publication . Article . 2018

Sociolinguistic Typology and Sign Languages.

Jordan Fenlon; Kearsy Cormier; Trevor Johnston; Adam Schembri;
Open Access
  • Published: 01 Feb 2018 Journal: Frontiers in Psychology, volume 9 (eissn: 1664-1078, Copyright policy)
  • Publisher: Frontiers Media SA
Abstract
This paper examines the possible relationship between proposed social determinants of morphological ‘complexity’ and how this contributes to linguistic diversity, specifically via the typological nature of the sign languages of deaf communities. We sketch how the notion of morphological complexity, as defined by Trudgill (2011), applies to sign languages. Using these criteria, sign languages appear to be languages with low to moderate levels of morphological complexity. This may partly reflect the influence of key social characteristics of communities on the typological nature of languages. Although many deaf communities are relatively small and may involve dens...
Subjects
free text keywords: General Psychology, sign languages, morphology, linguistic diversity, BF1-990, Perspective, Linguistics, Social determinants of health, Sign language, Psychology, Language complexity, Social network, business.industry, business, Linguistic typology, Typology, Grammar, media_common.quotation_subject, media_common, Sociolinguistics
41 references, page 1 of 3

Aronoff M.Meir I.Sandler W. (2005). The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81 301–344. 10.1353/lan.2005.0043 22223926 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Bayley R.Lucas C.Rose M. (2002). Phonological variation in American Sign Language: the case of 1 handshape. Lang. Var. Change 14 19–53. 10.1017/S0954394502141020 [DOI]

Bentz C.Winter B. (2013). Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Lang. Dyn. Change 3 1–27.

Bergman B.DahlÖ (1994). “Ideophones in Sign Language? The place of reduplication in the tense-aspect system of Swedish sign language,” in Tense, Aspect and Action - Empirical and Theoretical Contributions to Language Typology, eds Bache C.Basboll H.Lindberg C. E. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 397–422.

Corbett G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cormier K.Fenlon J. (2009). “Possession in the visual-gestural modality: how possession is expressed in British sign language,” in The Expression of Possession, ed. McGregor W. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 389–422. [OpenAIRE]

Cuxac C.Sallandre M. (2007). “Iconicity and arbitrariness in French sign language: highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity,” in Verbal and Signed Languages: Comparative Structures, Concepts, and Methodologies, eds Pizzuto E.Pietrandrea P.Simone R. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 13–33. [OpenAIRE]

Dahl O. (2004). The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 10.1075/slcs.71 [OpenAIRE] [DOI]

de Beuzeville L.Johnston T.Schembri A. (2009). The use of space with indicating verbs in Auslan: a corpus-based investigation. Sign Lang. Linguist. 12 53–82. 10.1075/sll.12.1.03deb [OpenAIRE] [DOI]

De Vos C. (2012). Sign-Spatiality in Kata Kolok: How a Village Sign Language in Bali Inscribes its Signing Space. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

Emmorey K. (2002). Language, Cognition and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fenlon J.Schembri A.Rentelis R.Cormier K. (2013). Variation in handshape and orientation in British sign language: the case of the ‘1’ hand configuration. Lang. Commun. 22 69–91. 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.001 23805018 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Fischer S. D. (1978). “Sign language and creoles,” in Understanding Language Through Sign Language Research, ed. Siple P. (New York, NY: Academic Press), 309–331.

Gray M. (2013). Aspect Marking in Australian Sign Language: A Process of Gestural Verb Modification. Doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW.

Janzen T.O’Dea B.Shaffer B. (2001). The construal of events: passives in American sign language. Sign Lang. Stud. 1 281–310. 10.1353/sls.2001.0009 [OpenAIRE] [DOI]

41 references, page 1 of 3
Abstract
This paper examines the possible relationship between proposed social determinants of morphological ‘complexity’ and how this contributes to linguistic diversity, specifically via the typological nature of the sign languages of deaf communities. We sketch how the notion of morphological complexity, as defined by Trudgill (2011), applies to sign languages. Using these criteria, sign languages appear to be languages with low to moderate levels of morphological complexity. This may partly reflect the influence of key social characteristics of communities on the typological nature of languages. Although many deaf communities are relatively small and may involve dens...
Subjects
free text keywords: General Psychology, sign languages, morphology, linguistic diversity, BF1-990, Perspective, Linguistics, Social determinants of health, Sign language, Psychology, Language complexity, Social network, business.industry, business, Linguistic typology, Typology, Grammar, media_common.quotation_subject, media_common, Sociolinguistics
41 references, page 1 of 3

Aronoff M.Meir I.Sandler W. (2005). The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81 301–344. 10.1353/lan.2005.0043 22223926 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Bayley R.Lucas C.Rose M. (2002). Phonological variation in American Sign Language: the case of 1 handshape. Lang. Var. Change 14 19–53. 10.1017/S0954394502141020 [DOI]

Bentz C.Winter B. (2013). Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Lang. Dyn. Change 3 1–27.

Bergman B.DahlÖ (1994). “Ideophones in Sign Language? The place of reduplication in the tense-aspect system of Swedish sign language,” in Tense, Aspect and Action - Empirical and Theoretical Contributions to Language Typology, eds Bache C.Basboll H.Lindberg C. E. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 397–422.

Corbett G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cormier K.Fenlon J. (2009). “Possession in the visual-gestural modality: how possession is expressed in British sign language,” in The Expression of Possession, ed. McGregor W. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 389–422. [OpenAIRE]

Cuxac C.Sallandre M. (2007). “Iconicity and arbitrariness in French sign language: highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity,” in Verbal and Signed Languages: Comparative Structures, Concepts, and Methodologies, eds Pizzuto E.Pietrandrea P.Simone R. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 13–33. [OpenAIRE]

Dahl O. (2004). The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 10.1075/slcs.71 [OpenAIRE] [DOI]

de Beuzeville L.Johnston T.Schembri A. (2009). The use of space with indicating verbs in Auslan: a corpus-based investigation. Sign Lang. Linguist. 12 53–82. 10.1075/sll.12.1.03deb [OpenAIRE] [DOI]

De Vos C. (2012). Sign-Spatiality in Kata Kolok: How a Village Sign Language in Bali Inscribes its Signing Space. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

Emmorey K. (2002). Language, Cognition and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fenlon J.Schembri A.Rentelis R.Cormier K. (2013). Variation in handshape and orientation in British sign language: the case of the ‘1’ hand configuration. Lang. Commun. 22 69–91. 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.001 23805018 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

Fischer S. D. (1978). “Sign language and creoles,” in Understanding Language Through Sign Language Research, ed. Siple P. (New York, NY: Academic Press), 309–331.

Gray M. (2013). Aspect Marking in Australian Sign Language: A Process of Gestural Verb Modification. Doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW.

Janzen T.O’Dea B.Shaffer B. (2001). The construal of events: passives in American sign language. Sign Lang. Stud. 1 281–310. 10.1353/sls.2001.0009 [OpenAIRE] [DOI]

41 references, page 1 of 3
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue