Talk:Manual alphabet

the link you have to the "deaf blind alphabet w/ graphics for the sighted" is actually the fingerspelling alphabet for british sign language (BSL). Although *some* deaf-blind individuals ask their interpreters to use this in the united states, this occurs predominantly in the northern part of the east coast and parts of Eastern Canada. In the US, the ASL fingerspelling alphabet is used, with the handshapes signed into the palm of the deaf-blind individual, by both interpreters, and deaf-blind-to-deaf-blind.

Seattle is coloquially known as "deaf-blind mecca" -people move here from all over the world. The main reasons for this have to do with access and independance-a deaf-blind person can ride the bus here without anyone needing to accompany them (this involves a system of colour-coded cards, braille, and well-trained busdrivers.) In addition, all the interpreter training programs here have a strong emphasis on learning not only how to interpret for the deaf, but also specifically how to interpret for deaf-blind individuals. As a result, there is a large, well-trained group of professional interpreters here who are deaf-blind saavy, and a large, active, and diverse deaf-blind community has been able to grow and thrive here. In all cases, the system used for fingerspelling is the ASL (American Sign Language) handshapes signed into the palm of the deaf-blind individual you are conversing with. Just thought you'd want to know. -Thanks, -a certified interpreter. RID: CI

Cued Speech
I've removed Cued Speech from the list because it isn't a fingerspelled alphabet used to spell words, but rather a system of representing syllables and entire words. Actually it's more complex than that, but it functions in a vastly different way than a manual alphabet.


 * I originally included Cued Speech in the "see also" because it's compariable to a manual alphabet, although with phonemes instead of letters. I think it would be valuable to people reading about manual alphabets to also learn about cued speech if the confusion could be avoided. Rather than put back the "See also", I've put in a paragraph comparing the two. And input on the differences would be appreciated, so feel free to edit it futher. Thanks --Pengo 08:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Cued Speech is an orphan right now, isn't it. I think it creates an ambiguous sense of what a manual alphabet's function is when presented as a significant subparagraph in this article.  It seems to me we should improve the Cued Speech article and include the discussion there instead of here on the Manual Alphabet page. What you've written is interesting and it merits discussion, but if you compare it to the article on Cued Speech, it's of almost equal length and nearly as comprehensive about CS on the Manual Alphabet article as the Cued Speech articles is in it's entirety.  Another thing is that you've written that fingerspelling is rarely used by itself. But in the second paragraph (above) of this talk page, an interpreter tells use that fingerspelling into the palms of deaf-blind people is used in "all" cases.  That's my experience, too. I have two deaf-blind friends who communicate that way and one who uses ASL, so I think that statement leads people far afield.  We should give Cued Speech it rightful place here on Wiki, but I think we're overreaching. It will appear as though you have an "agenda" considering that there is a great deal of controversy in Deaf Education over the use of Cued Speech.  What do you think of developing the Cued Speech article? I've got it on my watchlist along with practically every other article that concerns the deaf.  I'd be happy to collaborate. I think you should remove this edit for now and let us attack the Cued Speech article rather than try to sprinkle "the gospel" of CS at random in order to get its' story across.  Ray Foster 09:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't make any deletions to the article. There is no reason both the manual alphabet page and cued speech page can't be both built up. In no way have I promoted the use of cued speech in the article, and I'm sorry you see it that way. Personally I use Auslan on a daily basis, while I have never learnt cued speech. But I do know it exists, and I see no reason why cued speech should not be mentioned as a point of comparison on the manual alphabet page, as they have many points of similiarity.
 * I have already changed a "see also" into a paragraph to clarify (justify?) why I would have it there in the first place, and now you seem to be asking for it to be put back to a "see also". If you wish to expand or clarify on the article, by all means go ahead. If you want to write about why cued speech is not a manual alphabet, then write it on the Cued speech article as well. But please do not delete. The Manual alphabet article is certainly not so long as to require moving anything anywhere else. Again, please feel free to clarify and extend the article, but don't make deletions based only on one point of view. I'd rather not get involved in mediation. --Pengo 06:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Pengo, I appreciate your feedback. I'd perfer not to edit your entry. On further reflection I'd have to concede the point you've made as it regards the different way in which CS signals the alphabet.  However, there is still a somewhat nagging problem with the entry you've made.  You've said that fingerspelling is rarely used by itself. Yet almost the entire population of deaf-blind people in the United States uses the manual alphabet exclusively in communication. And, the Spanish manual alphabet, which is the one-handed manual alphabet used by the American deaf community, is used in practically every instance of communication, sometimes to spell a word and sometimes to initialize a sign. Example: "toilet" is signed with the letter "T", "restroom" with the letter "R", "library" the letter "L", "emergency" the letter "e" and so forth. To say the manual alphabet is "rarely used by itself" is not correct.  Auslan and BSL, I'm guessing, may not have this feature. I don't know. I've only seen Auslan signed on a single occassion. But I absolutely do know that ASL does and that I use it daily.   I think you should modify your entry to correct this.  Ray Foster 18:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merging with 'fingerspelling'
I think the topics 'manual alphabet' and 'fingerspelling' are really the same topic. Why don't we merge them? Also, I will add info about other manual alphabets (eg. indonesian, korean, etc) and an image soon (when I have time). -- ntennis 02:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The two topics are seperate. Merging 'manual alphabet' (a noun phrase) and 'fingerspelling' {a verb} would be like merging 'running' with 'legs' or 'airplane' and 'flight'. They are very similar topics but each has its own bailiwick; therefore, the two should be in sperate articles. Qaz

I disagree. A better comparison is merging "communicating in sign language" with "sign language". One only occurs with the other (making them the same topic), unlike legs and running or airplane and flight. I haven't added to these articles because I haven't been able to see the topics as seperate. Perhaps you could explain to me in more detail what kind of content you see should be placed in each article? ntennis 02:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No response after several months, so I will go ahead and merge the pages. I want to move ahead with this topic. If there's any lingering doubt, here's a quote from the "father" of sign language linguistics, William Stokoe: "There is a third way for language to be presented to sight — different both from the changing appearance of a speaker’s face and from the combinations of the elements making up signs. This third way is usually known as fingerspelling, but it has also been called manual English, dactylology, the manual alphabet, and chirology. (Stokoe, William C. 'The Study and Use of Sign Language', Sign Language Studies - Volume 1, Number 4, Summer 2001, pp. 369-406. Gallaudet University Press)"

Based on Stokoe's assessment and google, I'll merge this page to fingerspelling (the more common term) rather than the other way around, but this can of course be changed later if desired. ntennis 01:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)