Introduction

The field of linguistics has made significant progress in understanding sign languages like American Sign Language (ASL). Since the post-World War II period, academics have been working to establish sign languages as natural languages with their own unique grammatical structures. In this article, we delve into some of the ongoing debates and open questions in academia concerning ASL.

Debate on Aspects of Sign Language Structure

In the early post-war period, much of the academic work on ASL was focused on proving that sign languages are valid and structured languages, comparable to spoken languages in terms of complexity and formal structure. Linguists were primarily interested in demonstrating that sign languages have all the essential components of a natural language, such as syntax, morphology, and semantics, though in a different form. This endeavor is now largely settled, and current research delves into more specific aspects of sign languages and their grammars.

More recently, researchers have explored linguistic phenomena unique to sign languages. With two hands as articulators and one brain, the complexity of sign language creation presents unique challenges. Studies have investigated how signers use this dual articulation to convey complex messages.

The challenge of accurately representing ASL in written form is another area of debate. Writing ASL with sufficient fidelity to convey the intended message is not straightforward. For example, the assertion that there is no one-to-one equivalence of meaning between English and ASL highlights the difficulty of accurately translating sign languages into written form. Even with tools like Stokoe’s parameters, encoding individual signs and indicating how these signs move through space to create specific meanings remains a significant challenge.

Debate on the Nature of ASL

Another area of academic debate revolves around the true nature of ASL. The significant influence of English and signed English, particularly in Deaf educational programs, has led to contentious discussions about whether ASL has been overly influenced by these languages.

On one side of the debate, some scholars argue that the influence of English and signed English is natural and aligns with the evolution of ASL. They point to the origins of ASL, which drew vocabulary from French signs and have seen indispensable initialization processes since the very start. Others, like myself, view these influences as unnatural impositions that limit the ability to conceptualize non-initialized ways to express new ideas and concepts. They believe that while ASL may have evolved, this evolution was unnatural and forced by Hearing-dominated educational systems and processes.

This debate has sparked efforts to educate the Deaf community about the unnaturalness of the degree of English influence on ASL. These efforts include a push towards uninitialized signs and the elimination of signed English in Deaf signing practices. However, there are those who view these actions as forms of "linguistic purism" or an "extremist" response to what they see as an inevitable process.

Conclusion

The academic debates surrounding ASL continue to evolve, as researchers strive to understand the intricacies of this complex language. From the structure of ASL to the nature of its influences, the field remains rich with open questions and areas of ongoing debate. Further exploration into these debates will undoubtedly shed more light on the unique characteristics of ASL and contribute to a deeper understanding of sign languages more broadly.