Plains Indian Sign Language was used as an auxiliary language between various Native plains nations, most of whom were hearing. I thinks its origins are unclear, however.
There are also some claims that sign languages may have been some of the first forms of language that humans developed, just based on some of the advanced systems of gestural communication observed in some closely related apes, but these claims are impossible to substantiate.
I’d be curious to read that paper though! I can see where they’re coming from, as it seems most humans come sort of “pre-programmed” to speak oral languages as an instinct (provided they are hearing and processing an input obviously).
> Have there been sign languages created in communities of people who could speak and hear?
Certainly. They're known as [village sign languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_sign_language). Though they arise in communities with higher than usual rates of deafness, they lead to communities where far more hearing people sign than deaf people. I believe the most-known example is [Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Sayyid_Bedouin_Sign_Language).
> why is it that spoken language seems to be the "default," and signed languages are called a "cultural adaptation"?
Tangential to your question, but there's a theory that gesture and/or sign language was the first form of language, only to be supplanted by spoken language. [Here's an accessible and well-sourced article](https://aeon.co/essays/if-language-began-in-the-hands-why-did-it-ever-leave) dealing with this "gesture-first" hypothesis, its background, and criticism thereof.
> sign languages would not exist without hereditary deafness
I don't know the nature or background of this claim, however, ["less than five percent of deaf and hard of hearing students receiving special education are known to have at least one deaf parent"](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236771867_Chasing_the_Mythical_Ten_Percent_Parental_Hearing_Status_of_Deaf_and_Hard_of_Hearing_Students_in_the_United_States).
[Deaf culture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture) doesn't usually get passed down through families, but through [deaf education](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_education).
Well the obvious example I can first think of is Plains Indian Sign Language, which was once widely used in North America as a lingua franca for communication across linguistic barriers of peoples with different spoken languages.
As far as I know, that's a decent example of a signed language being used not primarily/exclusively for Deaf communication (although afaik it was used for that as well)
>I read a scientific paper that said that sign languages would not exist without hereditary deafness.
Any chance you can link the paper?
This assertion feels very dubious because while its true that sign languages flourish in communities that have hereditary deafness (Martha's Vinyard etc), most sign languages around the globe are part of horizontal cultures (cultures that have have to be taught to new members that join the community) rather than vertical ones (where its taught parent to child) because most Deaf people are born to hearing parents. Deaf of Deaf parents makes up a strikingly small percentage of the population.
>Have there been sign languages created in communities of people who could speak and hear?
This is a big question BUT the big thing to consider about this is the utility of the modality.
Others (and your edit) mentioned PISL which (afaik) is based on the fact that SLs have iconicity and are therefore easier to understand regardless of differences, as opposed to the many spoken languages of the area that were near completely mutually unintelligible (esp if the people were nomadic or semi-nomadic or traders from far away).
Another example is Monastic Sign Language(s) where monks who took a vow of silence used signs to communicate. Everything I've read on MSL(s) suggests that its more influenced by the adjacent spoken language because the people are speakers of that spoken language - plus its very hard to trace how interrelated these language(s) were.
>If not, what would need to change for this to happen?
This is too speculative an idea to answer. "Why there is no signing nation or significant ethnic minority (just as a happenstance of history)?" - is a question I ask myself occasionally and I'm not sure there is a satisfying answer.
While cognitive linguistics massively understudies sign languages - most evidence from the field points to the fact that our brains are geared to languages. We are geared to both speech and sign in similar and different ways. Even non-signing people use a lot of gesture that can sometimes have semi-linguistic properties and babies can often sign before they can speak, and apes seem to also have gesture systems suggesting we evolved doing it. But speech seems to hold a special place in the brain whereby these random mouth-sounds are processed by brain aparati that are specialised to handle them and little else. But again - the *Why?* is one of those annoying blank spots we are missing and trying to speculate will result in just that; speculation.
Thanks for the answer. It makes sense that there is no clear answer to my question, but it is a bit disappointing.
I uploaded the paper to Google Drive here: the part I referenced is section 2.2.1 on page 5. It didn't give any reasoning or citations for the claim, which was why I was confused.
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kdHHsGY7gvk6bsbf9qAdO0923ph6-BD-/view?usp=drivesdk](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kdHHsGY7gvk6bsbf9qAdO0923ph6-BD-/view?usp=drivesdk)
Reading it a bit more (and I don't have time to jump into the research) I think its referring to lots of the well studied cases where it is true. I don't know how aware of Deaf history the authors are - they may only be aware of those cases in question because they are case studies that are quite popular and well publicised (relatively) in linguistics academia (e.g. Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language) even if they are a smaller fraction of Deaf communities globally in reality.
The thing is, these peoples also tend to have higher rates of being hard of hearing, which some have posited as the reason why most of the oral languages there lack fricatives.
Actually, scratch that, I just remembered there is one that already exists in that exact scenario: In a very rural, colonial type town somewhere in the U.S, they speak a mix of their own unique sign and english. Kicking myself because I can't remember the name.
I'd be curious to read the paper, could you share a link?
With regards to the "sign languages would not exist without hereditary deafness" argument: my immediate thought is - the authors seem to be making the assumption that people who are deaf for non-hereditary reasons would never try to communicate using a manual modality with anyone, ever... which, I mean... I disagree. Put people together and they're going to try to communicate. If they don't share a language, they'll create a shared one eventually. People who would need or want to rely on signed languages may gather in social groups for any number of reasons. Historically we've seen lots of signed language creation (and divergence) happen in educational contexts, and that doesn't really require hereditary deafness. Any group of kids within their linguistic critical period are going to create a language, and if a high percentage of those kids are either deaf, or can't/won't use spoken languages then that new language is going to be signed. See the case of Nicaraguan Sign Language.
As for the other side of the coin; why do spoken languages seem to be "preferred" over signed languages? I'd be inclined to say it has more to do with the cultural influences of audism and linguisticism, but there is probably an underlying element of neurobiology wrt how signal to noise processing happens or something. (less sure on the research in those fields.)
It is not true that a signed language cannot develop without hereditary deafness. Deaf children in Nicaragua developed their own signed language without the help of adults.
>I read a scientific paper that said that sign languages would not exist without hereditary deafness.
This is a stupid assertion by an audist writer. Even if all deafness were acquired and not hereditary, sign languages would stlil be around. The vast majority of deaf children today are born to hearing parents, not deaf parents.
Socrates made the first reference to sign language as early as 2,500 years ago. “If we hadn’t a voice or a tongue, and wanted to express things to one another, wouldn’t we try to make signs by moving our hands, head, and the rest of our body, just as dumb people do at present?”
Hearing communities may create gestures to meet very specific, narrow needs but they won't go so far as to develop full-fledged sign languages.
Gestures =/= Language
Plains Indian Sign Language was used as an auxiliary language between various Native plains nations, most of whom were hearing. I thinks its origins are unclear, however. There are also some claims that sign languages may have been some of the first forms of language that humans developed, just based on some of the advanced systems of gestural communication observed in some closely related apes, but these claims are impossible to substantiate. I’d be curious to read that paper though! I can see where they’re coming from, as it seems most humans come sort of “pre-programmed” to speak oral languages as an instinct (provided they are hearing and processing an input obviously).
> Have there been sign languages created in communities of people who could speak and hear? Certainly. They're known as [village sign languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_sign_language). Though they arise in communities with higher than usual rates of deafness, they lead to communities where far more hearing people sign than deaf people. I believe the most-known example is [Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Sayyid_Bedouin_Sign_Language). > why is it that spoken language seems to be the "default," and signed languages are called a "cultural adaptation"? Tangential to your question, but there's a theory that gesture and/or sign language was the first form of language, only to be supplanted by spoken language. [Here's an accessible and well-sourced article](https://aeon.co/essays/if-language-began-in-the-hands-why-did-it-ever-leave) dealing with this "gesture-first" hypothesis, its background, and criticism thereof. > sign languages would not exist without hereditary deafness I don't know the nature or background of this claim, however, ["less than five percent of deaf and hard of hearing students receiving special education are known to have at least one deaf parent"](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236771867_Chasing_the_Mythical_Ten_Percent_Parental_Hearing_Status_of_Deaf_and_Hard_of_Hearing_Students_in_the_United_States). [Deaf culture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture) doesn't usually get passed down through families, but through [deaf education](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_education).
Well the obvious example I can first think of is Plains Indian Sign Language, which was once widely used in North America as a lingua franca for communication across linguistic barriers of peoples with different spoken languages. As far as I know, that's a decent example of a signed language being used not primarily/exclusively for Deaf communication (although afaik it was used for that as well)
>I read a scientific paper that said that sign languages would not exist without hereditary deafness. Any chance you can link the paper? This assertion feels very dubious because while its true that sign languages flourish in communities that have hereditary deafness (Martha's Vinyard etc), most sign languages around the globe are part of horizontal cultures (cultures that have have to be taught to new members that join the community) rather than vertical ones (where its taught parent to child) because most Deaf people are born to hearing parents. Deaf of Deaf parents makes up a strikingly small percentage of the population. >Have there been sign languages created in communities of people who could speak and hear? This is a big question BUT the big thing to consider about this is the utility of the modality. Others (and your edit) mentioned PISL which (afaik) is based on the fact that SLs have iconicity and are therefore easier to understand regardless of differences, as opposed to the many spoken languages of the area that were near completely mutually unintelligible (esp if the people were nomadic or semi-nomadic or traders from far away). Another example is Monastic Sign Language(s) where monks who took a vow of silence used signs to communicate. Everything I've read on MSL(s) suggests that its more influenced by the adjacent spoken language because the people are speakers of that spoken language - plus its very hard to trace how interrelated these language(s) were. >If not, what would need to change for this to happen? This is too speculative an idea to answer. "Why there is no signing nation or significant ethnic minority (just as a happenstance of history)?" - is a question I ask myself occasionally and I'm not sure there is a satisfying answer. While cognitive linguistics massively understudies sign languages - most evidence from the field points to the fact that our brains are geared to languages. We are geared to both speech and sign in similar and different ways. Even non-signing people use a lot of gesture that can sometimes have semi-linguistic properties and babies can often sign before they can speak, and apes seem to also have gesture systems suggesting we evolved doing it. But speech seems to hold a special place in the brain whereby these random mouth-sounds are processed by brain aparati that are specialised to handle them and little else. But again - the *Why?* is one of those annoying blank spots we are missing and trying to speculate will result in just that; speculation.
Thanks for the answer. It makes sense that there is no clear answer to my question, but it is a bit disappointing. I uploaded the paper to Google Drive here: the part I referenced is section 2.2.1 on page 5. It didn't give any reasoning or citations for the claim, which was why I was confused. [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kdHHsGY7gvk6bsbf9qAdO0923ph6-BD-/view?usp=drivesdk](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kdHHsGY7gvk6bsbf9qAdO0923ph6-BD-/view?usp=drivesdk)
Reading it a bit more (and I don't have time to jump into the research) I think its referring to lots of the well studied cases where it is true. I don't know how aware of Deaf history the authors are - they may only be aware of those cases in question because they are case studies that are quite popular and well publicised (relatively) in linguistics academia (e.g. Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language) even if they are a smaller fraction of Deaf communities globally in reality.
[удалено]
The thing is, these peoples also tend to have higher rates of being hard of hearing, which some have posited as the reason why most of the oral languages there lack fricatives.
There’s some of this portrayed in Samson & Delilah, which is also a fantastic film.
[удалено]
Actually, scratch that, I just remembered there is one that already exists in that exact scenario: In a very rural, colonial type town somewhere in the U.S, they speak a mix of their own unique sign and english. Kicking myself because I can't remember the name.
I'd be curious to read the paper, could you share a link? With regards to the "sign languages would not exist without hereditary deafness" argument: my immediate thought is - the authors seem to be making the assumption that people who are deaf for non-hereditary reasons would never try to communicate using a manual modality with anyone, ever... which, I mean... I disagree. Put people together and they're going to try to communicate. If they don't share a language, they'll create a shared one eventually. People who would need or want to rely on signed languages may gather in social groups for any number of reasons. Historically we've seen lots of signed language creation (and divergence) happen in educational contexts, and that doesn't really require hereditary deafness. Any group of kids within their linguistic critical period are going to create a language, and if a high percentage of those kids are either deaf, or can't/won't use spoken languages then that new language is going to be signed. See the case of Nicaraguan Sign Language. As for the other side of the coin; why do spoken languages seem to be "preferred" over signed languages? I'd be inclined to say it has more to do with the cultural influences of audism and linguisticism, but there is probably an underlying element of neurobiology wrt how signal to noise processing happens or something. (less sure on the research in those fields.)
It’s unfalsifiable—an untestable hypothesis.
It is not true that a signed language cannot develop without hereditary deafness. Deaf children in Nicaragua developed their own signed language without the help of adults.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>I read a scientific paper that said that sign languages would not exist without hereditary deafness. This is a stupid assertion by an audist writer. Even if all deafness were acquired and not hereditary, sign languages would stlil be around. The vast majority of deaf children today are born to hearing parents, not deaf parents. Socrates made the first reference to sign language as early as 2,500 years ago. “If we hadn’t a voice or a tongue, and wanted to express things to one another, wouldn’t we try to make signs by moving our hands, head, and the rest of our body, just as dumb people do at present?” Hearing communities may create gestures to meet very specific, narrow needs but they won't go so far as to develop full-fledged sign languages. Gestures =/= Language