Search Results

This chapter gives an overview of how historical linguists classify languages into families. While the comparative method and internal reconstruction are preferable when abundant data are available, the limited data on sign languages indicate that lexicostatistics is the most useful method. This method is made reliable by using the Swadesh word list revised appropriately for sign languages. Languages can have multiple ancestors, that is, languages that have contributed significantly to the daughters (thus creolization is included). The history of sign languages must be studied, not assumed, in order to be understood. An examination of families of signs in Southeast Asia and Central America alerts us to the endangered status of indigenous sign languages, often at the hand of ASL.

The author of this chapter works as exactly the sort of social, cultural and language role model that deaf children need, as argued in previous chapters. He describes methods in teaching deaf children how to be Deaf. Part of the work is teaching British Sign Language, focusing particularly on characteristics typical of sign languages but not of speech, such as the use of space in locating participants in an event. Another part is introducing them to Deaf culture. Children need to understand that experiences they may have had are typical of deaf people and, as such, make them part of the community. And, finally, the author educates them about deaf history and famous deaf people, to instill in them pride in their cultural heritage.

There are multiple difficulties in knowing how many sign languages exist and in determining which are genetically related. This chapter compares the situation in North America with that of the Middle East. By looking at the rare remarks about sign languages from a hundred years ago and more, and the growth and dissemination of new sign languages (such as Nicaraguan Sign and Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language), we begin to understand how sign languages interact and to what extent the notion “genetically related” is useful in discussing the relationships between them. Comparisons allow us to see how the pattern of sign language distribution is deeply linked to political, cultural and social factors that influence how signers have contact with one another.

This chapter looks at question formation in a sign language isolate in Thailand that until recently was undocumented and undescribed. Interrogatives are found in every language, but like other language universals, they vary across languages with respect to several properties. Elucidating these similarities and differences expands our understanding of the extent of linguistic diversity. This study shows that yes-no questions in BKSL have many of the properties seen in yes-no questions in other sign languages. But the WH-question system has some characteristics unique, so far as we know, to this language. There are two WH-morphemes, and, while the range of questions for each is similar (who, what, when, etc.), the sense of the questions and their syntactic properties differ.

This chapter offers evidence consistent with the proposal that sign languages preceded spoken languages in the evolution of language. Using conceptual integration theory, the authors argue that what may be considered “just a funny story in British Sign Language” contains the human singularities needed to create novel mappings and compressions between pre-existing conventional cognitive parts and conventionally structured cognitive parts that make up human language. While it is arguable that spoken language could do without analogy, framing, and the like (though it would be vastly impoverished), it is entirely impossible for sign language to do so. Thus the fact that these human singularities emerged at roughly the same time as language makes sense if the first human language was signed.

This introduction is an overview of the book’s goals, with a brief summary of each chapter. The book followed an eponymous conference at Swarthmore College in 2008 at which activists and scholars in deaf matters exchanged ideas. The major thesis is that the interaction of activists and scholars is synergistic: activists find support in the work of scholars and scholars both have a responsibility toward the community they study and do better work when they understand activists’ concerns. The first part of the book is on the creation, context, and form of sign languages; the second, on social issues of Deaf communities. The global picture that emerges shows great similarity and continuity in the Deaf World.

This chapter pulls in cross-linguistic observations about the development and use of pointing, whether as a gesture or a sign, from both communities that use spoken languages (in Laos, Thailand, Australia, and Latin American Spanish) and those that use sign languages (in Denmark, Bali, and Germany). It argues that, if we set aside indexicals indicating plurality or time points, subtle changes in the phonological make-up of the remaining pointing signs will allow us to distinguish between different functions, considering both manual and nonmanual changes (e.g., eye gaze). It also addresses the issue of grammaticalization and shows how the study in chapter 4 adds to our understanding of diachronic change in sign languages.

The study of village sign languages is at the forefront of new approaches to developing a typology of languages. Indeed, recent research has shown that the study of village sign disconfirms some of our previously held assumptions about the linguistic structure of sign languages based on the study of the better-known sign languages of Europe and North America (such as that they all use classifiers — Adamorobe Sign Language does not). Further, village sign languages present distinct sociolinguistic contexts that are instructive to study with respect to understanding language contact issues. Finally, the endangered status of these languages raises philosophical questions about the nature of human language.

This chapter pays particular attention to the contribution of generations of child learners, who actively change their language as they inherit it. The researchers consider the fact that over the past thirty years, deaf Nicaraguans have come together to form a community, and in the process created their own new language. The deaf children started with a variety of gestures, called homesigns, to communicate with their families. Together they developed them into the complex linguistic system that is Nicaraguan Sign Language today. The researchers follow this process by focusing on a single sign, the humble point, as it transformed from a gesture into a linguistic device.

This chapter outlines difficulties in determining a national sign language, examining language ideologies. The author witnessed political fragmentation in Japan, as the older generation, represented by Japanese Federation of the Deaf (JFD), coined and disseminated new signs in order to compete with the national public television service as well as fend off criticism from younger, cultural Deaf members. While everyone agrees new signs are necessary, JFD is challenged as the guardian of the JSL lexicon both by D-Pro, a group that wants to protect against spoken language influences, and by the television network NHK, which reaches out to all deaf, regardless of the extent to which they vocalize or sign and regardless of which variety of sign they use.

This chapter examines morphological processes in sign languages, with an eye toward understanding morphology that changes internal properties of a sign. Cross-linguistic comparisons of German, Japanese and American Sign Languages reveal two such types of morphological processes. One changes the sign according to fixed forms listed in the lexicon; the other looks to interaction with gestural space to determine its realization. While both are subject to language-specific constraints against marked forms, only the latter is also subject to phonological constraints against moving or twisting a manual articulator. These constraints arise because interaction with gestural space has the potential to result in forms that exceed the limits of the articulators. This latter type of nonconcatenative morphology makes sign languages unique.

This chapter reports on a study that investigates the phenomenon of “sign accent,” or systematic phonological errors made by nonsigners attempting to mimic isolated ASL signs. The study has implications for sign language teaching, where people are learning an unfamiliar language in a modality new to them. The study finds two factors relevant to how well nonsigners produce the target handshape. One is markedness; anatomical features of the hand affect dexterity in making a sign, although with qualifications. This general finding is no surprise — studies of acquisition repeatedly show the relevance of phonetic markedness. The other factor, however, is surprising: transfer of phonological features from gestures hearing people make (with or without accompanying speech) affects the ability to mimic signs.

After an overview of the debate about whether spoken or sign language came first, the author challenges its founding assumption, that languages are monomodalic, by reporting on a study of Italians describing events. People matched kinesic expressions to word meaning and produced kinesic versions of word pronunciations, using gestures as schematic devices when describing entities’ shape, location, and size. Language, then, can be constructed in multiple dimensions and modalities simultaneously. Sign languages are, thus, not unique in being able to express multiple propositions at once. The author conjectures that writing has skewed our idea of how spoken language works, since writing is concatenative. Probably the earliest languages were multimodal, as today, making use of whatever fit the circumstance and convenience.

This chapter describes the necessary ingredients for learning language, asking what degree of competency is possible for a homesigner when they acquire sign language late, with different amounts of linguistic input. Homesigners, late learners of Brazilian Sign Language (LIBRAS), and native signers are compared on tasks testing competence in topicalization, a construction hypothesized to be acquired only after exposure to the target language. Differences are markedly apparent with respect to age and amount of exposure to LIBRAS, as expected. However, this study is of great import not just to linguistics but to applications in language teaching since it shows that, given proper input, functional mastery of a language can be achieved after the critical period for language acquisition has passed.

The author of this chapter has been advising the Myanmar government on policy regarding deaf people. Because Myanmar does not have a national deaf community, a national sign language cannot emerge naturally. The government wants to develop and promote a standard sign language. However, the government did not agree to form a national deaf organization as a first step, fearing a power to contend with. The new recommendation is that a Myanmar Sign Language textbook be published. The author hopes the text will enlighten hearing and deaf readers, and foster a sense of entitlement to rights, from which a national organization will emerge to advocate for deaf communities. The chapters ends with remarks on the changing situation in Japan with respect to JSL.

Many studies of second language learning regarding sign languages are phonetic, where the modality difference between spoken and sign languages is most apparent. However, studies of phonological, syntactic, and semantic phenomena allow a broader view of language differences. For signers whose first language is spoken, the modality difference can affect acquisition of morphology based not on concatenation but on processes (such as changing dynamics or size of a sign). It can also affect non-linear syntax, since this kind of syntax cannot occur in speech given a single speech track. On the other hand, for signers whose first language is sign, differences in the interface between modality and sign in the two languages will be important.

This chapter fills in the French situation and complements chapter 5’s questioning about the linguistic achievement of homesigners by asking whether homesigns are sufficient to help the child develop a mature cognition. Several studies on theory of mind in deaf children and adults suggest that language-communication (not just gestural communication) is a critical variable in proper cognitive development. Additionally, the age of ten appears to be a significant time — an earlier critical period than Wood’s studies found. These findings, while not constant, are relatively persistent, regardless of whether children eventually receive hearing aids or cochlear implants (where no difference between the two types of aids is noted).

This chapter continues discussion of linguistic characteristics unique to sign languages by looking at structures and conceptual work needed in integrating visual imagery into the proper use of indicating verbs and handling-classifier predicates. Both types of verbs have unspecified components within their phonological structure to be elaborated compatibly with their semantic structure. The form-meaning correspondences in the indicating verb prompt the signer to direct the sign movement towards an appropriate discourse referent—thus filling in location features. On the other hand, these correspondences in the handling-classifier predicate prompt for the depiction of the encoded event. Therefore the phonological features of the handling-classifier predicate filled in by context are not limited to location; they pervade the verb’s phonological structure.

In the Chinese social situation, heath care, education, and employment are consistent family concerns. While 80 percent of deaf children receive an education now, many do not use standardized Chinese Sign Language and have little exposure to deaf adult role models. Although charities and international organizations help some deaf children receive assistive technology and training, most go without. A major goal of the Chinese Disabled People Foundation is to get deaf children placed in local regular schools (not in bilingual-bicultural schools) with rehabilitation and vocational support. On the other hand, recent media attention has led to sign courses in universities, and a Deaf Pride movement has begun, so Deaf culture is now valued, and there are some new bilingual-bicultural schools.

Attention shifts to another developing country, India. The chapter highlights the two main problems hampering deaf rights: lack of appreciation of Deaf culture and lack of successful role models. Indians tend to hide their deaf children, so that only 5 percent attend school, with only 10 percent of those in programs designed to meet deaf needs. The rest struggle without interpreters or other support in regular programs. Few have hearing aids. Most arrive at school with no language and pick up Indian Sign Language from other children, since most teachers know little sign. There are no training programs for interpreters. To date, little research has been done on deaf communities or Indian Sign Language.