scholarly journals Sign languages: Then and now

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 293-314
Author(s):  
Ljubica Isaković ◽  
Tamara Kovačević ◽  
Maja Srzić
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf People ◽  
General Development ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Oral Speech ◽  
Complete Rejection ◽  
Everyday Communication ◽  
Written Speech

A way of communication on an equal footing with oral and written speech is sign language. Oral speech is a common way of communication, written speech has, with the development of information technologies, been taking up more and more space. In a parallel with them, communication can also take place through sign language, which is, to deaf people, as well as to all those who use it, a natural, simple and easy way to communicate. Relationship towards sign language has changed significantly throughout history from acceptance and isolated use, to complete rejection, and then to encouraging its adoption and emphasizing its importance for the cognitive, emotional, educational, social, and general development of deaf children. Serbian Sign Language (SSL) serves deaf people in Serbia as a means for everyday communication, for expressing desires, willingness, for learning, for intellectual discussions, for expressing personal style. Although the standardization of the Serbian Sign Language was completed in 2015, even nowadays we may still find certain gestures of expression varying in different regions. Different countries have different sign languages that are not reciprocally understood in use. They are distinguished by their own grammar (semantics, morphology, and syntax), different from the grammar of spoken languages. The distinguishing and recognition of sign languages in the world has led to changes in the field of education of deaf children. In bilingual schools, children acquire both sign and spoken languages, and teachers know both of the mentioned languages. The importance of sign language in the education of deaf children is emphasized.

Multimedia Dictionary and Synthesis of Sign Language

2011 ◽  
pp. 268-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franc Solina ◽  
Slavko Krapez ◽  
Ales Jaklic ◽  
Vito Komac
Keyword(s):  
American Sign Language ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf People ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Proper Nouns ◽  
Basic Meaning ◽  
The World

Deaf people, as a marginal community, may have severe problems in communicating with hearing people. Usually, they have a lot of problems even with such—for hearing people—simple tasks as understanding the written language. However, deaf people are very skilled in using a sign language, which is their native language. A sign language is a set of signs or hand gestures. A gesture in a sign language equals a word in a written language. Similarly, a sentence in a written language equals a sequence of gestures in a sign language. In the distant past deaf people were discriminated and believed to be incapable of learning and thinking independently. Only after the year 1500 were the first attempts made to educate deaf children. An important breakthrough was the realization that hearing is not a prerequisite for understanding ideas. One of the most important early educators of the deaf and the first promoter of sign language was Charles Michel De L’Epée (1712-1789) in France. He founded the fist public school for deaf people. His teachings about sign language quickly spread all over the world. Like spoken languages, different sign languages and dialects evolved around the world. According to the National Association of the Deaf, the American Sign Language (ASL) is the third most frequently used language in the United States, after English and Spanish. ASL has more than 4,400 distinct signs. The Slovenian sign language (SSL), which is used in Slovenia and also serves as a case study sign language in this chapter, contains approximately 4,000 different gestures for common words. Signs require one or both hands for signing. Facial expressions which accompany signing are also important since they can modify the basic meaning of a hand gesture. To communicate proper nouns and obscure words, sign languages employ finger spelling. Since the majority of signing is with full words, signed conversation can proceed with the same pace as spoken conversation.

scholarly journals A Systematic Mapping of Translation-Enabling Technologies for Sign Languages

Electronics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 1047 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Naranjo-Zeledón ◽  
Jesús Peral ◽  
Antonio Ferrández ◽  
Mario Chacón-Rivas
Keyword(s):  
Software Engineering ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
Deaf People ◽  
Systematic Mapping ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
European Continent ◽  
Enabling Technologies

Sign languages (SL) are the first language for most deaf people. Consequently, bidirectional communication among deaf and non-deaf people has always been a challenging issue. Sign language usage has increased due to inclusion policies and general public agreement, which must then become evident in information technologies, in the many facets that comprise sign language understanding and its computational treatment. In this study, we conduct a thorough systematic mapping of translation-enabling technologies for sign languages. This mapping has considered the most recommended guidelines for systematic reviews, i.e., those pertaining software engineering, since there is a need to account for interdisciplinary areas of accessibility, human computer interaction, natural language processing, and education, all of them part of ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) computing classification system directly related to software engineering. An ongoing development of a software tool called SYMPLE (SYstematic Mapping and Parallel Loading Engine) facilitated the querying and construction of a base set of candidate studies. A great diversity of topics has been studied over the last 25 years or so, but this systematic mapping allows for comfortable visualization of predominant areas, venues, top authors, and different measures of concentration and dispersion. The systematic review clearly shows a large number of classifications and subclassifications interspersed over time. This is an area of study in which there is much interest, with a basically steady level of scientific publications over the last decade, concentrated mainly in the European continent. The publications by country, nevertheless, usually favor their local sign language.

scholarly journals Commentary: Shapes and Sites of Deaf People’s Transinstitutionalization

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 16-27
Author(s):  
Kristin Snoddon ◽  
Joanne Weber
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Inclusive Education ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Language And Identity ◽  
Deaf People ◽  
Educational Settings ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Language Support ◽  
Mainstream Education ◽  
Deaf Teachers

This commentary describes our perspective on transinstitutionalization as deaf teachers and researchers from different regions of Canada, and accounts for some of the ways in which transinstitutionalization manifests in the lives of deaf people, particularly in educational settings. In the present day, so-called inclusive education is often presented as the progressive alternative to institutionalization, or deaf schools. However, mainstream education in regular settings without adequate sign language support and the continuing polarization of language and identity options for deaf children are two of the main ways in which transinstitutionalization recurs for deaf children and adults and threatens the vitality of sign languages.

De Nederlandse Gebarentaal En Taalonderwijs

1991 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
pp. 75-82
Author(s):  
Beppie van den Bogaerde
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Language Teachers ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Deaf People ◽  
Teaching Materials ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Language Courses ◽  
Native Signers

Sign Language of the Netherlands (SLN) is considered to be the native language of many prelingually deaf people in the Netherlands. Although research has provided evidence that sign languages are fully fletched natural languages, many misconceptions still abound about sign languages and deaf people. The low status of sign languages all over the world and the attitude of hearing people towards deaf people and their languages, and the resulting attitude of the deaf towards their own languages, restricted the development of these languages until recently. Due to the poor results of deaf education and the dissatisfaction amongst educators of the deaf, parents of deaf children and deaf people themselves, a change of attitude towards the function of sign language in the interaction with deaf people can be observed; many hearing people dealing with deaf people one way or the other wish to learn the sign language of the deaf community of their country. Many hearing parents of deaf children, teachers of the deaf, student-interpreters and linguists are interested in sign language and want to follow a course to improve their signing ability. In order to develop sign language courses, sign language teachers and teaching materials are needed. And precisely these are missing. This is caused by several factors. First, deaf people in general do not receive the same education as hearing people, due to their inability to learn the spoken language of their environment to such an extent, that they have access to the full eduational program. This prohibits them a.o. to become teachers in elementary and secondary schools, or to become sign language teachers. Althought they are fluent "signers", they lack the competence in the spoken language of their country to obtain a teacher's degree in their sign language. A second problem is caused by the fact, that sign languages are visual languages: no adequate system has yet been found to write down a sign language. So until now hardly any teaching materials were available. Sign language courses should be developed with the help of native signers who should be educated to become language-teachers; with their help and with the help of video-material and computer-software, it will be possible in future to teach sign languages as any other language. But in order to reach this goal, it is imperative that deaf children get a better education so that they can contribute to the emancipation of their language.

scholarly journals Deaf Ni-Vanuatu and their signs: A sociolinguistic study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Jacqueline Iseli
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Deaf People ◽  
Deaf Community ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Individual Variations ◽  
Field Methodology ◽  
Degree Of Similarity ◽  
Similarity Of Signs

<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>

scholarly journals Modifying and validating the social responsiveness scale edition 2 for use with deaf children and young people

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243162
Author(s):  
Barry Wright ◽  
Helen Phillips ◽  
Ann Le Couteur ◽  
Jennifer Sweetman ◽  
Rachel Hodkinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Social Responsiveness Scale ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Social Responsiveness ◽  
Deaf People ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
The Social ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

A Delphi consensus methodology was used to adapt a screening tool, the Social Responsiveness Scale– 2 (SRS-2), for use with deaf children including those whose preferred communication method is sign language. Using this approach; 27 international experts (The Delphi International Expert Panel), on the topic of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in deaf people, contributed to the review of item content. A criterion for agreement was set at 80% of experts on each item (with 75% acceptable in the final fourth round). The agreed modifications are discussed. The modified SRS-2 research adaptation for deaf people (referred to here as the “SRS-2 Deaf adaptation”) was then translated into British Sign Language using a robust translation methodology and validated in England in a sample of 198 deaf children, 76 with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and 122 without ASD. The SRS-2 Deaf adaptation was compared blind to a NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guideline standard clinical assessment. The area under the Receiver Operating (ROC) curve was 0.811 (95% CI: 0.753, 0.869), with an optimal cut-off value of 73, which gave a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 67%. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient was 0.968 suggesting high internal consistency. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was 0.897, supporting test-retest reliability. This performance is equivalent to similar instruments used for screening ASD in the hearing population.

Sign languages to unfold the Universe

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefania Varano
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Deaf People ◽  
Single Word ◽  
Natural Languages ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Italian Language ◽  
Main Medium ◽  
The Universe

&lt;p&gt;Sign languages &amp;#8203;&amp;#8203;arise from the need of communities of deaf people to communicate with each other and with others. Like all natural languages, they are tied to the traditions and cultures of the communities that invented and developed them. The sign language used in Italy is the Italian Sign Language, LIS.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The strong iconicity of LIS is very interesting from the point of view of communication and didactics of astronomy, also for the hearing impaired. The signs used for astronomical concepts and objects often express the meaning and nature of what is represented, much more than a single word in the Italian language does.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;LIS is therefore effective not only for inclusive communication aimed at deaf people, but it can be effective for everyone, both in terms of equity and awareness of diversity and in terms of knowledge of astronomy and its link with culture and tradition.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;We will present a set of videos published on EduINAF, the outreach and education online magazine of the Italian National Isntitute for Astrophysics, in which the LIS is the main medium of the storytelling. Each video has subtitles, in order to make the LIS understandable for all.&lt;/p&gt;

scholarly journals Deaf children need language, not (just) speech

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Hall ◽  
Wyatte C. Hall ◽  
Naomi K. Caselli
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Language Deprivation ◽  
Language Exposure ◽  
Harmful Effects

Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) children need to master at least one language (spoken or signed) to reach their full potential. Providing access to a natural sign language supports this goal. Despite evidence that natural sign languages are beneficial to DHH children, many researchers and practitioners advise families to focus exclusively on spoken language. We critique the Pediatrics article ‘Early Sign Language Exposure and Cochlear Implants’ (Geers et al., 2017) as an example of research that makes unsupported claims against the inclusion of natural sign languages. We refute claims that (1) there are harmful effects of sign language and (2) that listening and spoken language are necessary for optimal development of deaf children. While practical challenges remain (and are discussed) for providing a sign language-rich environment, research evidence suggests that such challenges are worth tackling in light of natural sign languages providing a host of benefits for DHH children – especially in the prevention and reduction of language deprivation.

scholarly journals Sign, language, and gesture in the brain: Some comments

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Campbell ◽  
Bencie Woll
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Deaf People ◽  
Developmental Research ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Neuroscience Research ◽  
Language Perception ◽  
Complex Picture ◽  
The Brain

AbstractIn contrast with two widely held and contradictory views – that sign languages of deaf people are “just gestures,” or that sign languages are “just like spoken languages” – the view from sign linguistics and developmental research in cognition presented by Goldin-Meadow & Brentari (G-M&B) indicates a more complex picture. We propose that neuroscience research suggests that a similar approach needs to be taken and offer some examples from research on the brain bases of sign language perception.

scholarly journals Signed languages and globalization

2011 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 483-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Hiddinga ◽  
Onno Crasborn
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Language Contact ◽  
Deaf Culture ◽  
Deaf People ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
The Core ◽  
Form Part ◽  
Dependent Form ◽  
Global Language

AbstractDeaf people who form part of a Deaf community communicate using a shared sign language. When meeting people from another language community, they can fall back on a flexible and highly context-dependent form of communication calledinternational sign, in which shared elements from their own sign languages and elements of shared spoken languages are combined with pantomimic elements. Together with the fact that there are few shared sign languages, this leads to a very different global language situation for deaf people as compared to the situation for spoken languages and hearing people as analyzed in de Swaan (2001). We argue that this very flexibility in communication and the resulting global communication patterns form the core of deaf culture and a key component of the characterization of deaf people as “visual people.” (Globalization, sign language, international sign, Deaf culture, language contact, multilingualism)*

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document