just another perspective

[Richard Arnold]

In a message dated 02/11/99 7:51:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
acschembri at HOTMAIL.COM writes:

> Although signers anecdotally report a high degree of mutual
>  intelligibility between Auslan, NZSL and BSL, the nature of the
>  relationship between the 3 languages is still unclear. I'm not quite
>  willing just yet to say they're all dialects of the same signed language
>  (perhaps to be called "Anglo-Australasian Sign Language" or "AASL"?),
>  but there's a lot to suggest that this may actually be the most
>  appropriate view of the relationship, especially between Auslan and BSL.
>

This is an interesting point. I am aware that Dave McKee in Wellington, New
Zealand  (any others doing the same thing?) has done some research on this.
Unfortunately I don't have a copy of any of his publications on this if any
exists.

 There are enough differences between Auslan and NZ Sign Language (or Kiwi-
Sign) for it to be noticable by native Deaf signers. One Deaf colleague told
of his experience of doing to Sydney for a few weeks and having to adjust to
the "faster signing speed" and the few different signs they used. When he got
back to his home town in New Zealand his Deaf friends commented on the
Australianness of his signing and he quickly tried to readjust back to NZ Sign
Language it took him the large part of a week to do it.  But there is a large
degree of mutual intelligibilty between them.

 You better add Fiji to the list within a decade - as NZSL is spreading there,
and possibly a Fiji SL is in the making as a result of Fijian Deaf home signs
being incorporated with NZSL.

Richard A.