Constituent order in Flemish Sign Language (VGT) and South African Sign Language (SASL)

2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myriam Vermeerbergen ◽  
Mieke Van Herreweghe ◽  
Philemon Akach ◽  
Emily Matabane

This paper reports on a comparison of word order issues, and more specifically on the order of the verb and its arguments, in two unrelated sign languages: South African Sign Language and Flemish Sign Language. The study comprises the first part of a larger project in which a number of grammatical mechanisms and structures are compared across the two sign languages, using a corpus consisting of similar VGT and SASL-data of a various nature. The overall goal of the project is to contribute to a further understanding of the issue of the degree of similarity across unrelated sign languages. However, the different studies also mean a further exploration of the grammars of the two languages involved. In this paper the focus is on the analysis of isolated declarative sentences elicited by means of pictures. The results yield some interesting similarities across all signers but also indicate that — especially with regard to constituent order — there are important differences between the two languages.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Jacqueline Iseli

<p>This thesis provides the first documentation and description of the signs created and used by deaf individuals in Vanuatu. The specific aims of this research were as follows: to establish the sociolinguistic context experienced by deaf people in Vanuatu; to identify the repertoire and characteristics of signs used by the deaf participants; to compare features of participants’ individual signs with the characteristics of home signs and emerging sign languages; and to consider the degree of similarity and potential similarity of signs between participants and how this reflects individuals’ opportunities for contact with other deaf people and signing interlocutors. The limitations of this study are that field methodology for data collection was developed in situ as conditions allowed. The sociolinguistic context for deaf Ni-Vanuatu confirms that language isolation leads to marginalisation from community and society. The study established that these home sign lexicons were limited in quantity and conceptual range, and that shared background knowledge was essential for comprehension. Overall, 22 handshapes were documented, and the predominant handshapes unmarked. Most participants preferred handling strategy for depicting signs. Some evidence of noun-verb distinction was noted in the repertoire of some participants. However, across this range of formational characteristics, results showed significant individual variations. Furthermore, multiple barriers have precluded development of a shared sign language and any form of deaf community.</p>


2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Sze ◽  
Silva Isma ◽  
Adhika Irlang Suwiryo ◽  
Laura Lesmana Wijaya ◽  
Adhi Kusumo Bharato ◽  
...  

The distinction between languages and dialects has remained a controversial issue in literature. When such a distinction is made, it often has far-reaching implications in top-down language promotion and preservation policies that tend to favor only those varieties that are labelled as ‘languages’. This issue is of critical importance for the survival of most sign language varieties in the world from a socio-political point of view. Against this background, this paper discusses how the notions of ‘dialect’ and ‘language’ have been applied in classifying sign languages in the past few decades. In particular, the paper reports on two recent studies which provide linguistic evidence that the signing varieties used by Deaf signers in Jakarta and Yogyakarta in Indonesia should be regarded as distinct sign languages rather than mutually intelligible dialects of Indonesian Sign Language. The evidence comes from significant differences in the lexicon, preferred word order for encoding transitive events, and use of mouth actions. Our result suggests that signing varieties within a country can be significantly different from each other, thus calling for more concerted efforts in documenting and recognizing these differences if the linguistic needs of the signing communities are to be met.


2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-111
Author(s):  
Ella Wehrmeyer

Abstract Concerted attention in sign language linguistics has focused on finding ways to document signs. Until now, most notation systems rely on a complex plethora of symbols and are under-specific, to the extent that visual images are still the most widely accepted way of recording primary data. This paper presents a novel phonetic notation of handshape in a step towards deriving an International Phonetic Alphabet for sign languages, based on digit shape (configuration) and position in terms of reference coordinates, aiming at both readability and precision. It is sufficiently hybrid to allow for both accurate measurements and estimates of digit positions, thereby affording a way of representing handshapes suitable for lexicography, studying phonetic variation and avatar programming. Originally tailored to describe handshapes in South African Sign Language, it can also notate gestures. After discussing transcription methods and hand physiology, digit configurations are defined in terms of joint angles. Variations in configuration positions are then specified in terms of Cartesian reference coordinates.


2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 151-167
Author(s):  
Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn ◽  
Ronnie B. Wilbur

In this study, we investigate the interrogative structures in Croatian Sign Language (HZJ) with respect to the word order, manual question words, and nonmanual markers and their scope. Both polar and content questions mainly use specific nonmanual markers to indicate interrogative function. Polar questions use chin down and content questions use chin up as their prominent nonmanual markers. In addition to these markers, brows up occurs in both constructions leading to the suggestion that brows up may be a general question marker in HZJ. Brows down can also occur, particularly in content questions. Other nonmanual markers that appear in polar questions are head forward, and eyes wide open and those in content questions are head forward, headshake, shoulders up, and eyes closed.Both interrogative constructions use manual question words. Polar questions can use an optional manual sign je-li that was probably introduced to HZJ through Signed Croatian. je-li is not connected to the peak intensity of the nonmanual markers and we consider it to be an adjunct to the question structure. Content words are used in most HZJ content interrogatives. Question words can be represented by specific signs or can be formed by the content sign ‘5’ (i.e. handshape 5 or b-th moving side-to-side). This ‘5’ sign is further specified by mouthing the particular question word from spoken Croatian. Content words can appear in sentence initial, sentence final or both positions. In content questions, question words bear the highest peak of nonmanual intensity, thus we consider them to be operating as operators.Recent research shows that HZJ shares some features with Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS) because in the 19th century, Croatian deaf students attended Vienna’s Institute for the Deaf (Schalber this volume; Šarac 2003; Šarac et al in press). Upon finishing their education, they would return back to Croatia. Similarities between HZJ and ÖGS are found in their interrogative nonmanual markings but not in their syntactic structures. This can be seen by the fact that these two sign languages do not have the same canonical word order.


2020 ◽  
pp. 016502542095819
Author(s):  
Julia Krebs ◽  
Dietmar Roehm ◽  
Ronnie B. Wilbur ◽  
Evie A. Malaia

Acquisition of natural language has been shown to fundamentally impact both one’s ability to use the first language and the ability to learn subsequent languages later in life. Sign languages offer a unique perspective on this issue because Deaf signers receive access to signed input at varying ages. The majority acquires sign language in (early) childhood, but some learn sign language later—a situation that is drastically different from that of spoken language acquisition. To investigate the effect of age of sign language acquisition and its potential interplay with age in signers, we examined grammatical acceptability ratings and reaction time measures in a group of Deaf signers (age range = 28–58 years) with early (0–3 years) or later (4–7 years) acquisition of sign language in childhood. Behavioral responses to grammatical word order variations (subject–object–verb [SOV] vs. object–subject–verb [OSV]) were examined in sentences that included (1) simple sentences, (2) topicalized sentences, and (3) sentences involving manual classifier constructions, uniquely characteristic of sign languages. Overall, older participants responded more slowly. Age of acquisition had subtle effects on acceptability ratings, whereby the direction of the effect depended on the specific linguistic structure.


2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 151-167
Author(s):  
Ninoslava Šarac Kuhn ◽  
Ronnie B. Wilbur

In this study, we investigate the interrogative structures in Croatian Sign Language (HZJ) with respect to the word order, manual question words, and nonmanual markers and their scope. Both polar and content questions mainly use specific nonmanual markers to indicate interrogative function. Polar questions use chin down and content questions use chin up as their prominent nonmanual markers. In addition to these markers, brows up occurs in both constructions leading to the suggestion that brows up may be a general question marker in HZJ. Brows down can also occur, particularly in content questions. Other nonmanual markers that appear in polar questions are head forward, and eyes wide open and those in content questions are head forward, headshake, shoulders up, and eyes closed. Both interrogative constructions use manual question words. Polar questions can use an optional manual sign je-li that was probably introduced to HZJ through Signed Croatian. je-li is not connected to the peak intensity of the nonmanual markers and we consider it to be an adjunct to the question structure. Content words are used in most HZJ content interrogatives. Question words can be represented by specific signs or can be formed by the content sign ‘5’ (i.e. handshape 5 or b-th moving side-to-side). This ‘5’ sign is further specified by mouthing the particular question word from spoken Croatian. Content words can appear in sentence initial, sentence final or both positions. In content questions, question words bear the highest peak of nonmanual intensity, thus we consider them to be operating as operators. Recent research shows that HZJ shares some features with Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS) because in the 19th century, Croatian deaf students attended Vienna’s Institute for the Deaf (Schalber this volume; Šarac 2003; Šarac et al in press). Upon finishing their education, they would return back to Croatia. Similarities between HZJ and ÖGS are found in their interrogative nonmanual markings but not in their syntactic structures. This can be seen by the fact that these two sign languages do not have the same canonical word order.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Jacqueline Iseli

<p>This thesis provides the first documentation and description of the signs created and used by deaf individuals in Vanuatu. The specific aims of this research were as follows: to establish the sociolinguistic context experienced by deaf people in Vanuatu; to identify the repertoire and characteristics of signs used by the deaf participants; to compare features of participants’ individual signs with the characteristics of home signs and emerging sign languages; and to consider the degree of similarity and potential similarity of signs between participants and how this reflects individuals’ opportunities for contact with other deaf people and signing interlocutors. The limitations of this study are that field methodology for data collection was developed in situ as conditions allowed. The sociolinguistic context for deaf Ni-Vanuatu confirms that language isolation leads to marginalisation from community and society. The study established that these home sign lexicons were limited in quantity and conceptual range, and that shared background knowledge was essential for comprehension. Overall, 22 handshapes were documented, and the predominant handshapes unmarked. Most participants preferred handling strategy for depicting signs. Some evidence of noun-verb distinction was noted in the repertoire of some participants. However, across this range of formational characteristics, results showed significant individual variations. Furthermore, multiple barriers have precluded development of a shared sign language and any form of deaf community.</p>


2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niina Ning Zhang

Word order flexibility in sign languages has led some scholars to conclude that sign languages do not have any hierarchical structure. This paper shows that the word order patterns within Taiwan Sign Language nominals precisely follow Greenberg’s (1963:87) Universal 20. The manifestation of the universal in this sign language indicates that like oral languages, sign languages have hierarchical structures. Moreover, this paper also discusses the relation between syntactic hierarchy and linearization from the perspective of Taiwan Sign Language. The fact that the word order possibilities stated in Universal 20 are attested in a single language challenges the very notion of language parameter.


2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 941-996
Author(s):  
Trevor Alexander Johnston

Abstract This study investigates clause constructions in Auslan. It looks at the alignment of constituent semantic role with constituent position and order in clauses, changes in the morphology of signs according to position and/or role, and the interpretation of omitted arguments. The aim is to determine if there are grammatical relations in Auslan. The most frequent constituent order parallels English, thus Auslan might be said to also instantiate a basic SVO word order. However, every possible constituent order pattern is also attested without there being other coding and behavioural properties associated with grammatical relations that could explain this flexibility. I conclude that constituent order in Auslan is the result of the interaction of pragmatic and semantic factors, visual representation, and language contact with English, rather than autochthonous grammatical relations. Auslan grammar draws on both so-called gestural and so-called linguistic resources at the clause level, not just at the word (sign) level.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 38-72
Author(s):  
Hope E. Morgan

Abstract This paper investigates how systematically a young macro-community sign language, Kenyan Sign Language, uses two different means to communicate about events: (i) word order, and (ii) verb agreement using spatial co-reference. The study finds that KSL signers rely primarily on word order and using the body as a referent, rather than verb agreement, when representing transitive events. Yet, by looking separately at how KSL signers use the sub-components of verb agreement, a pattern emerges that indicates a possible path toward ‘canonical verb agreement’. These sub-components are evaluated using Meir’s stages/types of grammaticalization of verb agreement (Meir 2011, 2016), and compared with other young and emerging sign languages.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document