Your question implies that you believe that sign languages are signed versions of spoken languages. This is not correct. Sign languages are completely independent languages, and are not tied to any spoken language.
There are many sign languages used all over the world. Often sign languages are named for the nation that they are used, but not always. ASL (American Sign Language), for example, is used in both the U.S. and Canada.
(I hesitate to call sign systems like Signed English sign languages, since English is actually the language, and Signed English is simply another way of representing that language.)
2006-10-09 09:50:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by drshorty 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sign language is most definitely not universal. For instance, British Sign Language and American Sign Language are both very different. Each spanish-speaking country has its own sign language!
2016-03-28 02:30:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not necessarily. There are a number of different signed languages. AMESLAN is one of the most common and that goes across languages easier than others. Signed English, Signed Spanish and so forth don't go across language barriers as well.
2006-10-09 02:44:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by Buzz s 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. And there are different forms of English sign language.
2006-10-09 01:31:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by RB 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Contrary to popular belief, sign language is not universal. Wherever communities of deaf people exist, sign languages develop, but as with spoken languages, these vary from region to region
2006-10-09 01:40:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by jrsgurl62 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
No and how stupid is that.. what an opportunity to get a group of people from all over the world to communicate without any language barriers.
2006-10-09 01:43:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by oneblondepilgrim 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. It's not even the same in America and Britain.
2006-10-09 01:31:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes
2006-10-09 01:32:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by smalltd28 4
·
0⤊
1⤋