Talk:British Sign Language

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.

Contents

[edit] ISG/ISL

I'm far from certain this is correct. A recent visit to the deaf centre in Cork confirmed that they refer to their sign language as ISL as well. Perhaps we could consider removing this comment? Marteno 08:27, 27 Oct 2005 (BST)


[edit] BSL & Gaelic

Many thousands of hearing people also use BSL: more people use BSL than speak Gaelic.

This is very ambiguous. Do the references in this article to "Gaelic" refer to Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic or to both collectively? Irish and Scots Gaelic are commonly treated as distinct languages. Also, does this refer to the number of 'Gaelic' speakers throughout Britain and Ireland as a whole, or only in the United Kingdom? Iota 21:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I personally find it offensive that one language minority try and put down another to pull itself up. The Scottish Gaelic language currently has very little official status, despite years of campaigning. A Bill is going to go through the Scottish parliament in the near future, but if the British Deaf Community believes that the Scottish Gaels are getting it "good", they're very wrong. It's true to say that it gets given a lot of money, but this is not spent well, and far more gets spent on the occupation of Iraq each day, than on the language in two/three years.

For this reason, I removed the comment about "Gaelic" as I don't think it is helpful to either the Gaels or the BSL community.


Anonymous contributor,
Strictly speaking the information on Wikipedia is not intended to be either helpful or unhelpful to any cause. I've put the comment back because i think it contains an interesting fact and is not necessarily intended to put another language down. I wish, however, that whoever put the ambiguous term there would explain what Gaelic is intended to mean in this context so it can be replaced with something more precise. Iota 17:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Iota, the statement is certainly not a "fact". It is a commonly held conception by some people, which I have come across elsewhere. Where it originates is not generally known, and I have yet to see reputable statistics to back it up.

Minority language populations are notoriously difficult to calculate, particularly as they can be taken to include great numbers of learners, and the "native speakers" themselves vary in proficiency. Older native speakers of both BSL and forms of Gaelic will even deny being such, due to shame instilled in them from their school days. This is another complication. Also comparing a language which is signed with one that is spoken and written is a case of "apples and oranges". Some people have a knowledge of both -- I'm one of them, and I know others. Where do we fit into that?

Gaelic is sometimes used to refer to the Scottish form alone, which I think is a misleading usage, but is common enough anyway. Even in the case of Scottish Gaelic alone, it is debatable as to whether said statement is actually true.

If Gaelic is taken to include Irish, I think that the figure is almost definitely false, since thousands of people from the Republic live in the UK, many of whom at least have a passing acquaintance with Irish from the school system there. The ambiguity you mention alone is reason enough to remove it until it can be justified.

I definitely think the "fact" was added to the article to argue that BSL is worthy of official status because it has more users than 'Gaelic'. I think BSL should have official status regardless of other minority languages' current position.

p.s. The article also makes no mention of Irish sign language. I don't know how widely used it is in the UK-administered area.


More people use BSL than speak Gaelic.
I've removed the above because its factual accuracy is disputed. Anonymous user, would you consider getting a username so you can sign your messages? It's just that it makes conversation easier. Iota 01:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed dubious talk

The artice had said that ISL was Israeli Sign Language, but no such Wikipedia article exists, and I could find no verification of this, so I removed it. The Irish Sign Language article refers to it as ISL, so I'm gonna trust them on this one... Blackcats 07:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears to exist now... -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes, especially in relation to the estimates of the number of BSL users (the actual figure is not known as there has never, to my knowledge, been a specific study) and to the discussion of regional variation in BSL. I've removed the comments about 'accent' as this is not an accurate description of the lexical variation in BSL (i.e., the differences between different regions appear to reflect variation in vocabulary items rather than in the 'pronunciation' of the same signs). Adam Schembri, UCL.

[edit] Learning BSL Section

As from 2006, CACDP will offer a number of new BSL courses, including a (non-NVQ) certificated Level III course.

Should the article be amended to reflect this?

Beth78 19:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Although working at the same level, the Level III and the NVQ 3 courses' structure differ from each other. I have updated the Learning BSL Section to reflect the two different courses for that level as well as added links to the NVQ article. Hope you approve. --Dave Gedny 13:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W.....

I am hoping that some reader of this page may be able to find support or a reference for the use of the "wanker" gesture - to offset the claim that the image should be removed from wanker made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanker (2nd nomination) Jooler 12:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry ... it's irrelevant to BSL, much as a "thumbs up" gesture is. Regardless of whether or not there is an overlap with BSL here, it can not be used as a basis for keeping the article in question or deleting it ... and yes I realise that the comment is 8 months old :) Angelstorm 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How we can develop this article

The ASL article shits on the BSL article. The sheer disparity in the volume of text makes BSL look like a homeless orphan sitting on the wintery steps of a dukes house awaiting death or scraps of duck at a Christmas feast. 'Please sir a leg of chicken or brussel sprout 'tis awful cold' 'Away with the crighton. It is the work house or the embrace of the reaper for you.' 'But sir am i not a man?' etc etc if you see my point. So how do we bulk up BSL? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.130.77 (talk) 17:50, August 20, 2007 (UTC)


The Deaf Project has created a template that suggests some good ideas. I plan to create a Linguistics Section to this article which we can all develop. Anyone else want to tackle one of the other sections suggested in the template? --Dave Gedny 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind helping to improve the article. As I am currently studying BSL, I have access to various material concerned with the language, and should be able to help with things linked to grammar and structure etc. Also know some about the history of the language and how it developed from using the hands as a counting system. Will dig out my old notes and see what I can put together.--NeilEvans 23:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amount of deaf people

The opening quote of "(published estimates range from 30,000 to 70,000 but it is likely that the lower figures are more accurate)" is ridiculous. If published estimates vary, then on what source is the writer basing their assertion that the lower figure is more accurate?? You can't just guess at this stuff. VonBlade 21:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, so I've removed it. If it has been published estimates of between 30,000 to 70,000 people, than that is what should be stated in the article, unless another source can be procided that states otherwise.--NeilEvans 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)