4 ms·

Yep, this just sounds like the language is at an early stage of development, still a "pidgin" and on its way to developing into a "creole" and eventually on its

Yep, this just sounds like the language is at an early stage of development, still a "pidgin" and on its way to developing into a "creole" and eventually on its way to developing into a fully versatile language, by which time it will be much like any other sign language. The terminology I am putting in quotation marks here comes from studies of the origin of new spoken languages in communities that mix together people who don't have a common spoken language.[1] [1] http://mufwene.uchicago.edu/pidginCreoleLanguage.html http://mufwene.uchicago.edu/pidginCreoleLanguage.html http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/classes/sum07/myths/creoles.pdf http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/classes/sum07/myths/cr... https://www.uni-due.de/SVE/VARS_PidginsAndCreoles.htm https://www.uni-due.de/SVE/VARS_PidginsAndCreoles.htm

ineedtosleep 12y ago
I'd argue that this isn't a pidgin or creole. Unless the language has had changes due to contact with other sign languages, it stands as its own language.
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  Pidgins are like bridges, though - a common set of symbols to communicate between two otherwise incomprehensible languages. Here, the two languages are (presumably) spoken Arabic, and, to start with, nothing at all.
- duskwuff 12y ago
  Many sign languages take form as a pidgin created through contact between many different forms of "kitchen signing" -- that is, idiosyncratic systems of signing created by deaf individuals and their families. While the languages involved aren't "normal" languages in the sense that the ones involved in typical pidgins/creoles are, the process is believed to be similar.
hawkice 12y ago
I'm actually curious if you could help explain the difference between this and Chinese (not sure if characters or radicals are the appropriate metaphor)? I feel that Chinese has a turtles-most-of-the-way-down writing system. IIRC you tend to understand research finding quite well and can speak/read Chinese.
- tokenadult 12y ago
  To answer your question, Chinese characters still represent SPEECH (not ideas or abstract concepts) and do so in a way that is specific to the particular Chinese (Sinitic) language that one speaks. The long story about this can be found in the books The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy[1] or Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems[2] by the late John DeFrancis or the book Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of Disembodied Meaning[3] by J. Marshall Unger. The book Reading in the Brain: The Science and Evolution of a Human Invention[4] by Stanislas Dehaene is a very good book about reading in general, and has a good cross-cultural perspective. I'll give an example here of how Chinese characters reflect speech more than they reflect meaning-as-such. Many more examples are possible. How you might write the conversation "Does he know how to speak Mandarin? "No, he doesn't." 他會說普通話嗎？他不會。 in Modern Standard Chinese characters contrasts with how you would write "Does he know how to speak Cantonese? "No, he doesn't." 佢識唔識講廣東話？佢唔識。 in the Chinese characters used to write Cantonese. As will readily appear even to readers who don't know Chinese characters, many more words than "Mandarin" and "Cantonese" differ between those sentences in Chinese characters. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Language-Fantasy-John-DeFrancis/dp/0824810686/ http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Language-Fantasy-John-DeFranci... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Visible-Speech-Asian-Interactions-Comparisons/dp/0824812077/ http://www.amazon.com/Visible-Speech-Asian-Interactions-Comp... [3] http://www.amazon.com/Ideogram-Chinese-Characters-Disembodied-Meaning/dp/0824827600/ http://www.amazon.com/Ideogram-Chinese-Characters-Disembodie... [4] http://readinginthebrain.pagesperso-orange.fr/intro.htm http://readinginthebrain.pagesperso-orange.fr/intro.htm
  - vorg 12y ago
    By using "會說...嗎" instead of the equally valid "會不會說" for the question pattern in your Mandarin example, you deliberately made the Mandarin and Cantonese grammars different. And you changed "Cantonese" to "Mandarin" in the example text. I don't know Cantonese but I'd ask if you chose your example to maximize the different Hanzi used in each language also? Using the 會不會-form for both the Mandarin and the Cantonese shows a closer match, as does using "Cantonese" in both examples... 他會說普通話嗎？他不會。 //your Mandarin using 會嗎-form 他會不會說普通話？他不會。 //my Mandarin using 會不會-form 他會不會說廣東話？他不會。 //my Mandarin using 會不會-form and 廣東 instead of 普通佢識唔識講廣東話？佢唔識。 //your Cantonese using 會不會-form ...so I'm guessing there's a one-to-one match between the Hanzi in your Cantonese and complex Mandarin examples, perhaps: 他 => 佢會 => 識不 => 唔說 => 講 Two of those show the same radical i.e. 亻 and 言. There's just as many differences between the complex and simplified Mandarin scripts also, even though much the same sounds are used to speak it both within and outside China... 會 => 会說 => 说廣 => 广東 => 东 So I'd dispute your claim.
xhedley 12y ago
I'm a native English speaker who learned Bahasa Indonesia in 1984 from adults whose native language was Javanese or Sundanese. Bahasa Indonesia was based on Court Malay or Trading Malay as the language of Indonesia after independence from the Netherlands after 1945. Bahasa Indonesia spoken by people over 21 in 1984 had no distinction between nouns and verbs, and was (for a beginner) admirably short of pesky grammatical rules. But my 18 year old Indonesian contemporaries who had spoken Bahasa Indonesia together at school since age 5 used a much more complex vocabulary and grammar. So I can vouch from experience that grammar and vocabulary of new languages change rapidly with time. As a previous poster said, sign languages for the deaf often evolve as new languages (pidgins/creoles). I think it's fascinating seeing how those new languages diverge and converge to 'expected' language behaviour.

ineedtosleep 12y ago

I'd argue that this isn't a pidgin or creole. Unless the language has had changes due to contact with other sign languages, it stands as its own language.

pavel_lishin 12y ago
Pidgins are like bridges, though - a common set of symbols to communicate between two otherwise incomprehensible languages. Here, the two languages are (presumably) spoken Arabic, and, to start with, nothing at all.
duskwuff 12y ago
Many sign languages take form as a pidgin created through contact between many different forms of "kitchen signing" -- that is, idiosyncratic systems of signing created by deaf individuals and their families. While the languages involved aren't "normal" languages in the sense that the ones involved in typical pidgins/creoles are, the process is believed to be similar.

hawkice 12y ago

I'm actually curious if you could help explain the difference between this and Chinese (not sure if characters or radicals are the appropriate metaphor)? I feel that Chinese has a turtles-most-of-the-way-down writing system. IIRC you tend to understand research finding quite well and can speak/read Chinese.

tokenadult 12y ago
To answer your question, Chinese characters still represent SPEECH (not ideas or abstract concepts) and do so in a way that is specific to the particular Chinese (Sinitic) language that one speaks. The long story about this can be found in the books The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy[1] or Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems[2] by the late John DeFrancis or the book Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of Disembodied Meaning[3] by J. Marshall Unger. The book Reading in the Brain: The Science and Evolution of a Human Invention[4] by Stanislas Dehaene is a very good book about reading in general, and has a good cross-cultural perspective. I'll give an example here of how Chinese characters reflect speech more than they reflect meaning-as-such. Many more examples are possible. How you might write the conversation "Does he know how to speak Mandarin? "No, he doesn't." 他會說普通話嗎？他不會。 in Modern Standard Chinese characters contrasts with how you would write "Does he know how to speak Cantonese? "No, he doesn't." 佢識唔識講廣東話？佢唔識。 in the Chinese characters used to write Cantonese. As will readily appear even to readers who don't know Chinese characters, many more words than "Mandarin" and "Cantonese" differ between those sentences in Chinese characters. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Language-Fantasy-John-DeFrancis/dp/0824810686/ http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Language-Fantasy-John-DeFranci... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Visible-Speech-Asian-Interactions-Comparisons/dp/0824812077/ http://www.amazon.com/Visible-Speech-Asian-Interactions-Comp... [3] http://www.amazon.com/Ideogram-Chinese-Characters-Disembodied-Meaning/dp/0824827600/ http://www.amazon.com/Ideogram-Chinese-Characters-Disembodie... [4] http://readinginthebrain.pagesperso-orange.fr/intro.htm http://readinginthebrain.pagesperso-orange.fr/intro.htm
- vorg 12y ago
  By using "會說...嗎" instead of the equally valid "會不會說" for the question pattern in your Mandarin example, you deliberately made the Mandarin and Cantonese grammars different. And you changed "Cantonese" to "Mandarin" in the example text. I don't know Cantonese but I'd ask if you chose your example to maximize the different Hanzi used in each language also? Using the 會不會-form for both the Mandarin and the Cantonese shows a closer match, as does using "Cantonese" in both examples... 他會說普通話嗎？他不會。 //your Mandarin using 會嗎-form 他會不會說普通話？他不會。 //my Mandarin using 會不會-form 他會不會說廣東話？他不會。 //my Mandarin using 會不會-form and 廣東 instead of 普通佢識唔識講廣東話？佢唔識。 //your Cantonese using 會不會-form ...so I'm guessing there's a one-to-one match between the Hanzi in your Cantonese and complex Mandarin examples, perhaps: 他 => 佢會 => 識不 => 唔說 => 講 Two of those show the same radical i.e. 亻 and 言. There's just as many differences between the complex and simplified Mandarin scripts also, even though much the same sounds are used to speak it both within and outside China... 會 => 会說 => 说廣 => 广東 => 东 So I'd dispute your claim.

xhedley 12y ago

I'm a native English speaker who learned Bahasa Indonesia in 1984 from adults whose native language was Javanese or Sundanese. Bahasa Indonesia was based on Court Malay or Trading Malay as the language of Indonesia after independence from the Netherlands after 1945. Bahasa Indonesia spoken by people over 21 in 1984 had no distinction between nouns and verbs, and was (for a beginner) admirably short of pesky grammatical rules. But my 18 year old Indonesian contemporaries who had spoken Bahasa Indonesia together at school since age 5 used a much more complex vocabulary and grammar. So I can vouch from experience that grammar and vocabulary of new languages change rapidly with time. As a previous poster said, sign languages for the deaf often evolve as new languages (pidgins/creoles). I think it's fascinating seeing how those new languages diverge and converge to 'expected' language behaviour.