American Sign Language - Family Village: Fill & Download for Free

They exist in parallel, but are not directly connected. Interestingly, this also means there are spoken language families like Germanic (including English, German, Dutch, etc.), and Romance (including Spanish, French, etc.) and also signed language families that are distinct.In the United States (and most of Canada), American Sign Language [ASL] is the main signed language. It actually descends (a little indirectly) from French Sign Language [LSF], so it is unrelated to British Sign Language [BSL]. On the other hand, BSL is directly related to Australian Sign Language [Auslan]. German Sign Language [DGS] is yet something else entirely, while Netherlands Sign Language [NGT] is instead related to LSF, despite Dutch being closely related to German. And, for example, Israeli Sign Language is (indirectly, apparently including some pidginization) ultimately related to DGS, despite Hebrew being in an entirely different language family (Semitic) unrelated to spoken European languages. In Asia, Japanese Sign Language is closely related to Korean Sign Language and Taiwanese Sign Language, while Chinese Sign Language is closely related to Hong Kong Sign Language.I talked about this in another answer: Daniel Ross's answer to Is American Sign Language (ASL) the same for English and Spanish speakers?, and from there here’s a nice graphic:Note that now ASL has spread into several other languages around the world, some in far off places where English is not spoken, and where very different spoken languages are found.What this shows is that signed languages, and signed language families, spread just like spoken languages: culturally, and through contact. It also illustrates the different ages of the languages, because signed languages tend to be relatively recent developments, having spread around in the last few hundred years from a few main sources. Spoken languages, in general, spread substantially earlier than that (or a few centuries earlier, in the case of colonial languages like English). (Signed languages have probably always existed in human history, but our records of older ones are limited, especially because they weren’t written down: Daniel Ross's answer to What is the earliest recorded use of sign language? And historical social instability of these speech communities, due especially to spoken language communities imposing on them, has also caused signed languages to fluctuate more. Deaf communities are an interesting topic because they are generally secondary/embedded communities within a larger society, rather than for example forming their own independent countries. So they’re both connected and distinct at the same time.)As signed languages gained cultural popularity and ideas about using signed languages in Deaf education spread, often a foreign sign language was ‘imported’ for use, probably by teachers from elsewhere or who had learned it elsewhere, to be taught at a newly founded Deaf school in the area. This is how ASL spread around so much, as well as some others. Deaf schools are a central part of Deaf culture, and especially Deaf sociolinguistics, because they are a hub where Deaf speech communities focus, and often are the most concentrated population of Deaf signers encountered in one’s life, and more importantly are where many Deaf individuals learn the language in the first place. But at the same time, they also shape the language through usage, especially if it begins as a simple or even just foreign system, becoming within a few generations something unique and locally flavored: a new language, even if related to another somewhere else. Or sometimes, an entirely new language: Daniel Ross's answer to Is Hebrew the youngest language? (see about Nicaraguan Sign Language there).So now to get back to the original question: there isn’t a single signed language assigned to every spoken language, and they’re often historically unrelated— not just entirely different systems, but actually with distinct geographic origins! Of course there is some borrowing (e.g., through finger-spelling) or other types of influence on usage from the local spoken language, making them somewhat culturally connected in a different way, but they’re still very different, and not certainly directly connected historically.On the other hand, you might ask: do all signed languages have a single corresponding spoken language? No, especially as they spread around and begin to differentiate. Consider ASL as it was used around the world, although now it has developed into what we can consider to be different languages in many cases. The question of mutual intelligibility is a good one, and relatively under-researched except for a few of the major languages (I’m thinking of a paper about BSL and Auslan, for example, that concluded they’re still very similar but distinct enough to be considered differently languages; ASL and LSF are even more distinct, but some other varieties around the world may not be.) And then there are cases like Indo-Pakistani Sign Language - Wikipedia, in regions with many spoken languages around them, but with the same signed language used by Deaf there.And then: is there a (default) signed language for every (spoken) speech community? No, not exactly. Signed languages develop when there is a concentration of Deaf signers to speak them, and specifically to speak them together. When a deaf individual is isolated, perhaps just living at home with hearing parents, they will often create a home sign system, but not really a fully developed language like would develop through social contacts at a Deaf school, with a community. On the other hand, there are some communities out there in the world with a high rate of deafness genetically, such that signing becomes the norm in the community to include everyone. These are village sign languages, and are found in mostly isolated communities all around the world, developing independently, and sometimes used bilingually by hearing individuals too.So when a community has a need for a signed language, either one will develop locally or one can be brought in from elsewhere and then adapt to the local context. Of course this is sometimes prevented by oralism (the insistence on using the spoken oral language instead) and audism (prejudice against non-auditory/oral communication), which is still widespread in the world although less severe than even several decades ago.The simplest answer might be this: any established Deaf community (with a capital D, because it is a specific social, cultural and linguistic community!) will have an established sign language to go along with it. It is specifically the shared use of a signed language that allows this group to form and also differentiate itself from the spoken oral language around them.See also: Daniel Ross's answer to What are some special features of sign languages that spoken languages don’t have?

To continue from Tamara Vardo's answer, remember that signed languages should be distinguished from spoken languages. The term ‘sign language’ is really a misnomer even though it’s frequently used even in the names of signed languages (like American Sign Language). But compare how absurd (from our perspective anyway) it would be to say “Sound Language” in reference to English or Spanish. “Is Sound Language the same in different countries?”In Mexico, the signed language used there is known as, not surprisingly, Mexican Sign Language (Wikipedia)[*] as discussed here: Signed languages of Mexico (SIL).The signed language spoken in Spain is different (Spanish Sign Language - Wikipedia), as are signed languages in other Latin American countries. For example, Argentine Sign Language (Wikipedia) is unclassified meaning it is not known to be related to any other signed language, while Brazilian Sign Language (Wikipedia) is in the same signed language family as ASL, having descended from French Sign Language.You can see the language families are very different for signed languages compared to spoken languages. And, of course, I should emphasize that ASL is not in any way the same as English or even Signed Exact English (Wikipedia), which is the sort of hybrid ‘using hands to speak English’ that some people assume ASL is. And likewise Mexican Sign Language (and the others) are not just ‘signed Spanish’.So yes, ASL is the same in the United States, Mexico, Spain and Argentina— and Brazil, and China, and Australia— just in the same way that English is the same in all of those countries. ASL does have dialects, and it can even be learned as a foreign language just like a Mexican learning English or someone in the United States learning Spanish!But no, ASL is not the language used in all countries, because there are many signed languages just like there are many spoken languages. In fact, British Sign Language (Wikipedia) is unrelated to French Sign Language, but it is part of the BANZSL group, meaning it is related to Australian Sign Language or Auslan (Wikipedia) and even probably the Swedish Sign Language family (Wikipedia) which in addition to Swedish Sign Language also includes Finnish Sign Language (Wikipedia) and even Portuguese Sign Language (Wikipedia), which is thus unrelated to Brazilian Sign Language (see above), despite Portuguese being spoken in both countries.Now you might think Dutch Sign Language (Wikipedia) would be related to ASL because English is related to Dutch, and you would be right, but for the wrong reasons. Dutch Sign Language is related to ASL only because both happen to be descended from an earlier variety of French Sign Language. Spoken Flemish is essentially a dialect of spoken Dutch, yet Flemish Sign Language (Wikipedia) actually may be unrelated to Dutch Sign Language. On the other hand, German Sign Language (Wikipedia) is completely unrelated to any of these and forms a different family (German Sign Language family - Wikipedia), which actually also includes Polish Sign Language (Wikipedia) and Israeli Sign Language (Wikipedia)!A very nice graphic illustration of sign language families is given in this image:(Original source unknown. Possibly Pinterest or this blog.)Because most signed languages are relatively young compared to spoken languages and we know often something about the time when they originated, a more detailed (but narrower) tree like this is also relevant:(Source. Note that ‘African Sign Language’ there refers to a specific missionary language, not that the whole continent has just one signed language!)This is another very nice representation:(Source Reddit, originally Une carte du monde. See also the answers here: Quora: Is there a chart of sign language families?)And also consider India, a country with over 100 spoken languages, where there is just one major signed language, just starting to gain traction as an officially recognized language there: Indo-Pakistani Sign Language (Wikipedia) actually even cutting across the cultural border of Urdu/Hindi as well. (See for example the answers to this question on Quora: Why are there so many versions of sign language(s)? Which one is best to learn in India?)And that’s just a brief whirlwind tour of various signed languages around the world, admittedly with a European bias, mostly because information about them is most easily available online. There are many more signed languages around the world.Returning to Latin America, then, one example of a village sign language (Wikipedia) is Urubú-Ka'apor Sign Language (Wikipedia) in northern Brazil, used by the same indigenous group that speaks the equivalently named Urubú-Ka’apor language (Wikipedia), although it seems to now have fallen out of use, in parallel with there now being only about 800 speakers of the spoken language due to contact with outside languages, in this case both signed and spoken. Village sign languages like this typically arise when a specific population has a statistically high rate of deafness, such that it becomes the norm to communicate with hearing and deaf individuals, so usage of the village sign language is not limited only to deaf individuals, but rather a mix of spoken and signed language can be used in general (with of course more signed language use with deaf individuals), and most hearing individuals can use the signed language just like the members of American families with one Deaf individual tend to all learn some ASL.One of the most interesting signed languages in the world is found in Latin America, in fact. Nicaraguan Sign Language (Wikipedia) came about after the first school for the deaf was opened in Nicaragua in the 1970s first just using pantomime/gesture to communicate, and then over just three generations of students using the language by trial and error, a full signed language with a full grammar as complex as any other was formed— now studied by linguists as an example of language evolution.For a more general perspective about signed languages in general, see: What are some special features of sign languages that spoken languages don’t have?See also: What is the earliest recorded use of sign language?I should also comment on the word ‘American’ in the question. If the intent of this question was just to ask whether ‘American’ referred to only the United States or instead the North American continent, or both North and South America, then the answer is that just like the common usage of “America” in English to refer only to the United States, the name ASL is equivalent to “United States Sign Language”, rather than a more widely used signed language. So yes, the usage of that term is odd, and in reality Canadians, Nicaraguans and Argentinians should all be considered “Americans”, but just as that is not the typical usage, the deaf communities in those countries all use different signed languages as well. Interestingly, just like (“[North] American”) English is used in both the United States and Canada, the exception is that ASL is also used in Canada, actually alongside Quebec Sign Language (Wikipedia), which came about as a mix of French Sign Language and American Sign Language, and this ‘more French’ signed language is used roughly equivalently to spoken French in Canada today. So in slightly simplified terms, you can think of ASL as the signed counterpart to North American English, but without implying that their grammatical structures are somehow based on English (see above).[*Note: all signed languages spoken where English is not the dominant language have an official spoken language form based on the local language, such as langue des signes française for French sign language, or Nederlandse Gebarentaal for Dutch sign language. For convenience I have given only the English names here, especially when the real name for these languages as used by its speakers is actually a hand sign anyway! Interestingly most of these languages are known by shortened forms of their names like LSF for French sign language, or NGT for Dutch sign language, or even Auslan for Australian sign language. And often some form of that abbreviation becomes the hand sign used as the name for the signed language itself just as “A-S-L” is signed in ASL.]See also: Daniel Ross's answer to How is American Sign Language different from other types of sign language used around the world?

Old French Sign Language (Wikipedia) is the earliest ancestor to many modern signed languages, including ASL. For example, see this (somewhat simplistic) chart:(‘African Sign Language’ refers to a missionary sign language specifically, not all African signed languages in general. See this answer for more charts and extensive discussion of signed language families: Is American Sign Language (ASL) the same for English and Spanish speakers?)Looking back further, there are other known signed languages from earlier (though documentation is lacking for many). For example: Ottoman Sign Language (Wikipedia): “It is not known whether Ottoman Sign Language was ancestral to modern Turkish Sign Language, as no signs were recorded.”Before those cases of modern-like signed languages, signs were of course used for special purposes. Note the different types of signed languages listed here: List of sign languages - Wikipedia. Ben Waggoner's answer discusses the example of ‘Monastic signs’ used by monks in order to remain silent almost 2000 years ago. Whether there also existed full signed languages equivalent to modern signed (and spoken) languages that long ago, I am not sure. Because it would be difficult to write anything but a translation for these languages, we have very few detailed records, even of the modern languages, before photographs were available. And older signed languages may not be documented at all. (And when they were, they were probably usually described in overly simplistic terms but hearing people who did not understand their full grammatical complexity, as was the tendency for ASL and other modern signed languages until the last 50 years or so when linguistic research showed them to be fully complex and expressive, equivalent to spoken languages.)However, there are ‘village sign languages’ spoken all over the world in communities with a high percentage of deaf individuals. (For more, see again: Is American Sign Language (ASL) the same for English and Spanish speakers?) There is no reason to think that signed languages of this sort have not existed for the duration of human history. If we assume something like 25 village sign languages exist today (I’m not sure on an exact figure, but see a list of 24 here: Village sign language - Wikipedia), then we could extend that figure back for thousands of years and imagine 25 (or more, with smaller, more diverse groups of humans) for at least about 12,000 years (thus maybe 200 signed languages or more in that time) and then back to the origin of human language sometime around or before 100,000 years ago but with a lower population in smaller groups, so perhaps over that much time then up to 1000 signed languages throughout human history in total. These calculations are very rough guesses parallel to my answer (about spoken languages) here: How many dead languages are there?As early as there are detailed discussions of language use, there are accounts of signed languages existing, as in this quote from Plato’s Cratylus (an early and still important work on sounds in speech and still referred to by linguists today) from the 5th century BC:"If we hadn't a voice or a tongue, and wanted to express things to one another, wouldn't we try to make signs by moving our hands, head, and the rest of our body, just as [deaf] people do at present?" [History of sign language - Wikipedia]In addition to village sign languages mentioned above, signed languages are also attested for intercultural communication, specifically with the example of Plains Indian Sign Language - Wikipedia, which was used for communication between groups in North America before the Europeans invaded.In fact, from examples such as those, some linguists have speculated that human language may have evolved first in a signed form, perhaps even before the vocal tract evolved to support modern human pronunciation, although this, like any other theory about language origin, is primarily speculation (see What was the first language in the world?). (I am not sure whether any genetic studies have been done about the prevalence of deafness in early humans, and whether that trait existed at approximately the same frequency 1 million or 100,000 years ago. If deafness was rarer then, and developed only after early human groups spread apart, perhaps implied by various independent village sign languages, then maybe signed languages were not as common, yet with our extremely visual tendencies and the fact that one does not need to be deaf to use a signed language, it is indeed possible the first language, or some of the first languages, consisted of manual signs, not vocal sounds. Or even a mix, especially if grammar developed in stages.)So in short, there is no reason to believe that signed languages are not as old as the human ability to use language.