The Puzzling Paradox of Sign Language

Now, let me clarify upfront that my minor (technically a "joint-degree", but effectively a minor) is in Linguistics, so this may get wordy and technical.

What you are mostly describing is a not a restriction of the language itself, but of social conventions. You can certainly say "いいえ、できません". While it is true that Japanese has a relatively substantial honorific structure when compared to English, there are other languages with even richer systems, such as Malay.

One thing that makes Japanese stand out amongst the ones you have listed is the fact that it is a language isolate, meaning there are no other languages that are "linguistically related". (While technically in the Japonic family, there is some controversy around the categorization of Japanese dialects, which muddies the family categorization as well). Korean is another isolate, and, as far as I know, the only language that is remotely like Japanese in terms of grammar and morphology. German, Dutch and Spanish all belong in the Indo-European family, and there are some obvious structural similarities. Mandarin Chinese is certainly not Indo-European, but it also lacks a non-trivial inflection system, and has a basic word order that is not unlike Germanic languages.

Japanese, on the other hand, does not share this trait. Consequently, there are certain grammar constructs in English that are essentially impossible to transform into Japanese; it takes a speaker sufficient in both to first completely comprehend an utterance and then re-express it. Add to this the many subtle semantic differences in words, and it's not surprising that you will get a lot of "that's hard to say"s. However, this doesn't mean that something is untranslatable. Speaking from experience, us polyglots do occasionally use it as an excuse that more precisely means "the exchange which must take place for me to extract more context out of you to effectively perform your request is something I don't want to spend energy on at the moment." ;)

(1) I'm pretty sure it was Klima and Bellungi's book The Signs of Language that pointed out that arm muscles are slower than vocal muscles, and therefore ASL does things that spoken languages can't do in order to maintain the same communication bandwidth. (That book was written ten years ago.)

(2) The handshape is only a very small part of what conveys meaning in sign language; one of the classic newbie mistakes in learning ASL is to look at your conversation partner's hands, rather than his or her eyes. A great deal of grammatical information is communicated purely by facial expression; for example, raised eyebrows can indicate a yes/no question, lowered eyebrows can indicate a wh-question, and just looking in one direction or shifting the body slightly can substitute for a pronoun. There are also movements of the mouth that act as adverbial modifiers for a sign, to indicate things like "almost", "carelessly", "with difficulty", "distant in time or space", and a whole bunch of other stuff.

(3) With regard to the hand and arm movements themselves, the location and movement of the signs are as significant as the handshape. The signs for "father" and "mother" differ only in location. The signs for "paper" and "cheese" differ only in movement. Skimming the article, it appears that the authors didn't bother taking location and movement because linguists disagree on how to categorize those other features. But that's no excuse for completely leaving them out of your analysis. That's methodological laziness.

(4) Modulation of movement also has grammatical significance which in English would be conveyed by modal verbs or adverbs. For example, a change in how you make the sign for "to be red" turns it into "to become red". The Klima and Bellungi book above has more of this kind of thing.

(5) There's also the ASL classifier system, which provides a concise way of using the relative position and motion of hands to indicate the relative position and motion of objects in physical or metaphorical space. I once saw a lecture at which a woman very eloquently used this to describe herself advancing through all four years of her college education while a friend of hers kept repeating her "prep" year. (Gallaudet has a pre-freshman year for students who, thanks to the ocean of suck that is the American deaf-ed system, don't arrive with adequate college preparation.)

There have been over thirty years of serious linguistic research into ASL, and judging from the references, these jokers didn't do more than strip-mine it for a list of handshapes. AAARRRGGGHH!

While travelling and working in Sweden I picked up enough of the language (alas, now gone) to converse reasonably well over dinner with people I hadn't met before. They were fluent in English, my colleague was fluent in Swedish.

I asked about the word "varsågod." It seemed to have many translations, often different for different contexts, and I was wondering how they all perceived it. The consensus came only after about an hour of back and forth. There is no translation, even when the context is known.

The best I've come up with is "All is well," but that really, really doesn't cover it. Sometimes it means "You're welcome," sometimes it means "Here you are," and there are other contexts.

And the English translations don't carry the extra meanings, the baggage. It just feels untranslatable. No translation I've seen or heard carries all of the meanings and nuances.

Another example is from French. The phrase "Je vous en prie" is often translated as "You're welcome," but it's also very, very formal. You'd hear it from staff in hotels, perhaps, and perhaps in the very best restaurants.

But the point is that while it effectively means "You're welcome" it actually carries more information. It also says: and our relationship is a formal one, such as staff to employer, and I'm in the subordinate position.

There is no way to say that in English without spelling it out explicitly, and once you've done so you've lost the sense of the original anyway.

It's like explaining a joke. Once you've done so you've given the understanding needed, but lost the humor.

Similarly with so many things in translation. To carry all the meaning properly sometimes you have to explain or describe the meaning, and then it's no longer actually a translation.

The thing I find most interesting is just how many monoglots claim that this can't possibly be true and give many excellent reasons, while so many polyglots simply accept it as fact. My wife is fluent in French and works copy-editing translations from German (and other languages) into English. I've seen this problem "in action" as it were, and it's why good translators cost so much, while mediocre translators don't.

EDIT: corrected the Swedish word - thanks. My spoken and reading Swedish was always better than my written.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

I've read that people with extraordinary memory or mental arithmetic ability often visualize shapes and perform operations on them to get at the answer. And I guess "normal" people use "subvocalization" instead. In light of your comment, that makes sense.