NationStates Jolt Archive

Once again the Prime Ministerialship of Bazalonia wishes to present a proposal that it sees to be a worthy cause one that the UN should appropriately deal with and one that has been floating around for a long time.

Ladies, Gentlemen, and others of the United Nations General Assembly, we would like to present International Sign Language.


Name: International Sign Language
Category: Education and Creativity
Strength: Educational

BELIEVING that communication is important to modern civilisation,

DISTURBED that those with hearing/speech impediments are further restricted in their ability to communicate due to the lack of a standardised Sign Language,

RECOGNISING differences in culture and speech of various nations and wishing to respect such differences while encouraging communication between different nations

UNDERSTANDING the place of technology in improving communication of speech/hearing impaired persons with non-hearing/speech impaired persons.

SEEING and APPLAUDING nations current efforts for improving the quality of life for hearing and speech impaired persons.

The UN Generaly Assembly hereby

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:

a) 'sign language framework' as the rules of grammar for communicating in a sign language

b) 'word' as a movement or gesture that are used with a sign language framework to convey meaning to others,

c) 'vocabulary' as a recognised organisation of words and the specific idea that they convey,

d) 'verbally-impaired' as any person who is not able to participate effectively in two-way verbal communication due to severe hearing or speech impediment;

2. ESTABLISHES the International Sign Language and Verbal Communication Research Organisation(ISLVCRO), mandated to:

a) create an International Sign Language (ISL), in which the various existing sign languages are to be taken into account, by creating a sign language framework and a core vocabulary for the ISL

b) provide a mechanism for nations to propose additional words or remove current words to or from the ISL core vocabulary,

c) promote international research into technologies that allow the verbally-impaired to participate in two-way verbal communication;

d) not include finger spelling within the ISL core vocabulary as such words will be the responsibility of an appropriate non-UN group

e) include words necessary for facilitation of emergency services such as para-medical, fire and police within the ISL core vocabulary.

3. PROMOTES nations and/or regions to create their own vocabulary that adds upon the ISL core vocabulary using the ISL sign language framework

4. EMPHATICALLY URGES that all verbally-impaired citizens of member nations have easy access to training in the ISL, whether provided for payment or for free

5. STRONGLY URGES member nations to make training in the ISL available at minimal cost to persons who are not verbally-impaired, particularly health care, law enforcement, and emergency service professionals who should be provided such training for free to effectively perform their duties.

Much as we like the idea that this resolution encapsulates, we find ourselves somewhat unwilling to legislate upon the subject. Many if not most nations have their own sign language or languages, and we feel as uncomfortable in encouraging those who are hearing impared to drop their own language and take up instead an International Sign Language as we would be in encouraging their fellow hearing citizens to drop their own language in favour of English.

Much as we like the idea that this resolution encapsulates, we find ourselves somewhat unwilling to legislate upon the subject. Many if not most nations have their own sign language or languages, and we feel as uncomfortable in encouraging those who are hearing impared to drop their own language and take up instead an International Sign Language as we would be in encouraging their fellow hearing citizens to drop their own language in favour of English.

The prevalence of national sign languages is one of the reasons that we decided it necessary for such an actions. People who require use of a sign language are already at a major communication disadvantage being unable to participate in verbal communication, why unnecessarily restrict the communication of these already restricted individuals.

Any individuals who use sign language and travel internationally are at current basically cut of from nearly all forms of communications with their host nation.

However we are also well aware of national issues concepts in a nation may not exist anywhere else. Nations are encouraged to build their own sign language based on the fundamental grammar and core vocabularily, we recognise that nations already have sign language but we believe provisions in this resolution, particularily the promoting of research into technologies such as cochlear implants and such are by far for the betterment of those that require the use of Sign Languages

The prevalence of national sign languages is one of the reasons that we decided it necessary for such an actions. People who require use of a sign language are already at a major communication disadvantage being unable to participate in verbal communication, why unnecessarily restrict the communication of these already restricted individuals.This doesn't make any sense.

A deaf person in the Hack learns Hacker Sign Language(TM). A deaf person in Bazalonia learns Bazalonian Sign Language. They're unable to communicate with each other.

A hearing person in Bazalonia learns English. A hearing person in the Hack learns Warrenish. They're unable to communicate with each other.

How are these two scenerios different? How is the deaf person at a greater disadvantage? This is no different then trying to establish an international spoken language. I fail to see how being deaf is relevent in the slightest.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

This doesn't make any sense.

A deaf person in the Hack learns Hacker Sign Language(TM). A deaf person in Bazalonia learns Bazalonian Sign Language. They're unable to communicate with each other.

A hearing person in Bazalonia learns English. A hearing person in the Hack learns Warrenish. They're unable to communicate with each other.

How are these two scenerios different? How is the deaf person at a greater disadvantage? This is no different then trying to establish an international spoken language. I fail to see how being deaf is relevent in the slightest.

In all of the cultures with which I'm familiar, the verbally-impaired people who have to rely on sign language are only a small minority of the total population and the proportion of the overall population that knows the relevant form of sign-language is almost always a minority too.
Therefore, the chance of verbally-impaired travellers meeting people who know any form of sign-language seems likely to be far lower than the likelihood that speaking & hearing travellers would meet other people who knew spoken languages.
Therefore, unless the proportion of signers who know foreign sign-languages is significantly greater than the proportion of speaking & hearing people who know foreign spoken languages, it seems probable that verbally-impaired people would have a significantly lower chance than verbally-capable people would of finding anybody abroad who could understand them.

I have to agree with The most Glorious Hack. Why establish a international sign language if the rest of the world cannot communicate with each other.

But, If we were to establish an optional (OPTIONAL) international language for the deaf and for the hearing enabled anyone who wanted to could learn it but if you did not want to learn it you didnt have to learn it.

Why establish a international sign language if the rest of the world cannot communicate with each other.

Because spoken languages are intrinsically aural, and the mouth sounds can change based on the history of that group's linguistic evolution. Written language takes that one step further by assigning an aural equivalent to an assortment of written squiggles.

Sign language is essentially visual, not aural. Yes, spelling out words uses the written form of the aural language, but most of the common signs are based on a visual interpretation of actions or objects.

A picture of an apple or a running man transcends language - anyone who sees it knows instantly what it is, whether they know the words for it or not. It makes sense for sign language (semaphoric pictographs) to reflect visual versions of nouns and verbs, and not simply the aural and written linguistic symbology we've learned to associate with them.

Sign language is by its nature an artificial construct which must almost always be taught. (The exception would be the child of deaf parents, who can pick it up organically where it is 'spoken'.) Spoken language is more likely to have been transferred by a more osmotic process, i.e. the learning process of the child. You can speak clearly long before you have been taught the rules constructing the language.

I don't know if this is a good proposal, but a common sign language is a good idea. You have to teach the deaf something. Why not set it up so they can understand anyone speaking the common 'tongue'?

Edited Clause 2c to allow both addition and removal from the ISL Core Vocabulary

But, If we were to establish an optional (OPTIONAL) international language for the deaf and for the hearing enabled anyone who wanted to could learn it but if you did not want to learn it you didnt have to learn it.
*looks at the proposal with a microfying glass*
Um. It is optional.
It is mandatory to allow the impaired to have access to training but not for them to learn it.

We support this concept and have to say that we have been inspired to draft a couple of similar proposals of our own. (obviously not on sign-language!)
Perhaps it would be an idea to extend this to include a standard braille alphabet? Then someone can learn the native's language aurally/orally and therefore able to read buttons on lifts etc.

Clause #4 might need to be changed from "MANDATES" to "STRONGLY URGES", to avoid a clash with the UN Educational Aid Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11663193&postcount=172).

Clause 6?
6. Entrusts nations with the right and responsibility to decide on the structure of their public education systems and the role of private institutions, mandatory, encouraged and prohibited subjects, skills and course elements in educational institutions, and the financing of educational programs, subject to previous UN legislation still in effect
If I ever meet who ever drafted that resolution...*growls*

We of the Holy Church Unchained do in principal agree with the terms of the UN proposal. We personally don't like the bureaucratic monster named UN due to its slowness and its costs. We fear that the new institute will cost lots of breadcrumbs but if there will be an overall value that is worth all the costs we can agree and will vote in favor of the proposal. After reading the old resolution We think that we should repeal the old one first and enhance it further on.

This doesn't make any sense.

A deaf person in the Hack learns Hacker Sign Language(TM). A deaf person in Bazalonia learns Bazalonian Sign Language. They're unable to communicate with each other.

A hearing person in Bazalonia learns English. A hearing person in the Hack learns Warrenish. They're unable to communicate with each other.

How are these two scenerios different? How is the deaf person at a greater disadvantage? This is no different then trying to establish an international spoken language. I fail to see how being deaf is relevent in the slightest.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

We believe that the question of verbal impairment is completely relevant, for several reasons.

The first is that verbally impaired people, as the representative of St Edmundan Antarctic has pointed out, are already at a disadvantage when it comes to communication. They face communications barriers that the general population does not. And the lack of standardization in sign languages heightens those barriers.

The second is a matter of practicality. The potential using population is relatively quite small. That means that the costs and difficulty of installing the core vocabulary would also be relatively quite small.

The third is motivation to learn. We believe that the verbally impaired, already facing severe problems in communicating, would be more likely than the general population to recognize the advantages of the standard core vocabulary and more highly motivated to learn it.

The fourth reason is ease of learning. This would apply when the potential learners already have learned a national sign language. It needs to be understood here that sign languages are not just mirrors of spoken languages. They're completely different languages. (The grammar of American Sign Language, for instance, is considered more like Japanese than English.) It's generally accepted that, once you learn a second language, it's easier to learn a third. You've moved past the linguistic habits of your first language. So teaching the core vocabulary and basic grammar to the already dual-language verbally impaired should be easier than teaching a second language to the general population.

Finally, sign languages already have common linguistic components: gestures. (Finger-spelling is excluded from this effort by the proposal itself.) So you wouldn't encounter some of the problems that an international spoken language would -- for example, accommodating speakers of tonal vs. non-tonal languages.

Having an international spoken language, generally accepted and used, would be marvelous. But there are very serious issues of practicality involved. We believe that, in the case of an international sign language, those issues are much less serious and the endeavor much more do-able.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Clause #4 might need to be changed from "MANDATES" to "STRONGLY URGES", to avoid a clash with the UN Educational Aid Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11663193&postcount=172).

"skills and course elements"

*Change made*

Finally, sign languages already have common linguistic components: gestures. (Finger-spelling is excluded from this effort by the proposal itself.) So you wouldn't encounter some of the problems that an international spoken language would -- for example, accommodating speakers of tonal vs. non-tonal languages.

This is much less true than it would appear to be at first sight. Gestures do differ, sometimes radically, across cultures. An example of such is the gesture associated with agreement. Many regard nodding the head as a "universal" gesture of agreement, but this is in fact not so. There are not a few cultures in which agreement is signalled by a more full-bodied bow (a nod being insultingly non-deferential), or even by shaking the head. As elements of language, therefore, gestures are more prone to misunderstanding and pitfalls of common incomprehension than one would expect.

This is much less true than it would appear to be at first sight. Gestures do differ, sometimes radically, across cultures. An example of such is the gesture associated with agreement. Many regard nodding the head as a "universal" gesture of agreement, but this is in fact not so. There are not a few cultures in which agreement is signalled by a more full-bodied bow (a nod being insultingly non-deferential), or even by shaking the head. As elements of language, therefore, gestures are more prone to misunderstanding and pitfalls of common incomprehension than one would expect.

The representative of Gobbannium is quite correct concerning the sort of gestures we use in everyday life. But a formalized, standardized set of gestures in a sign language vocabulary is a very different matter. They have set, established meanings that are taught, not picked up from the environment.

The point we were making is that all sign languages have a gestural component, where hand position and movement is used to convey meaning. It's a commonality that can be exploited in teaching. That's a significant advantage over trying to devise and teach a common spoken language, where you might be dealing with some learners whose native language uses tone to convey meaning and others whose languages don't, some students whose language uses certain sounds that others don't.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

The attention here to teach a special hand language for all is not practical.. Funding for such could better be used on other methods of providing communications between individuals.. Medical procedures exist today that can for some provide this and they are ever improving these. Also where medical procedures don't exist there have been advances in devices to allow communictions between peoples. So while we spend funds to teach a person to use their hands to tell somebody something we find they lose their hands. Then where are we at?

Here we believe in bringing all citizens to an equal level not taking down one to another lower level. To fix ones hearing and allow them to sit in a class with so called normals and hear what they hear and learn to understand it is better than taking up time trying to bring the normals to learn hand language. As one only has so much time to learn and so few funds to spend on learning issues, adding learning a set standard hand language for the majority so that the minority can be part of them is just not suitable.


Izza Noharya,
Minister of Medicine

We agree that the common sign language idea is the most practical way to establish a form of international communication. Improving international communication is an excellent undertaking for the UN. We strongly support this proposal and encourage the continued suggestions to clarify the language of the legislation and maybe simplify a bit. ?

The attention here to teach a special hand language for all is not practical.. Funding for such could better be used on other methods of providing communications between individuals.. Medical procedures exist today that can for some provide this and they are ever improving these. Also where medical procedures don't exist there have been advances in devices to allow communictions between peoples. So while we spend funds to teach a person to use their hands to tell somebody something we find they lose their hands. Then where are we at?

Here we believe in bringing all citizens to an equal level not taking down one to another lower level. To fix ones hearing and allow them to sit in a class with so called normals and hear what they hear and learn to understand it is better than taking up time trying to bring the normals to learn hand language. As one only has so much time to learn and so few funds to spend on learning issues, adding learning a set standard hand language for the majority so that the minority can be part of them is just not suitable.


Izza Noharya,
Minister of Medicine

This is why this proposal not only deals with the Actual sign language but with clause 2c. I do believe that this proposal is an overall package however it does focus on the sign language aspect.

This is why this proposal not only deals with the Actual sign language but with clause 2c. I do believe that this proposal is an overall package however it does focus on the sign language aspect.

Yes and this is why this is a problem as it deals mainly with creating an ISL and thus stresses funding for that rather than more effective methods of brings the abnormals into a level with normals as far as hearing goes. Figure each letter in section 2C is 1000 in a currency then figure each letter in the rest is also that... 1000.. funding diverted from bringing adnormals nowhere but causing normals to have to learn that they are abnormal and then deal with them. I would rather provide artificial legs to a legless person and teach them to use them and get around than make a slave of others to get them around.. this is doing that for the hearing abnormals.. next it will be seeing, talking, and whatever other handicaps. Thus normals becoming slave to abnormals. Then face a debate over just when it ends who is and who ain't .

Izza Noharya,
Minister of Medicine

Yes and this is why this is a problem as it deals mainly with creating an ISL and thus stresses funding for that rather than more effective methods of brings the abnormals into a level with normals as far as hearing goes. Figure each letter in section 2C is 1000 in a currency then figure each letter in the rest is also that... 1000.. funding diverted from bringing adnormals nowhere but causing normals to have to learn that they are abnormal and then deal with them. I would rather provide artificial legs to a legless person and teach them to use them and get around than make a slave of others to get them around.. this is doing that for the hearing abnormals.. next it will be seeing, talking, and whatever other handicaps. Thus normals becoming slave to abnormals. Then face a debate over just when it ends who is and who ain't .

Izza Noharya,
Minister of Medicine

Perhaps, you could provide some sort of suggestion as how to edit the proposal, however, unlike the circumstances you've mentioned. A person who doesn't have legs can be given artificial legs and then can walk, as to my understanding everyone who has these legs will in the near future walk, however necessarily the same... people who have not the ability to hear or listen from birth may not have the necessary processing capabilities to be able to effectively talk.

Even if such characters showed actual UN/National Funding there would also be private organisations, compare the total implementation costs of ISL UN-wide compared to research required to fund... research into cochlear implants for example by a single group.

I retract my earlier comments; however, I still believe the problem isn't nearly as great as it is being made out to be. I wouldn't oppose this, but I'm rather ambivilant about it, really.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Yes and this is why this is a problem as it deals mainly with creating an ISL and thus stresses funding for that rather than more effective methods of brings the abnormals into a level with normals as far as hearing goes. Figure each letter in section 2C is 1000 in a currency then figure each letter in the rest is also that... 1000.. funding diverted from bringing adnormals nowhere but causing normals to have to learn that they are abnormal and then deal with them. I would rather provide artificial legs to a legless person and teach them to use them and get around than make a slave of others to get them around.. this is doing that for the hearing abnormals.. next it will be seeing, talking, and whatever other handicaps. Thus normals becoming slave to abnormals. Then face a debate over just when it ends who is and who ain't .

Izza Noharya,
Minister of Medicine

Of course the easiest and cheapest method would be to allow them to commit assisted suicide. But some might refuse, so if they're going to be of use then this method is as good as any. If the mouth can not be taught the hands can.

Does anyone else have anything to say?

Should we officially put this up now? Thanks for all comments, constructive critism and contributions by all members.

Submitted!!! (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=sign)

Can I have people to help me with a TG Campaign please?

Nations are encouraged to build their own sign language based on the fundamental grammar and core vocabularily

They already do, those who have official sign languages anyway.

Moreover, many of the "gestures" that exist in various nations are rooted in custom. They are instinctive to a person born there.

This proposal seems unnecessary at best, unfeasible and undesirable at worst.

They already do, those who have official sign languages anyway.

Moreover, many of the "gestures" that exist in various nations are rooted in custom. They are instinctive to a person born there.

This proposal seems unnecessary at best, unfeasible and undesirable at worst.

OOC:

In Australia. ~6,500 people have Auslan, Australia's sign language, as their main language. That's 6,500 people that can't really communicate with around 21 million Australians. Without an international sign language that 6,500 can only really communicate with each other plus those that may just happen to know Auslan.

This proposal is about removing borders to communication while still recognising the individuality of each nations culture. That is why we speak about a core vocabulary, which is what is built upon to allow for at least basic communication to a much wider Audience.

Originally Posted by Bazalonia
Nations are encouraged to build their own sign language based on the fundamental grammar and core vocabularily

They already do, those who have official sign languages anyway.

No, they do not. How can they? The fundamental grammar and core vocabulary would be established following passage of this proposal. They don't exist yet.

Moreover, many of the "gestures" that exist in various nations are rooted in custom. They are instinctive to a person born there.

Wrong. Language is learned behavior. The gestures are not instinctive.

This proposal seems unnecessary at best, unfeasible and undesirable at worst.

To us, the proposal seems both quite workable. And we think helping to improve the communications ability of the verbally impaired is quite desirable.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

OOC:

In Australia. ~6,500 people have Auslan, Australia's sign language, as their main language. That's 6,500 people that can't really communicate with around 21 million Australians.

Sure they can. Ever hear of reading lips?

The representative of Scotchpinestan should really try thinking before he speaks. Those 21 million people of the mythical land of Australia have somehow, magically, become lipreaders?

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Thank you for everyone that has supported this...

but it has failed...

If anyone would like to at a later point in time submit this proposal then feel free to, however... As of now I'm officially washing my hands of it because well, I don't need extra frustration.

Condolences.