3 ms·

I wouldn't call myself a linguist, but I've spent 3 or so years studying it at a university -- here's my take (after a relatively quick skim of the article and

I wouldn't call myself a linguist, but I've spent 3 or so years studying it at a university -- here's my take (after a relatively quick skim of the article and video): The language hasn't evolved enough to have smaller divisible units. The use of the language, IMO, seems to be simplistic enough so that complex grammatical particles are needed. They probably have particles for simple particles like "that", "and", "the" or "this". A decent test would be to ask the ABSL speakers to create sentences in complex time-space situations. > Is there a corresponding concept of "phonemes" into which words in other sign languages can be decomposed into? From my limited experience, I don't think signs can be divisible like phonemes. There are definitely morphemes[1], however. > And is ABSL already "mature" i.e. native language of some babies, or is it still in some sort of "pidgin" stage? Maybe it will become more "normalised" as time goes by. It depends on what "mature" means -- and I also wouldn't consider it a pidgin. It's likely it's own language. If by "mature" one means that it's ready for both simplified transactions (i.e. S1: I want that apple. S2: Apple for a carrot? S1: OK) and relatively complex interactions (see the first interaction in the video of the OP), the language already accomplishes that. I would say that it's already mature. The language will surely evolve as time goes on, especially once the "speakers" of the language get more connected. One big reason for ABSL's lack of "standardization" is probably due to the lack of interaction with different types of speakers -- I assume this is the case with rural areas such as theirs. Only then would speakers really analyze their speaking patterns and mold it into a way where they all understand each other. I'm just typing this quickly at work, so any corrections are welcome. [1] http://www.handspeak.com/study/library/?byte=m&ID=119 http://www.handspeak.com/study/library/?byte=m&ID=119

chch 12y ago
I have no specialty in signed language linguistics, but I would say that perhaps Location/Handshape/Movement could be considered similar to phonemes, or at least similar to subconcepts like 'place of articulation'. Similar to spoken languages, the individual sounds/shapes may or may not mean something on their own, but they tend to be regular enough to be able to be described in a writing system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokoe_notation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokoe_notation (note that Stokoe notation is described as a 'phonemic script' here).

chch 12y ago

I have no specialty in signed language linguistics, but I would say that perhaps Location/Handshape/Movement could be considered similar to phonemes, or at least similar to subconcepts like 'place of articulation'. Similar to spoken languages, the individual sounds/shapes may or may not mean something on their own, but they tend to be regular enough to be able to be described in a writing system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokoe_notation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokoe_notation (note that Stokoe notation is described as a 'phonemic script' here).