classifying signed languages: `urban sign’, `village sign’, `home sign’, and an instructive...

Classifying Signed Languages:`Urban Sign’, `Village Sign’,

`Home Sign’, and an Instructive Border Case

Charles University Guest LectureKate Mesh, 10-24-14

How are Sign Languages Classified?

• Urban

• Village

• Home Sign

• Originated and maintained in educational

institutions.

• Deaf people maintain the language.

• Urban / National / “Deaf

Community” Sign Languages

WFD (2014); Meir et al (2010); Woodward (1996, 2000)

• e.g., Český znakový jazyk:

• 1st deaf school founded 1786

• Urban / National / “Deaf

Community” Sign Languages

Village Sign Languages

• Originated and maintained in villages

where the rate of deafness is high.

• Deaf and hearing villagers sign.

• There are few distinctions between deaf

and hearing people in the society.

Meir et al (2010); Nonaka (2012; 2009)

Village Sign Languages

E.g., Adamorobe Sign Langauge (Ghana)

41 deaf signers; “many” (of pop. 3500) hearing signers

Deaf and hearing villagers are (nearly all) farmers

(Kusters 2012; Nyst 2009)

Village Sign Languages

E.g., Al-Sayyid Bedoin Sign Langauge (Israel)

• 140 deaf signers; “many” (of pop. 3000) hearing

signers

• Deaf and hearing: similar work, dissimilar education.

(Sandler et al 2005; Kisch 2004)

Village Sign Languages

E.g., Ban Khor Sign Language (Thailand)

• 16 deaf signers; ~500 hearing signers

• Deaf and hearing: similar work (rice farming); similar

education (until recently) (Nonaka 2012, 2007)

Village Sign Languages

E.g., Kata Kolok (North Bali)

• 50 deaf signers; “most” (pop. 2,200) hearing signers

• Deaf and hearing: similar jobs, similar marriage

opportunities

(de Vos 2011; Marsaja 2008)

How are Sign Languages Classified?

• Home Sign

• Exactly one deaf person signs. Hearing family

members may sign, but do not match the

deaf person’s signs.

(Goldin-Meadow et al 2011, 2003;

Coppola 2002; Frishberg 1987)

How are Sign Languages Classified?

• Home Sign

E.g., “David” and his hearing family

• 1 deaf signer

• parents and sister use gestures unlike “David’s

(Goldin-Meadow et al 2011, 2003)

Chatino Sign Language (CSL):

What kind of signed language could this be?

CSL investigated during 3.5 months of

fieldwork in 2012 and 3 months of

fieldwork in 2014

(and counting…)

Oaxaca City

Oaxaca to Field Site

Oaxaca to Field Site

San Juan Quihije & Cieneguilla

San Juan Quiahije & Cieneguilla

What is the Rate of Deafness?

• Combined Pop. 3,628 (INEGI 2012)

• Deaf individuals: 10

– 6 adults (2 female)

– 4 children (all female)

Are Deaf and Hearing People

‘Equal’?• Employment: similar farming work (some

exceptions)

• Education: no deaf education (but one deaf

child goes to school, anyway)

• Marriage patterns: deaf men marry hearing

women

Who Uses the Language?

• 11 Deaf people

• Their immediate family members

– Is their signing similar to that of deaf people?

• Extended family members

– Not always: what factors motivate family members

to sign?

• Others?

– “Associates” (= friends and co-workers)

Who is ‘Signing’ and who is

‘Gesturing’?• Many hearing people are willing to gesture

with one another—when they can’t hear one

another and when they don’t share a

language.

• Is there anything different about how they

gesture with deaf people?

We stopped asking:

What kind of signed language could this be?

…and started asking:

What supports communication between deaf and hearing people

here?

What Communication Looks Like:

An Early Project on the Language Structure:

Exploring Negation among deaf and hearing signers

Project 1: Negation in CSL

• 6 independent manual negative particles in Chatino Sign (Hou & Mesh 2013)

• For basic clause negation: – TWIST-Y– TWIST-5– WAG

• 3 other semantically negative signs– FINISH– DEAD– WAG

(1) TWIST-Y

This sign functions as:• an existential negator• a basic clausal negator

(1) TWIST-Y

(2) TWIST-5

This sign functions as:• a basic clause negator• an existential negator• a negative interjection

(2) TWIST-5

(3) WAG

This sign functions as:• a basic clause negator• a negative interjection

(3) WAG

(4) FINISH

• With a headshake and other non-manual markers, this functions as an emphatic negative

• Without a headshake, this denotes an event completion marker and also a discourse marker

(4) FINISH

(5) DEAD

• With a headshake and other non-manual signals, this denotes an aspectual function, meaning `no more’

• Without the headshake, this is a lexical item denoting `dead’

(5) DEAD

(6) SHRUG

• A semantically negative item that means `I don’t know’ when produced with raised eyebrows, hunched shoulders, and lips turned down

• Also functions as a discourse marker

(6) SHRUG

Where deaf and hearing signers differ: deaf use of multiple distinct contiguous

negators

Where deaf and hearing signers differ: deaf use of multiple distinct contiguous negators

Where deaf & hearing signers look the same: all use negators at the ends of

sentences

Where deaf & hearing signers look the same: all use verb- & clause-final negation