In this version of sign language the vocal tract would be mapped onto the body and face and words could be expressed by using one hand to imitate a tongue and the other to point to the part of the vocal tract was making the sound.

Maybe the "g" sound would be mapped to the chin and the "p" and 'b' sound mapped to the top of the head? Or maybe "g" would be better around the torso.

The advantage of a language like this would be that it would allow vocalizers to be able to express themselves visually without having to learn a new language, so they would learn faster and barriers would be broken
-- JesusHChrist, Jun 17 2005

I'm not sure how this would help the deaf, since any form of language based on sound necessarily requires that they memorize the sounds of words, which of course is a frustrating exercise. VISL would add the extra burden of determining exactly HOW hearing people form the sounds, as well as studying inflection, accent, etc.

Being fluent in regular sign language (ASL) I can state definitively that there is no lack of expressiveness or meaning for people who skillfully use sign when compared with hearing people who use english.

Oh, and as a side point, any deaf who would be interested in VISL would be those who are already studying or fluent in lip reading and speech. Deaf who use sign would be, at the least, affronted by your suggestion.

Sorry, fish for you. But, since you seem interested, I would suggest a few terms of sign language classes, to introduce you to this beautiful, evocative and comprehensive form of communication. There really isn't need for a replacement...
-- junglefish, Jun 18 2005


By "more expressive" I was thinking from the perspective of someone who is trying to learn sign. One advantage of a language like this would be that it would allow vocalizers to be able to express themselves visually without having to learn a new language, so they would learn faster and barriers would be broken.
-- JesusHChrist, Jun 18 2005



random, halfbakery