UK United Kingdom

Spoken and signed language not so different

Research has shown that people without any familiarity with American Sign Language (ASL) can quickly recognise its key structures to identify signed symbols.

However, participants could not discern between equally complex gestures that didn’t conform to ASL structures.

From this, researchers concluded that people can extend linguistic knowledge of spoken knowledge to signed.

Read more at Northeastern University College of Science

Join the conversation

3 Comments sorted by

  1. Kevin Bain


    Is this a joke? A reference to a press release from an American University about American Sign Language, which is not used in Australia - reportedly Makaton and Auslan are preferred languages here. Or is it a preview of the Ignoble Prize? No need - we have plenty of talent right here in Oz.

    If you had respect for your readers and editorial standards on a par with your media peers - many Conversation articles are replete with spelling and grammatical mistakes - you would toss back this PR offering and demand a little bit of work to identify a connection to Australian research or local relevance. What a confusion of purposes the Conversation now presents.

    1. Lynne Newington


      In reply to Kevin Bain

      I'm one of those who have often made spelling and grammatical mistakes.
      Some times the fingers just race ahead of the mind, [or visa versa] and the Post comment is clicked before you realise it,TheConversation can't be blamed for that and I apologise for mine.
      As far as sign language, I have found the more you have empathy the more astute your mind becomes, which seems to bring the connection of understanding closer.
      The same with dealing with others of a different language.

    2. Kevin Bain


      In reply to Lynne Newington

      Lynne, I have no idea why you are apologising. Are you owning up to being the author of this piece - I did not accuse this piece of spelling and grammar mistakes. I make mistakes too - author mistakes are not the point when the Conversation employs many editors who don't do their job; the work ethic seems to be "fill this space". No wonder the PR sausage machine produces sloppy, pro forma junk like this which makes no attempt to connect with its readers. It's all about self-promotion rather than knowledge distribution.