closely related to ASL. I don't mind what wording is adopted, but I would like to see a statement something along those lines. Above, it is implicit, but not strong enough, in my opinion; it could be thought that the parent language is closely related to ASL. It is a common assumption among people who don't know much about languages and deafness that sign languages in English-speaking countries are related to English and thus to each other. It is fallacious, of course, but not illogical, if one starts from a position of honest ignorance. I write for such readers. What wording would be best? A simple negative statement (as a sentence or clause) would suffice. BrainyBabe 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about some of the recent additions. I agree that it is a common misconception that sign languages are reflections of the regional spoken language that surrounds them; it's up there with the myth that sign language is universal. However, I don't think the lead section of the Auslan article needs to dwell on American Sign Language — and certainly should not make claims about ASL being the "world's largest sign language".
I also find the following statement misleading: "How many people are fluent in it, a separate question from whether it is their native language, is unknown." This exact sentence could be added thruthfully to every single language article, but I'm not sure what the point is here? The lead section has already given a best guess estimate of the size of the signing community — those who use Auslan as their "primary or preferred language" — although the exact number too is of course unknown. The nativeness question is thorny (strictly there are few native signers), but is no different from that of other deaf sign languages. Why refer to nativeness in the lead section without saying anything about it? Why introduce fluency only to say the number of fluent signers is unknown?
I've made some other small changes but hope we can agree about the above before I make any changes to those two sections. ntennis 13:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed your helpful and informative comments in the discussion above, and hope together we can sort this out. It seems to me that there are three, not two, areas to discuss:
1. The intro. I agree with you that the lead section does not need to dwell on ASL, but here it just mentions it. I wasn't aware that the statement re ASL's size was controversial. I don't know any other sign language that has hundreds of thousands of speakers. I guess that I think of it as a point of reference for the discussion of sign languages -- not for the languages themselves, of course, but for an encyclopedic discussion thereof. Anyone who comes browsing the Wikipedia to find out more about SLs, Australian languages, Deaf stuff, etc. is likely to need some points of reference, and in my opinion a comparison to ASL is one-among-many useful starting points.
2. Fluency versus L1 status. You are right, of course, that this applies to many other languages as well -- not least to English itself, see linguistic theorist Braj Kachru if you are interested. I have no wish to go around to all the language articles and change them, as logic would dictate for even-handed treatment! It is just my feeling -- admittedly unbacked by data -- that SLs, because of the non-familial way in which they tend to be learned, exhibit a different ratio of primary users (mother tongue? hand!) to fluent ones. But I may be completely wrong. I just wanted to mention the possibility.
3. You deleted the following from a section further down the article, on Auslan's relationship with English:
There is a natural assumption that English-dominant countries would share a common sign language; this is far from the truth. Auslan, like all true sign languages,
This gets back to the previous point. An encyclopedia is a good place to expose, lay bare, and then demolish "common misconceptions" as you say. Could we find a better wording, or place, to flag up and counter this myth?
So those are my intentions. I feel bereft of concrete suggestions at the moment, alas. What do you think so far? BrainyBabe 18:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments and I think I understand your reasoning (please correct me if I mischaracterise your points). I would still like to remove those two sentences from the lead section and I'll try to explain why. I believe a lead section should be concise. A comparison to ASL may be a useful starting point for North American readers, but wikipedia is global. The lead section already mentions ASL, and has indicated that Auslan is not in the same language family. ASL may have more signers than other SLs, but I don't know of a good source of this claim. I think as with Auslan, estimates of ASL have been (sometimes severly) inflated. One SL with hundreds of thousands of signers is Indo-Pakistani Sign Language. Another difficulty with comparisons of size is the lack of consensus on what constitutes varieties of a single language vs separate languages — eg. BANZSL has been called a single SL.
On your second point, are you using the term "primary users" to mean native signers? If so, you are right that most SL users are not native, unlike spoken languages. Only about 5% of Deaf people in Australia and the US have Deaf parents. However, for the majority of the 6,500 (?) Deaf signers in Australia, Auslan may be considered a "delayed" first language, and English an L2 (even though they encountered it first). Is this what you were getting at? I think it would be great to have a section about this on the sign language page. I guess I've edited a lot of articles on SLs, and am trying to avoid reproducing the same information in each article.
3: I see why you want the article to state more strongly that English-speaking countries don't share a sign language. However, I don't think the assumption that they do is natural (common maybe). Nor is it "far from the truth" (SL varieties in Aus, NZ, UK are related, as are those in US and Canada). I'm also not sure what "true" sign languages (or "false" ones) are. How about something like "It is sometimes wrongly assumed that English-speaking countries share a sign-language." ? ntennis 02:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your clear explanations. 1. IPSL is new to me -- learn something every day! One reason I love WP. Can we agree that ASL is the most widely studied large SL? Re where to draw the line with varieties BANZSL, if a language is a dialect with an army and navy, none of the SLs are going to count! I accept what you say about concision. I still, however, see ASL as one (of several) useful points of reference. Would it be acceptable to keep the point (perhaps changing the wording) and move it down the article? I am running out of steam, even with ever so courteous, asynchronous, globe spanning discussion.
2. By "primary users" I meant those people who either use Auslan more than they do any other language, or who are more fluent in it than any other language. I know what you mean about a delayed L1, and seeing English as an L2. I don't object to repeating information between pages if that makes sense. For example, it would be boring for readers to see the same thing on Auslan and sign language, but very few would look at, let us say, several other Australian languages, or several other SLs, so similar info could be included in each if there is a good reason for it. I.e. limited repetition between parent top-level and daughter example pages, but OK between multiple different daughters. So I would not object if that sentence, about fluent v native users, or a variant thereof, were added to other SL pages (though I have no intention to).
3. "It is sometimes wrongly assumed that English-speaking countries share a sign-language."
That sounds fine to me. We could dress it up a bit, depending on where exactly it fits into the text, e.g. X and Y do, but see also article at ABC... Progress? BrainyBabe 20:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. Can we change: "How many people are fluent in it, a separate question from whether it is their native language, is unknown." to something like "Of those who use Auslan as their main language, only about 5% learned it from their parents, with the rest acquiring it from peers at school or later in life."? I want to avoid muddying things with the concept of fluency. ntennis 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hurrah! The first change is agreed. I have inserted your sentence verbatim, deleting the previous one. What about the other points? I suggest we insert your "It is sometimes wrongly assumed that English-speaking countries share a sign-language." in the "Auslan in relation to English " section. BrainyBabe 09:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead. I also removed the second ASL sentence from the lead, pending its move as discussed above. ntennis 01:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Sentence inserted. It needs a linking phrase to sit better in the para, but I've drawn a blank. Thanks for deleting that weird vandalism. Where should the ASL sentence go? What about in the history section? BrainyBabe 13:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

the end